J
Jim Hubbard
Can you create C++ apps that do not require the .Net runtimes using C++
..Net?
..Net?
C
Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]
Jim said:
Yes. VC++ is the only ".NET" language than can produce "native" executables
in addition to .NET assemblies.
-cd
J
Jim Hubbard
Would you recommend learning C++ .Net as opposed to learning C++ with MS C++
6.0?
My only concern is the ability to learn and alter things like VNC or other
C++ code in the .Net editor without having to include the .Net sstuff in the
output.
6.0?
My only concern is the ability to learn and alter things like VNC or other
C++ code in the .Net editor without having to include the .Net sstuff in the
output.
D
Don Kim
Jim Hubbard said:
I would recommend learning standard ISO/ANSI C++ throughly first, then
things like C++/CLI .Net, MFC, Win32, etc. Though if you are a complete
newbie, expect to spend at least 2-5 years to learn standard C++ at a
reasonable level.
- Don Kim
C
Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]
Jim said:
VC6 is nearly 7 years out of date - I definitely wouldn't recommend spending
any time with it. VC++.NET is a product, not a language. You should
definitely learn to use the Visual C++ .NET 2003 product, but concentrate on
the ISO/IEC 14882 standard C++. VC++ 2003 (also known as VC7.1) is about
98% conformant to the ISO standard, so you should be able to pick up just
about any standard C++ book and have no problems. I would recommend staying
away from any book with VC++ in it's title.
Your programs contain only what you put into them. If you don't use .NET,
then there won't be any .NET in your programs.
-cd
C
Cerksees
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
Time to study now....
Time to study now....
A
AAA
Thanks for replying. But study what? Too many products! 10 years ago I
had VB. I liked it. If I want a window, just drag it to what size you
want, and boom, it's coded. I'm hoping VC is like that. (Did almost no
programming)
Now I am retired I have the time sit down and play all day with
programming. I understand that VC++ is like the basic I saw several
years ago. Drag and drop a window (no fooling with pixels). I also know
that it is harder to learn, but I got all day. I am also leaning towards
games as a product. I believe that in order to get VC++, it is included
on MS Studio3000. But MS 5000 is coming out with VC7 on it.
I like to stick with MS products. If the up grade to VS5000 is only
around $50 I'll get VS3000 now, or I'll simply wait and read books till
VS5000 is finished.
A little guidance of what to do is needed, as I certainly don't know
what I'm doing and don't want buy a $2,000 toy now, to find out that I
need a new one in 6 months.
Thanks (again) for your time.
had VB. I liked it. If I want a window, just drag it to what size you
want, and boom, it's coded. I'm hoping VC is like that. (Did almost no
programming)
Now I am retired I have the time sit down and play all day with
programming. I understand that VC++ is like the basic I saw several
years ago. Drag and drop a window (no fooling with pixels). I also know
that it is harder to learn, but I got all day. I am also leaning towards
games as a product. I believe that in order to get VC++, it is included
on MS Studio3000. But MS 5000 is coming out with VC7 on it.
I like to stick with MS products. If the up grade to VS5000 is only
around $50 I'll get VS3000 now, or I'll simply wait and read books till
VS5000 is finished.
A little guidance of what to do is needed, as I certainly don't know
what I'm doing and don't want buy a $2,000 toy now, to find out that I
need a new one in 6 months.
Thanks (again) for your time.
Cerksees said:
C
Cerksees
I LOVED VB6! Creating simple applications was simple, and that's what 90%
of programming is......simple apps for simple procedures that need to be
automated.
Not now. There is so much in VB.Net that programmers should never need to
see that it isn't funny.
I have only one problem with VB6, that damned huge runtime. Why didn't MS
make the VB6 runtime a part of a service pack? Talk about having the lights
on with nobody home.....
It was the same thing with .Net to begin with.... Version 1.0 of .Net was
an optional update, NOT a critical update. Now, if .Net is supposed to make
computing safer, I'd call that a critical update.
