|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
Once again you resort to 'I know you are but what am I'.
"I know you are but what am I" ? Hm... I think something is missing in that statement... I am not sure what you are trying to say...
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
It appears that I am a member two days longer than you ( ), and I disagreed with everyone, so basically I am more focused on my views (more radical if you prefer) and I love to argue.
I felt that you need me to get more personal after you called me "so arrogant" and "slow learner", you tried to drift me off topic by sticking to that COM or MFC thingy and accused me to be "playing word games now" when I tried to shake it off the thread. In the end you called our little exchange of opinions a "girly fight" and that somehow striked me as to how accurate the wording is, so I could not resist the temptation, sorry for that...
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
"I know you are but what am I" ? Hm... I think something is missing in that statement... I am not sure what you are trying to say...
That you take the issue of programming languages as seriously and as personally as my five year old takes it if someone tells her she is not currently their best friend.
George wrote:
It appears that I am a member two days longer than you (), and I disagreed with everyone, so basically I am more focused on my views (more radical if you prefer) and I love to argue.
I'm not sure what 'more focused in my views' means, but it's clear you love to argue,
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.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
Come to think of it - you do fight like a girl. You put the words in my mouth and assume too much.
Tacky. Very tacky. 
Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
"I would be careful in separating your wierdness, a good quirky weirdness, from the disturbed wierdness of people who take pleasure from PVC sheep with fruit repositories."
- Paul Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Metcalfe wrote:
Tacky. Very tacky
Tacky is my middle name. No, wait - that's his middle name 
|
|
|
|
|
>> Why waste time to learn yet another temporary technology?
Because, sad as it may seem, it might not be so temporary. Take a look at Java: Another "cure all" platform ("Write Once, Run Everywhere" is still a fantasy), with slower performance* ("Hey, it's OK, our 128-CPU Sun box will be here in 4 months; our customers can deal with the slow performance until then!"), less skill required to use it ("Sure, just use all the memory you need. You do not have to worry about it, Java will take care of it!"), but with a big enough push behind it, it lasts.
*Spare me discussions about HotSpot: HotSpot was created because Java is slow, not because it was fast enough already!
Also, remember how many different source languages are being supported for .Net (Java, COBOL*, Pascal*, Fortran, etc.). With that many people out there now able to come into more-or-less real object-oriented development, and start making money again, it's popularity can only increase. Sad, maybe even a little scary, but true.
*Yes, I know about things like Object-COBOL, and Delphi.
> 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++ ?
Are you sure about MFC's days being numbered? It is not the fastest library out there, but it still has uses, and a speed increase over anything that runs in the CLR. MFC would be my choice over MC++/C#/etc. any day. But then again, the choice might not be mine: it does not take much for less-technically-experienced upper management types to jump on the Buzzword Bandwagon.
> 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.
Scary thought, yes; but I have to agree. 
Just like how computer-based Point Of Sale systems were thought to have "dumbed-down" the job requirements for those that work behind-the-counter, we may be watching the same thing be happen to Software Development.
-=- James.
|
|
|
|
|
James R. Twine wrote:
Are you sure about MFC's days being numbered? It is not the fastest library out there, but it still has uses, and a speed increase over anything that runs in the CLR. MFC would be my choice over MC++/C#/etc. any day. But then again, the choice might not be mine: it does not take much for less-technically-experienced upper management types to jump on the Buzzword Bandwagon.
Between the bandwagon and the simple fact that MFC is unlikely to grow much more, I'd say that MFC developers in two years will be as common as Win32 developers now.
James R. Twine wrote:
Just like how computer-based Point Of Sale systems were thought to have "dumbed-down" the job requirements for those that work behind-the-counter, we may be watching the same thing be happen to Software Development.
Yes, I agree. A lot of the 'simplicity' of C# seems to come at the expense of flexibility, and the assumption that I'm too stupid to do stuff for myself. There are things I like about the language, from what little I have read, but I've also been reading 'Design and Evolution of C++' and I particularly love Stroustrups statement that a language should not constrain a user from doing something because it's a bad idea, it should instead be as flexible as possible and then education is the key to making sure programmers code well. Why ? Because a language implimenter cannot decide what will be the best approach to every problem the language may be used to overcome, nor should they presume their ideas about style are the only valid ones.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
>> it does not take much for less-technically-experienced upper
>> management types to jump on the Buzzword Bandwagon.
