Actually, a mixture of Java, VB, and C/C++. Nice language. Don't knock it unless you try it.
C
C++
C#
Actually, a mixture of Java, VB, and C/C++. Nice language. Don't knock it unless you try it.
Interesting, 37-1. I think I'll use my time wisely. Yeah. of course it's a good language. So was system 370. They don't use that anymore!
YAY! This is finally more popular than the Hellow World post! I've been waiting on that for a long time. Now I started the biggest post in the C# Board! *feels proud*
hmm...no surprise with the results, for a few reasons:
1) C IS better than C# in my opinion
2) Programmers tend to bash new higher-level languages. ESPESCIALLY when they've gotten comfortable with a low-level one like C.
3) It's from MS. A lot of people here are totally biased against everything coming out of that company. Go figure. Stupid kiddies, need to learn that one company isn't "evil" like everyone says, and linux isn't some sort of savior.
C is not a low level language.
bias exists, and everyone is always wary during a transition period.
>( or rather capitalism )
personally i'm in support of the individualist, the lone-coder, the dos nut... but i suppose that in practice this doesn't win out... can someone find me an economy where this does work out? i don't like the stiff competetion of an open market, nor the stagant of a monopoly... i would rather prefer a flowing set of transitory [and consecutive] oligoplies, which add to an incresingly diverse and practical technological basis. the loners must have the power to win out, as should the oligopolists. only the increase of the technology and intellect is rewarded.
oh, and ps, i would get checks in the mail for my art!
hasafraggin shizigishin oppashigger...
I like everything that's not a fourth generation language. They're not logically built - they shouldn't even be called a generation. I think it's the same thing as calling HTML a programming language!
I forgot to reply to doubleanti:
You said you didn't like the lone coder.
I have no idea why, because I hate anything that requires me to get out of bed, but I like creating programs that don't have a single #include directive in them. I'm currently rewriting my own version of all the C++ libraries in assembler.
i said i do support the lone coder... but in practice, s/he doesn't win out more often than not...
hasafraggin shizigishin oppashigger...
Well I never used C#, and I definitely like C++ better than C, so I voted C++.
Sucks to be C#.... Even plain C beat it.
Sadly, I guess if you ask those 45 people if the ever did something with C#, about 10 will say yes. And I bet many of those who voted C++ ( like me ) would rather have C# than C...
hth
-nv
She was so Blonde, she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice can because it said "Concentrate."
When in doubt, read the FAQ.
Then ask a smart question.
But one advantage c++ has is that it has backward compatability to pretty much windows 3.1.
C# will ALWAYS require you to be running the absloute latest microsoft os/compiler and hardware to support it.
Even if u can manage to get a pirated version of the software it will still be a very costly expirance.
how bound is c# to microsoft?
>But one advantage c++ has is that it has backward >compatability to pretty much windows 3.1.
Uhm. I beg to differ. None of the programs I wrote for windows will work with anything below 95 and some will even require NT4 or later. And using the .NET Framework, no language will be backwards compatible. Not C#, not VB.NET and not C++.NET.
If you are using .NET, you don't want it to be backwards compatible, because that would mean having old, outdated, obsolete stuff in it.
>C# will ALWAYS require you to be running the absloute latest >microsoft os/compiler and hardware to support it.
No. It will require the 21 MB Framework distributables to run, which only work on 98 upwards. The development machine should be running 2000 or XP. Hardware is not an issue here. All the Beta's and Release candidates I tested so far run fine on the machines I use for Visual Studio 6 today.
>Even if u can manage to get a pirated version of the software it >will still be a very costly expirance.
a) The betas are completely free.
b) the Framework SDK I guess will be completely free even after Release. It includes a C# commandline compiler.
c) I don't think .NET will cost more than Visual Studio 6, so it won't be more costly than developing today is.
hth
-nv
She was so Blonde, she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice can because it said "Concentrate."
When in doubt, read the FAQ.
Then ask a smart question.
(This message is pretty much a srtaight reply to nvoigt's and I really can't be bothered to use quotes, so lets just imagine that I did)
Firstly by saying C++ is backward compatible I mean that you will be able to program on absloutly all operating stystems around with out the need for retraining (you will of course need a pretty good referance but atleast its not a while new language). C++ was designed this way, so that code and programming techniques written at pretty much anypoint in its devlopment should always remain valid. This doesn't really apply in pactise and all compilers have thier bugs, but its nothing all that stressing.
And as you say .net needs 98 or later to run. This really isn't acceptable for me as i still need to have my programs able to run on windows 95. And its the needing 2000 or Xp to devlop on that I'm talking about. Have you ever tried to run XP with less than 128 ram? Well its not pretty i can tell you that.
Lastly you say that it will still be just as cheap as buying Visual Studio 6. Well thats really good news. I couldn't afford that when it came out and i can't afford it now. Really microsoft pushing this crap as hard as it can is just making me more tempted to get the pirated version.
