I do agree about your point on Haskell in terms of educating yourself since it truly does provide a new and interesting way of thinking. However I would be really quite pissed off if I had to maintain a tool at work that was written in it. There was a well known window manager (xmonad) for unix that was written in Haskell, developers just bit the bullet and rewrote one with a similar functionality in portable C. What a massive waste of time.

I think most my arguments are towards the longevity of software. Anything written using large frameworks or virtual machines simply wont be around in about 10 years. Sure for a game this might not be an issue, but tools can often still be an asset by then.

If a language brings something useful to the table and really simplifies a programming problem or provides a very elegant solution to what would have been a very awkward architecture then yes, I am all for it.

However, this mentality of developing software using platforms like .NET and Java because it is "easier" really needs to disappear if we as an industry are to progress. The C# language in particular really needs to die. It was marketed very well by Microsoft and was embraced by developers when it actually offers nothing beyond what Java had (un)provided for years. Unfortunately demonstrating how easy it is to sway the direction of technology. (if it wasn't for this, we could have had some awesome C++ libraries by now simplifying development for newcomers in a correct and innovative manner).

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.

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.

[quote name='darookie' timestamp='1347111567' post='4977970']. 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.
[/quote]


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.