C++ .NET and C# .NET

[Christian Bode]

Hi

What are the differences between C++ .NET and C# .NET ?
Knows anybody the exact caption of the 7 CD's from Visual Studio .NET ?

thx a lot
Christian

 

[Phlip]

What are the differences between C++ .NET and C# .NET ?

The following is made up from no hands-on experience, and reading flames on
these newsgroups:

C++ .NET is C++ compiled into virtual machine code so it can run inside the
..NET environment. (Traditional C++ compiles directly to machine language.)

C# .NET is Java with enough features changed so MS can bypass Sun's license
terms and have their way with it.

Both systems are carefully tuned to encourage programmers to deliver as many
..NET runtime artifacts as possible to end-users, helping to promote its
critical mass.

Knows anybody the exact caption of the 7 CD's from Visual Studio .NET ?

No. Try a .NET newsgroup.

 

[Victor Bazarov]

What are the differences between C++ .NET and C# .NET ?

They are different languages. They have different set of keywords,
different grammar... Your question is similar to "What are the
differences between Latin and Italian". Where would one start to
tell the differences?

Knows anybody the exact caption of the 7 CD's from Visual Studio .NET ?

Somebody in some Microsoft newsgroup is bound to know...

 

[Mike Wahler]

Hi

What are the differences between C++ .NET and C# .NET ?

C++ is a standardized programming language.
C# is a Microsoft proprietary language.

C++ .NET is a Microsoft C++ implementation specialized
for the Microsoft .NET platform.

C# .NET is C# for the .NET platform.

Knows anybody the exact caption of the 7 CD's from Visual Studio .NET ?

I suspect all your Microsoft product questions can be answered
at www.microsoft.com

If not, try a MS newsgroup.

Your query is not topical for comp.lang.c++
(see http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt)

FAQ about the standard C++ language:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/

-Mike

 

[Unforgiven]

C++ is a standardized programming language.
C# is a Microsoft proprietary language.

Not true, C# is standardised by ECMA.

C++ .NET is a Microsoft C++ implementation specialized
for the Microsoft .NET platform.

C++.NET is actually called Managed C++, and there are plans to have that
standardised by ECMA as well.

C# .NET is C# for the .NET platform.

C# does not actually exist outside the context of the (ECMA) CLI, so saying
C#.NET would be rather redundant. I've never heard it referred to as such
either.

 

[Unforgiven]

Not true, C# is standardised by ECMA.


C++.NET is actually called Managed C++, and there are plans to have
that standardised by ECMA as well.


C# does not actually exist outside the context of the (ECMA) CLI, so
saying C#.NET would be rather redundant. I've never heard it referred
to as such either.

Hmm, reading this over it sounds kind of harsh... Not trying to insult
anybody or act like a know-it-all (because I'm not, really ^_^), just trying
to prevent misinformation.

 

[Unforgiven]

Hi

What are the differences between C++ .NET and C# .NET ?

C# (the extension .NET is redundant, there is no non-.NET C#) is a new
language, designed by Microsoft and a few others, standardised by ECMA, that
targets the Common Language Infrastructure (also standardised by ECMA).
Microsoft C# is an implementation of ECMA C# that specifically targets the
..Net Common Language Runtime, which is a superset of ECMA CLI. Being a
language designed from the ground up to fit the .Net platform, it currently
offers the most complete featureset of any .Net language. It's syntax is
made to resemble C++ and Java, although there are several rather large
fundamental differences.

C++.NET, or actually, Managed C++, is a currently proprietary set of
extensions to the C++ language to allow C++ compilers (read: MS Visual C++)
to target the CLI. It is a horrible bunch of ugly keywords starting with
double underscores. Its main purpose (although MS may claim otherwise) is to
allow easy transition of legacy C++ code into a .Net application. I wouldn't
touch it with a 10ft pole unless you absolutely have to.

 

[Kevin Goodsell]

Not true, C# is standardised by ECMA.

From what I hear, this is about as good as not having it standardized
at all. I don't know the exact details, but the basic idea (as I
understand it) is that most "real" standards bodies won't standardize
(or incorporate in a standard) things that are protected by patent or
copyright if they can help it. ECMA doesn't care. Thus you can claim C#
is standardized, but it's still controlled by Microsoft.

