7 ms·

That would be horrible. C# is a pretty weak language[1], and .NET is layers of bad design choices (both of these problems stem from a aggressive OO design meth

by pnathan 13y ago

That would be horrible. C# is a pretty weak language[1], and .NET is layers of bad design choices (both of these problems stem from a aggressive OO design methodology combined with poor API taste + a policy of "never break". Not only that, Microsoft is a monopolist by character, and an unpleasant competitor. It would be a disaster for the world if they regained dominance (much like other companies, but MS brings a particularly domineering flavor). [1] It's adequate. It gets the job done, adequately. It doesn't shine except in being adequate. I would rather use pretty much any open source language than a .NET one.

thatthatis 13y ago
Of Java, C#, and ObjectiveC the language I most want as the common language is Python. That not being an option, C# is decently close to python in expressiveness, certainly better than the other two, and in my appraisal actually a pretty nice language.
- CmonDev 13y ago
  Supports both kinds of typing and most functional features. Let's just see what happens when Roslyn finally gets done (something that keeps them busy from keeping innovating on language side)!
gjulianm 13y ago
Well, I think MS has been drifting away from their monopolistic character. Look at Azure, for example. They give you documentation even to develop and deploy with Java. That's not something I'd expect from the old MS. Apart from that, why is C# a weak language? I think it shines in features: dynamic typing, code by contracts, runtime code generation (you can generate assemblies in execution time with System.Reflection.Emit), LINQ... you can even use it as a functional programming language. I wouldn't say C# is pretty weak.
Zigurd 13y ago
Some people prefer C# over Java and VS over Eclipse, and the Xamarin team will probably do a better job of making cross-platform work than most others. I suspect it will still lead to many lowest common denominator apps, but it's not like Android doesn't suffer from iOS-portitis and hordes of shoddy apps for other reasons, anyway.
rayiner 13y ago
What's wrong with the CLR? It seems to be better for a cross language runtime than the JVM.
- stusmall 13y ago
  I see people say this but I've never seen an actual reason. I know the CLR was built with this in mind with things like CLS but that doesn't seem like that huge of a deal. There are also some naughties in the JVM like how generics are handled, but that seems more like knocks against the JVM as a whole rather than its cross langauge support. So legitimate question, is the CLR better than the JVM at cross language support and if so what makes it better?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Tail calls, value types, and generics are the big ones.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    > So legitimate question, is the CLR better than the JVM at cross language support and if so what makes it better? Yes in the early days, because JVM was initially designed just for Java and many bytecodes are directly related to Java semantics. Meaning any language that targets the JVM has to adapt their semantics to Java semantics at the bytecode level, hence the tricks mapping closures to anonymous classes as one example from many. This got better with the introduction of new bytecodes in Java 7 and the upcoming Java 8, but it is still a Java VM at heart. The CLR was designed as language agnostic, meaning its design had to support a good implementation of VB, C# and C++ on day one, alongside other languages from Microsoft partners like Eiffel and COBOL as two possible examples. There is inclusive a .NET ABI for interoperability between languages, CLS (Common Language Specification). So the bytecode is much more generic and more low level than the JVM bytecode is. Then thanks to the work done on IronPython and IronRuby, it got the DLR part with allows for better performance of dynamic languages implementations. Since initially CLR was mostly targeted for strong typed languages. Nowadays both platforms are quite similar in terms of language support.
- tracker1 13y ago
michaelwww 13y ago
> C# is a pretty weak language[1] I like how you give a citation then cite yourself
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- depr 13y ago
  -- Michael Scott
- was_hellbanned 13y ago
  Footnotes are used for more than just citation.
  - michaelwww 13y ago
    My tone was meant to be gently humorous, not seriously precise. I was reminded of a guy on another site who was backing up his arguments with quotes from a book -- that he wrote. When someone called him on it he didn't miss a beat; he said it was a good book four years ago when he wrote it and still a good book worth quoting.
    - pnathan 13y ago
      Sometimes parentheticals simply take away from the point of a paragraph.

by pnathan 13y ago

thatthatis 13y ago

Of Java, C#, and ObjectiveC the language I most want as the common language is Python. That not being an option, C# is decently close to python in expressiveness, certainly better than the other two, and in my appraisal actually a pretty nice language.

CmonDev 13y ago
Supports both kinds of typing and most functional features. Let's just see what happens when Roslyn finally gets done (something that keeps them busy from keeping innovating on language side)!

gjulianm 13y ago

Well, I think MS has been drifting away from their monopolistic character. Look at Azure, for example. They give you documentation even to develop and deploy with Java. That's not something I'd expect from the old MS. Apart from that, why is C# a weak language? I think it shines in features: dynamic typing, code by contracts, runtime code generation (you can generate assemblies in execution time with System.Reflection.Emit), LINQ... you can even use it as a functional programming language. I wouldn't say C# is pretty weak.

Zigurd 13y ago

Some people prefer C# over Java and VS over Eclipse, and the Xamarin team will probably do a better job of making cross-platform work than most others. I suspect it will still lead to many lowest common denominator apps, but it's not like Android doesn't suffer from iOS-portitis and hordes of shoddy apps for other reasons, anyway.

rayiner 13y ago

What's wrong with the CLR? It seems to be better for a cross language runtime than the JVM.

stusmall 13y ago
I see people say this but I've never seen an actual reason. I know the CLR was built with this in mind with things like CLS but that doesn't seem like that huge of a deal. There are also some naughties in the JVM like how generics are handled, but that seems more like knocks against the JVM as a whole rather than its cross langauge support. So legitimate question, is the CLR better than the JVM at cross language support and if so what makes it better?
- rayiner 13y ago
  Tail calls, value types, and generics are the big ones.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  > So legitimate question, is the CLR better than the JVM at cross language support and if so what makes it better? Yes in the early days, because JVM was initially designed just for Java and many bytecodes are directly related to Java semantics. Meaning any language that targets the JVM has to adapt their semantics to Java semantics at the bytecode level, hence the tricks mapping closures to anonymous classes as one example from many. This got better with the introduction of new bytecodes in Java 7 and the upcoming Java 8, but it is still a Java VM at heart. The CLR was designed as language agnostic, meaning its design had to support a good implementation of VB, C# and C++ on day one, alongside other languages from Microsoft partners like Eiffel and COBOL as two possible examples. There is inclusive a .NET ABI for interoperability between languages, CLS (Common Language Specification). So the bytecode is much more generic and more low level than the JVM bytecode is. Then thanks to the work done on IronPython and IronRuby, it got the DLR part with allows for better performance of dynamic languages implementations. Since initially CLR was mostly targeted for strong typed languages. Nowadays both platforms are quite similar in terms of language support.
tracker1 13y ago

michaelwww 13y ago

> C# is a pretty weak language[1] I like how you give a citation then cite yourself

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
depr 13y ago
-- Michael Scott
was_hellbanned 13y ago
Footnotes are used for more than just citation.
- michaelwww 13y ago
  My tone was meant to be gently humorous, not seriously precise. I was reminded of a guy on another site who was backing up his arguments with quotes from a book -- that he wrote. When someone called him on it he didn't miss a beat; he said it was a good book four years ago when he wrote it and still a good book worth quoting.
  - pnathan 13y ago
    Sometimes parentheticals simply take away from the point of a paragraph.