Disappointment in VC++ .Net in VS2008

[Edward Diener]

Why bother having Stan Lippman and Herb Sutter created a C++/CLI
language for .Net development when Microsoft, and the VC++ development
team, are so clearly intent on limiting .Net development with C++/CLI to
the smallest subset of .Net development technologies in Visual Studio,
while all of the new technologies are given to C# instead ? The bubble
has burst with VS 2008 and we are instead finally told quite frankly, by
a lead VC++ team developer, that VC++ is not going to be a first-class
..Net development language. In that case why bother with C++/CLI, since
it serves little to no purpose for C++ programmers anymore. Here is the
lineup:

1) ASP .NET, not for C++
2) Web services in .Net, not for C++ and even web services client
development is removed in VS 2008.
3) WPF, not for C++ and even creating controls for WPF is absent for
C++/CLI.
4) WCF, not for C++.
5) WWF, not for C++
6) LINQ, not for C++.

Finally all advanced web application development is remove from C++ with
the abandonment of the ATL Server.

VS 2008 is an abortion for C++ .Net developers in every way. The message
is now clear from Microsoft and the pretense is finally dropped "If you
want to do .Net development in C++, just forget about it and start
programming in C#". It should have been clear from the beginning, with
the miraculously appearing loader lock bug, but now is transparent.

Instead the big news in VC++ for VS 2008 is Vista updates for MFC of all
technologies. Gee, I am sure glad I learned a RAD technology like .Net
so I could go back to doing MFC development.

C++/CLI is such a good language, with so much careful and intelligent
decisions made so that it is superior to C# in almost every way, that it
is sad to finally realize that Microsoft never had any plans for C++
developers to effectively compete with C# developers in the .Net world.
It was just a sop so that they could attract C++ developers and turn
them toward C#.

Stan Lippman, Herb Sutter, Brandon Bray, and others, you should all be
ashamed of yourselves in leading VC++ straight to a dead end of
programming for .Net.

[Tom Walker]

"Edward Diener" <ed************ *******@tropics oft.comwrote in message
news:OU******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P04.phx.gbl...

C++/CLI is such a good language, with so much careful and intelligent
decisions made so that it is superior to C# in almost every way, that it
is sad to finally realize that Microsoft never had any plans for C++
developers to effectively compete with C# developers in the .Net world. It
was just a sop so that they could attract C++ developers and turn them
toward C#.

What's wrong with you? If you know only one programming language you are a
dinosaur. Use C++ when appropriate. Use C# when appropriate. Use other
languages when appropriate. Stop being anal. Get over it. Move on. Happy
Holidays.

[Edward Diener]

Tom Walker wrote:

"Edward Diener" <ed************ *******@tropics oft.comwrote in message
news:OU******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P04.phx.gbl...

>C++/CLI is such a good language, with so much careful and intelligent
decisions made so that it is superior to C# in almost every way, that
it is sad to finally realize that Microsoft never had any plans for
C++ developers to effectively compete with C# developers in the .Net
world. It was just a sop so that they could attract C++ developers and
turn them toward C#.

What's wrong with you? If you know only one programming language you are
a dinosaur. Use C++ when appropriate. Use C# when appropriate. Use other
languages when appropriate. Stop being anal. Get over it. Move on. Happy
Holidays.

I know C#, Java, and Python very well, thank you.

So it is absolutely normal to you that C++/CLI, despite being a version
of C++ expressly created for .Net programming, should not have the same
visual programming support in the Visual Studio IDE for mainstream .Net
technologies that C# and VB .Net have, and that anyone using those
mainstream technologies will almost certainly program them using C# and
VB .Net.

This was the gist of my OP. While you have a good point that one should
be flexible in learning more than one programming language, I think it
is quite normal for programmers to be disappointed when the promise and
hype of using a programming language soons becomes obsoleted by the very
same people who hyped and promised in the first place. C++/CLI was
created as a means for C++ programmers to be on equal footing when using
..Net technologies as C# and VB .Net programmers, else it is purely a
waste of time IMO. That was the promise but evidently the reality is
completely different.

Now we are told and most obviously shown in the current VS 2008 release
that it will not happen, that C++/CLI will be treated as a second class
..Net language, by the very same people who created and hyped C++/CLI in
the first place.

