Re: The pros and cons of .NET

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

From: Jon Skeet [C# MVP] (skeet_at_pobox.com)
Date: 09/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:58:10 +0100

Cor Ligthert <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote:
> >Let's look at the whole post then, shall we - including your totally
> >inappropriate insults to the OP:
>
> I have directly answered Tim on the question about this, I am in normal and
> in good speaking terms with Tim in the newsgroup.languages.vb. I am quiet
> sure that Tim is keen enough to answer me himself when he does disagree, he
> real does not need advocasy from Jon Skeet.
>
> Again you contstructivily misquoted me, in the same way you did before, I
> now deleted that text, where I am telling from in every message to you that
> I have already corrected it in one of the first threads telling that the
> meaning was when you saw it in the context "extra" runtime.

I don't see how quoting an entire message can count as misquoting it,
and I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your message. Please try
repeating it - preferrably in shorter sentences. (It tends to be when
you use very long sentences that they become hard to understand, by the
way.)
 
> >That's not obvious in the slightest though. When I send someone "a .NET
> >program" I just send them the executable which requires that they have
> >the .NET framework installed. I think most people would understand your
> >post in the same way. Note that you also used "a Net program" in that
> >way later in the thread.
>
> What do you mean with that, why do you always telling that other people are
> understand in my text where in is not one word in I wrote

Except that virtually whenever you ask me where you wrote something, I
can quote it or something equivalent, as I did in this thread. The
reverse is rarely true - just like this time. You're unable to quote
anywhere that I claimed or implied that you can run .NET programs with
just the CLR installed, because I never said anything of the kind.

> and than I get
> some Jon Skeet friends who are (as it seems invited) to give a reaction to
> help you and are flaming me because what you told that I wrote?

If you're insinuating that I asked other people to join the thread,
you're entirely incorrect.

> >Are you seriously disputing the idea that most users don't have the
> >framework installed at the moment? I certainly have no proof, but I'd
> >be surprised if you really disagreed.
>
> Yes, read for that the messages from Cablito to you, in what I of course do
> not agree his tickling part about Brittain, however in its context agree.
> (And read "Context")

Cabilito didn't suggest (as far as I saw) that most people already have
the framework. He suggested that customers of commercial products
probably wouldn't mind downloading it. Those are two very different
things.

> > > There's no point in demanding that people find you a link saying that
> > > .NET is nothing but a runtime, as no-one's claimed that in the first
> > > place.
> >
> > Just read this two parts of messages in this thread bellow, reading it in
> > this thread is to difficult it seems for you.
> >
> >> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=O4qpcHWoEHA.1308%40TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=T_05d.110056%24D%25.103044%40attbi_s51
>
> >I note that you didn't quote any of my posts there. Are you retracting
> >your claim that I suggested you could run .NET programs without
> >anything other than the CLR?)
>
> If "any" in your part of England means the same as I have learned, my first
> answer to you
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=%23Pvvo4VoEHA.2864%40TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
>
> In what I by the way write what you denies in all your following messages.

Not entirely sure what you meant in that sentence, but I think there's
a huge leap from asking you what you think the "R" stands for in CLR to
assuming I believe that you can run .NET programs with *just* the CLR
installed. Could you explain how you made that leap?

> >What do you think the "R" bit of CLR stands for?
> --the answer in that link
> is -------------------------------------------------
> I am glad I can help you with your question. It stands for Runtime in the
> word Common Language Runtime.
>
> However that is not an installable runtimer. It is a part of the OS layer
> which has the name Net framework. And which is not distributed as a
> Servicepack however with that name.
>
> I hope that this clears your question?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Why would I quote you with all other answer from you where you tried to
> proof what I wrote above to me.
>
> I am not your teacher checking your homework.

But you *are* someone who is claiming that I said that you can run .NET
programs with only the CLR installed. If you're going to start telling
people to apologise for misquoting you, you ought to look to yourself
first.
 
> The only part I did disagree consequently in your text is that you told
> "that I told that there runtimer is not a part of the framework".

I don't think I actually said that, did I? However, you said (back in
your first post) that no runtime is needed to run .NET programs. That's
what I've been disagreeing with from the start, and I think you now
accept that you were wrong, although it's hard to be sure.

> It was a question from you to me, I knew it, and gave you an answer. Maybe
> was that my misunderstanding. You never asked me if I could explain to you
> what was a runtime, I thought you knew that. However please ask that in
> another thread, than I give you some links where you can learn that.

I already know perfectly well what a runtime is.

