Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #70198 > unrolled thread

"Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2019-12-02 13:59 -0600
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-02 12:33 -0800
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-02 21:17 +0000
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-12-02 23:08 +0100
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-02 15:39 -0800
          Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-10 13:55 -0800
            Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-11 12:48 -0800
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Pankaj Jangid <p4j@j4d.net> - 2019-12-03 09:21 +0530
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2019-12-03 02:03 -0300
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-12-03 09:40 +0000
          Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-03 11:40 +0100
            NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-12-03 11:33 +0000
              Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-03 16:24 +0100
                Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-12-03 17:13 +0100
              Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2019-12-04 14:32 +0100
                Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-04 16:53 +0000
                  Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-04 18:34 +0000
                    Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-05 12:51 +0000
              Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software") legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-12-08 04:21 +0000
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-03 17:05 -0800
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-12-06 22:12 -0800
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-07 07:28 +0100
    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" rep_movsd <rep.movsd@gmail.com> - 2019-12-09 07:57 -0800
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 11:03 -0600
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-12-09 17:08 +0000
          Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 11:39 -0600
            Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-12-09 18:26 +0000
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 15:50 -0600
                Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-12-10 15:09 +1300
                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 20:30 -0600
                    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 09:06 +0100
                      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 03:58 -0600
                        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 11:18 +0100
                          Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 05:37 -0600
                            Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 15:49 +0100
                              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 11:43 -0600
                                Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-12-10 10:19 -0800
                                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 12:50 -0600
            Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-10 13:12 +0000
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-12-10 13:54 +0000
                Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2019-12-10 17:22 +0200
                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-10 15:35 +0000
                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2019-12-10 15:17 -0300
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-10 11:32 -0600
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-12-10 21:09 +0000
                Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-11 09:49 +0000
                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-11 03:13 -0800
                    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-11 11:20 +0000
                      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2019-12-11 12:57 +0100
                      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-12-15 23:27 -0500
                        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-16 10:02 +0000
                    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-12-11 14:17 -0800
                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-12-11 12:11 +0000
                    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-11 12:42 +0000
                    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-11 16:01 +0100
                      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-11 16:15 +0000
        Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-09 22:16 +0000
          Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 16:25 -0600
            Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2019-12-09 16:35 -0600
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2019-12-09 17:19 -0600
              Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 11:09 +0100
                Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-10 13:17 +0000
                  Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-12-10 15:55 +0100
                    Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-10 15:26 +0000
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-12-09 22:16 +0000
      Re: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2019-12-09 16:33 -0600

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#70198 — "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"

"Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"
    https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/11/microsoft-exploring-rust-safety/

I doubt it.

Lynn

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#70199

On Monday, 2 December 2019 21:59:31 UTC+2, Lynn McGuire  wrote:
> "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"
>     https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/11/microsoft-exploring-rust-safety/
> 
> I doubt it.

Why? There is need and opportunity.
C# won't ever be useful for system programming. C, C++ and JavaScript
are wild and can not be tamed under control of any monster. D had just
too few changes to C++ to bother with it. Everything else is under
control of other monsters. So Rust is good opportunity to adopt
something from kindergarten and to spoil it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70200

On 2019-12-02, Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:
> On Monday, 2 December 2019 21:59:31 UTC+2, Lynn McGuire  wrote:
>> "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"
>>     https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/11/microsoft-exploring-rust-safety/
>> 
>> I doubt it.
>
> Why? There is need and opportunity.
> C# won't ever be useful for system programming. C, C++ and JavaScript
> are wild and can not be tamed under control of any monster. D had just
> too few changes to C++ to bother with it. Everything else is under
> control of other monsters. So Rust is good opportunity to adopt
> something from kindergarten and to spoil it.

I don't think it is about control. Rust is pain to program for novice,
exactly because it forces safety. Development time is also bigger. If
goal is safety in that kind of safety Rust is ok choice.
There were times I loved it (beginnings) then hated it, then I love it
again. One cannot be indeferent to Rust, that's for sure.


