c++ as choice for long term application choice.

Discussion in 'C++' started by miles.jg, Nov 11, 2007.

  1. miles.jg

    miles.jg Guest

    Have a application (custom written for a vetical market) which has been
    developed in VB over the last several years. Now that MS has done what MS
    does best and is to relegated VB to the twilight zone in feb of 08 I have
    decided to rewrite in another language. The application is constatnly being
    upgraded with new features and I would like to find someting that would have
    long term support, if such is possible. Never would have thought MS would
    "disregard" VB. How about VC++. ? It would need to be somewhat on par with
    VB as far as the features and capabilities of VB.
    Any thoughts from the programming community. ?

    Thanks and Regards
    JM
    miles.jg, Nov 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. miles.jg

    Kira Yamato Guest

    On 2007-11-11 13:50:27 -0500, "miles.jg" <> said:

    > Have a application (custom written for a vetical market) which has been
    > developed in VB over the last several years. Now that MS has done what MS
    > does best and is to relegated VB to the twilight zone in feb of 08 I have
    > decided to rewrite in another language. The application is constatnly being
    > upgraded with new features and I would like to find someting that would have
    > long term support, if such is possible. Never would have thought MS would
    > "disregard" VB. How about VC++. ? It would need to be somewhat on par with
    > VB as far as the features and capabilities of VB.
    > Any thoughts from the programming community. ?
    >
    > Thanks and Regards
    > JM


    (1) You must stick with Microsoft
    (2) Something with long term support from Microsoft
    (3) Something with a rich and growing list of features.

    (1)+(2)+(3) => C#

    --

    -kira
    Kira Yamato, Nov 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. miles.jg

    Kira Yamato Guest

    On 2007-11-11 19:07:43 -0500, Kira Yamato <> said:

    > On 2007-11-11 13:50:27 -0500, "miles.jg" <> said:
    >
    >> Have a application (custom written for a vetical market) which has been
    >> developed in VB over the last several years. Now that MS has done what MS
    >> does best and is to relegated VB to the twilight zone in feb of 08 I have
    >> decided to rewrite in another language. The application is constatnly being
    >> upgraded with new features and I would like to find someting that would have
    >> long term support, if such is possible. Never would have thought MS would
    >> "disregard" VB. How about VC++. ? It would need to be somewhat on par with
    >> VB as far as the features and capabilities of VB.
    >> Any thoughts from the programming community. ?
    >>
    >> Thanks and Regards
    >> JM

    >
    > (1) You must stick with Microsoft
    > (2) Something with long term support from Microsoft
    > (3) Something with a rich and growing list of features.
    >
    > (1)+(2)+(3) => C#


    Actually, I used incorrect notation here. C# is a sufficient but not
    necessary condition for (1), (2) and (3). So, the correct notation
    should have been
    C# => (1) + (2) + (3).
    At least I think that is what Microsoft is trying to do with C#.

    The incorrect original statement I used is saying C# is a necessary
    condition for (1), (2) and (3), and that is just not true. At least I
    hope that is *not* what Microsoft is trying to do with C#. :)

    --

    -kira
    Kira Yamato, Nov 12, 2007
    #3
  4. On 12 Nov, 00:07, Kira Yamato <> wrote:
    > On 2007-11-11 13:50:27 -0500, "miles.jg" <> said:
    >
    > > Have a application (custom written for a vetical market) which has been
    > > developed in VB over the last several years. Now that MS has done what MS
    > > does best and is to relegated VB to the twilight zone in feb of 08 I have
    > > decided to rewrite in another language. The application is constatnly being
    > > upgraded with new features and I would like to find someting that would have
    > > long term support, if such is possible. Never would have thought MS would
    > > "disregard" VB. How about VC++. ? It would need to be somewhat on par with
    > > VB as far as the features and capabilities of VB.
    > > Any thoughts from the programming community. ?

