|
And, after enough versions and upgrades, you may even finally be back to C++
One can only hope.
| 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 seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Good points.
- true, but you can do unmanaged stuff in C# and you can interface fairly easy with any C++ components
- I disagree here. The investment can be done over time and #1 could help here. Is there a cost, absolutely, but far less then migrating to completely other tools.
- Can you give examples? Most libraries are as easy or as difficult as in any other language, it more depends on who made the libraries. The C# framework itself is well documented and well supported.
What's holding C# back is, I think (no expert) the lack of support in devices like TV's, phones, tablets
or other platforms (macOS/Linux) and therefore cross-platform integrations.
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote: but you can do unmanaged stuff in C# and you can interface fairly easy with any C++ components
Yes, you could write the UI (for example) of the system tools in C#, but why bother? It just adds another requirement (and another failure point) to the system.
V. wrote: The investment can be done over time and #1 could help here. Is there a cost, absolutely, but far less then migrating to completely other tools.
I did not say that it could not be done. I did say that because of the cost it is unlikely to be done, giving the prevalence of Cobol as an example of a similar case.
V. wrote: Can you give examples?
It's not that learning the libraries is more difficult than learning the libraries available for other languages. The issue is the conversion costs - you have to take a productive programmer, expert in C or C++, and turn him into a novice C# programmer. It is true that he/she will eventually learn the C# way of doing things, but in the meantime - they will be less productive. Many companies are unwilling or can't afford to pay this cost.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
It's also valid in the opposite direction: with some time invested you can do the job in C++, which is a more performant language, that has it's own huge collection of (mostly) cross-platform libraries.
I would also add to the list of issues the lack of compatibility between different .net versions.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe. The idea that c++ is highly efficient comes from the fact that c is. However, if using many of the features of c++ can make a c++ application take more memory and run slower than a managed language. With the advent of dotNet Core 5.0, the performance and the cross platform issue mainly becomes moot. The only real thing lacking is WinForms for non-windows environments. The wpf approach has some advantages for gaming and graphic applications. It however, fails when it comes to line-of-business class of applications that fund most development.
My question would be why do people still think Java (or its cousins like Kotlin) make sense. My take is that there is still a culture that is anti-Microsoft.
|
|
|
|
|
tcruse wrote: My take is that there is still a culture that is anti-Microsoft
Now how on earth could such a culture develop? A mystery in a conundrum.
(or something related to how they treat their customers - like releasing defective software since as long ago as DOS 6.0)
[edit] I had misspelled DOS (believe it or not)[/edit]
| 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 seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
modified 10-Sep-20 10:51am.
|
|
|
|
|
The idea that C++ is highly efficient comes from the zero cost abstraction design, not from anything else. Besides, performance is not everything, languages like C and C++ can offer deterministic execution time as well as object lifetime, stuff that is impossible with managed languages by design, which make them a poor choice for system programming. The fact that NetCore doesn't support WinForms, makes C# a poor choice for cross-platform GUI application development as well, so it ends up being a niche platform for people who find themselves in need to program on Linux but don't want to learn anything besides C#.
"However, if using many of the features of c++ can make a c++ application take more memory and run slower than a managed language." Really? you have an example?
modified 10-Sep-20 10:08am.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: 1. For all its advantages, C#, like Java, is unsuited to system-level programming. The kernel in both Windows and Linux is programmed in C and ASM.
C# isn't really designed for system-level programming. It's designed for building applications. In that regard after 12 years of using it, I find it's remarkably fluent and concise. That said, I have used it for several Windows services with no trouble.Daniel Pfeffer wrote: 2. Many organizations have an investment in C and C++ code. Conversion to C# would require a major investment. Note that this is also one of the reasons that companies keep using Cobol, so I don't see this changing in the near future.
That's true for any language, not just C#.Daniel Pfeffer wrote: 3. C# does have a serious learning curve - not for the language, but for its libraries. If you have learnt to do things in C or C++, converting to C# is far from simple.
True. When I started in C#/WPF back in 2008, it took me quite a while to grasp one of the fundamentals of .NET programming: it's in there. C++ and MFC require that you build some application basics yourself. Many of those basics are already present in .NET and whatever UI framework you choose. Instead of saying to yourself "OK, how do I wrap the primitive crap in something elegant in order to make this work", like you do so often in C++, Windows API, and MFC, it's "there's got to be something to do this in .NET; the question is where?"
