C# - just making an observation
-
Perhaps you've never used it... the interpreter is C++... so you can easily code C++ libraries and pull them into Python. Saying it's way slower than what you can use natively is not really knowing the perks of the language.
Albert Holguin wrote:
Perhaps you've never used it...
I use it daily.
Albert Holguin wrote:
so you can easily code C++ libraries and pull them into Python
That's correct, but then we are comparing C++ to C++, not Python to C++. I am saying (and the benchmarks confirm) that native Python is way slower than C++, even in single-threaded applications. If we include threading, Python is even worse due to the Global Interpreter Lock.
-
Albert Holguin wrote:
Perhaps you've never used it...
I use it daily.
Albert Holguin wrote:
so you can easily code C++ libraries and pull them into Python
That's correct, but then we are comparing C++ to C++, not Python to C++. I am saying (and the benchmarks confirm) that native Python is way slower than C++, even in single-threaded applications. If we include threading, Python is even worse due to the Global Interpreter Lock.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
native Python is way slower than C++
Yeah but I'd argue that it's not typically used that way. To each his own cup of :java: (there's no cup of tea but you know).
-
Are you saying you actually prefer VB6 to C#?!! :omg: :wtf: :confused:
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Aye. I'm strange, I know, but it is easier (and faster) to make communications between two native environments than managed-native. Also the easy access to COM, OCX and WinAPI provided with VB is somewhat lacking in C#. For projects that are no more than a boxed set of switches, VB6 is faster and easier. For project a little more complicated, .NET is bloated (to make I-don't-remember-which operation on a bitmap created in memory I would have to pin, extrapolate and use a ton of image converters between Windows.Media.Something.SomethingElse and Windows.Forms.Image forth and back. I solved wrapping GDI calls). Of course this is my opinion, and I'm far from being guru or expert. I just hope that M$ changes its mind and releases a VB7. Native, updated VB6.
-
Not to start a flame war, I am simply relating my recent personal experience... So, over the last couple of years, I've forayed into Ruby, PHP, very recently Java, and this coming from a background of C, C++, Pascal, Fortran, even some COBOL, and of course assembly language and some things I don't or don't want to remember (BASIC, LISP and Forth come to mind.) In terms of "modern" programming languages, and especially after my recent foray in Java (granted, version 7, so I'm not able to take advantage of lambdas) I have come to the conclusion that, frankly, C# is the most elegant and well crafted language I've ever worked with. Yeah, I remember the C# 1.0 days when I was cursing the lack of templates/generics and the idiocy of single inheritance, but no more. I find that code that I write in C# can be elegant, well crafted, expressive, and just a pleasure to write. I don't have that experience with other languages, except perhaps for F#, once I get into the rhythm of FP. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
I agree.
-
I thought that way for a while too, until I had to use it. I wouldn't use it for apps that require heavy computation, but for business apps its nice and much much better than VB.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
much much better than VB
Why, I converted to c# about 6 years ago and would not like to go back but that is mainly comfort and familiarity. When I was doing VB I though the same thing about c#, imagine a language that is case sensitive bleh.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
much much better than VB
Why, I converted to c# about 6 years ago and would not like to go back but that is mainly comfort and familiarity. When I was doing VB I though the same thing about c#, imagine a language that is case sensitive bleh.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Well, to be fair, my comparison is really more about the bias I've built up against the typical VB crowd than the language itself. My first language was QBasic. I did a lot of classic VB. Never really had to use VB.NET all too much thankfully. It's a good tool for what it's intended for. But the main reason would be I just don't like the mentality of the typical VBer, which is lazy when it comes to learning how to effectively program. Not all VB devs are like that of course, but you get the idea. I have the same issue with FoxPro devs. I do think C#'s syntax is much cleaner and more elegant though. Which can lead to less typing errors. Which would be enough of a reason for me to choose C# over VB.NET, regardless of the typical VB crowd.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Sorry, DataSets and DataTables need to go - they are the spawn of Beelzebub himself.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
DataSets and DataTables need to go - they are the spawn of Beelzebub himself.