>
> Between the bandwagon and the simple fact that MFC is unlikely
> to grow much more, I'd say that MFC developers in two years
> will be as common as Win32 developers now
Good point. I did not look at it that way (Denial, perhaps?  )
> A lot of the 'simplicity' of C# seems to come at the expense
> of flexibility, and the assumption that I'm too stupid to do
> stuff for myself.
Same with Java, IMHO. Now I may be considered a control freak, but I believe that to fully utilize the power of something, I have to have precise control over it.
> There are things I like about the language, [...]
I like the "dream" of the .Net subsystem (CLR, CLI, etc.): all these different languages (hell, you could even create your own programming language!) used to create components that can be assembled into applications with ease. And although I may not like what it takes to get there, there may be no other way! 
> [...] Because a language implimenter cannot decide what will
> be the best approach to every problem the language may be
> used to overcome, nor should they presume their ideas about
> style are the only valid ones.
Amen, Brother!
'Ya know, I believe you and I may have had words in the past, I agree with you 100% here.
Peace!
-=- James.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of the 'simplicity' of C# seems to come at the expense of flexibility, and the assumption that I'm too stupid to do stuff for myself. There are things I like about the language, from what little I have read, but I've also been reading 'Design and Evolution of C++' and I particularly love Stroustrups statement that a language should not constrain a user from doing something because it's a bad idea, it should instead be as flexible as possible and then education is the key to making sure programmers code well. Why ? Because a language implimenter cannot decide what will be the best approach to every problem the language may be used to overcome, nor should they presume their ideas about style are the only valid ones.
****
It *is* true that the simplicity of C# comes at a cost of less low-level control.
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your perspective. Using a language like C is simpler than programming in assembly language, but you do lose some of the flexibility of assembler.
I think the real question is how much you're willing to pay for that flexibility. I was a C++ programmer for a number of years, and I liked that I could do things like custom allocators, but after writing almost exclusively in C# for a couple of years, I've found that I usually don't mind the loss of control. And I can write apps in less than half the time it took me in C++.
I also find, for the most part, that I flow better with C#. Part of that's the language, and part of that's the richer framework (I'm very happy with the .NET Regex class).
The logical extension to the "more flexibility" is better is Intentional Programming, where you get to decide what your programming language is. I think that Stroustrup's wrong.
The important thing for a language to do is provide enough flexibility so the programmer can be efficient without providing so much flexibility (and complexity) that it makes things harder.
In other words, flexibility implies complexity. A more complex language can be used to solve more problems than a less complex language, but it won't be as good at solving the 90% of the applications that don't require the extra complexity.
In my C++ career, I wrote hundreds of classes that had arrays of object pointers in them, and for each of those I had to write a destructor that cleaned things up. I find a language that rids me of such work a very nice thing indeed.
Of course, your mileage will vary. If you need to count clock cycles in your application, you need full control.
****
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Gunnerson (MS) wrote:
Using a language like C is simpler than programming in assembly language, but you do lose some of the flexibility of assembler.
You're obviously right, and this is obviously the point to a degree - people who learn C# now won't even notice what they have lost, but conversely I'd suggest VC does a pretty good job of optimising my code to the point that asm would largely be a waste of time.
Eric Gunnerson (MS) wrote:
I've found that I usually don't mind the loss of control.
Hell, I *usually* don't do things the hard way in C++ either, the point is not the general state of affairs, but the time that that loss of control makes it very difficult to impliment something as you would like.
Eric Gunnerson (MS) wrote:
The important thing for a language to do is provide enough flexibility so the programmer can be efficient without providing so much flexibility (and complexity) that it makes things harder.
That's Stroustrup's point as well. Where-ever a construct is considered bad, it is not removed, but an alternative mechanism is provided so that the bad way of doing things is not needed. How many C++ programmers are dumb enough to use malloc instead of new, for example ? It doesn't make things harder to provide features to the language, so long as they can be hidden. For example, a programmer can learn C++ for some time without knowing about templates, or namespaces. On the other hand, I am amazed how much time people spend learn C style strings before they get the ease of std::string.
