Talk:Managed Extensions for C++

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

real life use[edit]

is this used anywhere? looks like the worst language ever made by M$.

It was ugly because it was a patchwork on top of C++ that was on top of C. It had to be, because of its purpose -- allowing managed code to be easily mixed with native code. The purpose was to allow developers to easily write for example wrapper classes exposing a native C++ interface that internally used more or less managed code. But this language see little use today, especially as it was rather quickly superseded by C++/CLI that tries to clean up the syntax. As far as I know, this language is no longer officially supported. — Northgrove 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Original Research?[edit]

The group of "comparison to X" sections seems like it is partly original research and has POV issues - A better approach would be to briefly cite outside sources, and provide enough general information about the topic that the informed reader will grasp the consequences for themself.

I agree. This article seems filled with original research and POV. It does not read like an encyclopedic article right now, rather a comparative analysis of C++/MC++. It probably needs major re-structuring. Ameltzer 23:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Performance of managed C++[edit]

It is said : In general, Managed C++ code (MSIL) is slightly faster or more efficient than code (MSIL) compiled using the C# compiler. Judging on existing benchmarks on the web (see here for example), it seems that the performance of managed C++ is not better than C#, if not a lot slower. Hervegirod 14:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, in the link you provide, it ends up saying both C# and managed C++ perform the same (which is logical as they are likely to produce very similar if not identical il code). I think the point in the article is hinting at the maturity of the C++ compiler, which may be less relevant since .net 2 (MS studio 2005 had a new C# compiler).

.NET is not a virtual machine[edit]

"Managed" refers to that it is run in, or managed by, the .NET virtual machine that functions as a sandbox for enhanced security in the form of more runtime checks" -- MSIL is targeted at a virtual stack machine but Microsoft's CLR implementation uses a JIT-compiler. There is no ".NET virtual machine". --SealedSun 09:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed them referring managed C++ as being unchecked, and java being so. They are BOTH checked, Managed C++ is checked by the JIT(Just in Time) Runtime. Predator106 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment in the wrong place[edit]

Found this in the article:

  • C# is a much more strongly typed language, which helps reduce certain bugs, such as buffer overflow vulnerabilities. [this comment is wrong, weak/strongly typed does not affect buffer overflow vulnerabilities. it's because pointers were dropped. Try to create a ruby program with an overflow bug. it's a weak typed language, but you can not write a ruby program with a buffer overflow bug, you will only succeed in finding overflow bugs in the interpreter, which is written in C/C++ with pointers :)]

Clearly that comment should be here in this talk page, not in the article itself. I have removed the above section - (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Visual C++[edit]

can anybody tell me what do we mean by L"asdf"; statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add a new "Managed C++ V.S. C++/CLI" section to the comparison section?

Merge into C++/CLI?[edit]

Given that "Managed Extensions for C++" was discontinued back in Visual Studio 2005 in favor of C++/CLI, which is its successor and replacement in basically all ways except different syntax, I think it would be logical to merge the two together, especially given that a large population of users erroneously refer to C++/CLI as "Managed C++". Other than the code snippets, most of the article revolves around the differences between its native-to-managed-code interop mechanism compared to C# and standard C++, which is essentially the same in C++/CLI and would thus be equally relevant in that article. Tuxcantfly (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Basically there are no references at all in the whole article, and a lot of things seems to be WP:OR. I think few of it should be kept as it is. Hervegirod (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


The Comparing Managed C++ paragraph is completely WP:OR: absolutely nothing is sourced. I have put a tag on November 1, if nobody is able to add any source about these comparisons, I will soon delete the whole part. Hervegirod (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone agree? some sentences like:
Managed C++ is garbage collected. In standard C++, memory management and allocation is the responsibility of the programmer.
clearly have non-neutral POV (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)