This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. C/C++ Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject C/C++, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of C and C++ topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.C/C++Wikipedia:WikiProject C/C++Template:WikiProject C/C++C/C++ Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Microsoft: .NET This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject .NET (assessed as Low-importance).

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 But this language see little use today, especially as it was rather quickly superseded by C++/CLI that tries to clean up the syntax.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 - 80.42.137.236 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can anybody tell me what do we mean by L"asdf"; statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.46.55.31 (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 89.224.77.117 (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Archive.org there is a book that you can lend and use it as a reference.

• Fraser, Stephen R. G. (2008). Managed C++ and .NET Development. Apress. ISBN 1430207752. jcubic (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]