nnxion

Me three, or two or too.

__________________
"Employ your time in improving yourself by other men's writings, so that you shall gain easily what others have labored hard for."
-- Socrates

clsk

I felt the same way before .NET 2.0 came out with visual studio 2005.
The new C++/CLI (that's what they call it now instead of managed c++) is way better than its predecesor. Check MSDN for more info. The interface to the language is way more attractive. Also you can take advantage of templates AND generics among other stuff.

Something I've always loved about c++ is the standard library specially its containers. Microsoft developers are supposed to be working on a STL.NET that was supposed come out with visual studio 2005 but it didn't make it. I'm not sure of STL.NET's release date if there is one set yet. Check MSDN's blogs.

I currently feel no PERSONAL need for c# anymore.

Ooble

But... that's not the point. C++ .NET is basically C# with a few extra retarded keywords thrown in. It's not like it runs any faster.

__________________
Me :: You :: Them

clsk

You're 100% correct on that and I never said that c++ was any faster/slower than c#. All I said was that c++/cli is no near as ugly as the old managed c++. No language is faster than the other. A programming language is not a factor when it comes deciding what language is faster than the other.
It depends more on what exactly you're measuring (production speed, execution speed, compiling speed, etc...).
In this case though, we're talking about programs running under the .NET runtime framework so a specific language does not really contribute much to speed (IMO that is).
Pretty much all I was saying is that if you're a c++ programmer and are used to c++ (as I am) there is no need to use c# now when using .NET.

Ooble

Makes sense to me. I can think of one disadvantage though: no Linux support.

__________________
Me :: You :: Them

jayme

C++ is faster than C# actually. Unless you're talking about .NET languages of course, that i know nothing about.

__________________
▄▄▄▄

Download Code::Blocks now!
▄▄▄▄

clsk

I did come to that conlusion too. I've seen two attempts to port c++/cli linux.
http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~kris/whirl2il/
and
http://developer.novell.com/wiki/index.php/Gcc-cil

clsk

Once again, the language has nothing to do with how fast the resulting program is going to be.
What you are talking about is the implementation.

Darkhack

Actually C# is slower clsk. The reason being is because it is interprited by the .NET Framework or Mono, where as C++ is already in binary format. Also the Runtime Environment causes it to eat up more RAM than it's C++ equivalent. Here is a good way to think of it. Say you are a native English speaker who is learning Spanish and already speaks French. C++ is like having a paragraph in spanish that has already been translated into English right beneath it. Where as C# is translated into an intermediate language (MSIL) and it is like having a paragraph in spanish with a french translation beneath it and you need to translate to english in your head while you read it.

Although C# is a little bit slower and takes up a wee bit more RAM, most developers would agree that it is worth it. For common GUI applications that hobbiest programmers would write, it sure makes life a whole lot easier. Besides, if you are new to programming, the garbage collection might actually make your program more compact than if a beginner wrote it in C++. Of course that is something one would want to overcome anyway, but it still helps advanced developers squash bugs with less effort.

InfoGeek

I think the comparison here is between C# and managed C++.

__________________
PFO - My daily dose of technology.