Re: Managed C++
- From: "David Webber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:50:41 +0100
"Eugene Gershnik" <gershnik@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OECllwBTFHA.3228@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> A small comment. I just wonder why everybody seems to agree to use
> MS newspeak. There is AFAIK an industry-wide term used for code
> that executes directly on the CPU and it is 'native' code.
In my case (as an MFC hack of many years standing who has never
actually tried .NET) it is because I was unsure of the nature of
the equivalence between "unmanaged code" and "native code", and of
mechanisms like the managed heap and the unmanaged heap.. But I'm
getting a far clearer picture from this thread and "native code"
makes a lot of sense. I feel that I'm learning a lot which will
help me get my bearings if and when I get into it.
Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Managed C++
- From: Eugene Gershnik
- Re: Managed C++
- References:
- Managed C++
- From: David Webber
- Re: Managed C++
- From: Nemanja Trifunovic
- Re: Managed C++
- From: David Webber
- Re: Managed C++
- From: William DePalo [MVP VC++]
- Re: Managed C++
- From: David Webber
- Re: Managed C++
- From: Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]
- Re: Managed C++
- From: Eugene Gershnik
- Managed C++
- Prev by Date: Re: Managed C++
- Next by Date: Re: Getc() Problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Managed C++
- Next by thread: Re: Managed C++
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|