Welcome to Thunderdome

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2005 6:56 pm**

C# = java

Posted: **Mon May 02, 2005 8:11 pm**

Cakedaddy wrote:Keep being Bill's bitch!

But really, not sure what you mean by Fortran and BASIC though. Implying that C++ = Fortran/BASIC? I think that's reaching.

Well, no. Implying that they are all poor tools when compared to the newer languages that exist today.

C++ is on its way out, either through Java or C#.

Posted: **Tue May 03, 2005 12:05 am**

AAAAAaaaaaaaaIIIII don't know (that was a long drawn out 'I' by the way). I don't trust that MS will make C# support the other platforms, mainly Unix/Linux like C++ does. I also don't trust them to make C# as clean as C++ can be. C#/VB/etc are all suppose to compile together? I can't help but think that creates avoidable overhead. Other stuff makes me think C# won't perform as well as C++ given experienced programs at the keyboard. I like that C++ can be optimized to run better, and I'm thinking the MS solution to C# optimization is throwing more hardware at it. . . But, if I was a bettin' man. I'd bet that 25 years from now, C++ is still around, and C# was replaced with something new, as VB is now.

And I still think Java is a fad.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 9:33 am**

Cakedaddy wrote:I think C++ has more long term potential.

How long do you expect your app to be around?

I don't trust anything that's tied to tightly to MS.

I guess you don't write anything specifically to run on Windows, then, do you? After all, they could totally drop support for Windows and then you're fucked.

Some other points:

1. If you're writing an app for MS Windows in C++, it's going to be so full of MFC or other Windows specific code that it would be a PITA to port it to any other platform anyway, so you're pretty much tied to MS in that case anyway.

2. If you're writing an app to be platform-independent, and the app is to have a GUI, you're probably better off writing it in Java, since you won't have to port it at all. Sure, it will be a piece of shit, but it's platform-independent! You won't be tied to MS!

3. C# is enough like Java that a decent translator can convert your C# code to Java, so you might as well write in C# anyway.

Edited By thibodeaux on 1115213647

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 12:45 pm**

Cakedaddy wrote: I also don't trust them to make C# as clean as C++ can be.

What does that mean?

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 1:35 pm**

thibodeaux wrote:I guess you don't write anything specifically to run on Windows, then, do you? After all, they could totally drop support for Windows and then you're fucked.

I've got more k-loc's out there than I can remember... easily over 100,000, but none of it is made to run on Windows.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 3:49 pm**

Being that Win95 is not being supported any more. . . ya, them dropping support of Windows IS a concern!! Luckily, MOST of the stuff that would run in Win95 will also run on XP.

It's not so much how long I think my app will be around, it's how long I want my skill set to be valuable. All the VB experts out there are becoming C#/Jave/C++ experts now. Not saying the ride wasn't worth their while. . . just saying they have to learn new stuff now.

I think Java is good for web applications and stuff. But standalone apps? I believe there are better tools.

As far as C# not being as clean, I was talking about the cross compilation stuff. Unless C# is the cleanest, and the Java/VB/etc code that gets glombed in with it is the part that's loaded with overhead. And, it's not like MS is known for its efficient clean applications. C++ has been molded and created through a large support base. MS made C#. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but I'd bet money that C++ is cleaner, more efficient in the right hands. A great C# programmer would write better apps than a bad C++ programmer. But with equally skills programmers, I think you could make a better running, more efficient C++ app over C#.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 4:37 pm**

Cakedaddy wrote:Being that Win95 is not being supported any more. . . ya, them dropping support of Windows IS a concern!! Luckily, MOST of the stuff that would run in Win95 will also run on XP.

I have SEVERAL $50 video games that say otherwise.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 5:48 pm**

Cakedaddy wrote:It's not so much how long I think my app will be around, it's how long I want my skill set to be valuable. All the VB experts out there are becoming C#/Jave/C++ experts now. Not saying the ride wasn't worth their while. . . just saying they have to learn new stuff now.

I refer you to the previous page:

The survey, which spoke to more than 100 companies, found that C/C++, Visual Basic or Java was used in production systems by 59 percent, 61 percent and 66 percent of companies, respectively.

