|
With CLR you get three options :
(1) Use Econo-JIT : Fast compilation time but the generated code is not optimized so it would run slower. This type of compilation is useful for scripts.
(2) Standard JIT: slow compilation time, but generates fully optimized code; thus the application would run at speeds "comparable" to a native application
(3) Install time Compilation: When your ILs are installed on a machine you could instruct it to be converted to native code upon installation. This may increase installation time but the application would never need to be "CLRed" again.
One major difference between Java and .NET run times is that with CLR your code need not be run as interpreted. Unlike JVM which despite the JIT, still essentially runs portions of the Byte code as interpreted (although with GCJ things may be different); the .NET runtime compiles it once for the very
peace to all
|
|
|
|
|
Managed C++ runs at exactly the same speed as C# code. They both compile down to IL...
Matthew Adams
Development Manager
Digital Healthcare Ltd
|
|
|
|
|
Actually it was mentioned that MC++ is the only language that generates optimized IL so theoretically it's always a little bit faster.
A while ago I've done my own tests and C# was significantly faster than Java, I don't remember the exact numbers, sorry.
What I might've done differently is that I put timers in the program itself so I discarded the time of initial compilation from IL to native.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure that I understand what constitutes a 'managed extension'. Is there a difference between pure "Managed C++" and "C++ with managed extensions"? Or, is a managed extention simply a managed code set linked to regular ol' C++. Is that even possible?
"Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
|
|
|
|
|
Never mind.
Just went out to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/technical/articles/managedext.asp
and read up on it.
"Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
|
|
|
|
|
[Managed C++ for GUIs, C# for business logic]
Nish
Nish was here, now Nish has gone;
He left his soul, to turn you on;
Those who knew Nish, knew him well;
Those who didn't, can go to hell.
I like to on the Code Project
Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain
www.busterboy.org
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know wo makes these questions?
Mazy
Don't Marry a Person You Can Live With...
Marry Someone You Can Not Live Without
|
|
|
|
|
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote:
[Managed C++ for GUIs, C# for business logic]
Chris was just seeing if you were asleep for once
Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
"I would be careful in separating your wierdness, a good quirky weirdness, from the disturbed wierdness of people who take pleasure from PVC sheep with fruit repositories."
- Paul Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Metcalfe wrote:
Chris was just seeing if you were asleep for once
Yeah, probably
Nish
Nish was here, now Nish has gone;
He left his soul, to turn you on;
Those who knew Nish, knew him well;
Those who didn't, can go to hell.
I like to on the Code Project
Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain
www.busterboy.org
|
|
|
|
|
Damn that was quick. I just can't sneak one past you can I?
Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
"I would be careful in separating your wierdness, a good quirky weirdness, from the disturbed wierdness of people who take pleasure from PVC sheep with fruit repositories."
- Paul Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Metcalfe wrote:
Damn that was quick. I just can't sneak one past you can I?
LOL
I didnt know you were attempting to sneak one past me.
They don't call me "Ghost who walks on CP" for nothing.
Nish [CP Phantom]
Nish was here, now Nish has gone;
He left his soul, to turn you on;
Those who knew Nish, knew him well;
Those who didn't, can go to hell.
I like to on the Code Project
Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain
www.busterboy.org
|
|
|
|
|
To the person who said 'I am a C++ programmer and have not been told to target .NET', the point of the question is that it's hypothetical.
To the guy who would kill himself, and the guy who would quit, would you have done these things when MFC was introduced if you'd been told to use it ?
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
would you have done these things when MFC was introduced if you'd been told to use it ?
There is a huge difference between introduction of MFC and .NET.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
There is a huge difference between introduction of MFC and .NET.
There are differences, but in the end I believe people who say they would kill themselves or quit rather than use it are motivated by the same things in both cases.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
I believe people who say they would kill themselves or quit rather than use it are motivated by the same things in both cases.
I think the guy who said he would kill himself is just kidding. The "I'd quit" is the same as "I'd stick with C++ (and not use Managed extensions)" or "I don't see the future in .NET". Managed Extensions suck bad and many people, including me, have no interest to use a broken version of C++ and would rather quit to find a place where the real C++ is used.
