microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd - C# What do you think?

Author

C# What do you think?

Max Anon

2002-07-01, 7:25 am

I'm thinking of learning C#. Anyone used it ? what do you think? will it
be popular ?

I'm trying to get a feel for the takup on it. Will Java win out? Is
Microsoft just using it as a bully tactic?

Any comments welcome

Cheers

Max

Alexis

2002-07-01, 10:25 am

You should learn C#. It's the language of the future for MS. MS will use
this language as a standard.
In my opinion, VB.NET was created for conversion from old VB code. If you do
not need to convert any old VB programs, you should use C# then.

Sam Smith

2002-07-01, 9:25 pm

I disagree a little here. But it depends what you use. C# and VB.NET are
almost identical languages once you look though the syntax. If you're a VB
programmer learn VB.NET, and if you're a C programmer learn C#. If at a
later stage you find you need to learn the other half (VB.NET or C#), you'll
find it really easy.

"Alexis" <cato628@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:usgwiURICHA.2212@tkmsftngp12...
> You should learn C#. It's the language of the future for MS. MS will use
> this language as a standard.
> In my opinion, VB.NET was created for conversion from old VB code. If you
do
> not need to convert any old VB programs, you should use C# then.
>
>
>

getahead

2002-07-02, 6:25 am

If they are almost identical languages, why not learn C# instead of VB.NET
then?
Lots of VB programmers are already making a move to C#, and I don't think
there are many c++ programmers moving to vb.net...

Tim

2002-07-02, 9:25 am

"getahead" <getahead@your_future.net> wrote in message
news:OzmwgBcICHA.2604@tkmsftngp11...
> If they are almost identical languages, why not learn C# instead of VB.NET
> then?

I would say it's not possible to really learn VB.NET and not learn C# at the
same time. There are a handful of real differences, but they really aren't
very complicated. If you toggle between VB.NET and C# code in the online
help or www.gotdotnet.com example code, in many cases the *only* differences
is semicolons appearing or disappearing at the end of each line.

It really doesn't matter whether you use VB or C#. I will be very suspicious
of anyone who claims expertise with one but an inability to use the other.
This is one big clue about the recent 'analyst survey' about the costs of
migrating existing VB code to Visual Studio.NET - they claim moving to C#
will be significantly more expensive than moving to VB.NET. I think that's
an ignorant claim.

Do Quyet Tien

2002-07-02, 10:25 am

Why u should learn C#?

- It's .NET language (like C is Windows' language in the past)
- Brand new and really cool, so easier to learn than VB.NET (with much
changing from VB)

"Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
news:P68U8.2559$7G4.377464@news.xtra.co.nz...
> I disagree a little here. But it depends what you use. C# and VB.NET are
> almost identical languages once you look though the syntax. If you're a VB
> programmer learn VB.NET, and if you're a C programmer learn C#. If at a
> later stage you find you need to learn the other half (VB.NET or C#),
you'll
> find it really easy.
>
> "Alexis" <cato628@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:usgwiURICHA.2212@tkmsftngp12...
> > You should learn C#. It's the language of the future for MS. MS will use
> > this language as a standard.
> > In my opinion, VB.NET was created for conversion from old VB code. If
you
> do
> > not need to convert any old VB programs, you should use C# then.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Sam Smith

2002-07-02, 3:25 pm

I don't think that learning C# is any harder than VB.NET. I'm currently
learnnig both and the only real difference? C# has annoying semicolons, and
C# is case senstive, which is a pain in the XXX compared to VB.NET.

