C++ again :-) (Does C# make you dumber?)
-
No you're missing the 'more productive' part of my statement ;P Any I've done my 10 year stint with MFC/COM/ATL/Win32 find c# and .net a refreshing change, plus I get to design some really good UIs which would of taken man years in MFC/WTL. Never send a human to do a machine's job Agent Smith
norm.net wrote:
Any I've done my 10 year stint with MFC/COM/ATL/Win32 find c# and .net a refreshing change, plus I get to design some really good UIs which would of taken man years in MFC/WTL.
Again, how's that different from VB6? I used it and it was really great for putting some UI together quickly, just like with C# and WinForms. ASP.NET is way more advanced than "classic" ASP, but for desktop form-based applications I see no real advantage of .NET compared to VB6.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
Anders Molin wrote:
Does C# make you dum
No it makes me more productive on every aspect of windows programming. Never send a human to do a machine's job Agent Smith
norm.net wrote:
on every aspect of windows programming
Oh yeah? Write one of the following in C#: Service, device driver, Shell extension, SNMP extension DLL, ISAPI extension, the list goes on. Any software that integrates with the operating system (at least under XP), by definition, can not be implemented in C#, or any other managed language for that matter. The situation may be different under Vista, as MS is moving toward managed interfaces for more OS functionality. C# is not the universal hammer for every nail in the Windows programming world.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
norm.net wrote:
on every aspect of windows programming
Oh yeah? Write one of the following in C#: Service, device driver, Shell extension, SNMP extension DLL, ISAPI extension, the list goes on. Any software that integrates with the operating system (at least under XP), by definition, can not be implemented in C#, or any other managed language for that matter. The situation may be different under Vista, as MS is moving toward managed interfaces for more OS functionality. C# is not the universal hammer for every nail in the Windows programming world.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
norm.net wrote:
on every aspect of windows programming
Oh yeah? Write one of the following in C#: Service, device driver, Shell extension, SNMP extension DLL, ISAPI extension, the list goes on. Any software that integrates with the operating system (at least under XP), by definition, can not be implemented in C#, or any other managed language for that matter. The situation may be different under Vista, as MS is moving toward managed interfaces for more OS functionality. C# is not the universal hammer for every nail in the Windows programming world.
Software Zen:
delete this;Service - Can be done! Device Driver - No Shell Extension - Can be done with interop SNMP extension - No ISAPI extension - No But there again I don't program these models daily, do you? If I need to do any of the follow I'd probably revert to ATL, which I have no problems with and I am quite experienced in using. For instance I'm developing a networking discovery tool which scans multiple lans to ather information about DNS/ARP/Netbios/Ping/WMI/SNMP etc and produces nice results/diagrams ALL written using C#, this type of application would of taken months to develop using tradition methods (ATL/MFC/WTL/etc etc.) - get the point. I use C# because it allows me to get the job done quicker. C# is not the universal hammer for every nail in the Windows programming world. Yes I totally agree, but I've found over the past 3 years, where I was using C++, I'm using C#. Never send a human to do a machine's job Agent Smith -- modified at 7:58 Tuesday 13th June, 2006
-
norm.net wrote:
Any I've done my 10 year stint with MFC/COM/ATL/Win32 find c# and .net a refreshing change, plus I get to design some really good UIs which would of taken man years in MFC/WTL.
Again, how's that different from VB6? I used it and it was really great for putting some UI together quickly, just like with C# and WinForms. ASP.NET is way more advanced than "classic" ASP, but for desktop form-based applications I see no real advantage of .NET compared to VB6.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Again, how's that different from VB6? I
Richer framework, making fine granular custom controls (like masked edit boxes/grids etc). You obviously don't use .net that well, we can discuss all day, you have the right to your opinions and I have mine, maybe your right, .net is a waste of time and we should stick with VB6 (not that I have or would ever use it X| ) :zzz: Never send a human to do a machine's job Agent Smith
-
My work for Code Project is currently all C++, and I am loving it. Having said that, I still enjoy the C# work that I do. I'd love to do some ASP.NET 2.0 work, Winforms is getting a bit boring though, I have to admit. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
I have been doing nothing but asp.net for the last 4 years. With 2.0 they finally have web programming done right. It only took until 2005, but finally they did it right. ASP.Net is the most fun in my opinion because you code C#, JavaScript and HTML. You really have to know all 3 as well as SQL. On the C++, I've never used it at work and can't imagine having to. It would simply be over kill for business applications. how vital enterprise application are for proactive organizations leveraging collective synergy to think outside the box and formulate their key objectives into a win-win game plan with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. But of course, that's all a "high level" overview of things --thedailywtf 3/21/06
-
If you get paid by the hour, C++ is much better than C# ... more mistakes possible, more time needed to fix them, more hours for you. :cool: _____________________________________________________________________________ I don't expect too much, all I want is your vote for Halbsichtigkeit.