-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi --  Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi 
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70201

On 02.12.2019 22:17, Melzzzzz wrote:
> One cannot be indeferent to Rust, that's for sure.

Why not? I am. I once downloaded a/the Rust implementation, wrote 
"Hello, world!", and haven't bothered with it since.

- Alf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70202

On Monday, 2 December 2019 23:17:41 UTC+2, Melzzzzz  wrote:
> On 2019-12-02, Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 December 2019 21:59:31 UTC+2, Lynn McGuire  wrote:
> >> "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software"
> >>     https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/11/microsoft-exploring-rust-safety/
> >> 
> >> I doubt it.
> >
> > Why? There is need and opportunity.
> > C# won't ever be useful for system programming. C, C++ and JavaScript
> > are wild and can not be tamed under control of any monster. D had just
> > too few changes to C++ to bother with it. Everything else is under
> > control of other monsters. So Rust is good opportunity to adopt
> > something from kindergarten and to spoil it.
> 
> I don't think it is about control. Rust is pain to program for novice,
> exactly because it forces safety. Development time is also bigger. If
> goal is safety in that kind of safety Rust is ok choice.
> There were times I loved it (beginnings) then hated it, then I love it
> again. One cannot be indeferent to Rust, that's for sure.

Who knows? Google has Go and Apple has Swift so perhaps Microsoft
also wants to have some garbage-free programming language.
The syntax of Rust is not that different from Swift or Go.
However the compiler feels like impressive effort of limiting
ways to express nonsense. Actually what does it matter how
easy it is to write some incoherent and buggy programs? There
are no such "gotcha!" bear traps in Rust like C++ is full of
and so it perhaps suits novices better than C++.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70393

On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 6:39:31 PM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> 
> Google has Go and Apple has Swift so perhaps Microsoft
> also wants to have some garbage-free programming language.

As opposed to a garbage-full programming language like C++? :-) Or did you 
mean as opposed to a language with GC? But Go has GC.

> The syntax of Rust is not that different from Swift or Go.

The memory ownership models are different. Go has GC. Swift has
reference counting. Rust has affine types. 

> However the compiler feels like impressive effort of limiting
> ways to express nonsense. Actually what does it matter how
> easy it is to write some incoherent and buggy programs? There
> are no such "gotcha!" bear traps in Rust like C++ is full of
> and so it perhaps suits novices better than C++.

I'd be interested to know what you think about Rust's affine types. I'm currently on chapter 4 of The Rust Programming Language, The Stack and the Heap, and have some mental resistance to "_don't_ do as the ints do".

Daniel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70402

On Tuesday, 10 December 2019 23:56:09 UTC+2, Daniel  wrote:
> On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 6:39:31 PM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > 
> > Google has Go and Apple has Swift so perhaps Microsoft
> > also wants to have some garbage-free programming language.
> 
> As opposed to a garbage-full programming language like C++? :-) Or did you 
> mean as opposed to a language with GC? But Go has GC.

Yes I meant as opposed to historically garbage-filled C++ and failed
attempts of reducing that garbage like Java and C#. 
C++ is useful only by having "The Bible Of Its Usage In This
Project". A sketch of it:
<https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines>. 
Basically one without tens of millions dollars to throw into project
has to limit allowable C++ constructs in it to bare minimum right
from the very start or to do it in next iteration after failing
the first attempt.

> > The syntax of Rust is not that different from Swift or Go.
> 
> The memory ownership models are different. Go has GC. Swift has
> reference counting. Rust has affine types.

The GC does not worry me, "garbage collection" is just unfortunate
name to great idea of automated memory recycling. Its only issue is
that it makes programmers to feel safe while it totally failed to
automate recycling of all other, far more valuable resources than
memory. Plus it does not favor data layouts that are naturally
suitable for parallel processing.

Other nice GC languages besides Go are JavaSript (non-tameable wild)
and Kotlin (sponsored by Jetbrains and Google).