    >
    > > Thanks and Regards
    > > JM

    >
    > (1) You must stick with Microsoft
    > (2) Something with long term support from Microsoft
    > (3) Something with a rich and growing list of features.
    >
    > (1)+(2)+(3) => C#
    >
    > --
    >


    Since the original code is in VB, the obvious migration
    choice is VB.NET (which, all hype and FUD to the
    contrary, is effectively identical to C# once you
    get beneath the syntax).
    VC++ would not be a logical choice in this instance
    IMO.
    tragomaskhalos, Nov 12, 2007
    #4
  5. "tragomaskhalos" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 12 Nov, 00:07, Kira Yamato <> wrote:
    >> On 2007-11-11 13:50:27 -0500, "miles.jg" <> said:
    >>
    >> > Have a application (custom written for a vetical market) which has been
    >> > developed in VB over the last several years. Now that MS has done what
    >> > MS
    >> > does best and is to relegated VB to the twilight zone in feb of 08 I
    >> > have
    >> > decided to rewrite in another language. The application is constatnly
    >> > being
    >> > upgraded with new features and I would like to find someting that would
    >> > have
    >> > long term support, if such is possible. Never would have thought MS
    >> > would
    >> > "disregard" VB. How about VC++. ? It would need to be somewhat on par
    >> > with
    >> > VB as far as the features and capabilities of VB.
    >> > Any thoughts from the programming community. ?

    >>
    >> > Thanks and Regards
    >> > JM

    >>
    >> (1) You must stick with Microsoft
    >> (2) Something with long term support from Microsoft
    >> (3) Something with a rich and growing list of features.
    >>
    >> (1)+(2)+(3) => C#
    >>
    >> --
    >>

    >
    > Since the original code is in VB, the obvious migration
    > choice is VB.NET (which, all hype and FUD to the
    > contrary, is effectively identical to C# once you
    > get beneath the syntax).
    > VC++ would not be a logical choice in this instance
    > IMO.
    >
    >
    >


    Since when is VC++ a language?
    Last I checked it was an old outdated IDE.

    C++ will be around for many years to come. I doubt it we can say that much
    for the C# language , the MFC library, or .NET libraries
    Christopher Pisz, Nov 12, 2007
    #5
  6. miles.jg

    James Kanze Guest

    On Nov 11, 7:50 pm, "miles.jg" <> wrote:
    > Have a application (custom written for a vetical market) which has been
    > developed in VB over the last several years. Now that MS has done what MS
    > does best and is to relegated VB to the twilight zone in feb of 08 I have
    > decided to rewrite in another language. The application is constatnly being
    > upgraded with new features and I would like to find someting that would have
    > long term support, if such is possible. Never would have thought MS would
    > "disregard" VB. How about VC++. ? It would need to be somewhat on par with
    > VB as far as the features and capabilities of VB.
    > Any thoughts from the programming community. ?


    I'm not too familiar with VB, but somehow, I don't think that
    C++ addresses the same domains. Off hand, I'd probably look at
    Python, or maybe Java (which isn't that bad for small projects).

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
    James Kanze, Nov 12, 2007
    #6
  7. On Nov 12, 6:39 am, "Christopher Pisz" <> wrote:
    > "tragomaskhalos" <> wrote in message
    >
    >
    > > Since the original code is in VB, the obvious migration
    > > choice is VB.NET (which, all hype and FUD to the
    > > contrary, is effectively identical to C# once you
    > > get beneath the syntax).
    > > VC++ would not be a logical choice in this instance
    > > IMO.

    >
    > Since when is VC++ a language?
    > Last I checked it was an old outdated IDE.
    >
    > C++ will be around for many years to come. I doubt it we can say that much
    > for the C# language , the MFC library, or .NET libraries- Hide quoted text -
    >


    It's fairly safe to assume that by "VC++" the OP meant Standard C++ +
    MS extensions + the usual libraries (MFC, ATL). In the context of his
    question it would make sense to also include C++/CLI.

    Perhaps in the long term C++ will indeed outlive these MS-specific
    technologies (I'm sure most of us would hope so), but .NET will be
    around for a while yet (MFC I'm not so sure about). But the OP is
    where he is - he has a VB application that needs to be migrated in a
    sensible and cost-effective way. The approach taken by virtually all
    organisations in this position is to move the app to C# or VB.NET.

    Rewriting any reasonably sized VB application in C++ (and especially
    in a form that eschews any MFC or .NET scaffolding) is a significantly
    more complex undertaking than the path I suggest - for which automated
    conversion tools exist that do at least some of the work for you.
    tragomaskhalos, Nov 12, 2007
    #7
  8. miles.jg

    Guest

    On Nov 11, 1:50 pm, "miles.jg" <> wrote:
    > Have a application (custom written for a vetical market) which has been
    > developed in VB over the last several years. Now that MS has done what MS
    > does best and is to relegated VB to the twilight zone in feb of 08 I have
    > decided to rewrite in another language. The application is constatnly being
    > upgraded with new features and I would like to find someting that would have
    > long term support, if such is possible. Never would have thought MS would
    > "disregard" VB. How about VC++. ? It would need to be somewhat on par with
    > VB as far as the features and capabilities of VB.
    > Any thoughts from the programming community. ?
    >
    > Thanks and Regards
    > JM

    I recently began learning C# for a project after previously
    programming C++
    on both Windows and Linux platforms for a number of years.