I don't now about the rest of you, but I spend significantly more time on new code than I do going back to fix bugs in old code. Maybe Mr. Corinna has found a comfort zone in C# that was unattainable for him in C++. ;P
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
I have been doing nothing but asp.net for the last 4 years. With 2.0 they finally have web programming done right. It only took until 2005, but finally they did it right. ASP.Net is the most fun in my opinion because you code C#, JavaScript and HTML. You really have to know all 3 as well as SQL. On the C++, I've never used it at work and can't imagine having to. It would simply be over kill for business applications. how vital enterprise application are for proactive organizations leveraging collective synergy to think outside the box and formulate their key objectives into a win-win game plan with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. But of course, that's all a "high level" overview of things --thedailywtf 3/21/06
My day job was ASP.NET for about the last 4 years, but mostly on one project, so no move to 2.0. I've heard some things about 2.0 that make me think it's a step backwards, such as the recommendation to put code in the aspx file, instead of code behind. Is that true ? I'd love to play with the new features, but I wouldn't say there was anything *broken* about 1.1.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
On the C++, I've never used it at work and can't imagine having to. It would simply be over kill for business applications.
Sadly, I guess that is true nowadays. I remember when it was the only game in town. I still like it more than C#, a lot of the time. C# has lots of cool stuff in it, but C++ just feels right to me. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Just got a 6-month contract with a client. I'll spend the time at their location coding C++... It's good to get my hands on a C++ compiler again, I've spent way too much time in C#. I know it's not popular to say, but I still think C# makes programmers dumber and more lazy, not to mention that it's way more boring than C++ ;) - Anders My new photo website[^]
It is funny, even though the .net framework is like a babysitter and holds your hand through the entire process of coding an application people still manage to screw it up all the time. Granted, I have only worked in two offices in the last 4 years but it amazes me how many people (especially with VB.Net) pretend to be programmers. how vital enterprise application are for proactive organizations leveraging collective synergy to think outside the box and formulate their key objectives into a win-win game plan with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. But of course, that's all a "high level" overview of things --thedailywtf 3/21/06
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Again, how's that different from VB6? I
Richer framework, making fine granular custom controls (like masked edit boxes/grids etc). You obviously don't use .net that well, we can discuss all day, you have the right to your opinions and I have mine, maybe your right, .net is a waste of time and we should stick with VB6 (not that I have or would ever use it X| ) :zzz: Never send a human to do a machine's job Agent Smith
norm.net wrote:
maybe your right, .net is a waste of time and we should stick with VB6
And when did I say that? All I said is that you should have switched from MFC/ATL/whatever to VB in mid 1990's. You have obviously used C++ for wrong purposes.
norm.net wrote:
VB6 (not that I have or would ever use it
And yet you have a pretty strong opinion on it :)
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
Just got a 6-month contract with a client. I'll spend the time at their location coding C++... It's good to get my hands on a C++ compiler again, I've spent way too much time in C#. I know it's not popular to say, but I still think C# makes programmers dumber and more lazy, not to mention that it's way more boring than C++ ;) - Anders My new photo website[^]
Anders Molin wrote:
Just got a 6-month contract with a client.
Congrats! Different client, I take it?
Anders Molin wrote:
but I still think C# makes programmers dumber and more lazy
Well, I would argue that anything above throwing toggle switches on the front panel of a PDP-11 makes programmers dumber and more lazy. But it also separates the wheat from the chaf. For example, C#'s lock statement is great: (from MSDN mag): You should always use exception handling with thread synchronization mechanisms to ensure that locks are released properly. If you use the C# lock statement, the compiler writes the proper code for you automatically. Does this make a programmer dumber? No. In C++, a dumb programmer wouldn't realize that he has to manually release locks in an exception handler. What C# does is make on more productive, and yes, it helps dumb programmers from making dumb mistakes that other people then have to fix. Lazy? No, again, I think C# makes a programmer, especially an experienced programmer, more productive. Dumb programmers will be dumb regardless of the language. Look at this code I recently came across (names of have been changed to protect the dumb):
public bool Foo(string a, string b)
{
bool ret = false;
if (Bar(a) == Fizbin(b))
{
ret = true;
}
return ret;
}Wow. All that to say:
public bool Foo(string a, string b)
{
return Bar(a) == Fizbin(b);
}Isn't that amazing? And that's totally language independent. You wouldn't know whether that was C#, C++, or even C [edit]well, except for that little "public" token, hehehe [/edit] Well anyways, that's my 2c. :) Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson -- modified at 8:13 Tuesday 13th June, 2006
-
Anders Molin wrote:
Just got a 6-month contract with a client.
