I'm a big Java fan and when I first came to PFW, I definitely agreed with Joby, but I've gradually been pulled the other direction. Here's my argument against accepting either .NET (or Java) and it depends mostly upon your definition of portable. Portable is software that will run on most computers without any effort/install/configuration; you just plug and go. Since most desktop computers don't have .NET, applications that use this framework are by very nature not portable.XP is THE portable computer destination
According to this site: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
Windows XP covers around 63.3% of the world's computers, although that number is probably much higher since servers systems are usually not Windows XP. For example, although the referenced site above lists Windows 2003, that's an almost exclusively server OS, as are most Linux computers.
This will invariably change but probably not for at least 3 more years and there's a few reasons why. First, as Windows 7 takes off, XP will maintain itself for low-end systems, which make up the bulk of computers available to the average user. Second, whether its good or bad, XP is much easier to pirate, meaning people in low income areas are more likely to use XP. Third, existing software also maintains this because Vista and Win 7 are dramatic OS rewrites not compatible with quite a lot of XP software already here on the site. XP has a lot of inertia.But XP runs .NET!
Although XP runs .NET, most users don't install software on their own and if you use a computer lab, it probably doesn't have .NET or Java. Why would it? That's just more work for the administrator. .NET doesn't show up on XP unless there's a specific need.
Also, even if you have admin rights an individual system, installing .NET takes quite a bit of time. Even with a fast computer and fast net connection its still far from instant.Unfortunate but true
So although there are a wealth of great .NET and Java applications, they still aren't by this definition portable. I would therefore recommend that users who want these tools to be added to the database shouldn't focus on getting them listed as portable anyway. They should look at how to make the libraries and tools attached to these software systems work smoothly and easily off a USB drive.
PortableApps has made some inroads on this but I have yet to see a packaged and ready-to-go Java or .NET setup.Please disagree with me
As much as I like being right, I much prefer being able to use more applications on more computers. So please respond if I've gotten it backwards.