.NET For Standalone PCs / Shareware

[Mark Jerde]

I know .NET won't run on Win95 computers. Other than that, how
will .NET be for creating "standard desktop applications"?

This is an honest question, not a troll for another
.NET / .NOT / Delphi
argument.

-- Mark

[Phil Weber]

> I know .NET won't run on Win95 computers. Other than that,
> how will .NET be for creating "standard desktop applications?"

Mark: If...

- You don't object to distributing a 17MB runtime with
your app; and,
- Your app doesn't employ any top-secret algorithms; and,
- You don't need to support Windows 95 systems,

....then .NET is great for standard desktop applications. It will be even
better within a couple of years, when (hopefully) the runtime will have
become ubiquitous, and there will be fewer Win95 systems out there.
---
Phil Weber

[Miha Markic]

Hi Phil

> - Your app doesn't employ any top-secret algorithms; and,

Bah, reverse engineering can be done on everything when it comes to
programs.

--
Miha

[Mark Hurd]

"Miha Markic" <miham@spam=no.spin.com> wrote in message
news:3c39c04c@147.208.176.211...
> Hi Phil
>
> > - Your app doesn't employ any top-secret algorithms; and,
>
> Bah, reverse engineering can be done on everything when it comes to
> programs.

But with .NET, at the moment, it is not based on heuristics and rules of
thumb -- you can extract the original source code (without local variable
names and comments).

That is one big step from manually attempting to understand a spaghetti of
assembly code.

>
> --
> Miha

Regards,
Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)

[Shane]

I remember a few years ago working on a VB app.. and losing my hard drive
with all the source code.. luckily a friend of mine had a copy of the EXE
and decompiled it for me.. sure things were a bit weird and I had alot of
fixing to do but it sure wasn't no assembly...

We've had this problem before.. Java has it too.. really if you've got some
super secret stuff.. do it in C++ (is Managed C++ decompilable?)

"Mark Hurd" <markhurd@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>"Miha Markic" <miham@spam=no.spin.com> wrote in message
>news:3c39c04c@147.208.176.211...
>> Hi Phil
>>
>> > - Your app doesn't employ any top-secret algorithms; and,
>>
>> Bah, reverse engineering can be done on everything when it comes to
>> programs.
>
>But with .NET, at the moment, it is not based on heuristics and rules of
>thumb -- you can extract the original source code (without local variable
>names and comments).
>
>That is one big step from manually attempting to understand a spaghetti
of
>assembly code.
>
>>
>> --
>> Miha
>
>Regards,
>Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)
>
>

[Miha Markic]

But still, it can be more or less decompiled.
If it is secret stuff, do you think that is hard to hire a guy who knows
decompilers?

--
Miha Markic

> We've had this problem before.. Java has it too.. really if you've got
some
> super secret stuff.. do it in C++ (is Managed C++ decompilable?)

[Rob Teixeira]

Funny how the same threads keep coming up over and over...

"Shane" <shane@nmasters.com> wrote:
>
>I remember a few years ago working on a VB app.. and losing my hard drive
>with all the source code.. luckily a friend of mine had a copy of the EXE
>and decompiled it for me.. sure things were a bit weird and I had alot of
>fixing to do but it sure wasn't no assembly...

In less than 45 minutes, I was able to get a decompiler for every version
of Visual Basic off the internet. I'm afraid you don't really have to even
hire good hackers these days.

>We've had this problem before..

Some versions of VB even saved the comments in the code

>Java has it too..

Still does

>really if you've got some
>super secret stuff.. do it in C++

Even that won't help. If someone wants your code badly enough, they'll get
it.

>(is Managed C++ decompilable?)

Yes.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a language that isn't.

-Rob

>"Mark Hurd" <markhurd@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>"Miha Markic" <miham@spam=no.spin.com> wrote in message
>>news:3c39c04c@147.208.176.211...
>>> Hi Phil
>>>
>>> > - Your app doesn't employ any top-secret algorithms; and,
>>>
>>> Bah, reverse engineering can be done on everything when it comes to
>>> programs.
>>
>>But with .NET, at the moment, it is not based on heuristics and rules of
>>thumb -- you can extract the original source code (without local variable
>>names and comments).
>>
>>That is one big step from manually attempting to understand a spaghetti
>of
>>assembly code.
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Miha
>>
>>Regards,
>>Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)
>>
>>
>