C# vs. C++

[RFOG]

Re: C# vs. C++

I'm going to stop this absurd conversation. This is my last email.

Because Windows IS kernel32.dll, gdi32.dll, user32.dll and those files are
native ones.

Because Windows IS ntoskrnl.exe, and some other .exe/.dll/.sys files that
are native ones.

Because Windows Shell IS explorer.exe and a little aux. files that are
native ones.

Bye forever.

"Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.d kwrote in message
news:486d83b7$0 $90272$14726298 @news.sunsite.d k...

RFOG wrote:

>Arne Vajhøj avait écrit le 29/06/2008 :

>>RFOG wrote:
>>>"Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.d kescribió en el mensaje de noticias
>>>news:4861b6b a$0$90275$14726 298@news.sunsit e.dk...
>>>>RFOG wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>Next OS from MS could very well be done in C#.
>>>>>
>>>We have a phrase: "confía en Dios y no corras", that will be translated
>>>as "be confident with God and don't run".
>>>>
>>>Of course, C# can deal with LDT, GDT, vector interrupts, rings, direct
>>>hardware access and of course microprocessors executes MSIL
>>>directly(* ).
>>>
>>You will need something native to do that.
>>>
>>But that is a microscopic part of an OS like Windows Vista.

>>
>Are you really sure you are saying?

>
Absolutely.
>

>Please, take C:\WIndows and c:\windows\syst em32 and count what programs
>are .net and what programs are native.

>
Try examine in EXE's in C:\DOS on a DOS 6.22 system.
>
They are all 16 bits, so we have hereby proven that an OS need
to consist of 16 bit executables.
>
Or maybe not.
>
How can you consider the fact that Vista is written almost
entirely in native as an indication of that is has to be so ??
>
Arne

--
Microsoft Visual C++ MVP
=============== =========
Mi blog sobre programación: http://geeks.ms/blogs/rfog
Momentos Leves: http://momentosleves.blogspot.com/
Cosas mías: http://rfog.blogsome.com/
Libros, ciencia ficción y programación
=============== =============== ==========
Acelgas a medio día y a la noche acelgas, mala comida y mala cena.

[Hendrik Schober]

Re: C# vs. C++

Arne Vajhøj wrote:

Hendrik Schober wrote:
[...]

> What if you have to fiddle with templates in a
> several MLoC project?

>
No difference.
>
If you constantly need to rebuild MLOC's the project structure
is fubar.

I'll stop taking you serious right here. You seem to not to
know what you're talking about.

[...]
Arne

Schobi

[Kenneth Porter]

Re: C# vs. C++

Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.d kwrote in news:485c5d19$0 $90265$14726298
@news.sunsite.d k:

clintonG wrote:

>Microsoft developed C# specifically for the web.

>
I don't think so. I believe C# was developed to be a general
language.

C# was developed because Sun wouldn't allow MS to tightly couple its Java
implementation to Windows, encouraging people to build Windows-only Java
apps. (The "embrace and extend" system of locking in your customers.)

As others have pointed out, use C# for business clients, particularly GUI
stuff. With project Mono, you can even use it on other platforms. (I just
recently coded a C# wrapper for a high-performance C++ library so that the
GUI people would have an easy time of connecting to it.) It's also good for
systems with complex object lifetime management needs.

If you need to connect to non-.NET business apps, consider Java, instead.
You can even use the new open source "Iced Tea" implementation to free
yourself from vendor lock-in. Java is the real language to compare to C#,
not C++. C++ is the fussy but fast hot-rod, while C# and Java are the
comfortable but slower family sedans.

Now to go find my flame-retardent underwear.... ;)

[MC]

Re: C# vs. C++

"Kenneth Porter" <shiva.blacklis t@sewingwitch.c omwrote in message
news:Xns9AD796D 87B060shivawell com@207.46.248. 16...

Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.d kwrote in news:485c5d19$0 $90265$14726298
@news.sunsite.d k:
>

>clintonG wrote:

>>Microsoft developed C# specifically for the web.

>>
>I don't think so. I believe C# was developed to be a general
>language.

