C++ Programmers unite!
-
So there's all this talk of why C# is better than VB and why Ruby on Rails is just the peachiest thing ever, except that PERL is way hard core and blah blah blah. I found an old C++ T-shirt that I love: "My compiler compiled your compiler" And to me that says it all. C++ is still like driving a manual (sitckshift) car versus an automatic. C++ still kicks any .NET language's bum in terms of speed. C++ still allows you far more annoying and impressive errors than most other modern languages. So C++ devs: Tell us why C++ is just plain old better.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I've been a C# developer for 2.5 years now. I taught myself a little C++ in my final year at uni for my project (mainly because it was more fun than the Java they taught), so I've had a taste of it. Would you recommend learning C++ properly? and what style, managed or classic? The good thing about managed is that I'm already pretty good with the .NET framework, so all I really need to learn is the slightly different syntax. If I learn classic, I'd also have to learn a bunch of other stuff like MFC or whatever. Is it worth it? Should I just stick with C#?
Simon
-
I've been a C# developer for 2.5 years now. I taught myself a little C++ in my final year at uni for my project (mainly because it was more fun than the Java they taught), so I've had a taste of it. Would you recommend learning C++ properly? and what style, managed or classic? The good thing about managed is that I'm already pretty good with the .NET framework, so all I really need to learn is the slightly different syntax. If I learn classic, I'd also have to learn a bunch of other stuff like MFC or whatever. Is it worth it? Should I just stick with C#?
Simon
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
"My compiler compiled your compiler"
Chris Maunder wrote:
is still like driving a manual (sitckshift) car versus an automatic.
Chris Maunder wrote:
still allows you far more annoying and impressive errors than most other modern languages.
Chris Maunder wrote:
is just plain old better.
Are you talking about
C? :-DIf the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain ClarkeWell put! You know, Torvalds' impression about C++ compared to C is similar to Maunder's impresion on C# vs C++.
-
So there's all this talk of why C# is better than VB and why Ruby on Rails is just the peachiest thing ever, except that PERL is way hard core and blah blah blah. I found an old C++ T-shirt that I love: "My compiler compiled your compiler" And to me that says it all. C++ is still like driving a manual (sitckshift) car versus an automatic. C++ still kicks any .NET language's bum in terms of speed. C++ still allows you far more annoying and impressive errors than most other modern languages. So C++ devs: Tell us why C++ is just plain old better.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
For that Chris, there is a need for an SVN on CP, long overdue. Then everyone can hammer at a proposal for say Media namespace for Boost. One that is agnostic, DirectX or OpenGL based or xyz based. Implementing something similar to Flash or that tiny SilverLight install base would not be hard with such awesome libs, would put both Java and .NET to shame, and it would avoid all MS patent/algorithms. There is plenty of scope as the focus for C++ 2009 has been on bits that are most important in any engineering work, that it scales well and are designed like a space-shuttle. Only then you can aim for mass-market 'comeback' and without "code C++ like C" horrors in cryptography (and of course learning from other people's mistakes like MS has been doing with browsers, Java, databases, tools etc). Also, I don't think it is a bad thing people are calling it 'dead'. It is a great misconception that keeps many people in business. Evidently, the latest MS technologies too.. and in my humble opinion, they are demonstrating that markup and runtime design is the last thing you want to do anyway; a moving target. What's hard or unknown about VMs these days?
-
I've been a C# developer for 2.5 years now. I taught myself a little C++ in my final year at uni for my project (mainly because it was more fun than the Java they taught), so I've had a taste of it. Would you recommend learning C++ properly? and what style, managed or classic? The good thing about managed is that I'm already pretty good with the .NET framework, so all I really need to learn is the slightly different syntax. If I learn classic, I'd also have to learn a bunch of other stuff like MFC or whatever. Is it worth it? Should I just stick with C#?
Simon
In all seriousness it depends on what you do. Learning (and really knowing) C++ will help you in any programming you do. It's like learning how to act in the classics in order to do a stint in a Soap opera. It may seem overkill but it gives you the insight to understand what your code is actually doing. My day to day work is all C# but knowing C++ means I get what the garbage collector is doing, I understand the importance of creating objects only when I need them, that I know how the Dictionary classes work and that sometimes, when it's dark and cold outside, I wake up shivering, wishing that the
newoperator returned null when the app was out of memory.cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
So there's all this talk of why C# is better than VB and why Ruby on Rails is just the peachiest thing ever, except that PERL is way hard core and blah blah blah. I found an old C++ T-shirt that I love: "My compiler compiled your compiler" And to me that says it all. C++ is still like driving a manual (sitckshift) car versus an automatic. C++ still kicks any .NET language's bum in terms of speed. C++ still allows you far more annoying and impressive errors than most other modern languages. So C++ devs: Tell us why C++ is just plain old better.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I do not understand why someone would give up control for "ease of use". In my experience anytime you go for ease of use you are giving up performance. Does anyone besides me remember the VB3 to VB4 fiasco which was then repeated with the .NET 1 to .NET 1.1 fiasco? Why build in dependency that exceeds just the OS and a few simple libraries?
