C++ again :-) (Does C# make you dumber?)
-
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[^]
Like having central heating makes us all dumber and lazier than those with only wood stoves who have to cut their own firewood and keep the stove going? Congrats on finding a backwater place to excercise your increasingly meaningless knowledge of pointers and manual memory management. ;P
-
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
Sometimes stuff like that can creep into my code if I forget to remove it. The reason is when debugging you need to see the value as you're stepping through a method before it's returned. Of course it's all much more complex stuff than that but same idea. I wonder if the compiler optimizes that stuff out?
-
norm.net wrote:
Yeah maybe I'll tell the company I worked for that the spreadsheet taxation software (spreadsheet application, similar to excel) written entire from the ground up in C++, should of been done in VB6 - ha ha I don't think so. Maybe the baggage systems for the airports should of been VB6 - nope not quite. Ah maybe the flight information systems should be VB6 - dont think so
What I am trying to say is: in general, C#/.NET is a replacement for VB6, not C++. Most "business" applications that were done with C++ in 90's should have been done with some RAD tool, like VB or even better Delphi instead. If you need high performance/real-time/whatever, .NET is not the solution, just like VB wasn't the solution in 1990's.
norm.net wrote:
if you're not using VB6, then maybe you should be have using it during the 90's
I was using VB 5/6 in 90's on a couple of projects (boring financial desktop forms stuff with lots of SQL and Crystal Reports), and for that matter right now I am using VBScript to automate creating .dot files for MS Word. Nothing wrong with it. However, for anything "long lasting", especially when portability and/or performance is important, I use C++ today as I did then.
norm.net wrote:
Cools, what ever VB sucks, C++ is cool, but C# rocks - my opinion
VB rocks for some purposes. C# rocks for some purposes. C++ rocks for some purposes.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
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;Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
ISAPI extension
I guess the big question here is "why would you want to"? With ASP.NET, I have no need of ISAPI extentions. Use to use them to use C++ for websites, now programming is direct. Rocky <>< Latest Post: Visual Studio 2005 Standard, whats missing? Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
-
Well, I know for me, just the lack of debugging is the first issue. I seldom have to spent any time debugging, however in C++ there was always those little bugs that cropped up and killed, sometimes, days of development work tracking them down. C# does more of the work for me so I can focus on the work that is before me ;) Rocky <>< Latest Post: Visual Studio 2005 Standard, whats missing? Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
-
-
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
ISAPI extension
I guess the big question here is "why would you want to"? With ASP.NET, I have no need of ISAPI extentions. Use to use them to use C++ for websites, now programming is direct. Rocky <>< Latest Post: Visual Studio 2005 Standard, whats missing? Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
In my case, we're looking at possibly writing an ISAPI extension as a means to hook http: communications in a Windows-compliant way. There is a workflow standard in our industry that uses the http: protocol to pass messages and data around.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
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:
I've heard some things about 2.0 that make me think it's a step backwards,
Not sure how anyone could say that, many new features in 2.0 and even more coming in 3.0 soon. It is amazing how partial classes have cleaned up code in web forms. There have been some issues but in the end is it getting better. All the talk about having code in the same page is not so much that people are advocating placing you code there, it is more to inform people that there is no longer a performance issue having it in the page along with the html as things are precompiled. Most people still put their code in a codefile. A big boost will come with ASP.NET 3.0 along with IIS 7. Channel 9 have several videos on them. Rocky <>< Latest Post: Visual Studio 2005 Standard, whats missing? Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
-
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:
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++ ;)
C# programmers smell bad, too. ;P
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.0.0.0 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
Sometimes stuff like that can creep into my code if I forget to remove it. The reason is when debugging you need to see the value as you're stepping through a method before it's returned. Of course it's all much more complex stuff than that but same idea. I wonder if the compiler optimizes that stuff out?
John Cardinal wrote:
The reason is when debugging you need to see the value as you're stepping through a method before it's returned.
That's quite true.
John Cardinal wrote:
I wonder if the compiler optimizes that stuff out?
I was wondering the same thing. I'm pretty bad at reading IL though... Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
John Cardinal wrote:
The reason is when debugging you need to see the value as you're stepping through a method before it's returned.
That's quite true.
John Cardinal wrote:
I wonder if the compiler optimizes that stuff out?