Eric Gunnerson (MS) wrote:
In other words, flexibility implies complexity. A more complex language can be used to solve more problems than a less complex language, but it won't be as good at solving the 90% of the applications that don't require the extra complexity.
I disagree strongly, for the reasons I give above. Another point Stroustrup makes is that if you free new programmers from having to understand memory management, for example, will lead in some degree to uneducated programmers who will show their inabilities in other, harder to track down ways, because there bad code will probably compile and run, it will be more likely to have scalability, reusability or simple design issues.
Eric Gunnerson (MS) wrote:
In my C++ career, I wrote hundreds of classes that had arrays of object pointers in them, and for each of those I had to write a destructor that cleaned things up. I find a language that rids me of such work a very nice thing indeed.
You should have used std::vector, written one functor that called delete on every item in the vector, and used it over and over. I suppose working for Microsoft you were forced to use the ugly MFC container classes ? I'm told C# essentially has containers of void *'s that need casting ( in effect, I realise there are no pointers ). Is that the case ? Can you tell me what will happen on the container front when generics arrive ?
Eric Gunnerson (MS) wrote:
Of course, your mileage will vary. If you need to count clock cycles in your application, you need full control.
In the past that has been the case, but in my new job, I suspect we will be using C# a lot, and I have therefore started taking a more serious look. I suspect C# will make a compelling case for itself in a lot of cases for the work I will now be doing.
I suspect when Strousturp wrote C++ he was dealing with a far more educated user base, and it is the idea of dumbing down languages that scares me, not because things should be hard for their own sake, but because making it easy at the expense of power only degrades both the products we create, and our profession as a whole. For all that, I am interested enough in C# that others here accuse me of being a zealot, so I guess I'm sufficiently between camps for anyone to find a reason to hate me I guess that's what I get for thinking for myself...
I'm really interested to hear your comments on C# container classes especially, because what I have heard concerns me, and no matter what, I'm expecting less than the STL, which it's not hard to tell I love dearly.
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 you think they are going to be so different, you're left completely unable to comment.
Well, I don't care to be honest - I'm not buying them and I will rather wait and see what will come out of it rather than pretending anything else. People buy it just to justify their n-years of "experience" in .NET and C# on their resumes. I guess idiocy never ends - companies expect people to have a real-life experience on the non-released product, what a nonsense!
Christian Graus wrote:
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++ ?
Well, interesting you would mention COM. I thought that COM was supposed to solve and overcome all the same problems that .NET is claiming to solve. It was supposed to be ported to other platforms and conquer the world...
Eh, dreams and promises...
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
companies expect people to have a real-life experience on the non-released product, what a nonsense!
I couldn't agree more - but it's great, because this is a good time to write a list of companies you would never consider working for because they are obviously clueless.
On the other hand the company I am about to start with did not ask for C#, but when I asked they said they had run some internal case studies and liked what they saw. THAT is the sort of thinking I like - not racing to use something new, but having the sense and foresight to evaluate it so when it is released, they understand what it has to offer, and have the skills they need to impliment it.
George wrote:
Well, interesting you would mention COM. I thought that COM was supposed to solve and overcome all the same problems that .NET is claiming to solve. It was supposed to be ported to other platforms and conquer the world...
Back then Bill Gates was not quite as annoyed with Scott McNealy, I think the cross platform thing is much more likely to occur this time.
Are you saying you've never experienced the benefit of component technology because you knew one day it would be replaced with something, which you again intend not to use ? I can probably guess your age from this - if you were programming before 1985 you'd still be using C, and before 1972, who knows ?
The point is that regardless if .NET lives forever or not, it's a technology that is being released now, and if it helps to solve problems you come across, you only give your competitor an advantage by refusing to consider 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:
Are you saying you've never experienced the benefit of component technology because you knew one day it would be replaced with something, which you again intend not to use ?
