Re: C++ vs. C#
Yes... Even though the syntax of C# is easier (like you don't have to mess
with those dumb _T() macros and objects are easier to access) I think the
biggest difference is the easy access to the .NET API's. I don't know of
any reason those API's couldn't have been done for native as well, but they
are not so ... I've found with .NET for every "thing" I want to do there is
usually something written and included already to help with doing it. Also,
there is much easier access to some of the newer technologies like WPF and
the other W's and a ton more controls for WinForms than there are for MFC
Resource editor.
Since so much of .NET is based on top of native I think for the most part it
is starting to be almost as fast for a lot of applications as well. It is
more trouble to build a self contained application and certainly not as good
for building a small self contained application, but these days that is not
always as important. As .NET becomes more integrated with the OS I think
the emphasis on API files will become lessened.
Tom
"Ajay" <ajaykalra@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdf1f576-dfe8-4a2d-9a94-110dc302092b@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 10, 11:02 am, Electronic75
<Electroni...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
finally there are many things that you can do with C++ and you never can
do with C# , like kernel programming, programming for other OS, Demanding
applications like games,...
but there is nothing that you can do with C# and you can't do it with c++,
although it may takes a lot more development time
Thats really a wrong comparison. You can do much more in C# because it
gives access to .Net framework which is not available to C++
(native). .Net is very rich compared to Win32 and is not accessible
to native C++.
I dont know about kernel/low-level programming. I would assume that it
would make no sense to do it .Net(even it its possible).
--
Ajay