I find them (DataTables more so) quite convenient, though I can definitely imagine both simpler and more flexible approaches. As long as we're not treading into dreaded O-R-M territory. ;) Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
Not to start a flame war, I am simply relating my recent personal experience... So, over the last couple of years, I've forayed into Ruby, PHP, very recently Java, and this coming from a background of C, C++, Pascal, Fortran, even some COBOL, and of course assembly language and some things I don't or don't want to remember (BASIC, LISP and Forth come to mind.) In terms of "modern" programming languages, and especially after my recent foray in Java (granted, version 7, so I'm not able to take advantage of lambdas) I have come to the conclusion that, frankly, C# is the most elegant and well crafted language I've ever worked with. Yeah, I remember the C# 1.0 days when I was cursing the lack of templates/generics and the idiocy of single inheritance, but no more. I find that code that I write in C# can be elegant, well crafted, expressive, and just a pleasure to write. I don't have that experience with other languages, except perhaps for F#, once I get into the rhythm of FP. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
_Josh_ wrote:
return to c++
Why am I reminded of Darth Vader? I've been doing some cpp11 work on the Beaglebone, it certainly has changed quite a bit and requires a lot of re-learning on my part. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
I thought that way for a while too, until I had to use it. I wouldn't use it for apps that require heavy computation, but for business apps its nice and much much better than VB.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I wouldn't use it for apps that require heavy computation
I ended up re-writing a very computationally heavy app in C# from C++ and was quite surprised that the C# version performed as well, if not better, than the C++ version. Now, granted, I was using STL heavily in C++ and in the C# version, I optimized my data structures so I wasn't manipulating vectors and queues all over the place. Which just goes to show, that performance is less a function of the language than it is of the skill of the programmer. :) It would be interested to see how the code would fare in C++ now with the new data structures, but I'm a bit wary of STL's performance. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
Ugh. Is it really that good? I've fiddlyfarted with it here and there, but I've never done any serious work in it. I've been a C++ guy since the 80s (with lots of everything in the interim.) Maybe it's time to suck it up and take a serious bite out of it.
mikepwilson wrote:
Ugh. Is it really that good?
Yeah, I think so. :) I think if I were to identify the features that I find most useful, they would be lambda expressions, anonymous methods, the Func<> and Action<> classes, and reflection. I stay away from "var" and LINQ can be useful but I usually prefer using the extension methods directly instead. There's a lot I have dived into to fully appreciate -- covariance and contravariance, for example, but the type inference is damn impressive. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
:thumbsup: I started in BASIC back in the 80's, and made my way through C, Perl, Java, and some dabbling in TCL and Python... But I haven't found anything better than C#. Granted, Visual Studio has something to do with that... Haven't found a better IDE anywhere. The others I've tried all feel clumsy and weak. Well, I mean, Unity is several kinds of awesome, but that's a little different. Now if only they would switch Excel's scripting interface from VBA to .NET, I could stop hating MS Office too.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Haven't found a better IDE anywhere
The only IDE that comes close is the one made by JetBrains, which I use a lot for Ruby and Java stuff. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
Until VS2008 (more I don't know) I found a flaw that I hate: it is impossible to separate definition and implementation in separate files. Also, it is slow to compile, it uses that crappy .NET framework with the crappier documentation and it is slow to compute unless you fill it up with unsafe. I AM biased because I really need low-level functionalities, the only time I ued C# was to create a VS add-in to view areas of memory as 8 or 16 bit images and apply some algorithms and infinite zoom (with no blurring, must be exactly a pixel per pixel representation). The areas of memory come directly from the VS debugger on a running process, and it has to understand variable names, pointers, raw addresses and some internal data structures. With C# it is painfully slow, where the older counterpart of this add-in, developed in VB6, is fast as a Thunder (btw Thunder WAS the codename of VB6 :D). It has some good points, i like the UI designer and its way of managing events, but stil... I will hate the day we switch off VB6 and turn to C#.
den2k88 wrote:
it is slow to compile,
Odd, I find quite the opposite to be the case.
den2k88 wrote:
it uses that crappy .NET framework
While there's some things about the framework I am happy to b*tch about, for the most part, I think it's pretty damn impressive.
den2k88 wrote:
it is slow to compute unless you fill it up with unsafe.
