C++ and C# are quite simmilar programming languages, in my opinion. If a C++ code needs to be ported to platform where C# is the only supported platform, how much work will need to be done?
Should I get ready, that most of the C++ code will need to be rewritten to C#? Or, because of language simmilarities, should refactoring be quite easy and straightforward?
I am aware, that it will depend on the application itself, but I am asking in general.
I have done a major port of a C++ application to C# recently. Overall I thought it was a pleasant experience. These are the steps that I took, they might or might not apply to your application.
Get the "scaffolding" in place in C#, design your architecture. This is the time to get in major architecture changes from the existing application if you choose to do so.
Get your tests in place. I can't over-emphasize this one. Since you are porting an existing application you should have a set of tests already in place that verify the correct behavior of your application. You can and should reuse these tests for your C# application. This is the one thing that gives you an edge when porting - you know (and have written) already many of the tests you want. Start porting your test project.
Put in method stubs for your C# methods that reflect the existing C++ methods. Given the framework support in C# some methods might not be needed at all anymore, or are very simplified - this is the time to decide.
Copy and paste. Yes I used copy and paste for most of the C++ code - all the flow statements basically can be reused if you are careful. Once pasted go through line by line, many things like use of pointers etc. must be rewritten to use a equivalent C# type.
Once you have re-written a method in such a way, do the obvious re-factoring given the framework support / helper classes you might have been lacking in C++ but are readily available in C#. Also naming conventions for variables etc. can be changed here, should be straightforward given the built in support for this in VS 2010.
Run your tests! Test early and often that the overall framework you have in place so far produces the exact same output as your C++ application which you can use as a reference. This is also the time to add missing tests.
Refactor, Refactor, Refactor. Every application ages, and so did your C++ application most likely. Look closely at the underlying design and simplify and remove as much as possible. Verify at each step by running your tests.
First thing first, this is porting and not refactoring. Also I think it's an extremely bad idea.
It is true that you could (with a lot of work) port C++ to unsafe C#, but saying that the syntax is very similar is a bit of a stretch. In fact, following the same line of reasoning you could port C++ to any other C derived language, and it would be equally painful.
Again, if you do it expect a shedload of rework. It's more than likely gonna take you more than re-coding it from scratch using the existing code as mere model, which is in my opinion a better and less messy option.
Just compile the C++ code with the /clr compiler option. That will translate the code to IL, it can execute on most any .NET enabled platform. There are very few C++ constructs that cannot be translated, it would have to use non-standard compiler extensions like __fastcall.
However, I suspect that you will find out that the platform requires verifiable code. Which is the common reason why a platform would restrict code to a .NET compliant language. I cannot guess at this since you didn't mention the execution environment. Native C++ translated to IL is not verifiable due to pointer manipulations. If that's the case then you are looking at a pretty drastic rewrite.
I'd be interested to know where C# is the "only supported platform".
The problem of rewriting in a new language can be whether you need to rewrite every single part of the code and cannot use any of the old code at all. Sometimes it is best, even when doing a rewrite, to make it more of a refactor: rewrite some parts of the code, move others. The existing code is known to work and can be tricky to reproduce. And it takes time. There needs to be a good reason to do a full rewrite.
.NET supports a version of C++, and Visual Studio also comes with Visual C++ to build standard C++, so consider whether or not you can make this a phased transformation, and whether or not you really have to rewrite the whole thing.
Porting C++ code to C# will not be that hard, assuming that all your dependent libraries have existing C# counterparts. Lack of dependencies is the most likely pitfall. The core concepts of your program, such as inheritance, heap, references, data structures, should be fairly easily translatable.
This is assuming that you don't invoke any specific low level behaviour such as custom memory management, because C# does not really support that kind of thing and you could have a serious problem there.
Related
What are the advantages (the list of possible disadvantages is lenghtly) of doing 100% managed development using C++/CLI (that is, compile with /clr:safe which "generates ... assemblies, like those written in ... C#")? Especially when compard to C# (note C++/CLI : Advantages over C# and Is there any advantage to using C++/CLI over either standard C++ or C#? are mostly about managed/unmanaged interop).
