Warp wrote:
>   There are only a few incompatibilities between C and C++,

I think you'd need to read that link, where they list the incompatibilities.

> and it's really
> rare for a C program to use something which would make it illegal C++
> (although, admittedly, using a variable named eg. "class" in a C program
> might not be unheard of, but I still think it's rare).

Read the link. It's not long. There are a bunch of things about types that 
changed.

>> Second, it means you 
>> can interact with other .NET libraries to add stuff to the game.
> 
>   You *can*, but you don't *have to*. I fail to see how compiling a C (or
> C++) program as a C++.net program would be difficult.

It wasn't. That was the point. It took them about a week to port it, with 
more than half the time being porting from C to C++.

>   On the contrary: The *less* you add .net code to the program, the *easier*
> it will be to compile as a C++.net program.

Most likely true, yes.

>   (One thing which I don't really understand is what's the point: If you
> already have a working C/C++ program, why deliberately make it C++.net?

I think it was done as an experiment, not as an end in itself. For one 
thing, they were testing the difference in speed, as an example.

> The only thing you will achieve is that you will be forcing people who
> want to use the program to install the necessary .net libraries. And no,
> they don't always come with Windows by default, especially if you use
> a newer version of .net than 1.x.)

I don't think they envisioned the new version as an improvement over the old 
version per se.  Again, read the link.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message