DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36

Thread: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?

  1. #16
    Marty Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    "Ovidiu Platon" <ovidiupl@microsoft-lab.pub.ro> wrote:
    >"Dennis" <nomail@nomail.mars> wrote in message news:3d376257$1@10.1.10.29...
    >>
    >> Save yourself a lot of trouble an move to Java, after all that's what

    >Mickeysoft
    >> is trying to emulate. I still do C++, but chosen to "goto" :)
    >> a language based on logic rather than marketing.
    >>

    >Or, even better, save yourself from switching a good, but obsolete
    >technology such as Java and get the .NET SDK. You can also work with C/C++
    >whenever you need to (for performance reasons, for example).
    >Best regards,
    >Ovidiu.
    >
    >


    Why not stick with VC++ 6.0 ?????





  2. #17
    Blob Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    You should really look into .NET before making statements like this Daniel.

    Danny Kalev <dannykk@inter.net.il> wrote:


    >I see. They still haven't figured out how to support generics, they have
    >neither STL nor templates, and yet there's "enough functionality".


    Huh? What does this mean. They don't have STL nor Templates. I don't understand
    this.


    I bet
    >they're referring to those heinous CByteArray, CFloatArray and so on
    >containers...


    >I've suspected Managed Code all along...

    That's why it is called managed code. You can use it or not. It's up to
    the developer or whomever makes the decisions.

  3. #18
    Danny Kalev Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?



    Blob wrote:
    >
    > You should really look into .NET before making statements like this Daniel.


    Trust me, I have. And it's Danny, btw. Not a biggie, but still.

    >
    > Danny Kalev <dannykk@inter.net.il> wrote:
    >
    > >I see. They still haven't figured out how to support generics, they have
    > >neither STL nor templates, and yet there's "enough functionality".

    >
    > Huh? What does this mean. They don't have STL nor Templates. I don't understand
    > this.


    If .Net doesn't have templates, how can it support generic programming
    without any alternative feature to template (and frankly, can we have
    templates first, before MS starts its experiments on users)?

    >
    > I bet
    > >they're referring to those heinous CByteArray, CFloatArray and so on
    > >containers...

    >
    > >I've suspected Managed Code all along...

    > That's why it is called managed code.


    Please quote correctly. The original phrase was:
    <Alon>> From my small experience, if the performance is your big issues,
    don't use
    <Alon>> the managed code.

    <Danny>I've suspected Managed Code all along...

    Your comment is:
    > That's why it is called managed code.


    So what you're suggesting is that it's called Managed because it incurs
    additional overhead? I'm sure that MS had something else in mind...


    Danny

  4. #19
    James Curran Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?

    "Marty" <marty@wmms.com> wrote in message news:3d3967da$1@10.1.10.29...
    > Why not stick with VC++ 6.0 ?????


    Because VC.Net gives you everything VC6 has, please a lot of bug fixes,
    (plus all the Managed C++, C# etc which you can ignore if you want)

    --
    Truth,
    James Curran
    www.NovelTheory.com (Personal)
    www.NJTheater.com (Professional)
    www.aurora-inc.com (Day job)





  5. #20
    Blob Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    >If .Net doesn't have templates, how can it support generic programming
    >without any alternative feature to template (and frankly, can we have
    >templates first, before MS starts its experiments on users)?


    .NET is not the language. That is like saying that J2EE doesn't support
    templates. The specific compiler has to support template not IL. The CLS
    doesn't require a .NET language to support templates but that doesn't keep
    the language itself from doing so.

    Let's walk the list of the latest languages on the market:

    Java - no templates
    C# - no templates
    VB(VB.NET) - no templates

    Seems like a pattern here.

    >So what you're suggesting is that it's called Managed because it incurs
    >additional overhead? I'm sure that MS had something else in mind...


    So you feel that MS is trying to hide something with managed code. Managed
    code in any environment with any language is going to take a performance
    hit. I don't think that I have read or heard anywhere that Managed C++ is
    going to perform at the same level as unmanaged C++. As a matter of fact
    there are quite a few articles on MSDN by the C++ by members of the C++ compiler
    team that state this clearly.

  6. #21
    Ovidiu Platon Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?

    > >If .Net doesn't have templates, how can it support generic programming
    > >without any alternative feature to template (and frankly, can we have
    > >templates first, before MS starts its experiments on users)?

    >
    > NET is not the language. That is like saying that J2EE doesn't support
    > templates. The specific compiler has to support template not IL. The CLS


    Wrong, see below.

    > doesn't require a .NET language to support templates but that doesn't keep
    > the language itself from doing so.
    >
    > Let's walk the list of the latest languages on the market:
    >
    > Java - no templates


    Wrong - see
    http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/j...sintes3_p.html

    > C# - no templates


    Wrong

    > VB(VB.NET) - no templates


    Wrong again. Check out
    http://research.microsoft.com/~dsyme...s/generics.pdf and
    http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/ .