    The .NET metadata that is kept in a library allows some quite amazing
    things
    to be done. After creating a C# library, we used a tool that backed
    out the
    source code directly from the library. The same tool was able to do
    the same
    except back out VB code from the C# library.

    I suspect it would be straight forward to upgrade your VB app to VB.
    Net and then
    "convert" it to C# via one of these tools.

    hth
    , Nov 12, 2007
    #8
  9. wrote:
    > On Nov 11, 1:50 pm, "miles.jg" <> wrote:
    >> Have a application (custom written for a vetical market) which has
    >> been developed in VB over the last several years. Now that MS has
    >> done what MS does best and is to relegated VB to the twilight zone
    >> in feb of 08 I have decided to rewrite in another language. The
    >> application is constatnly being upgraded with new features and I
    >> would like to find someting that would have long term support, if
    >> such is possible. Never would have thought MS would "disregard" VB.
    >> How about VC++. ? It would need to be somewhat on par with VB as far
    >> as the features and capabilities of VB. Any thoughts from the
    >> programming community. ?
    >>
    >> Thanks and Regards
    >> JM

    > I recently began learning C# for a project after previously
    > programming C++
    > on both Windows and Linux platforms for a number of years.
    >
    > The .NET metadata that is kept in a library allows some quite amazing
    > things
    > to be done. After creating a C# library, we used a tool that backed
    > out the
    > source code directly from the library. The same tool was able to do
    > the same
    > except back out VB code from the C# library.
    >
    > I suspect it would be straight forward to upgrade your VB app to VB.
    > Net and then
    > "convert" it to C# via one of these tools.
    >
    > hth


    Nothing I just read says that MS will not "disregard" C# just like
    it did VB. And then the OP (or somebody after him) will be stuck
    rewriting it again in C## or D# or some such.

    V
    --
    Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
    I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
    Victor Bazarov, Nov 12, 2007
    #9
  10. miles.jg

    Guest

    On Nov 12, 5:50 am, "miles.jg" <> wrote:
    > Have a application (custom written for a vetical market) which has been
    > developed in VB over the last several years.


    While C++ may need a lot more work (learning curve etc), it is likely
    that you will never have to re-write your code for any other reason
    other than your code needs a revolution. The question is how much
    effort/resources you can afford to re-implement in C++.

    As for the .Net languages, I personally am steering away from them -
    if I had to move significant chunks of code from C++ I would move to
    Java which is also likely going to be around a very long time.

    Personally, because I don't have a huge learning curve, I would stick
    with C++ and some select libraries like boost or my own Austria C++
    plus whatever else I could find that I like.

    The problem with a single vendor solution (like VB and .Net - yes
    - .Net) is that it will fail if the company fails or changes it's
    direction (see VB!). C++ will not fail due to one company failing or
    changing direction because there are so many efforts and so much code
    available out there that interest is unlikely to flail for a long long
    time.

    So the question you need to ask yourself is how much resource can I
    spend on the re-write and is that enough for a C++ version. If the
    answer is no, you may need to look at alternative or hybrid solutions.
    , Nov 13, 2007
    #10
  11. miles.jg

    Guest

    On Nov 12, 10:30 am, "Victor Bazarov" <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > On Nov 11, 1:50 pm, "miles.jg" <> wrote:
    > >> Have a application (custom written for a vetical market) which has
    > >> been developed in VB over the last several years. Now that MS has
    > >> done what MS does best and is to relegated VB to the twilight zone
    > >> in feb of 08 I have decided to rewrite in another language. The
    > >> application is constatnly being upgraded with new features and I
    > >> would like to find someting that would have long term support, if
    > >> such is possible. Never would have thought MS would "disregard" VB.
    > >> How about VC++. ? It would need to be somewhat on par with VB as far
    > >> as the features and capabilities of VB. Any thoughts from the
    > >> programming community. ?

    >
    > >> Thanks and Regards
    > >> JM

    > > I recently began learning C# for a project after previously
    > > programming C++
    > > on both Windows and Linux platforms for a number of years.