For example, here are a few off the top of my head:
C++-style references for managed types, not as elegant as full blown non-nullable references but better than nothing or using a work-around.
templates which are more powerful than generics
preprocessor (this may be a disadvantage!, but macros can be useful for code generation)
stack semantics for reference types--automatically calling IDisposable::Dispose()
easier implementation of Dispose() via C++ destructor
C# 3.0 added auto-implemented properties, so that is no longer a C++/CLI advantage.
I would think that the single biggest advantage is the managed/unmanaged interop. Writing pure managed C++/CLI would (to me at least) without interoping with C# or other .Net languages seems like missing the point entirely. Yeah you could do this, but why would you.
If you're going to write pure managed code why not use C#. Especially (like nobugs said) if VS2010 drops IntelliSense support for C++/CLI. Also in VS2008 the IntelliSense for C++/CLI isn't as good the C# IntelliSense; so from a developer standpoint, it's easier to work/explore/refactor in C# than C++/CLI.
If you want some of the C++ benefits you list like the preprocessor, stack semantics and templates, then why not use C++?
Odd, I like C++/CLI but you listed exactly its features I dislike. My criticisms:
Okay. But accidental use of the hat is pretty widespread, getting the value of the value type boxed without warning. There is no way to diagnose this mistake.
Power that comes at a high price, templates you write are not usable in any other .NET language. If anything, it worsens the C++ template export problem. The complete failure of STL/CLR is worth pondering too.
Erm, no.
This was IMO a serious mistake. It already is difficult to avoid problems with accidental boxing, as outlined in the first bullet. Stack semantics makes it seriously difficult for any starting programmer to sort this out. This was a design decision to placate C++ programmers, that's okay, but the using statement was a better solution.
Not sure how it is easier. The GC.SuppressFinalize() call is automatic, that's all. It is very rare for anybody to write a finalizer, but you can't avoid the auto-generated code from making the call. That's inefficient and a violation of the 'you don't pay for what you don't use' principle. Add to this that writing the destructor also forces a default finalizer to be auto-generated. One you'd never use and wouldn't want to be used if you forgot or omitted to use the destructor.
Well, that's all very subjective perhaps. The death-knell will come with VS2010, it will ship without IntelliSense support for C++/CLI.
In C++/CLI you can define functions outside of classes, you can't do that in C#. But I don't know if that is an advantage
Like others here, I can't think of any general cases where a clear advantage exists, so my thinking turned to situational advantages -- are there any cases where there is an advantage in a particular scenario?
Advantage: Leverage the C++ skill set of technical staff in a rapid prototyping scenario.
Let me elaborate ...
I have worked quite a bit with scientists and (non-software) engineers who aren't formally trained programmers. Many of these people use C++ for developing specific modules involving high-end physics/mathematics. If a pure .NET module is required in a rapid prototyping scenario and the skill set of the scientist/engineer responsible for the module is C++, I would teach them a small amount of additional syntax (public ref, ^ and % and gcnew) and get them to program up their module as a 100% managed C++/CLI DLL.
I recognize there are a whole heap of possible "Yes, but ..." responses, but I think leveraging the C++ skill set of technical staff is a possible advantage of C++/CLI.
I agree on what you have mentioned and as an example of preprocessor use point to: Boost Preprocessor library for generating a set of types based on a list of basic types e.g. PointI32, PointF32 etc. in C++/CLI
You can have enums and delegates as generic constraints in C++/CLI, but not in C#.
https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/386194/allow-enum-as-generic-constraint-in-c
There is a library to simulate these constraints in C#.
http://code.google.com/p/unconstrained-melody/
One could imagine the following requirements for a hypothetical product:
Quick time-to-market on Windows
Eventual deploy to non-Windows platforms
Must not rely on Mono for non-Windows
In such a scenario, using eg C# for 1 would stymie you on 2 and 3 without a rewrite. So, one could develop in C++/CLI, suitably munged with macros and template shenanigans to look as much like ordinary C++ as possible, to hit reqt 1, then to hit reqt 2 one would need to (a) reimplement said macros and template shenanigans to map to pukka C++ and (b) implement .NET framework classes used in pukka C++. Note that (a) and (b) could be reused in future once done once.
