C# Downgrade

[Christopher Lord]

****Christian Graus wrote: I refuse to embrace C# in a lemminglike fashion Good plan, so do I. But that doesn't mean I will slow down my normal learning rate. It takes me little time to determine if something will make me "more productive". From the experimenting I have done already, things look promising (IE, doors have not been shut to it yet) // Rock

[Stan Shannon]

I'm an old C/C++ guy who will agree with you - to a limited extent. I think C++ is a toolbox with a lot of important tools. But carrying all those tools to every job where most are never needed is a waste. If C# represents a smaller toolbox, with tools designed for a specific small range or jobs, than I have no problem with the concept, and will probably spend some time learning it. Putting the C++ tool box in the hands of someone who is not capable of understanding its power is probably a dangerous thing to do. It is my understanding that C# is specifically intended to make web enabled applications (at least M$ vision of web enabled applications) easier to create. If that is the case than I'm sure it is a wonderful thing. The problem remains that most real world applications are going to require the power of a language like C++ under the control of people who are intellectual predisposed to employ it. THe *real* problem with languages like VB and C# is the mindset which they engender in people who are making financial decisions related to the development process. These people are made to believe that a complex application can be made simple by using a simple language to design it, thus reducing the time it takes to create the app. This is a horrible mistake to make. There is an inherent level of complexity in any application which no "simple" language can refine away. You must understand the nature of that complexity and bring a toolbox that is fully capable of dealing with it.

[George]

CLaW wrote: Lets not forget that most big company pages are made with 'Toy' languages like ASP now. They also do it internally and won't buy a shit from you... CLaW wrote: Less time developing means more content, which is REALLY the point to a website. I don't see where is the development involved into making a website. Everybody and their dog can make a website now, just use HTML and Front Page, it will not even take a week and will cost you only as much a MS Office set. As you said, the point is content and HTML is all it takes to have it. No room for C# and no room for development... CLaW wrote: I dont understand why you would make that choice. Well, maybe because I am developing an applications that actually do something, while you seem to need a tool that makes nothing in no-time ;P

[Uwe Keim]

Hey, looking at your picture, now I know what "down under means" :-D On your side of the globe, the picture look correctly orientated, I guess?!? -- See me: www.magerquark.de

[Christian Graus]

I don't expect it will take me long to learn what is basically a subset of C++ crossed with Java, and I doubt it will be of much use in my field of endeavour. In the meantime, I keep meaning to play with it, but other things keep coming up. In other words, the odds of C# making me more productive are basically zero, and I'll look at it when I find time. If C# makes you more productive and you don't mind being a M$ beta tester when you're on the job, then that's great for you. Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001

Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz

I live in Bob's HungOut now

[Christian Graus]

You're saying it looks disoriented in Germany ? :-) Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001

Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz

I live in Bob's HungOut now

[Christian Graus]

George wrote: C# is a solution looking for the problem. Do you realise that was what Stroustrup said about Java ? There's a lot of interesting reading on his page regarding both Java and C# ( although he is careful to always talk in the abstract and not about any specific language ). The Internet saved Java, who will save C# ? Christian I have come to clean zee pooollll. - Michael Martin Dec 30, 2001

Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz

I live in Bob's HungOut now

[George]

****Christian Graus wrote: Do you realise that was what Stroustrup said about Java ? I knew I heard it somewhere before, just couldn't put the finger on it ;)

[Paul Watson]

CLaW wrote: C++ and C# are like this, it appears. It BOGGLES me to think that people consider one a downgrade of another, can you folks who hold this explain your position so that I can evaluate this idea? IMHO we all need to dropt his subject and get on with the job. C# is too new for any of us to really "evaluate" it in a real world application. Those who currently use and love C++ will say what they say about C#. Sometimes for no reason, sometimes because their job won't be covered by C#. Those who currently use VB etc. will take a look at C# and if they like what they see will move to it. But right now, right this moment I think we all need to give it, the subject, a break and wait until we have some cold hard data. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront

[David Wulff]

Use JScript for ASP scripting, and you won't have to remove the semi-colons. And the logic is almost exactly the same as C++. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group, there was less competition there" - Gandhi

[David Wulff]

George wrote: They also do it internally and won't buy a sh*t from you... There is no need to get personal. Have you seen any of CLaW's work in order to judge it as shit? My personal website probably took around six hours to create. That included graphics, page templates, and typing out the content (most of which was create on-the-spot). My site is certinaly not the best or most innovative site out their on the web, but it does what it is supposed to do, and if you pardon the copulating mice on the front page, it does so with relative style. Under you reckoning, my site must be 100% shit because it did not take upwards of six months to develop? Why, what could I add with an extra twenty four weeks? George wrote: I don't see where is the development involved into making a website. Everybody and their dog can make a website now, just use HTML and Front Page, it will not even take a week and will cost you only as much a MS Office set. As you said, the point is content and HTML is all it takes to have it. No room for C# and no room for development... Very few web sites nowadays - in fact, I'd venture so far as to say none - can be pulled off without some development work. Microsoft Frontpage may create good looking sites (I say may, as it is far from perfect if you don't want a simple tablised layout), but I would never ever dream of releasing something to the world or a client unless I knew exactly what was behind it. How many people who create pages in Frontpage do you think bother to read the generated HTML line by and understand what is going on? I usually use Dreamweaver to flesh out the templates to my page, and handle the text formatting style, font size, font, etc), but everything else is written by hand and tweaked to take up the least space and improve the quality and experience of the site. I know web designers* have an unfair advantage over the layman, but I can tell you a site that was written in a WYSIWYG editor without improvememts, and a site that was written by a skilled developer, without looking at the source. Technically I am a web developer, but I tend to do all the roles of the designer too. When people or companies hire web developers, they are hiring the knowledge that they will have a well planned, well built web site and that their visitors will have a better experience for it. ASP and mor recently ASP.NET, together with other "languages" for web content delivery like JSP, PHP, et al, should not

[George]

David Wulff wrote: There is no need to get personal. Have you seen any of CLaW's work in order to judge it as shit? You have missed my point. I am not getting personal nor judging. I ma simply pointing out that "big company" doesn't buy anything from the people, they make it internally, they sometimes even design and create technologies if they need them. They surely won't buy a website "development" from anybody outside... David Wulff wrote: My personal website probably took around six hours to create. (...snip...) Under you reckoning, my site must be 100% sh*t because it did not take upwards of six months to develop? Nope. I am simply stating that it doesn't cassify as development - it's more like writing a document - you create it, but you don't develop it. David Wulff wrote: When people or companies hire web developers, they are hiring the knowledge that they will have a well planned, well built web site and that their visitors will have a better experience for it. When people or companies hire web developers they are quite often wasting their money. Typical visitor doesn't want and doesn't have the time to explore and contemplate the webpages. They come and go quickly, if they don't find what they want in a couple of seconds they leave to another site. Most of the websites that are developed are stuffed with lots of cool gadgets and cool revolutionary designs that totally confuse the users of these websites. Since there are no real standards as to how the website should operate and look like it an absolute mess right now. David Wulff wrote: Think in terms of static HTML sites being screenshots of your application, whereas server-side generated HTML is more like a demo. Which will provide the better experience? I do not look for experiences on the websites and screenshots are quite enought for me, because I want an information. I don't want a demo. I can most of the time judge and value things from the screenshots supported by a trial versions of applications. Over-complicated online demos are wasting my time, I don't bother with that any more... David Wulff wrote: The buzz phrase that is "in" that the moment is to say that content is everything. That is complete rubbish. Content is nothing without display. Display is closer to sevent per cent of success or a web site in the real world, as it is in life itself. Exactly, like let

[Jason Gerard]