    >
    > > The .NET metadata that is kept in a library allows some quite amazing
    > > things
    > > to be done. After creating a C# library, we used a tool that backed
    > > out the
    > > source code directly from the library. The same tool was able to do
    > > the same
    > > except back out VB code from the C# library.

    >
    > > I suspect it would be straight forward to upgrade your VB app to VB.
    > > Net and then
    > > "convert" it to C# via one of these tools.

    >
    > > hth

    >
    > Nothing I just read says that MS will not "disregard" C# just like
    > it did VB. And then the OP (or somebody after him) will be stuck
    > rewriting it again in C## or D# or some such.
    >
    > V
    > --
    > Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
    > I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -

    You are correct. But IMHO the migration path to VB .Net or
    another .Net
    language is much easier than converting to C++ directly. I would make
    the case of doing this migration first before considering C++.
    , Nov 13, 2007
    #11
  12. wrote:
    > [..] But IMHO the migration path to VB .Net or
    > another .Net
    > language is much easier than converting to C++ directly. I would make
    > the case of doing this migration first before considering C++.


    If you're walking and want to start moving faster, "migrating" first to
    a bicycle, then to a moped, then a motorcycle, and only then a car is
    easier from a financial point of view. It doesn't get you away from
    the elements and you won't be moving as fast and be as protected (from
    collisions with other vehicles) as you could be in a car, though...

    If you're listening to a baseball game broadcast by an AM station,
    "migrating" to an FM station is much easier than to a satellite TV in
    high def... Not as much enjoyment either.

    If time to market is the most important, and resources are not too
    limited, then migration to both would likely be the most beneficial.
    While converting VB to C# is quick and less painful, converting to C++
    represents a longer term stable investment.

    V
    --
    Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
    I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
    Victor Bazarov, Nov 13, 2007
    #12
  13. miles.jg

    James Kanze Guest

    wrote:
    > On Nov 12, 10:30 am, "Victor Bazarov" <> wrote:


    > > Nothing I just read says that MS will not "disregard" C# just like
    > > it did VB. And then the OP (or somebody after him) will be stuck
    > > rewriting it again in C## or D# or some such.


    > You are correct. But IMHO the migration path to VB .Net or
    > another .Net language is much easier than converting to C++
    > directly. I would make the case of doing this migration first
    > before considering C++.


    Having been burned once, you're going to play with fire again,
    just because it's cheaper in the short run. In the long run,
    again, you have the choice of converting once to C++, or
    converting now to C#, and in ten years to whatever Microsoft
    replaces it with, and then again ten years later...

    Proprietary languages have their place, and can be justified in
    certain circumstances. But they're not appropriate for "long
    term" applications, especially when they're only supported by
    one major player.

    (The issue is obviously not quite that simple, and there are
    non-proprietary languages with ISO standards for which no
    commercial compiler exists. But you're comparing a language
    with an ISO standard and ten or twenty different suppliers with
    one with no standard and only one major supplier---a major
    supplier known for occasional lapses in support for existing
    code.)

    --
    James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
    Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
    Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
    9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
    James Kanze, Nov 14, 2007
    #13
  14. * James Kanze:
    > wrote:
    >> On Nov 12, 10:30 am, "Victor Bazarov" <> wrote:

    >
    >>> Nothing I just read says that MS will not "disregard" C# just like
    >>> it did VB. And then the OP (or somebody after him) will be stuck
    >>> rewriting it again in C## or D# or some such.

    >
    >> You are correct. But IMHO the migration path to VB .Net or
    >> another .Net language is much easier than converting to C++
    >> directly. I would make the case of doing this migration first
    >> before considering C++.

    >
    > Having been burned once, you're going to play with fire again,
    > just because it's cheaper in the short run. In the long run,
    > again, you have the choice of converting once to C++, or
    > converting now to C#, and in ten years to whatever Microsoft
    > replaces it with, and then again ten years later...
    >
    > Proprietary languages have their place, and can be justified in
    > certain circumstances. But they're not appropriate for "long
    > term" applications, especially when they're only supported by
    > one major player.
    >
    > (The issue is obviously not quite that simple, and there are
    > non-proprietary languages with ISO standards for which no
    > commercial compiler exists. But you're comparing a language
    > with an ISO standard and ten or twenty different suppliers with
    > one with no standard and only one major supplier---a major
    > supplier known for occasional lapses in support for existing
    > code.)


    I'm sorry, that's incorrect: C# is standardized by ECMA and ISO, and the
    standard is publicly available for free, from both.

