.NET apps vs. Win32 API applications: Opinions?
This is a discussion about .NET apps vs. Win32 API applications: Opinions? in the Windows Software category; I haven't played much with. NET apps yet, at least not with large applications. It seems logical that they would be slower compared to a standard Win32 application - because, IIRC,. NET uses an interpreted code (albeit using an intermediate common runtime language more akin to microcode than VB interpretation) like ...
I haven't played much with .NET apps yet, at least not with large applications.
It seems logical that they would be slower compared to a standard Win32 application - because, IIRC, .NET uses an interpreted code (albeit using an intermediate "common runtime language" more akin to microcode than VB interpretation) like Java. Logic suggests that this interpretation step will make the application run slower, because you're adding a step that doesn't exist in fully-compiled Win32 apps written in C/C++ etc.
I'm not sure how it compares with VB apps though - which is faster, VB6 or VB.NET?
.NET was developed with the idea of application portability in mind (in that all applications, regardless of the source language, all compile to the same runtime language) - but portability to what? Does .NET run on anything other than Windows? I'm not entirely sure what MS were trying to achieve here, other than trying spite Java.
Maybe someone who knows can enlighten me?
Rgds
AndyF
It seems logical that they would be slower compared to a standard Win32 application - because, IIRC, .NET uses an interpreted code (albeit using an intermediate "common runtime language" more akin to microcode than VB interpretation) like Java. Logic suggests that this interpretation step will make the application run slower, because you're adding a step that doesn't exist in fully-compiled Win32 apps written in C/C++ etc.
I'm not sure how it compares with VB apps though - which is faster, VB6 or VB.NET?
.NET was developed with the idea of application portability in mind (in that all applications, regardless of the source language, all compile to the same runtime language) - but portability to what? Does .NET run on anything other than Windows? I'm not entirely sure what MS were trying to achieve here, other than trying spite Java.
Maybe someone who knows can enlighten me?
Rgds
AndyF
Participate in our website and join the conversation
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Sep 2
Sep 15
0
3 minutes
Responses to this topic
There's support for .NET with Windows Mobile, too
I can only speak from experience but in a corporate environment I can say that .NET:
Is far more scalable in a multiple server architecture.
Is more effecient in code terms .. of course thats down to your progammer too .
Essentially its a matter of ".net can do that better'... so thats not saying vb6 is worse of course. From the user end you do get a better performing app but again only if the programmer has coded the .net way and not stuck to vb5/6 methods.
As for the idea of it...well good question .... the only benifits i see from a business end is that developments take less time, there is less code and if done right is better performing, more stable and more scalable.
We have a legacy system that uses purely vb5. We have no real problems with that really- except functionality that is easy to define in .net just has to be coded from scratch in vb5.
I can also add that since our server side .net stuff is more effecient we have had to upgrade our hardware and our clients since suddenly the bottleneck was the hardware and not the software!
Is far more scalable in a multiple server architecture.
Is more effecient in code terms .. of course thats down to your progammer too .
Essentially its a matter of ".net can do that better'... so thats not saying vb6 is worse of course. From the user end you do get a better performing app but again only if the programmer has coded the .net way and not stuck to vb5/6 methods.
As for the idea of it...well good question .... the only benifits i see from a business end is that developments take less time, there is less code and if done right is better performing, more stable and more scalable.
We have a legacy system that uses purely vb5. We have no real problems with that really- except functionality that is easy to define in .net just has to be coded from scratch in vb5.
I can also add that since our server side .net stuff is more effecient we have had to upgrade our hardware and our clients since suddenly the bottleneck was the hardware and not the software!
I prefer working in .Net myself, as I find it easier. I prefer OOP such as Java (hence why I like C#), but I don't care for the Java VM all that much. I haven't done much in console stuff (only tested some GUI stuff, and one command line-based XML translator) but rather, I work in web apps.
