In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to
use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.
My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
install packages to run.
I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
(or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist
programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to
have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably.
More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion that
..Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that I
would like to develop for the PC community at large.
So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop the
type of applications that I am trying to develop?
jim
Dec 28 '07
182  4540 
"Scott Roberts" <sr******@no.spam.here-webworks-software.comwrote in
message news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
of for, performing expensive operations within your loops, and using
recursion. Recursion incurs the overhead of having to repeatedly build new
stack frames"
but that's not unique or specific to C#
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:kf*********************@bt.com...
"Miha Markic" <miha at rthand comsaid:
>>
>>Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net
ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.
It is not that slow.
Denial? Interesting.
psycho-babble ...
>But the magnitude of your problem clearly shows that you were doing
something wrong.
No, that's begging the question.
it's begging YOUR question; so what were you doing wrong?
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:xL******************************@bt.com...
Bart C said:
<snip>
>Perhaps you can post the shortest piece of code that shows the problem.
That's a perfectly sensible request, but alas, the answer is no, I can't
do
that. This is because the incident in question occurred (several years
ago) on a client site - NDA applies, so I wouldn't be able to show the
code to you even if I had a copy (which I don't). And since I never use
.Net any more if I can possibly avoid it, I simply don't care enough to
construct an example. Sorry.
so why in god's name are you talking about code you don't have, can't
disclose (nonsense and you know it) and don't really care about ?
Liz said:
>
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:kf*********************@bt.com...
>"Miha Markic" <miha at rthand comsaid:
>>>
Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net
ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.
It is not that slow.
Denial? Interesting.
psycho-babble ...
Sure. Let me put it another way. I find it interesting that people would
rather pretend a problem doesn't exist than find ways of dealing with it.
>>But the magnitude of your problem clearly shows that you were doing
something wrong.
No, that's begging the question.
it's begging YOUR question; so what were you doing wrong?
It seems you don't know what "begging the question" means. As for what we
were doing wrong, "using .Net" was the conclusion we came to at the time.
So we fixed that.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Liz said:
<snip>
so why in god's name are you talking about code you don't have, can't
disclose (nonsense and you know it)
Even if I had the legal right to disclose it (which I don't), how could I
disclose code I don't have? Duh.
and don't really care about ?
If you had read my first reply in this thread [1], you would know the
answer, and you wouldn't have had to ask such a silly question.
But to save you the trouble of learning how to track down a Usenet article
by its message ID, I'll tell you. Someone claimed that they'd only ever
heard one objection to .Net. So I offered a couple of other objections -
performance and portability (lack thereof, in both cases). It seems,
however, that this thread has been cross-posted to some .Net fan groups,
and some rather animated defence of .Net has been going on. Well, I can
understand that. But most of the defenders have managed to keep a civil
tongue in their heads. You could learn a thing or two from them.
Message ID: <I-******************************@bt.com>
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Michael D. Ober said:
Happy new year to all.
[...]
It said .Net on the box. Are you telling me Microsoft were lying to my
then-client by claiming it was .Net when really it wasn't .Net? Would you
advise them to sue Microsoft?
The C++ compiler can generate mixed assemblies. Some part is native some
part is managed - hybrid.
In any case, it is not my claim that .Net apps are slower than C++, because
C++ doesn't have a speed. It's a language, not an implementation. The
However you are comparing the speed of a C++ application with a managed
C++ one - don't you ?
speed of the "vanilla" C++ version varied depending on whether the
executable image had been built using Intel, gcc, or Visual Studio.
.Net, however, /is/ an implementation, so it does make sense to talk about
the speed of .Net applications - and in my experience it is unacceptably
slow. If you have a different experience, I'm pleased for you.
I've given one example, which proves the opposite. 6 times more assembly
code than the C++ native code generates.
[...]
heard one objection to .Net..." - because he has now heard at least three.
We are still missing an example, which proves it. I've given one which
proves the opposite. That doesn't mean that I claim it to be always the
case.
I can find hundred examples where C++ is faster and where a managed
version is faster. Perhaps more examples where C++ is faster, but the
point is use the best tool for the task you want to accomplish.
If the developer is more experienced in C++ then it will be C++, other
way round the developer might be more productive with another language
but the result mustn't be slower than the C++ implementation.