'With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control,mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country! from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?' - Jay Leno
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
You have to draw a line somewhere and the line is drawn at C++.
Your biased opinion :)
norm .net wrote:
Your biased opinion
Feel free to prove it. :)
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
I've been a C# developer for 2.5 years now. I taught myself a little C++ in my final year at uni for my project (mainly because it was more fun than the Java they taught), so I've had a taste of it. Would you recommend learning C++ properly? and what style, managed or classic? The good thing about managed is that I'm already pretty good with the .NET framework, so all I really need to learn is the slightly different syntax. If I learn classic, I'd also have to learn a bunch of other stuff like MFC or whatever. Is it worth it? Should I just stick with C#?
Simon
Simon Stevens wrote:
Would you recommend learning C++ properly?
Yes.
Simon Stevens wrote:
and what style, managed or classic?
'classic' (managed
C++is a crap, however this goes on my arrogant...).Simon Stevens wrote:
Is it worth it?
Yes.
Simon Stevens wrote:
Should I just stick with C#?
It remains an option. If you really enjoy
C#, be stuck with it. :)If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke -
So there's all this talk of why C# is better than VB and why Ruby on Rails is just the peachiest thing ever, except that PERL is way hard core and blah blah blah. I found an old C++ T-shirt that I love: "My compiler compiled your compiler" And to me that says it all. C++ is still like driving a manual (sitckshift) car versus an automatic. C++ still kicks any .NET language's bum in terms of speed. C++ still allows you far more annoying and impressive errors than most other modern languages. So C++ devs: Tell us why C++ is just plain old better.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
So C++ devs: Tell us why C++ is just plain old better.
Sorry. What was that? While you were busy with your pointers I was busy slamming out 3 applications, complete with database access scaled out over multiple sites. Only kidding - I recently refound my love for C++.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
norm .net wrote:
Your biased opinion
Feel free to prove it. :)
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
So C++ devs: Tell us why C++ is just plain old better.
Sorry. What was that? While you were busy with your pointers I was busy slamming out 3 applications, complete with database access scaled out over multiple sites. Only kidding - I recently refound my love for C++.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
While you were busy with your pointers
Not to mention memory leaks...
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
While you were busy with your pointers
Not to mention memory leaks...
norm .net wrote:
Not to mention memory leaks...
Shhhh. We don't mention memory leaks.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
So there's all this talk of why C# is better than VB and why Ruby on Rails is just the peachiest thing ever, except that PERL is way hard core and blah blah blah. I found an old C++ T-shirt that I love: "My compiler compiled your compiler" And to me that says it all. C++ is still like driving a manual (sitckshift) car versus an automatic. C++ still kicks any .NET language's bum in terms of speed. C++ still allows you far more annoying and impressive errors than most other modern languages. So C++ devs: Tell us why C++ is just plain old better.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
For typical business app C# or other managed languages are good. But most of the software on my current system is still written in C or C++ with the OS itself. Also the most of the .NET Virtual Execution System. What other peoples system contain? Most softwares are written in C#? Possibly not.
Maruf Maniruzzaman Dhaka, Bangladesh. Homepage: http://www.kuashaonline.com
[Blog] [Silverlight Clone] [Resume] -
I do not understand why someone would give up control for "ease of use". In my experience anytime you go for ease of use you are giving up performance. Does anyone besides me remember the VB3 to VB4 fiasco which was then repeated with the .NET 1 to .NET 1.1 fiasco? Why build in dependency that exceeds just the OS and a few simple libraries?
'With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control,mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country! from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?' - Jay Leno
Timothy W. Okrey wrote:
I do not understand why someone would give up control for "ease of use".
Because in the eyes of The Business, less control and more ease of use translates to better productivity -- more results for less money. Peace!
-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles -
So there's all this talk of why C# is better than VB and why Ruby on Rails is just the peachiest thing ever, except that PERL is way hard core and blah blah blah. I found an old C++ T-shirt that I love: "My compiler compiled your compiler" And to me that says it all. C++ is still like driving a manual (sitckshift) car versus an automatic. C++ still kicks any .NET language's bum in terms of speed. C++ still allows you far more annoying and impressive errors than most other modern languages. So C++ devs: Tell us why C++ is just plain old better.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
"My compiler compiled your compiler"
5 For that!
Chris Maunder wrote:
And to me that says it all. C++ is still like driving a manual (sitckshift) car versus an automatic.
