What is /prog/'s opinion of C# and Visual Studios? Visual Studios has a bullshit VB-style interface(i.e shitty Properties box) but C# is okay. It definitely makes developing Windows applications a lot easier.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 12:54
Anon is ok with C#. It can make doing some things infinitely easier than Java. Visual Studio is an ok IDE if ignore the VB autocoding crap.
Autocoding crap? I hope you don't mean the GUI designer. And what's wrong with the Properties box?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 14:13
C# is Microshit's proprietary Java. Except that Java, being the bloated VM'd language that it is, is actually used on stuff that requires a VM like PDAs, phones, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 14:15
>>5
No, I dont have a problem with the GUI designer as long as you don't let it do everything for you.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 15:11
>>6
C# is not proprietary; it's been submitted as an ISO standard, and anyone can write a compiler for it. .NET, however, is proprietary, though the Mono project is working hard on their free implementation.
Anyways, C# > Java because of delegates and properties. (Especially properties, damnit.) .NET > JVM because it's designed to be multilingual, but JVM > .NET because it's designed to be multi-platform.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 15:58
>>8
If we can get JVM to hump .NET maybe we can get a multi-lingual multi-platform JIT?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 16:19
>>9
If only we could find someone to do it right. A tool that useful will definitely get screwed during implementation.
Both Java and C♯ suck because both Java and C♯ are the exact same language. Sure, there are some differences, but only inconsequential, irrelevent details, brought up by MS fanboys doing what they usually do: accept whatever development crap MS sends down like manna from heaven and spin it so that they can convince themselves they're not using a half-assed implementation of last generation's technology.
(Please note that this is an objective observation because I am not an ``anti-Microsoft zealot.'')
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 17:20
Seems like most of the programming jobs in my area is with Java, C++ or C#. I know which one I'd choose.
>>12 >>11 According to the ECMA-334 C# Language Specification, section 6, Acronyms and abbreviations the name of the language is written "C#" ("LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C (U+0043) followed by the NUMBER SIGN # (U+0023)") and pronounced "C Sharp".
fix'd
>>13
hahahahhahahh what the fuck what sort of crazy bureaucratic madman decided that it would be a good idea to standardize a name for a programming language to such detail
>>1
It's ok. I prefer VB for most .NET stuff though, and only use C# if I have to. As I see it, the biggest strength of .NET over Java/JVM is Visual Studio; it's a very superior IDE.
Isn't the whole purpose of a virtual machine to be able to create cross-platform software? Seems a little strange for .NET not to be cross-platform...
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-16 23:19
>>26
Technically, .NET-compiled programs can run, on Windows, on x86, x64, and (I think) even Itantium processors without recompile, though you can compile processor-specific assemblies if you want. So it is cross-platform in a limited, technical, smart-ass way.
>>26
Also, technically Mono is a CLI implementation, and can run .NET programs on Linux, Solaris, etc.
But yeah, MS is just in it to provide a smooth transition of proprietary software to the 64-bit x86 Windows platform.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-17 18:40
>>27
Any program compiled for x86 architecture can run on IA64 in a slow-as-fuck compatibility mode. BFD.