3 ms·

Mono certainly works on the server. Your comment just tries to derail the discussion by bringing up Scheme or Lisp in a context where only languages are consid

Mono certainly works on the server. Your comment just tries to derail the discussion by bringing up Scheme or Lisp in a context where only languages are considered that are widely used in the industry. Otherwise, how could the word "abandon" possibly apply? This language shootout has been criticized before. Except for optimized C and C++ there is no popular language (I'm talking about the performance that is due to the design of the language, _not_ a particular implementation. For example dynamic typing is necessarily slower.) that is faster than C#. Try unsafe C# and you know what I mean. Bringing up Scheme here is entirely inappropriate. It's common wisdom that Lisp and Scheme are more beautiful, but this article is about a language that is supposedly "abandoned", because it may not be mainstream enough anymore at some point. If C# is abandoned, then what can you say about Scheme? As far as node.js is concerned, it's not a strawman: In fact, the people who claim that MS abandoned C# think that they want to replace it by Javascript. MS even supports node.js in Azure. "concurrency" is not the same as asynchronicity, which is what I was talking about. And promises are not even close what C# 5.0 tries to achieve. In fact, promises have been present since .NET 4.0. Finally, please explain how Scala is "intellectually challenging". This is not my experience. (throwaway account due to procrastination setting)

igouy 14y ago
>> This language shootout has been criticized before. << Criticism can be uninformed, out-of-date, self-serving, mistaken... ;-)
snogglethorpe 14y ago
> Except for optimized C and C++ there is no popular language (I'm talking about the performance that is due to the design of the language, _not_ a particular implementation. For example dynamic typing is necessarily slower.) that is faster than C#. Er, but you can't just completely disregard implementation, because it really matters in practice. You're not going to get a lot of adoption simply because your language is theoretically better/faster/... In these language shootouts, Lua, a dynamically-typed language aimed at small size and simplicity, regularly beats out C#, because Lua has LuaJIT[+], which is a really good implementation, whereas C# for many people means Mono, which is at best an "OK" implementation. It's the same as with algorithms: big-O complexity is obviously important, but it isn't everything; for real-world uses, the constant factors may make all the difference... [+] The standard Lua implementation is also very good, but it's a more typical VM, and while very fast for a non-JIT VM, can't match LuaJIT in many cases.

igouy 14y ago

>> This language shootout has been criticized before. << Criticism can be uninformed, out-of-date, self-serving, mistaken... ;-)

snogglethorpe 14y ago

> Except for optimized C and C++ there is no popular language (I'm talking about the performance that is due to the design of the language, _not_ a particular implementation. For example dynamic typing is necessarily slower.) that is faster than C#. Er, but you can't just completely disregard implementation, because it really matters in practice. You're not going to get a lot of adoption simply because your language is theoretically better/faster/... In these language shootouts, Lua, a dynamically-typed language aimed at small size and simplicity, regularly beats out C#, because Lua has LuaJIT[+], which is a really good implementation, whereas C# for many people means Mono, which is at best an "OK" implementation. It's the same as with algorithms: big-O complexity is obviously important, but it isn't everything; for real-world uses, the constant factors may make all the difference... [+] The standard Lua implementation is also very good, but it's a more typical VM, and while very fast for a non-JIT VM, can't match LuaJIT in many cases.