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
have no interest to use a broken version of C++
So why do you say MC++ is broken?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
George wrote:
have no interest to use a broken version of C++
So why do you say MC++ is broken?
Ask him Chris, ask him.
I once asked him and he gave me a 1000 arguments.
Since most of them revolved around C++ standards I could not counter-argue. But you can I guess
My own C++ is worse than MC++, so I won't be worse off in any case. I think MC++ is the best thing about .NET [for me anyways]
__gc Nish
Nish was here, now Nish has gone;
He left his soul, to turn you on;
Those who knew Nish, knew him well;
Those who didn't, can go to hell.
I like to on the Code Project
Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain
www.busterboy.org
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
So why do you say MC++ is broken?
You must be a new here?
Anyway, as Nish has already pointed out it's been discussed in great details numerous times before, just search the archives...
![Smile | :)](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/smiley_smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen you discuss ad neaseum about how you dislike Managed C++, you think C# is a waste of time, and that C++ is better than C# and VB because you say it can do whatever C# or VB can (therefor there is no point in C# or VB). I also vageuly remember you discussing Visual C++'s deficiencies when it comes to standards compliance - but none of this explains why you think Managed Extensions for VC++ are broken.
So how about a quick one-liner for those of us who missed the argument elsewhere
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
why you think Managed Extensions for VC++ are broken
If MC++ is supposed to be C++ it is severly broken. Otherwise if it is supposed to be MC++ then by the reflexive property it is MC++, this it is itself(since it is still 1.0)
|
|
|
|
|
huh?
Managed extensions are extensions to C++.
CantLogInNow wrote:
Otherwise if it is supposed to be MC++ then by the reflexive property it is MC++, this it is itself(since it is still 1.0)
You've lost me here. What are you saying?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
So how about a quick one-liner for those of us who missed the argument elsewhere
You want a one-liner, huh? OK, here it comes:
Managed_Extensions_for_Visual_cplusplus != _cplusplus
|
|
|
|
|
One word: portability.
Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
I think the guy who said he would kill himself is just kidding.
Obviously, but while I'm sure he wouldn't KILL himself, it's obviously a statement designed to show a depth of feeling on the topic.
George wrote:
Managed Extensions suck bad and many people, including me, have no interest to use a broken version of C++ and would rather quit to find a place where the real C++ is used.
I doubt I would want to use MC++, it seems likely to me that C# would be a better choice for .NET development. I *love* C++, but that doesn't mean I can't learn something new, and while I am cynical about parts of .NET, I doubt M$ are so stupid as to release a major product that is useless, BOB notwithstanding. Have you bought any books on C# ? Have you used it at all ? If not, then your stataments have more to do with technofear than any basis in fact. I may well decide that C# sucks, but I will learn it first, and then decide. I may well decide that .NET is useless for me, but I'll decide based on fact, not hearsay, and ultimately that means trying it for myself.
Christian
I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001
Picture the daffodil. And while you do that, I'll be over here going through your stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
Have you bought any books on C# ?
To help to make money to all that people that write useless books about the product that was not even released yet (and it's not even released as of today)? No, thanks, I'll wait and see...
Christian Graus wrote:
Have you used it at all ? If not, then your stataments have more to do with technofear than any basis in fact.
I read the spec and tried the Beta 1 - I found that C# is not my cup of tea. I don't have to step into the sh*t to know it stinks - I know that from the previous experience. It's not a fear - it's causion and experience....
Christian Graus wrote:
I may well decide that C# sucks, but I will learn it first, and then decide. I may well decide that .NET is useless for me, but I'll decide based on fact, not hearsay, and ultimately that means trying it for myself.
Why waste time to learn yet another temporary technology? By the time it picks up it may well be replaced by something else. Why to bother to live in yet another buble just to wake up one day and see the buble is burst and gone?
Christian Graus wrote:
I doubt M$ are so stupid as to release a major product that is useless
It seems as the whole .NET was being invented when the dot-com was on the top, now it's all gone and MS is trying to re-animate the idea. Good luck.
|
|
|
|