Thread: C++/CLI arrogance

isn't it a little bit early for you to be up TK?

<blows dean a kiss (not in a gay way)>

The meaning and manipulative aspect of the keyword "unsafe" is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Maybe I have different associations because english is not my native language, but unsafe from a .NET point of view has never been something negative for me. It's more like I'm Rick Dangerous, Adventure guy and master of the dangerous C++ domain that no .NET coder noob can handle on it's own. Look at me, I'm powerful, I can write unsafe code without hurting myself. Watch this !

I agree with that. Even a C++ veteran should be willing to admit to (and probably enjoy) the unsafeness of C++.

C++ can be unsafe, but if you are given a lot of power, you are also given a lot of responsibility to use the power correctly. Not everyone does that.

My love of C and C++ comes from the fact that they can be used for any programming task short of writing a boot sector for an operating system. They are so powerful and you don't have to work against the language to get things done. Most other languages, especially VB, you feel like the entire time the language is throwing up roadblocks intentionally just to tick you off and slow you down. C++ is elegant, efficient, and unbeatable when used correctly. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

.NET is probably a good thing but it is not more of a good thing than C++ or other languages. It's a runtime environment written by MS (bastardized Java VM), for an MS operating system (for the most part), and advertised like it's the best thing since the invention of the wheel. I would say this arrogance comes from the fact that if it does not work, MS won't be able to line their pockets with cash and since they don't want that to happen, they have to make it appear to be something that it's not. Fine it's a framework, runtime, etc., but it's in no way shape or form an extension to C++ - not by ISO standards and not by mine. I'd also be willing to bet that ISO won't certify it in it's current state.

You can say that C++/CLI is to C++ as C++ is to C. More generally, you can view the evolution leading to C++/CLI in the following historical context:

And this is the arrogance I'm talking about. And MD did you even read Bjarne's article about this? I gathered that he didn't mind CLI as long as it was not advertised as C++/CLI. I believe that was his sticking point and the fact that they have added keywords to C++.

I see... so where exactly do you know this from? Have you talked with uncle bill too? Or you just... happen to know?

he's troll_king guys. Don't try to have a serious dialog with him

Very true

So... I guess this thread is over no?

might as well be. We established a couple things I think.

-Some people don't like the way MS handles PR on the language changes.
-Some people feel the language is just fine. Some don't.
-Some feel that its too slow, although benchmarks clearly disprove that issue.

Yeah, I'm good. It's tiring arguing over nothing.

You do realize you just opened the debate again

Ha. Not really though. The only part I said that someone might argue with is the 3rd bullet, but nobody has given evidence to the contrary. The other two basically say what the arguments were about, not taking a side.