|
Never a true word my friend, I couldn't of put it any better.
|
|
|
|
|
In school I worked on an application. This application was implemented in C#. The .NET nightmare started after a few days when I discovered that I couldn't use the pre-processor.
Short after that discovery, I figured that everything I love C++ for is gone in C#. Beside that, All the things I hate Java for should be the power of C#.
I guess that I enjoy freedom and small/fast apps rather than rapid development and dirty programming.
My opinion on .NET/repid development is:
A rapid developer is a bad developer.
Now that the project is done, I stick to C++.
A student knows little about a lot.
A professor knows a lot about little.
I know everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Stanneveld wrote:
A rapid developer is a bad developer.
I don't know about that. IMO, that a rapid developer is either a "bad" developer, or a really good developer.
Aaron Eldreth
TheCollective4.com
My Articles
While much is too strange to be believed,
Nothing is too strange to have happened.
- T. Hardy
|
|
|
|
|
Development comes with fast fevelopment time, huge distributables and slow programs.
I prefer small and efficient programs. If this comes with more development time, so be it. My name stands for quality instead of quantity..
A student knows little about a lot.
A professor knows a lot about little.
I know everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Programs written in C# can be small and efficient, and in many cases, every bit as fast as an equivalent C++ program, but with fewer security risks and fewer bugs and memory leaks.
You have a point about the distributable size, but the advantages of .NET, and C# in particular, far outweigh this minor issue.
My guess is that you never really gave C# the chance that it deserved. You can't code in C# in the same way that you would in C++. It's something new you have learn and get used to. Just because the preprocessor in C# won't let you do what you could with C++'s doesn't mean that it is inferior. Instead, there is simply other (usually far more elegant) ways of doing the task.
That said, there are plenty of reasons to stick with C++. It's always a case of what is the best tool for the job. But these days, C# is more and more often turning out to be that best tool.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Stanneveld wrote:
The .NET nightmare started after a few days when I discovered that I couldn't use the pre-processor.
A good C++ developer shouldn't be using any preprocessor magic anyway. It's not typesafe and in many cases not even portable.
Granted I don't use .NET, but my reasoning is that it doesn't bring anything to the table that would benefit desktop or embedded (as in RTOS VxWorks stuff, not WinCE) development. I've seen very clean elegant C# code from many people here on CP, and for the right job, .NET very well may be the right tool. I guess I don't know what my point is other than to let you know your drivel about .NET wasn't very well substantiated by your empty whining.
~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
start
|
|
|
|
|
Nitron wrote:
A good C++ developer shouldn't be using any preprocessor magic anyway. It's not typesafe and in many cases not even portable.
I don't use all the pre-processor magic, I just use the simple #ifdef and related for building different releases.
IMO this functionality should be available for every language, but this will newver happen even is there's world peace..
A student knows little about a lot.
A professor knows a lot about little.
I know everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Stanneveld wrote:
I don't use all the pre-processor magic, I just use the simple #ifdef and related for building different releases.
Actually, all the current .NET languages have #ifdefs and custom build configurations...
Yes, even I am blogging now!
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Stanneveld wrote:
I just use the simple #ifdef and related for building different releases.
IMO this functionality should be available for every language, but this will newver happen even is there's world peace..
I guess the whole Congo thing is a misunderstanding[^]? 
--
Russell Morris
"So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
|
|
|
|
|
Thats all I need concerning PP-directives...
Guess I'll have to give C# another chance (someday)
A student knows little about a lot.
A professor knows a lot about little.
I know everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Stanneveld wrote:
My opinion on .NET/repid development is:
A rapid developer is a bad developer.
That offends me. Just because someone writes code quickly doesn't mean that they write bad code. One can be a bad developer in any programming language, but just because they use a language that you dont like doesn't mean they are a bad developer.
|
|
|
|
|
Kyle Edwards wrote:
That offends me. Just because someone writes code quickly doesn't mean that they write bad code. One can be a bad developer in any programming language, but just because they use a language that you dont like doesn't mean they are a bad developer.
True, but since rapid developers often choose quantity over quality (in terms of runtime speed and package size). This choice may not be up to the avarage developer, but I think this is a bad choice.
A student knows little about a lot.
A professor knows a lot about little.
I know everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you misunderstood when you read up on RAD. Perhaps you should read it again. The definition is not a developer slinging code as fast as he can go with no regard to quality which seems to be what you think it is.