No, I was just giving an example in order to learn from history - not all the promises and hype from MS is going to happen, simply because it's...well..hype and promises
As a matter of fact I use COM for quite some time and recently I wrote a really cool ActiveX component to centralize the user input processing and error checking. I used ATL also with no problems. Heck, I even used VB for about a year - it was one of those application where VB was used for GUI and VC++ / C++ for business logic. GUI was a crap and a pain in the ass to maintain and I promised myself to avoid VB or anything like it in future.
I did started to use COM more intensively only about a year ago thought. At the begining I was still learning the quirks of it, but now I beat all the people around in that area simply because I had a solid ground in C++ and software methodology and so I could understand how the things work instead of being a monkey and only use the wizards.
Christian Graus wrote:
I can probably guess your age from this - if you were programming before 1985 you'd still be using C, and before 1972, who knows ?
You are not even close 
To be precise I started the commercial programming around 1995 just when Windows 95 came out - in order to make money to cover my study at the Univeristy. Right now I'm working on a web-enabled application that uses a lot of ActiveX stuff, it's all in VC++ and I laught at anyone telling me that VB is better for GUI.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
that write useless books about the product that was not even released yet (and it's not even released as of today)
Actually, the .NET SDK has been available for some time Click Here to download. MSDN subscribers can download VS.NET (which is NOT required to create .NET applications, just the SDK) and the CD's came in the mail today for our MSDN shipment.
There are several books on the market for C# that are about the final version, not the beta, including Professional C# by Wrox Press and Programming Microsoft Windows with C# by Charles Petzold from MS Press.
George wrote:
Why waste time to learn yet another temporary technology?
Java isn't a temporary technology is it? It has been around for a while now and it is here to stay.
Your lack of knowledge about .NET makes you no better than the average Slashdotter with your skewed view of reality.
Jason Gerard
"I can't take his money, I can't print my own, I have to work for money. Why don't I just lay down and die?" -- Homer Simpson
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
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)?
Actually you're quite wrong here. C# 1.0 has been released for almost a month now; Visual C# hasn't yet been released
I've never seen why you stress the point about it not being released yet; there is a two fold reason to using beta software
- help debug it thus making it better
- you get familiar with it while your competition (say in my case, you) ignore it
James
Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki
"My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT.
I may make you feel but I can't make you think." - Thick as a Brick, Jethro Tull 1972
|
|
|
|
|
James T. Johnson wrote:
Actually you're quite wrong here. C# 1.0 has been released for almost a month now; Visual C# hasn't yet been released
You know what - release my ass 
James T. Johnson wrote:
I've never seen why you stress the point about it not being released yet
Well, it's because MS and many others are pretending that beta technology is good to create a product already. It's not!
With new technologies is like with discovering the new land - the first pioneers always do something stupid and die. It's the "second wawe" that walking other the pioneer's dead bodies achieves the success - learning from their mistakes...
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
You know what - release my ass
You let go first!
George wrote:
the first pioneers always do something stupid and die. It's the "second wawe" that walking other the pioneer's dead bodies achieves the success - learning from their mistakes..
What are you doing then?!?!? You should be pushing those technologies on your competitors!
In all honesty though, you do have a point.
However not everything dealing with .NET is a risk; the basis of it was COM+ 2.0 so it has/had a firm basis already. Because .NET can interface with COM and the Win32 API via P/Invoke its risk factor is reduced. You can continue to develop the main part of your apps with COM/C and then try .NET out on it to see if it works for you.
Or if you prefer you can write your COM components with .NET for your testing.
Now, most of my work is done server side with a few client apps here and there; I also don't do programming full time so I can make an evaluation of .NET without putting the company I work for at a risk. So far my evaluation has been great with a strong community already out there to help answer picky questions when needed.
Of course, who cares what I think though; only you (or your boss) can decide if .NET works for you; but you absolutely positively cannot make that decision without trying it. Until someone within your company tries it you only rely on what your competitors say, and why should you listen to them?
James
Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki
"My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT.
I may make you feel but I can't make you think." - Thick as a Brick, Jethro Tull 1972
|
|
|
|
|
James T. Johnson wrote:
What are you doing then?!?!? You should be pushing those technologies on your competitors!
Hm, maybe I should clarify a bit - we are making an in-house applications, we have no compatitors and the only factor we are battling is time
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