Congrats! Different client, I take it?
Anders Molin wrote:
but I still think C# makes programmers dumber and more lazy
Well, I would argue that anything above throwing toggle switches on the front panel of a PDP-11 makes programmers dumber and more lazy. But it also separates the wheat from the chaf. For example, C#'s lock statement is great: (from MSDN mag): You should always use exception handling with thread synchronization mechanisms to ensure that locks are released properly. If you use the C# lock statement, the compiler writes the proper code for you automatically. Does this make a programmer dumber? No. In C++, a dumb programmer wouldn't realize that he has to manually release locks in an exception handler. What C# does is make on more productive, and yes, it helps dumb programmers from making dumb mistakes that other people then have to fix. Lazy? No, again, I think C# makes a programmer, especially an experienced programmer, more productive. Dumb programmers will be dumb regardless of the language. Look at this code I recently came across (names of have been changed to protect the dumb):
public bool Foo(string a, string b)
{
bool ret = false;
if (Bar(a) == Fizbin(b))
{
ret = true;
}
return ret;
}Wow. All that to say:
public bool Foo(string a, string b)
{
return Bar(a) == Fizbin(b);
}Isn't that amazing? And that's totally language independent. You wouldn't know whether that was C#, C++, or even C [edit]well, except for that little "public" token, hehehe [/edit] Well anyways, that's my 2c. :) Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson -- modified at 8:13 Tuesday 13th June, 2006
Marc Clifton wrote:
public bool Foo(string a, string b) { bool ret = false; if (Bar(a) == Fizbin(b)) { ret = true; } return ret; }
I see this all the time. I am constantly fixing things like this all day long. I agree it does not matter what language people are using, a bad developer is always going to be a bad developer.
-
Anders Molin wrote:
Just got a 6-month contract with a client.
Congrats! Different client, I take it?
Anders Molin wrote:
but I still think C# makes programmers dumber and more lazy
Well, I would argue that anything above throwing toggle switches on the front panel of a PDP-11 makes programmers dumber and more lazy. But it also separates the wheat from the chaf. For example, C#'s lock statement is great: (from MSDN mag): You should always use exception handling with thread synchronization mechanisms to ensure that locks are released properly. If you use the C# lock statement, the compiler writes the proper code for you automatically. Does this make a programmer dumber? No. In C++, a dumb programmer wouldn't realize that he has to manually release locks in an exception handler. What C# does is make on more productive, and yes, it helps dumb programmers from making dumb mistakes that other people then have to fix. Lazy? No, again, I think C# makes a programmer, especially an experienced programmer, more productive. Dumb programmers will be dumb regardless of the language. Look at this code I recently came across (names of have been changed to protect the dumb):
public bool Foo(string a, string b)
{
bool ret = false;
if (Bar(a) == Fizbin(b))
{
ret = true;
}
return ret;
}Wow. All that to say:
public bool Foo(string a, string b)
{
return Bar(a) == Fizbin(b);
}Isn't that amazing? And that's totally language independent. You wouldn't know whether that was C#, C++, or even C [edit]well, except for that little "public" token, hehehe [/edit] Well anyways, that's my 2c. :) Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson -- modified at 8:13 Tuesday 13th June, 2006
Well said, scored a 5. how vital enterprise application are for proactive organizations leveraging collective synergy to think outside the box and formulate their key objectives into a win-win game plan with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. But of course, that's all a "high level" overview of things --thedailywtf 3/21/06
-
Anders Molin wrote:
Just got a 6-month contract with a client.
Congrats! Different client, I take it?
