|
Your wrong... I thought the same thing about COBOL. Besides, C++ is not Microsoft. What you are experiencing is the demise of "Microsoft based" technologies. C#! No need to run just yet...
|
|
|
|
|
robasmith wrote: C#! No need to run just yet...
C# is actually morphing into C#++. Have you seen the C# 3.0 spec?
|
|
|
|
|
Alvaro Mendez wrote: C# is actually morphing into C#++. Have you seen the C# 3.0 spec?
C# started as a mix of VB6, Java and C++ for the .net platform. Then they put more and more features of C++ into it and with C# 3.0 it is really C#++.
But, with C++/CLI, who needs C# anymore? I don't need any [System.Interop.] or [Struct.Layout.] or whatever metadata for things i could do with C++ 20 years ago.
With C++/CLI now beeing a first class .net language and VB.net, who needs a third language?
Btw. Managed C++ (Managed Extensions for C++) is dead only 3 years after it was introduced by MS.
Also WinForms will be superseded by Windows Presentation Foundation anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
ABuenger wrote: But, with C++/CLI, who needs C# anymore? I don't need any [System.Interop.] or [Struct.Layout.] or whatever metadata for things i could do with C++ 20 years ago.
Yeah, for "interoping", C++ is the way to go. However, you'd expect the .NET framework to continue growing and improving to the point where you'd no longer need native API support.
Personally, I rarely use it.
ABuenger wrote: Managed C++ (Managed Extensions for C++) is dead only 3 years after it was introduced by MS.
So how many years do you think it will take Microsoft to kill C++/CLI? 
Regards,
Alvaro
|
|
|
|
|
Alvaro Mendez wrote: Yeah, for "interoping", C++ is the way to go.
Not only interopting, why does C# has no unions? Why no templates? The generics are far away from beeing as powerful as templates.
Why re-invent the wheel with edges and then try to make it round again?
C# as no advantage over C++/CLI. I won't jump on any bandwagon started by some MS consultants.
MS can not abandon C++ because there is a 30+ years codebase. Even their own products are written in C++.
And you always forget that C++ is a General Purpose Language while C# was only made for the .net framework. Ever tried to program an embedded system with C#? Any real-time app with the .net framework?
Microsoft says C# is a application programming language while C++ is a system programming language. While the statement about C# is true, C++ is as mentioned a general purpose language. I can do everything with C++. With C# not.
And why should i trade in a standarized mature general purpose language for a proprietary MS language that changes every week when someone on the Microsoft forum had an idea he thought might be cool?
|
|
|
|
|
ABuenger wrote: Not only interopting, why does C# has no unions? Why no templates? The generics are far away from beeing as powerful as templates.
Who needs union anyway ? Err... let's say me...
ABuenger wrote: C# as no advantage over C++/CLI. I won't jump on any bandwagon started by some MS consultants.
As the matter of fact, yes there are at least one advantage : one new way to code, one new language. I've done a few projects with C++ managed when I have switched from about 8 years of C++ frenzy, and I really had problems not to switch back to my old way of doing things. Frankly, going unmanaged in a managed world is really not a good move...
Now I really use C# as my (almost) only way to use .net, switching back to good-ol C++ when doing more resource-demanding (or whatever .net is not suited for).
ABuenger wrote: And why should i trade in a standarized mature general purpose language for a proprietary MS language that changes every week when someone on the Microsoft forum had an idea he thought might be cool?
Ok, so if you don't want to, just drop .net, because it will change as new ideas come and go. And by the way, C# is not propietary and is almost as much standardized as C++ (C# 1.0 that is) with ECMA (of which I'm sure) and ISO (which I seem to remember)
Michael CARBENAY
Creo Ignem
|
|
|
|
|
C++ and MFC will be around for quite a while just because these huge code bases cannot be moved overnight even IF a company would have infinite resources. Customers want new features and really don't care what language the program is written in.
|
|
|
|
|
mrjktcvsss wrote: when Microsoft's Phoenix-based consulting team
C# is today what VB was in the past. We will see C# 3.0, the third edition of C#, soon. Before the language isn't mature i would stay away from it.
If you really need to write managed code, use C++/CLI. It's way more powerful than C#. And remember what MS did with VB6. Do you really want to rely on a proprietary programming language from MS?
Just my 5 cents
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate the comments of some of you that are defending the use of C++... Yes, C# isn't mature, but I was using C++ before that was mature as well, so that's nothing new to me. And for those of us that learned Java first, it was trivial to start writing code in C#.
