Argh - C# can really SUCK !!!!

George

Tomasz Sowinski wrote: Why do I have a feeling that you don't have a clue what you're talking about? Because you don't know me? ;P Tomasz Sowinski wrote: What would you suggest for non-masochistic web application development? First of all I would suggest to avoid the web application development itself. Failing that, use C++. For example in my current job we have a nice ActiveX stuffed on the webpage that effectively is a web application. It's all in C++ and we have only about 10kB of the HTML/asp code to wrap that ActiveX all together. You get the power of C++ with all the goodies of web, like easy deployment or database access. What you don't get is the typical "web application crap", like asp pages. I've been actually porting some old asp code to that ActiveX architecture, and I can tell that asp really sucks and I don't see ASP.NET or C# being any better. Generally it all depends on the life expectancy of your application. If it's supposed to be used for a week or two use C#, VB, ASP or whatever. But for the long run you need a serious tool that allows you to get the job done properly and that tools often turns to be C++. Tomasz Sowinski wrote: Well, actually they provided nice extensions to Java and better browser than Netscape. "Nice" is a very relative term. Browser from Microsoft is not better, it's rather the Netscape was worse - they clearly dropped the ball at some point. Tomasz Sowinski wrote: With MC++ there's not much worth investigating if you don't plan to reuse your C++ code. I am not sure what are you trying to say here. But I find latest Herb's comments that MC++ and C++ Standard have the same goals very fit to my theory. Let's hope I am wrong on that one...

/* I C++, therefore I am... */

Paul Watson

Shaun Wilde wrote: but nothing on SVG. but I think your right it is better to stick with a standard. Christian and I are both submitting SVG articles soon, so there should be some good fodder in there. Plus there is quite a bit on the net, just ask if you want links and feel free to ask questions here on the forums.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Tomasz Sowinski

George wrote: Because you don't know me? Good reason :) George wrote: First of all I would suggest to avoid the web application development itself. Why? Should CodeProject be created as .exe which we'd have to download? George wrote: For example in my current job we have a nice ActiveX stuffed on the webpage that effectively is a web application So you've limited the reach of your web appplication to IE users on Win32 who are careless enough to enable ActiveX. George wrote: asp really sucks and I don't see ASP.NET or C# being any better. Yes, asp sucks. But if you can't see the great (positive) difference with ASP.NET you surely have some vision problems :) George wrote: Browser from Microsoft is not better, it's rather the Netscape was worse - they clearly dropped the ball at some point. You talk like lawyer right now :) Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com

*** Vodka. Connecting people. ***

George

Tomasz Sowinski wrote: Why? Should CodeProject be created as .exe which we'd have to download? There is no connection here - CodeProject being a website doesn't make sense as an .exe. But, given the articles/posts ration it would probably do well as a newgroup + good old-fashioned HTML-based website... Tomasz Sowinski wrote: So you've limited the reach of your web appplication to IE users on Win32 who are careless enough to enable ActiveX. Since it's an internal application for rather large company it isn't a problem at all - all PC's and their setup is strictly controlled to the point that we only have to make our appplication working with a single version of IE. When I say version I mean a full version like 5.50.4807.0001. It doesn't have to work any other release! ;) Tomasz Sowinski wrote: Yes, asp sucks. But if you can't see the great (positive) difference with ASP.NET you surely have some vision problems It may be a positive difference, but I can see even more possitive difference between ASP.NET and C++. My vision is perfrectly clear on that! Tomasz Sowinski wrote: You talk like lawyer right now I've seen Netscape and IE evolving and at the start Netscape was much better than IE. Then they started to sue MS and generally went down with the product, which killed them ultimately. Loosers!

/* I C++, therefore I am... */

Phil J Pearson

I understand your annoyance but I don't really see it as a problem. I almost always initialise variables anyway, even in C++. 1. It stops the compiler moaning. 2. It sometimes makes debugging easier; you can make the initial value one that the variable wouldn't normally have so you can recognise it and know that no assignment has happened. I think the C# behaviour is probably a Good Thing on the whole.

The opinions expressed in this communication do not necessarily represent those of the author (especially if you find them impolite, discourteous or inflammatory).

William E Kempf

George wrote: The lack of certain ("visual") features specifically in C++ part of VS.NET gives it out clearly. Gives what out clearly? And BTW, WinForm support is supposed to exist for MC++ in VS.NET 7.1, due out RSN, so if you want to make up facts for some conspiracy theory you'd better pick a new one ;). George wrote: VS.NET IDE sucks for C++ development. Funny... I use it daily for C++ development, and I have no complaints. William E. Kempf

Tomasz Sowinski

George wrote: Since it's an internal application for rather large company it isn't a problem at all It'll work in this scenario. However, it's totally inappropriate for applications targeted at general audience. George wrote: I can see even more possitive difference between ASP.NET and C++. My vision is perfrectly clear on that! Ok. Next time you create a interactive website using C++ let me know :) George wrote: I've seen Netscape and IE evolving and at the start Netscape was much better than IE No, IE was just much worse than Netscape at the beginning. :) Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com

*** Vodka. Connecting people. ***

Chris Maunder

MC++ does not (yet) work with ASP.NET. It *looks* like it works, it smells like it works, but pretty soon it will crash your ASP.NET apps. Everett fixes this issue. cheers, Chris Maunder

