Toolbox or legacy?
-
Dario Solera wrote:
In my opinion, there is no reason for using PHP for a new project, even the smallest one
here's a reason: .Net is not an option on the server you are writing for
Chris Losinger wrote:
here's a reason: .Net is not an option on the server you are writing for
Of course, but since I'm better with .NET than with PHP, surely no one is going to hire me to code PHP. It was an opinion from my point of view.
________________________________________________ Personal Blog [ITA] - Tech Blog [ENG] Developing ScrewTurn Wiki 1.1 (1.0.7 is out)
-
It'd suck if the respirator had to take a pause just because the garbage collector had to do a sweep.. :~
-- Please rise for the Futurama theme song
-
I have read a lot of posts over the years here on CP about developers "picking the right tool for the right job" or a given technology "is just another tool in the toolbox". Often when a battle occurs in the message boards about different technologies of which is better, there is always a few of those "it is just antoher tool in the toolbox" quotes. Okay, I will flaunt my age around here and say that I have been a programmer since 1981 and have plowed over many technologies (languages, frameworks, platforms) in that time. Some were great for development in the time they were used, but when new technologies appeared that made my life easier while still providing performance and maintainability, I would work with them until comfortable and then scrap the previous technology, not just cram it in my toolbox. The only time I would use the prior technologies is when I was forced to by either an employer or legacy code I had to maintain. Currently I work in C#/.NET and do not touch any other technology from the past. If I have a new project to build it will be C#/.NET. If work would come my way requiring a past technology (such as C/C++, PHP, etc) for new development, I would not take the work. To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use. Anyone else out there that just loves technology and burns their bridges to past technology to remain focused on the current technology?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Vista - Little Things
I am surprised that some people call C++ legacy. COBOL, FORTRAN or PASCAL would have been fine, but C++ is certainly not legacy. I gave a few interviews earlier this year, and everyone expected me to know C++, and sometimes Java as well, but no one talked about C#/.NET. But then I had applied in 'big' companies only.
-
I have read a lot of posts over the years here on CP about developers "picking the right tool for the right job" or a given technology "is just another tool in the toolbox". Often when a battle occurs in the message boards about different technologies of which is better, there is always a few of those "it is just antoher tool in the toolbox" quotes. Okay, I will flaunt my age around here and say that I have been a programmer since 1981 and have plowed over many technologies (languages, frameworks, platforms) in that time. Some were great for development in the time they were used, but when new technologies appeared that made my life easier while still providing performance and maintainability, I would work with them until comfortable and then scrap the previous technology, not just cram it in my toolbox. The only time I would use the prior technologies is when I was forced to by either an employer or legacy code I had to maintain. Currently I work in C#/.NET and do not touch any other technology from the past. If I have a new project to build it will be C#/.NET. If work would come my way requiring a past technology (such as C/C++, PHP, etc) for new development, I would not take the work. To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use. Anyone else out there that just loves technology and burns their bridges to past technology to remain focused on the current technology?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Vista - Little Things
To me, code packages written in C# for the same task are simpler than those written C++. So sometimes I write them in C# and then use another C# program already written to translate it into C++ to take advantage of C++ that several poster in this thread have already listed so that the complexities of C++, which is abstracted away by C#, can be handled or generated consistently. In C++, you have complete control over memory and low level issues so that you do not have to be bound to a particular memory management pattern--a shoe that may not fit all feet. Also you can extend your already existing systems, legacy or not, to take advantage of your new packages in both of you code bases, namely C++ and C# ones. Regards, S. Ying CryptoGateway
-
You must have missed the part about "if it's the most appropriate". Of course "appropriate" is a relative term. For me, .Net is appropriate only if the task is a web app, or if the requirements state that the task must be implemented with .net. Even then, I will still select C++ over anything else, again, if given the choice. C# has no benefit over C++ where desktop apps are concerned. At work, I have to support VC6 apps, VS2005 C++/MFC apps, and I'm working on a ASP/C# web app. At home, I'll always use C++/MFC because *I'm* dictating the requirements for those applications. I'll probably always use PHP for my web stuff because ASP/C# has left a really bad taste in my mouth (of course, it might be because the IDE is a completely unstable piece of CRAP, but that's a topic for another thread).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I can not speak for the web side of things, as I have never done any of that stuff (except for some SMTP email capabilities). But for desktop apps I will definitely be sticking to C++, with or without MFC. When I first joined CP the debate was between MFC and WTL. Many of the 'progressive' people were claiming that WTL was better because it did not require the 1MB runtime that came with MFC. Smaller, lighter footprint and all that. Now those same people (for the most part) are claiming that C#, with it's 21MB runtime is the better way to go. Come on guys, make up your minds, which is better? C++ with a relatively small footprint, that *may* take slightly longer to develop, or C# with it's huge runtime?