The C++ community has been tamed into a meek and mild acceptance of all
of the propaganda and false promises which come down from Microsoft and,
previously, Borland. If anyone objects to this second-class treatment in
relation to C# or VB .Net or Delphi, all inferior languages to C++, they
are told to get over it and move on.

I can easily program the .Net technologies in C#. It is a simple
language and supremely easy for an experienced C++ programmer such as
myself to use. After all, that is what Microsoft wanted in the first
place, to move C++ programmers to C# for the purpose of doing .Net
programming. C++/CLI I see now as essentially a ploy to throw C++ a bone
which will become more and more worthless to use as time goes on and all
new .Net technologies are co-opted toward C# ( and VB .Net ), despite
C++/CLI's superiority other .Net languages.

[David Lowndes]

>C++/CLI is such a good language, with so much careful and intelligent

>decisions made so that it is superior to C# in almost every way, that it
is sad to finally realize that Microsoft never had any plans for C++
developers to effectively compete with C# developers in the .Net world.

I agree, C++/CLI is a way better language than C# - and I could never
truly understand why Microsoft gave themselves the headache of
supporting 3 general purpose languages when 1 could have done it all.
IMHO they made lots of poor decisions with .Net - but it's all water
under the bridge now - isn't it?

At least we know they now know that people use C++ for developing all
aspects of Windows applications in the native code area - let's just
hope they don't forget that!

Dave

[Tom Walker]

"Edward Diener" <ed************ *******@tropics oft.comwrote in message
news:uH******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

>
The C++ community has been tamed into a meek and mild acceptance of all of
the propaganda and false promises which come down from Microsoft and,
previously, Borland. If anyone objects to this second-class treatment in
relation to C# or VB .Net or Delphi, all inferior languages to C++, they
are told to get over it and move on.

I don't recall hearing any promises that C++/CLI was supposed to be on equal
footing with C# and VB.NET in the .NET world. Personally, I think C++/CLI is
awesome technology and I'm glad to have it in my toolbox. But I don't want
Microsoft to rewrite their C++ compiler to support partial classes and all
of the new C# 3.0 features. I prefer the C++ compiler to be solid and
reliable.

And I don't see where you're coming from suggesting that there is ploy to
convert C++ programmers into C# programmers. Microsoft doesn't care what
programming language you use. C++ is not going away. Ever.

[David Lowndes]

>I agree, C++/CLI is a way better language than C# - and I could never

>truly understand why Microsoft gave themselves the headache of
supporting 3 general purpose languages when 1 could have done it all.

.Net is supposed to be language agnostic as long as the language support
the CLR. This is a big part of Microsoft's selling point for it as
opposed to Java.

It is, but my point was that MS are not an infinite resource and they
saddled themselves with supporting 3 general purpose languages for
..Net. That's more than enough to bog down any organisation.

>Since C++/CLI is Microsoft's own C++-like language for .Net they should
support it just as well as they support C# and VB .Net.

I agree - but that won't make it happen :)

>That does not explain to me logically why
C++/CLI was created, except as a sop to C++ programmers while forcing
them to use C# instead.

MS will say that it's there to enable easy (much easier than C# or VB)
interfacing with existing C/C++ code - which it does very well.

Personally, I wish I could do everything .Net in C++/CLI - but I can't
(at least not easily).

Dave

[Bo Persson]

Edward Diener wrote:
::
:: Saying that "Microsoft does not care what programming language you
:: use" is absurd. They would certainly care if programmers abandoned
:: C# and VB .Net and switched to C++, Java, Python, or Ruby and did
:: cross-platform or Macintosh or Linux programming instead of
:: Windows programming.

Exactly!

One of the big reasons MS already talks about big improvements in VC10
("Orcas + 1"), is that they have just realized that some people do
high performance server coding in C++. After pushing the .NET thing
for several years, it suddenly occured to them that Windows is no
longer cross-platform enough to run this code. GASP!!
Bo Persson

[Edward Diener]

Bo Persson wrote:

Edward Diener wrote:
::
:: Saying that "Microsoft does not care what programming language you
:: use" is absurd. They would certainly care if programmers abandoned
:: C# and VB .Net and switched to C++, Java, Python, or Ruby and did
:: cross-platform or Macintosh or Linux programming instead of
:: Windows programming.

