Ryandor.com

If one was going to use a tool, does it matter the support libraries one must install?

For instance, if a tool was available in Java, or C++/QT, would one care which one they used?

If all else were equal, then it would only matter so far as the amount of hassle involved. If it is simply some DLLs that come with the program, then it does not matter at all. If it were something you need to install separately, then I would likely avoid using the program unless I really needed it.

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net

Ditto.

Ditto.

In other words - start including the DLLs with your programs already, punt *wink*

_________________
-= Ho Eyo He Hum =-

hehe, well the DLLs are large. And one doesn't need to refresh them for each new application (unless the DLL gets updated).

Tempted to just restrict myself to the Mac platform (ObjectiveC/Cocoa) and be done with it.

But I guess Java is the long term best answer. Just so hard to give up C++.

The most annoying thing is that because of updates to QT or whatnot you keep using different dlls for almost every program you make =)

_________________
-= Ho Eyo He Hum =-

only because QT went through some quick changes! I was on 3.2 for a long time! I expect it wil stablize now that 4.1.1 is out.

I dont really care about dll's so long as the author of the program is good enough to keep the current dll's needed, avaliable.

As to installing software for a specific program.. its all a matter of what the program is, and software to be installed.. Large trusted software to install.. NET Framework, Java.. etc, are not an issue..

I guess it comes down to a matter of if I think its trustworthy, and the program will be a benifit if I go through the hassle.

My exp in stuff related to this is, if you have a 2 part program, expect 10x the Help topics for it.

_________________
Forget what you know, know what you forget.

I personally despise Java (because it is so slow), but if the program were good enough it wouldn't disuade me (that and I have to have the runtimes for other shit anyway).
.NET would make me happy but granted even for all their faults, I am biased towards MS and fuck all else (but then I only care about what is commercially viable, and Macs and Linux are not). My 2? mainly to give an opposing opinion

_________________
This space for rent.

I don't mind DLL's as long as they are distributed with the program. Its a pain in the ass to have to hunt for them.

Aside from that, the more extra stuff I have to install, the less likely I am to use the program unless it is REALLY good or REALLY necessary to what I am doing. For instance, I'm reluctant to run Java runtime applications simply because I don't need yet another software program running on my computer that I only really use for one thing.

_________________
-= HellRazor =-
Shattered Sosaria is coming!
http://www.shatteredsosaria.com

I used to be that way, until I learned that they changed the way Java works, and that it can be almost as fast as C++ in many situations (at least for utilities), and sometimes faster (though rarely). It comes down to the runtime compiler being able to optimize for the specific system it is running on better than a generalized compiler, though I doubt that makes a huge difference on the modern standardized system architectures.

I still do not like Java as a language, though.

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net

Well, commercially viable is rather open. Macs and Linux are clearly commercially viable, as companies exist and profiting based on software or services for those platform. If more difficult, due to the smaller market, that I understand.

Of course, given that my market these days is Unix (work), and Mac, Unix, Windows (in that order) for home these days, NET isn't a viable option for me (commercially or otherwise).

Anyway, I think I have a plan, I will see how it unfolds.