Visual C++ 6 VS Visual C++ .NET

This is a discussion on Visual C++ 6 VS Visual C++ .NET within the C++ Programming forums, part of the General Programming Boards category; Hi, I have learned C++ and create program in DOS environment, and now i would like to create Window application ...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    56

    Visual C++ 6 VS Visual C++ .NET

    Hi,
    I have learned C++ and create program in DOS environment, and now i would like to create Window application and do window programming.

    Last year i bought a book call: "Visual C++ 6 in 24 hours".(I didn't start it yet..) But today, i realize that there are a new version of Visual C++(Visual C++ .NET).

    It seem that Visual C++ 6 is using MFC, but Visual C++ .NET use other thing...

    So which one i should learn??

    If i learn Visual C++, would it help me to learn Visual Basic later??

    Is there similarity between Visual C++ and Visual Basic????

  2. #2
    i want wookie cookies the Wookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    455
    they both can utilize MFC and they both can do it via API, so it doesn't matter if you learn how to do it in version 6 or .NET, since whatever code you write in either one will work in the other. .NET is essentially version 7

    (Visual) C++ is a different programming language than Visual Basic, so conceptually it may help, but in terms of syntax, they're both different.

  3. #3
    CS Author and Instructor
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    511
    the Wookie is right. VB and C++ are different languages with different syntax.
    Mr. C: Author and Instructor

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    648
    The addition C++.NET 7.0 has it that it can also compile into hybrids/full of managed code. That means that its garbage collected, you have access to the .NET Framework and whatever else features. You can mix unmanaged (normal) with managed (.NET) with VC++.NET 7.0. This is rarely ever used. It's mostly used to create wrappers for old code that needs to be used within another .NET language. Other than that and a few more ANSII C++ compatibilites, 6.0 and 7.0 are the same.

  5. #5
    Cat
    Cat is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,571
    BTW, you might want to get Visual C++ .NET 2003, if you're going to buy a compiler, because only 2003 is fully ANSI C++ compliant. The original .NET version (aka .NET 2002) wasn't; there are a few (legal) template operations that refuse to compile. Most templates work fine, but it is possible to break templates using the most advanced (and least used) features that C++ offers.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    56
    thanks everyone, since i only have Visual C++ 6, so i think i work on that.....

    So, even if i learn windows programming with visual c++ 6, it can help me to familiarise overall window programming skill(GUI programming). And easily switch to visual basic and any other version of visual c++ etc.

    Am i right?

  7. #7
    Cat
    Cat is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,571
    You could easily switch to any other version of Visual C++. VB is an entirely different language, with little in common with VC++, so you probably would want to avoid that; once you learn VC++ there's not much reason to do VB.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. We Got _DEBUG Errors
    By Tonto in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-22-2006, 05:45 PM
  2. C++ std routines
    By siavoshkc in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-28-2006, 01:13 AM
  3. load gif into program
    By willc0de4food in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-11-2006, 10:43 AM
  4. Errors with including winsock 2 lib
    By gamingdl'er in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-05-2005, 08:13 PM
  5. Learning OpenGL
    By HQSneaker in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-06-2004, 09:57 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21