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. As an embedded developer (now retired), neither C# or Java would have been a viable option for the products I worked on. In the last 20 years of my career I think the largest amount of memory I had was 256K of RAM and 1M of FLASH (a TI DSP). Most of my projects had way less than this so C# or JAVA were nonstarters.
|
|
|
|
|
I can another half cent to Daniel Pfeffer's response above. For any any server-side programming I would avoid languages that require a runtime engine like Java and C#. Deployment and upgrading on production servers is [or seems to me] tough enough without having to bother with a runtime environment. OFC C# has LINQ and loads of nifty libraries for this and that. But for streaming video like we do it will not cut the cake.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but then again what language does not rely on libraries, be it some framework, a runtime library or the OS? The last computer I had that starts with a totally blank memory and waits for you to key in the first machine code instructions before you can let it run was my little Elf from 1978. And what did I learn on that computer? Write libraries if you don't want to type everything every time.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
I somewhat agree with the other responses but not entirely. Plenty of people are ok installing NodeJS/npm on servers so I don't get the runtime argument there. Also C# has excellent interop in my opinion with both C and C++ so I don't see why you'd have to convert your entire code-base.
Sure C# isn't great in ultra-high-performance scenarios where ASM, C, or C++ would be a better fit. No managed language is a good fit for those scenarios. But beyond that I don't get it either.
|
|
|
|
|
Again, I'd agree. I don't expect C# to take over the world, but it does seem to me that it would be a good even sometimes better fit for some new projects and yet seems almost to be the last language of choice.
I find the dependency issue to be a problem with almost every language/system I've worked with, and indeed C# usually seems to fair pretty well on this score. And companies I've worked with seem eager - sometimes too eager - to adopt the latest shiny language on the block. Maybe it's a hangover from the days when 'real' programmers simply didn't want anything that Microsoft have had a hand in? (I used to be a Microsoft hater but much of their stuff these days seems excellent.)
Thank you to anyone taking the time to read my posts.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't get it personally. If I had to guess I'd say people either want to use what's new and shiny like you said, or that people want to justify using what they've always used. C# hasn't always been as platform-agnostic as it is today so I imagine a lot of people used other languages at that time like Java which today is objectively worse than C# in every way in my opinion (e.g. properties; for the love of everything related to software, why has Java been so obstinate on this subject).
|
|
|
|
|
Because Lua is better. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I am generally impressed by Lua. Such a simple idea implemented well.
Thank you to anyone taking the time to read my posts.
|
|
|
|
|
You beat me to "because C++ is better". I'd enjoyed the answers of those who had taken it seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know C# well enough to offer many opinions, but it looks good to me unless you need to manage memory.
But C# seems to be very popular on this site! It, and web-related stuff, seem to account for the majority of articles and questions.
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting discussion ! I wonder if we are confounding two different criteria: popular vs. fashionable ?
imho, the cross-platform millstone pushes people to use ... make more code with ... weird flavors (to me), like Python.
JavaScript (nee EcmaScript), a post hoc misnamed lowly scripting language, became Cinderella at the Browser Ball as a default, a compromise between ruthless competitors.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
My $0.02: Is your question really why isn't C# number 1? I think it is very popular. I also think the so-called surveys are probably skewed somewhat towards website development. With more and more applications moving to the Internet and DYI frameworks and such popping up, there is more emphasis on other languages for those developers. Read Javascript. People want to run stuff on other servers. Methinks that the MS push was for developers to write C# applications and run them on Windows servers in Azure. Then, they discovered that many of the servers on Azure were Linux. Same servers would run on AWS, maybe for less $. So, how to make these companies stay within the Microsoft ecosystem? They seem to be working hard on stuff like Blazor and Typescript to push ahead and, I suspect, this will also push C#.
We are looking at Blazor for an IoT application via Oqtane (an application framework based on Blazor). It has many warts and bugs in V1. Open source project with limited number of developers. I suspect that we may be trying to fit a round peg into a square hole but I want to pursue it and learn some stuff.
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
In my own experience the reason it is not too popular are the following:
1) Platform. Most features are Windows specific. It builds heavily on the .NET framework which is complete only on Windows. C++ with QT is just as platform independent.
1bis) Platform. Most devs today work either on web based stuff or on embedded (as in Renesas, ATMel and other) stuff. On the former there are more widespread tools, on the latter you have 128 kb of RAM and 2 MB of flash with stringent real time issues, g'luck with C#.
2) .NET framework is not that great. It requires heavy installation on the target and has backward compatibility issues.
3) .NET has terrible documentation, mostly autogenerated. The learning curve is steep and the MS way is to keep changing stuff so once you master it you're already outdated and have to spend money and time again to regain mastery - which will be outdated by the time you reach it.
4) Performance. No matter what the fanbois say, C/C++ is faster and uses less memory, epsecially because C/C++ developers are forced to know what they are doing instead of going commando with memory usage.
5) Security. C# software is perceived as much more likely to be reverse engineered through the generated ILASM than software decompiled from binary. Wether this is true or not it (I'm not so sure it is actually any easier) in my experience it has been one of the most common reasons for the language to be vetoed by the customers.
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
|
|
|
|
|
because it's an MS product.
|
|
|
|
|
cue: sound of Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot 
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