More VB than C and C++.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 5:50 pm**

Cakedaddy wrote:A great C# programmer would write better apps than a bad C++ programmer. But with equally skills programmers, I think you could make a better running, more efficient C++ app over C#.

With equal skills in their respective languages, a C# programmer would also finish in 50% time. Or less.

Hardware is cheap. I can buy a quad-processor server with globs of ram for less than $10k.

Software is expensive.

Edited By TheCatt on 1115243448

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 9:16 pm**

Not sure what those numbers are telling us. . . more people picked the wrong language? More people picked a language that will be phased out as C# becomes the proprietary language of choice? I've already said that MS has more market share. I'm saying that all those VB people have to learn new skills or go the way of Fortran and Pascal programmers.

If all you are doing is writing software for yourself, and you can afford the hardware, then it'll work out great for you. If you are writing for the masses, you have to figure that people aren't going to want to buy a 10k machine to run your app.

I still think Netware is the better NOS. MS has market share. Go with what's better, or follow the flock?

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 9:58 pm**

Cakedaddy wrote:Go with what's better, or follow the flock?

That depends. Do you want to be pure and brag about how superior your stuff is, or be compatible with (and therefore able to sell to) more people?

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 11:08 pm**

Come on. . . we're talking about C++ vs C# here. That's not going to be an issue either way.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 11:16 pm**

Oh, I thought you were talking about Netware now.

By the way, what's your fetish about "clean" and "efficient?" Why is that your metric? How about "quick" and "cheap?"

And have you actually compared the C# and the C++ code necessary to do a given task?

Edited By thibodeaux on 1115263053

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 11:26 pm**

When you said compatible, I figured you were still talking about software. What's Netware not compatible with?

Because with clean and efficient, you can release software that will run on more PCs. Not just the lastest and greatest. Like Doom3. From what I understand, it ran really really good on older PCs/video cards. I had already upgraded my video card so I could play Far Cry. Doom3 = C++, Far Cry = C# (analogy wise).

I have not. I don't know enough about either to do that. However, I haven't heard very good things about managed stuff. The stuff that suposedly takes care of memory leaks for you. So, it may take fewer lines, but, I think that's where some of the unclean, ineffiencies come from. Too generic and no low level control.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 11:31 pm**

Cakedaddy wrote:When you said compatible, I figured you were still talking about software. What's Netware not compatible with?

Ah hell, I don't know. Forget it.

Because with clean and efficient, you can release software that will run on more PCs. Not just the lastest and greatest.

Ah, so your concern is minimizing cpu and memory use, and so forth? Then we're really probably talking about program design and compiler optimizations, and not the language. You can shoot yourself in the foot in any language.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2005 11:57 pm**

Then we're really probably talking about program design and compiler optimizations,

I agree. And the fact that C# compiles along with VB, etc, implies there's added overhead SOMEPLACE to make different languages work together. Plus, MS hasn't had a good rep as far as compilers go. And thus back to my earlier statement. Given equal programmers, with the tools available, you can do better with C++.

I think, anyways.

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2005 9:27 am**

Cakedaddy wrote:The stuff that suposedly takes care of memory leaks for you.

This is news to me, by the way. We use C# quite a bit in our production systems, and I haven't heard anything about a memory leak. That doesn't mean it's not happening, of course, just that it hasn't been a major issue with us.

Probably because our production boxes have 2GB or RAM or more...

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2005 12:40 pm**

Managed. . . extentions? Managed. . . classes? I don't remember what they are called. But, they are 'better' than C++ because they clean up after themselves. For instance, in C++, if you never delete your classes, they keep eating up more and more RAM. Thus, the leak. Managed Classes know when you are done with them and clean up after themselves. So, you are probably not seeing memory leaks cause the managed stuff is doing it's job. But, that creates overhead because it has to build in the intelligence to know when you are done with them, rather than just being dumb things that do as they are told.

Posted: **Thu May 05, 2005 12:44 pm**

Oh, wait, I misunderstood you. I though you mean there was a leak in the thing that manages memory. Sorry.

I don't think there's any "intelligence" involved in garbage collection, and I suspect the overhead is quite miniscule. It's not exactly new; LISP has had it since 1960-whatever.

Welcome to Thunderdome

I hate TCL/TK