Whining people…. - .NET (Core and Framework) Discussion Boards

Well, C# is not C++.
C# is the new java-style language from Microsoft.

The .NET framework is the set of common functionality for each of the .NET languages to use.
It contains all the types, class libraries and garbage collection.

Hopefully that'll start to make things a little clearer.

Cheers,
Simon

"Sign up for a chance to be among the first to experience the wrath of the gods.", Microsoft's home page (24/06/2002)

Once again thank MS for such brilliant decisions it made when naming all this stuff Poke tongue | ;-P

The .NET framework is Microsoft's new platform for creating windows and web-based applications. It features strong typing, a garbage collector, a JIT compile, plus a rich base class library. Programs that use the .NET framework are said to be 'managed'.

VC++.NET is version 7 of the Visual C++ compiler. It allows you to create both regular programs and managed ones. Managed programs are created by using the Managed Extensions for C++ (MC++). Version 7 has more standards support and also includes version 7 of MFC.

C# is one of the many languages that targets .NET; it borrows features from Java, C++, and VB. It can ONLY produce managed code.

Quick rundown:
MFC7 and VC.NET - VC++.NET contains MFC7
C# and .NET Framework - C# is the premier language for developing applications targetting the .NET platform.
C# and VC.NET - C# is one language, VC++.NET (VC++ 7) is another
MFC7 and C# - MFC is a class library for C++, C# is a language for .NET.

HTH,

James

Thanks it's a lot clearer to me now Smile | :)

when i install net framwork sdk
i couldnt add system.configuration.dll
and system.diagnostic.dll file
how to get it?

r00d0034@yahoo.com

Hi All,

I have some old Visual C++ code that I think would
work well as a "web service".

Is it difficult to convert my existing VC++ code
to .NET code?

Does that even make sense? Confused | :confused:

Please help!

Its certainly possible, and you have a few roads to success.

One, you can port your code to C#. this isn't all that bad, especially if you use unsafe{} blocks in order to preserve pointer code.

another option is to recompile the C++ code as managed, and then decorate your functions with attributes for web services. I have never gone the recompile way, but I would think it would be fairly simple...

I had the same issue, and I resolved it by using ATL Server.

Beer | [beer]

I posted this here because I had to address C# as well as VB folks and wanted to keep programming stuff out of the lounge and soapbox. If it should be there feel free to move it Smile | :)

Ok, I have to say that I have heard just about enough whining over .NET.

Flame me if you want (like I had to give permission Smile | :)

), but Here are the facts as I see them…

Does it cut out people still running Win95 systems? YES
Does it run better on high end hardware? YES
Does it require a big runtime / virtual machine? YES

Let’s take each of these on by one…

Win95: True, this was (IMHO) the best, most stable Microsoft OS in the pre98 days. Nothing was better (besides maybe NT for stability) until Windows 2000 came along. I do engineering level support for Intel and I have to tell you that there is no realistic way that you can continue to support older systems with newer features forever. We all knew Win95 was going out at some point. However I still hear people whining about it… Wah wah wah, Windows 2000 pro is too expensive and does not run well on my (ancient) hardware. Wake up and smell the new decade. It was Windows 95 people, time to move forward. Even when Win95 was the new thing I hated developing under it.

High end hardware: Yes, .NET does run better on good hardware. I run it on a mix of systems ranging from PII 333 with 128 Meg of ram to 1Ghz PIII with 512Meg. It rocks. No one should have to complain about hardware now days. You can get 1.7 gig systems with 256 meg ram and 7200 RPM HD for under $800 US today and they are only getting cheaper. Give me a break will ya. No one complains that computers are getting faster and more powerful but tons of people apparently love to complain that companies write software that needs the power. It is chicken and egg time folks. Hardware manufacturers make faster systems cheaper so software developers feel they can make software that uses that power and round in a big circle it goes. Don’t like it? MS will be supporting VB6 until 2008, Stay with that. If there is anyone running a P166 in 2008 they obviously don’t need any powerful new software anyway.

Large runtime: Yes the .NET runtime is huge. 21Meg is a bit large, and I think that MS might have been able to do a better job about segmenting things a bit to make it smaller downloads (only get what it needed). But this is what we have. I have a lowly cable modem connection at home and did a test download of the framework yesterday just to see how long it takes. It took me 3 minutes. True, if you have a dialup connection it could be murder, but who in their right mind would sell software and then force the customer to download the runtime? Include the darn thing on the CD! Oh, you don’t distribute your application on CD? Again, get with the decade…. Blanks cost what? $.20 a piece? Give up the way of the floppy will ya? And while you are at it, take a look at the big picture. The runtime was not meant to be shipped as an individual package for long. It will become a part of the OS soon, just like the JVM was. Give it time and you won’t even have to think about it as a developer.

Now, as I hear folks whining about these features I seem to recall others a few months / years back whining about the lack of features in VB:

Mad | :mad:

Give us full inheritance
Mad | :mad:

Give us better exception handling
Mad | :mad:

Give us a way to get around circular references
Mad | :mad:

Reference counting sucks!
Mad | :mad:

Dealing with the registry sucks!
Mad | :mad:

Binary compatibility is a hassle.
Mad | :mad:

Why do we have to struggle to get the same functionality as C++ programmers?