"Do Quyet Tien" <tiendo@24mb.com> wrote in message
news:uY83qHeICHA.2480@tkmsftngp10...
> Why u should learn C#?
>
> - It's .NET language (like C is Windows' language in the past)
> - Brand new and really cool, so easier to learn than VB.NET (with much
> changing from VB)
>
> "Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:P68U8.2559$7G4.377464@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > I disagree a little here. But it depends what you use. C# and VB.NET are
> > almost identical languages once you look though the syntax. If you're a
VB
> > programmer learn VB.NET, and if you're a C programmer learn C#. If at a
> > later stage you find you need to learn the other half (VB.NET or C#),
> you'll
> > find it really easy.
> >
> > "Alexis" <cato628@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> > news:usgwiURICHA.2212@tkmsftngp12...
> > > You should learn C#. It's the language of the future for MS. MS will
use[c
olor=darkred]
> > > this language as a standard.
> > > In my opinion, VB.NET was created for conversion from old VB code. If
> you
> > do
> > > not need to convert any old VB programs, you should use C# then.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>[/color]

Glenn D. Crosse

2002-07-02, 3:25 pm

C# has two other big advantages.
The first is porting in snippets of code from Java etc.
The second is it is easier to read code from C++ and Java and then switch
over to a C# window and keep the train of thought going.
I find it distracting to switch between VB and other languages.
Glenn
"Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
news:J_nU8.2897$7G4.407074@news.xtra.co.nz...
> I don't think that learning C# is any harder than VB.NET. I'm currently
> learnnig both and the only real difference? C# has annoying semicolons,
and
> C# is case senstive, which is a pain in the XXX compared to VB.NET.
>
> "Do Quyet Tien" <tiendo@24mb.com> wrote in message
> news:uY83qHeICHA.2480@tkmsftngp10...
> > Why u should learn C#?
> >
> > - It's .NET language (like C is Windows' language in the past)
> > - Brand new and really cool, so easier to learn than VB.NET (with much
> > changing from VB)
> >
> > "Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:P68U8.2559$7G4.377464@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > > I disagree a little here. But it depends what you use. C# and VB.NET
are[c
olor=darkred]
> > > almost identical languages once you look though the syntax. If you're[/color]
a
> VB

> > > programmer learn VB.NET, and if you're a C programmer learn C#. If at
a[col
or=darkred]
> > > later stage you find you need to learn the other half (VB.NET or C#),
> > you'll
> > > find it really easy.
> > >
> > > "Alexis" <cato628@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:usgwiURICHA.2212@tkmsftngp12...
> > > > You should learn C#. It's the language of the future for MS. MS will
> use
> > > > this language as a standard.
> > > > In my opinion, VB.NET was created for conversion from old VB code.[/color]
If
> > you
> > > do
> > > > not need to convert any old VB programs, you should use C# then.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Jason Mauss

2002-07-02, 10:25 pm

One thing you are all neglecting to note is the REAL differences between the
two languages and the support they receive from the .NET CLR . First, you
can't use XML Comments directly in your code in VB.NET. You can still
provide comments for your methods, classes, etc. but it's not nearly as easy
to do as in C#. Also, C# produces slightly more efficient IL. There are more
than just that but, thought I would mention those.

I have picked up VB.NET easily just by learning C# and the framework
classes. It has also made reading Java and C, C++ code easier to understand.

----jason
www.vsdotnetguru.com

"Glenn D. Crosse" <glenncrosse@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eH$TizgICHA.1604@tkmsftngp12...
> C# has two other big advantages.
> The first is porting in snippets of code from Java etc.
> The second is it is easier to read code from C++ and Java and then switch
> over to a C# window and keep the train of thought going.
> I find it distracting to switch between VB and other languages.
> Glenn
> "Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:J_nU8.2897$7G4.407074@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > I don't think that learning C# is any harder than VB.NET. I'm currently
> > learnnig both and the only real difference? C# has annoying semicolons,
> and
> > C# is case senstive, which is a pain in the XXX compared to VB.NET.
> >
> > "Do Quyet Tien" <tiendo@24mb.com> wrote in message
> > news:uY83qHeICHA.2480@tkmsftngp10...
> > > Why u should learn C#?
> > >
> > > - It's .NET language (like C is Windows' language in the past)
> > > - Brand new and really cool, so easier to learn than VB.NET (with much
> > > changing from VB)
> > >
> > > "Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:P68U8.2559$7G4.377464@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > > > I disagree a little here. But it depends what you use. C# and VB.NET
> are
> > > > almost identical languages once you look though the syntax. If
you're
> a
> > VB
> > > > programmer learn VB.NET, and if you're a C programmer learn C#. If
at
> a
> > > > later stage you find you need to learn the other half (VB.NET or
C#),[
color=darkred]
> > > you'll
> > > > find it really easy.
> > > >
> > > > "Alexis" <cato628@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:usgwiURICHA.2212@tkmsftngp12...
> > > > > You should learn C#. It's the language of the future for MS. MS[/color]
will
> > use
> > > > > this language as a standard.
> > > > > In my opinion, VB.NET was created for conversion from old VB code.
> If