I have seen a few people shipping just the VB6 exe, and telling their
customers to DL the VB6 runtimes if they need them, but what would be cool
is an exe that would detect the missing runtimes and initiate a download
before running.
This too brings me back to .Net... The .Net runtimes are over 22 MB! A
properly written .Net application has the ability to detect needed classes
and download them from web services. In the case that a webservice hosts
several classes or objects, the app only downloads the ones it needs as they
are needed. After that, the downloaded components can be cached and do not
need to be downloaded again unless the components are updated on the server
of the cache is emptied on the local PC.
Why not make .Net applications detect what .Net classes or DLLs are missing
that the application needs and only download those portions? Then, .Net
would be distributed in bite-sized portions as it is needed automatically.
This would save customers time and save both the customers and Microsoft
bandwidth. Not to mention the small exe packages.
But, what do I know?
of programming is......simple apps for simple procedures that need to be
automated.
Not now. There is so much in VB.Net that programmers should never need to
see that it isn't funny.
I have only one problem with VB6, that damned huge runtime. Why didn't MS
make the VB6 runtime a part of a service pack? Talk about having the lights
on with nobody home.....
It was the same thing with .Net to begin with.... Version 1.0 of .Net was
an optional update, NOT a critical update. Now, if .Net is supposed to make
computing safer, I'd call that a critical update.
I have seen a few people shipping just the VB6 exe, and telling their
customers to DL the VB6 runtimes if they need them, but what would be cool
is an exe that would detect the missing runtimes and initiate a download
before running.
This too brings me back to .Net... The .Net runtimes are over 22 MB! A
properly written .Net application has the ability to detect needed classes
and download them from web services. In the case that a webservice hosts
several classes or objects, the app only downloads the ones it needs as they
are needed. After that, the downloaded components can be cached and do not
need to be downloaded again unless the components are updated on the server
of the cache is emptied on the local PC.
Why not make .Net applications detect what .Net classes or DLLs are missing
that the application needs and only download those portions? Then, .Net
would be distributed in bite-sized portions as it is needed automatically.
This would save customers time and save both the customers and Microsoft
bandwidth. Not to mention the small exe packages.
But, what do I know?
AAA said:
W
William DePalo [MVP VC++]
AAA said:
VC++ has not been in the past, is not now, and will not be anytime soon, the
product which provides an "almost no code" solution to any development
problem. Most of us who cherish <BWG> the language and/or the product do so
because it doesn't ever get in our way but rather lets us do what we want
even if it means we have to write alot.
If you want easy, go for C# or VB.Net.
If you want to use the mostpowerful and performant and all-purpose of the modern programming languages
choose C++.
Regards,
Will
A
AAA
William DePalo said:VC++ has not been in the past, is not now, and will not be anytime soon, the
product which provides an "almost no code" solution to any development
problem. Most of us who cherish <BWG> the language and/or the product do so
because it doesn't ever get in our way but rather lets us do what we want
even if it means we have to write alot.
If you want easy, go for C# or VB.Net.
powerful and performant and all-purpose of the modern programming languages
choose C++.
Regards,
Will
Awhile ago I took a class in 'C'. Comparing it VB the C code was
preferred. I have decided to go with Visual C++. I need someone to say
buy:
Product 1
product 2
product 3, etc.
Because I simply don't know what to buy.
Thanks again for your time.
W
William DePalo [MVP VC++]
AAA said:
Since then C has fallen out of favor, displaced largely, but not completely,
by C++.
If all your experience is with that class, "a while ago", I wouldn't buy
anything but a good book (or a dozen) on the language.
Download this FREE compiler from MS:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/
and use it to work through the book's exercises.
The compiler and linker it contains are what the cognoscienti use. It
doesn't contain the tools we use but you shouldn't need them yet. Learn the
language. By the time you become comfortable with the language this starter
product
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/visualc/default.aspx
will be out of beta. At that time, you can buy it. Alternatively you could
download it now, but I'm not sure beta software is best for a newbie.
