5 ms·

I totally undestand Hejlsberg for doing that. If i were his wife, and he rejected the offer, I would be *. But to make a managed language out of it. WTF?? He

by mihaela 12y ago

I totally undestand Hejlsberg for doing that. If i were his wife, and he rejected the offer, I would be *. But to make a managed language out of it. WTF?? He could have made a GUI for C++, just like VCL, and not as complex as MFC. But I guess It was not (entirely) his decision. It was a time when MS was battling SUN for Java add-ons. I think it was a wrong course, to make a managed language that runs just on one platform. Java's (excuse) is a multi-platform one. But .NET (MONO disregarded here for it lags behind), to be managed, GC language, exclusive to one platform ?? I can't comprehend that. MS missed a chance to attack the consumer market (like Apple does). No B2C apps written in .NET, only for the enterprise. That's why developers like Apple, and pay the Apple taxes (expensive Macs).

atombender 12y ago
No, I think Hejlsberg knew perfectly well that he shouldn't attempt to do "GUI for C++". Borland tried it. The end result was, and is, terrible, and the sheer awkwardness of C++Builder was not really a matter of design or implementation, but due to the nature of C++ itself. Delphi worked because they could control the language and mould it to fit the requirements of the VCL and of the IDE. With C++Builder, they had to introduce special proprietary extensions to C++ (which may have been, like Qt, implemented using macros internally, I don't know) such as "__published" and "__closure". Another factor was that Delphi's fast one-pass compiler allowed incredibly fast GUI-development; the "modify, compile, run" cycle could take literally seconds. C++Builder's use of C++ meant this cycle slowed down tremendously, even with tricks such as pre-compiled headers. C++ had other problems. It just wasn't a good idea. Hejlsberg's C#/.NET design was necessary, although I agree with your other assertions. As far as I know, .NET was never able to replicate Delphi's genius, and a one-platform, proprietary language was a bad idea even back then.

by mihaela 12y ago

atombender 12y ago

No, I think Hejlsberg knew perfectly well that he shouldn't attempt to do "GUI for C++". Borland tried it. The end result was, and is, terrible, and the sheer awkwardness of C++Builder was not really a matter of design or implementation, but due to the nature of C++ itself. Delphi worked because they could control the language and mould it to fit the requirements of the VCL and of the IDE. With C++Builder, they had to introduce special proprietary extensions to C++ (which may have been, like Qt, implemented using macros internally, I don't know) such as "__published" and "__closure". Another factor was that Delphi's fast one-pass compiler allowed incredibly fast GUI-development; the "modify, compile, run" cycle could take literally seconds. C++Builder's use of C++ meant this cycle slowed down tremendously, even with tricks such as pre-compiled headers. C++ had other problems. It just wasn't a good idea. Hejlsberg's C#/.NET design was necessary, although I agree with your other assertions. As far as I know, .NET was never able to replicate Delphi's genius, and a one-platform, proprietary language was a bad idea even back then.