> > > You, however, *did* claim that no runtime is needed with .NET programs
> > > - a false statement. If you'd said that no runtime was needed in
> > > addition to the framework itself, no-one would have disagreed with you.
> > > It may well be that that's what you *meant* to say, but it's not what
> > > you *did* say.
> >
> > Read this what is written me much earlier that Nick came in
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e1PW38WoEHA.1644%40tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
>
> >Yup, and I still disagree. You said that no runtime is needed, but a
> >runtime *is* needed. It's installed as part of the framework. Would you
> >also say that the class library isn't required?
>
> So because that "Extra" is in my message above you are now "for the first
> time" telling that there is beside the framework an "Extra" runtime and you
> maybe even "Extra" class library is needed. Maybe that is my fault I thought
> that you knew that that was not needed. I showed a page to JD (I thought
> yesterday in these threads where that is very short explained), maybe you
> can have a look at that.

The point is that you only added in the word "extra" later on. If you
stand by your original post, we still disagree. If you don't, we're in
agreement.

> > >In addition I surely did not write it completly clear the first time,
> > >however this was a message to Tim and written in that context, however
> > >again
> > >directly answered by Jon Skeet while I have not seen him answering much
> > >other questions the last months than about multithreading.
>
> >groups.google.com reckons I've posted messages in 229 threads since
> >August 1st. Many of those are about threading, but certainly far from
> >all.
>
> Did I say something else, I did not say only

You said that you hadn't seen me answering "much other questions"
except those to do with multithreading. I was just saying that I've
been answering lots of questions aside from multithreading ones. If you
happen to only *read* the multithreading ones, that's your prerogative,
but I don't see what it has to do with this thread.

> and you are free to do it as
> you want, however that I have so check every word in this newsgroup that I
> write because otherwise I get a message from Jon Skeet.

You should check every word you write so that it won't mislead people!
The same is true for everyone, of course, not just you.

> Do you know what a..................... is? And than a very simple queston,
> that in my opinion every almost beginner in dotNet should know. Is really
> anoying.

If you get annoyed with questions from newcomers, I suggest that
newsgroups aren't the best things for you to read then. They'll always
have newbie questions on - and that's fine by me.

> > > For me, you obvious did not look at the page from Tim and only took the
> > > one
> > > line from me and started again to shout that I am stupid.
>
> > Really? Please explain then how there's a comment from me on his web
> > page (11:38) before your post was made (11:57). I'm surprised you
> > didn't even check this - it wouldn't have taken long...
>
> Nice explained.

So are you retracting your assertion that I didn't look at the page?
Note that I didn't say that you were stupid - you've been the one
insulting people in this thread, for the most part, right from your
very first post.

> I comment never on a page and do not even look for that when the
> message is in the newsgroup. When you thought it was for the
> community than in my opinion you should have placed that message as
> well here, however you are free to do that of course.

The web page invites comments - I saw no reason to duplicate those
comments here. Should every comment on every .NET blog be replicated on
the newsgroups as well?

> > As I said much times before, you cannot give me a lesson about this.
> > Moreover, assuming that I and many others do not know what is JIT or what
> > is
> > the CLR is really an affront.
>
> >Well, you claimed that a runtime wasn't required to run .NET programs.
> >It is. Whether you understand that really and just expressed yourself
> >badly (repeatedly) or whether you don't understand it, the statement is
> >just as untrue.
>
> Can you really not tell anything else than that, I have said you have placed
> text out of its context hundreds times in this thread, and you did not even
> give one answer on that.

To what, precisely? When you first claimed that a runtime wasn't
required to run .NET programs, the entire context of the thread was
your post and Tim's original one. I posted your message's content in
its entirety. How can that be out of context?

If you don't want to feel annoyed by people thinking you don't know
what a runtime is, I suggest you don't make posts like your first one.

> And as I asked before please give no conclussions of my knowledge anymore in
> this newsgroup, they give me only an idea about your referentionbase.

I've no idea what you mean by "referentionbase" but I will continue to
disagree with you when I think you're making incorrect posts such as
your first one. 

-- 
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hosting CLR in VB6 using COM
    ... >> I just found a reference somewhere to the fact that the CLR is usable ... > You can create .NET programs that has a COM interface too. ... > needs to run your program, then you can use that COM in your VB6 projects. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: Hosting CLR in VB6 using COM
    ... >>> I just found a reference somewhere to the fact that the CLR is usable ... >> You can create .NET programs that has a COM interface too. ... >> needs to run your program, then you can use that COM in your VB6 ... but I wouldn't call this hosting. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • GAC confusion
    ... looking for DLLs. ... At first I've put the DLLin the cache by "gacutil -i foo.dll" ... which .dll is the CLR trying to use? ... but for .net programs somewhere? ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)