Daniel Ferguson wrote: VB is a gateway language. Why don't real programmers use it? Simple, it isn't powerful or flexible enough. So I'm not a real programmer? I write business applications. All my apps are web/intranet based so I use ASP and lots of COM components that I write in VB or JSP/Servlets with JavaBeans depending on the client's platform. I think VB sucks at GUI development. It is very limited and it is a lot harder to do some things in VB than MFC. It's damn near impossible to write a good interface for a consumer application, but damn quick and to write an interface for an in-house business application. But most interfaces for those are web based now so this issue is dead. I have used ATL to write COM components before and, using the wizard, it's almost as easy as VB. But since most of the people I work with use VB, we stick with it. It is extremely productive to create COM components with, and, if you know what you're doing, which I do ;-), it's every bit as fast as a system written with ATL. I don't need to use asm or make low level system calls. I just need to make COM components that manipulate data sets in various ways. C#/VB.NET and .NET in general is a MUCH more powerful framework than VB6 and below. Now there is true OO which VB lacked. With C#, there are so many more things I can now do that would make my job easier and more enjoyable. No, C# is not a replacement for C++ and I think everyone should realize that. There will always be a need for C++ or something similar. However, C# is there for people who like that C/C++ syntax (which I do) but don't need all the power of C++ (which I don't). So I'm not a real programmer? Jason Gerard

[Konstantin Vasserman]

Paul Watson wrote: But right now, right this moment I think we all need to give it, the subject, a break and wait until we have some cold hard data. Yes, but discussions like this one is not about reason. It is about "religion". Every time I read something like this thread I am split between getting pissed off at the comments like "but the real programmers don't use VB" and laughing at how much it all reminds me of "my OS is better than your OS", "my daddy have a better job than your daddy", "my toy is better than your toy". So childish, don't you think? As far as "real programmers" concern: I have written programs in VB, C++, Java, ASP-Scripts, PHP, Perl, C, Pascal, Delphi, Fortran, DBase, Clipper, FoxBase, various Basic(s), Assembly and probably some other languages. Now I am learning C# because I want to understand it, learn what it brings to the table and what its limitations (:)) are. This is how I form my opinion - not by listening to someone's views of what real programmer is or isn't using. If someone wants to call me not a "real programmer" (whatever that is) because I use VB when I see fit - I say f**k them and I go back to my work...

[George]

Jason Gerard wrote: So I'm not a real programmer? From what you are describing you are a real programmer. The trouble is that you just use the wrong tools (VB etc.) and so you are wasting your talent ;)

[Jason Gerard]

You are greatly mistaken in why companies hire web developers. There is the obvious reason for the companies public site. But the more important reason is the companies intranet. All the companies I have ever done work for have an intranet that handles ALL there business needs. The applications do everything from order entry and tracking to payroll, insurance claims, etc. And what's the only difference between a web based intranet app and a native app that does the same thing? The interface, that's it. All the backend servcies are the same. One uses a browser and the other does not. Companies want web based intranets because they don't have to deploy anything. Just use the browser (which is 99.999% always IE). I create the ASP/JSP pages that generate that interface. I also create the back-end components that manipulate that data (COM or EJB's) George wrote: I am simply pointing out that "big company" doesn't buy anything from the people, they make it internally BTW, most companies outsource these projects so they are essentially "buying it from the people" Jason Gerard

[Paul Watson]

Jason Gerard wrote: So I'm not a real programmer? Good post Jason and no, you most definitley are a real programmer. Let the snobs carry on with their fancies while the rest of us use the right tools in the real world. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront

[Konstantin Vasserman]

Jason Gerard wrote: So I'm not a real programmer? Jason, you are a smart programmer. Let them be the "real programmers" (whatever that is). This is a matter of religion for some of the "real programmers", so don't take it too personally. :)

[Jason Gerard]

Thanks Paul, I was hoping you would give me some back up. :-) Jason Gerard

[Tim Smith]

Real programmers use toggle switches!!!! Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.