Again, not in my experience. I've written some very computationally intensive stuff in C# and have been very pleased with the performance.
den2k88 wrote:
because I really need low-level functionalities
Well, true -- for bit banging on hardware ports, definitely C, C++ or even assembly is the way to go. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
Not to start a flame war, I am simply relating my recent personal experience... So, over the last couple of years, I've forayed into Ruby, PHP, very recently Java, and this coming from a background of C, C++, Pascal, Fortran, even some COBOL, and of course assembly language and some things I don't or don't want to remember (BASIC, LISP and Forth come to mind.) In terms of "modern" programming languages, and especially after my recent foray in Java (granted, version 7, so I'm not able to take advantage of lambdas) I have come to the conclusion that, frankly, C# is the most elegant and well crafted language I've ever worked with. Yeah, I remember the C# 1.0 days when I was cursing the lack of templates/generics and the idiocy of single inheritance, but no more. I find that code that I write in C# can be elegant, well crafted, expressive, and just a pleasure to write. I don't have that experience with other languages, except perhaps for F#, once I get into the rhythm of FP. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
I have to say I like writing my own apps in C# where I have complete control of all the code and data types. However when I'm customizing an existing CMS platform, the flexibility of duck typing means that I have much more flexibility and power to make smaller and less invasive changes, even if I have to code in PHP :sigh: .
Curvature of the Mind now with 3D
-
I agree - but it does mean it's a lot harder to get leaky programs. Not impossible, but a lot harder. You remember what it was like before C# - morons not releasing memory until the whole PC judders to a halt... X|
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
OriginalGriff wrote:
a lot harder to get leaky programs
I disagree. When you're programming in something that demands you manage your own memory, you tend to be very aware of leaks, and program more carefully. Many a C# programmer just assumes that it will be handled for them, and happily leave event handlers waving in the wind, preventing megabytes being cleaned up. Not me, of course, but others :-O
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I wouldn't use it for apps that require heavy computation
I ended up re-writing a very computationally heavy app in C# from C++ and was quite surprised that the C# version performed as well, if not better, than the C++ version. Now, granted, I was using STL heavily in C++ and in the C# version, I optimized my data structures so I wasn't manipulating vectors and queues all over the place. Which just goes to show, that performance is less a function of the language than it is of the skill of the programmer. :) It would be interested to see how the code would fare in C++ now with the new data structures, but I'm a bit wary of STL's performance. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
What you're saying is totally true, but I'd still wager an expert at C/C++/ASM could still write code to outperform most things in .NET. Of course, that's not practical for every last application as they'd have to be leery of frameworks used, if any, such as STL. I mean I can write a slow program in C easy as pie, and probably make something run better in classic VB if I really wanted to. Doesn't mean classic VB is the way to go for real time code. It doesn't mean VB is quicker. It means I'd know VB better in that instance. All that being said, I sure don't enjoy the slow compile times for C++. Especially with some of newer compiler tricks with C++ 11, such as generics. But it's still pretty zippy once compiled, and C/C++ will always be my go-to language for non-business apps.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Sorry, DataSets and DataTables need to go - they are the spawn of Beelzebub himself.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
DataSets and DataTables
Oh I like it when you talk dirty Pete.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Well, to be fair, my comparison is really more about the bias I've built up against the typical VB crowd than the language itself. My first language was QBasic. I did a lot of classic VB. Never really had to use VB.NET all too much thankfully. It's a good tool for what it's intended for. But the main reason would be I just don't like the mentality of the typical VBer, which is lazy when it comes to learning how to effectively program. Not all VB devs are like that of course, but you get the idea. I have the same issue with FoxPro devs. I do think C#'s syntax is much cleaner and more elegant though. Which can lead to less typing errors. Which would be enough of a reason for me to choose C# over VB.NET, regardless of the typical VB crowd.
Jeremy Falcon
I think VBA is where you can lay the most blame, power users who work up through the VBA/Access route and keep going. No real discipline and no training. I started out that way and can understand the mind set, I do miss the formal training and grounding most really good devs must have. I started with macros in the late 80s then went down the path of Superbase till it got completely marginalised, spent a couple of years doing Turbo Pascal and then moved to VB. I would not willingly go back to VB.net but only for comfort and familiarity not because I dislike the language.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
_Josh_ wrote:
return to c++
Why am I reminded of Darth Vader? I've been doing some cpp11 work on the Beaglebone, it certainly has changed quite a bit and requires a lot of re-learning on my part. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
DataSets and DataTables need to go - they are the spawn of Beelzebub himself.
I find them (DataTables more so) quite convenient, though I can definitely imagine both simpler and more flexible approaches. As long as we're not treading into dreaded O-R-M territory. ;) Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
Friends don't let friends ORM.
