To like or dislike C Sharp
-
I like it. If you stop thinking "cut down C++" and consider it as a separate language in it's own right, it is very good - in some ways a lot better than C++ in that it is a lot harder to write impenetrable cr@p in C# than it is in C++. If you want a class that is only available to Class B, then declare it as private and part of the B Class:
public class B
{
private class A
{
...
}
A a = new A();
}Yes i know about that way but the bosses above said that the file is getting too large for the functions and they have to be moved to a new class and file :/ because it is getting too complicated :/
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
-
I'm with Richard on this one, it's development tool, learn it, use it, get paid for it! I don't like web development (specifically javascript) but I still find it interesting. You're only bitching because you are being stuffed into a new syntax, welcome to my world!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
You're only bitching because you are being stuffed into a new syntax, welcome to my world!
Nah its not that. For example i find F# very interesting and fun. I think that i dislike C# because it is so much as c++ but its not the same thing.
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
-
At work i am working alone on the only remaining c++ project. But now new we started working on a new project in c#. So i am writing one of its projects (I pity my coworkers for working with me on the same project) and i was thinking "Oh i will make The class A private so it will be used only with the Class B and just use friend" but of course M$ had other ideas. Today was a good day i found another reason to dislike C Sharp. So i wonder what makes you people like or dislike C Sharp
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
yes^4 :-) (all upvoted) 'g'
-
Yes i know about that way but the bosses above said that the file is getting too large for the functions and they have to be moved to a new class and file :/ because it is getting too complicated :/
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
-
You can always put your internal classes into a separate source file using partial classes
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Precisely!
-
At work i am working alone on the only remaining c++ project. But now new we started working on a new project in c#. So i am writing one of its projects (I pity my coworkers for working with me on the same project) and i was thinking "Oh i will make The class A private so it will be used only with the Class B and just use friend" but of course M$ had other ideas. Today was a good day i found another reason to dislike C Sharp. So i wonder what makes you people like or dislike C Sharp
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
Actually, C++ is the best language ever, so any other will look pale compared to it. /sits down and grabs pop-corn
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
-
Actually, C++ is the best language ever, so any other will look pale compared to it. /sits down and grabs pop-corn
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
-
Actually, C++ is the best language ever, so any other will look pale compared to it. /sits down and grabs pop-corn
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
The beauty of c++ is that it will never die. It doesn't stop growing. For example in the latest update c++ 11 we see something very interesting for strongly typed language, the type auto. After few years/decades/centuries(lets hope) M$ will stop supporting .Net Platform and c# will die with it. C++ doesn't need any Platforms unlike c#
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
-
It's not delphi.
Burn the heretic!! :-D
-
Rage wrote:
C++ is the best language ever
Sorry but that accolade will always go to C, as designed by the great K&R.
Veni, vidi, abiit domum
... which we all know, in the depth of our hearts, was a badly implemented BASIC compiler...
speramus in juniperus
-
At work i am working alone on the only remaining c++ project. But now new we started working on a new project in c#. So i am writing one of its projects (I pity my coworkers for working with me on the same project) and i was thinking "Oh i will make The class A private so it will be used only with the Class B and just use friend" but of course M$ had other ideas. Today was a good day i found another reason to dislike C Sharp. So i wonder what makes you people like or dislike C Sharp
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
-
At work i am working alone on the only remaining c++ project. But now new we started working on a new project in c#. So i am writing one of its projects (I pity my coworkers for working with me on the same project) and i was thinking "Oh i will make The class A private so it will be used only with the Class B and just use friend" but of course M$ had other ideas. Today was a good day i found another reason to dislike C Sharp. So i wonder what makes you people like or dislike C Sharp
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
I got into the whole C# vs. C++ with a previous company the end result was C++ will let you build the gallows and hang yourself, while C# will give you the gallows but makes it hard(er) to hang your self. I must admit not to being very fond of object orientation & classes (give me a struct any day!) My Two pennies worth any now back to stick a test rig together. :)
-
Precisely!
