/prog/ - C# or C++

Name: noko 2012-01-20 3:31

So I just installed Visual Studio 2010. I know Visual Basic intimately, but it's been years since I've programmed. I've done a little C in the past, and I took a few Java courses.

In this foray back into Visual Studio, I don't want to dick with Basic anymore. Should I learn C# or C++? I noticed that you can't do ASP.NET in C#. Should that sway my decision?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 3:43

noko

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 4:02

I don't understand the question.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 5:12

I noticed that you can't do ASP.NET in C#.
I call bullshit.
<%@ Page Title="nigger" Language="C#" AutoEventWireup="true"
CodeFile="nigger.aspx.cs" Inherits="_nigger" %>
If you're gonna use Microsoft stuff, you might aswell use C#

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 6:30

Yep
STAY AWAY FROM VISUAL BASIC

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 9:35

STAY FROM VISUAL BASIC, VISUAL C++ AND VISUAL C#.

C++ > Visual C++
C > Visual C

Just don't use Microsoft shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 9:39

use c# and asp.net mvc for your web shit. don't bother with web forms fagdom

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:23

Visual C is outdated in the standards department. I know that not too many C compilers are completely C99-compliant, but VC doesn't even have compound literals, mixed declarations and code or C++ style comments. The C library does stupid shit like having tmpfile and the "secure" replacement tmpfile_s create a file in the root directory instead of in %TEMP%, which worked in Windows 9x (even though it was still stupid back then) but not today unless you give the program Administrator privileges or write access to C:\. Their snprintf is broken and doesn't null-terminate the string or return the proper length when given a null pointer or an insufficient buffer. Microsoft would rather focus on non-portable .net and Win32 features than on standards compliance.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:46

>>8

C is still the language in which the entire Windows API is written, thus still a relevant language in serious Windows development. No wonder that MSVC has never been fully compliant even with regards to C89.

In my opinion, there are a number of advantages of C89 over C99, and not (only) in the portability sense. I think that C89 is a much cleaner language than C99.

Code generated with CL.EXE has very good quality. The MS standard library implementation is still really flawed, however, as you've stated. Nonetheless, MSVC permits (and even recommends) that you write freestanding programs, abandoning the standard library completely: in other words, rely only on Windows DLLs instead of MSVCRT, such as kernel32, user32 and advapi32. Albeit evidently unportable, the results are often very, very good, both in size and in execution speed.

While Linux is overall superior to Windows in my opinion, I believe that Windows is much better designed than modern Linux systems in many aspects, this being one of them.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:28

C99 is committee-designed garbage that serves no purpose.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:06

Check 'em

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:19

DO NOT USE: * sharp or iron*

you're welcome

C# or C++

1 Name: noko 2012-01-20 3:31

2 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 3:43

3 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 4:02

4 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 5:12

5 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 6:30

6 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 9:35

7 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 9:39

8 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:23

9 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:46

10 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:28

11 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:06

12 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:19