I remember I said this, may be a year ago: "Real men drive manual transmission". .NET is undeniably good for developing business applications. But most of the .NET devs ignore (or even don't know) the fact that there are other languages and every language has its own applicability.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
I remember I said this, may be a year ago: "Real men drive manual transmission".
Pah! Luddites!
-
So there's all this talk of why C# is better than VB and why Ruby on Rails is just the peachiest thing ever, except that PERL is way hard core and blah blah blah. I found an old C++ T-shirt that I love: "My compiler compiled your compiler" And to me that says it all. C++ is still like driving a manual (sitckshift) car versus an automatic. C++ still kicks any .NET language's bum in terms of speed. C++ still allows you far more annoying and impressive errors than most other modern languages. So C++ devs: Tell us why C++ is just plain old better.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
So C++ devs: Tell us why C++ is just plain old better.
I'm not sure that "better" applies to all situations, but, at least in many of the systems I've developed, C++ kicks .NET's butt. Mostly, I'm talking about performance, memory management and scalability. char* pBuffer = malloc(WHATEVER), while unpopular, mistreated and oft abused is quite a powerful construct. If I had to pick one feature that .NET needs, that would be simple: destructors. Who decided that deterministic finalization was a bad thing????? Oh yea, *pBuffer, pBuffer++ and all pointer related arithmetic, access, etc, is just plain fast & elegant, when used right. Personally, I like .NET just fine and plan to use it for just about any web applications I build. However, I also have written several Windows services and some mission-critical number crunching applications (and even one CGI application). I even tried to develop one of these in .NET, but the performance was abysmal. (BTW, don't tell me that I wrote the .NET app wrong, I asked around, sought advice from "experts", etc and ultimately, the architecture of .NET and the .NET framework were just in the way.) I would love to see a system come along that is evolutionary/revolutionary that actually produces faster code, not slower code, with each progressive release. This whole "layer cake" approach is getting quite heavy. And the current mantra of throwing hardware at performance problems is getting very very old. (Re-reading my post, I'm starting to feel old now.) :-D
-
For that Chris, there is a need for an SVN on CP, long overdue. Then everyone can hammer at a proposal for say Media namespace for Boost. One that is agnostic, DirectX or OpenGL based or xyz based. Implementing something similar to Flash or that tiny SilverLight install base would not be hard with such awesome libs, would put both Java and .NET to shame, and it would avoid all MS patent/algorithms. There is plenty of scope as the focus for C++ 2009 has been on bits that are most important in any engineering work, that it scales well and are designed like a space-shuttle. Only then you can aim for mass-market 'comeback' and without "code C++ like C" horrors in cryptography (and of course learning from other people's mistakes like MS has been doing with browsers, Java, databases, tools etc). Also, I don't think it is a bad thing people are calling it 'dead'. It is a great misconception that keeps many people in business. Evidently, the latest MS technologies too.. and in my humble opinion, they are demonstrating that markup and runtime design is the last thing you want to do anyway; a moving target. What's hard or unknown about VMs these days?
>> Implementing something similar to Flash or that tiny SilverLight >> install base would not be hard Or JVM[^] ??
Maruf Maniruzzaman Dhaka, Bangladesh. Homepage: http://www.kuashaonline.com
[Blog] [Silverlight Clone] [Resume] -
:-\
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
So there's all this talk of why C# is better than VB and why Ruby on Rails is just the peachiest thing ever, except that PERL is way hard core and blah blah blah. I found an old C++ T-shirt that I love: "My compiler compiled your compiler" And to me that says it all. C++ is still like driving a manual (sitckshift) car versus an automatic. C++ still kicks any .NET language's bum in terms of speed. C++ still allows you far more annoying and impressive errors than most other modern languages. So C++ devs: Tell us why C++ is just plain old better.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Because your T-shirt basically said it. Java-heads - are you running on a JVM and/or using a base class library that was written in Java, or in C/C++? Remember Hotspot? That application that was created to speed up Java applications by converting to native code (which was required because Java was already fast enough, right)? Wanna guess what it was written it? .NET users - are the nitty-gritty internals of your lovely system that is so superior written in .NET? I believe that only recently, a .NET compiler was written in .NET. Only took a few years for this... (It was the new VB.NET compiler, I believe?) Oh, and the OS that it runs on? C/C++ are general use - in general, you can use them for anything. Java, .NET, Perl, etc. are specific purpose, usually by initial design or by evolution. When I can write a device driver in Java or .NET that performs identically and has the same capability as a pure C/C++ one, then I will be impressed with how quickly I can get it done. Do not get me wrong, things like the .NET platform are pretty damn powerful, but you have to keep in mind that they have limitations on what they can or should be used for. Peace!
-=- James
Please rate this message - let me know if I helped or not! * * *If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
See DeleteFXPFiles