-
I like it. If you stop thinking "cut down C++" and consider it as a separate language in it's own right, it is very good - in some ways a lot better than C++ in that it is a lot harder to write impenetrable cr@p in C# than it is in C++. If you want a class that is only available to Class B, then declare it as private and part of the B Class:
public class B
{
private class A
{
...
}
A a = new A();
}OriginalGriff wrote:
it is a lot harder to write impenetrable cr@p in C# than it is in C++.
maybe, as long as you don't get near LINQ or anonymous functions.
-
The beauty of c++ is that it will never die. It doesn't stop growing. For example in the latest update c++ 11 we see something very interesting for strongly typed language, the type auto. After few years/decades/centuries(lets hope) M$ will stop supporting .Net Platform and c# will die with it. C++ doesn't need any Platforms unlike c#
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
Argonia wrote:
After few years/decades/centuries(lets hope) M$ will stop supporting .Net Platform and c# will die with it.
Why would C# die with it? It doesn't need to run on .NET - there is at least one alternative to the .NET framework, and C# is now producing code for iOS and Android as well.
-
I like it. If you stop thinking "cut down C++" and consider it as a separate language in it's own right, it is very good - in some ways a lot better than C++ in that it is a lot harder to write impenetrable cr@p in C# than it is in C++. If you want a class that is only available to Class B, then declare it as private and part of the B Class:
public class B
{
private class A
{
...
}
A a = new A();
}Impenetrable? Humph. Anyway - not to start a debate, but don't you find something intrinsically wrong with your example? Class inside of class (inside of class (inside of class (inside of class (inside of class (inside of class . . . ??? I look at it this way C# is a good lure to get lifetime-rookies away from VB. But it hides what you're really doing. There's no distinction, visibly between a namespace or a class in terms of separation, for example. (in C++, we have ::, ., and -> vs. . the C#). It makes things easier and masks understanding. I also like the possibility of multiple inheritance without a cascade of derivations - not too often, but when I want it I want it) It's not so much cut-down as light. Per my VB->C# view, that's a good thing . . . as an intermediate step to the real thing.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
it is a lot harder to write impenetrable cr@p in C# than it is in C++.
maybe, as long as you don't get near LINQ or anonymous functions.
They can get a bit...difficult...but not as much as a carelessly written regex! :laugh:
-
Impenetrable? Humph. Anyway - not to start a debate, but don't you find something intrinsically wrong with your example? Class inside of class (inside of class (inside of class (inside of class (inside of class (inside of class . . . ??? I look at it this way C# is a good lure to get lifetime-rookies away from VB. But it hides what you're really doing. There's no distinction, visibly between a namespace or a class in terms of separation, for example. (in C++, we have ::, ., and -> vs. . the C#). It makes things easier and masks understanding. I also like the possibility of multiple inheritance without a cascade of derivations - not too often, but when I want it I want it) It's not so much cut-down as light. Per my VB->C# view, that's a good thing . . . as an intermediate step to the real thing.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
*cough* C# has the dereferencing operator -> but it's only available in unsafe code. I agree, something like the scope resolution operator would be useful, but it's not vital. No I don't find anything "intrinsically wrong" - if a class is supposed to be used only within a different class, then why the heck not declare it within that class? It doesn't have to be in the same file if you use partial classes, and it does reflect the structure of the code better than C++ friend in my opinion. BTW: I came up through C -> C++ -> C# and I occasionally do still use C and C++. C++ shows it's ancestry, while C# shows it was designed to work with .NET from day one. Linq and suchlike are obvious bolt-ons which could have been done so much better if they had been considered when C# was designed - as could many features of modern C++! :laugh:
-
At work i am working alone on the only remaining c++ project. But now new we started working on a new project in c#. So i am writing one of its projects (I pity my coworkers for working with me on the same project) and i was thinking "Oh i will make The class A private so it will be used only with the Class B and just use friend" but of course M$ had other ideas. Today was a good day i found another reason to dislike C Sharp. So i wonder what makes you people like or dislike C Sharp
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
Here is my point of view[^]. It was written in 2008, and after that I had opportunity to work with both languages, but my opinion is pretty much the same: C# is good enough for a typical enterprise application, but there is really nothing interesting or exciting about it.
