Visual Studio .NET
by David DiLoreto · in Torque Game Engine · 04/21/2003 (1:03 pm) · 12 replies
Does the software support .NET?
#2
04/21/2003 (1:21 pm)
I am so new. Where can I find the version for the .NET source?
#3
04/21/2003 (2:00 pm)
If you download the HEAD version via CVS, there will be DevStudio .NET workspace for you to use.
#4
04/21/2003 (2:02 pm)
Thank you so much!
#5
There is no support in Torque for any of the .Net features, and it would completely break any cross platform compatiblity if there were, if that is a concern. Thing is most of the "features" of .Net are useless in a realtime program development anyway.
04/21/2003 (5:19 pm)
Actually Torque does NOT support .Net, but there is a Visual Studio C++ .Net solution file ( same idea as workspace file ).There is no support in Torque for any of the .Net features, and it would completely break any cross platform compatiblity if there were, if that is a concern. Thing is most of the "features" of .Net are useless in a realtime program development anyway.
#6
As i'd been corrected in another post, .net is actually more cross platform than I would have given it credit at the moment, if you were particulary interested in just doing core logic with the more basic system classes i'm now happy you could release it on any system torque works with.
My c# rendering pipeline is only about 5% slower than my c++ one and took about 5% of the time to write. So "useless" for "realtime" program development is a bit harsh. If you actually mean realtime systems then to be fair windows is "useless" for it. If you mean games... you're wrong.
Won't be used commercially for a good while yet because it would be too hard convincing them of the savings (and it kinda kills console ports) but for windows games Managed DX9 isn't bad at all. Major annoyance being that DX9 doesn't install the managed stuff by default.
Obviously the proof lies in the released titles... which are a bit thin at the moment. But i'll hopefully have a dev screenshot up soon and the game done by the next IGC :)
04/22/2003 (5:09 am)
I'd kinda of assumed by the title he ment the solution file rather than the entire code ;)As i'd been corrected in another post, .net is actually more cross platform than I would have given it credit at the moment, if you were particulary interested in just doing core logic with the more basic system classes i'm now happy you could release it on any system torque works with.
My c# rendering pipeline is only about 5% slower than my c++ one and took about 5% of the time to write. So "useless" for "realtime" program development is a bit harsh. If you actually mean realtime systems then to be fair windows is "useless" for it. If you mean games... you're wrong.
Won't be used commercially for a good while yet because it would be too hard convincing them of the savings (and it kinda kills console ports) but for windows games Managed DX9 isn't bad at all. Major annoyance being that DX9 doesn't install the managed stuff by default.
Obviously the proof lies in the released titles... which are a bit thin at the moment. But i'll hopefully have a dev screenshot up soon and the game done by the next IGC :)
#7
.Net is a confusing mass of FUD! Just like nVidia naming a video card a Geforce4 MX when it does NOT use a Geforce4 GPU!
Microsoft named the IDE Visual Studio .Net ( which really should be refered to or named Visual Studio 7 ).
When people say "does something support .Net", I assume they mean the entire STACK, since in my business I can not make any "assumptions" on what they mean, I assume they don't know what they are asking about, since that is what they hired me for :).
.Net is not just Visual Studio, or C#, or even the CLR, in REALITY it is ALL of those things COMBINED.
Microsoft wants this issue to be confusing as possible just to muddy the waters just to create the flame wars and what not.
the .Net STACK only runs on Windows, now if cross platform means, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows 2003 then yes it is "cross platform".
See you are already confused about C# == .Net, it doesn't. C# is just a language, .Net is all the managed code libraries and other Framework stuff and much more.
VB and C# just call into mostly C and some C++ code anyway, that makes them about like Python in this preformance wise manner.
And ANSI C/C++ and Python ARE crossplatform :)
04/22/2003 (9:51 am)
Actually .Net is NOT cross platform at all, it supports _some languages_ that run on multiple platforms, but the CORE of .Net the CLR ( common language runtime which is similar in concept to a Java Virtual Machine/JVM ) and the Framework ( which is similar to the Java Class Libraries ) is Windows only at the moment and will probably be so for as long as Microsoft can keep it so, since they patented most of it..Net is a confusing mass of FUD! Just like nVidia naming a video card a Geforce4 MX when it does NOT use a Geforce4 GPU!
Microsoft named the IDE Visual Studio .Net ( which really should be refered to or named Visual Studio 7 ).
When people say "does something support .Net", I assume they mean the entire STACK, since in my business I can not make any "assumptions" on what they mean, I assume they don't know what they are asking about, since that is what they hired me for :).
.Net is not just Visual Studio, or C#, or even the CLR, in REALITY it is ALL of those things COMBINED.
Microsoft wants this issue to be confusing as possible just to muddy the waters just to create the flame wars and what not.
the .Net STACK only runs on Windows, now if cross platform means, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows 2003 then yes it is "cross platform".
See you are already confused about C# == .Net, it doesn't. C# is just a language, .Net is all the managed code libraries and other Framework stuff and much more.
