|
To the person who said 'I am a C++ programmer and have not been told to target .NET', the point of the question is that it's hypothetical.
To the guy who would kill himself, and the guy who would quit, would you have done these things when MFC was introduced if you'd been told to use it ?
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
would you have done these things when MFC was introduced if you'd been told to use it ?
There is a huge difference between introduction of MFC and .NET.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
There is a huge difference between introduction of MFC and .NET.
There are differences, but in the end I believe people who say they would kill themselves or quit rather than use it are motivated by the same things in both cases.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
I believe people who say they would kill themselves or quit rather than use it are motivated by the same things in both cases.
I think the guy who said he would kill himself is just kidding. The "I'd quit" is the same as "I'd stick with C++ (and not use Managed extensions)" or "I don't see the future in .NET". Managed Extensions suck bad and many people, including me, have no interest to use a broken version of C++ and would rather quit to find a place where the real C++ is used.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
have no interest to use a broken version of C++
So why do you say MC++ is broken?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
George wrote:
have no interest to use a broken version of C++
So why do you say MC++ is broken?
Ask him Chris, ask him.
I once asked him and he gave me a 1000 arguments.
Since most of them revolved around C++ standards I could not counter-argue. But you can I guess 
My own C++ is worse than MC++, so I won't be worse off in any case. I think MC++ is the best thing about .NET [for me anyways]
__gc Nish
Nish was here, now Nish has gone;
He left his soul, to turn you on;
Those who knew Nish, knew him well;
Those who didn't, can go to hell.
I like to ![Jig | [Dance]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/jig.gif) on the Code Project
Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain
www.busterboy.org
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
So why do you say MC++ is broken?
You must be a new here? 
Anyway, as Nish has already pointed out it's been discussed in great details numerous times before, just search the archives...
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen you discuss ad neaseum about how you dislike Managed C++, you think C# is a waste of time, and that C++ is better than C# and VB because you say it can do whatever C# or VB can (therefor there is no point in C# or VB). I also vageuly remember you discussing Visual C++'s deficiencies when it comes to standards compliance - but none of this explains why you think Managed Extensions for VC++ are broken.
So how about a quick one-liner for those of us who missed the argument elsewhere
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
why you think Managed Extensions for VC++ are broken
If MC++ is supposed to be C++ it is severly broken. Otherwise if it is supposed to be MC++ then by the reflexive property it is MC++, this it is itself(since it is still 1.0)
|
|
|
|
|
huh?
Managed extensions are extensions to C++.
CantLogInNow wrote:
Otherwise if it is supposed to be MC++ then by the reflexive property it is MC++, this it is itself(since it is still 1.0)
You've lost me here. What are you saying?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
So how about a quick one-liner for those of us who missed the argument elsewhere
You want a one-liner, huh? OK, here it comes:
Managed_Extensions_for_Visual_cplusplus != _cplusplus
|
|
|
|
|
One word: portability.
Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
I think the guy who said he would kill himself is just kidding.
Obviously, but while I'm sure he wouldn't KILL himself, it's obviously a statement designed to show a depth of feeling on the topic.
George wrote:
Managed Extensions suck bad and many people, including me, have no interest to use a broken version of C++ and would rather quit to find a place where the real C++ is used.
I doubt I would want to use MC++, it seems likely to me that C# would be a better choice for .NET development. I *love* C++, but that doesn't mean I can't learn something new, and while I am cynical about parts of .NET, I doubt M$ are so stupid as to release a major product that is useless, BOB notwithstanding. Have you bought any books on C# ? Have you used it at all ? If not, then your stataments have more to do with technofear than any basis in fact. I may well decide that C# sucks, but I will learn it first, and then decide. I may well decide that .NET is useless for me, but I'll decide based on fact, not hearsay, and ultimately that means trying it for myself.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
Have you bought any books on C# ?
To help to make money to all that people that write useless books about the product that was not even released yet (and it's not even released as of today)? No, thanks, I'll wait and see...
Christian Graus wrote:
Have you used it at all ? If not, then your stataments have more to do with technofear than any basis in fact.
I read the spec and tried the Beta 1 - I found that C# is not my cup of tea. I don't have to step into the sh*t to know it stinks - I know that from the previous experience. It's not a fear - it's causion and experience....
Christian Graus wrote:
I may well decide that C# sucks, but I will learn it first, and then decide. I may well decide that .NET is useless for me, but I'll decide based on fact, not hearsay, and ultimately that means trying it for myself.
