6

I have built a c#.net application in framework 4.0, i have no objection in installing .net for client's pc, but its so big to install on client end, is this not possible that there is some small setup or redist package, which we install and helps to run .net application easily, because installing a full fledge framework for just small apps looks very awkward. Please help.

Thanks in advance Atif

Muhammad Atif Agha
  • 1,535
  • 3
  • 33
  • 74
  • possible duplicate of [Can you compile C# without using the .Net framework?](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/551554/can-you-compile-c-without-using-the-net-framework) – Jesse C. Slicer Sep 02 '11 at 21:22
  • Well, considering what it takes to finish the job *before* you get started is an important part of the feasibility analysis of any project. The install requirements of .NET 4 are not a well kept secret. You could throw away everything you worked on for the past few months and write a .bat file instead. Or you leave the check-box clicked in the Setup and Deployment project's prerequisites and make it somebody else's problem. They'll have to wait a bit. It really is completely up to you to make that choice, nobody here could possibly help you with that. – Hans Passant Sep 02 '11 at 22:37

7 Answers7

4

The .NET client profile is the small redist package. ("Small" by comparison to the full .NET framework install.) That's as small as .NET gets.

Joe White
  • 94,807
  • 60
  • 220
  • 330
4

If using .NET 4 specific features is less important than avoiding installation you can try to downgrade your app to .NET 2 or even .NET 1. Most modern versions of Windows come with older versions of .NET pre installed. The full list is here.

Dmitry
  • 17,078
  • 2
  • 44
  • 70
3

No, there is nothing smaller than the .NET Framework Client Profile 4.0. If this doesn't suit you, .NET is probably not the right platform for you.

Darin Dimitrov
  • 1,023,142
  • 271
  • 3,287
  • 2,928
  • do you know any easy platform for developing vb6 like windows based application, because i am very much fed up with this dependencies. – Muhammad Atif Agha Sep 02 '11 at 21:14
  • 1
    @Muhammad Atif Agha, Delphi, VC++ are among one of the possibilities. But honestly, come one: are you really gonna develop on C++ just because you cannot install a 20MB dependency of the .NET Framework? You cannot be serious. We are in 2011 after all. – Darin Dimitrov Sep 02 '11 at 21:21
  • Delphi i have seen, very complex as compared to rich .net, i recently posted another question you can see regarding crystal reports, i have several issues with this .net, and i was in love with it, but its vanishing my love. – Muhammad Atif Agha Sep 02 '11 at 21:30
  • VC++ has its own (large) runtime redistributable. I *believe* Delphi does as well. Cygwin C++ has an option for static compilation, but it's one of the last ones. – Stephen Cleary Sep 03 '11 at 01:54
1

The client profile is already a smaller version than the full framework.

There is also a very small web installer, but that doesn't change the fact that the user will need to do a larger download. There's no way around the client profile.

TeaWolf
  • 714
  • 5
  • 10
0

If you targeted .Net Framework 4.0 with your application, it must be installed on the client PC as well, there is no way around that...

Dean Kuga
  • 11,878
  • 8
  • 54
  • 108
0

If I had to make a serious recommendation, targeting the Client Profile would be the way to go.

For informational purposes however, there are a few commercial programs out there that supposedly perform native compilation, by converting all managed assemblies into actual native code. You can do a search for ".NET native compiler" or ".NET deployment without framework" if you are curious.

I have personally never used any of them before, and have to wonder about the performance of the application in the absence of a JIT compiler. There may be some people on SO that have had experience with some of these that could better address if they are effective, or just a waste of money.

Paul Walls
  • 5,884
  • 2
  • 22
  • 23
  • I tried one of them, quite some time ago. It spent a little less time to start, about 20% less RAM, and virtually the same CPU performance during execution. It was pricey, so no-no. – Camilo Martin Feb 13 '12 at 03:36
0

You could try Silverlight (i.e., out-of-browser, trusted app). It's smaller than the client profile, and many machines already have it.

Stephen Cleary
  • 437,863
  • 77
  • 675
  • 810