Microsoft Visual Studio's interface feels so kiddy. It's like Microsoft Word for Programmers.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-24 20:37
At least it has lambdas.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-24 21:03
It's somewhere between Java and FIOC.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-24 21:05
Aside from your non sequitur in jumping from a language to an IDE, you are right in observing that VS's interface is an industry-standard high-usability advanced environment with many innovative and productivity-enhancing features.
It is not necessary to use Visual Studio to program in C#. Use MonoDevelop or ed if you like.
Thankfully the language has lambdas now, but I still wish it had conveniences like let ... in and where, and tuples. A set of functional primitives to go with the new language features would be nice too. (LINQ is part-way there)
I haven't used Java, but it sounds dreadful compared to C#. I also hate the idea of a one-public-class-per-file restriction.
I used to disregard C# as Microsoft's copy of Java, but now that I've actually used it for a while in my job I must admit that it isn't all that bad. In fact it's more workable than Java in many parts.
This is not Visual Basic! This is the Sea Octothorpe!
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 12:37
>>8 I also hate the idea of a one-public-class-per-file restriction.
Why? Because you can't figure out how to open more than one file at a time in vi?
Java is full of painfully braindead design decisions, but that's the least of them.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 12:40
>>11
One-public-class-per-file can't compare to the elegance of C++, which allows complete separation between interface and implementation.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 12:45
>>12
Having to compile megabytes of headers with every file can't compare to the elegance of Java, which enforces clean separation of concepts and doesn't recompile megabytes of headers with every file.
>>15
No, it isn't. What the hell are you talking about?
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 13:24
>>17
Explain it, then. It doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 13:28
>>18
Explain what? I don't know what's your problem with it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 14:30
>>19
How it works. If it were simple, you would have explained it by now, so I can only conclude that it is as retarded as it seems. Don't bother explaining now though—my questions have been answered perfectly.
>>21
It's not vague at all. It's "explain the fucking system for editing multiple files in vi". That's pretty specific. For example, in Emacs one opens files with C-x f, then switches buffers with C-x b. A window can be split with C-x 2, windows deleted with C-x 0, and cycled through with C-x o. :next, my ass.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-25 16:22
>>22
All file/buffer related commands: :h edit-files
All window related commands: :h windows
All tabpage related commands: :h tabpages
Stuff that you asked:
Open file: :e <filename>
Jump to buffer: :b<buffer-number>
Jump to buffer: :b (<filename>|<buffer-number>)
Next buffer: :bn
Split horizontally: C-w s
Split vertically: C-w v