Also, you said you wrote your C# application in school. What qualifies you to make the statement "rapid developers often choose quantity over quality"?
|
|
|
|
|
my thoughs are these:
a BAD PROGRAMMER is he who picks his tools according to HIS _liking_, not according to a project's requirements. Sounds like you hate c# just like I hate eggplants... I never tried the thing, but I can't stand even looking at it.
People here would finish 3 projects in C# while you're creating header files for the first.
$$$$
Grow up.
|
|
|
|
|
Slash74 wrote:
Also, you said you wrote your C# application in school. What qualifies you to make the statement "rapid developers often choose quantity over quality"?
Last year I did an internship at a company which developes .NET applications. All the senior programmers in the department I worked in, were complaining about .NET. Not because you can create an app just like that, but because the custumor keeps complaining about how big an slow the apps become.
Back in the days of C++, custumors were complaining about the long development time.
Now I ask you: which do you prefer, custumers who complain about the quality of your product or custumers who complain about the time it took you developing it?
A student knows little about a lot.
A professor knows a lot about little.
I know everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Stanneveld wrote:
Now I ask you: which do you prefer, custumers who complain about the quality of your product or custumers who complain about the time it took you developing it?
So my question to you: do you prefer working at a software company that stays in business because it provides working systems at a reasonable price, or do you prefer working at a software company that goes out of business because all development work takes so long and is so expensive?
|
|
|
|
|
The answer to that question depends on the market your in. If the market demands cheap products, you don't have much choice. But when market is big enough, you can stay in buisness with quality products and move on to .NET when the framework has evolved into a more mature form.
A student knows little about a lot.
A professor knows a lot about little.
I know everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know who you work for or what kind of software you develop, but in today's profit conscious business world, your development philosophy just doesn't make sense. Most employers (with the possible exception of game and real-time developers) would have issues with your spending 3 months developing a 'great' program/utility when a 'good' result could be had in 1 month (including tweaking).
In the 22 years I've been developing software (mostly for large corporate clients), I have found that the client is much more interested in quick, fairly decent, results that can be tweaked; than lengthy, costly results (which will most likely need to be tweaked too).
Just my opinion 
Stefan
|
|
|
|
|
RAD is the name of the game these days. And .NET + C# are where it is at.
I have not give C# the chance it probably deserves. And like some people I have been coding C++ long enough to find C# annoying.
Welcome to the world of competitive development. If you cannot finish the project in a month, they can hire some else who will. 
C++ - Pure, Simple, Makes Sense.
C# - Microsoft's idea of Pure and Simple
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I intend to become a total .Net junky and annoy my friends by touting its virtues day and night, because Microsoft thoughtfully gave me a copy of a tool I could never hope to afford on the wages I can earn here. VB may suck, but I can't beat the price, and VS.Net is priced way beyond my budget. I've gone through the examples, have been appropriately impressed by the ease of use, and look forward to trying out web app development using it. Anything would be better than continuing to struggle with Visual InterDev. I'll be really impressed if I can successfully integrate David's BattleAxe Forums into a ASP.Net site.
Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
|
|
|
|
|
My former boss and I were ".NET evangelists" within our company. We learned C# early, and used it where it really shines (ASP.NET front-end, small ad-hoc applications for XML processing, etc...). However, I would never use it for our core NLP libraries. For them, I need flexibility and power of umanaged C++, and libraries like Boost and Loki give me far more benefits than .NET BCL. For desktop apps, I have mixed feelings, but if I had to start developing a big desktop app at this time, I believe I would go with old, ugly MFC rather than .NET.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
I believe I would go with old, ugly MFC rather than .NET.
I probably wouldn't go with .NET either, but I wouldn't go with MFC, I'd use wxWindows. It's biggest (possibly only??) disadvantage is that there aren't a ton of CodeProject articles on it.
The annoying thing is, even if we get to the point where "everyone" is using .NET and most have the .NET framework on their machines, there will probably be multiple versions. So that headache will never go away.
"Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
|
|
|
|
|
I probably wouldn't go with .NET either, but I wouldn't go with MFC, I'd use wxWindows.
No, no, no, no (shakes head sadly)...wrong answer!
The correct answer (repeat after me):
"I'd use the VCF[^], and make sure to share with everyone I know how truly wonderful, awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping, cracker barrel cool, and just generally terrifically enlightened it is."
Thats the right answer
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
