|
I am fairly new to actual C++ and have to say for quick and dirty C# is great. But you have far more control and power available to you with C++. This to me is like asking why C++ programmers don't like VB as much. Hey it's great but if I need to have a continually refreshing list view I don't want to here users complain about flickering. I also don't want my data to be back logged so the threading support in C++ was a major reason. Everyone I talk too says C# is great but when you need to have more control C++ is still the way to go. Also, if you want pure speed use native C++ not the .NET framework variety so that still is a major, major plus in C++.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
Hey it's great but if I need to have a continually refreshing list view I don't want to here users complain about flickering
You can still use double buffering in C#/.NET to avoid flickering
Anonymous wrote:
I also don't want my data to be back logged so the threading support in C++ was a major reason
C#/.NET has a threading model (System.Threading) that is very robust, that can perform similar tasks as C++.
Anonymous wrote:
Also, if you want pure speed use native C++ not the .NET framework variety so that still is a major, major plus in C++.
If you are just concerned about speed then you should just write assembly specific to the cpu's instruction set.
I don't think you quite understand C# vs. C++, they are both meant for specific tasks.
These arguments about language choice are funny, you choose your tool for the job, it is as simply as that. Now if you are educated enough to know what language offers what features then your doing well.
R.Bischoff | C++
.NET, Kommst du mit?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I was referring to VB in comparing with C++. I should have split into paragraphs but I am lazy like that.
<here's a="" new="" one="">
However I haven't had time to sit and play with all the aspects of C# so the information you provided is helpfull.
|
|
|
|
|
Because C# is intimately tied to the .NET platform, which is by no means universally accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sumo_guy wrote:
I mean it's so much easier to write C#/DirectX 9.0 than it is to write C++/DirectX 9.0 trust me i know.
The problem there is not C++/C#, it's the Microsoft implimentation of DX.
sumo_guy wrote:
I have even read a few books where the authors were former C++ developers and then came C# and they never went back.
Anyone who has abandoned C++ for C# *entirely* was clearly too stupid to use C++ in the first place. ASP.NET is a killer app, and C# is a nice language for that, but give me C++ for the desktop at this stage.
Christian
NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion C# is not accepted by me for several reasons.. First it fits in the same category to me and Java and Shockwave on web pages (Both of which is a poor attempt at fitting a square peg in a round hole - C# is a poor attempt at brining C++ to the Visual Basic masses. VB for VB, C++ for C++. Oil and water there. Don’t mix em.)
C# is not portable. Windows Only
So in response to the overall survey I would say. Kill C# abandon it and treat it like a bad military experiment that went wrong.. destroy all documentation and say it never existed.. and umm.. death to all VB coders and all VB website managers that include "C++ Help, C++ Tutorials, Learn C++ here" in there meta tags!
|
|
|
|
|
ROK_RShadow wrote:
C# is not portable. Windows Only
There is actually an open-source linux implementation[^] of C# and the .NET framework being developed by the Ximian team.
"We will thrive in the new environment, leaping across space and time, everywhere and nowhere, like air or radiation, redundant, self-replicating, and always evolving." -unspecified individual
|
|
|
|
|
MS have sent in a patent application for the whole .NET CLR, and you could say goodbye to mono if it passes.
|
|
|
|
|
Ya, and port will prolly be as stable as Perl32 for Windows 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a C++ head, and I love C#. As many are pointing out, each language is geared toward a specific need. C++ gives you performance out the wazoo, but is decidedly overkill for most applications. My rule of thumb is if you need to go as high performance as possible, do it where it counts, and do it in C/C++ (with inline assembly if you need.) Otherwise, it's all right to use higher-level languages such as C#. I would think that if you need to render a 3D scene for a realtime medical application, that you'd use C / C++, despite the grungy low-level nature.
|
|
|
|
|
C# is a good language and will grow to be a great language. However, I work with systems software that is written in C andC++. Learning Managed Extensions for C++ (MC++) was the best solution for my situation.
I have learned and forgotten languages such as FORTRAN, COBOL, RPG, Pascal, BASIC and Visual BASIC. I am not afraid of change. At this time, I don't have a good reason to drop C++ in favor of C# development. I would like to see C# mature a little more before I make that decision.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a C++ program and I like C# designed to do the job it does best in the .Net framework.
|
|
|
|
|
Is VB.NET a language you take seriously or do old prejudices from the VB6 days still hold sway?
Why must it be 'old prejudices' ? This question presumes that anyone who liked VB ( yes, both of you, you know who you are ) will also like VB.NET, or that if I don't, I'm just prejudiced, and have no valid reason for feeling that way.
And VB.NET WILL be deprecated, what else is C# for ?
Christian
No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer.
- Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael
P Butler 05-12-2002
It'd probably be fairly easy to make a bot that'd post random stupid VB questions, and nobody would probably ever notice - benjymous - 21-Jan-2003
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have an opinion on this one. Chris L., please give me one. (inside joke, you would have to read a thread Chris and I had.)
Tim Smith
I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
|
|
|
|
|
I like See Sharp because it's easier to say than See Plus Plus.
|
|
|
|
|
(b.t.w., that was me.)
-c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
LOL
Tim Smith
I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
|
|
|
|
|
You mean that it is not called SEEpound?
Paul Watson wrote:
"At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote:
"Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
|
|
|
|
|
Where are all the C++'ers who damn VB? Now that you finally have a official space to brag, nobody dares it.
powerful binary resource reuse - another word for "no sources, you are stuck with a pain-in-the-a## COM component"
|
|
|
|
|
What are you talking about? 65% of the votes so far either say VB should be deprecated, or that they don't like it but accept it.
I personally wonder what the whole point of VB.NET is. It is different enough from VB 6 that old VB'ers pretty much have to learn a new language... so why not go on and use C#, built from the ground-up to have the object-oriented and code-reuse advantages of C++, but being able to take full advantage of .NET?
(Note: I don't really do much .NET programming, but if I had to, I would definitely use C#.)
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.
|
|
|
|
|
Navin wrote:
personally wonder what the whole point of VB.NET is. It is different enough from VB 6 that old VB'ers pretty much have to learn a new language... so why not go on and use C#, built from the ground-up
Because they are not able to understand all those complicated semicolons and braces.
|
|
|
|
|
.. or the concept of re-usable code.
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand your reasoning here. VBers don't understand things like classes and ActiveX controls?
Paul Watson wrote:
"At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote:
"Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
|
|
|
|
|
Ray Cassick wrote:
I don't understand your reasoning here. VBers don't understand things like classes and ActiveX controls?
It seems most VBers don't actually *write* ActiveX controls... they just use them. And anyway, that's only part of code-reuse... try to explain the concept of a reusable base class to a VB-er and you will usually get a blank stare.
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
