Why .NET?
-
If there's a better place to ask this question - feel free to redirect me! Background: I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). Problem: I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. So that's my question to you: why .NET? Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the future for a large range of applications. Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.
-
If there's a better place to ask this question - feel free to redirect me! Background: I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). Problem: I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. So that's my question to you: why .NET? Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the future for a large range of applications. Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
and to be honest I really prefer non-VM code
Here here. I too have no will to switch over to the world of dotNET. While there are bit and pieces of dotNET which I like on the whole I feel no compelling pressure to switch. I’m quite at home with C++ and the apps I write will out perform the dotNET equivalent. When you add libraries such as Boost into the mix I really have no reason to switch what so ever. You often hear people say that computers are so fast that it doesn’t matter how well apps perform or that RAMs so cheap it doesn’t matter how much memory it consumes but in my experience this simply isn’t true. Steve
-
If there's a better place to ask this question - feel free to redirect me! Background: I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). Problem: I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. So that's my question to you: why .NET? Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the future for a large range of applications. Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much).
Lots of people here seem to hate VC++ as far as the quality of its C++ is concerned. Although many love the IDE.
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. So that's my question to you: why .NET?
Well, as far as I can see, most .NET development is directed at the web and web services. For those scenarios .NET seems pretty good. C++ is pretty poor here but probably very suitable for apps. outside this arena. For people who use languages other than C/C++ .NET is good in that it makes a rich collection of libraries available to them without having to learn a completely new language(s).
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I really prefer non-VM code.
On the whole I prefer VM or other type of managed code. But I agree that nothing is a solution for all problems. I do know at least two excellent C++ developers who've switched to Java and prefer it greatly. I don't mind writing C++ myself but I hate having to maintain others' C++ which is often C masquerading as C++ and thus worse than either. And I don't mean just that it's not OO. Kevin
-
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much).
Lots of people here seem to hate VC++ as far as the quality of its C++ is concerned. Although many love the IDE.
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. So that's my question to you: why .NET?
Well, as far as I can see, most .NET development is directed at the web and web services. For those scenarios .NET seems pretty good. C++ is pretty poor here but probably very suitable for apps. outside this arena. For people who use languages other than C/C++ .NET is good in that it makes a rich collection of libraries available to them without having to learn a completely new language(s).
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I really prefer non-VM code.
On the whole I prefer VM or other type of managed code. But I agree that nothing is a solution for all problems. I do know at least two excellent C++ developers who've switched to Java and prefer it greatly. I don't mind writing C++ myself but I hate having to maintain others' C++ which is often C masquerading as C++ and thus worse than either. And I don't mean just that it's not OO. Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
C++ which is often C masquerading as C++ and thus worse than either
All to often this is the case. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've looked in a C++ app and found people grubbing around with
char*andstrcmpinstead of usingstd::stringfor example. Steve -
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
C++ which is often C masquerading as C++ and thus worse than either
All to often this is the case. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've looked in a C++ app and found people grubbing around with
char*andstrcmpinstead of usingstd::stringfor example. SteveYep. That is exactly the thing I mean! :) I was even told on a project about a year or so ago: "we don't use STL here." Of course, what he meant was that he doesn't use STL and doesn't like it. So he sticks with his char* and strcmp. My tiny use of STL was removed! Still, it was only a 3-week assignment, so I didn't care. Kevin
-
Yep. That is exactly the thing I mean! :) I was even told on a project about a year or so ago: "we don't use STL here." Of course, what he meant was that he doesn't use STL and doesn't like it. So he sticks with his char* and strcmp. My tiny use of STL was removed! Still, it was only a 3-week assignment, so I didn't care. Kevin
I guess there will always be people who insist on rubbing two sticks together rather then using a lighter:) Steve