Chris Maunder

A code sample would be helpful. cheers, Chris Maunder

William E Kempf

George wrote: Since it's an internal application for rather large company it isn't a problem at all - all PC's and their setup is strictly controlled to the point that we only have to make our appplication working with a single version of IE. When I say version I mean a full version like 5.50.4807.0001. It doesn't have to work any other release! This, with other comments you've made, make me wonder why you've developed this for the web at all! The excuse "because they don't have to install anything, and upgrades are automatic" is flawed, because there are numerous ways to accomplish this with out creating an application that runs inside the browser. .NET, in fact, provides a solution for this. The nice thing about these solutions: 1) they don't lock you into any specific browser or worse (in your case) browser version, 2) they don't force you to "hack" away at complex solutions to avoid the short comings of browser based application development (which you're doing from your description), 3) they provide solutions that make loading the application MUCH faster making your app more usable. I can't think of a single good reason to go down the path you have (and honestly there's few good reasons for any kind of web application, IMNSHO). William E. Kempf

CodeGuy

George wrote: I am not sure what are you trying to say here. But I find latest Herb's comments that MC++ and C++ Standard have the same goals very fit to my theory. ... Boy, isn't that the truth. MS's sudden presence on the C++ Standard committee along with their interest in adding garbage collection and virtual machine support (what in the world?) to C++ is just scary. Essentially they are trying to make sure C++ runs on .NET and nowhere else. In case no one has seen the CUJ article George is talking about, look here. Brandon

William E Kempf

CodeGuy wrote: MS's sudden presence on the C++ Standard committee along with their interest in adding garbage collection and virtual machine support (what in the world?) to C++ is just scary. Why? 1) MS has always had members involved in the C++ standards committee. The only thing new is their attitude that the standards are important instead of just a necessary evil, which is a good thing for you and I. 2) Garbage collection was actually proposed for the last standard, though it got little attention AFAIK, because of scope and time constraints. But the language was specifically defined to allow for GC from day one, and most members have had some interest in a standardized GC addition to the language. Once you get over the (vague and basically unwarranted) fears about GC, there's no logical reason not to add this one. 3) VM support shouldn't scare you either. It's just another backend to target for the language. No big deal, since C++ won't be like Java... restricted (basically) to running on this VM. And for many tasks there's a true benefit to targeting a VM. I love having this extra tool in my toolbox, even if most of my code is compiled natively. It's sounds to me like you're suffering (badly) from FUD. William E. Kempf

Daniel Turini

Chris Maunder wrote: MC++ does not (yet) work with ASP.NET. It *looks* like it works, it smells like it works, but pretty soon it will crash your ASP.NET apps. Hmmm... You seem to went through this before... :suss: "In an organization, each person rises to the level of his own incompetence." Peter's Principle

George

Tomasz Sowinski wrote: It'll work in this scenario. However, it's totally inappropriate for applications targeted at general audience. Which is why I don't feel like making any. They live a violent, unstable and filled with temporary solutions and technologies lifes while I prefer a long term stable investments. ;) Tomasz Sowinski wrote: Ok. Next time you create a interactive website using C++ let me know As I said before, I would not want to work on something you have in mind. Having said that, I seem to recall a tool that actually allowed to do just that - use C++ in similiar fashion the ASP is employed.... Tomasz Sowinski wrote: No, IE was just much worse than Netscape at the beginning. Which is why I was using Lynx at that time ;)

/* I C++, therefore I am... */

George

William E. Kempf wrote: It's sounds to me like you're suffering (badly) from FUD. It sounds to me like you are suffering from brain-washing ;P

/* I C++, therefore I am... */

George

William E. Kempf wrote: Gives what out clearly? And BTW, WinForm support is supposed to exist for MC++ in VS.NET 7.1, due out RSN, so if you want to make up facts for some conspiracy theory you'd better pick a new one "Supposed to exists"? And who is making up the facts here?

/* I C++, therefore I am... */

Tomasz Sowinski

George wrote: Which is why I was using Lynx at that time I was sure you were using telnet on port 80. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com

*** Vodka. Connecting people. ***

George

William E. Kempf wrote: This, with other comments you've made, make me wonder why you've developed this for the web at all! I have no idea, it was that way when I joined in already. ;) I think that one reason is the "hype" for web applications. Most web applications should never be made one - they are just fine as a desktop. Similiarly, nobody really needs any of the .NET features. It can all be done using an existing technologies, often better and faster. But MS has to make money somehow, so there is no stopping to make tools and technologies more "productive". Still, that is not my problem and not my responsibility to decide. I only see the nice side of things (that is C++) for most of the time, even thought I know I could make a better desktop application...

/* I C++, therefore I am... */

CodeGuy

William E. Kempf wrote: 2) Garbage collection was actually proposed for the last standard, though it got little attention AFAIK, because of scope and time constraints. But the language was specifically defined to allow for GC from day one, and most members have had some interest in a standardized GC addition to the language. Once you get over the (vague and basically unwarranted) fears about GC, there's no logical reason not to add this one. Except unlike threading or networking support (which occurs across many different platforms), GC and VM support doesn't. These requirements are not coming out of the blue, or postponed from a prior meeting -- Herb makes it pretty clear in his article MS is interested in making C++ target .NET. This is FUD?? As you mentioned in your point #1, MS has shown zero interest in the past in the Standard. Essentially, they sat on their hands for 6 years or so while we had a crap version of STL and no worthwhile template support. Now they have a new version of C++ that is rooted in .NET with GC & VM support, but still will not compile many third-party libraries according to the current Standard. Again, it's pretty clear that MS is attempting to change the Standard to match MC++, while the current Standard hasn't even been complied with! Who are they kidding? I'm not scared by the addition of GC & VM features to the Standard*. I am scared by the presence of a 900-pound gorilla on the Committee who will attempt to bully a Standard through that suits them and no one else. Brandon * Although I do think the Standard is already weighed down by its own complexity. I think more attention should be given toward simplification of existing features rather than new libraries.

George

Tomasz Sowinski wrote: I was sure you were using telnet on port 80. LOL!

/* I C++, therefore I am... */