Damn right.Originally Posted by novocain
Never said it was, just said I hated it .Originally Posted by Bubba
Damn right.Originally Posted by novocain
Never said it was, just said I hated it .Originally Posted by Bubba
Trinity: "Neo... nobody has ever done this before."
Neo: "That's why it's going to work."
c9915ec6c1f3b876ddf38514adbb94f0
If I had to write a backend for an asp website I'd pick C# over VB
Why, if VB.Net and C# only difference is the syntax?Originally Posted by valis
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Because its the cool thing to use c#
In any event, as has been echoed in this thread, pretty much any programming language can be good if you put it in the areas it was designed for. No one forces you to use it .
Besides how can you hate something if you never experienced it? You can dislike something without association, but hating requires a whole new level of experience beyond the mere existential quality of that something.
I've used MFC before and I don't like it. Period.Originally Posted by dpro
Trinity: "Neo... nobody has ever done this before."
Neo: "That's why it's going to work."
c9915ec6c1f3b876ddf38514adbb94f0
Based on the information under your logo there I'd say your experience with MFC has been a superficial one. MFC is extremely complex and when used correctly it is extremely powerful. I would venture to say that dev time in MFC as opposed to pure Win32 might be decreased by nearly 60% ...and yet it's still C++ and not VB. What more could a programmer ask for?
Win32 is not object-oriented but MFC comes very close to making it as OO as can be w/o re-coding the OS. Hopefully all this will change with a new operating system.
I find that for the standard controls the api is far faster because you aren't forced into anything--for advanced controls, complex structure (callbacks smash gigantic switch statements) or special stuff like office 2003 menus MFC is obviously faster because that's already setup for you. Still, to throw together a small app which doesn't need extensible I find it much faster to deploy with the flat api.
As for vb.net being the same as C#, that's not exactly accurate, it's true one has access to the same libraries, but C# exposes more the to programmer and grants greater freedom--it also has more operators (At least since I last worked with vb. Why would a language not have decrement and increment?).
Because it's not part of the language specifications?Originally Posted by valis
The lack (or abundance of features thereof) is not the sole reason why one should choose a tool over another.
VB and C# have the exact same access to the framework. Sorry to dissapoint you. But they do. They have their own syntax and, as such, may provide different ways to reach certain goals. However, they are the same programming language being given in two flavours.
VB proved successful, even without decent memory management and with a laughable OOP. Even without the incrememt and decrement operators
You had for many years a lot of companies making a lot of money providing VB software to their clients (don't argue with me on this please) and a lot of companies gettin their work done supported by VB based tools. My question is thus exactly what you think makes a programming language good or bad?
What It Offers? or What It Delivers?
VB.Net is another proof of the success of this language. Here you have a huge base of VB programmers being shifted into a new paradigm while maintaining their know-how.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Oh definitely. I have not had extensive experience with MFC but I've used it and used pure Win32 and Win32 came out in top in my opinion. I know you're big on MFC, but I'm big on Win32 :P. The best part about MFC is how it's more OO than Win32. I still favor Win32 for multiple reasons.Originally Posted by Bubba
Trinity: "Neo... nobody has ever done this before."
Neo: "That's why it's going to work."
c9915ec6c1f3b876ddf38514adbb94f0
Whatever you think comes out on top, can't come out on top in all situations. I hope you realize this.
operating systems: mac os 10.6, debian 5.0, windows 7
editor: back to emacs because it's more awesomer!!
version control: git
website: http://0xff.ath.cx/~as/
That and you always say stuff like
> I still favor Win32 for multiple reasons.
but never tell CProg what those reasons are. So you aren't really helping us understand you; it's why Bubba still thinks your minimal experience with MFC affects what you're saying about it.
Nobody asked for my reasonsOriginally Posted by citizen
Trinity: "Neo... nobody has ever done this before."
Neo: "That's why it's going to work."
c9915ec6c1f3b876ddf38514adbb94f0
Well... i am now.
What's your reasons for favoring Win32 API over MFC?
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
@Mario F.
I'm not disagreeing you have access to the framework, you'll see I noted you have access to the same libraries in my post. I just don't like how VB tries to hide details and: access to things like increment, decrement, bitwise operators, dereference, unsafe mode, and it's weakly enforced syntax and cryptic block structure.
I'm not going to slap my employer if that's how he/she wants it done (that's the only time I've had to use it), I just would still pick C# over VB (for the reasons outlined above).
Originally Posted by citizen
Pretty much
The whole code bloat is an issue I admit. Perhaps some people feel the "slip-slap-bam" approach of MFC is not right, or complain about the speed of the app under MFC. Perhaps people feel dirty even using classes created by MS, who knows.
It works quite well when you don't wish to reinvent the wheel.
If you have used it once or twice, I can understand the initial dislike, as I too hated it for a bit, until I realized how much had been made for it. You can pick and choose what you wish to implement, or not. No one says you need pure MFC all the time. You can mix win32 with it, and no one is the wiser.