    Best regards,
    Ovidiu.



  7. #22
    Blob Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    Please read this again.


    > >I see. They still haven't figured out how to support generics, they have
    > >neither STL nor templates, and yet there's "enough functionality".

    >
    > Huh? What does this mean. They don't have STL nor Templates. I don't

    understand
    > this.


    If .Net doesn't have templates, how can it support generic programming
    without any alternative feature to template (and frankly, can we have
    templates first, before MS starts its experiments on users)?

    It is semantics. After all didn't MFC have CObject even before Java???


  8. #23
    Danny Kalev Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?



    Blob wrote:
    >
    > >If .Net doesn't have templates, how can it support generic programming
    > >without any alternative feature to template (and frankly, can we have
    > >templates first, before MS starts its experiments on users)?

    >
    > NET is not the language. That is like saying that J2EE doesn't support
    > templates. The specific compiler has to support template not IL. The CLS
    > doesn't require a .NET language to support templates but that doesn't keep
    > the language itself from doing so.


    We're not comparing .Net with C++. We're talking about C++ vs. C#. Of
    course every framework and execution environment can offer various
    features such as garbage collection, virtual memory and so on. This has
    nothing to do with the fact that a C++ can use generic programming
    whereas a C# programmer cannot.

    >
    > Let's walk the list of the latest languages on the market:
    >
    > Java - no templates


    Depending on which Java variant you're talking. Secondly, Java's
    (official) lack of templates is a step backward. I don't think that even
    James Gsoling is really happy with the need to use typecasting all over
    the place when using Java's containers and iterators.

    > C# - no templates


    That's exactly the problem, isn't it?

    > VB(VB.NET) - no templates


    Give me a break. VB isn't a new language nor is it an exemplary language
    in terms of engineering merits and novel features. Why not compare C++
    to Perl, for example?

    >
    > Seems like a pattern here.
    >
    > >So what you're suggesting is that it's called Managed because it incurs
    > >additional overhead? I'm sure that MS had something else in mind...

    >
    > So you feel that MS is trying to hide something with managed code. Managed
    > code in any environment with any language is going to take a performance
    > hit. I don't think that I have read or heard anywhere that Managed C++ is
    > going to perform at the same level as unmanaged C++.

    Actually, I have heard that. I don't believe it of course but that
    shouldn't stop MS from spreading such hype. We've been there already
    with Java, haven't we?

    Danny

  9. #24
    Blob Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    >We're not comparing .Net with C++. We're talking about C++ vs. C#. Of
    >course every framework and execution environment can offer various
    >features such as garbage collection, virtual memory and so on. This has
    >nothing to do with the fact that a C++ can use generic programming
    >whereas a C# programmer cannot.


    I agree that templates are a feature that was missed. But I have reaped
    some of the benefits of the "object" type and the C# version of generics.
    I have had the luck of not having run into any typecast issues(yet) so I
    cannot complain.

    >
    >>
    >> Let's walk the list of the latest languages on the market:
    >>
    >> Java - no templates

    >
    >Depending on which Java variant you're talking. Secondly, Java's
    >(official) lack of templates is a step backward.

    Is there actually a template in any version of Java? I did not know that.

    >> VB(VB.NET) - no templates

    >
    >Give me a break. VB isn't a new language nor is it an exemplary language
    >in terms of engineering merits and novel features. Why not compare C++
    >to Perl, for example?


    VB isn't new but VB.NET is. Same situation. by the way I'll take Perl's
    regular expressions and IO over C++ any day.

    >>I don't think that I have read or heard anywhere that Managed C++ is
    >> going to perform at the same level as unmanaged C++.

    >Actually, I have heard that. I don't believe it of course but that
    >shouldn't stop MS from spreading such hype. We've been there already
    >with Java, haven't we?


    I haven't seen anything that has said that managed C++ performs as fast or
    better than unmanaged. If you have links to that I would like to see them
    as I have thrown in my C++ bigot hat and have to convince some people who
    have chosen to stay with C++ vs C#.

  10. #25
    Ovidiu Platon Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?

    "Blob" <blob@blobblobblob.com> wrote in message
    news:3d3c3fa7$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > Please read this again.
    >
    >
    > > >I see. They still haven't figured out how to support generics, they

    have
    > > >neither STL nor templates, and yet there's "enough functionality".

    > >
    > > Huh? What does this mean. They don't have STL nor Templates. I don't

    > understand
    > > this.