    Cheers,

    - Alf

    --
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
    Alf P. Steinbach, Nov 14, 2007
    #14
  15. James Kanze a écrit :
    > wrote:
    >> On Nov 12, 10:30 am, "Victor Bazarov" <> wrote:

    >
    >>> Nothing I just read says that MS will not "disregard" C# just like
    >>> it did VB. And then the OP (or somebody after him) will be stuck
    >>> rewriting it again in C## or D# or some such.

    >
    >> You are correct. But IMHO the migration path to VB .Net or
    >> another .Net language is much easier than converting to C++
    >> directly. I would make the case of doing this migration first
    >> before considering C++.

    >
    > Having been burned once, you're going to play with fire again,
    > just because it's cheaper in the short run. In the long run,
    > again, you have the choice of converting once to C++, or
    > converting now to C#, and in ten years to whatever Microsoft
    > replaces it with, and then again ten years later...
    >
    > Proprietary languages have their place, and can be justified in
    > certain circumstances. But they're not appropriate for "long
    > term" applications, especially when they're only supported by
    > one major player.


    Mono provides a good enough support of C#.
    http://www.mono-project.com/

    Michael
    Michael DOUBEZ, Nov 14, 2007
    #15
  16. miles.jg

    Cholo Lennon Guest

    On Nov 14, 7:33 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <> wrote:
    > * James Kanze:
    >
    >
    >
    > > wrote:
    > >> On Nov 12, 10:30 am, "Victor Bazarov" <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> Nothing I just read says that MS will not "disregard" C# just like
    > >>> it did VB. And then the OP (or somebody after him) will be stuck
    > >>> rewriting it again in C## or D# or some such.

    >
    > >> You are correct. But IMHO the migration path to VB .Net or
    > >> another .Net language is much easier than converting to C++
    > >> directly. I would make the case of doing this migration first
    > >> before considering C++.

    >
    > > Having been burned once, you're going to play with fire again,
    > > just because it's cheaper in the short run. In the long run,
    > > again, you have the choice of converting once to C++, or
    > > converting now to C#, and in ten years to whatever Microsoft
    > > replaces it with, and then again ten years later...

    >
    > > Proprietary languages have their place, and can be justified in
    > > certain circumstances. But they're not appropriate for "long
    > > term" applications, especially when they're only supported by
    > > one major player.

    >
    > > (The issue is obviously not quite that simple, and there are
    > > non-proprietary languages with ISO standards for which no
    > > commercial compiler exists. But you're comparing a language
    > > with an ISO standard and ten or twenty different suppliers with
    > > one with no standard and only one major supplier---a major
    > > supplier known for occasional lapses in support for existing
    > > code.)

    >
    > I'm sorry, that's incorrect: C# is standardized by ECMA and ISO, and the
    > standard is publicly available for free, from both.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > - Alf
    >
    > --
    > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    > Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
    > A: Top-posting.
    > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?


    Yeah, C# is standardized, but without dot net framework it is nothing.
    It lacks of some kind of standard library(ies).

    --
    Cholo Lennon
    Bs.As.
    ARG
    Cholo Lennon, Nov 14, 2007
    #16
  17. * Cholo Lennon:
    > * Alf P. Steinbach:
    >>
    >> I'm sorry, that's incorrect: C# is standardized by ECMA and ISO, and the
    >> standard is publicly available for free, from both.

    >
    > Yeah, C# is standardized, but without dot net framework it is nothing.
    > It lacks of some kind of standard library(ies).


    Please don't quote signatures (corrected), see the FAQ.

    The situation for C# re library is on a par with C++.

    The basics of CLI is standardized, again, by ECMA and ISO.


    Cheers, & hth.,

    - Alf


    --
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
    Alf P. Steinbach, Nov 14, 2007
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. George Marsaglia

    Assigning unsigned long to unsigned long long

    George Marsaglia, Jul 8, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    653
    Eric Sosman
    Jul 8, 2003
  2. Daniel Rudy

    unsigned long long int to long double

    Daniel Rudy, Sep 19, 2005, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,170
    Peter Shaggy Haywood
    Sep 20, 2005
  3. Mathieu Dutour

    long long and long

    Mathieu Dutour, Jul 17, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    456
    santosh
    Jul 24, 2007
  4. Bart C

    Use of Long and Long Long

    Bart C, Jan 9, 2008, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    776
    Peter Nilsson
    Jan 15, 2008
  5. veryhotsausage
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,770
    veryhotsausage
    Jul 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page