7 ms·

> I work in C# (worst language EVER!) You lose all credibility right there. C# is far from the worst language ever, and a pretty decent one among mainstream ob

> I work in C# (worst language EVER!) You lose all credibility right there. C# is far from the worst language ever, and a pretty decent one among mainstream object oriented languages.

city41 16y ago
As soon as I read that I looked for the date of the post. May, 2007. This is before C# 3.0 was released and chances are he was even using 1.0 based on impressions from his boss. C# isn't half bad now, but back then, I agree it was fairly crummy.
- barrydahlberg 16y ago
  IIRC generics came in 2.0 which narrows it a little.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - j_baker 16y ago
    This was very obviously a rant where the author was in a bad mood. I think some hyperbole can be forgiven.
nyellin 16y ago
Agreed. I would choose Python over C# for my own projects any day. However, I can't comprehend the senseless hatred that people have for C#. It is a nicer language than Java (imo) and it has very good performance. Furthermore, due to Mono, C# is no longer a closed platform.
- berntb 16y ago
  Re Mono: Microsoft is not suing Google for patents on operating systems but instead pressures the handset manufacturers using Android. Is there a guarantee that a customer can use Mono for commercial applications, without a shake down from Microsoft?
  - nyellin 16y ago
    * Mono is backed by Novell and not Google * From the Mono Licensing FAQ [1]: "Microsoft has announced that the ECMA standards for C# and the CLI are covered under the Community Promise patent license. Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose." * The Novell-Microsoft agreements provide further protection for companies that choose to use Mono. [1] * Many companies are using Mono for commercial purposes. There is a list at http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono * Notably, Linden Studios uses Mono for Second Life servers. (See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mono http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mono) [1] http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing#Patents http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing#Patents
    - gnosis 16y ago
      There's been some criticism of Microsoft's "Community Promise", such as this: http://techrights.org/2009/07/09/community-promise-sham/ http://techrights.org/2009/07/09/community-promise-sham/ and http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono and of Mono in general: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
      - kprobst 16y ago
        > techrights.org That's where I stopped reading, but I'll say this: Nowhere in the FSF's critique of the MCP is it mentioned whether or not the promise itself is legally binding. From a bunch of people who are supposed to be legal experts. What does that tell you?
        gnosis 16y ago
        Whether this "Promise" is actually worth much depends on much more than just the question of its legal legitimacy, as you'd have learned if you actually bothered to read the articles. But, as far as that particular issue is concerned, as the techrights article points out, "It may become legally binding ... if used as a challenge in court. But of course it does actually need to be tested in court /first/."
- fleitz 16y ago
  It never was a closed platform. C# was always an ECMA standard. MS even created rotor which was a FOSS implementation of C#.
dabent 16y ago
Familiarity breeds contempt. Often it's the language that coders are currently using that seems like the worst, because they're dealing with that language's problems on a daily basis.
mquander 16y ago
Yeah, I initially wrote a comment insulting him for not being able to figure out how to fold a list in C#, but the fact is, that wasn't in the standard library until late 2007, so I can sympathize.
gnufreex 16y ago
He loses all credibility because he don't like you religio.. I mean language? Strange metrics of credibility. I disagree with you, therefore you have no credibility.
- acangiano 16y ago
  You misrepresented my point. C# is far from my favorite language. He loses credibility however by making a statement which would appear wrong to any person with some knowledge of the programming language panorama. It's a red flag to either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Note that he didn't say, "C# is a language I don't like" or even "I find C# to be a horrible language", which would have been perfectly reasonable stances.
jcromartie 16y ago
I think I can explain the author's point of view. C# 2.0 was still the cutting edge for most of 2007. Most shops were still using 1.1. The author's qualm, coming from a Lisp POV, is most likely that if you are a consumer of C# 1.1 you can't just build C# 2.0 or 3.0 or 4.0 features. Using Lisp, he had access to everything that would eventually become C# features and then some, because if you want a fancy new language feature in Lisp you just add it. You don't have to touch the compiler (you write functions, macros, or a micro-compiler at the limit). So there's some hyperbole there, but it's true that C# 2.0 or 1.1 was really not anything special and felt a lot like "Microsoft's Java" at the time.

