C# - just making an observation

[Marc Clifton]

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

[Lost User]

cpp11 is awesome. If you've been away for a while I encourage you to return to c++

[Marc Clifton]

_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

[Marc Clifton]

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

[Marc Clifton]

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

[Marc Clifton]

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

[Marc Clifton]

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

[Andy Brummer]

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

[Lost User]

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]

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

[Jeremy Falcon]

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

DataSets and DataTables

Oh I like it when you talk dirty Pete.

Jeremy Falcon

[Mycroft Holmes]

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

[Lost User]

Yup, pretty much a new language. Used well it is very elegant and I've found it refreshing and enjoyable.

[Pete OHanlon]

Friends don't let friends ORM.

[OriginalGriff]

_Maxxx_ wrote:

When you're a competent programmer is programming in something that demands you manage your own memory, you tend to be very aware of leaks, and program more carefully.

Unfortunately, a large number of developers aren't competent, but think they are.

Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

[BillWoodruff]

I'd really enjoy hearing your thoughts on the down-side of 'var. thanks, Bill

«OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. »  Alan Kay's clarification on what he meant by the term "Object" in "Object-Oriented Programming."

[BillWoodruff]

I'd really enjoy hearing your thoughts on the down-side of 'var. thanks, Bill

«OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. »  Alan Kay's clarification on what he meant by the term "Object" in "Object-Oriented Programming."

[BillWoodruff]

I'd really enjoy hearing your thoughts on the down-side of 'var. thanks, Bill

«OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. »  Alan Kay's clarification on what he meant by the term "Object" in "Object-Oriented Programming."

[OriginalGriff]

var is necessary - it's hard to see how Linq could work without it - and yes, it's still strongly typed. But...it's lazy, and it promotes code that is harder to read - for the sake of saving a couple of seconds when you write the code. For example, what is this code doing:

foreach (var item in myList)
{
...
}

What type is item? I don't know - so I have to go elsewhere, find the definition of myList and work it out from there. And then I find that myList is declared as

var myList = myUserControlInADifferentAssembly.GetAll(userInput);

Which means I have to hunt that down as well. If instead the original coder had spent a couple of seconds writing:

foreach (UserProfile item in myList)
{
...
}

My concentration wouldn't be broken and I could keep on with the flow of the code. I've seen people write this:

var i = 0;

Which is spectacularly pointless! There is also the fun that if a var is an IEnumerable returned by Linq methods, it isn't obvious that using it twice in successive lines of code will re-evaluate the whole enumerable again! At least if you have to write the type in full, you get a clue that probably what you should be doing is converting it to a List to evaluate the IEnumerable! You don't get that from var because "the system just handles it for you" - in the same way that untyped Dim works in VB, and that always comes back to bite people! :laugh: For example:

    private string Showme(string s)
        {
        Console.WriteLine(s);
        return s;
        }

If you do this:

        List list = new List() { "hello", "there", "Paul" };
        var enumerable = list.Where(s => s != "c").Select(s => Showme(s));
        Console.WriteLine("111111");
        string s1 = string.Join(";", enumerable);
        Console.WriteLine("222222");
        string s2 = string.Join(";", enumerable);
        Console.WriteLine("333333");

It isn't obvious that you get this:

111111
hello
there
Paul
222222
hello
there
Paul
333333

But as a List it is evaluated once:

        List list = new List() { "hello", "there", "Paul" };
        var enumerable = list.Where(s => s != "c").Select(s => Showme(s)).ToList();
        Console.WriteLine("111111");
        string s1 = string.Joi

[Ian Shlasko]

No no no no.... Unity 3D... The game development IDE...

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)