Re: C++\CLI and STL.NET and clr\safe

> I read the articles in the vc.* and vs.* newsgroups religiously, and I
> just
> don't see how this .NET stuff is making things easier. New changes to the
> syntax every version, incompatibilities, framework issues, installation
> issues, framework security patches, getting farther abstracted from what's
> happening and not being able to debug,...

One of the problems is that, IMHO, a language should never be called an
'upgrade' if it isn't 100% backwards compatible with the version it is an
upgrade to...

Clearly, if one uses this definition, 2005 is not really an upgrade to
2003...

It's ironic that some of the main purposes behind high-level languages have
been lost - they are no longer machine independent (transportability) and
often must be syntaxically changed to continue using (re-usabilty). While I
really do like the syntax used in 2005, this constant changing (an
oxymoron!) without being backwards compatible makes me wonder if any version
of VS can be relied upon for any length of time to entertain the concept
that a piece of code is actually 'done'. MS has even aggressively announced
that the '__gc' syntax will be removed in the future, thereby rendering the
2003 version useless. How do we know this won't be announced in 2 years with
2005 as well, keeping in mind that the '__gc' syntax was released with a lot
of enthusiasm as well?

[==P==]

PS - At least tell me the Frameworks are backwards compatible, or at least
co-existable, otherwise old software would no longer run...

"Michael Viking" <TheViking@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ODLAt8v6FHA.3880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> It's all about managers. That's the whole problem; started with the Java
> people: market your language to management, not engineers. Genius, but I
> think in the end it's bad. Heck, we've got customers demanding software
> be
> written with certain languages. They don't even know anything about the
> languages, just various FUD and hype they've read. The fact is, no
> language
> fits every task perfectly.
>
> I read the articles in the vc.* and vs.* newsgroups religiously, and I
> just
> don't see how this .NET stuff is making things easier. New changes to the
> syntax every version, incompatibilities, framework issues, installation
> issues, framework security patches, getting farther abstracted from what's
> happening and not being able to debug,...
>
> Meanwhile, people get less and less traction on what they're trying to do,
> because they're always upgrading and then needing to modify their code for
> the new stuff. When does it end? The fact is, the tools from 5 years ago
> gave everybody what they needed to be successful. The only thing needed
> was
> bug fixes, better compliance, better STL, and better code optimization.
>
> I'm not even saying that some of the .NET stuff isn't well thought out or
> whatever and it has good points, I'm just saying that the world doesn't
> need
> another proprietary language, and .NET isn't the panacea that the
> multi-billion dollar marketing campaign makes it out to be. The world is
> short of good, talented programmers, and this is an education problem, not
> a
> "we didn't have the right language" problem.
>
> -Michael Viking
>
> "Herby" <prmarjoram@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1132166280.703618.156140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> LOL! Talk to my managers!
>> Iv been crying the same for about 2 months now... but am slowly coming
>> round to the idea.
>>
>> Ultimately the component will be used on the internet and in intranets
>> which are to become 'low trust' environments and so the code must be
>> verifiable. So its about guaranteeing security and fitting in with
>> other components that are also .NET.
>>
>> Long terms as well it should become platform independent( .NET VM )
>> which COM and MFC never were. I guess they are worried about it
>> becoming obsolete.
>>
>> Performance is critical as the application is a type of calculator,
>> much work over the past 5 years has been related to this aspect. So im
>> not sure what performance we will lose or possibly gain ???
>>
>> We also have to replace ODBC with .NET.ADO remove references to the
>> CRT etc.
>>
>> If i have produced a .NET C++\CLI STL.NET application that compiles to
>> clr\safe and it just aint good enough, its not going to be too
>> difficult to convert it back to un-managed.
>>
>> Im also concerned about the MFC classes becoming .NET compatible in a
>> future release, beyond 2005 and native classes being created on the
>> managed heap!
>> Its possible after converting it all, my original code will compile to
>> .NET safe at some later date.
>>
>> At the end of the day they are paying me to do this and i am learning
>> alot... Im taking it seriously now.
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the Java Lang will support Properties in Futuere?
    ... then you use the method syntax. ... Currently Java supports having properties with a dot syntax by dint of public instance variables, something that is conventionally regarded as anathema. ... in other languages they are a language construct that defines the members as a pair of methods. ... More generally, the entire framework of data binding in .NET, a broadly supported and used feature in a wide variety of applications, relies on properties to do a lot of the heavy-lifting. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: What are your favorite Ruby features?
    ... object-capability based security ... a framework for GUI applications and an IDE built with ... instead pixel screens and Unicode and that programming language ... syntax should reflect that (e.g. Ruby's syntax was essentially ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: update processor question
    ... ..NET is a framework with thousands of classes that include functions ... framework is defined by its syntax. ... there is one language with syntax that could be ... syntax only contains one word, namely Ook, but pronounced in different ...
    (comp.databases.pick)
  • Re: Implicit object constructor misinterpretation
    ... specified for the language that is being parsed. ... sub-set of the syntax for object literals. ... document that will teach anyone how to program with javascript. ... Consider the issue in your OP; you can speculate about "broken switch-case" or "not a constructor but a block of statements", but an examination of the spec shows that the observed behaviour corresponds with the specified behaviour, and explains the specified behaviour. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: What is this code doing?
    ... Using the same syntax for most statements helps make the ... add, ebx); ... Instruction composition readability is another reason ... Jim Neil's Terse language). ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
Loading