I was wondering the same thing. I'm pretty bad at reading IL though... Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
Well, I know for me, just the lack of debugging is the first issue. I seldom have to spent any time debugging, however in C++ there was always those little bugs that cropped up and killed, sometimes, days of development work tracking them down. C# does more of the work for me so I can focus on the work that is before me ;) Rocky <>< Latest Post: Visual Studio 2005 Standard, whats missing? Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
A man after my own heart, .net ,the IDE the extendable debugging features, rich UI, makes .net a sure fire winner when it comes to windows development. C++ guys have to look round at the demand for C++/MFC/Win32, and it's is dropping, if they continue hiding in their ivory towers, one day they will topple. Rocky, can't wait for linq, also generics has been a big help in .net, what are your thoughts on .net. Never send a human to do a machine's job Agent Smith
-
Anders Molin wrote:
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++ ;)
C# programmers smell bad, too. ;P
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.0.0.0 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Maybe Mr. Corinna
Nice bait Mrs. Simmons. You going to release them or cook them up for supper? :-D
led mike wrote:
cook them up for supper
He's gotten tame - he'll kindly ask us to consider simmering ourselves
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
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[^]
I'm not real sure it makes you dumber, as you still have to know how to use the tool and solve the problem. But, I do think it certainly might make us all a little lazier in that we don't have to think about memory allocation/deallocation (at least for the most part), and you don't have to know the MFC calls to get the GUI up and running. (Admittedly, not thinking about stuff like stack space versus heap space may inhibit some from truly understanding what/how an application is behaving). I am kind of curious though, if .NET makes us dumber and lazier, then didn't Java blaze this trail originally? Not real sure about the boring part either. For me, understanding how the different pieces of the requirements puzzle fit together. I like putting the thing together and getting it functional, then adding some bells and whistles is fun. But, one person's boredom is another person's fantasy! One person's random thoughts on the subject... /dave If you always do what you always done, you'll always get what you've always got - Unknown
-
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[^]
I too found it a joy to go back to C++, but part of that might be because I got tired of P/Invoking all the time to get .NET to do what I needed it to do. I'm not sure C# makes programmers dumber, but I have noticed they do tend to get more lazy. For example, while garbage collection is nice, it doesn't give you a blank check to simply allocate objects like crazy. Worse, cleaning up resources isn't automatic (as I said in another post, how many developers really understand IDisposable?) At my last company, I brought up the need to still do profiling in .NET and was told it wasn't an issue. News flash; it is. (Performance and memory issues were becoming such a big concern for me, based on what I was seeing with the prototype, that I was privately considering pushing a bunch of stuff into a C++ native DLL. In hindsight, I should have done that from the beginning.) One thing that drives me crazy with C#/.NET is how often exceptions are used for things that really aren't exceptions (meaning "something really bad happened.") I have code with the most nightmarish try/catch/using statements. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
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:
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++
5! Jeremy Falcon
-
Anders Molin wrote:
It's good to get my hands on a C++ compiler again, I've spent way too much time in C#.
I know the feeling :) I spent a good part of 1994 2004 and 1995 2005 (:doh:) using C# as the primary language (along with some Managed C++) and C++ only for maintenance and it felt very good to get back to pure C++. Not only the language is more powerful, but the coworkers are more skillful and professional - there were too many ex-VB'ers around in the C# days :| The only downside is the platform: Linux. While it is fun to use vi, debugging with gdb is a royal pain.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it. -- modified at 7:02 Tuesday 13th June, 2006
I had the opportunity to go back to MFC last year, to work on a GUI app., after working in C# for a while, and it was okay. It was more work, and more clunky, to get the same thing done, but I could handle it. It was one of those applications that could've just as easily been done in VB IMO. MFC employment has definitely been on the wane. This last project was the last time I got paid to work in MFC since 2001. A couple years ago I worked on a Windows app. in C++/MFC with a friend. It was a graphical/map editor. I believed I could've gotten it done in C#--a LOT easier, but he insisted on C++ for performance reasons. Plus he was leary of installing the .Net Framework.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
The only downside is the platform: Linux. While it is fun to use vi, debugging with gdb is a royal pain.
I hear ya. Those are basically the same tools I worked in, to program in C, 10 years ago (on Unix--I used uEmacs). I tried out C++ on Unix a year later and found it was a challenge. My first try with it was a c-front compiler that compiled C++ into C, then into object code. :wtf: Gdb just would not work with it, particularly with templates. Gdb couldn't figure out which end was up. The best solution I found was gcc. It took a little extra effort to set up templates, but it compiled them so gdb could grok them. Plus gcc compiled directly to object code, so it didn't confuse gdb with a bunch of C code. I've heard there's a way to use Emacs with gdb such that Emacs functions as a full-screen debugger. I haven't seen it done, but perhaps that would help you out. I agree it's difficult to go from a full-screen debugger to a line-debugger like gdb. It's just not the same. That, and spending a significant amount of time writing scripts and makefiles for complex builds makes me glad I'm not doing Unix development anymore. Good development tools are priceless. :) Mark Miller Software Developer
-
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:
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 ?
Just as in 1.1 you can put code in script in the .aspx page. This might be the way it works in the Express version of VS 2005. In the full-fledged VS I think the default is to use what are essentially code-behinds, but the code-behind is split up using partial classes. So the control declarations get put in one code file, and your code, like event handlers, get put into a different file that you edit, but they get compiled into the same class. There are more things that can be put into ASP code in the .aspx page that used to be put into C# code. For example you can set up a DataGridView control and bind a datasource to it all in ASP code. No C# code necessary. Mark Miller Software Developer
-
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
C#, c++, vb just tools. so it is useless to argue which tool is the best.:laugh: