From: Adam Flinton 

Paul Ranson wrote:
> I don't see any point in being different for the sake of it. And both Java
> and C# seem to be jumping through hoops to avoid doing destructors the easy
> way, which means code written in either that needs to manage object
> lifetimes is more convoluted and error prone than it need be. I think the
> work being done on C++ for .NET is pretty interesting, even if it's of no
> use to me personally at the moment.
>

Why on earth you want underpressure tired etc programmers time after time
having to do their own memory management is beyond me.

Hello memleak my old friend,
It's time to bring down the system again...

Adam

> Paul
>
> "Adam"  wrote in message
> news:428a0467{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>Paul Ranson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This isn't the case.
>>>
>>>.NET is analagous to Java, it's a library and an environment for
>>>applications. It's a better design than Java, if only because it didn't
>>>have to repeat the same mistakes and it supports C++, but I don't really
>>>see the point of either. Anyway the MS development tools allow you to
>>>target .NET or native with C or C++.
>>>
>>
>>Chuckle
>>
>>"if only because it didn't have to repeat the same mistakes and it
>>supports C++"
>>
>>Not that you're biased in favour of C++ or anything 
>>
>>Adam
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5