>
C# was developed because Sun wouldn't allow MS to tightly couple its Java
implementation to Windows,

If all Microsoft had wanted was their own variant of Java for the .NET API,
they could have had it. In fact they did. It was called J#.

(Incidentally, ".NET" does not have much if anything to do with networking.
It is a classic needlessly misleading name.)

C# was invented because Microsoft had a good idea for a new API for Windows
(namely .NET Framework) and Anders Hejlsberg had some good ideas for a new
programming language, similar but not identical to Java.

Of course, in the interest of Openness and Freedom, There Should Never Be
Any New Programming Language Invented. FORTRAN '58 forever! :)

[rossum]

Re: C# vs. C++

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:22:40 -0400, "MC"
<for.address.lo ok@www.ai.uga.e du.slash.mcwrot e:

>Of course, in the interest of Openness and Freedom, There Should Never Be
>Any New Programming Language Invented. FORTRAN '58 forever! :)

Real Programmers can write FORTRAN in any language.

rossum

[Giovanni Dicanio]

Re: C# vs. C++


"Kenneth Porter" <shiva.blacklis t@sewingwitch.c omha scritto nel messaggio
news:Xns9AD796D 87B060shivawell com@207.46.248. 16...

C# was developed because Sun wouldn't allow MS to tightly couple its Java
implementation to Windows, encouraging people to build Windows-only Java
apps. (The "embrace and extend" system of locking in your customers.)

I don't agree.

C# is more complete and more advanced than Java.
In C# Microsoft put lots of improvements over Java.
I think that in C# Microsoft put lessons learned from several languages:
C++, Java, and classic Visual Basic, too.

For example: Java has no concept of properties (you must use get/set like in
C++).
Java has no concept of delegate.
In Java all methods are virtual by default (instead, in C# you must specify
that).
And C# has a very good RAD environment with WinForm, I don't think that Java
has anything similar.

And C# has also LINQ, instead I think that in Java there is no language
support for SQL-like syntax.

And C# has the 'using' and 'IDisposable' for non-memory resources (like file
handles, etc.).
Instead I think that Java has nothing similar.

And it is very easy to use C++ code from C#, thanks to C++/CLI. Again, I
think that calling C++ code from Java is not so easy...

Giovanni

[Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]]

Re: C# vs. C++

C# was invented because Microsoft had a good idea for a new API for

Windows (namely .NET Framework) and Anders Hejlsberg had some good ideas
for a new programming language, similar but not identical to Java.

No, Clinton is right. Java was falling short of what they wanted to do. See

http://blogs.msdn.com/patrick_dussud/archive/2006/11/21/how-it-all-started-aka-the-birth-of-the-clr.aspx

--

Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
Download OWC Black Book, 2nd Edition
Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $15.00
Need a free copy of VSTS 2008 w/ MSDN Premium?

http://msmvps.com/blogs/alvin/Default.aspx

-------------------------------------------------------


"MC" <for.address.lo ok@www.ai.uga.e du.slash.mcwrot e in message
news:emVw2tt4IH A.3804@TK2MSFTN GP03.phx.gbl...

"Kenneth Porter" <shiva.blacklis t@sewingwitch.c omwrote in message
news:Xns9AD796D 87B060shivawell com@207.46.248. 16...

>Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.d kwrote in news:485c5d19$0 $90265$14726298
>@news.sunsite. dk:
>>

>>clintonG wrote:
>>>Microsoft developed C# specifically for the web.
>>>
>>I don't think so. I believe C# was developed to be a general
>>language.

>>
>C# was developed because Sun wouldn't allow MS to tightly couple its Java
>implementati on to Windows,

>
If all Microsoft had wanted was their own variant of Java for the .NET
API, they could have had it. In fact they did. It was called J#.
>
(Incidentally, ".NET" does not have much if anything to do with
networking. It is a classic needlessly misleading name.)
>
C# was invented because Microsoft had a good idea for a new API for
Windows (namely .NET Framework) and Anders Hejlsberg had some good ideas
for a new programming language, similar but not identical to Java.
>
Of course, in the interest of Openness and Freedom, There Should Never Be
Any New Programming Language Invented. FORTRAN '58 forever! :)
>
>

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

Re: C# vs. C++

Giovanni Dicanio wrote:

"Kenneth Porter" <shiva.blacklis t@sewingwitch.c omha scritto nel
messaggio news:Xns9AD796D 87B060shivawell com@207.46.248. 16...
>

>C# was developed because Sun wouldn't allow MS to tightly couple its
>Java implementation to Windows, encouraging people to build
>Windows-only Java apps. (The "embrace and extend" system of locking
>in your customers.)

