4 ms·
I'd argue that C# is still much simpler and easier to understand than C++. But in any case, one major problem with .NET and multiple languages in a single proje
by ygra 11y ago
I'd argue that C# is still much simpler and easier to understand than C++. But in any case, one major problem with .NET and multiple languages in a single project is that a compilation unit is an assembly. So you can write one assembly in one language and another in a different language, but that's about the extent of being able to mix languages in a project. Which just may be not fine-grained enough.
- tracker1 11y agoNot only that, but when you do mix languages in the same solution VS has a history if getting confused... I used to bring in VB.Net when I had to deal with a lot of XML after they added XML literal syntax (similar to E4X), but it was never added to C# (though LINQ was, go figure). In any case, it gets really messy.
- titanix2 11y agoActually assembly is the minimal unit of deployment, not compilation. The minimal unit of compilation is the netmodule[1]. You can compile from different languages as netmodules, then link the resulting netmodules together in an assembly. By the way, this is not a scenario supported by Visual Studio, so it requires using command line tools. So for any practical purpose, you're right that multi-language solution require the use of multiples assembly projects, which is tedious. [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/junfeng/archive/2005/02/12/371683.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/junfeng/archive/2005/02/12/371683.as...
- ygra 11y agoOh, didn't know that. Thank you. But it seems indeed like this scenario is neither really advertised, nor supported by IDEs, so adoption is probably very low.