That''s just like saying you can''t do engineering without knowing about Quantum subatomic effects.
Come on people, Computer Science has evolved beyond bit-bashing into something we call Software Engineering.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

It''s about time for someone to stick up to the evil adversaries of Microsoft... hats off to MadKeithV.

And, its true, most of the programmers (IT developers, game programmers) don''t give a flying fuck about whether I can port my program to (insert your choice of OS other than Windows here). Windows (and it''s successor) is and will be too popular and too good.

quote: Original post by ImmaGNUman

Well, if im generally stupid ben, then you lose all wars without US aid and have bad teeth, no offence tho, just a *generalization.*quote]

I have bad teeth. But Russia won WWII.

------------------------------
#pragma twice

sharewaregames.20m.com

Windows is popular, but I dunno about too good, depends on your definition of good.

-----------------------------

A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."

this is from an open letter to ms a few years ago http://www.d6.com/users/checker/openglpr.htm

"We want any 3D API competition to happen on an open technical playing field, with us, the people who actually write the games, deciding which APIs we should and should not use. This open technical competition is healthy for the industry and will result in better games and 3D technology. We recognize Microsoft must take part in creating this technically competitive environment because of their control over the operating system, and we urge the company to be a positive force in doing so by actively supporting OpenGL. The entire PC game industry will benefit as a result. " signed by a lot of the big names in the industry

did ms listen to the game developers then wishes NOPE.
remember ms saying win2000 was gonna come out with opengl1.2 (it didnt) then it was gonna come out with service pack 1 (it didn''t) now they say service pack 2. here is a fact opengl1.2 support has been ready for ages for win2000 ,SGI have done all the work its just ms refuses to release it. why?

what has this to do with c#. lots it''ll go the same way mark my words. to all those who say it doesnt worry me im gonna keep programing in c. what happens if ms refuses to release visualc8 but instead bring out a visualc# and say if you wanna program in windows this is now the only supported language, oh thats ok ill just use borland et al. but will you ?

quote:
That''s just like saying you can''t do engineering without knowing about Quantum subatomic effects. Come on people, Computer Science has evolved beyond bit-bashing into something we call Software.

That''s why Java was invented.

- Daniel
VG Games

Putting all of the .NET financing aside (The frightening concept of artificial scarcity, although what can you expect when bloated companies attempt to fit this world into capitalism and their profit margins somehow), part of what I understood C# to be doesn''t seem to have been mentioned.

Part of the idea (again, as I understand it) is to fit C#''s VM between the OS and the application layers. As a last hope should C# be "imposed" upon us, wouldn''t this mean that efforts could be made to port C#''s VM onto other platforms?

Any thoughts?

quote:
Original Post By MadKeithV

And the Bill Gates cream-pie incident was not funny. This time it was just a pie, but next time it could be a handgrenade. You really shouldn''t even consider it funny, because it was a very dangerous precedent. ( and yes, it happened in Belgium )

No I still think it''s plain funny. The people who threw it at him weren''t in the habit of throwing grenades, in fact they actually make a habit of embarassing famous people. Come on wheres your sense of humour

quote:
Original Post By MadKeithV

It''s also nice to see you skirt around my arguments for COM and C# by completely ignoring them.

Sorry this was unintentional. I just looked back and read your arguments (I must have missed them last time).

What do I think of COM? Well I think COM is a generally good concept. I like the idea of interfaces, and I like the idea of cross-language programming. In fact I have no major quarms with COM. I don''t, however, think it is a decent replacement for multiple inheritance, as someone incinuated previously.

But I don''t think COM makes up for certain inadequecies in C#. Like no templates, or multiple inheritance. Also I find the fact that they left the :: operator out of C# puzzles me; to me this adds confusion rather than simplifies things. I would feel more comfortable knowing what is an instance and what is a member definition.

Yes, C# has incorporated some nice things which would be essential in modern languages. I know that C++ came out a while ago (around 1980 when C w/Classes came out, and I think 84 when C++ came out), and I know that the language isn''t fast to develop in. But I can''t bear the thought of C# being proprietry as well as being used more than C++ because Microsoft will gain ALOT of control. They already try and change standards. Hell until COM they hadn''t even heard of standards.

So to conclude, I think COM is a good idea, but I will say this again: I think C# -
a) doesn''t incorporate enough features to become a whole new language, in fact leaves too many features out.
b) Is MS owned and therefore in their total control; it sends a chill down my spine.
c) is trying to be everything at once and not doing too well. Who wants a medium between VB and C++? Its like the IMac. It tries to be everything in one.

-\Lucas/-

okay, now I''m agreeing with you, Lucas:

1. COM.
COM''s way of getting rid of multiple inheritance is debateable, but it''s a very old unsolved argument: many proponents of Object Oriented programming believe Multiple Inheritance is pure evil. Java doesn''t support it for instance, and it DOES raise a whole load of compiler issues as well ( though that''s generally a very bad argument against a language. Compilers SHOULD work hard. )
Interfaces ~ multiple inheritance can be interchanged in some instances, but it''s not definately not the same thing under a different name. One of the main problems with COM is that BECAUSE of the interfaces, you have to reimplement nearly all functionality of a previous interface, unless you use aggregation, and that, again, is more like a hack than a solution.

2. C#''s missing features.
I shall not lament the passing of multiple inheritance. Leaving out templates is an unforgiveable mistake for real performance programming though. I guess Microsoft''s compiler staff is just too bad to get their template stuff working properly, where Borland''s seem to have done just fine for a free compiler ( I have no idea about the state of templates in Linux compilers. )
I''m a big fan of templates and generic programming. Not having it in C# will probably stop me from using it to develop any kind of code library. It doesn''t work that way.


If C# had been an open standard, it might have gotten somewhere. Adding an open version of COM, and a VM, and some templates, and you''d have OpenC++ or something like that, and that would have been a good thing.
But in the end, we''re probably all just waiting for Microsoft to show their good old bad side again and do all the wrong things with C#....



Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

Yes I competely agree with what you''re saying.

I don''t think COM''s way of getting rid of MI was that good. MI although confusing can be alot quicker to set up because you don''t have to initialize everything like in an interface. I know Java doesn''t support MI, but then again it doesn''t support polymorphism either (well not really).

I think C#''s missing features are a fatal error of judgement in Microsoft''s case because there''s no point in leaving out features just so programmers don''t hurt themselves. It also baffles me beause if they left templates in, then the ''speed of development'' that is really important in C# would be accelerated by lots because generic programming is just so reusable. It''s very hard to make reusable code, and templates help greatly.

It would be very nice if there was an open COM with an interpreter. Instead of C# being a new language, perhaps MS should have concentrated on an improved COM SDK that supported cross-languages even better and could be used over many platforms.

In my opinion, C# need not have even been a language, because with the aid of COM it is all the more easier to use C++ and Visual Basic and Assembly, so you shouldn''t hae to use an in-the-middle language. It is not really required. C# kinda reminds me of Delphi. Delphi was publicised as being: to quote Borland "The power of C++ with the ease of use of Visual Basic". Sound Familiar? Of course I think C# is angled at being a tad more powerful than Delphi because of its more tight integration with C++.

Lucas