>
I don't agree.
>
C# is more complete and more advanced than Java.
In C# Microsoft put lots of improvements over Java.
I think that in C# Microsoft put lessons learned from several
languages: C++, Java, and classic Visual Basic, too.
>
For example: Java has no concept of properties (you must use get/set
like in C++).
Java has no concept of delegate.
In Java all methods are virtual by default (instead, in C# you must
specify that).
And C# has a very good RAD environment with WinForm, I don't think
that Java has anything similar.

C# doesn't have. Visual Studio has, in the Forms Designer, a RAD
environment which is rather prone to crashing (i.e. less than "very good").
Quite a number of Java IDEs have RAD GUI designers as well, I'm sure. I
don't use Java for application development, but I'd start by looking at some
of the many Eclipse plugins if I needed a dialog / window design tool.

>
And C# has also LINQ, instead I think that in Java there is no
language support for SQL-like syntax.
>
And C# has the 'using' and 'IDisposable' for non-memory resources
(like file handles, etc.).
Instead I think that Java has nothing similar.
>
And it is very easy to use C++ code from C#, thanks to C++/CLI.
Again, I think that calling C++ code from Java is not so easy...
>
Giovanni

[Giovanni Dicanio]

Re: C# vs. C++


"Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <rbv@nospam.nos pamha scritto nel messaggio
news:%232fgele5 IHA.300@TK2MSFT NGP05.phx.gbl.. .

>And C# has a very good RAD environment with WinForm, I don't think
>that Java has anything similar.

>
C# doesn't have. Visual Studio has, in the Forms Designer, a RAD
environment

You're correct, thanks.

which is rather prone to crashing (i.e. less than "very good").

I did not do anything big in WinForm, but I had no problem with VS2008
WinForm Designer and C#.
(Maybe it does not scale up well?)

Giovanni

[Andre Kaufmann]

Re: C# vs. C++

Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] wrote:

Giovanni Dicanio wrote:

>"Kenneth Porter" <shiva.blacklis t@sewingwitch.c omha scritto nel
>messaggio news:Xns9AD796D 87B060shivawell com@207.46.248. 16...

[...]
C# doesn't have. Visual Studio has, in the Forms Designer, a RAD

I think the WinForms designer is part of the .NET framework and can be
hosted in other applications too.

environment which is rather prone to crashing (i.e. less than "very good").

The C++ one is quite bad but I don't have that impression regarding the
C# (managed languages) one.

[...]

Andre

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

Re: C# vs. C++

Andre Kaufmann wrote:

Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] wrote:

>Giovanni Dicanio wrote:

>>"Kenneth Porter" <shiva.blacklis t@sewingwitch.c omha scritto nel
>>messaggio news:Xns9AD796D 87B060shivawell com@207.46.248. 16...

>[...]
>C# doesn't have. Visual Studio has, in the Forms Designer, a RAD

>
I think the WinForms designer is part of the .NET framework and can be
hosted in other applications too.

The .NET framework includes support for including design-time support for
user controls, but not the design environment itself. I think the design
environment can be hosted, but you'd be using the Visual Studio
extensibility SDK and licensing Visual Studio runtime components, not just
the .NET framework.

>

>environment which is rather prone to crashing (i.e. less than "very
>good").

>
The C++ one is quite bad but I don't have that impression regarding
the C# (managed languages) one.

I've had the C# designer (VS2005) crash numerous times. The fact that the
crash dialog for Visual Studio isn't actually modal (a serendipitous bug I
suspect) is the only thing that's saved by solution from total uselessness
on multiple occasions (i.e. I was able to close the faulting designer window
and save the solution before letting the crash window exit Visual Studio,
otherwise merely opening the solution produced a crash)

>
>

>[...]