    >
    > If .Net doesn't have templates, how can it support generic programming
    > without any alternative feature to template (and frankly, can we have
    > templates first, before MS starts its experiments on users)?
    >
    > It is semantics. After all didn't MFC have CObject even before Java???
    >

    It's not related to CObject, Object, object or whatever you feel you should
    call it. It's generic code, even more generic than the (otherwise really
    useful) C++ compiler-checked macros called templates. Stop thinking about
    static, compile-time template instantiation and think about truly generic
    code (have you read any of the links I gave you?). So far, we've had C++
    templates and the ugly Java/C# style containers with downcasts. When
    comparing these, C++ definitely rules. However, if the MS/Sun "experiment"
    succeeds, C++ templates will probably become obsolete (and, yes, everyone
    will forget about those stupid downcasts in C#/Java).
    AFAIK, the creators of C# could have implemented the C++ style templates,
    but then it would have been hard to make this code CLS compliant. So, they
    left it up to the MS research dept in Cambridge, and these guys created
    generics at IL level. I'm *very* curious whether they will really succeed,
    but if they do, I think we should call it a huge step for programmers.
    Best regards,
    Ovidiu.



  11. #26
    Blob Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    >It's not related to CObject, Object, object or whatever you feel you should
    >call it. It's generic code, even more generic than the (otherwise really
    >useful) C++ compiler-checked macros called templates. Stop thinking about
    >static, compile-time template instantiation and think about truly generic
    >code (have you read any of the links I gave you?). So far, we've had C++
    >templates and the ugly Java/C# style containers with downcasts. When
    >comparing these, C++ definitely rules. However, if the MS/Sun "experiment"
    >succeeds, C++ templates will probably become obsolete (and, yes, everyone
    >will forget about those stupid downcasts in C#/Java).
    >AFAIK, the creators of C# could have implemented the C++ style templates,
    >but then it would have been hard to make this code CLS compliant. So, they
    >left it up to the MS research dept in Cambridge, and these guys created
    >generics at IL level. I'm *very* curious whether they will really succeed,
    >but if they do, I think we should call it a huge step for programmers.
    >Best regards,
    >Ovidiu.


    That is exactly what I was trying to tell you. It is a matter of semantics.
    You can call it whatever you like but generics by use of some master base
    class is not the same as templates in C++. I thought the question was "how
    can .NET have truly generic code without templates" and further down the
    line "why has MFC not been replaced......"


  12. #27
    barknee Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    "Blob" <blob@blobblobblob.com> wrote:
    >
    >>It's not related to CObject, Object, object or whatever you feel you should
    >>call it. It's generic code, even more generic than the (otherwise really
    >>useful) C++ compiler-checked macros called templates. Stop thinking about
    >>static, compile-time template instantiation and think about truly generic
    >>code (have you read any of the links I gave you?). So far, we've had C++
    >>templates and the ugly Java/C# style containers with downcasts. When
    >>comparing these, C++ definitely rules. However, if the MS/Sun "experiment"
    >>succeeds, C++ templates will probably become obsolete (and, yes, everyone
    >>will forget about those stupid downcasts in C#/Java).
    >>AFAIK, the creators of C# could have implemented the C++ style templates,
    >>but then it would have been hard to make this code CLS compliant. So, they
    >>left it up to the MS research dept in Cambridge, and these guys created
    >>generics at IL level. I'm *very* curious whether they will really succeed,
    >>but if they do, I think we should call it a huge step for programmers.
    >>Best regards,
    >>Ovidiu.

    >
    >That is exactly what I was trying to tell you. It is a matter of semantics.
    > You can call it whatever you like but generics by use of some master base
    >class is not the same as templates in C++. I thought the question was "how
    >can .NET have truly generic code without templates" and further down the
    >line "why has MFC not been replaced......"
    >


    Oh let it go. You are both saying the same thing. Generics, templates,
    blah blah blah.


  13. #28
    Sandeep Shilawat Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    Guys

    I generally restrain myself from arguments like JAVA or C++.
    I have been working on MS technologies and ow working on JAVA technologies
    ( if one prefers to call it )

    For the record 76 % web development is still on JAVA ( regardless of the
    fact that it is obviously slower than C++ )

    However good the .NET becomes its not portable over the OS then what good
    is it for the people who believe in built once and use anywhere ?

    And if .NEt is going to integrate all MS related stuff and give CRL which
    will do the job of JVM for all microsoft platforms then why go for it unless
    you intend to develop architechtures which will be limited to MS platforms.

    Of course people mentioning Java is dead on windows must have read about
    plugin which XP and all its future products will have to support if they
    intend to stay in webrelated product technology.