> I work in C# (worst language EVER!) You lose all credibility right there. C# is far from the worst language ever, and a pretty decent one among mainstream object oriented languages.

city41 16y ago

As soon as I read that I looked for the date of the post. May, 2007. This is before C# 3.0 was released and chances are he was even using 1.0 based on impressions from his boss. C# isn't half bad now, but back then, I agree it was fairly crummy.

barrydahlberg 16y ago
IIRC generics came in 2.0 which narrows it a little.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- j_baker 16y ago
  This was very obviously a rant where the author was in a bad mood. I think some hyperbole can be forgiven.

nyellin 16y ago

Agreed. I would choose Python over C# for my own projects any day. However, I can't comprehend the senseless hatred that people have for C#. It is a nicer language than Java (imo) and it has very good performance. Furthermore, due to Mono, C# is no longer a closed platform.

berntb 16y ago
Re Mono: Microsoft is not suing Google for patents on operating systems but instead pressures the handset manufacturers using Android. Is there a guarantee that a customer can use Mono for commercial applications, without a shake down from Microsoft?
- nyellin 16y ago
  * Mono is backed by Novell and not Google * From the Mono Licensing FAQ [1]: "Microsoft has announced that the ECMA standards for C# and the CLI are covered under the Community Promise patent license. Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose." * The Novell-Microsoft agreements provide further protection for companies that choose to use Mono. [1] * Many companies are using Mono for commercial purposes. There is a list at http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono * Notably, Linden Studios uses Mono for Second Life servers. (See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mono http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mono) [1] http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing#Patents http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing#Patents
  - gnosis 16y ago
    There's been some criticism of Microsoft's "Community Promise", such as this: http://techrights.org/2009/07/09/community-promise-sham/ http://techrights.org/2009/07/09/community-promise-sham/ and http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono and of Mono in general: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
    - kprobst 16y ago
      > techrights.org That's where I stopped reading, but I'll say this: Nowhere in the FSF's critique of the MCP is it mentioned whether or not the promise itself is legally binding. From a bunch of people who are supposed to be legal experts. What does that tell you?
      - gnosis 16y ago
        Whether this "Promise" is actually worth much depends on much more than just the question of its legal legitimacy, as you'd have learned if you actually bothered to read the articles. But, as far as that particular issue is concerned, as the techrights article points out, "It may become legally binding ... if used as a challenge in court. But of course it does actually need to be tested in court /first/."
fleitz 16y ago
It never was a closed platform. C# was always an ECMA standard. MS even created rotor which was a FOSS implementation of C#.

dabent 16y ago

Familiarity breeds contempt. Often it's the language that coders are currently using that seems like the worst, because they're dealing with that language's problems on a daily basis.

mquander 16y ago

Yeah, I initially wrote a comment insulting him for not being able to figure out how to fold a list in C#, but the fact is, that wasn't in the standard library until late 2007, so I can sympathize.

gnufreex 16y ago

He loses all credibility because he don't like you religio.. I mean language? Strange metrics of credibility. I disagree with you, therefore you have no credibility.

acangiano 16y ago
You misrepresented my point. C# is far from my favorite language. He loses credibility however by making a statement which would appear wrong to any person with some knowledge of the programming language panorama. It's a red flag to either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Note that he didn't say, "C# is a language I don't like" or even "I find C# to be a horrible language", which would have been perfectly reasonable stances.

jcromartie 16y ago

I think I can explain the author's point of view. C# 2.0 was still the cutting edge for most of 2007. Most shops were still using 1.1. The author's qualm, coming from a Lisp POV, is most likely that if you are a consumer of C# 1.1 you can't just build C# 2.0 or 3.0 or 4.0 features. Using Lisp, he had access to everything that would eventually become C# features and then some, because if you want a fancy new language feature in Lisp you just add it. You don't have to touch the compiler (you write functions, macros, or a micro-compiler at the limit). So there's some hyperbole there, but it's true that C# 2.0 or 1.1 was really not anything special and felt a lot like "Microsoft's Java" at the time.