> > > you
> > > > do
> > > > > not need to convert any old VB programs, you should use C# then.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Max Anon

2002-07-03, 2:25 am

Hey thanks for all the feedback.
Its been really useful. I have just booked my first course in C# thanks to
you lot

.

I'll also checkout VB.net as soon as I've got a bit of C# under my belt.

Cheers

Max
"Max Anon" <Max_anon@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1025527677.8629.0.nnrp-13.c2de3c70@news.demon.co.uk...
> I'm thinking of learning C#. Anyone used it ? what do you think? will
it
> be popular ?
>
> I'm trying to get a feel for the takup on it. Will Java win out? Is
> Microsoft just using it as a bully tactic?
>
> Any comments welcome
>
> Cheers
>
> Max
>
>

Jamie

2002-07-03, 5:25 am

> I'll also checkout VB.net as soon as I've got a bit of C# under my belt.
>
Why? They are essentially the same, they only differ in syntax and C# can
embedded unmanaged C++ code...

Jamie

Tim

2002-07-03, 9:25 am

"Jason Mauss" <JasonMauss@vsdotnetguru.com> wrote in message
news:udWaNFkICHA.1124@tkmsftngp10...
> Also, C# produces slightly more efficient IL.

Do you know of any examples of this?

Not that I put much weight on that kind of detail - I'm a C++ programmer,
but imo performance is not a problem with decent VB6 code.

Sam Smith

2002-07-03, 2:25 pm

theres no harm in making sure you have both languages under your belt,
especially since they are both so similar. Who knows what you next employer
will want!?!?!

"Jamie" <jamcquay@hotmail.BOOM.com> wrote in message
news:afum6s$24h$1@news1.xs4all.nl...
>
> > I'll also checkout VB.net as soon as I've got a bit of C# under my belt.
> >
> Why? They are essentially the same, they only differ in syntax and C# can
> embedded unmanaged C++ code...
>
> Jamie
>
>

Sam Smith

2002-07-03, 2:25 pm

Actually I don't think it does. If you write the same code in VB.NET and C#
it gets compiled to the same Common Runtime, and is therefore the same
code+performance!

"Jason Mauss" <JasonMauss@vsdotnetguru.com> wrote in message
news:udWaNFkICHA.1124@tkmsftngp10...
> One thing you are all neglecting to note is the REAL differences between
the
> two languages and the support they receive from the .NET CLR . First, you
> can't use XML Comments directly in your code in VB.NET. You can still
> provide comments for your methods, classes, etc. but it's not nearly as
easy
> to do as in C#. Also, C# produces slightly more efficient IL. There are
more
> than just that but, thought I would mention those.
>
> I have picked up VB.NET easily just by learning C# and the framework
> classes. It has also made reading Java and C, C++ code easier to
understand.
>
> ----jason
> www.vsdotnetguru.com
>
> "Glenn D. Crosse" <glenncrosse@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:eH$TizgICHA.1604@tkmsftngp12...
> > C# has two other big advantages.
> > The first is porting in snippets of code from Java etc.
> > The second is it is easier to read code from C++ and Java and then
switch
> > over to a C# window and keep the train of thought going.
> > I find it distracting to switch between VB and other languages.
> > Glenn
> > "Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:J_nU8.2897$7G4.407074@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > > I don't think that learning C# is any harder than VB.NET. I'm
currently
> > > learnnig both and the only real difference? C# has annoying
semicolons,
> > and
> > > C# is case senstive, which is a pain in the XXX compared to VB.NET.
> > >
> > > "Do Quyet Tien" <tiendo@24mb.com> wrote in message
> > > news:uY83qHeICHA.2480@tkmsftngp10...
> > > > Why u should learn C#?
> > > >
> > > > - It's .NET language (like C is Windows' language in the past)
> > > > - Brand new and really cool, so easier to learn than VB.NET (with
much[
color=darkred]
> > > > changing from VB)
> > > >
> > > > "Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > news:P68U8.2559$7G4.377464@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > > > > I disagree a little here. But it depends what you use. C# and[/color]
VB.NET
> > are
> > > > > almost identical languages once you look though the syntax. If
> you're
> > a
> > > VB
> > > > > programmer learn VB.NET, and if you're a C programmer learn C#. If
> at
> > a
> > > > > later stage you find you need to learn the other half (VB.NET or
> C#),
> > > > you'll
> > > > > find it really easy.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Alexis" <cato628@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:usgwiURICHA.2212@tkmsftngp12...
> > > > > > You should learn C#. It's the language of the future for MS. MS
> will
> > > use
> > > > > > this language as a standard.
> > > > > > In my opinion, VB.NET was created for conversion from old VB
code.
> > If
> > > > you
> > > > > do
> > > > > > not need to convert any old VB programs, you should use C# then.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Jason Mauss

