Re: The Demise of C#

Hello John,

I understand generics fine thank you. Generics have their place. But you
missed my point. And I'm not going to waste anyone's time debating it.

And please point out to me where I called myself a C++ programmer. I am
simply a programmer. I can program in a half-dozen languages, one of which
is C++, although I tend to avoid it. C# is an excellent RAD language, and
when I need to go lower than C# I generally go to C. I can also program in
VB.Net, but tend to avoid it because of the requirements of many of my
applications, which require things not available in VB.Net, like pointers.

No need to get personal, eh?

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.


"John" <John@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:EA0A8BA5-615C-4D7B-B8FA-4E6C0B920B32@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I'm sorry Kevin,
>
> but Option Strict has no bearing on the string concatenation operator in
> VB,
> and the & operator has nothing to do with weak data typing. It is simply a
> syntactical convenience that has no implicit effects (it is explicitly
> stating that both operands are going to be converted to string as
> necessary),
> and the expression, '123 + 456' in C# is not the same as '123 & 456' in
> VB.
> While I agree with you for the most part about the demise of C#, I found
> it
> pretty odd that you do not understand this distinction.
>
> Any C++ programmer who has a poorer understanding of reusability and
> generic
> design than someone who started on VB or C# should not be calling
> themselves
> C++ programmers, for any moron who even half-understands the STL should
> know
> far more about design patterns than anyone who thinks that the .NET
> framework
> library classes are the epitome of object-oriented design.
>
> - John
>
> "Kevin Spencer" wrote:
>
>> > For instance, take the string concatenation operator from VB, &, which
>> > automatically converts the left and right operands to strings and
>> > returns
>> > a
>> > combined string. Why is there no equivalent in C#?
>>
>> +
>>
>> The "ToString() part is simply strong data typing. Try turning Option
>> Strict
>> ON for a change.
>>
>> --
>> *sigh*,
>>
>> Kevin Spencer
>> Microsoft MVP
>> ..Net Developer
>> What You Seek Is What You Get.
>>
>> "John" <John@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:DA9BC3C2-D058-46EF-A5BF-3AABD03AA6AC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >I personally think there are some really great things in VB.NET and it's
>> >a
>> > real crime how C# doesn't implement them. If you ask me, VB.NET is a
>> > better
>> > language for the rapid-application development needs of most .NET
>> > developers.
>> > I still code in C# over VB most of the time, but there are many things
>> > I
>> > envy
>> > in VB that I find lacking in C#.
>> >
>> > For instance, take the string concatenation operator from VB, &, which
>> > automatically converts the left and right operands to strings and
>> > returns
>> > a
>> > combined string. Why is there no equivalent in C#? Sure the '&'
>> > character
>> > would conflict with the bitwise and, but there are plenty of other
>> > symbols
>> > (ex - Lua's '..') that could be used in place, and it's absolutely
>> > silly
>> > that
>> > someone has to write:
>> >
>> > some_string_output_function("Blah blah: " + x.ToString() + ", " +
>> > y.Totring() + " blah blah " + z.ToString + ", " q.ToString() );
>> >
>> > when they could have simply wrote something like:
>> >
>> > some_string_output_function("Blah blah: " .. x .. ", " .. y .. " blah
>> > blah
>> > "
>> > .. z .. ", " .. q);
>> >
>> > There's nothing implicit going on here; the operator has
>> > clearly-defined
>> > behavior. It makes little sense to me why C# does not have things like
>> > this
>> > that would do nothing but make the code a little more readable and
>> > convenient
>> > to write.
>> >
>> > I can understand many of the reasons for C#'s more explicit nature like
>> > requiring explicit casts (safety) and explicitly indicating where you
>> > want
>> > to
>> > use dynamic binding (performance), but it's silly to deprive a language
>> > of
>> > something useful just because it isn't characteristic of the language
>> > from
>> > which it was modeled.
>>
>>
>>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: check for empty Strings
    ... and something else in the empty string case. ... What I disagree with is the idea of doing those checks and exceptions ... explicit checks for the null-ness of a variable. ... the programmer would have to anticipate their own error to add the ...
    (comp.lang.java.help)
  • Re: OT (was: Re: Letter to US Sen. Byron Dorgan re unpaid overtime)
    ... time-complexity involved in repeatedly calculating the length of a string), ... if Jos Horsmeier or Programmer Dude were to state something that I ... You wouldn't know good reasoning if it bit you on the nose (which, ... If you make a mistake and then say "oops", then nobody cares two hoots about ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: [EGN] Hoisting Loop Invariants (Was: Re: [EGN] Numerical Accuracy)
    ... compiler out there somewhere that did as you claim. ... > the programmer has this knowledge, then the programmer should not use ... >> string in a loop, regardless of the blatant inefficiency of doing so. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: How come Ada isnt more popular?
    ... container varies, the element does not. ... The user should be able to describe string type in language terms ... but there are no generics instantiated. ... Implementation inheritance without values ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Why C Is Not My Favourite Programming Language
    ... C has no string type. ... compiler take care of the rest. ... Why does any normal language ... the programmer fail. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
Quantcast