It's always the same discussion C++ is better than ..., Java is better
than .... or other way round. Or Linux is better than ...., Open Source
is better than....., Shell Xxxx is better, Desktop Xxxx is better.
How about working together ? Using the best tools from both sides,
languages etc. ?
Andre
Richard Heathfield wrote:
I'm delighted to hear it, but in a fast-moving business like software
development you don't get two chances at a first impression.
:-)
You are narrowing your tool set unnecessarily if you assume
that the x60 difference is a general case.
Arne
Richard Heathfield wrote:
What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say
it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by
two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which
doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?
I don't think it say much.
Ask 2 programmers with 40 years of C# experience - hmmm make that
10 programmers with 40 years of C# experience - to write a C++ app.
I doubt the result will be good. And that is not C++'s fault.
It is not clear to me whether the .NET language used was C# or
managed C++ aka C++/CLI, but the latter looks like C++ but
is significantly different anyway.
Arne
jim wrote:
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:47***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
>jim wrote:
>>I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at
the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs
and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts.
Hm. That text does not really make any sense. A win forms .NET app
is a desktop app as well. And comparing a web app with a desktop app
is at least when it comes to speed comparing apples with oranges.
The .Net apps I was refering to here were all desktop apps.
Then I do not understand the "slower than their desktop counterparts".
Arne
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Okay - *at the time*, no, we didn't bother. We simply showed the boss the
comparative figures, and he agreed that there was no point in continuing
with .Net. After all, everyone has deadlines, and we'd already beaten
ours. The last thing anyone wanted was to add another three months to the
project while we fiddled around trying to figure out how to get Yet
Another Microsoft Technology to do as it's told. It was that or deliver
fast code, early, within budget. We chose the latter. Wouldn't you?
I think everybody would.
Just don't conclude too much from the experience.
Arne
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] said:
>Do you think that .NET would be widely used at all if it were typically
60x slower than native code?
Yes, I'm afraid I do.
Don't.
0-60% is more likely to see.
Arne
Andre Kaufmann wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Jon Skeet [C# MVP] said:
>>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
I simply don't care enough to construct an example. Sorry.
In that case it would probably be worth avoiding the assertion that
.NET is slow in future.
Yeah, fair enough - I'll revise it to "100% of the .Net projects I've
been involved with have run 60 times slower than their native
equivalents". :-)
Since you don't write which compiler and settings you used and which
code basis (C - Code / C-Sharp etc.) I don't believe you've compiled
.NET code at all.
So because a guy can not remember the compiler switches he used on
a project 4-5 years then you do not believe the project existed.
Hmmmm. I guess I have been working on bunch of non existing projects
in my time.
Arne
CBFalconer wrote:
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" wrote:
... snip ...
>I suspect that if I wrote C++ trying to use .NET idioms, that
could be slow as well - but I wouldn't make the assumption that
that was the fault of C++.
It's worth accepting that different platforms have different
idioms, and that you shouldn't expect your first experiences in
a "new" platform to compare well with experiences in a platform
on which you have a lot of experience.
Now, if you'd hired a .NET developer (not necessarily an expert
- just someone who was genuinely familiar with the platform),
profiled the app, *tried* to make it perform well, and still
failed - *that* would have been good evidence that .NET was
slow for your particular situation. (It still wouldn't have
been good *general* evidence of course.)
I think you are all missing the fundamental point. C++ has a well
known, and generally adhered to, ISO standard.
And what is ECMA-334 ?
.NET is basically a
single supplier system. Richard and associates prefer not to be
limited to such a small user area.
You consider Windows a small area ??
Hmmmm.
The fact that they could
immediately find bugs [1] is confirmation of their wisdom.
[1] I define a slow-down factor of 60 as a bug.
No it does not.
Since it is unclear what exactly caused the lack of
performance.
All indications is that something was not ported properly.
I do not blame the dev team for that. Brand new technology
introduced late in a project with a deadline is not a recipe
for success.
But considering it wisdom may be stretching it !
Arne
Andre Kaufmann wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Andre Kaufmann said:
>>I don't believe you've compiled .NET code at all.
Then we have nothing further to discuss.
O.K., you stated you don't want to port your code to .NET in another
post and you said that your code runs 60 times slower under .NET ?
If I ask how you did it you simply ignore the questions. And if I try to
tickle you a bit to get it out, you seem to be offended.