Anders Molin wrote:
but I still think C# makes programmers dumber and more lazy
Well, I would argue that anything above throwing toggle switches on the front panel of a PDP-11 makes programmers dumber and more lazy. But it also separates the wheat from the chaf. For example, C#'s lock statement is great: (from MSDN mag): You should always use exception handling with thread synchronization mechanisms to ensure that locks are released properly. If you use the C# lock statement, the compiler writes the proper code for you automatically. Does this make a programmer dumber? No. In C++, a dumb programmer wouldn't realize that he has to manually release locks in an exception handler. What C# does is make on more productive, and yes, it helps dumb programmers from making dumb mistakes that other people then have to fix. Lazy? No, again, I think C# makes a programmer, especially an experienced programmer, more productive. Dumb programmers will be dumb regardless of the language. Look at this code I recently came across (names of have been changed to protect the dumb):
public bool Foo(string a, string b)
{
bool ret = false;
if (Bar(a) == Fizbin(b))
{
ret = true;
}
return ret;
}Wow. All that to say:
public bool Foo(string a, string b)
{
return Bar(a) == Fizbin(b);
}Isn't that amazing? And that's totally language independent. You wouldn't know whether that was C#, C++, or even C [edit]well, except for that little "public" token, hehehe [/edit] Well anyways, that's my 2c. :) Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson -- modified at 8:13 Tuesday 13th June, 2006
Marc Clifton wrote:
You should always use exception handling with thread synchronization mechanisms to ensure that locks are released properly. If you use the C# lock statement, the compiler writes the proper code for you automatically.
Actually, this is a perfect example where C++ is easier than C#. Take a look at RAII[^] idiom. All you need to do is to create a local object that takes a lock and releases it automatically when it goes out of scope. Even better - with C++ you can use the same idiom for any resource, not just thread locks.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
My day job was ASP.NET for about the last 4 years, but mostly on one project, so no move to 2.0. I've heard some things about 2.0 that make me think it's a step backwards, such as the recommendation to put code in the aspx file, instead of code behind. Is that true ? I'd love to play with the new features, but I wouldn't say there was anything *broken* about 1.1.
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
On the C++, I've never used it at work and can't imagine having to. It would simply be over kill for business applications.
Sadly, I guess that is true nowadays. I remember when it was the only game in town. I still like it more than C#, a lot of the time. C# has lots of cool stuff in it, but C++ just feels right to me. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
My day job was ASP.NET for about the last 4 years, but mostly on one project, so no move to 2.0. I've heard some things about 2.0 that make me think it's a step backwards, such as the recommendation to put code in the aspx file, instead of code behind. Is that true ? I'd love to play with the new features, but I wouldn't say there was anything *broken* about 1.1.
1.1 wasn't terrible but the designer messes up your html, I consider that to be broken. As far as code in the Aspx, that is totally false. Infact you can now use the ObjectDataSource to bind data from a separate class(that returns a datatable or dataset) to your datagrid without any code in your page. 2.0 automatically creates an app_code folder and it is recommended to put your code there. how vital enterprise application are for proactive organizations leveraging collective synergy to think outside the box and formulate their key objectives into a win-win game plan with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. But of course, that's all a "high level" overview of things --thedailywtf 3/21/06 -- modified at 8:34 Tuesday 13th June, 2006
-
Well said, scored a 5. how vital enterprise application are for proactive organizations leveraging collective synergy to think outside the box and formulate their key objectives into a win-win game plan with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. But of course, that's all a "high level" overview of things --thedailywtf 3/21/06
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Well said, scored a 5.
Hmmm. Someone rather disagrees! :-D Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
You should always use exception handling with thread synchronization mechanisms to ensure that locks are released properly. If you use the C# lock statement, the compiler writes the proper code for you automatically.
Actually, this is a perfect example where C++ is easier than C#. Take a look at RAII[^] idiom. All you need to do is to create a local object that takes a lock and releases it automatically when it goes out of scope. Even better - with C++ you can use the same idiom for any resource, not just thread locks.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Actually, this is a perfect example where C++ is easier than C#.
That's a good point, and shows the subtle (or not so subtle) differences in language capability. Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
I don't now about the rest of you, but I spend significantly more time on new code than I do going back to fix bugs in old code. Maybe Mr. Corinna has found a comfort zone in C# that was unattainable for him in C++. ;P
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Maybe Mr. Corinna has found a comfort zone in C# that was unattainable for him in C++.
A lovely one, I might add. :-O š Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Well said, scored a 5.
Hmmm. Someone rather disagrees! :-D Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
Marc Clifton wrote:
Hmmm. Someone rather disagrees!
Sorry, it was me :-O Your post has this inaccuracy for the lock statement, and I didn't want it to be red to attract too much attention, but instead of voting 3 I accidentally voted 1 and with this weighted votes it went too low.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Hmmm. Someone rather disagrees!
Sorry, it was me :-O Your post has this inaccuracy for the lock statement, and I didn't want it to be red to attract too much attention, but instead of voting 3 I accidentally voted 1 and with this weighted votes it went too low.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
but instead of voting 3 I accidentally voted 1 and with this weighted votes it went too low.
:laugh: No problemo! :) Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson