Thank you all .
and can u plz answer my another question ...
are all .net compilers 'visual' ?
Thank you all .
and can u plz answer my another question ...
are all .net compilers 'visual' ?
No. In fact, most of them aren't.
which of them are ?
Visual Studio is what's called an "IDE" it's an editor for all-things-.NET, which has a built-in compiler. The compiler is probably the same as the command line compiler distributed as part of the .NET SDK, available for free download from Microsoft. I think Borland's got a C# compiler, but I don't know any details on that.
tnx alot for ur help
for J# for example you can use notepad or some syntax highlighter like JEdit and use vjc to compile the .jsl's
some entropy with that sink? entropysink.com
there are two cardinal sins from which all others spring: Impatience and Laziness. - franz kafka
VS.NET is expensive unless you get lucky (it's not that hard, actually - see my latest poll in GD) and get a free copy. You might want to take a look at Eclipse. I haven't used it, but I know the goal was to create an IDE that you could use for any language. From what I hear, you can customize the syntax highlighting and formatting, etc... and then register a command line compiler with it. It's not "visual", but if you have some time to spare, it offers a lot of advantages and conveniences over using notepad, or something like that. The code will be easier to read as you write it, and all the tools you need are accessible in one place through an easy to use GUI.
another thing about .NET i just thought of. Even though you need the .NET framework on any system for the programs to run in...but same thing is with java - you need the sdk downloaded in order to run it..NET framework ~21MBs sdk ~60MBs
some entropy with that sink? entropysink.com
there are two cardinal sins from which all others spring: Impatience and Laziness. - franz kafka
You sir, are a completely ignorant fool!Originally Posted by master5001
.NET is growing in popularity, and with good cause.
Don't comment about this platform unless you actually know what you're talking about okthxbai.
Oh i know what i'm talking about. My biggest issues with the framework are the fact that it is evolving so poorly. And yes it is popular, I believe I said that. The .NET framework adds a layer if indirection instead of truely attempting to be machine independant. It can best be compared to the JAVA VM. And like the JAVA VM its a great means to specific ends. But in general it isn't required.
And I'm sorry, but if .NET were really wanted to work well Microsoft wouldn't be guarding the engine so closely. It would be an entirely open endeavour. Which as of now you can call it a selectively available engine. Instead of .NET would it not be more advantageous for Microsoft to just run elf files? Seems like a better venture, in my opinion.
not exactly... you need the sdk to do develop apps, you only need the java runtime (JRE) to run them. The JRE is considerably smaller than the SDK, not sure of the exact size though. There are also many options for java SDK's/JRE's on any platform (SUN, IBM, BEA to name a few) there is only one option for .NET.another thing about .NET i just thought of. Even though you need the .NET framework on any system for the programs to run in...but same thing is with java - you need the sdk downloaded in order to run it.