2002-07-03, 9:25 pm

Actually C# DOES produce slightly different IL. Notice there is no
Microsoft.VisualBasic namespace that applies to C# code (in general). I also
believe VB.NET has to box and unbox certain types that C# doesn't have to.
I'm not 100% sure on that but I think it's true.

----Jason

"Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
news:8WIU8.3192$7G4.493935@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Actually I don't think it does. If you write the same code in VB.NET and
C#
> it gets compiled to the same Common Runtime, and is therefore the same
> code+performance!
>
> "Jason Mauss" <JasonMauss@vsdotnetguru.com> wrote in message
> news:udWaNFkICHA.1124@tkmsftngp10...
> > One thing you are all neglecting to note is the REAL differences between
> the
> > two languages and the support they receive from the .NET CLR . First,
you
> > can't use XML Comments directly in your code in VB.NET. You can still
> > provide comments for your methods, classes, etc. but it's not nearly as
> easy
> > to do as in C#. Also, C# produces slightly more efficient IL. There are
> more
> > than just that but, thought I would mention those.
> >
> > I have picked up VB.NET easily just by learning C# and the framework
> > classes. It has also made reading Java and C, C++ code easier to
> understand.
> >
> > ----jason
> > www.vsdotnetguru.com
> >
> > "Glenn D. Crosse" <glenncrosse@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:eH$TizgICHA.1604@tkmsftngp12...
> > > C# has two other big advantages.
> > > The first is porting in snippets of code from Java etc.
> > > The second is it is easier to read code from C++ and Java and then
> switch
> > > over to a C# window and keep the train of thought going.
> > > I find it distracting to switch between VB and other languages.
> > > Glenn
> > > "Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:J_nU8.2897$7G4.407074@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > > > I don't think that learning C# is any harder than VB.NET. I'm
> currently
> > > > learnnig both and the only real difference? C# has annoying
> semicolons,[color
=darkred]
> > > and
> > > > C# is case senstive, which is a pain in the XXX compared to VB.NET.
> > > >
> > > > "Do Quyet Tien" <tiendo@24mb.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:uY83qHeICHA.2480@tkmsftngp10...
> > > > > Why u should learn C#?
> > > > >
> > > > > - It's .NET language (like C is Windows' language in the past)
> > > > > - Brand new and really cool, so easier to learn than VB.NET (with
> much
> > > > > changing from VB)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > news:P68U8.2559$7G4.377464@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > > > > > I disagree a little here. But it depends what you use. C# and
> VB. NET
> > > are
> > > > > > almost identical languages once you look though the syntax. If
> > you're
> > > a
> > > > VB
> > > > > > programmer learn VB.NET, and if you're a C programmer learn C#.[/color]
If
> > at
> > > a
> > > > > > later stage you find you need to learn the other half (VB.NET or
> > C#),
> > > > > you'll
> > > > > > find it really easy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Alexis" <cato628@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:usgwiURICHA.2212@tkmsftngp12...
> > > > > > > You should learn C#. It's the language of the future for MS.
MS
> > will
> > > > use
> > > > > > > this language as a standard.
> > > > > > > In my opinion, VB.NET was created for conversion from old VB
> code.
> > > If
> > > > > you
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > not need to convert any old VB programs, you should use C#
then. [colo
r=darkred]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>[/color]

Tim

2002-07-03, 10:25 pm

Assumptions about optimization are the root of a great deal of evil.

