Printable View
I'm a VB programmer and completely new both to C++ and C#.
Should I concentrate on learning C++ or C#?
I'd like to know the complete comparison between C++ and C#..
I'm afraid that learning C# might make me stuck in Microsoft Windows forever.
Is C# only for windows platform?
Which is better speed-wise?
Please advice me.
C++ is faster, C# is easier. Both C++ and C# can be used on other platforms. Both is usefull. When you know one of them, the other should be easier to pick up. If you are a VB programmer, and there is nothign special you need to learn it for then I suggest C# first, so the step won't be THAT big for you.
- ØØ -
As a VB programmer, I can definately back NoteMe up on that statement. I was suprised at how quickly I managed to get the fundamentals down. I have played around with C++, and find it much less "friendly" than C#.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
I should go for C# as it's gaining popularity fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by winterslam
Like Noteme said, C# is not bound to Windows. It uses the .NET platform, which is available for other platforms than just Windows. And yes C++ is faster. But I think the difference in speed is neglectable in 'standard' applications. (Not games or something)
C++ is more difficult to learn, which is one of the reasons that languages like Java and C++ were created in the first place. In all but the most demanding of scenarios C# will be just as efficient as C++, and the syntax is similar enough to VB.NET that it is not a huge leap, especially with all the common classes that the .NET Framework provides. Learning unmanaged C++ from Microsoft is likely to tie you to Windows anyway because of the Windows-only MFC library, if that still exists.
How about the dependency of the products made in C#?
Are they stand-alone or the whole .NET Framework is required to run them?
Yeah, that is the biggest negative thing about .NET applications. YOu need the framework. But once someone has used one .NET app they have it, so I can't see the big problem with it as many others do.
- ØØ -
I've never understood people's concerns about needing the .net Framework, needing its VM didn't hinder Java.
I hear you. The only concern with needing the Framework is if your user downloading your app and is on a dialup connection. Otherwise you just provide the Framework in your installer, either downloadable or on CD, or provide a link to download it from the source.Quote:
Originally Posted by GlenW
C# is more business friendly. It costs much less to develop and debug bus apps with .net or java apps.
C++ is used for hard core programming, such as Games, Graphics tools, Operating Systems. Things where performance is key. At that point, Assembly is probably used too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterslam
Actually I'm not a big fan of dependent programs. Visual Basic itself requires runtime library files to run.
I don't know what microsoft's problem is. Why can't they just make the products run on their own.
I believe C# produces intermediate code just like bytecode in Java.
But mose computers have VM installed, and I don't think many computers will have .NET framwork installed.
No computers had a Java VM installed until either the user installed one or the OS was released with one included. That is the exact same situation with the .NET Framework. More and more people will install it over time and Vista will come with it pre-installed so it won't be an issue then. If you don't have the .NET Framework then you lose every class that it contains. Every language needs a decent class library, so the .NET Framework provides one of the best around, plus it provides automatic garbage collection and god knows how many other useful things. It also saves us from ahving to use Windows APIs in the vast majority of circumstances, and I for one am glad about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by winterslam
1) More and more computers will have the .NET framework installed as time progresses, due to it being shipped with Windows (as of XP SP2) and distributed with new .NET applications.
2) The requirement for the .NET framework enables platform-independence, as platform-specific versions of the framework can run .NET assemblies that are the same for all platforms.
3) The JIT (Just-In-Time) compiler model used by the .NET framework does in fact (in theory) enable .NET applications to run more efficiently than C++ applications, as they are compiled ON the exact platform that they will be running on and can thus use all platform-specific optimisations in the code, whereas compiled applications (C++ etc.) must be compiled using code that runs on MOST platforms (hence without such a fine level of optimisation).
Why would you want to code for a non-windows system? Does anyone actually own one? I always thought they were a myth. Like Santa.
I am sitting in Solaris right now..:) And linux on my other box...and windows on the 3rd box here at work..:) My secretary looks nice behind her mac..:)
- ØØ -
C#, the language itself is platform-independant and standardized. The only problem is there are two compilers for it: The .Net SDK from Microsoft (Which only works on Windows) and Mono (which currently only works somewhat on Linux and a version of OS X is in the works but is, like 2% completed). The .Net Framework and Mono include many non-standard items like GUIs, Networking, XML Readers, etc...
So, until someone writes a standardized C# compiler, then it really isn't platform independant.
Java no longer comes installed on Windows XP and later versions because of a legal issue between Microsoft and Sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
This is not entirely true. They will NOT run more efficiently than a C++ application. First off, C#, VB.Net and managed C++ all use .Net's garbage collector, which already gives it a large overhead. There are many more layers of abstraction (even with the native image) so C# and managed C++ will never be more efficient than a pure C++ application.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
With C++, you can prove a huge amount of optimizations without knowining the arch. Here are some of the optimizations I use in C++:
The only arch specific optimizations here are the : -mmmx -msse -mfpmath=sse and those work on all PIIIs and Up (including AMD).Code:-O3 -fforce-addr -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-limit=2000 -fsched-spec-load -fmove-all-movables -freduce-all-givs -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fprefetch-loop-arrays -mmmx -msse -mfpmath=sse -minline-all-stringops -maccumulate-outgoing-args
Mac OS X and Linux are becoming increasingly popular. Each quarter, Apple sells a record breaking amount of Macs and it's continuing so Mac OS X is going to get a much much larger market share within the next few years. Once you use a Unix like system, you'll realize Windows sucks with multitasking. The only problem is, Windows is more friendly than Linux and has more software than OS X.Quote:
Originally Posted by umilmi81
ASM is better :D
I cut my teeth on SunOS 5.X (AKA Solaris 1) and Solaris 2. I'll throw down with anyone on Bourne Shell scripting and nawk.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
This is how you kill a hung text editor
ps -ef | grep "vi" | awk '{print $1}' | kill -9
Talk about intuitive :) There are some things I miss about Unix. The shell is super powerful. But as soon as you extend beyond moving around files and directories, and editing text, you find yourself deep in the mud. You just can't beat Windows for building robust user friendly applications, quickly.
I have buildt a crawler here at CERN in Python for Solaris...;)
ASM is better :D - and you can write platform independent ASM given that the platform remains on the same processor architecture i.e. it'll run on another Intel/AMD PC but not a PowerPC. You just have to use the various GUI frameworks like GTK and stuff for gui - and other platform dependent stuff.Quote:
ASM is better :D
If your users are still using dialup, then I think there are bigger issues at hand.Quote:
I hear you. The only concern with needing the Framework is if your user downloading your app and is on a dialup connection.
I think that its common place for most machines to have the framework installed, especially if you performing windows updates like we all should be.
Although I do agree that MS should start making software that can run on its own. But that would also just bring us back to the days when DLL's were a problem, not that were entirely free of that yet.