> 
> > However the compiler feels like impressive effort of limiting
> > ways to express nonsense. Actually what does it matter how
> > easy it is to write some incoherent and buggy programs? There
> > are no such "gotcha!" bear traps in Rust like C++ is full of
> > and so it perhaps suits novices better than C++.
> 
> I'd be interested to know what you think about Rust's affine types. I'm currently on chapter 4 of The Rust Programming Language, The Stack and the Heap, and have some mental resistance to "_don't_ do as the ints do".

I think of those as of policy that only owner has right to use
and ownership is move-only. I basically follow same policy in 
all other languages (but it is easiest to automate in C++).
I basically allow shared ownership of immutable objects as
the only exception.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70203

Actually, it is considering implementing a new language inspired by
Rust. https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-were-creating-a-new-rust-based-programming-language-for-secure-coding/

--
Pankaj Jangid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70205

On 12/3/19 12:51 AM, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
> Actually, it is considering implementing a new language inspired by
> Rust. https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-were-creating-a-new-rust-based-programming-language-for-secure-coding/
> 
OMG! I didn't know that, another programming language and what's worse, 
created/sponsored by Microsoft :-O

I've already seen this several times... a company needs to have the 
control of the tool (Microsoft/VisualBasic/VisualJ/C#/TypeScript/F#, 
Sun/Java, Google/Go/Dart, JetBrains/Kotlin, etc)


--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70208

In article <qs4qb5$1qt5$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Cholo Lennon  <chololennon@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/3/19 12:51 AM, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
>> Actually, it is considering implementing a new language inspired by
>> Rust.
>https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-were-creating-a-new-rust-based-programming-language-for-secure-coding/
>> 
>OMG! I didn't know that, another programming language and what's worse, 
>created/sponsored by Microsoft :-O
>
>I've already seen this several times... a company needs to have the 
>control of the tool (Microsoft/VisualBasic/VisualJ/C#/TypeScript/F#, 
>Sun/Java, Google/Go/Dart, JetBrains/Kotlin, etc)

Not Invented Here Syndrome.

-- 
Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to
comp.lang.c...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70210

On 03/12/2019 10:40, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <qs4qb5$1qt5$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Cholo Lennon  <chololennon@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/3/19 12:51 AM, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
>>> Actually, it is considering implementing a new language inspired by
>>> Rust.
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-were-creating-a-new-rust-based-programming-language-for-secure-coding/
>>>
>> OMG! I didn't know that, another programming language and what's worse, 
>> created/sponsored by Microsoft :-O
>>
>> I've already seen this several times... a company needs to have the 
>> control of the tool (Microsoft/VisualBasic/VisualJ/C#/TypeScript/F#, 
>> Sun/Java, Google/Go/Dart, JetBrains/Kotlin, etc)
> 
> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
> 

Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.

MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.

(I don't think MS are as bad at this as they used to be, and I am not
implying that other companies are necessarily better.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70212 — NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software")

In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
...
>> 
>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>
>Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>
>MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.

Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.

I don't think we really disagree much here.

P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.

-- 
To my knowledge, Jacob Navia is not a Christian.

    - Rick C Hodgin -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70213 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software")

On 03/12/2019 12:33, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>>
>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>>
>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
> 
> Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.

Actually, I believe a fair amount of the work on dotnet / CLR was by
Borland originally, within their Delphi range.  But I am not sure about
that (and it's getting a good deal off-topic here, even though they made
C++ compilers).

> 
> I don't think we really disagree much here.

Not much, no, but you have the logic reversed.  It is not "MS made C#,
so they get to control that language" - it is "MS wanted a language they
controlled, so they made C#".

> 
> P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
> language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
> of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70214 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software")

On 12/3/2019 4:24 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/12/2019 12:33, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
>> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>>>
>>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>>>
>>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>>> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>>> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>>> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
>>
>> Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.
> 
> Actually, I believe a fair amount of the work on dotnet / CLR was by
> Borland originally, within their Delphi range.  But I am not sure about
> that (and it's getting a good deal off-topic here, even though they made
> C++ compilers).

