KMNY_a_ha

Back to Profile: KMNY_a_ha

Comments

  • GoingNative 3: The C++/CX Episode with Marian Luparu

    I just want to add something which I think is vital, but was totally dis/missed from what Jim said (by the way Jim, thanks for honest answers). When Jim says:

    a) Yes b) n/a c) Because we didn't see this approach as the best solution for our users. We've tried to cover many of the issues that pushed us to C++/CX and I can understand if you disagree with some of them.

    I strongly believe that here is the crux - who are those users Jim mentions? Not C++ community surely? So who else is there? The answer is clear and obvious: The .NET crowd.

    MS as a very respectable company cannot just abandoned its current "users"  and tell them to feck off and that the technology they were lured to for over decade simply goes to butcher's house, and those folks need to learn new technology or learn a new phrase "DO YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT?".

    No, MS knows that this wouldn't be the right strategic decision. In view of the fact that .NET will/is going to be slaughtered in the near future, MS had to come up with something better/clever in order to:

    a) keep a face

    b) confirms to its "users" that those who stick with it can depend on MS and will not be abandoned by this company

    c) keep an image of a respectable company

    c) holds to its "users"

    needed to ease the pain of switching between technologies.

    There were few options - better ones (Jim in his answer, admits that there is a way to do this with C++) and worse ones. Why MS picked worse one? Every one knows that people who works at MS are world class pros and experts, so how is it possible that MS made a mistake in judging what's good for it's customers. Exactly - just because it's worse for you it doesn't mean that is worse for MS customers, do you see it now? MS picked what's right for its customers, not what's right for you. Now when the cards are reveiled everything starts making perfect sense.

    Well, as they say in my old country if you don't know what it's all about it must be about money.  And if you think about this, MS knew who their customers/users are. There are .NET crowd. Not C++ folks.

    There are much more .NET devs in the world than C++. To MS was obvious that it has to try to keep those people by its side. In order to do that, familiar syntax and workings needed to be put in place. Just to make the switch from .NET to WinRT as easy and gentle as possible. That's why there also wasn't any pressure on adding C++11 features. What for? Their users don't need them so why would they bother?

    And what they (MS) could loose? Nothing really. .Net crowd will eventually switch to native WinRT - why wouldn't they? and those guys from C++ community who decide to use WinRT with the syntax from .NET world will be and extra addition to customers/users group of MS. Perfect plan. No chance for a loss.

     

     

  • GoingNative 3: The C++/CX Episode with Marian Luparu

    @Jim and PFYB:

     

     

     

  • GoingNative 3: The C++/CX Episode with Marian Luparu

    @Glen you're saying:

    "Beyond that, I still hope people will also focus on, "the right language extensions" not just, "none". None is best iff it's right. As long as people can keep proving none is better, that's great though."

    In my opinion language extensions have the right to exist iff there isn't an easy or possible way to achieve goals with already existing features. As we proved here this isn't the case with CX. Everything what CX does can be done as easily (and in most cases even easier) with C++. No need for extensions in this case.

  • GoingNative 3: The C++/CX Episode with Marian Luparu

    @Charles && Everyone:

    Could any of you ask mr sutter the question I've asked and didn't get an answer to it:

    Ok, the question was/is:

    Could that (the goal of C++/CX) be achieved without modifying syntax and semantics of C++,

    if no, why? What is it in CX that couldn't be done using existing language futures + compiler's help + other (if necessary) tools help?

    if yes, why did Microsoft do that?

    I would really appreciate if you could ask mr sutter and if he would be so kind and reply to them, with presenting examples and counter examples of code that clearly show that what you did with CX was the only and best way to go and it could not be done with C++.

    Regards

  • GoingNative 3: The C++/CX Episode with Marian Luparu

    Charles, thanks.

  • GoingNative 3: The C++/CX Episode with Marian Luparu

    @Charles, Hi, I'm sure lads from C++ community will do their best to formulate them as clearly and succinctly as possible.

