Re: Conversion from 2003 to 2005 just too hard
- From: "Sebastian Dau" <sebastian.dau@xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:27:19 +0100
"Nishant Sivakumar" <nish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Odu6JGv5FHA.4076@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I understand your pain, Peter - but for about an year and a half, it was
>pretty obvious that investing time in MC++ code would not be such a smart
>thing to do, ever since Herb Sutter talked about C++/CLI a few PDCs ago.
>Every time someone had asked if it was worthwhile to try Managed C++ (old
>syntax), I had explicitly told them that my advice would be to wait for
>2005. I did this in spite of the fact that this would probably affect the
>sales of my book (which targetted the old syntax).
Are you telling us as an MVP, that you suggest not to use a whole product of
microsoft just because
you are familiar with the MS's inconvenient way of improving unlovely
products?
Isn't it pain in the ass situation to suffer a monololists stategies?
downward compatibility should be
a development goal not an unloved duty.
..NET rocks and MS did a good job but they should continue their work and
improve update stragegies.
Greets, Sebastian Dau
.
- References:
- Conversion from 2003 to 2005 just too hard
- From: Peter Oliphant
- Conversion from 2003 to 2005 just too hard
- Prev by Date: GetRequestedRuntimeInfo and .NET v1.0
- Next by Date: Re: probing for CLR
- Previous by thread: Re: Conversion from 2003 to 2005 just too hard
- Next by thread: Talking to a standard serial port
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
