Re: Up to date MFC Book
- From: "Tom Serface" <tserface@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:08:53 -0700
The debate goes on. I think a lot of C++ programmers tried C# because it
was much easier to use early on in .NET development. We didn't get the
decent CLI until really recently. So, perhaps C++ was a little late to the
..NET party. That coupled with some of the utilities of Visual Studio
working in C# and VB and not C++ makes them even more compelling. C# is
pretty easy to learn for seasoned C++ programmers once they can get past the
idea of being restricted so much, but that's mostly a .NET thing, not C#'s
fault.
Tom
"Daniel James" <wastebasket@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VA.00000ece.6207db6d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article news:<1156874359.249132.312020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ajay Kalra wrote:
[C++/CLI is] an excellent bridge to the managed world. But keep
in mind that its a bridge and not a replacement. Why have a bridge
unless you need it.
Bridge? C++/CLI is the most powerful language that generates .NET
executables. Why would any C++ programmer not use it?
.
- References:
- Up to date MFC Book
- From: AB
- Re: Up to date MFC Book
- From: David Wilkinson
- Re: Up to date MFC Book
- From: Ajay Kalra
- Re: Up to date MFC Book
- From: David Ching
- Re: Up to date MFC Book
- From: Ajay Kalra
- Re: Up to date MFC Book
- From: David Ching
- Re: Up to date MFC Book
- From: Tom Serface
- Re: Up to date MFC Book
- From: David Ching
- Re: Up to date MFC Book
- From: Ajay Kalra
- Re: Up to date MFC Book
- From: Ajay Kalra
- Re: Up to date MFC Book
- From: Daniel James
- Up to date MFC Book
- Prev by Date: Re: Up to date MFC Book
- Next by Date: Re: Up to date MFC Book
- Previous by thread: Re: Up to date MFC Book
- Next by thread: Re: Up to date MFC Book
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|