i have taken a look around and it seems to me as if visual c++ is an outdated technology. I mean it appears as if no one is using it anymore. Even Deitel, which sells some good textbooks, list them as "old products". Is it worth the effort to learn visual c++ 6.0?

I know that Narue told me to stay away from 6.0 and rather go for 2005 but I have to write a program which controls certain hardware and the dll for it cannot work in 2005.

>but I have to write a program which controls certain hardware and the dll for it cannot work in 2005.
That's different. If you're forced to use a tool by some outside force, you don't have a choice. So in this case it's worth it to learn VC++ 6 because you don't have any other options.

narue please dont take this the wrong way but i do know that. it is sort of logical.

what i meant was that at this point i have to learn c++ and i have little choice in what version.

but what i want to know is are there enough jobs available to justify learning it in detail or should i just learn enough to do the job i have right now.

>narue please dont take this the wrong way but i do know that. it is sort of logical.
Yet your question is illogical. You say that you want to know the best tool to learn C++ with, but then you say that you have to use VC++ 6. In my view, this makes the entire problem moot because you simply don't have any choices.

>but what i want to know is are there enough jobs available to justify learning it in detail
No, the world has happily moved on to tools that actually work with the standard language. If you learn C++ on VC++ 6, you won't really be learning C++. So learning the tool in detail probably won't buy you anything unless you plan on always working with VC++ 6 compatible code.

Yet your question is illogical.

yes i can see the illogic when comparing the first question of this post with my reply to your first response.

but the first question was not illogical. more like i did not include every bit of info. but then again i have read some of the things you have written on daniweb and you appear to be intelligent with ordered thought so i would have thought that you would asume the missing info.

anyway thank you for your reply. it was most helpfull. now i know not to waste time learning what would be useless.

>so i would have thought that you would asume the missing info.
You thought wrong. I only make an assumption when there's an extremely high probability that the assumption is correct. In other words, an educated guess.

I only make an assumption when there's an extremely high probability that the assumption is correct. In other words, an educated guess.

that is an extremely good philosophy but allow me to disagree. sometimes extrapolation is the only way to think. in the first question no assumption of the missing info could lead anyone with immaculate logic to a faulty assumption of the missing info since there is only one end result to reach when trying to deduce the missing info.

hey narue dont take me too serious. i am just kidding with you. i realise that i should have given more info in the first question of this thread.

This article has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.