The most obvious objection would be "well why not do the whole thing in native C++ then?"; well maybe there's lots of good stuff in the vast .NET class library that you want to use to get to market asap.
All a bit tenuous I admit, so I very much doubt this has ever been done, but it'd be a fun thing to try out !
I intend to write a small application to scratch a personal itch and probably make the life of some colleagues easier. Here is what I have:
10+ years of experience in C
Plenty of experience in programming against the Win16/32 API in C from the Win3.1 to 2000 days.
C library written by myself already doing about 75% of what the application shall do.
What the application shall do:
open a binary, feed it into the mentioned library.
take the resulting text output and feed it into a new Excel Workbook.
apply some formating.
integrate nicely with the Windows environment (availability in "Open With...", remember some stuff using the registry etc.)
(maybe later) before giving the CSV data to Excel, parse it by looking up the meaning of some values in an XML file.
Except for the XML parsing part I have done all of that stuff before including COM / Office Automation in C/Win32. There is a lot of boilerplate code involved, but it is doable and the result will be a pretty small application without the need for an installer.
So why even think about C# / .Net?
no experience with parsing XML
the promise of less boilerplate code for the Windows and Excel stuff (yes, I have done C++ with OWL, MFC, ATL etc. but I am not going there anymore - not for free/fun)
Since I have also experience with C++, VB(not .Net) and a little Java / Objective-C I suppose learning C# will all be about the .Net libraries and not actually about the language.
My considerations so far:
Learning .NET might be fun and might result in less code / first steps in a more modern environment.
Sticking with what I know will lead to a predictable outcome in terms of effort and function (except for the optional XML stuff)
VB looked great at the beginning until the projects where about 80% done, then the pain started and the DLL coding in C. I am concerned history could repeat itself if I choose .Net.
My primary objective is the functionality. Effort is a concern. The XML parsing is optional.
Please advice.
Update: one thing I forgot to mention explicitly is that I am also worried about easy deployment of the tool to my co-workers. With Win32 I am pretty sure I can come up with an EXE file < 1Mb that can be easily emailed and does not require installation. With .Net not so much. Can I create the necessary MSI or whatever in Visual Studio Express (free) or do I need 3rd party tools?
as others have your question mostly covered, I'd just like to quickly comment on your considerations:
Learning .NET might be fun and might result in less code / first steps in a more modern environment.
Totally agreed. It is definitely fun and usually it does result in less code. The investment you make now will certainly benefit you in future projects. It is way faster to program in .Net than in C. Not only it is easier, but it is also safer. You are isolated from many programming errors common in C mostly related to memory mismanagement. You also get a very complete managed API to do stuff you would usually need to build your own framework.
Sticking with what I know will lead to a predictable outcome in terms of effort and function (except for the optional XML stuff)
Hence your indecision. :-)
VB looked great at the beginning until the projects where about 80% done, then the pain started and the DLL coding in C. I am concerned history could repeat itself if I choose .Net. My primary objective is the functionality. Effort is a concern. The XML parsing is optional.
.Net is an entirely different beast from VB. Most of the things you wouldn't be able to do in VB, or at least do them easily, are supported by .Net. For instance, Windows Services are a snap to build in .Net. Socket programming is also supported, but there are very few reasons to do it yourself, as you've got loads of communication APIs with .Net. You've got web-services, .Net Remoting, MSMQ management, and more recently WCF. Proper multithreading is supported by .Net, unlike the idiotic apartment model in VB. In case you really need to go low level, you can also actually use pointers in C#, inside of unsafe code blocks, even though I would never advise to do so.
