quick question on c++ with respect to c#

[PumpoBee]

I can't figure why some programmers feel that working on a 13 year old compiler is a good idea. But that's one of the great things about software development - folks can do whatever works for them

(Only to add) A large portion of code, libraries in industries (industrial robots, medical applications, IC related etc) are still using VC6 as a must. These companies are not usually not IT oriented, which may be why they don't care about upgrade, it costs a lot and upgrading old libraries source code is always a nightmare, even to those in IT mainstream.

[superbonzo]

don't get me wrong, I'm neither prejudicially sceptic towards C# or any other newer technology, nor I want to call your experience into question ...

I simply don't buy the idea that in all generality, C# "lets me develop quality apps that have rich feature sets with the minimum amount of effort." but C++ not. Especially in those cases when, as I said, the majority of the development effort lies in the "original content" of a software product ...

I'm not talking about on particular area, like game or graphic programming - I'm talking about general programming areas.

ok, so, what's your answer in the cases I mentioned ?

[Arjay]

(Only to add)It costs a lot and upgrading old libraries source code is always a nightmare.

It's worse the longer you wait. Going from VC6 to VC7.1 equals a little pain. Going from VC6 to VC10 equals a lot of pain.

Maybe I've been fortunate, but I've been able to successfuly encourage the vendors I've worked with to support more recent VC versions.

Btw, on the .Net side, new source code can usually run with older libraries, so you are less likely to run into the "stuck in 1998 technology" problem.