You blame others knowing nothing of performance, but you can't tell us
why your code port (was it ?) has been that slow.
So the facts:
a) You have C++ code
b) Stated you compiled it somehow as .NET application
c) Stated that it runs 60 times slower
d) Have no single proof
e) Don't tell us how you did b)
f) Blaming others to be kind of dumb by using the words "clicky-pointy"
g) Can't prove it all
He did explain that it was many years ago and that he obviously
could not provide the code (which should not even be necesarry
to state BTW).
And it is a free world.
He can post his opinion on .NET performance.
People can ask if he has a code example.
And he can explain that it was business code.
And then readers must summarize all experiences posted and
make their own conclusions.
But you can not demand proof.
Arne
Andre Kaufmann wrote:
Currently my conclusion, derived from the posts was:
----------------------------------------------------
You have compiled your code with Visual Studio C++ .NET in the debug
version, which is .... slow compared to the release switch. This is a
rather common "problem", when switching the compilers from CBuilder to
VStudio, because by default CBuilder (the old version) hasn't supported
multiple configurations and starts by default with all optimizations
turned on.
Even if you turn all optimizations on in VStudios debug default
configuration of a C++ project, the debug heap is still active and slows
down heavily your application. Since you are using commonly *not*
VStudio but only CBuilder I came to the conclusion above.
Shouldn't be offensive to you at all.
1) I doubt that could give a x60 difference
2) C++ programmers usually check compiler switches
3) You can not serious expect him to remember the project settings
on a project 4-5 years ago.
Arne
Michael D. Ober wrote:
1) What version of dotNET? I suspect it's 1.1 with VS 2003 from your
time frame. Version 2.0 is signficantly faster that 1.1 for most
applications.
Stuff like generic collections for simple data types has provides
huge performance improvements, but not in the x60 range.
I have not seen big improvements in the JIT (32 bit).
3) Did you use automated porting tools or did you take the time to
actually rework the application to take advantage of the features in
dotNET? I suspect the answer to this is that you didn't spend the time
to use the framework the way it was designed.
As Jon has posted a couple of times, then different language
sometimes requires different way of doing things.
Arne
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>OK - now we're getting somewhere. I have heard that the C++ in VS 2003
had some major issues with performance, especially when mixing C++ code
with
dotNET libraries. I do know that Visual C++ 7.0 is slower than VC++ 6.0.
So in other words, you recognise that the .Net implementation I was using
had serious performance issues, which is what I said all along.
I think he is talking about small percentages not x60.
>In addition, you need to realize that Managed C++ isn't a true dotNET
language. Rather, it's a hybrid. Thus you can't really make the claim
that dotNET apps are slower than C++.
It said .Net on the box. Are you telling me Microsoft were lying to my
then-client by claiming it was .Net when really it wasn't .Net? Would you
advise them to sue Microsoft?
C++ in .NET variation supports so called mixed mode with both native
code and .NET managed code. I don't think you can sue MS for that.
But it is a rather complex matter.
Arne
Liz wrote:
so why in god's name are you talking about code you don't have, can't
disclose (nonsense and you know it) and don't really care about ?
Why not ?
Do you think people should only post their experience if they
can release the source code the experience is based on ?
Arne
Arne Vajhøj said:
[elsethread]
You are narrowing your tool set unnecessarily if you assume
that the x60 difference is a general case.
Yes, I understand that. Nevertheless, there are so many tools in the shed
already. That's why producers of new tools have to impress their potential
customers quickly.
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say
it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by
two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which
doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?
I don't think it say much.
Ask 2 programmers with 40 years of C# experience - hmmm make that
10 programmers with 40 years of C# experience - to write a C++ app.
(Presumably you mean 40 years total.)
I doubt the result will be good. And that is not C++'s fault.
Ask 10 programmers to write an app in any language, and I doubt the result
will be good. :-)
It is not clear to me whether the .NET language used was C# or
managed C++ aka C++/CLI,
It was C++, translated into "managed C++".
but the latter looks like C++ but is significantly different anyway.
Agreed! :-)
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Randy Howard wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:38:13 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote
(in article <#i**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>):
>I'm not sure why people discount mono all the time. Mono works and is
being used - for real applications. No, it is not 100% compatible with
MS's implementation - but, it is pretty close.