    But apart from that why to et into this argument of how Good C++ is than
    Java. The point here is what does C# buys us or for that matter .NET buys
    us over JAVA we being the developer community ( which will server the industry
    )

    Here is one innocent Q put by some developer

    C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?
    Lets try to answer it. If it says that for this arm of microsft we do not
    support this feature .. Or for that mmater tere has been some syntax changes
    between VB6.0 and VB.Net ( correct me if I am wrong ).

    Now I think .Net is something which shall come up with tems of migration
    from current system to a .NET complaint system and the costs involved.
    If they turn out to be a high costs then it is one of those MS Marketting
    tricks which lured developers to Jump into it and have to carry the legacy
    burden of legacy Libraries.

    On top of everything lets answer the Q. What is suported by .Net framework
    ( for that matter C# CRL and MSIL etc etc ) and what is not. We will have
    answers for sure.

    If any of you guys have documents on this pl post the link. I will be highly
    thankful.

    Regards,
    Sandeep

    "Chris" <crolon@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >"mxc" <mxc@nospam.co.za> wrote:
    >>
    >>Hi all,
    >>In deciding how to approach .net i.e. C# for C++ I have found a problem

    >in
    >>that C++ is not really part of the .net solution. It seems that the MFC

    >class
    >>libraries are seperate from the .net libraries. This kind of reduces the
    >>benifit to C++ programmers of learning one class library. Is this the case
    >>or am I confused?

    >



  14. #29
    Khaled Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?


    "Sandeep Shilawat" <shily@rediffmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >Guys
    >
    >I generally restrain myself from arguments like JAVA or C++.
    >I have been working on MS technologies and ow working on JAVA technologies
    >( if one prefers to call it )
    >
    >For the record 76 % web development is still on JAVA ( regardless of the
    >fact that it is obviously slower than C++ )
    >
    >However good the .NET becomes its not portable over the OS then what good
    >is it for the people who believe in built once and use anywhere ?



    isn't .NET (theoretically, at least) apps portable on any OS having the .NET
    Framework ? if not then why is a project like Mono
    (www.go-mono.com) being developed ?


    >
    >And if .NEt is going to integrate all MS related stuff and give CRL which
    >will do the job of JVM for all microsoft platforms then why go for it unless
    >you intend to develop architechtures which will be limited to MS platforms.
    >
    >Of course people mentioning Java is dead on windows must have read about
    >plugin which XP and all its future products will have to support if they
    >intend to stay in webrelated product technology.
    >
    >But apart from that why to et into this argument of how Good C++ is than
    >Java. The point here is what does C# buys us or for that matter .NET buys
    >us over JAVA we being the developer community ( which will server the industry
    >)
    >
    >Here is one innocent Q put by some developer
    >
    >C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?
    >Lets try to answer it. If it says that for this arm of microsft we do not
    >support this feature .. Or for that mmater tere has been some syntax changes
    >between VB6.0 and VB.Net ( correct me if I am wrong ).
    >
    >Now I think .Net is something which shall come up with tems of migration
    >from current system to a .NET complaint system and the costs involved.
    >If they turn out to be a high costs then it is one of those MS Marketting
    >tricks which lured developers to Jump into it and have to carry the legacy
    >burden of legacy Libraries.
    >
    >On top of everything lets answer the Q. What is suported by .Net framework
    >( for that matter C# CRL and MSIL etc etc ) and what is not. We will have
    >answers for sure.
    >
    >If any of you guys have documents on this pl post the link. I will be highly
    >thankful.
    >
    >Regards,
    >Sandeep
    >
    >"Chris" <crolon@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>"mxc" <mxc@nospam.co.za> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Hi all,
    >>>In deciding how to approach .net i.e. C# for C++ I have found a problem

    >>in
    >>>that C++ is not really part of the .net solution. It seems that the MFC

    >>class
    >>>libraries are seperate from the .net libraries. This kind of reduces the
    >>>benifit to C++ programmers of learning one class library. Is this the

    case
    >>>or am I confused?

    >>

    >



  15. #30
    James Curran Guest

    Re: C++ .net Why has MFC not been replaced with .net libraries?

    "Sandeep Shilawat" <shily@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3d3e2550$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > For the record 76 % web development is still on JAVA ( regardless of the
    > fact that it is obviously slower than C++ )


    Where did you get this number from? It sounds ridiculous.

    First of all, we'd have to decided whether we are talking about client-side
    or server-side coding.

    For client-side, I'd estimate that the real numbers are closer to:
    HTML only 90.0%
    Javascript 9.0%
    Java 0.9%
    Everything else0.1%

    For the server-side:
    HTML-only 70%
    Perl 15%
    ASP 10%
    Java 4%
    Everything else 1%


    --
    Truth,
    James Curran
    www.NovelTheory.com (Personal)
    www.NJTheater.com (Professional)
    www.aurora-inc.com (Day job)





Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center