Home. 
.

transparent

transparent

transparent

Altova Mailing List Archives


.NET vs. VC++6.0

From: Vonslydog@-------.--- (------)
To: NULL
Date: 5/3/2004 2:09:00 PM
Hello all,
I support a program that was developed in Microsoft's Visual Studio
6.0.  A few months ago I added some support for XML message traffic,
just basic message parsing, validation, and packing.  There have been
some discussions about migrating our software to Visual Studio .NET. 
I understand that .NET has a lot of XML stuff built into it.  I was
wondering if anyone could give me some basic info on the
advantages/disadvantages of switching to .NET from VC++6.0 with
MSXML4.0.  All we really need to do is parse XML that is read in from
a byte stream, and pack messages that will be sent out as a byte
stream.  There are several other factors involved in deciding to
switch to .NET or not, but from a pure XML standpoint, for the amount
of XML processing we will be doing, is there really much of a
difference one way or the other?
Thanks for any input you might have
Ashton


transparent
Print
Mail
Like It
Disclaimer
.

These Archives are provided for informational purposes only and have been generated directly from the Altova mailing list archive system and are comprised of the lists set forth on www.altova.com/list/index.html. Therefore, Altova does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, completeness, usefulness, non-infringement of intellectual property rights, or quality of any content on the Altova Mailing List Archive(s), regardless of who originates that content. You expressly understand and agree that you bear all risks associated with using or relying on that content. Altova will not be liable or responsible in any way for any content posted including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in content, or for any losses or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of or reliance on any content. This disclaimer and limitation on liability is in addition to the disclaimers and limitations contained in the Website Terms of Use and elsewhere on the site.

.
.

transparent

transparent