|
Yeah, me too. C#++ is the best of all.
I chose C++ because... "C#, I am your FATHER!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh, but...the son can be greater than the parent.
Consider: Chuck Norris had a father (Ray Norris, who was a mechanic, bus driver, and truck driver)
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
Surely it's important enough that we don't forget it ever even existed 
|
|
|
|
|
You bet. That is almost all I've used since Turbo Pascal 1.0. Now I use Delphi Prism which is really RemObject's Oxygene for .net.
I REALLY like Oxygene. I can't see myself going back to Delphi unless I have to and I REALLY liked Delphi.
|
|
|
|
|
I might just go and have a look at Oxygene...
|
|
|
|
|
I was a little worried about learning Oxygene and moving away from Delphi, but I'm really glad I did. There are so many things that are a snap to do with xaml and some classes that were a royal pain to do in Delphi. Things like making a dbgrid cell have some combinations of controls or pictures. Trivial in Oxygene Silverlight or WPF app.
I do recommend learning it. The price is small and it works pretty well on multiple platforms (platform specific, not platform agnostic).
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was actually expecting the result to be in the low single-digits; I am actually surprised by the love I saw!
I grew up on BASIC - I cut my coding teeth using a TRS-80 Color Computer 2 with 16 K of RAM and cassette tape drive, running Microsoft's Extended Color BASIC.
Now, for a new problem - one I defined? I wouldn't select just any BASIC!
Today, I would use QB64 (http://www.qb64.net/) - cross-platform across the "big-3" (Windows, Mac, Linux) - compiles to native, and 64 bit. Supports everything on modern operating systems, including OpenGL! Best of all, the vast majority of QBasic and QuickBasic software will compile without changes needed. For those that do need changes, those changes will be relatively few. Those that will have major difficulty running will be those that used assembler routines or other direct hardware access, but if you understand what is being done by those routines, chances are they can be ported to use more standard methods.
The biggest downside, though, to QB64 - is the lack of object orientation. You can fake it a bit, but its fairly hacky - reminiscent of doing OOP in standard C (maybe worse).
I'll always have a place in my heart for BASIC. I'm glad to see others do, too!
|
|
|
|
|
No relation to "QB VII" by Leon Uris?
Member 10731944 wrote: lack of object orientation
That's a good thing.
Member 10731944 wrote: on modern operating systems
OpenVMS 8.4 ?
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the reason that probably a lot of people like C# is that it does works, works well Inside Visual Studio and it is fast to compile.
And by the way some language feature like LINQ, lambda (and async that I haven't yet used) are great and have equivalent. Even the way to implemenent IEnumerable is simple and nice.
However, I would like if it would supports templates like C++ does... And with many other things, most of the power but without the complexity.
On the other hand, C++ (and C++/CLI) could have been much more interesting to uses if since the start :
- Visual Studio would have work as well with C++/CLI.
- STL.NET would have work (correctly, effeciently, transparently...)
- Intellisence would have works for C++ code.
- Designer would have works well for WinForms, Database, WPF.
- LINQ would be available.
- Compilation and linking would not be so slow.
- Compiling pure assemblies would not means forgetting most standard C++.
- C++/CLI would have been implemented correctly to fit with standard C++ so that it would have been easy to have template code that works both on managed types and unmanaged one (no gcnew, ^ or %).
- Better language integration including Intellisence and Browsing accross languages.
- and so on...
I really like C++ once but given all the drawbacks and the fact that for real applications, often the things that are missing in C# does not matters much finally.
Philippe Mori
|
|
|
|
|
Generating code by code is one of the most difficult task I met, but result (although for small task) are highly exciting. The best I've seen so far is JavaScript with its Function constructor, allowing to generate function for string during the runtime. Compared to C (where dynamic code generation must be machine code, unless compiler is included), JavaScript is far better for generating code (it is easier to write code that generates high-level language code, rather than machine code), not to mention that V8 makes JS speed comparable to C/C++. Thanks, Google.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or C. JS, Ruby etc. *are* written in C, AFAIK. Nothing beats function pointers.
|
|
|
|
|
And you can write C compilers in Ruby etc
However in Lisp code is also data so creating code from code can be relatively trivial
|
|
|
|
|
Using just Ruby? Or with LLVM?
|
|
|
|
|
You could use just Ruby if you chose to
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds interesting. Will take a look on it, thanks for pointing me this one.
|
|
|
|
|
You can write compilers/interpreters for most languages in most other languages if you put your mind to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Except C++ 
No-one sane would attempt to write a C++ parser.
Luckily, there seem to be quite a few madmen around.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
The very thought has me shivering
|
|
|
|
|
What the JavaScript allow is to write code that create string containing JavaScript (not some old scary machine code), compile it as a function and run it.
And you don't need to write a compiler, it is already written for you. And it'll work on all supported devices.
For example I used it to generate if-then code for AND-OR tree, which executes faster than searching tree directly. I can probably do it in static language, but I'm no masochist.
And about Ruby, probably it is good, but I really do like C syntax. I really prefer me to decide when I need to indent or not. I use TABS and I'm proud of it.
|
|
|
|
|
lisp is good for that using Eval
Of course in C# you can generate code on the fly - the programming language I have developed also allows embedded C# and VB.Net
Embrace tabs 
|
|
|
|
|
A pearl might be a nice gift, but programming with it is the worst.
I only had one small project with it some 12 years ago and I hated it. I put it on my resume and still occasionally get recruiters with old copies of my resume bothering me about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it's because it's one of the first languages I used back in teh 80's when I started or because I could apply it, and extensions to it, to many different areas.
And, yes, I completely understand the "Lost In Stupid Parentheses" comments...lol.
|
|
|
|
|
I feel like that about Smalltalk - the beauty of simplicity.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