Exactly!

One of the big reasons MS already talks about big improvements in VC10
("Orcas + 1"), is that they have just realized that some people do
high performance server coding in C++. After pushing the .NET thing
for several years, it suddenly occured to them that Windows is no
longer cross-platform enough to run this code. GASP!!

So they drop ATL Server, there one advanced C++ web server technology ?
That makes no sense given your assumption above.

I just do not buy the idea that Microsoft can not support C++ on both
the native side and the .Net side equally. We are talking about the
richest and most prestigious software company in the world.

[Edward Diener]

David Lowndes wrote:

>>I agree, C++/CLI is a way better language than C# - and I could never
truly understand why Microsoft gave themselves the headache of
supporting 3 general purpose languages when 1 could have done it all.

.Net is supposed to be language agnostic as long as the language support
the CLR. This is a big part of Microsoft's selling point for it as
opposed to Java.

It is, but my point was that MS are not an infinite resource and they
saddled themselves with supporting 3 general purpose languages for
.Net. That's more than enough to bog down any organisation.

Microsoft is the richest software company in the world, and there are
numberless C++ programmers who would only be too glad to be rated highly
enough by them to work for them. I doubt that they skimped when they
hired Stan Lippman and Herb Sutter to work for them and I doubt, if they
were interested in making C++ a first class .Net language, they would
skimp in hiring top talent to make it so. I am afraid I can not buy this
argument.

>

>Since C++/CLI is Microsoft's own C++-like language for .Net they should
support it just as well as they support C# and VB .Net.

I agree - but that won't make it happen :)

It will make it happen if enough C++ programmers voice their displeasure
and refuse to spend their money. Microsoft is not stupid and they do
react to market forces.

Instead all I have heard is dead silence or needless praise of the fact
that Microsoft has decided to work exclusively on the native C++ side in
VS 2008 and essentially halt and/or remove C++ technologies for .Net in
VS 2008. While I am very happy Microsoft is working more toward standard
C++ compliance, I am very disappointed that they have almost completely
dropped the ball with C++/CLI for .Net.

>

>That does not explain to me logically why
C++/CLI was created, except as a sop to C++ programmers while forcing
them to use C# instead.

MS will say that it's there to enable easy (much easier than C# or VB)
interfacing with existing C/C++ code - which it does very well.

Personally, I wish I could do everything .Net in C++/CLI - but I can't
(at least not easily).

There is no basic difference in functionality using C++/CLI interfacing
with .Net as there is using C#. The .Net side of C++/CLI still must
follow CLR and CLS rules. I can not beleieve it is easy/easier
interfacing with C#/VB than with C++/CLI.

[David Lowndes]

>Microsoft is the richest software company in the world, and there are

>numberless C++ programmers who would only be too glad to be rated highly
enough by them to work for them.

That maybe, but we all know that you don't solve software problems by
throwing more people and money at it - it doesn't work! The best
software is made by small groups of people who all know where they're
heading, what they're doing, and are enthusiastic about it. The bigger
a project is, the more bureaucratic and inflexible it will become :(

>It will make it happen if enough C++ programmers voice their displeasure
and refuse to spend their money. Microsoft is not stupid and they do
react to market forces.

Which is presumably why they've decided to re-emphasise MFC - albeit
just buying in and reworking a 3'rd party library.

>Instead all I have heard is dead silence or needless praise of the fact
that Microsoft has decided to work exclusively on the native C++ side in
VS 2008 and essentially halt and/or remove C++ technologies for .Net in
VS 2008. While I am very happy Microsoft is working more toward standard
C++ compliance, I am very disappointed that they have almost completely
dropped the ball with C++/CLI for .Net.

Out of interest, what do you find advantageous in .Net that native C++
doesn't give you?

>There is no basic difference in functionality using C++/CLI interfacing
with .Net as there is using C#. The .Net side of C++/CLI still must
follow CLR and CLS rules. I can not beleieve it is easy/easier
interfacing with C#/VB than with C++/CLI.

I don't see why it should be easier either (other than some poor
design decisions - like Win Forms generating code) - but I don't have
to write the tools so I really don't know!

Dave