Argh - C# can really SUCK !!!!

[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... */

[Tomasz Sowinski]

CodeGuy wrote: MS has shown zero interest in the past in the Standard. ... which seems to worry you. CodeGuy wrote: I am scared by the presence of a 900-pound gorilla on the Committee ... which seems to worry you as well. Is there anything M$ should do about their presence in this body which could make you less scared? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com

*** Vodka. Connecting people. ***

[Tomasz Sowinski]

George wrote: Similiarly, nobody really needs any of the .NET features. This is very strong statement. I think you should rephrase it to 'I (George) don't need any of the .NET features'. Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com

*** Vodka. Connecting people. ***

[George]

Tomasz Sowinski wrote: This is very strong statement. I think you should rephrase it to 'I (George) don't need any of the .NET features'. I'm sorry but the best I can do for you is to rephrase to: I think that nobody really needs any of the .NET features. ;P

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

[CodeGuy]

They could 1) match the Standard in VC++ (i.e. bring the product up to where it can compile 3rd party libraries like Boost), and then 2) contribute to Standard C++ in an open fashion. What I mean by #2 is that MS right now has the .NET VM, which includes GC and other features. Theoretically, this could be ported to other platforms, but right now, it only exists on Windows. Once -- or if ever -- .NET or other truly portable VMs exist for lots of other operating systems, then it makes sense to say, OK, let's add VM and GC support to the Standard. Brandon

[William E Kempf]

1. Is happening. VC++ 7.1 is rumored (by people who would know) to be extremely compliant, and it's been developed using Boost as a test bed. 2) MS has ported it, as read in the article, to other platforms. They've also paid money to others so they could do the same. There's also numerous efforts to do this by folks with no ties to MS. The whole thing has also been _STANDARDISED_ by the ECMA, and, as the article stated, may be standardised by ISO as well. I don't get why you're so stuck on all of this? William E. Kempf

[CodeGuy]

1. "is rumored" ... MS has already quietly missed the deadline for VC++ 7.1 (summer). Again, from past history and current statements, I have to believe that MS is more interested in making MC++ the Standard rather than complying with the existing one. We'll see. The proof is in the pudding. 2) "maybe be standardized by ISO" ... Again, why are we talking about standardizing the next version of ISO (not ECMA) C++ on a platform that 1) hasn't been standardized by the ISO yet and 2) isn't widely available? Even MS is having a hard time getting the CLI available because it's rolled up in a 20MB .NET framework download. I think that you and I have a VERY different outlook on what C++ should evolve into.

[Mike Nordell]

William E. Kempf wrote: 1) MS has always had members involved in the C++ standards committee Is that really true? AFAIK they had one person on the committee. One person that often was absent during committee meetings. Calling that "involved" isn't really the truth I think. Search and you shall find. 2) Garbage collection was actually proposed for the last standard And AFAIK completely ignored (for good reasons). 3) VM support shouldn't scare you either. It's just another backend to target for the language. Exactly. Another back-end. I.e. it would just be another target CPU/environment that should be nothing more than that back-end (compiler-) switch. Now look at what Micros~1 instead (true to their habits) tries to do (hints: a boy born in Austria and named Adolf tried it once in a place with the country code DE)...

[Christian Graus]

I thought I read somewhere that C# was whizbang because it initialised numbers to 0, unlike C++. But I agree that the ref behaviour is fair enough, it's the 'out' behaviour that is frustrating. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002

[Christian Graus]

Yes, but then it would be a question, and in the wrong forum, and.... Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002

[Christian Graus]

Daniel Turini wrote: Probably you are passing the out parameter to a function as a non-out parameter. This is a no-no. No, I am not. I am doing exactly what I said I am doing. class A { void MyFunction(out int i) { string s = MyOtherFunc(); i = ParseString(s); } string MyOtherFunc()...; int ParseString()....; } int a; m_A.MyFunction(out a); This won't work unless I give i some value BEFORE calling MyOtherFunc. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002

[Christian Graus]

Paul Watson wrote: Christian and I are both submitting SVG articles soon I better get going, mine is going to be very 'beginner', so I'll have to beat you for mine to be worth anything !!! Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002

[Christian Graus]

I'm actually quite fine with that, it's the mix of that with the out being unpassable unless the first line of the function sets a value to the out parameter that had me frustrated, it meant I was damned either way. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002

[Christian Graus]

George wrote: Why don't you use C++ (or MC++ for that matter) if you need something that works with asp.net instead of C#? I thought that was the whole point of MC++? Because a. MC++ is an abortion IMO b. You can't use MC++ within a page AFAIK. George wrote: And by the way - why are you wasting your time with asp as well? How is it a waste of time ? It's a powerful way to provide a presentation layer for most corporate apps nowadays - everyone has a browser. In any case, I like to learn new things and I like to increase my skills in areas that are interesting, or that pay. I will inevitably do ASP.NET in C# at work, so it seems wise to learn it first at home. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002

[Christian Graus]

CodeGuy wrote: 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. I agree - I spoke with Herb recently about my feelings regarding his article, which I still think was little more than pimping MC++, although after speaking with him, I believe that he did not set out to write it with such a cynical goal. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002

[Christian Graus]

Tomasz Sowinski wrote: You mean that out parameters can't be used in functions which call other functions?? No, they can be used, but the out parameter needs to be assigned a value before you call anything else. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002

[Daniel Turini]

Well, you're doing something wrong (I love saying I'm right): This compiles and runs fine: using System; namespace cspteste { /// /// Summary description for Class1. /// class Class1 { class ATest { public void MyFunction(out int i) { string s = MyOtherFunc(); i = ParseString(s); } string MyOtherFunc() { return "50"; } int ParseString(string temp) { return Convert.ToInt32(temp); } } [STAThread] static void Main(string[] args) { ATest a = new ATest(); int x; a.MyFunction(out x); Console.WriteLine(x); } } } "In an organization, each person rises to the level of his own incompetence." Peter's Principle