Why waste time to learn yet another temporary technology? By the time it picks up it may well be replaced by something else. Why to bother to live in yet another buble just to wake up one day and see the buble is burst and gone?
Christian Graus wrote:
I doubt M$ are so stupid as to release a major product that is useless
It seems as the whole .NET was being invented when the dot-com was on the top, now it's all gone and MS is trying to re-animate the idea. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
useless books about the product that was not even released yet
As of now there are a number of books based on beta 2 that promise an update for free for any changes in the release version. If you think they are going to be so different, you're left completely unable to comment.
George wrote:
Why waste time to learn yet another temporary technology? By the time it picks up it may well be replaced by something else. Why to bother to live in yet another buble just to wake up one day and see the buble is burst and gone?
So you don't use COM either ? Or MFC ( a technology whose days are now most certainly numbered ) ? How long did it take you to go from C to C++ ?
George wrote:
It seems as the whole .NET was being invented when the dot-com was on the top, now it's all gone and MS is trying to re-animate the idea. Good luck.
If it works out as they hope or not, I have no doubt that C# will become the most supported language to write Windows apps.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
If it works out as they hope or not, I have no doubt that C# will become the most supported language to write Windows apps.
I have no doubt that C# is going to play a major role in Windows apps, in addition to Web apps as that's what it was intended to do in the first place, but that's not enough yet. C# doesn't have momentum yet, only time will tell if it'll prevail on the Windows domain.
I guess everybody's fear is that if they pick up C# for their projects that C# won't make it in the end, and they have to revert back to C++ or whatever they used. We must admit that C# was designed from the ground up to revolve around the .NET framework, i.e. without .NET it can't survive. The power of C# comes from .NET itself, not from the language design or features. If .NET ever goes down the toilet, so will C#.
Let's face it, languages come and languages go, but C and C++ remain. Libraries and frameworks come and go, but C++ remain. Now I may sound biased a little bit, but that's the truth, at least statistically it is true.
Just my 2 cents.
- Khaled
In C we could create our own bugs. Now with C++ we can inherit them.
|
|
|
|
|
Khaled Hammouda wrote:
Let's face it, languages come and languages go, but C and C++ remain. Libraries and frameworks come and go, but C++ remain. Now I may sound biased a little bit, but that's the truth, at least statistically it is true.
Hell, yes. Anyone who DUMPS C++ is an ignorant fool. Anyone who ignores C# is a close second, because M$ have shown they can make even bad ideas stick, just by continually throwing them at us, and changing them until people accept them ( VB anyone ? ). I've never been a C# fanatic, although as I read about it I'm becoming more inclined to like it, but there is a difference between saying you're sceptical ( as I have done in the past ) and taking the time to have a look before pronouncing judgement, and just outright hating something on the basis that it's not the way you're used to doing things.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
Hell, yes. Anyone who DUMPS C++ is an ignorant fool.
Yep.
Christian Graus wrote:
Anyone who ignores C# is a close second, because M$ have shown they can make even bad ideas stick, just by continually throwing them at us, and changing them until people accept them ( VB anyone ? ).
"People" can do whatever, I don't have to accept bad ideas just because they "stick".
VB? No thanks. When I hear about VB I simply don't take a job, I get the one that doesn't involve VB.
Christian Graus wrote:
I've never been a C# fanatic
You are one now, or so it seems.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
"People" can do whatever, I don't have to accept bad ideas just because they "stick".
You're totally correct. If support for C++ under windows dries up, you can always go program for Linux.
George wrote:
Christian Graus wrote:
I've never been a C# fanatic
You are one now, or so it seems.
I'm starting to like the sound of it, as a compliment to C++. I suspect that through support from M$ it will quickly become the best viable choice for Windows development.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
If support for C++ under windows dries up, you can always go program for Linux.
If support for C++ under windows dries up the windows itself will be in serious troubles. People use windows not because of it's user-friendlines or statbility or security (they would be using Linux otherwise) but because of the availability of a lot of good software. If C++ will not be supported many good (C++) programmers will write for some other platform (maybe Linux), and Windows will loose it's big advantage. A lot of software will not be supported and will not work under newest versions of Windows (as it happens now). MS will not be able to write all the software themself and so people may revise their OS installations.
|
|
|
|
|
You're putting the cart before the horse. I hope you think harder than this when you code.
