Thread: C++/CLI arrogance

Originally Posted by FillYourBrain

mario f, the only problem is that half of what that guys is saying is a lie. multiple inheritance not there? lie. It's only not there on a ref or value class. On the traditional classes it's most certainly there. iostream and string not there? lie. I use them in my current .NET project.

Just goes to show one can't trust arbitrarly anything they read. Something I know for a long time and yet seem to keep forgetting. However, I suggest you read it slower, Fill. The author is not saying there is no iostream. It is saying C++/CLI doesn't support the Standard Library. This is important in the context of that paragraph since he is debating Microsoft's argument of C++/CLI being an extension to C++. You certainly can't have an extension to a language if you don't fully support that language.

There is one strong argument for C++/CLI, if you ask me. And it is in my opinion a very strong argument. In fact many businesses depend on it; development speed. After nvoigt reply to me on a related thread, I made a lot of reading and experimented a little with C++/CLI and I have to agree that it makes C++ based development much quicker. Many of its features ease the traditional C++ development and even "patch" (here not used derogatorily) some of the most time consuming and error prone code. Memory management to name one.

But you cannot deny the disadvantages either. I think you too need to open up your mind to the other side. Everything comes at an expense and certainly you cannot say here to programmers who have used more than a good share of different programming languages in their lifetime that C++/CLI answers all your problems.

Lack of portability; too many assumptious making your code bloated and uncaring for machines with lack of resources; speed issues to the point of the technology not being interesting enough for game development; and probably the most interesting one, does the world really need another managed programming language? I mean, could this had been done some other way?

No matter what, I have to say that the argument above for C++/CLI is the strongest one and it puts everything else to shame. Programming is about business decisions. And I bet that has been the major reason why C++/CLI has been welcomed by many.

But the purpose has been in this thread to dispel a few lies and some of the arrogance coming with it.

. C++/CLI is not an extension to C++. It is a whole new programming language that looks remarkably (read purposedly) like C++.
. C++/CLI is not the solution to all your problems. If you shut down the door to unmanaged code, you will effectively limit your operating system usability from the development point of view.
. C++/CLI use of the unsafe term is misleading and completely wrong. ISO C++ was never meant, and never will be a programming language built to be either safe or unsafe. Programmers on the other hand are unsafe. And I'm sure you can show me a millions ways in which C++/CLI can produce ugly, broken, and unsafe code or dangerous code. More, C++ has all manner of garbage collector libraries. On the other hand Boost offers smart pointers in many flavors and these are already part of the proposed TR1.