C# and its CLI stamped as ISO standard, Java left in dust

[yaroslav]

Asher, I've read the article you have post about the diferences of C# and Java, and I've some questions

1) Do you like preprocessors? If I read it correctly, C# reintroduces the preprocessor, a thing that I think is old-fashioned. I prefer, by far, to use a static constant that a #define. What do you prefer? In my humble opinion, the preprocesor is very error-prone

2) Method signature and params: I see it as very confusing. Can you declare a procedure that takes two or three ints but no one or four? Or must you define two params? Do you believe it is a big improvement about a Java function that takes an array?

And after reading this, I don't believe that C# is a revolution over Java, but, maybe, an improvement...

[Asher]

Originally posted by yaroslav
Asher, I've read the article you have post about the diferences of C# and Java, and I've some questions

1) Do you like preprocessors? If I read it correctly, C# reintroduces the preprocessor, a thing that I think is old-fashioned. I prefer, by far, to use a static constant that a #define. What do you prefer? In my humble opinion, the preprocesor is very error-prone

You can use either/or in C#.

2) Method signature and params: I see it as very confusing. Can you declare a procedure that takes two or three ints but no one or four? Or must you define two params?

You can do that using the traditional C++/Java way, or using the method sig/params.

The method sig/params way essentially is just using an array. You can pass in all the parameters you want, and it'll just keep being added on to a variable-sized array.

If you want to specify you only want two or three ints but not one of four, I believe you'd do this the standard way.

Do you believe it is a big improvement about a Java function that takes an array?

It's just a convenience factor.

Much like C#'s "foreach" command.

And after reading this, I don't believe that C# is a revolution over Java, but, maybe, an improvement...

It's not just the design of the language, but the implementation. The equivalent C# code is much faster than Java, and there's more flexibility with how you distribute it.

You can distribute it as a regular binary (like C++, etc), you can distribute it as a Just-In-Time compiling unit (The CLI will compile it down to native code the first time it's run), you can have it run like Java (entirely through the VM/CLI), or you can have segments of the code do either/or.

Not to mention, C# interfaces extremely well with VB.NET/C++, while Java doesn't. You can mix-and-match programming lanugages, Java doesn't allow that.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Asher

It's not just the design of the language, but the implementation. The equivalent C# code is much faster than Java, and there's more flexibility with how you distribute it.

You can distribute it as a regular binary (like C++, etc), you can distribute it as a Just-In-Time compiling unit (The CLI will compile it down to native code the first time it's run), you can have it run like Java (entirely through the VM/CLI), or you can have segments of the code do either/or.

Not to mention, C# interfaces extremely well with VB.NET/C++, while Java doesn't. You can mix-and-match programming lanugages, Java doesn't allow that.

Well, then we're coming to the main point: it's a improvement over Java perfomance, not over Java concept/desing

So, if Sun, for instance (I know that it's a big "for instance"), design some compiler that generate executables (.EXE in Windows) and/or dinamically link librabries (.DLL in Windows), Will you say that there is no good reason for switch from Java to C# ?

[Asher]

Originally posted by yaroslav
Well, then we're coming to the main point: it's a improvement over Java perfomance, not over Java concept/desing

It's both. C# is more consistent in design, has more features in design (we can overload operators again, we can pass by reference...), in addition to being faster in implementation and more flexible in implementation as well.

I'd personally consider it Java++. Java was the first shot, C# is what happened when people looked at what Java did right and what Java did wrong, and add more to it.

Will you say that there is no good reason for switch from Java to C# ?

If Java3 comes out and it implements equivalent features to C# and performs the same, then there'd be no reason to switch.

I can't see that happening, though.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Asher

It's both. C# is more consistent in design, has more features in design (we can overload operators again, we can pass by reference...), in addition to being faster in implementation and more flexible in implementation as well.

I'd personally consider it Java++. Java was the first shot, C# is what happened when people looked at what Java did right and what Java did wrong, and add more to it.

I probably agree with you, although I've a little different way of see the things There are some "flexibilities" I'm not sure are worth enough (Overload operators, for instance. Although in a well designed, all objects language it should be no so error-prone as it was in C++)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by gunkulator

Did you read it? It only said that ISO Standard = Austrailian Standard. Big whoop. Nothing in there about preferences.

Australia? Wow...

I wouldn't want to be an Australian standard. For example, the standard Australian lavatory is called a "Thunder Box" and leaves much to be desired.

You know when the revolution comes and people are dancing on Bill's grave computer quislings like Asher will be taken out and shot....

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
You know when the revolution comes and people are dancing on Bill's grave computer quislings like Asher will be taken out and shot....

People like me will be running the world, dear Agathon.

You see, there's many good software engineers out there. There's not too many good software engineers with good business sense.

[yaroslav]

I don't know if Australian Standard institute is related with Australian Patent Office, but I can not resist to post this:

Technology IGNOBEL (The "nobel" to the worst work) on 2001 went to:

"TECHNOLOGY
Awarded jointly to John Keogh of Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia, for patenting the wheel in the year 2001, and to the Australian Patent Office for granting him Innovation Patent #2001100012. "

links:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/07/02/FFX0ADFPLOC.html

http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/

http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/P_info.htm

http://www.ipmenu.com/archive/AUI_2001100012.pdf

Sorry for the off-topic, but the IGNOBEL are so hilarious

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

People like me will be running the world, dear Agathon.

You see, there's many good software engineers out there. There's not too many good software engineers with good business sense.

Perhaps all Apolyton should write to Mr Gates and tell him what a loyal servant you have been. He might even give you a job.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Perhaps all Apolyton should write to Mr Gates and tell him what a loyal servant you have been. He might even give you a job.

I'll have a word with the MS reps next week.

They've infiltrated the Sun Microsystems stronghold that is my school and managed to book two consecutive guest lectures for one of my compsci classes.

[Agathon]

Seriously though: I heard that MS treats its ordinary employees very badly. But I suppose you aren't planning to be an ordinary employee.

Here's a request. If you do make it to MS and end up programming a piece of consumer software could you please put in an Easter egg that mocks the Apolyton mods, like a naked dancing Ming?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Seriously though: I heard that MS treats its ordinary employees very badly. But I suppose you aren't planning to be an ordinary employee.

I'd think you've heard wrong...both from the people I know who do work for MS right now, and judging by how MS usually ranks well in those "best places to work" rankings...

[Agathon]

What I heard (and I read this in a book on the way that corporations employ "permatemps" to avoid various employment laws) is that the core of people who are actually employed by Microsoft do very well. But Microsoft actually employs a lot more people through independent contractors who are basically full time employees of MS and work alongside the "real" employees but don't get all the benefits and security that the law affords permanent employees. They are so called "permatemps".

Be careful, eh.

[Asher]

Oh, that stuff.

That's mostly the stuff like tech support, QA, etc.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
Oh, that stuff.

That's mostly the stuff like tech support, QA, etc.

These guys were programmers.