To like or dislike C Sharp
-
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!
-
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();
}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.
-
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.
-
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
It's been awhile since I've worked in C++ but as I skim stackoverflow and glance at the occasional specificaiton or example of C++11 I can't help but think to myself that it has become an amalgam of every computer language trend since C. How anybody figures out to write C++11 coherently, using the correct language features, at the correct time in the correct way is now beyond me. So I for one do not miss friend classes or private inheritance (or multiple inheriteance for that matter). I say Yay C# for its relative simplicity!
10 PRINT "Software is hard. - D. Knuth" 20 GOTO 10
-
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 like C#. I don't like C++.
-
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
Argonia wrote:
Oh i will make The class A private so it will be used only with the Class B and just use friend
Good grief. Even when I was coding C++ (which I did for years) I thought private classes and "friends" were a bad design. Yes, C++ templates are a lot more flexible than C# generics, yes, multiple inheritance does have its uses when used carefully and interfaces don't always cut it, but other than that, I quite enjoy the ease of C# development. And you can specify "friend" assemblies in C#, but again, I consider it a bad idea. Marc
-
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.
It's a new syntax; but as long as you resist the urge to be stupid* with it linq one liners can be as easy to understand as the 3-6 line loops they replaced while taking less actual time to read because they're much shorter. * Or to click yes every time R#er says "I can Linqify that loop for you" because it can and does produce truly awful results in some cases. OTOH most of those WTFs can also be written as a much nicer Linq expression if you ask Google for advice.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
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
-
Nobody likes friends! ;P :laugh:
-
I don't think I'd agree with that statement...
-
Argonia wrote:
Oh i will make The class A private so it will be used only with the Class B and just use friend
Good grief. Even when I was coding C++ (which I did for years) I thought private classes and "friends" were a bad design. Yes, C++ templates are a lot more flexible than C# generics, yes, multiple inheritance does have its uses when used carefully and interfaces don't always cut it, but other than that, I quite enjoy the ease of C# development. And you can specify "friend" assemblies in C#, but again, I consider it a bad idea. Marc
Hear! Hear!
-
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();
} -
Argonia wrote:
Oh i will make The class A private so it will be used only with the Class B and just use friend
Good grief. Even when I was coding C++ (which I did for years) I thought private classes and "friends" were a bad design. Yes, C++ templates are a lot more flexible than C# generics, yes, multiple inheritance does have its uses when used carefully and interfaces don't always cut it, but other than that, I quite enjoy the ease of C# development. And you can specify "friend" assemblies in C#, but again, I consider it a bad idea. Marc
-
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.
Exactly; a language is just a language. In theory it can be implemented for any system.
-
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.
Yes, yes, yes. 100% yes.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