If you really need to do things in C, then integrating is also relatively easy. You can create COM objects and use interop to work with them from .Net. You can also interact directly with plain ol' dlls using DllImport. Using www.pinvoke.net makes it easier.
When I developed in VB, sometimes I also had to go back to C++ to do stuff that I wasn't able of doing in VB. Since I began programming in .Net, the only extremely rare scenarios I would need to go back to C++ were when I needed to use legacy COM components that used types I was having a hard time to marshal via interop. I wouldn't worry about history repeating itself.
If you're using COM, you may be interested in using C# 4.0 instead of earlier versions - the downside being that it's only in beta. But basically it makes COM stuff somewhat less ugly for various reasons.
I'd expect there to be plenty of good C libraries for XML parsing by now. I would expect the main benefit to actually be the knowledge gained. I doubt that you'll actually produce the code faster for this project, but the next one may well be a lot quicker.
How much do you care about learning new stuff?
It sounds like an ideal project for learning C# & .NET.
You know most of what you need to do so you can use that to gain a base level of understanding of C# & .NET which you can then apply to the stuff you need to learn.
As Rune says though, a key driver could be the timescales. If this is something you need in a hurry then coding it in C & using win32 directly might be the answer.
Sorry I couldn't be more definite.
I think you should use C#. With your experience the learning curve won't be too steep. The code will ultimately be cleaner (and less of it) than you probably could with C/Win32.
There is probably going to be no problem using your existing C-library with the [DllImport] attribute.
It depends. :-) It depends on whether you want to do this quickly or if you want to learn something new. It depends on whether you will be the only maintainer of the code or if others will maintain it in the future. It depends on how complex your xml handling will be and on how complex the COM automation is.
You will probably get a working application quicker if you do it in C than in C#. Both since you have much of the stuff needed already in place and since you know C well.
But this project sounds like a good match for C# and .Net. .Net has great support for XML and COM interop is easy but clumsy in C# (much better in the next version!). So if you are interested in learning C# and .Net this would be a good project to do so.
I would definitely do this in .Net and probably C# (but I am biased). Using .Net would probably result in code that is easier to read and maintain and most probably easier to write. So if you are interested in learning C# I would suggest you go for it!
Edit:
You worry about the size of the executable if you write it in .Net. I doubt that will be a problem, for most if not all of the libraries you will use for a project like this will already be installed on your computer. 1 Mb is rather large for a .Net executable, event for a big project.
a short notice on the installation. .NET is as default xcopy-able so you wouldn't need an installer for the exe to be usable. Mail it around (or with the next release of the .NET framework optionaly leave it on a network share)
You could look at building a hybrid system that uses C++/CLI and C#. C++/CLI provides a nice bridge between the two and lets you easily split different parts of the system between the managed and unmanaged worlds.
Not sure if the setup projects are included in the free versions of visual studio. But you could use clickonce (included with the framework) or WIX (open source XML based msi creation tool).
learning C# will all be about the .Net libraries and not actually about the language
No there are many things you need to learn about the language (delegates , events , generics ...) and also it is object oriented and it manages the memory by itself and yes no pointers :)
anyway C# and .NET are great all you need is some effort to get up to speed
I have some old C 32 Bit DLLs that are using Oracle's Pro C precompiler library (proc.exe) to expose a hundred or so sproc/func calls to an even older VB6 GUI which references these functions through explicit Declare statements like so:
Declare Function ConnectToDB Lib "C:\windows\system32\EXTRACT32.DLL" (CXN As CXNdets, ERR As ERRdets) As Long
All the structures in the C header files are painstakingly replicated in the VB6 front end. At least the SQL is precompiled.
My question is, is it worth trying to impose a .Net interface (by conversion to an assembly) onto the the C code and upgrade the VB6 to C# or do you think I should just abandon the whole thing and start from scratch. As always, time is of the essence hence my appeal for prior experience. I know that if I keep the Declares in .Net I will have to add lots of complicated marshalling decorations which I'd like to avoid.