New features required a shift in the design.

Remember folks, .NET is NOT just a new language. It is a new architecture. No one complains when a designer has to invent a new type of construction material to build a new type of building. Why is everyone complaining that MS created a new architecture to build a new type of application?

Feel free to flame away.... Everyone can get to my email. If you feel that I am missing some fatal flaw here then feel free to let me know.

You just said everything I ever wanted to say but didn't have the guts to Smile | :)

James

I wish you can say something about this

I have to agree with a part of it; not having const variables is a detriment to anyone coming from a strict C++ background like Christian is.

I don't think it is a strong argument against C# though. The only time it comes into play is when you are working with the variables inside the class.

If something needs to be const to the public you can control how it is set via readonly fields and properties.

James

Wish I could help you there Smile | :)

but I have to admit that I have purposely sdtayed as far away from languages that have a 'C' in them for as long as I could. I have just started learning C# lately so I can't offer much there.

It is important to note also that I never said that the framework was perfect Smile | :)

Heck, nothing ever IS. In fact this brings up a good point...

How will updates to the framework be managed once it starts becoming popular on other OS's that MS does not have control over? Will developers have to start worring that thier code will run on a Windows machine but not on a Linux machine because they are not yet at the same patch level?

Ray Cassick wrote:
How will updates to the framework be managed once it starts becoming popular on other OS's that MS does not have control over?

The same way it works now; MS put out a new feature (the whole she-bang) and now the other groups that have created versions of their own should emulate those as well.

Ray Cassick wrote:
Will developers have to start worring that thier code will run on a Windows machine but not on a Linux machine because they are not yet at the same patch level?

This is always the case with any library, to use some VBisms you had to ensure that the version 6.0 runtime was on the client in order for your VB6 program to run; same deal here. However, unlike VB6 code it is possible to get programs to try to bind to differing versions of an assembly. So as long as you didn't use any new features from CLR 2.0 your application should work on a CLR 1.0 install, provided you place the necessary lines in your .config file.

James
"And we are all men; apart from the females." - Colin Davies

Finally someone who got it all said right...

People are forgeting this is the FUTURE of developement. In less than 3 years modems will be a thing for kids to trow at each other and the framework will be built into windows. If it didnt in someway stress current technology how could it take us far into the future? People hated the Win32 API when it was introduced with Windows 95, now many of you can't live without it. Change takes time to adopt, but you shouldnt knock it till you have tried it.

Also the future of development is cross platform and MS is the only company that can make that a reality (sun has failed). It is currently common for a person to be on many OS's to achieve different tasks. It will be the way of the future (and of the internet) to be able to download an app and run it no questions. Seriously look at software development and you will see MS is the only way thats possible.

I have to disagree. You will always have to maintain some form of interoperability - on your own - between J2EE, .Net, and BEA+IBM. Unless you play one of these platforms just for fun, as I do at the moment. Entreprise software require you these days to publish interfaces for both of the 3 worlds.

I have started lately to play with C#. It came not as a surprise that many of the underlying things are still very windows-like (wndproc and so on), not the expected new and full subscriber-event model. In other words, you still have to hang to the WIN32 SDK. A comparison with MS JDK 3.0 (1997) would be funny...

And I swallow a small raisin.

can i any body tell when i use the following code in managed application
CSocket *ptr;
ptr=new CSocket();

ptr->Create(port);

why the last line return false?

r00d0034@yahoo.com

how to programatically click a button on form ?
and how to moniter a buutton that it is being clicked?

r00d0034@yahoo.com

Simple and straightforward question:
Is it possible to write applets in C# (or in another of the .NET languages)

Hello everybody,

I've a C++ interface declared like this:
struct iExample
{
virtual MyFunc() = 0;
};

And the interface implemented in a DLL with one entry point which create this interface :
iExample* CreateIExample();

now I'd like to import and use this directly in .NET (more precisly C#) without the need of an extra C++ Managed DLL layer.

Is it possible ??

Tanks in advance.

Do I have to use SOAPSUDS.EXE to create a proxy object of an IIS-hosted remote object?

I'm hoping to be able to connect to the remote object and just cast it to a locally referenced interface.

Ideas?

Cheers,
Simon

"Sign up for a chance to be among the first to experience the wrath of the gods.", Microsoft's home page (24/06/2002)

I just got a copy of Visual Studio.net. Since I am new to programming I thought I would try building an app I have done in 6.0 so I could get a feel for the new lay out. I created a new class "CLine" for my drawing app and when I try adding functions like "CLine (CDC* pDC)" I get a message saying it's not a valid name. In 6.0 it works perfectly. Is there something I might be doing wrong? Any assistance and guidance would really be appreciated.

Thanks

What is the exact error message that is generated. It would also be helpful if you posted a snippet of the code that is causing the error.

Michael Smile | :)

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana

There does not seem to be an AVI animation control in .NET.

Disagree any one?

Joel

for now, the recommended solution is to use interop with media player.

Sounds icky but I'll take a look. I wonder what you have to distribute with your app to support this?

Joel