On what percentage of the platforms for which a standard (pick a
flavor) C or C++ implementation is available?
Win/x86
MacOS X/x86
MacoS X/PPC
Solaris/SPARC
Linux/x86
Linux/PPC
Linux/IA-64
Linux/IBM mainframe
are the supported ones I think.
It has also been build on some other platforms like *BSD/x86,
Solaris/x86 etc..
Arne
Arne Vajhøj said:
Scott Roberts wrote:
<snip>
>>
Of course we all know that any recursive routine can be rewritten as an
iterative routine.
And you do not think 2 guys with 40 years of C++ experience would
know that ??
Um, quite so. [1]
But the point bears addressing anyway. The suggestion seems to be
"eliminate the recursion by replacing it with iteration, and the code will
speed up". But of course programming languages are all about expressive
power. The original code (in "native" C++) expressed inherently recursive
algorithms recursively, and was thus easy and quick to write. Translating
it into an iterative equivalent for the sake of .Net would have been
(relatively) difficult and slow, and therefore expensive, and there was no
guarantee that the performance gain would have been sufficient to justify
the expense of carrying out the conversion. What's more, the code would
have ended up as a *poorer* expression of the algorithms we were using,
and thus it would have been harder (read: more expensive) to maintain.
[1] Just one nit - one of the "guys" (and the brighter of the two, in fact)
was actually a gal.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Arne Vajhøj said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Jon Skeet [C# MVP] said:
>>Do you think that .NET would be widely used at all if it were typically
60x slower than native code?
Yes, I'm afraid I do.
Don't.
0-60% is more likely to see.
Er, this might be a misunderstanding. I was not claiming here that .Net
/is/ typically 60x slower. I was merely claiming that, if it /were/, I
think it would still be widely used even so (because it has "Microsoft"
written on the box).
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Arne Vajhøj said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>OK - now we're getting somewhere. I have heard that the C++ in VS 2003
had some major issues with performance, especially when mixing C++ code
with
dotNET libraries. I do know that Visual C++ 7.0 is slower than VC++
6.0.
So in other words, you recognise that the .Net implementation I was
using had serious performance issues, which is what I said all along.
I think he is talking about small percentages not x60.
Well, I hope so. Still, he did say "major issues with performance".
>>In addition, you need to realize that Managed C++ isn't a true dotNET
language. Rather, it's a hybrid. Thus you can't really make the claim
that dotNET apps are slower than C++.
It said .Net on the box. Are you telling me Microsoft were lying to my
then-client by claiming it was .Net when really it wasn't .Net? Would
you advise them to sue Microsoft?
C++ in .NET variation supports so called mixed mode with both native
code and .NET managed code. I don't think you can sue MS for that.
Yeah, I know - I was teasing him a little, that's all.
But it is a rather complex matter.
The problem is that we live in a sound-bite world, where complex matters
are invariably over-simplified. The original claim, "I've only ever heard
one objection to .Net", smacked (to me, at least) of over-simplification,
hence this entire sub-thread. I hope that at least one person's horizons
have been stretched a little as a result. :-)
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:47***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
Liz wrote:
>so why in god's name are you talking about code you don't have, can't
disclose (nonsense and you know it) and don't really care about ?
Why not ?
Do you think people should only post their experience if they
can release the source code the experience is based on ?
I think posting 30 messages on a topic positing an implausible 60x
performance deficit while providing **NO** detail about the code is
ridiculous ... when the poster further says he doesn't really care about the
code, what do you think we should conclude, Arne? That he's making a
sincere effort to contribute something worthwhile to the dialogue? Don't
think so ....
Liz said:
what do you think we should conclude, Arne? That he's making a
sincere effort to contribute something worthwhile to the dialogue?
What you *should* conclude is really up to you. But what you *could*
conclude with a great deal of accuracy is that I started off by making a
simple and perfectly valid reply to someone else's article, and that the
discussion then grew out of all proportion to the importance of the
original point, as it so often does on Usenet.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Liz wrote:
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:47***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
>Liz wrote:
>>so why in god's name are you talking about code you don't have, can't
disclose (nonsense and you know it) and don't really care about ?
>Why not ?
>Do you think people should only post their experience if they
can release the source code the experience is based on ?