C# was developed "originally" by Microsoft, but the lead architect of 
the project was (still is?) Anders Hejlsberg, who formerly was the chief 
architect of Turbo Pascal and Delphi at Borland.

> 
>>
>> I don't think we really disagree much here.
> 
> Not much, no, but you have the logic reversed.  It is not "MS made C#,
> so they get to control that language" - it is "MS wanted a language they
> controlled, so they made C#".

Sounds pretty much like two sides of the same story.

Bottom line is that they control the runtime, so they ensure that C# 
applications need the Windows ecosystem to run (Mono looks far too 
limited as far as I have seen).

> 
>>
>> P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
>> language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
>> of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.
>>
> 

I think VB.NET was the primary target from the marketing point of view, 
i.e. VB is a huge market for Microsoft, thus of primary relevance.
I doubt that C# can be seen as a derivative of VB.NET (which I know 
little about, I have to admit), although contamination is evident.
I think it is mostly because of the need for interoperability, rather 
than language derivation, though - one of the goals of C# was to talk 
easily with VB and remove the complexity of COM.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70238 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software")

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> ...
>>> 
>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>> 
>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>> 
>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
> 
> Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.
> 
> I don't think we really disagree much here.
> 
> P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
> language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
> of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.
> 

Note that MS also made the integration of unmanaged C++ code into the
managed DotNet world very simple, something that is much harder to achieve
with Java (co-workers of mine constantly struggle with this, whereas I
enjoy the easy C++/CLI coding :-)

IMHO, this makes C# more than just a Java clone. I have done three large
projects (> 100kLOC) with C++/C#, and I enjoyed it very much.

Regards,
Stuart

PS: I was lying a little bit. When my managed C++ libraries wouldn't load
because boost::thread uses TLS somewhere inside, I spent an awful great
amount of time figuring this out :-/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70245 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:32:37 +0100
Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> wrote:
>Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
>> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>>> 
>>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>>> 
>>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>>> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>>> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>>> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
>> 
>> Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.
>> 
>> I don't think we really disagree much here.
>> 
>> P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
>> language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
>> of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.
>> 
>
>Note that MS also made the integration of unmanaged C++ code into the
>managed DotNet world very simple, something that is much harder to achieve
>with Java (co-workers of mine constantly struggle with this, whereas I
>enjoy the easy C++/CLI coding :-)
>
>IMHO, this makes C# more than just a Java clone. I have done three large
>projects (> 100kLOC) with C++/C#, and I enjoyed it very much.
>
>Regards,
>Stuart
>
>PS: I was lying a little bit. When my managed C++ libraries wouldn't load
>because boost::thread uses TLS somewhere inside, I spent an awful great

Boost? Ugh. The sooner that hideous bloatware buggers off down the same rubbish
chute as Roguewaves APIs did back in the 00s the better. There's been little 
good reason to use it since c++14 came out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70251 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for

On 04/12/2019 16:53, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:32:37 +0100
> Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> wrote:
>> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>> In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>>>>
>>>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>>>>
>>>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>>>> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>>>> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>>>> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
>>>
>>> Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.
>>>
>>> I don't think we really disagree much here.
>>>
>>> P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
>>> language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
>>> of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.
>>>
>>
>> Note that MS also made the integration of unmanaged C++ code into the
>> managed DotNet world very simple, something that is much harder to achieve
>> with Java (co-workers of mine constantly struggle with this, whereas I
>> enjoy the easy C++/CLI coding :-)
>>
>> IMHO, this makes C# more than just a Java clone. I have done three large
>> projects (> 100kLOC) with C++/C#, and I enjoyed it very much.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stuart
>>
>> PS: I was lying a little bit. When my managed C++ libraries wouldn't load
>> because boost::thread uses TLS somewhere inside, I spent an awful great
> 
> Boost? Ugh. The sooner that hideous bloatware buggers off down the same rubbish
> chute as Roguewaves APIs did back in the 00s the better. There's been little
> good reason to use it since c++14 came out.