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
-
I can not speak for the web side of things, as I have never done any of that stuff (except for some SMTP email capabilities). But for desktop apps I will definitely be sticking to C++, with or without MFC. When I first joined CP the debate was between MFC and WTL. Many of the 'progressive' people were claiming that WTL was better because it did not require the 1MB runtime that came with MFC. Smaller, lighter footprint and all that. Now those same people (for the most part) are claiming that C#, with it's 21MB runtime is the better way to go. Come on guys, make up your minds, which is better? C++ with a relatively small footprint, that *may* take slightly longer to develop, or C# with it's huge runtime?
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
-
I can not speak for the web side of things, as I have never done any of that stuff (except for some SMTP email capabilities). But for desktop apps I will definitely be sticking to C++, with or without MFC. When I first joined CP the debate was between MFC and WTL. Many of the 'progressive' people were claiming that WTL was better because it did not require the 1MB runtime that came with MFC. Smaller, lighter footprint and all that. Now those same people (for the most part) are claiming that C#, with it's 21MB runtime is the better way to go. Come on guys, make up your minds, which is better? C++ with a relatively small footprint, that *may* take slightly longer to develop, or C# with it's huge runtime?
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
PJ Arends wrote:
C++ with a relatively small footprint, that *may* take slightly longer to develop, or C# with it's huge runtime?
The size of the runtime isn't really the issue for me (or my particular set of clients). Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
I can not speak for the web side of things, as I have never done any of that stuff (except for some SMTP email capabilities). But for desktop apps I will definitely be sticking to C++, with or without MFC. When I first joined CP the debate was between MFC and WTL. Many of the 'progressive' people were claiming that WTL was better because it did not require the 1MB runtime that came with MFC. Smaller, lighter footprint and all that. Now those same people (for the most part) are claiming that C#, with it's 21MB runtime is the better way to go. Come on guys, make up your minds, which is better? C++ with a relatively small footprint, that *may* take slightly longer to develop, or C# with it's huge runtime?
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
PJ Arends wrote:
Smaller, lighter footprint and all that. Now those same people (for the most part) are claiming that C#, with it's 21MB runtime is the better way to go.
Yes that is the funniest part. I am not only talking about CP but various other places too.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -Brian Kernighan
-
I can not speak for the web side of things, as I have never done any of that stuff (except for some SMTP email capabilities). But for desktop apps I will definitely be sticking to C++, with or without MFC. When I first joined CP the debate was between MFC and WTL. Many of the 'progressive' people were claiming that WTL was better because it did not require the 1MB runtime that came with MFC. Smaller, lighter footprint and all that. Now those same people (for the most part) are claiming that C#, with it's 21MB runtime is the better way to go. Come on guys, make up your minds, which is better? C++ with a relatively small footprint, that *may* take slightly longer to develop, or C# with it's huge runtime?