I think posting 30 messages on a topic positing an implausible 60x
performance deficit while providing **NO** detail about the code is
ridiculous ... when the poster further says he doesn't really care about the
code, what do you think we should conclude, Arne? That he's making a
sincere effort to contribute something worthwhile to the dialogue? Don't
think so ....
The only place King Little Richard is appreciated in is by his (MS
posse)is in comp.programming. He is a (MS basher) King Little Richard is
and the Supremes. But even his Supremes have better sense to not show.
You should drop him like a hot rock.
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:03:50 -0600, Arne Vajhøj wrote
(in article <47***********************@news.sunsite.dk>):
Randy Howard wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:38:13 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote
(in article <#i**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>):
>>I'm not sure why people discount mono all the time. Mono works and is
being used - for real applications. No, it is not 100% compatible with
MS's implementation - but, it is pretty close.
On what percentage of the platforms for which a standard (pick a
flavor) C or C++ implementation is available?
Win/x86
MacOS X/x86
MacoS X/PPC
Solaris/SPARC
Linux/x86
Linux/PPC
Linux/IA-64
Linux/IBM mainframe
are the supported ones I think.
It has also been build on some other platforms like *BSD/x86,
Solaris/x86 etc..
If the above list of platforms where you can use Mono is accurate, and
I have no reason to doubt you, then it is /much/ less portable than
either C or C++.
Of the above list, I am only familiar with comments on its
functionality and compatibility with two of them relative to .NET on
Windows platforms, and they have been so far that it is not baked, and
does not allow relatively complex .NET apps written for Windows
platforms to move over easily, or in some cases at all.
Since my impression is that Mono is by no means "baked" yet, and that
Microsoft isn't exactly not developing .NET anymore either, Mono is
chasing a moving target somewhat, so I don't find this particularly
surprising, and don't fault Mono itself. It's an understandable
problem.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
If the above list of platforms where you can use Mono is accurate, and
I have no reason to doubt you, then it is /much/ less portable than
either C or C++.
You can't actually compare the portability of .net against C(++). .net is
more than just a language, it is a framework, while C(++) you are talking
about is a language + small library.
Furthermore, even those aren't exactly portable due to different library
implementations, right?
>
Of the above list, I am only familiar with comments on its
functionality and compatibility with two of them relative to .NET on
Windows platforms, and they have been so far that it is not baked, and
does not allow relatively complex .NET apps written for Windows
platforms to move over easily, or in some cases at all.
Since my impression is that Mono is by no means "baked" yet, and that
Microsoft isn't exactly not developing .NET anymore either, Mono is
chasing a moving target somewhat, so I don't find this particularly
surprising, and don't fault Mono itself. It's an understandable
problem.
Here steps in Silverlight 2.0....
--
Miha Markic [MVP C#, INETA Country Leader for Slovenia]
RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/
"Miha Markic" <miha at rthand comsaid:
>
>If the above list of platforms where you can use Mono is accurate, and
I have no reason to doubt you, then it is /much/ less portable than
either C or C++.
You can't actually compare the portability of .net against C(++).
Er, why not?
.net is
more than just a language, it is a framework, while C(++) you are talking
about is a language + small library.
Nevertheless, if you require Functionality F to be available on Platform P,
and are not prepared to go to the trouble of porting a development tool to
Platform P yourself, you have no option but to choose a development tool
that is available on Platform P. If Platform P has a C (or C++)
implementation available that provides the infrastructure (i.e. sufficient
features) for implementing F but no .Net implementation, then you can
implement Functionality F on Platform P using C (or C++), but you cannot
use .Net to do the same thing. Now range over all P (for a given F), and
you have a relative portability measure between C (or C++) and .Net - thus
demonstrating that you can in fact compare the portability of .Net against
C (or C++). But see below.
Furthermore, even those aren't exactly portable due to different library
implementations, right?
Both C and C++ are defined by ISO standards. C compilers that conform to
ISO/IEC 9899:1990 are available on a very, very wide range of platforms,
including not just desktop and middle range machines, but also top-end
mainframes and tiny little embedded systems. To a lesser extent, this is
also true of C++. For hosted environments, this also includes the standard
library specified by ISO.
