Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#ActualRavyne

Posted 10 September 2012 - 03:12 PM

darookie,

Ever heard of Linq++ or CLinq?

Why do you feel, developers need to waste their time to learn a new language just for a single functionality?

Perhaps if people did just bite the bullet and use the better language, then Linq++ would now be even better than the Microsoft implementation and the 99% of software written in C++ (and perhaps C) could benefit rather than a select few integrators using a short sighted and gimmicky language written by a business trying to cash in on Java's success.

. Progress is not adding library xyz to programming language foo just to be able to achieve the same that another language features natively (either as part of the core language or its baseline runtime environment).


This is certainly closer to progress than "language jumping" and not actually getting anything done. I also see Microsoft's C++/CX and C++/CLI extensions much closer to progress than yet another frigging' language like C#.

C# is a waste of time and anyone who doesn't see this will inevitably be wasting other people's time.



I thought I sensed a strong sense of bias in your first post, but I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, however, clearly my gut was right.

You're spouting quite a bit of FUD here -- Firstly, Microsoft designed and is the driving force behind advancements made in C#, but the language itself is no longer controlled by MS, and IIRC, they've also agreed to not assert any patents they hold that might be required to implement it. Also, it's a language, and quite a good one, not some marketing ploy like you seem to assert -- manufactured by marketeers alone like some kind of boy band.

C++ might be the "Better language" for you or I, but I don't presume to know that this is the case for everyone and neither should you. Most people out there doing their jobs just want to get things done, and don't need or want to get bogged down in the details of memory management or eccentricities of what constitutes undefined or implementation-defined behavior. Plenty of people don't need the unchecked power that C and C++ can provide, and I daresay that more "average" programmers benefit from a little extra hand-holding than not -- A kid fresh out of University of Rural America with his CS degree writing C++ is a scary thing, especially since he was more than likely trained in Java.

Programming as a whole would not be better served by promoting the type of C++ mono-culture you seem to advocate here, nor did C# or any other of the hundreds of languages that exist today slow down C++. C++ is the only one who slowed down C++, and its convoluted syntax is the primary culprit, not just in extending the language, but in supporting tools that make development easier, like intellisense, code-refactoring, and code-exploration. And you can say all you'd like that feature-from-language-X has or could have a similar library for C++, but at the end of the day, C++ folks might never have thought to have such a library, or to build it in such a way, or get to enjoy the tight integration with the language and other tooling around .Net or some of the other runtimes out there. If I can coin a phrase "Inspiration and evolution are two sides of the same coin."

Different strokes for different folks. Don't pretend that you know any better.

#2Ravyne

Posted 10 September 2012 - 03:07 PM

darookie,

Ever heard of Linq++ or CLinq?

Why do you feel, developers need to waste their time to learn a new language just for a single functionality?

Perhaps if people did just bite the bullet and use the better language, then Linq++ would now be even better than the Microsoft implementation and the 99% of software written in C++ (and perhaps C) could benefit rather than a select few integrators using a short sighted and gimmicky language written by a business trying to cash in on Java's success.

. Progress is not adding library xyz to programming language foo just to be able to achieve the same that another language features natively (either as part of the core language or its baseline runtime environment).


This is certainly closer to progress than "language jumping" and not actually getting anything done. I also see Microsoft's C++/CX and C++/CLI extensions much closer to progress than yet another frigging' language like C#.

C# is a waste of time and anyone who doesn't see this will inevitably be wasting other people's time.



I thought I sensed a strong sense of bias in your first post, but I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, however, clearly my gut was right.

You're spouting quite a bit of FUD here -- Firstly, Microsoft designed and is the driving force behind advancements made in C#, but the language itself is no longer controlled by MS, and IIRC, they've also agreed to not assert any patents they hold that might be required to implement it. Also, it's a language, and quite a good one, not some marketing ploy like you seem to assert -- manufactured by marketeers alone like some kind of boy band.

C++ might be the "Better language" for you or I, but don't presume to know that this is the case for everyone and neither should you. Most people out there doing their jobs just want to get things done, and don't need or want to get bogged down in the details of memory management or eccentricities of what constitutes undefined behavior. Plenty of people don't need the unchecked power that C and C++ can provide, and I daresay that more "average" programmers benefit from a little extra hand-holding than not -- A kid fresh out of University of Rural America with his CS degree writing C++ is a scary thing.

Programming as a whole would not be better served by promoting the type of C++ mono-culture you seem to advocate here, nor did C# or any other of the hundreds of languages that exist today slow down C++. C++ is the only one who slowed down C++, and its convoluted syntax is the primary culprit, not just in extending the language, but in supporting tools that made development easier, like intellisense, code-refactoring, and code-exploration. And you can say all you'd like that feature-from-language-X has or could have a similar library for C++, but at the end of the day, C++ folks might never have thought to have such a library, or to build it in such a way, or get to enjoy the tight integration with the language and other tooling around .Net or some of the other runtimes out there.

Different strokes for different folks. Don't pretend that you know any better.

#1Ravyne

Posted 10 September 2012 - 03:06 PM

darookie,

Ever heard of Linq++ or CLinq?

Why do you feel, developers need to waste their time to learn a new language just for a single functionality?

Perhaps if people did just bite the bullet and use the better language, then Linq++ would now be even better than the Microsoft implementation and the 99% of software written in C++ (and perhaps C) could benefit rather than a select few integrators using a short sighted and gimmicky language written by a business trying to cash in on Java's success.

. Progress is not adding library xyz to programming language foo just to be able to achieve the same that another language features natively (either as part of the core language or its baseline runtime environment).


This is certainly closer to progress than "language jumping" and not actually getting anything done. I also see Microsoft's C++/CX and C++/CLI extensions much closer to progress than yet another frigging' language like C#.

C# is a waste of time and anyone who doesn't see this will inevitably be wasting other people's time.



I thought I sensed a strong sense of bias in your first post, but I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, however, clearly my gut was right.

You're spouting quite a bit of FUD here -- Firstly, C# was designed and is the driving force behind advancements made in C#, but the language itself is no longer controlled by MS, and IIRC, they've also agreed to not assert any patents they hold that might be required to implement it. Also, it's a language, and quite a good one, not some marketing ploy like you seem to assert -- manufactured by marketeers alone like some kind of boy band.

C++ might be the "Better language" for you or I, but don't presume to know that this is the case for everyone and neither should you. Most people out there doing their jobs just want to get things done, and don't need or want to get bogged down in the details of memory management or eccentricities of what constitutes undefined behavior. Plenty of people don't need the unchecked power that C and C++ can provide, and I daresay that more "average" programmers benefit from a little extra hand-holding than not -- A kid fresh out of University of Rural America with his CS degree writing C++ is a scary thing.

Programming as a whole would not be better served by promoting the type of C++ mono-culture you seem to advocate here, nor did C# or any other of the hundreds of languages that exist today slow down C++. C++ is the only one who slowed down C++, and its convoluted syntax is the primary culprit, not just in extending the language, but in supporting tools that made development easier, like intellisense, code-refactoring, and code-exploration. And you can say all you'd like that feature-from-language-X has or could have a similar library for C++, but at the end of the day, C++ folks might never have thought to have such a library, or to build it in such a way, or get to enjoy the tight integration with the language and other tooling around .Net or some of the other runtimes out there.

Different strokes for different folks. Don't pretend that you know any better.

PARTNERS