OK, who do we blame now that Gates has retired? :)

[Peter Anthony]

I personally feel that C# is a way for MS to take a language in the public
domain (C++) and create an 'aternative' that they own all the rights to. C#
is basically C++ with a few minor format changes, and a little less power
(i.e., a little more 'hand-holding').

But was always irritated me is that this seems to have resulted in there
being very little .NET support for C++. MANY of the MSDN pages show examples
for C#.NET and VB.NET, but omit C++.NET examples. This I think is
intentional, a way to make C++ LESS desireable.

So, now that Gates has retired, who do I blame for this? :)

[PvdG42]

Re: OK, who do we blame now that Gates has retired? :)

"Peter Anthony" <poliphant@roun dtripllc.comwro te in message
news:eGf4tZ62IH A.4036@TK2MSFTN GP02.phx.gbl...

I personally feel that C# is a way for MS to take a language in the public
domain (C++) and create an 'aternative' that they own all the rights to.
C# is basically C++ with a few minor format changes, and a little less
power (i.e., a little more 'hand-holding').
>
But was always irritated me is that this seems to have resulted in there
being very little .NET support for C++. MANY of the MSDN pages show
examples for C#.NET and VB.NET, but omit C++.NET examples. This I think is
intentional, a way to make C++ LESS desireable.
>
So, now that Gates has retired, who do I blame for this? :)
>

I guess you are not aware that C# is an open standard?

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm

[Jeroen Mostert]

Re: OK, who do we blame now that Gates has retired? :)

Peter Anthony wrote:

I personally feel that C# is a way for MS to take a language in the public
domain (C++) and create an 'aternative' that they own all the rights to. C#
is basically C++

Now if you'd said "C# is basically Java 2.0", you'd have a point. But C++
really is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. The philosophies underlying the
languages are quite different, as are the areas of use.

But was always irritated me is that this seems to have resulted in there
being very little .NET support for C++. MANY of the MSDN pages show examples
for C#.NET and VB.NET, but omit C++.NET examples. This I think is
intentional, a way to make C++ LESS desireable.
>

First of all, it's C++/CLI now. Second, there's really not very much point
to using C++/CLI for anything but glue code: an easy and powerful way for
reusing your unmanaged code in the shiny new .NET world (and vice versa). If
there's a point to using C++/CLI for new projects, I'm not aware of it: if
you don't need to interface with managed code, you might as well go for
vanilla C++; if you don't need to interface with unmanaged code you should
stick to your CLR language of choice. Even if by chance you're starting a
new project and you expect much overlap between managed and unmanaged,
you're probably still better off doing the managed bits in C# as much as
possible. Cleaner syntax, easier to debug and far less chance of confusing
managed and unmanaged concepts.

--
J.