Having said all that, in one sense you are right, because .Net offers
vastly more functionality than either ISO C or ISO C++ (flashy graphics,
mouse-talk, and the like - stuff that you /can/ do in C or C++ but only by
using vendor-supplied or third-party libraries that are not part of the
standard language), and so in that sense they're not really comparable. It
would be like comparing a chainsaw with a machine shop. You can do a lot
more with the machine shop, but on the other hand it's a lot harder to
carry around!
<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkschrieb:
And then readers must summarize all experiences posted and
make their own conclusions.
Facts are not subject of a poll. It's perfectly valid to request a proof to
substantiate claims.
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Arne Vajhøj said:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say
it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by
two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which
doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?
I don't think it say much.
Ask 2 programmers with 40 years of C# experience - hmmm make that
10 programmers with 40 years of C# experience - to write a C++ app.
(Presumably you mean 40 years total.)
Yup. As for the 2 C++ programmers.
>I doubt the result will be good. And that is not C++'s fault.
Ask 10 programmers to write an app in any language, and I doubt the result
will be good. :-)
It is possible, but the the process needs to be different.
Arne
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkschrieb:
>And then readers must summarize all experiences posted and
make their own conclusions.
Facts are not subject of a poll. It's perfectly valid to request a
proof to substantiate claims.
It is valid.
But the one doing it should expect to be laughed at.
Arne
Randy Howard wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:03:50 -0600, Arne Vajhøj wrote
(in article <47***********************@news.sunsite.dk>):
Win/x86
MacOS X/x86
MacoS X/PPC
Solaris/SPARC
Linux/x86
Linux/PPC
Linux/IA-64
Linux/IBM mainframe
are the supported ones I think.
It has also been build on some other platforms like *BSD/x86,
Solaris/x86 etc..
If the above list of platforms where you can use Mono is accurate, and
I have no reason to doubt you, then it is /much/ less portable than
either C or C++.
Not necessary less portable.
C/C++ programs are usually not portable at all.
But absolutely less platforms available.
But the list does cover some of the most popular platforms.
Of the above list, I am only familiar with comments on its
functionality and compatibility with two of them relative to .NET on
Windows platforms, and they have been so far that it is not baked, and
does not allow relatively complex .NET apps written for Windows
platforms to move over easily, or in some cases at all.
In that sense it is much like C/C++ - stick with the standard
and it it portable - do some platform specific and it is not
portable.
Arne This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: thecrow |
last post by:
Alright, what the hell is going on here?
In the following code, I expect the printed result to be:
DEBUG: frank's last name is burns.
Instead, what I get is:
DEBUG: frank's last name is...
|
by: Brandon J. Van Every |
last post by:
What's better about Ruby than Python? I'm sure there's something. What is
it?
This is not a troll. I'm language shopping and I want people's answers. I
don't know beans about Ruby or have...
|
by: mike420 |
last post by:
I think everyone who used Python will agree that its syntax is
the best thing going for it. It is very readable and easy
for everyone to learn. But, Python does not a have very good
macro...
|
by: Reed L. O'Brien |
last post by:
I see rotor was removed for 2.4 and the docs say use an AES module
provided separately... Is there a standard module that works alike or
an AES module that works alike but with better encryption?...
|
by: Philippe C. Martin |
last post by:
I apologize in advance for launching this post but I might get enlightment
somehow (PS: I am _very_ agnostic ;-).
- 1) I do not consider my intelligence/education above average
- 2) I am very...
|
by: Dario |
last post by:
The following simple program behaves differently
in Windows and Linux .
#include <stdexcept>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
class LogicError : public logic_error {...
|
by: Sarah Tanembaum |
last post by:
Beside its an opensource and supported by community, what's the fundamental
differences between PostgreSQL and those high-price commercial database (and
some are bloated such as Oracle) from...
|
by: Neal |
last post by:
Patrick Griffiths weighs in on the CSS vs table layout debate in his blog
entry "Tables my ass" - http://www.htmldog.com/ptg/archives/000049.php . A
quite good article.
|
by: typingcat |
last post by:
First of all, I'm an Asian and I need to input Japanese, Korean and so
on. I've tried many PHP IDEs today, but almost non of them supported
Unicode (UTF-8) file.
I've found that the only Unicode...
|
by: Midnight Java Junkie |
last post by:
Dear Colleagues:
I feel that the dumbest questions are those that are never asked. I have
been given the opportunity to get into .NET. Our organization has a
subscription with Microsoft that...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and...
| |