I've never had to Convert C to .Net before so my main question if everything else is ignored is are there any porting limitations that make this inadvisable?
... At least the SQL is precompiled.
Is this the only reason you've got code in C? If so, my advice is to abandon that and simply rewrite the entire thing in C# (or even VB6 if that's what your app is written in) ... unless you've profiled it and can prove a measurable difference, you won't be getting any perf benefits from having sql/sproc calls in C. You will only get increased maintenance costs due to the complexity of having to maintain this interop bridge.
You should continue to use the DLL in .NET by creating an assembly around the Declares. That one assembly probably would go a little quicker in VB.NET than C#. Then have your new UI reference that assembly. Once you have that going then you have bought yourself time to convert the C code into .NET. You do this by initially keeping the assembly and replacing the the declares with new .NET code. Soon you will have replaced everything and can refactor it to a different design.
The time killer is breaking behavior. The closer you can preserve the behavior of the original application the faster the conversion will be. Remember there nothing wrong with referencing a traditional DLL. .NET is built on many layers of APIs which ultimately drill down to the traditional DLLs that continue to be used by Windows. Again once you have the .NET UI working then you have more time to work on the core and bring everything into .NET.
I always advise extreme caution before setting out to rewrite anything. If you use a decent tool to upgrade the VB6 to .NET, it will convert the Declare statements automatically, so don't stress about them too much!
It's a common pitfall to start out optimistically rewriting a large piece of software, make good early progress fixing some of the well-known flaws in the old architecture, and then get bogged down in the functionality that you've just been taking for granted for years. At this point your management begin to get twitchy and everything can get very uncomfortable. I have been there and it's no fun. Sounds like your users are already twitchy, which is a bad sign.
...and here's a blog post by a Microsofty that agrees with me:
Many companies I worked with in the early days of .NET looked first at rewriting driven in part by a strong desire to improve the underlying architecture and code structures at the same time as they moved to .NET. Unfortunately many of those projects ran into difficulty and several were never completed. The problem they were trying to solve was too large
...and some official advice from Microsoft UK regarding migrating from VB6 to .NET
Performing a complete rewrite to .NET is far more costly and difficult to do well [than converting] ... we would only recommend this approach for a small number of situations.
Maybe your program is small, and you have a great understanding of the problems it solves, and you are great at estimating accurately and keeping your projects on track, and it will all be fine.
If you move from VB6 to VB.net or C#, throw away the C code and use the appropriate ODP.net classes or LINQ to access those stored procedures. Since the C layer (as I understand it) has no logic other than exposing the stored procedures, it's not useful anymore after the switch. By doing that, you get (at least) much better exception handling (i.e. exceptions at all instead of magic return codes), maintainability etc.
See also: Automatically create C# wrapper classes around stored procedures
I have a small (~2000 lines of code) class that I would like to use from both java & .NET. There are several approaches to do this - among them wrapping the class as a service, using some interop voodoo, or duplicating the code to both C# & java.
Do you know an out-of-the-box tool that accomplishes the latter - takes a simple C# class with no dependencies and converts it to an equivalent java class?
IKVM.NET does pretty good job in taking a jar file and compiling it to a managed .NET assembly.
If it is small (or in fact, even if it is large), I'm not sure of the wisdom of mechanical translation tools; I've simply never had much joy with them. However, one option would be to write the .NET code in J#.
But I stress - if it was me, I'd manually port it between the two manually and maintain them separately. Most of the time the differences aren't huge - signed bytes, the boxing differences, etc. Of course, anything with delegates will need changing - and captured variables work differently, etc etc.
There used to be a COM bridge and you can register C# assemblies for use in COM with regasm.exe or visual studio.
It's not really what you asked for, but I would just create a simple C# to Java translator.
The differences are not that huge and you seem to be the author of the source so you can avoid nasty constructs that are quite difficult to translate. That way your translator would be quite simple. I would go from C# to Java because C# is more expressive, and you can emulate almost all the C# functions in Java.
