Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4570 mails)

[Kai Ponte <kai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll reply to both Steve and Steven.

On Saturday 12 November 2005 12:00 pm, Steve Graegert wrote:
> On 11/12/05, Steven T. Hatton <hattons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 November 2005 12:56 pm, Kai Ponte wrote:
> > > Yes, the C# and CLI were submitted to the ECMA back in '01 or '02,
> > > fairly soon after they announced .net. They hoped that someone like
> > > Miguel would come along and write a competing product to VS.net so that
> > > they could say it was an "open" standard.
> > >
> > > I'm actually using this information in my arguments at work as to why
> > > we should move from VB to C# (as opposed to moving to VB.NET).   I have
> > > been patiently explaining that we could leverage the C# to run on our
> > > new mainframe (IBM z890) as back end or middleware while running C#
> > > clients on the desktops (mostly running Windows).
> >
> > My brief exposure to Mono indicated to me that it's not yet all there. 
> > That was a few months back, but it's hard for me to believe they've made
> > the kind of progress it would take to get it polished.  Quite honestly,
> > I'm not sure C# is the best thing going for the CLI.  As much as I
> > dislike the idea of corrupting C++ in spirit and form, I have the
> > impression that C++/CLI may prove the better language.
>
> What would be the rationale behind using C++ in .NET?

AFAIK, there isn't one really. We've breached the idea of usin C++ in .net but 
realized quickly there's almost no value. 


>
> > It's ironic that Microsoft is not touting this technology when a few
> > years back they went out of their way to destroy the browser market for a
> > company that had the lead in platform abstraction.
> > http://www.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/reference/html/index.html
>
> Don't see any parallelism here.  Could you please elaborate on your
> thoughts.

Honestly never heard of NSPR. I somehow doubt that was the rationale for 
destroying Netscape's market share. IIRC, it was simply a matter of survival. 
If MS didn't have a browser that they couldn't dominate with then Sun, et. 
al. would grab more market share.
>
> > Qt also provides some of the same functionality the CLI provides.
>
> Really?  What would that be?  Are you talking about language bindings?

I'd like to find out, too. I appreciate Qt and will make it my next language 
to use. I've never used C++ but will soon learn. I've moved from VB (since 
'93) to PHP and Java and am ready to take on either C# or C++. I really like 
the Qt and KDevelop interface designers.  Once I finish my current Java 
project (donutmonster.com) I'll move onto a C++ learning project. 
>
> > I find Qt quite nice to work with.  It took me a bit of getting used to,
> > but once I got the hang of it, I started to perceive the underlying unity
> > of the toolkit.  Not to say I'm an expert by any means.  It's a lot
> > simpler than Java.  That means that sometimes I have to build things that
> > Java would provide for me.  OTOH, some of what Java provides is fairly
> > difficult to figure out.  For instance, their tables and trees.
>
> Besides Windows Forms, which has a eliminated a lot of the Swing
> problems, Java is one of the most powerful and easy to use platforms
> for GUI development.  While Qt and C++ can't compete in this
> discipline, speed of execution is unmatched, of course.

Powerful, yes. Easy, ha!  :)  I dunno. I'm still struggling with it. Of 
course, I've been lazy the past few years doing stuff without strong typing 
in PHP and ASP before that. 


>
> IMHO, for development of native UNIX applications, C/C++ is still the
> one and only tool, although I prefer GTK+ over Qt, but that is another
> issue.

Of course, I've yet to see a decent looking GTK+ app. LOL!



-- 
kai 
www.perfectreign.com

linux - genuine windows replacement part