 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
gary ng wrote:
That is what I am curious about and don't understand where the miscommunication comes from.
From this:
Though to me, .NET support doesn't mean shipped with.NET runtime.
Thats the mis-communication right there. .Net support implies you need the .Net runtime. How can you support something on a machine that doesn't have .Net installed on it?
Because you can't, that implies if you want .Net support, you are going to have to ensure the runtime is installed if it isn't already present.
You may disagree, but the many vendors that do ship .Net applications appear to have reached the same conclusion that I have. As a result most .Net apps that ship have very large installers, although some of them provide installers with .Net and installers with .Net so that people that don't need to download it can skip that.
I don't write .Net apps at present, but if I did I wouldn't dream of only offering an installer that didn't offer to install .Net for you (I'd offer one that didn't do that as well). You just can't assume the .Net runtime is going to be on the target machine.
In the Java world, you often find the same thing, except for open source projects where they seem to assume you already have Java installed (or installing Java is a pre-requisite in the install instructions - TomCat being an example of the latter).
Stephen