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
I have not only noticed this, but have had discussions where many issues which were seriously discussed when doing C++ development are, with C#.NET simply dismissed with a wave of the hand. My real world experience developing desktop apps is that C#.NET development takes longer than C++/MFC development. Part of this is due simply to experience, but a bigger part is due to the huge bag-o-tricks available in C++/MFC; not just commercially, but amongst various developers. Finally, C#.NET is missing a lot of small things that us desktop application developers take for granted. (As I've said before, the amount of P/Invoking one has to do borders on the ludicrous.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Jörgen, I think you, me, and John Simmonns are the last bastions of C++-ness here at CP.
Software Zen:
delete this;Dude! Throw me in - the VCF was developed as way to prove that C++ could be as easy to use as RAD languages like Delphi, Java or C#.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Some software are built to last for decades, installed on many sites. It is not feasible to make such software make use of the latest and the greatest.
5 Or if it is a man rated system. Do you want to go to a hospital whose systems are solid and proven reliable or do you want to go to one whose systems are upgraded to the latest MS coding options?
-
I have read a lot of posts over the years here on CP about developers "picking the right tool for the right job" or a given technology "is just another tool in the toolbox". Often when a battle occurs in the message boards about different technologies of which is better, there is always a few of those "it is just antoher tool in the toolbox" quotes. Okay, I will flaunt my age around here and say that I have been a programmer since 1981 and have plowed over many technologies (languages, frameworks, platforms) in that time. Some were great for development in the time they were used, but when new technologies appeared that made my life easier while still providing performance and maintainability, I would work with them until comfortable and then scrap the previous technology, not just cram it in my toolbox. The only time I would use the prior technologies is when I was forced to by either an employer or legacy code I had to maintain. Currently I work in C#/.NET and do not touch any other technology from the past. If I have a new project to build it will be C#/.NET. If work would come my way requiring a past technology (such as C/C++, PHP, etc) for new development, I would not take the work. To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use. Anyone else out there that just loves technology and burns their bridges to past technology to remain focused on the current technology?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Vista - Little Things
I don't think there is any question that in the world of programming using outdated legacy tools for new projects is just plain silly. I keep up with and use the latest technology. I'm on the toolbox side but to me that means a toolbox full of the latest and greatest, not a toolbox crammed with every tool ever invented.
-
I have read a lot of posts over the years here on CP about developers "picking the right tool for the right job" or a given technology "is just another tool in the toolbox". Often when a battle occurs in the message boards about different technologies of which is better, there is always a few of those "it is just antoher tool in the toolbox" quotes. Okay, I will flaunt my age around here and say that I have been a programmer since 1981 and have plowed over many technologies (languages, frameworks, platforms) in that time. Some were great for development in the time they were used, but when new technologies appeared that made my life easier while still providing performance and maintainability, I would work with them until comfortable and then scrap the previous technology, not just cram it in my toolbox. The only time I would use the prior technologies is when I was forced to by either an employer or legacy code I had to maintain. Currently I work in C#/.NET and do not touch any other technology from the past. If I have a new project to build it will be C#/.NET. If work would come my way requiring a past technology (such as C/C++, PHP, etc) for new development, I would not take the work. To me it is a waste of my time to work on legacy systems when there is so much work to be done in the current technology I use. Anyone else out there that just loves technology and burns their bridges to past technology to remain focused on the current technology?
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Vista - Little Things
Two observations 1 - adding a new tool to the toolbox, by definition, means the old tool gets used less. I bought a new drill, a chordless one. Being more portable means a lot on an 11 acre property - the powered one gets used a lot less, and I really reach for the new one by instinct now, where the old one always got used, now it gets used ONLY where I need the extra power it has, if both will do, I tend to use the new one. My old C++ days compared to my post C# C++ days work in a similar way 2 - the 'tool in the toolbox' thing is also a cliche. Someone one defended VB6 to me using this terminology ( fair enough ), and when I dug deeper, I found that he regards VB6 the right tool for EVERY job. So, even people who tie themselves to one technology will say this, because they've learned by example that it's the right way to look at the wrong approach :-)
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Hockey wrote:
My only comment is that I find it odd you refer to PHP as "past" technology...
