Oh, please. If I'm writing an app that calls a native library "90% of the time" then my app ought to be written in native c++.

That article by Nish points out how complex it is to even consider .NET from a C++ program. Why in the world would one even bother with .NET when everything can be done from within C++ without crossing that ugly boundary. Quit trying to justify C++ as a .net language. C# fits that bill well. C++ does not.

The benchmarks for a native code to native library call are not considered in the article....why?

It's absurd for you to suggest somehow that we could not function with C++ without using the CLI. Hell the CLI is probably written in C or C++ in the first place. I wouldn't put it past you to start to deprecate direct API function calls and require access to them through some .NET specific mechanism just to force us all into a corner.

Do us all a favor and quit trying to justify C++ as a "first class CLI language" or endorsing people who do. And don't throw in that crud about me having choices and that I don't have to use it (for now). It's pretty darn clear where all of you (at Redmond) are going with this transition. It's .NET or bust.

I would love to fork over some more money to Microsoft for a new shiny Visual C++ IDE that has nothing to do with .NET. But, you keep pushing customers like me into a corner with .NET and turning me off to the Visual C++ product. It's sad to watch you, Kate, and Nish working night and day to push this piece of crud upon us and hurt your credibility when all we wanted was Visual C++ 6.0 with some modest improvements.

If you seriously expect a (C++)programmer to use the CLI when they are calling native libraries 90% of the time, I eagerly anticipate your justification. Please do not respond if all your going to do is pump me full of vague management buzzwords and newly coined phrases (CLI, BCL, and Code Access Security) like Nish does in his article. Also, why does it appear that I cannot just buy Visual C++ 2005 with MFC and ATL(the express editions do not include these. Is there a standalone VC 2005 with this stuff)? Backing people into a corner is not much of a market strategy. Was it not enough that I eagerly handed over hundreds of dollars of my money each year to Microsoft. Was that too easy so you decided you might as well piss off those customers who routinely gave you fairly large chunks of revenue?

If you don't want my easy money then I guess you'll now have to fight for it and justify it. You gave up on Visual C++ 2003 CLR type programming so would it have been that hard to blow off the dust from Visual C++ 6.0, include the new rewritten functions for security's sake, the few improvements needed to MFC, a few new icons here and there, and collected a few hundred dollars a head every two or so years from the members of eagerly awaiting Visual C++ community? No, you chose to alienate us then later try to convince us that you were trustworthy members of the C++ community. Give us a break. You could obviously care less about what we want and you obviously have marketed your Visual Studio product line to everybody outside the VC++ group.

Steve - Thanks for linking to my article, I was a little surprised when the view-count jumped up sharply a few days ago till someone pointed out that I got linked from here :-)

Bob - I was not comparing C++/CLI with Native C++ - the comparison/analysis was between C++/CLI and other CLI languages. The article assumes that the developer is using .NET either partially or totally!