VB and C# just call into mostly C and some C++ code anyway, that makes them about like Python in this preformance wise manner.
And ANSI C/C++ and Python ARE crossplatform :)
#8
Why would they want that?
04/22/2003 (10:09 am)
Quote:Microsoft wants this issue to be confusing as possible just to muddy the waters just to create the flame wars and what not.
Why would they want that?
#9
04/22/2003 (10:22 am)
it feeds the FUD and gets them free marketing, hell every time _I_ type .Net I am giving them free marketing :)
#10
1. You're arguing symatics, it supports virtually every modern language in some form, across virtually all mainstream platforms. Infact I think you have your thinking reversed, if you're defining ".Net" as the specific microsoft implementation of it I think you've missed the entire point. And following that reasoning you're right... however i'm not sure that's what the rest of the world thinks. In my little world if I can write a program that runs on Windows/Linux/MacOS/BeOS/etc. without me changing it, it's cross platform. That I can do.
2. Yes, and that Geforce 4/MX thing is very annoying. And in my mind a very stupid think for nVidia to do on all counts.
3. If people don't appreviate it, it's not a problem. Yes it's stupid but not so bad.
4. Btw to not make assumptions requires you to ask them to clarify what they mean. Not just make a 'best guess' assumption ;)
5. For the record the Microsoft definition of ".Net" actually relates solely to the use of their .Net technologies. So even if you just use Windows .Net Server (2003) to host a vmware linux box running your web site then it's a ".Net" solution. It's not directly related to anything specific. So in effect the non-quantified ".Net" means a business strategy.
6. This kind of mess is usually traced back to the marketing department. So it's no more sinister than Microsoft's marketing strategy... *shudder*
7. See Above.
8. A C# "Game" to me represents a .Net 'path'. It starts in Vs.Net it uses the CLR / .Net Framework DX9. I can't use C# on the windows platform (not entirely true) without using ".Net". I didn't say C# >was< .Net. I implied it represented it. Which imho actually fixs both your and the actually definition of ".Net".
9. Depends on your definition of 'mostly'. The vast majority of the .Net Framework is not in C / C++. However the some of the common core stuff is. So some programs might spend the majority of their time in C/C++ code. Infact that particular line has blow my nerd fuse with it's inaccuracy and can't possibly critique it as much as it deserves.
10. Trying to re-implement your logic from 1. ANSI C/C++ is a definition of a language spec. So 'cross-platform' is implied yet unapplicable. Any 'specific' implementation will only run on the target platform so can't possibly be cross-platform. Python is a better example, but since it only supports _one langauage_ on multi platforms it's not cross-platform right?
04/22/2003 (12:53 pm)
Ok I admit, I can't follow you so well Jarrod, so i'll try and address all your points so you can 'clarify' my understanding.1. You're arguing symatics, it supports virtually every modern language in some form, across virtually all mainstream platforms. Infact I think you have your thinking reversed, if you're defining ".Net" as the specific microsoft implementation of it I think you've missed the entire point. And following that reasoning you're right... however i'm not sure that's what the rest of the world thinks. In my little world if I can write a program that runs on Windows/Linux/MacOS/BeOS/etc. without me changing it, it's cross platform. That I can do.
2. Yes, and that Geforce 4/MX thing is very annoying. And in my mind a very stupid think for nVidia to do on all counts.
3. If people don't appreviate it, it's not a problem. Yes it's stupid but not so bad.
Quote:I assume they mean the entire STACK, since in my business I can not make any "assumptions" on what they mean
4. Btw to not make assumptions requires you to ask them to clarify what they mean. Not just make a 'best guess' assumption ;)
5. For the record the Microsoft definition of ".Net" actually relates solely to the use of their .Net technologies. So even if you just use Windows .Net Server (2003) to host a vmware linux box running your web site then it's a ".Net" solution. It's not directly related to anything specific. So in effect the non-quantified ".Net" means a business strategy.
6. This kind of mess is usually traced back to the marketing department. So it's no more sinister than Microsoft's marketing strategy... *shudder*
7. See Above.
8. A C# "Game" to me represents a .Net 'path'. It starts in Vs.Net it uses the CLR / .Net Framework DX9. I can't use C# on the windows platform (not entirely true) without using ".Net". I didn't say C# >was< .Net. I implied it represented it. Which imho actually fixs both your and the actually definition of ".Net".
9. Depends on your definition of 'mostly'. The vast majority of the .Net Framework is not in C / C++. However the some of the common core stuff is. So some programs might spend the majority of their time in C/C++ code. Infact that particular line has blow my nerd fuse with it's inaccuracy and can't possibly critique it as much as it deserves.
10. Trying to re-implement your logic from 1. ANSI C/C++ is a definition of a language spec. So 'cross-platform' is implied yet unapplicable. Any 'specific' implementation will only run on the target platform so can't possibly be cross-platform. Python is a better example, but since it only supports _one langauage_ on multi platforms it's not cross-platform right?
#11
04/22/2003 (2:53 pm)
were is this .NET workspace everyone keeps talking about located? 
Associate Matt Fairfax
PopCap