If not .Net then what?

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Arne Vajhøj said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
>>something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say
>>it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
>>translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by
>>two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which
>>doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?

>I don't think it say much.
>>
>Ask 2 programmers with 40 years of C# experience - hmmm make that
>10 programmers with 40 years of C# experience - to write a C++ app.

>
(Presumably you mean 40 years total.)

Yup. As for the 2 C++ programmers.

>I doubt the result will be good. And that is not C++'s fault.

>
Ask 10 programmers to write an app in any language, and I doubt the result
will be good. :-)

It is possible, but the the process needs to be different.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:

"Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.d kschrieb:

>And then readers must summarize all experiences posted and
>make their own conclusions.

>
Facts are not subject of a poll. It's perfectly valid to request a
proof to substantiate claims.

It is valid.

But the one doing it should expect to be laughed at.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Randy Howard wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:03:50 -0600, Arne Vajhøj wrote
(in article <477b0d1e$0$902 64$14726298@new s.sunsite.dk>):

Win/x86
MacOS X/x86
MacoS X/PPC
Solaris/SPARC
Linux/x86
Linux/PPC
Linux/IA-64
Linux/IBM mainframe

are the supported ones I think.

It has also been build on some other platforms like *BSD/x86,
Solaris/x86 etc..

>If the above list of platforms where you can use Mono is accurate, and
>I have no reason to doubt you, then it is /much/ less portable than
>either C or C++.

Not necessary less portable.

C/C++ programs are usually not portable at all.

But absolutely less platforms available.

But the list does cover some of the most popular platforms.

Of the above list, I am only familiar with comments on its
functionality and compatibility with two of them relative to .NET on
Windows platforms, and they have been so far that it is not baked, and
does not allow relatively complex .NET apps written for Windows
platforms to move over easily, or in some cases at all.

In that sense it is much like C/C++ - stick with the standard
and it it portable - do some platform specific and it is not
portable.

Arne