Re: Is There Any Reason to Even Use VC++ Anymore?


"Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uiJGaFq%23FHA.1600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Here's what I'm getting at. I use to program in C++ before managed stuff
> came into play (gc). So, when managed stuff did come into play, I had to
> convert my stuff to it.

Why? Is someone holding a gun to your head?

In our development environment, we start from the premise that "what isn't
broken shouldn't be fixed". Perhaps there was a compelling reason on your
case, but I wouldn't be seduced into "upgrading" your source code simply
because the features become available.

> Then CLI came into play. Now I'm converting my stuff to CLI since gc has
> been deprecated.
>
> Short of only using 'vanilla' C++, can I ever write code I'm sure will
> still be valid 'forever'? That is, code that can be re-used in future
> projects, say, 2+ years from now? How can one build a library of tools if
> the syntax keeps changing? Hence, I'm even worried about:
>
> "MS has deprecated C++/CLI in favor of C#". <shiver>
>

C++/CLI offers capabilities and a blending of the managed and native worlds
that cannot be duplicated with C#. I can assure you it is here for the long
term.

> Has CLI been made to be 'here to stay", or can we expect some VS.NET 2007
> upgrade to possibly deprecate CLI and expect us to learn yet another new
> syntax? Like I've mentioned before, one of the purposes of languages like
> C++ is the concept it will be re-usable in the future. This constantly
> changing the syntax violates that contract.

I disagree. Language extensions are never a contract, and that is exactly
what the old syntax represented. The old syntax is still supported, so you
have lots of time to adapt to the new "language extensions". Obviously, it
is not in the vendor's interest to keep modifying the language extensions
with each new version. But in this case, the syntax has been cleaned up, and
there is a clearer distinction between native pointers and reference
pointers.

>
> IMHO, a new version of a product should always be 100% backwards
> comaptible

Egad.... then I daresay you haven't had much experience putting out a
product that is widely used. There is a natural conflict between maintaining
backwards-compatibility and jettisoning out-dated and dangerous features and
coding styles. The former doesn't always win.

Indeed, even your favourite language C doesn't support the early versions of
the language when it was first developed by Bell Labs. Remember when int's
and pointers could be used pretty much interchangeably? Do you really want
to continue to support that?

> IF it's going to be called an UPGRADE. CLI is not backwards comaptible
> with 'gc', thus requiring conversion time that shouldn't be necessary for
> an upgrade, but in this case is absolutely required. Hence, VS 2005 is not
> an upgrade to 2003, IMHO, but a 'new' language.
>
> That being said, I really enjoy this new syntax, but wish I hadn't learned
> and programmed using "gc" syntax so much.

I think that is the real burn you are feeling. I managed to skip the "gc"
syntax... it was ugly, and Microsoft indicated this was going to be
revamped.

> And having done that, I'm worried a bit about investing time in CLI, since
> it could be deprecated in a few years too.

Again, don't worry. This is going to be around for the long term. Expect
improvements, bug fixes, and so on, but nothing as drastic as the recent
"upgrade".

>
> Do we have ANY guarantee along these lines, even in terms of limited-time
> (i.e., MS warrants that CLI will NOT be deprecated for X number of years)?
>

I wouldn't expect a guarantee from Microsoft. But they do listen to their
developers, and they do read this newsgroup, so your posting will be noted.

Brian (and I don't represent Microsoft :-)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is There Any Reason to Even Use VC++ Anymore?
    ... >The old syntax is still supported... ... I do think MS is doing a good job here with CLI and the way all ... > have lots of time to adapt to the new "language extensions". ... >> IF it's going to be called an UPGRADE. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vc)
  • Re: Is There Any Reason to Even Use VC++ Anymore?
    ... So, when managed stuff did come into play, I had to ... Then CLI came into play. ... How can one build a library of tools if the syntax ... IF it's going to be called an UPGRADE. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vc)
  • Re: Is There Any Reason to Even Use VC++ Anymore?
    ... > play, I had to convert my stuff to it. ... Then CLI came into play. ... > of tools if the syntax keeps changing? ... > comaptible IF it's going to be called an UPGRADE. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vc)
  • Re: plz i need some advice on c++
    ... C# language (more accurately C#/CLI) is just the syntax that takes advantage of a CLI compliant VM machine. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vc)
  • Re: newbie help again....
    ... VB.Net is *not* an upgrade to VB6. ... Think of it as an entirely new language that just happens to share similar ... syntax to VB6. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
Loading