The point is that people ARE migrating to C#, and support for C++ will dry up maybe in part to push people toward C#, but also as a response to people who ARE doing so.
George wrote:
If C++ will not be supported many good (C++) programmers will write for some other platform (maybe Linux), and Windows will loose it's big advantage.
I believe most programmers are not as narrow minded as you, and will be more than happy to add another language to their toolkit, and to use it when it is appropriate. I've found great benefit in COM, and I found your gloating over it's apparent outdatedness now quite revealing. Sure C++ is a long term investment for me, but I don't see any harm, and much good, in learning more transient things so I can benefit from them while they remain relevant.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Not really, it's more that I choose the real horse (eg. C++) to pull the cart rather than a pony that promises to be able to pull the cart "soon"...
Christian Graus wrote:
I hope you think harder than this when you code.
Well, I *think* before I code, you seem to be suggesting to "try" and see if it works. Best way to write a bad code.
Christian Graus wrote:
The point is that people ARE migrating to C#, and support for C++ will dry up maybe in part to push people toward C#, but also as a response to people who ARE doing so.
One small correction: if you are migrating it doesn't mean that people are doing so. Last time I checked in the discussion board stats it was 30156 VC++ posts against 536 for C#. When that proportion will reverse you can consider that C++ dries out on Windows (but be sure to check for other compilers first, it might be that people just switch the compilers rather than languages).
Pushing people will only create a resistance agaist and MS should rather attract people. As a result of pushing people for C# the C++ part is underinvested, which effectively stops people from moving to VS70 and .NET as a whole. Since there is nothing really new and important for VC++ in VS70 people will just stick with VS60 and not upgrade.
Christian Graus wrote:
I believe most programmers are not as narrow minded as you, and will be more than happy to add another language to their toolkit, and to use it when it is appropriate.
You are not as broad minded as you might think - it seems that your job at hand affects your opinion, and that is quite narrow. I might work with different technologies and languages in the past and future, but I would not attempt to defend a crappy technology just because I work with it in the office.
Christian Graus wrote:
I've found great benefit in COM, and I found your gloating over it's apparent outdatedness now quite revealing.
Rubbish, I give COM as a good example of many promises that didn't happen. COM by itself it OK and I have no problem with it at all.
Christian Graus wrote:
Sure C++ is a long term investment for me, but I don't see any harm, and much good, in learning more transient things so I can benefit from them while they remain relevant.
We only have one life and you can spent only so much time learning new things. It's probably better to learn something that can last longer than waste time to learn always new things but nothing really good. It's better to study C++ deeper as there is a lot of things to learn in it...
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
You are not as broad minded as you might think - it seems that your job at hand affects your opinion, and that is quite narrow.
I've always intended to learn C#, it's just that I've not had time to look at it closely before, or rather it is true that out of the multitude of things I would like to learn, I end up prioritising things that affect my job, or things that interest me a lot. This means in the next while I will learn more ATL, learn C#, and focus on extending my knowldge of STL and IOStreams, as well as C++ in general by working through the 'Exceptional C++' book, and writing some CP articles on the standard library.
George wrote:
Rubbish, I give COM as a good example of many promises that didn't happen. COM by itself it OK and I have no problem with it at all.
I think where COM failed is that it didn't force stupid people to impliment it's design, in making a released interface an unviolatable contract. In theory, if any new features meant a new interface, COM would work great.
George wrote:
It's better to study C++ deeper as there is a lot of things to learn in it...
For someone so arrogant, I presume this means you're a slow learner, or you have another time consuming hobby. I find I have to work hard, but I don't have any trouble in learning both the things I need to for work, and to continue my studies of standard C++.
Can we give this a rest ? You're playing word games now, which only goes to show you like to argue. I've taken a break from 'Desgin an Evolution of C++' to check my posts, and this girly fight is not an effective use of my time.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
Can we give this a rest ? You're playing word games now, which only goes to show you like to argue. I've taken a break from 'Desgin an Evolution of C++' to check my posts, and this girly fight is not an effective use of my time.
Come to think of it - you do fight like a girl. You put the words in my mouth and assume too much.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
Come to think of it - you do fight like a girl. You put the words in my mouth and assume too much.
ROTFL - excellent. Once again you resort to 'I know you are but what am I'.
I've been here for over two years, and disagreed with most people, you are the first one I've spoken to who feels the need to make it personal.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