Actually cs2java seems to do just that.
This is list of tools I know. Sharpen or j2cstranslator looks like good options.
I've been jumping from C# to Java an awful lot and the "differences" between the two are a bit of an annoyance.
Would it be possible to write a set of extentions/plugins that would merge the two languages syntaxes.
I'm talking about adding either IDE support or using language constructs that would for example:
treat these two lines equivalently:
System.out.println("Blah");
Console.out.writeline("Blah");
Automatically notice that when you type in string you mean String
Recognise common API calls and translate them in the background.
The end goal being to be able to write a java/C# program and to pick at compile time which VM/Runtime you are targeting.
If you could do this would it be a good idea?
If not why not?
The two languages are so similar it's painful in some aspects but in other aspects they are really different.
I've seen Code that will translate a C# project into Java and I'm assuming there is probably the reverse, what I am proposing is a middle ground, so we can all just "get along".
No, absolutely not. Certainly not in the languages themselves (as implied by the title) and preferably (IMO) not in the IDEs (as requested in the body).
They are different languages. The idioms and conventions are subtly different. I don't want to be thinking in Java when I'm writing C# or vice versa. I believe developers should be actively encouraged to separate their thinking. It's not too hard to switch between the two, but that switch should be present, IMO.
While I totally agree with Jon Skeet, if you must have this why not create your own library of Java API so you can create System.out namespace which has a method call printLn which calls Console.Writeline()?
That gets you close to what you want.
Just because Java and C# share some similar syntax you need to see past this and think in terms of Java Platform and .NET Platform. The two are distinctly different, so my answer is definitely not.
There actually already is a Java language for the .NET framework, developed by microsoft: J#
This way you get the java-syntax but you are still developing with the .NET framework.
But i am not recommending anyone to use it.
I knew Java before i knew C# so i tried out J# because i thought it would be an easier transition. At first I liked it but after I tried C# I'm never going back. First of all, nobody uses J# so it's kinda hard to find examples and tutorials. Second, C# has (IMO) much more convenient syntax, specially for events, properties, lambda, anonymus methods and alot of other things, it's also being updated every now and then with even more syntax sugar which i don't think J# is.
Maybe if you often write Java and sometimes have to write a .net app it might be a good option.
I think no. I also switch from java to c#. But if the syntax is identical was is to stop someone from trying to compile c# in a Java compiler, or vice-versa.
Visual Studio actually ships with a Java to C# converter, which tries to do some of the things you mention. Unfortunately it fails miserably (1) for anything beyond the simple hello world application.
Despite being very similar on the surface, there are many significant differences between Java and C#, so you would achieve very little by doing what you suggest imo.
(1) To be fair, it actually does a fairly good job if you consider the limitations given for such a task, but in practice the resulting code is of limited use and you have to do a lot of clean up after the conversion.
Firstly what you are describing is not a difference in language syntax but a differences in class libraries. Both languages are relatively simple in terms of keywords and features but understanding or knowing the libraries and how they operate requires considerable learning.
The mistakes you are describing are things that the developer should not be making to begin with - the IDE should not be guessing. There are going to be many cases where you can't easily / trivially translate between java or dotnet. In the end a skilled developer learns and knows when and which class libraries to use.
Actually in the beginning there was no dotnet - microsoft was behind java. They however proceeded to change java in ways not compatible with the java plstform standard. To paraphrase sun sued microsoft and won I'm court. Following that ms proceeded to create dotnet and particularly c# which became microsofts VM platform. Of course along the way a whole stack of things got changed. Microsoft introduced many things which broke Javas run anywhere etc. They have done the same thing with dotnet which have cause problems for the mono team to be able to faithfully reimplemwnt everything for other non windows platforms.
• String vs string.
• lowercase method names (java) v uppercase method names(dotnet).
• Giving java keywords new names - "package".
In the end dotnet was microsoft response so they can control the platform and do their own thing instead of following a standar