You are welcome.
Regards,
Will
I
Ioannis Vranos
AAA said:
That was designing interfaces, not programming. And yes of course a C++
IDE can, and Visual C++ does support that.
The Visual Studio that exists now is 2003 and the next one will be
version 2005. Better wait for the upcoming VS 2005 release, and I think
Visual C++ Express 2005 will be suitable for your needs. In the meantime
why not read a good C++ book? "Accelerated C++" by Andrew Koenig,
Barbara Moo is a very good one.
Another good one for completely newcomers without previous programming
experience is "You Can Do It! : A Beginners Introduction to Computer
Programming" by Francis Glassborow.
Also for good book reviews check http://www.accu.org at the Book reviews
section.
Best regards,
Ioannis Vranos
I
Ioannis Vranos
William said:VC++ has not been in the past, is not now, and will not be anytime soon, the
product which provides an "almost no code" solution to any development
problem. Most of us who cherish <BWG> the language and/or the product do so
because it doesn't ever get in our way but rather lets us do what we want
even if it means we have to write alot.
If you want easy, go for C# or VB.Net.
powerful and performant and all-purpose of the modern programming languages
choose C++.
I agree with your last part, but why C# and VB are more easy than C++?
In Visual Studio they share the same RAD.
Best regards,
Ioannis Vranos
W
William DePalo [MVP VC++]
Ioannis Vranos said:
I guess that's a subjective estimation on my part but I've always thought
that my chosen language is just too damned hard with too many dark corners.
If you read this group or microsoft.public.vc.language you will see that the
regulars in those groups, whether they work inside and outside of the big
house, often sound like lawyers arguing over the meaning of a contract.
It is not like I am going to give it up anytime soon, but if I were just
starting out NOW I can't truthfully say that I would take the same path.
Regards,
Will
S
Steve McLellan
Ioannis Vranos said:
The C++ language is totally different from C# and VB. It has a lot of
features that make it extremely powerful, but that also make it more
difficult to use without fully understanding what you're doing. Even using
managed extensions to create .NET applications, C# and VB are far easier to
use, since C++ contains (by necessity) not only the ability to use the .NET
framework but old school C++ as well. It's possible to write more powerful
and faster applications in C++ (not to mention the fact that they can be
compiled and run on multiple platforms if you stick to the C++ standard),
but it takes more time to learn how to do that. If I were beginning
programming as a hobby rather than a job, and didn't intend to write any
applications that would require lightning speed or platform independence, I
wouldn't pick up C++ as a first language.
Steve
I
Ioannis Vranos
Steve said:
Well if your sole purpose was to write only .NET applications the only
thing you would have to do is to learn how to make classes and then
learn the .NET framework. No one forces you to learn more.
Best regards,
Ioannis Vranos
I
Ioannis Vranos
William said:
Well I would, because that's why I chose to learn it in the first case.
Because it is the best general purpose programming language.
In anycase no one forces you to learn the whole C++ so as to start programming.
Best regards,
Ioannis Vranos
S
Steve McLellan
True, but if that were the case I would use C# where the syntax is easierSteve said:
and less confusing and you don't have the option of doing dangerous things.
Plus the majority of books and examples about .NET are written in C# or VB.
Just seems weird to learn a tougher language if you don't have to, that's
all.
Steve
I
Ioannis Vranos
Steve said:
Talking about C++/CLI why is it more difficult to write ref class than
whatever you do in C#?
Also in C++ things are easier. Check this page I have been working on:
http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys/cppcli.htm
Best regards,
Ioannis Vranos
S
Steve McLellan
Ioannis Vranos said:
I only use C++ commercially, so I'm not bad-mouthing the language, it's just
that for someone who only wants to learn .NET I really don't believe C++ is
the best language, if just from a syntactic point of view. Right tool for
the right job, and like Java, C# is a much easier language to learn than C++
even if you're only sticking to .NET. In any case, the original poster
probably isn't reading this any more and I'm not trying to change your mind
Steve