It's an actual technology, but it's really too "basic" in my opinion compared to (obviously) ASP.NET. So, although it is actively developed, it's very obsolete. IMHO.
________________________________________________ Personal Blog [ITA] - Tech Blog [ENG] Developing ScrewTurn Wiki 1.1 (1.0.7 is out)
Actively developed...and very obsolete... :P Listen to what you just said...oxymoron anyone? The fact you suggest PHP is obsolete compared to ASP...or that it's antiquated...IMHO demonstrates your lack of experience in using PHP... For everything you can do in ASP.NET I can do in PHP 100 different ways because of the power in open source software...there are countless PHP frameworks each specializing in one market or another as well as bare bones generic ones like Zend, PEAR and others... Do yourself a favour and google both "PHP" and "ASP" you will see that PHP more than doubles ASP ;) The LAMP stack is the *most* popular configuration on the planet....no question about it...it's power and flexibility in open source...ASP is merely for newbies :P Just kidding of course...but the fact PHP is open source and based on C syntax...it has a tendancy to attract more advanced developers...coming from either years of experience in C/C++ who don't want to follow the path of C#...or those academically trained coming from a Java background... Yes PHP has short falls in some areas, particularly the object model isn't quite up to par yet, but a skilled disciplined developer doesn't absolutely need member access control, etc... I dropped my interest in ASP about 5 years ago...and picked up PERL...lost interest, took up PHP and I have never looked back...PHP does everything I want it to...faster, cleaner and better than any other web technology or language... Cheers :)
It's frustrating being a genius and living the life of a moron!!!
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
More for us!
and more of the FUN stuff!!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
:jig: :jig:
-- Larva-Tested, Pupa-Approved
-
Jörgen, I think you, me, and John Simmonns are the last bastions of C++-ness here at CP.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
Jörgen, I think you, me, and John Simmonns are the last bastions of C++-ness here at CP
Over my dead body.
-
Then it's good it's implemented as a separate thread I would say. It'd suck if the respirator had to crash just because the programmer forgot some deletes.
It'd suck when the separate thread needs to lock the heap in order to compact it. ;P
Rohde wrote:
It'd suck if the respirator had to crash just because the programmer forgot some deletes.
Real programmers don't forget to delete. ;P
-- When you see the robot, drink!
-
I can not speak for the web side of things, as I have never done any of that stuff (except for some SMTP email capabilities). But for desktop apps I will definitely be sticking to C++, with or without MFC. When I first joined CP the debate was between MFC and WTL. Many of the 'progressive' people were claiming that WTL was better because it did not require the 1MB runtime that came with MFC. Smaller, lighter footprint and all that. Now those same people (for the most part) are claiming that C#, with it's 21MB runtime is the better way to go. Come on guys, make up your minds, which is better? C++ with a relatively small footprint, that *may* take slightly longer to develop, or C# with it's huge runtime?
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
PJ Arends wrote:
Now those same people (for the most part) are claiming that C#
Ahem. I'm not in the C#-crowd. :)
-- No humans were probed in the making of this episode
-
Are you sure it wasn't the pro-MFC crowd that now favour C#? I find it hard to imagine many WTL developers doing such a blatant 180 degree flip! :) :)
Kicking squealing Gucci little piggy.
Me neither. :~ WTL people are C++ lovers. They don't abandon a language because there's syntactic sugar and garbage collection on the other side of the fence.
-- Bender's humor by Microsoft Joke
-
Dario Solera wrote:
there is no reason for using PHP for a new project
When you're coding for a linux server that doesn't support asp... Man, the egos are so thick around here that you can almost hurt yourself when you bump up against one.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
When you're coding for a linux server that doesn't support asp...
If the choice is between ASP and PHP, I'll go for PHP on any platform.
-- Transmitido en Martian en SAP
