You''re exactly right. Java was Sun owned and therefore set the standards by which other companies had to follow. MS figure if they rebadge a language similar to Java but platform dependant then they can set the standards that the OTHER people follow. Basically MS don''t like not being in control.

Plus, as I said before: C# isn''t different enough to warrant the making of another language. What are we to do as programmers? As if the millions of APIs you must learn and languages you must learn weren''t enough, now they tell us to forget about stuff we''ve studied for ages, to forget about pointers and the scope resolution operator (: among other things, and to learn Microsofts ''special'' language that is really great because...wow...everything is a COM object, and wow, XML is better integrated with it.

I want justice damnit!

Okay, I''m getting REALLY tired of reiterating this, so
WILL YOU ALL LISTEN GODDAMMIT!

1. C# is targeted at ENTERPRISE DEVELOPERS . Side note: Quake MCMXXXLV is NOT an enterprise development, they couldn''t care less about the inability to bitwise manipulate the 14th SSE2 register from C#.

2. Quote from microsoft.com:
It''s a little like taking all the good stuff in Visual Basic® and adding it to C++, while trimming off some of the more arcane C and C++ traditions. . You can say it all you want like it''s a bad thing, but it IS meant to look like Visual Basic, and Microsoft has a firm belief that that is a GOOD thing. So do the hundreds of ENTERPRISE DEVELOPERS that are using Visual Basic.

3. It''s integrated with COM+. This is a Good Thing(tm), for ENTERPRISE DEVELOPERS ( I think some of you are seeing the light here, yes, I definately do. ). COM is a great technology for distributed, resistant, scaleable systems. Enterprise, database, boring stuff that takes a long time and makes a lot of money. ( Did I just see some of you lose interest in C# for the right reasons? )

4. Dumping Multiple Inheritance.
You''ve got COM, what are you worrying about? COM makes these sacrifices, and more than makes up for them with its consistency and interface system. It''s not perfect, but I like using it.

5. "Dumping features sucks".
You wouldn''t happen to be the same people constantly touting their L33T 4SS3MBL3R SK1LLZ? Assembler has FAR less features than C++, and is yet still considered more powerful by a lot of low-level programmers. Features != power. Oh, and if you REALLY want to know - it has been proven that even a Turing Machine can do any operation of any modern computer. If you don''t know what a Turing Machine is, come back when you know.



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.

quote: Original post by MadKeithV

Okay, I''m getting REALLY tired of reiterating this, so
WILL YOU ALL LISTEN GODDAMMIT!

1. C# is targeted at ENTERPRISE DEVELOPERS . Side note: Quake MCMXXXLV is NOT an enterprise development, they couldn''t care less about the inability to bitwise manipulate the 14th SSE2 register from C#.

2. Quote from microsoft.com:
It''s a little like taking all the good stuff in Visual Basic® and adding it to C++, while trimming off some of the more arcane C and C++ traditions. . You can say it all you want like it''s a bad thing, but it IS meant to look like Visual Basic, and Microsoft has a firm belief that that is a GOOD thing. So do the hundreds of ENTERPRISE DEVELOPERS that are using Visual Basic.

So basically you are saying that this is a Better Visual Basic rather than a toned down C++?

I basically don''t think that you have a right to yell at the people here though, because they are all having a very decent discussion. Yes it''s very opinionated, but any discussion such as this is gonna be that. I think that EVERYONE here has a right to an opinion because there are people here that do more than just games. Some of them even make a living as ENTERPRISE DEVELOPERS and are only HOBBY game programmers.

By the way, just because

quote: Microsoft has a firm belief that that is a GOOD thing.

doesn''t mean that it IS a GOOD thing.



BeS
It's Da BOMB Baby!!!

Does C# has pointers ?

Arun

So I read a little more about C# and I find some of the claims on pointers very ironic. They claim simplicity by getting rid of pointers in a mode called ''safe''. In safe mode you can''t do the fun things like casting a float pointer to an int pointer and overwriting array bounds.
The ironic point is that in order to use APIs like the windows api, you need pointers. According to what I read, in order to use most of the windows API, you have to leave safe mode. By forcing the switches between safe and unsafe mode, I feel they are overcomplicating matters, instead of ''simplifying''. The whole MS arguement is that C# doesn''t need pointers....but it really does? I could be misunderstanding this, and if so I hope someone corrects me.


I do NOT think that c# is to replace JAVA. c# may not have been invented if MS were allowed to proprietarly extend java, but Java''s main purpose was compile once, run anywhere. Although C# is techniquelly an ''open'' standard, MS was able to get away with this by basically only supporting C# for .NET programms. Even Sun doesn''t see c# as a threat (so I''ve read).

Mike

There are no pointers in C#.

From Presenting C#, chapter 1 (available at www.informit.com)

"The last paragraph of the previous section might have raised an alert with C programmers. You might ask, "Aren''t there APIs to which I have to pass a pointer?" You are right. There are not only a few such APIs, but quite a large number (a small understatement). This access to native WIN32 code sometimes makes using unsafe classic pointers mandatory (although some of it can be handled by the support of COM and PInvoke).

Although the default for C# code is safe mode, you can declare certain classes or only methods of classes to be unsafe. This declaration enables you to use pointers, structs, and statically allocated arrays. Both safe code and unsafe code run in the managed space, which implies that no marshaling is incurred when calling unsafe code from safe code.

What are the implications of dealing with your own memory in unsafemode? Well, the garbage collector, of course, may not touch your memory locations and move them just as it does for managed code. Unsafe variables are pinned into the memory block managed by the garbage collector."

So yes, there are pointers, but only in ''unsafe'' mode. I''m glad simplicity really was a high priority.

Mike

I wonder how many programmers that use C# would be declaring most lines unsafe?

I knew it, I told everyone the Win32 API was unsafe, they wouldn''t listen...

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

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

quote: Original post by wrenhal
So basically you are saying that this is a Better Visual Basic rather than a toned down C++?

No, Microsoft is saying that, and it''s both.

quote: Original post by wrenhal
I basically don''t think that you have a right to yell at the people here though, because they are all having a very decent discussion. Yes it''s very opinionated, but any discussion such as this is gonna be that. I think that EVERYONE here has a right to an opinion because there are people here that do more than just games. Some of them even make a living as ENTERPRISE DEVELOPERS and are only HOBBY game programmers

Ermm, I am one of those people, which is why I''m terribly annoyed at the opinionated discussion. C# does NOT suck for 60% of the applications that I''m required to develop, and I''m getting really sick of people dragging up phoney or misled arguments to claim that it completely sucks across the board.
And no, there is NO reason why any decent discussion should be opinionated, because any decent discussion is based on facts only, which is also what I''ve been VERY careful about ! I have only presented facts from Microsoft''s own documentation of C#. Never once did I make anything up or assume anything.

quote: Original post by wrenhal

By the way, just because
Microsoft has a firm belief that that is a GOOD thing doesn''t mean that it IS a GOOD thing.

And where exactly did I make any allusion to any belief on my part that this was otherwise? You''re a good man if you can find it, because I sure can''t.




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.