That's because a good deal of boost is now part of C++; if boost was rubbish that wouldn't have happened, idiot.

/Flibble

-- 
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Byrne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70279 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 18:34:41 +0000
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote:
>On 04/12/2019 16:53, boltar@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:32:37 +0100
>> Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> wrote:
>>> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <qs5e3e$91s$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not Invented Here Syndrome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not /Controlled/ Here Syndrome.
>>>>>
>>>>> MS were quite happy to support Java as long as they could make their own
>>>>> incompatible version.  When the courts said they were not allowed to do
>>>>> that (and still call it "Java"), they went off in a huff and made C# as
>>>>> their own alternative to Java which /they/ controlled.
>>>>
>>>> Well, they controlled it because they had invented it.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we really disagree much here.
>>>>
>>>> P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
>>>> language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
>>>> of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note that MS also made the integration of unmanaged C++ code into the
>>> managed DotNet world very simple, something that is much harder to achieve
>>> with Java (co-workers of mine constantly struggle with this, whereas I
>>> enjoy the easy C++/CLI coding :-)
>>>
>>> IMHO, this makes C# more than just a Java clone. I have done three large
>>> projects (> 100kLOC) with C++/C#, and I enjoyed it very much.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>> PS: I was lying a little bit. When my managed C++ libraries wouldn't load
>>> because boost::thread uses TLS somewhere inside, I spent an awful great
>> 
>> Boost? Ugh. The sooner that hideous bloatware buggers off down the same
>rubbish
>> chute as Roguewaves APIs did back in the 00s the better. There's been little
>> good reason to use it since c++14 came out.
>
>That's because a good deal of boost is now part of C++; if boost was rubbish

A good deal? Maybe 10%. 

>that wouldn't have happened, idiot.

The average landfill has a few jems in it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70348 — Re: NIHS (Was: "Microsoft Exploring Rust as the Solution for Safe Software")

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) spake the secret code
<qs5h5n$i9$1@news.xmission.com> thusly:

>P.S.  People often talk as if C# was invented by itself, as a standalone
>language.  In fact, C# is just one member of the .NET/CLR family.  I think
>of VB.NET as the primary .NET language.  I suppose C# comes next after VB.

.NET is really just COM 2.0.  Everything MS learned about binary
components with the huge success of COM was refined and made easier
with .NET/C#.  Many times I have heard people say "C# is just a clone
of Java".  So far every single one of those people has been someone who
hadn't done any significant programming on the Windows platform either
before or after the introduction of .NET.  While .NET/C# shares some
ideas with Java, I dispute the idea that it is just a clone/copy of
Java.

The idea of programming to a virtual machine was around long before
Java.  The IBM AS/400 is one obvious example that predates Java.  So
this was not an invention that came from Java.  Remove the JVM and
what you're left with is another OO curly brace style language, so
that also wasn't some kind of unique invention that originates with
Java.

Having done jobs where I did ~5 years of programming in both
languages, I find it much more pleasant to work in C# than to work in
Java.  The only thing that was a pleasure while working in Java was
using IntelliJ for it's awesome refactoring and navigation
capabilities.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
            The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70220

On 12/2/2019 9:03 PM, Cholo Lennon wrote:
> On 12/3/19 12:51 AM, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
>> Actually, it is considering implementing a new language inspired by
>> Rust. 
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-were-creating-a-new-rust-based-programming-language-for-secure-coding/ 
>>
>>
> OMG! I didn't know that, another programming language and what's worse, 
> created/sponsored by Microsoft :-O
> 
> I've already seen this several times... a company needs to have the 
> control of the tool (Microsoft/VisualBasic/VisualJ/C#/TypeScript/F#, 
> Sun/Java, Google/Go/Dart, JetBrains/Kotlin, etc)

Microsoft/Q#

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Sharp

;^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web