But I think you are missing my main point. While there will always be a niche in the Windows environment for C++, jobs requiring C++ skills are drying up faster than puddles in Oklahoma. On the Unix/linux side, Java has gained a lot of ground. Anybody writing web applications or web services in C++?
|
|
|
|
|
mrjktcvsss wrote: But I think you are missing my main point. While there will always be a niche in the Windows environment for C++, jobs requiring C++ skills are drying up faster than puddles in Oklahoma.
Sun tells us since 15 years that Java is the future of all programming, except those slow cell phone games, where do you use Java today? Java, wasn't that those annoying menus on websites in the 90s?
It's nice to have C# in your port folio, but it won't be the only language used in the future. Also with all the hype about .net, where are the .net applications?
|
|
|
|
|
It's been a long time since I've seen a puddle here in Oklahoma...
Come to think of it, it's also been awhile since I've seen a C++ job in these parts - although there do seem to be C# & ASP.NET jobs around. 
Martin Cook
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
|
|
|
|
|
I actually like the VS.NET 2003 IDE better than VC6, even with some of the bugs.
2K3 has much stronger customization capabilities. VC6 used to 'forget' keyboard customization every time I turned around, and would delete custom toolbars without notice. I can tailor the screen layout for 2K3 any way I want it, and it stays that way.
2K3 has a better build system. It's a lot easier to incorporate custom build steps right in the solution with 2K3 than it ever was with VC6. With VC6, you ended up with messy batch files that did partial compiles, and awkward workspace/project organizations.
The debugger in 2K3 is smarter, and lets you debug intelligently across a lot more boundaries (out-of-process COM servers, for example) than VC6 would. It recognizes Windows data types a lot more completely.
IntelliSense in 2K3 is vastly improved. With VC6, if a declaration wasn't in the same source file, you didn't get it.
Help in 2K3 integrates with the IDE; it doesn't start up a separate app that it forgets about.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
VS.NET 2k3 for now. I think I'll wait for 2k5 until the first Service Pack is out. For what I'm doing now, 2k3 does the job quite well. I see no reason to break something that works.
However, I have installed 2k5 at home, and I intend to use it to write a small C# application for my Shorinji Kempo Branch. Keeping scores at competitions with Excel is so.. 90's. 
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I think I'll wait for 2k5 until the first Service Pack is out
You might be waiting quite a while - there isn't even a SP for VC 2K3, and MS plans to move right on to Orcas.
--Mike--
Visual C++ MVP 
LINKS~! Ericahist | NEW!! PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ
|
|
|
|
|
But uhh.. there's the memory leak in STL. Surely they can't just ignore that!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same here, although I'm considering moving the VS.NET build of ResOrg to VS2005 to get us more up to speed on the platform.
However I really can't see us moving Visual Lint to VS2005 in a hurry, given the risk and the low impact on the codebase (we've tried it and it worked).
Anna ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint 
Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch
"Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart"
- A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
No category for what I do was listed. I use Visual Studio for debugging, and the Microsoft compiler, but a stand-alone editor for development and launching of the MS compiler. Two reasons for that: first, the editor I chose was much more customizable using my language of choice (C++) then VS, and secondly I use a dual monitor system. With a dual monitor setup, I prefer having the debugger on my second monitor while the application runs in the primary screen. Rather then have to switch the IDE back and forth between primary and secondary monitor depending on whether I am coding or debugging, I just leave it up and running on the secondary monitor, and switch to it whenever I want to run the application under the debugger.
I suppose I should also add that while I have updated to all the VS releases except this last one, I still launch Visual Studio 6 whenever I want to do any resource editing. I find the VS 6 resource editor far, far faster to use when I want to set properties of the controls I am adding/editing.
|
|
|
|
|
You're like the guy down the hall from me. He runs VS.NET solely to do compiles. He edits his code using a Windows version of emacs  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
How many of you who ticked VC6 do it out of personal preference? My guess would be that most of those who do, do it because they *have* to - for some reason.
Regards,
Nish
|
|
|
|
|
On the contrary I was forced to use VS NET 2003, but VC6 would be my preference for pure c++ development.
I'm not saying that the newer versions were bad, just that they weren't as good as VC6.
|
|
|
|
|
ed welch wrote: I'm not saying that the newer versions were bad, just that they weren't as good as VC6.
Surely, you must mean the IDE! Because the VC 6 compiler is pathetic.
Regards,
Nish
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm mainly taling about the IDE. Though I never had a problem with the compiler.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
