Maes
I like big butts!

Posts: 8661
Registered: 07-06 |
steuntron said:
The first basic version is out, could anyone test if if you can start it? I dont know if there are any requirements like .NET frameworks. I hope not.
First .NET deployment, huh? ;-)
Anything made using a .NET language (including the .NET flavour of C++) WILL require the end user to have the .NET framework installed (think of it like the equivalent of the Java Runtime Environment). Whether you distribute .NET or Java apps, you simply can't stress this point enough times. Make sure you provide a way for the user to find the frameworks ( a link to Microsoft's download central should do it).
Now if I'm not wrong, Vista/7 do include some version of the .NET framework out of the box but it has a low compliance level (v1.1 or v2.0?) so making something using 4.0 is really overkill. Windows XP does not include anything, while older versions may only support up to version 2.0 even if you find a download, so you might want to keep the API version as low as possible in order to do the job, unless you're going to use exotic stuff like Linq or whatever newfangled features crept in 4.0 (last one I personally used was 3.0-3.5).
There's nothing bad with requiring .NET or a popular runtime (CDL requires too, Mocha Doom requires Java etc.), just make sure you understand how the development/distribution model works.
_bruce_ said:
VisualC++ also has an appwizard that creates a perfect base to build upon. -> .exe less strings attached.
Even if he used C++, it would have to be the non-.NET/CLI variety, aka the one that DOESN'T give the programmer access to all those cool .NET wrapper methods and convenient features, doesn't use MFC, etc. etc. kind of how ZDL is written: one of the reasons it's so small is that it's really "bare to the metal" underneath, using raw Win32 calls.
_bruce_ said:
For an app like yours it's an ok choice to use something like C#. Isn't it easier to use VisualBasic - maybe an older version where the damn "framework" ain't needed...
Good luck finding a supported non-.NET variety of VB today. The last stable release of that kind was VB 6.0 released 13 years ago, after which at least VB definitively switched to .NET. Even if he finds a copy of Visual Studio 98 with VB 6.0, he will still have to make sure that he links the required dreaded VBRUNx00.DLLs to the executable (which makes the .exe sizes skyrocket), or else he'll have to distribute them separately as DLLs, giving the whole thing a 90s flavour (and honestly, I don't know how Vista/7 will work with VB 6.0 apps).
Another alternative to make -relatively- fat-free GUI apps is to use Delphi (which kinda combines the ease of VB with the speed of C/C++, and always produces linked .exes which are smaller than an equivalent VB one).
Or simply take this whole experience as an opportunity to learn more about Windows application development.
Last edited by Maes on 10-21-11 at 10:56
|