At least, this is the impression I've gotten from reading a few things
about it. If I'm completely wrong... well, don't be surprised.

-Kevin

 

[Ron Natalie]

C++.NET is actually called Managed C++, and there are plans to have that
standardised by ECMA as well.

Managed C++ is the C++ compiled for the CLI. C++ .NET is the Microsoft product
to do it (if it weren't for marketing weenies, it would just be Visual C++ Version 7).

 

[Howard]

The following is made up from no hands-on experience, and reading flames on
these newsgroups:

C++ .NET is C++ compiled into virtual machine code so it can run inside the
.NET environment. (Traditional C++ compiles directly to machine language.)

C# .NET is Java with enough features changed so MS can bypass Sun's license
terms and have their way with it.

Hogwash. C# was developed by one of the developers of Borland's Delphi
(Pascal) language, and uses a combination of the C++ language and the neat
features of Delphi. It's not Java. And *all* the available languages
compiled in the .NET environment compile to IL (intermediate language),
which is later (on first use) converted to the appropriate machine code.

-Howard

 

[Chrisw]

Hi

What are the differences between C++ .NET and C# .NET ?

C++ .NET allows you to write (traditional) C++ apps. that is, the complier
creates .dll's or .exe's etc. it also allows you to create "managed" C++
apps-- apps that compile to IL (intermediate language) and use the .NET
framework.

C# .NET only allows you to create .NET apps. Basically, it's C++ with M$
extensions. you cannot create "traditional" .dll's .exe's etc.

so, if you are looking for the most flexibility I would recommend C++ .NET
over C# .NET

-Chris

 

[Jack Klein]

Hogwash. C# was developed by one of the developers of Borland's Delphi
(Pascal) language, and uses a combination of the C++ language and the neat
features of Delphi. It's not Java. And *all* the available languages
compiled in the .NET environment compile to IL (intermediate language),
which is later (on first use) converted to the appropriate machine code.

What it is most particularly NOT is NOT topical here.

 

[Helium]

Hogwash. C# was developed by one of the developers of Borland's Delphi

(Pascal) language, and uses a combination of the C++ language and the neat
features of Delphi. It's not Java. And *all* the available languages
compiled in the .NET environment compile to IL (intermediate language),
which is later (on first use) converted to the appropriate machine code.

It is Java with some C++ and some Delphi features. But mainly it is Java.

 

[Alexander Terekhov]

Kevin Goodsell wrote:
[...]

From what I hear, this is about as good as not having it standardized
at all. I don't know the exact details, but the basic idea (as I
understand it) is that most "real" standards bodies won't standardize
(or incorporate in a standard) things that are protected by patent or
copyright if they can help it. ECMA doesn't care. Thus you can claim C#
is standardized, but it's still controlled by Microsoft.

At least, this is the impression I've gotten from reading a few things
about it. If I'm completely wrong...

You're completely wrong.

well, don't be surprised.

And I'm not surprised.

regards,
alexander.

 

[Attila Feher]

From what I hear, this is about as good as not having it standardized
at all.

Whereever you have heard it, it is not a place to listen to.

I don't know the exact details, but the basic idea (as I
understand it) is that most "real" standards bodies won't standardize
(or incorporate in a standard) things that are protected by patent or
copyright if they can help it.

That is why C# is not patented.

ECMA doesn't care.

Could you cite where it is written?

Thus you can claim
C# is standardized, but it's still controlled by Microsoft.

AI on arap.

At least, this is the impression I've gotten from reading a few things
about it.

Trash them.

If I'm completely wrong... well, don't be surprised.

You are completely wrong. You spread the usual conspiracy theories about
MS, without proof. And in this case, it is not true.

 

[Alexander Terekhov]

Attila Feher wrote:
[...]

That is why C# is not patented.

Well,

http://samgentile.com/blog/archive/2003/02/19/2647.aspx

regards,
alexander.

P.S. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/2060

 

[Attila Feher]

Attila Feher wrote:
[...]

That is why C# is not patented.

Well,

http://samgentile.com/blog/archive/2003/02/19/2647.aspx

This is about patents around CLI (parts of CLI) and not C# - as I
understand. Anyway, last time I heard someone saying that the standard
parts of the CLI are not patented. Of course, I might not have the right
info.