|
No more ugly than C# code, if you let it; any code for that matter can be ugly.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't talk about my code like that. *sniff*
=)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: No more ugly than C# code,
I disagree. From what I remember of Java, everything was methods, there were no properties. Many times less intuitive than .Net.
For example, in .Net we could do
person.Hair.Color = Color.Brown;
but in Java it was
person.SetHairColor(Color.Brown);
Maybe it's changed, this was many years ago, but .Net is much better.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: person.SetHairColor(Color.Brown);
and how in the world is that any more ugly than
person.Hair.Color = Color.Brown;
Edit: for the record, I prefer C# myself, and I code in C# for a living, but I would not have any issue going back to Java if I had to.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: and how in the world is that any more ugly than
Really? OK, I thought it was self-evident.
Because .Net mimics real life. Properties make much more common sense than do methods that set properties.
It's common sense and logical to me.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
In my ignorant view of software development, I had thought that a language is fairly agnostic to getting the job done. As my ignorance turned into education, which in turn evolved into despair, I discovered that many languages actually hinder getting the job done. Partly because "getting the job done" meant more than implementing the task at hand -- it also meant being efficient at implementing the task -- debugging, testing, time taken to write the code, etc.
So no, Java in not similar to C#. Java 
Latest Article - Azure Function - Compute Pi Stress Test
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: So no, Java in not similar to C#
Your opinion, which is not substantiated through fact. 
|
|
|
|
|
Uh I miss C# so much... I was using it for years during collage and uni and even wrote a bunch of articles here on CP. But UNFORTUNATELY I was doing some maintenance tasks during apprenticeship for *one month* and all the recruiters where like "oh we have a Java programmer here". And they did their ironic smiles when I said that I have basically 10 years of uncommercial C# experience and it's more than one month of fixing NPEs in some 5-year old legacy shut.
So... now I code Java full-time... and it's not so bad because there are tools which are workarounds for Java ugliness. But yep, no properties. Oh, and no run-time generics, indexers, object/collection initializers, raw strings, operator overloading (bigNumberA.add(b.minus(c).div(d)).multiply(e)), tuples, Linq, value types, events, convenient syntactic suger like ?. and so on. And don't get me started on pattern matching. Oh! there are fake lambdas which are translated to anonymous classes (in C# you have an expression tree which MIGHT be translated to classes but doesn't have to - it might be like, SQL or whatever).
On the good side, the IDE is almost as good as VS.
|
|
|
|
|
Would not hesitate for a second.
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't go with C# for the following reasons:
1) It's essentially part of a framework rather than a stand-alone language.
2) It's still evolving.
3) You learn a lot more from a lower level language.
I'm a C# programmer and I love C#, by the way, but I think C is a far better place to start.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
I think almost everyone started with C and I agree that C does require developers to learn essentials like memory management etc. I also believe that going the other way around is a more logical learning path with a less steep learning curve.
I should've mentioned that I would definitely put C as a 2nd or 3rd option.
|
|
|
|
|
One side effect of learning C first is it can poison you in terms of learning C++ properly
C++ is deceptive. It's easy to think of it as extensions to C but the way you code with it is entirely different. It's not C with objects.
That's why between C and C++ I'd recommend someone start with C++ and a copy of Accelerated C++ by Barbara Moo and Andrew Koenig. Best $20 you'll ever spend.
Once you've learned coding C++ with the STL, *then* learn C
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
for what reason he/she wants to learn coding. Who wants to code for embedded system or hardware should learn C, for the web is Javascript best and for mobile it is depending in which "universe" the voyage goes 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
KarstenK wrote: Javascript best
Two words that do not often appear together in the same sentence. 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Javascript has become significantly better with ECMAScript 6! And there are some powerful libraries like NodeJS.
And when programming websites javascript is a must have.
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with this. Two years ago, I despised javascript. Now I am starting to appreciate what it can do. Of course, I have to turn a blind eye on the uglies.
|
|
|
|
|
It's everywhere, it's not going anywhere, it's the basis and it teaches what the fluff you are doing. It's easy to fall into the glittery traps of the dozens new languages and frameworks out in the market daily when you can't see that it's all have been done before and that most ideas simply suck.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
my main concern about C being everyone's potential first is that already way more people think they can code C than actually can.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
My concern with Python, Java and C# is that it convinces people that they know how to write software (not only code, software) while they barely know what thery are doing.
And when their byproduct end up in production against all common sense it will become a PITA to the few competent people out there.
The other languages mentioned are basically useless trinkets, I will not even dwell on them as they omae wa mou shindeiru.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
that's just a problem with software development.
contrary to popular belief, we're not engineers, really.
thank the gods we do not build skyscrapers and bridges.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
codewitch honey crisis wrote: we're not engineers, really.
 I have not heard this in many years, but it is so true. We are NOT engineers by any stretch of the imagination.
We have the idea of a Software Architect, and that is more fitting to the role, than Engineer, IMHO. 99.9% of us are just plain old boring software developers; programmers if you want to go old school.
|
|
|
|
|
I was a software architect. don't believe the hype. LOL
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I am a software architect, and I don't believe the hype. However, companies like business titles and that is the title I have.
|
|
|
|
|
haha right?
they do love their titles. After Microsoft, I worked for an outfit called Sogeti, and they were basically a software architecture and consulting group.
So there were no "devs" on staff, but a lot of people who used to be devs.
It was a weird environment. I eventually bailed because I didn't like being flown to places to "consult" (read, try to rescue mismanaged projects well after they've deathmarched) and basically being used as a corporate axe because the people that screwed up didn't want to be the ones to do the firing.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a software engineer and I won't ever say I am a "programmer" ever again. There must be structure and some sort of formality to what's built and too many "programmers" lack any of it.
codewitch honey crisis wrote: thank the gods we do not build skyscrapers and bridges.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
