C#?

This is a discussion on C#? within the C# Programming forums, part of the General Programming Boards category; I prefer C# features over java, I like java and will program in it at the drop of a hat, ...

  1. #16
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    I prefer C# features over java, I like java and will program in it at the drop of a hat, but prefer C# for all it offers.
    Here to Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate Since 1945

  2. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    188
    <RANT>
    anyone who says that C# is just a java knockoff doesn't know anything about the language. figure out who the language creator is and you'll learn where its real roots are!
    </RANT>

  3. #18
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    But you have been all the rage about C# for a while now...
    Me? The only thing I have said favoring C# over C++ is that it is more Object Oriented, which is a good thing for an OOP language. Which also a lot disagreed.
    In a way C# takes one part of C++ and does it better.
    But I like more low language stuff, because I like more hardware than software, since I have studied Computer and Electrical Engineer.

    The languages are too similar anyways too really favor one from another.

  4. #19
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,173
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    Me? The only thing I have said favoring C# over C++ is that it is more Object Oriented, which is a good thing for an OOP language. Which also a lot disagreed.
    In a way C# takes one part of C++ and does it better.
    But I like more low language stuff, because I like more hardware than software, since I have studied Computer and Electrical Engineer.

    The languages are too similar anyways too really favor one from another.
    Yes, you. I only see C# threads from you, so I figured you have been all the rage about C# lately.
    Anyway, as cpjust once said, it is one step forward, and two steps back.
    From my knowledge, it lacks such things as a lot of generic programming.
    It also stuffs the garbage collector down your throat.
    And, of course, it's way slower than C++ code.
    So there are big differences in the language, methinks, and that makes C# inferior in my eyes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

  5. #20
    Confused Magos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    From my knowledge, it lacks such things as a lot of generic programming.
    C# has generics

    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    It also stuffs the garbage collector down your throat.
    GC's aren't as evil as you may think.
    http://www.csharphelp.com/archives2/archive297.html
    http://www.nuclex.org/pages/csharp-vs-cxx-performance

    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    And, of course, it's way slower than C++ code.
    In pure data crunching, sure, but for an average application the difference is neglectable. Performance is affected more by choice of algorithms and the user himself than the coirce of language, unless you're writing low level drivers or state-of-the-art games.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    So there are big differences in the language, methinks, and that makes C# inferior in my eyes.
    C# shines in RAD. I cannot imagine using C++ at work. Development time would take 10x and that would make my boss most unhappy .
    MagosX.com

    Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
    Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

  6. #21
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Magos View Post
    Meh. I am so unaware of C#....

    To me, they are. I like optional things, not things stuffed down my throat.
    And they are not just "evil" performance-wise, but when you really need control of your resources. C#'s GC tends to move things around if I'm not mistaken.

    In pure data crunching, sure, but for an average application the difference is neglectable. Performance is affected more by choice of algorithms and the user himself than the coirce of language, unless you're writing low level drivers or state-of-the-art games.
    Of course, of course. For PCs, the performance cost is acceptable.
    To me, that is not. Yet, even though it is negligible, it is a difference.

    C# shines in RAD. I cannot imagine using C++ at work. Development time would take 10x and that would make my boss most unhappy .
    What C++ lacks are libraries for stuff... otherwise it could have been as much RAD as C# & Co.
    It's a shame, really, I say :/
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

  7. #22
    Confused Magos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,145
    Not to mention the coalesce operator. Plain wonderful to work with, like when writing lazy properties.
    MagosX.com

    Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
    Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

  8. #23
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    WOW, I didn't know there was that op, I could have used that at work lol.
    Here to Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate Since 1945

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    C#'s GC tends to move things around if I'm not mistaken.
    yes it does, for performance reasons. if you need to (like working with p/invoke) you can 'pin' memory in the GC which will prevent it from being moved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    What C++ lacks are libraries for stuff... otherwise it could have been as much RAD as C# & Co.
    It's a shame, really, I say :/
    QT is an exceptional C++ library.

  10. #25
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    Quote Originally Posted by bling View Post
    because it's not just interpreted, it's JITed, is portable with mono/gtk/qt, and one of the cleanest languages i've ever programmed in.
    No, no, no... It *is* interpreted. You can't very well JIT compile if you haven't interpreted the byte-code can you?

  11. #26
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,173
    Quote Originally Posted by bling View Post
    yes it does, for performance reasons. if you need to (like working with p/invoke) you can 'pin' memory in the GC which will prevent it from being moved.
    ...Which is a pain. I can live without it, I think.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.
    For information on how to enable C++11 on your compiler, look here.
    よく聞くがいい!私は天才だからね! ^_^

  12. #27
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by zacs7 View Post
    No, no, no... It *is* interpreted. You can't very well JIT compile if you haven't interpreted the byte-code can you?
    He said it's "not just interpreted" not "not interpreted at all"
    Here to Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate Since 1945

  13. #28
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    > He said it's "not just interpreted" not "not interpreted at all"
    Oops, sorry. The "correcting someone else bandwagon" is just so fun to ride though! Only when matsp isn't driving

  14. #29
    chococoder
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    515
    Quote Originally Posted by zacs7 View Post
    No, no, no... It *is* interpreted. You can't very well JIT compile if you haven't interpreted the byte-code can you?
    The JIT compiles the bytecode into machine code.
    That compilation is done as needed, usually at class load time (though the JIT has the option of deciding to do it based on some other metrics).

    As such it's not an interpreter but a compiler, except of course that every compiler has to first interpret the code it's presented with in order to be able to compile it.
    Does that make C++ an interpreted language?

  15. #30
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    No because C++ does it at compile time. There is a byte-code interpreter, thus technically it's interpreted and compiled. At least that's what they tell us in CS

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21