Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4570 mails)

[Steve Graegert <graegerts@xxxxxxxxx>]

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?

> 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.

> Qt also provides some of the same functionality the CLI provides.

Really?  What would that be?  Are you talking about language bindings?

> 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.

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.

	\Steve