|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: VB7 runtime, known as .NET.
Sorry, I can't find anything to support this statement. Care to share a link or two. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
No, I don't care 
There was this quote saying "we needed another curly braces language" at the introduction of C#, which coincided with the release of the renamed VB7. VB6 already introduced compiling to P-code, a runtime/framework that needed be installed.
Also take into account that C# code can be automatically translated (search & replace-kind of simple) to VB. C# is nothing more than a cleaned up VB6.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well - maybe because: what was Java modeled after ?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Java was based off C++ so there's that too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. I heard through the grapevine that MS even hired some top Java guys to help design C#. Never heard of the VB thing. Methinks its the author's wishful thinking.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
C# is Java with all the stupid sucked out.
|
|
|
|
|
C# is closer to C++ and Delphi (Turbo Pascal). C# and Delphi has the same father.
|
|
|
|
|
Who cares as long as they don't model anything after time honored VB practices.
Variants, anybody?
|
|
|
|
|
Care for a slice of nested GOTO statements? 
|
|
|
|
|
Global variables! Shirley you like global variables!
|
|
|
|
|
How could they possibly have omitted On Error Resume Next from the C# spec?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Simple problems should have simple solutions.
Complex problems should too.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrays start at 1 - just like when counting your fingers.
C# (C, C++...) messed up, who counts anything from zero? It's unnatural, zero simply does not exist.
Sin tack
the any key okay
|
|
|
|
|
Arrays in BASIC have always begun at zero... Though not many practitioners are smart enough to realize it.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: zero simply does not exist.
I have nothing to say to that!
...or in C#...
I have null to say to that! 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Lopatir wrote: zero simply does not exist.
0 - Wikipedia[^]
Zero is a number and makes perfect sense to use it as an index in a collection/array.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: makes perfect sense to use it as an index in offset into a collection/array
FTFY
|
|
|
|
|
Lopatir wrote: C# (C, C++...) messed up, who counts anything from zero? It's unnatural, zero simply does not exist.
Uhm, no. The understanding of the number zero was one of the most important discoveries to get mathmatics on the way and that was thousands of years ago. It's not at all as insignificant as you think. Except for BASIC fans, of course.
Then, you are confusing an index with counting. As any machine code or assembly programmer can tell you, you must address the first value in an array at BaseAddress + 0, and the nth value at BaseAddress + ((n-1) * sizeof(type)), or short: The index for the nth element always is (n-1). Except for BASIC fans, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: Except for BASIC fans, of course.
Some of whom refuse to acknowledge the existence of the zeroth element in their arrays even though it sits there sadly awaiting a value that will never arrive. 
|
|
|
|
|
Indexing != counting, no discussion there. I assume that BASIC interpreters and compilers automatically adjusted the index. especially in the days of 8 bit computers they had no memory to waste.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you read the original 1964 spec of BASIC?
|
|
|
|
|
Was there a formal spec back then or has it been written afterwards as for most languages of that time?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