>
Andre

[Andre Kaufmann]

Re: C# vs. C++

Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] wrote:

Andre Kaufmann wrote:
[...]
The .NET framework includes support for including design-time support for
user controls, but not the design environment itself. I think the design
environment can be hosted, but you'd be using the Visual Studio

I'm not 100% sure about how much of the functionality of the WinForms
Designer is part of the .NET framework. I only know that it has been
hosted by some commercial applications too. However, I've hosted the
Windows Workflow Designer in my own application, but it wasn't simply
adding some controls to my main form. So I suspect the same might be
true for the WinForms Designer too.

extensibility SDK and licensing Visual Studio runtime components, not just
the .NET framework.

Since the core of the Visual Studio IDE (now) can be hosted / used for
free I don't think the runtime components have to be licenced.
However the Visual Studio Shell has to be shipped, additionally to the
..NET framework. I'm not familiar with the Visual Studio Shell and I
don't know if the WinForms designer is part of it. But I suspect it to
be so.

[...]

Andre

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

Re: C# vs. C++

>extensibilit y SDK and licensing Visual Studio runtime components,

>not just the .NET framework.

>
Since the core of the Visual Studio IDE (now) can be hosted / used for
free I don't think the runtime components have to be licenced.

"for free" is assuredly not the same as "not licensed".

However the Visual Studio Shell has to be shipped, additionally to the
.NET framework. I'm not familiar with the Visual Studio Shell and I
don't know if the WinForms designer is part of it. But I suspect it to
be so.
>

>[...]

>
Andre

[Andre Kaufmann]

Re: C# vs. C++

Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] wrote:

>>extensibili ty SDK and licensing Visual Studio runtime components,
>>not just the .NET framework.

>Since the core of the Visual Studio IDE (now) can be hosted / used for
>free I don't think the runtime components have to be licenced.

>
"for free" is assuredly not the same as "not licensed".

Agreed, but reading "licensed" in combination with Visual Studio for me
implies that I have to pay for the license.

[...]

Andre

[Howard Swope]

Re: C# vs. C++

Actually one can host the .Net designer in an application. It is rather
complicated and not well documented, at least as of VS2003. I hosted the
..Net 1.1 design time in an application, but I learned it through an online
example. It involved implementing many interfaces and seemed a bit half
baked, at least as a library that was meant for use in other applications.
My guess is that it was designed for VisualStudio, but then exposed to the
public as an afterthought. I haven't tried it in later versions. For what I
needed to do at the time it was great, I just wish it was a bit more
designed as a general purpose component.

"Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <rbv@nospam.nos pamwrote in message
news:%23Y5JrQD6 IHA.3784@TK2MSF TNGP06.phx.gbl. ..

Andre Kaufmann wrote:

>Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] wrote:

>>Giovanni Dicanio wrote:
>>>"Kenneth Porter" <shiva.blacklis t@sewingwitch.c omha scritto nel
>>>messaggio news:Xns9AD796D 87B060shivawell com@207.46.248. 16...
>>[...]
>>C# doesn't have. Visual Studio has, in the Forms Designer, a RAD

>>
>I think the WinForms designer is part of the .NET framework and can be
>hosted in other applications too.

>
The .NET framework includes support for including design-time support for
user controls, but not the design environment itself. I think the design
environment can be hosted, but you'd be using the Visual Studio
extensibility SDK and licensing Visual Studio runtime components, not just
the .NET framework.
>

>>

>>environment which is rather prone to crashing (i.e. less than "very
>>good").

>>
>The C++ one is quite bad but I don't have that impression regarding
>the C# (managed languages) one.

>
I've had the C# designer (VS2005) crash numerous times. The fact that the
crash dialog for Visual Studio isn't actually modal (a serendipitous bug I
suspect) is the only thing that's saved by solution from total uselessness
on multiple occasions (i.e. I was able to close the faulting designer
window and save the solution before letting the crash window exit Visual
Studio, otherwise merely opening the solution produced a crash)
>

>>
>>

>>[...]

>>
>Andre

>
>