    Regards

  • GoingNative 3: The C++/CX Episode with Marian Luparu

    @Hi Charles, thanks for reply.

    The question/s is/are (depends on how you read it, as a one question with branches or few separate questions said it in one breath):

    Could that (the goal of C++/CX) be achieved without modifying syntax and semantics of C++,

    if no, why? What is it in CX that couldn't be done using existing language futures + compiler's help + other (if necessary) tools help?

    if yes, why did Microsoft do that?

    I would really appreciate if you could ask mr sutter and if he would be so kind and reply to them, with  presenting examples and counter examples of code that clearly show that what you did with CX was the only and best way to go and it could not be done with C++.

    Thank you.

    P.S.

    If you could wait couple of days till other people get the chance and ask their questions, and then if you could compile them into one post, post this compilation with numbered questions here on this thread and then forward it to mr sutter get his numbered replies and post them here would be really appreciated.

    C++ Rules and Rocks!

     

  • GoingNative 3: The C++/CX Episode with Marian Luparu

    @PFYB my suggestion to you, could you please list those questions, bold them out Wink and number them so there will be no wriggling out/avoiding/omitting excuse anymore as to which and what specific questions has been asked. Then in reply mr herb could also number his answers appropriately and this would (I think) greatly simplified whole communication "thing".

  • GoingNative 3: The C++/CX Episode with Marian Luparu

    @new2stl and I've said already that I've watched all of them at least twice and in none of them answers to those questions are given. Second, Jim in his blog also doesn't give answers to them.

    As for rage? Where on this or Jim's thread I "raged". I've asked you politely to point me to the specific time on a specific video which would demonstrate that what you're saying has any back up. But you, just in the style of guys from MS conveniently telling me to see those videos, again... even though I've just explained to you that I saw them at least twice, yet you do not answer what you've been asked. Just like they don't.

    And as for deciphering "KMNY_a_ha"? Your point is? It's not like I've tried to conceal the fact that "KMNY_a_ha" and "Knowing me knowing you, a-ha" is same personr. I've explained that to Diegum long time ago that both nicknames are mine and the KMNY_a_ha is due to the fact that I cannot register myself with my original nickname on Channel9. So your point is, what? Sherlock?

    So are you going to show in which video/blog herb sutter answers to those questions mentioned here, or you just going to simply state that those questions had been already answered?

  • GoingNative 3: The C++/CX Episode with Marian Luparu

    @new2stl where (which video file, what time on this video) herb sutter answered to those questions? Would you mind pointing me to them? I'm asking you because I've watched it at least twice each of them and I cannot recall any of those answers being given. So could you kindly, point me out there?

    Thanks

  • GoingNative 3: The C++/CX Episode with Marian Luparu

    @PFYB and others - I'm sure there is only one person who can answer competently to all those "why" questions. Mr herb sutter - "the" C++ architect at MS.

     

  • GoingNative 3: The C++/CX Episode with Marian Luparu

    Quick analogy:

    There are std paper sizes and companies manufacturing printers operating on just on those std sizes - no company changes those standards. They just produce their products to be compatible with them so no matter which printer I buy/use I know that my standard paper size will work with this.

    What Microsoft does is - manufacturing printer (just for simplicity call it VS without mentioning all bolts and nuts like compiler etc.) and on top of that is reinventing new paper sizes (every few years) that, and here may I have your attention, is almost identical to the standard sizes but slightly "improved" in order to better serve MS clients. But MS being over all a business don't won't to constrain itself just to MS clients. They say that if you want to print standard sizes - well, no problem at all. Just take the part A11, A125, R58 and D12 and fit them in slots shown in a picture inside a manual attached with our printer and here you go, from now on you can print std sizes!

    And few years from now, there will be another paper size from MS. But not worry those who want print just standard paper sizes - MS will acomodate you appropriately.