Certainly VB code using the VisualBasic namespace will be different than
*similar* code using other libraries. But for one thing, it appears that you
are assuming the VisualBasic approach will be less efficient.

The theory or rumor or whatever it is you're going on should not be
difficult to prove. ILDASM output is pretty easy to follow even without any
reference for looking things up. And it's even simpler if all you're looking
for is whether the statements executed by VBTest.exe are different than
equivalent code in CSharpTest.exe. When you find such cases, I think the
most likely explanation is that the source code really isn't the same. For
cases where the source code really only differs in punctuation, it's still
unwise to assume one is more efficient. More instructions aren't necessarily
slower than fewer instructions, for example. The best guide is a stopwatch
(or memory usage monitor, or some other kind of instrumentation -
'efficient' is a very versatile term).

I suspect that any code that is so speed sensitive as to raise concerns
about VB.Net vs C# compilers should not be implemented in a managed
environment at all.

"Jason Mauss" <JasonMauss@vsdotnetguru.com> wrote in message
news:e1VemMwICHA.668@tkmsftngp09...
> Actually C# DOES produce slightly different IL. Notice there is no
> Microsoft.VisualBasic namespace that applies to C# code (in general). I
also
> believe VB.NET has to box and unbox certain types that C# doesn't have to.
> I'm not 100% sure on that but I think it's true.

Sam Smith

2002-07-03, 11:25 pm

hmms yes i agree. But it would stop these stupid arguments if someone
actually released a paper that proved one was faster than the other, or they
were in fact as fast as each other as microsoft claims.

(bloody microsoft marketing bullshite)

"Tim" <spammers@begone> wrote in message
news:#BvOoBxICHA.2472@tkmsftngp11...
> Assumptions about optimization are the root of a great deal of evil.
>
> Certainly VB code using the VisualBasic namespace will be different than
> *similar* code using other libraries. But for one thing, it appears that
you
> are assuming the VisualBasic approach will be less efficient.
>
> The theory or rumor or whatever it is you're going on should not be
> difficult to prove. ILDASM output is pretty easy to follow even without
any
> reference for looking things up. And it's even simpler if all you're
looking
> for is whether the statements executed by VBTest.exe are different than
> equivalent code in CSharpTest.exe. When you find such cases, I think the
> most likely explanation is that the source code really isn't the same. For
> cases where the source code really only differs in punctuation, it's still
> unwise to assume one is more efficient. More instructions aren't
necessarily
> slower than fewer instructions, for example. The best guide is a stopwatch
> (or memory usage monitor, or some other kind of instrumentation -
> 'efficient' is a very versatile term).
>
> I suspect that any code that is so speed sensitive as to raise concerns
> about VB.Net vs C# compilers should not be implemented in a managed
> environment at all.
>
> "Jason Mauss" <JasonMauss@vsdotnetguru.com> wrote in message
> news:e1VemMwICHA.668@tkmsftngp09...
> > Actually C# DOES produce slightly different IL. Notice there is no
> > Microsoft.VisualBasic namespace that applies to C# code (in general). I
> also
> > believe VB.NET has to box and unbox certain types that C# doesn't have
to.
> > I'm not 100% sure on that but I think it's true.
>
>
>

Max Anon

2002-07-04, 2:25 am

I am a contractor after all !

Max
"Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
news:8VIU8.3191$7G4.493885@news.xtra.co.nz...
> theres no harm in making sure you have both languages under your belt,
> especially since they are both so similar. Who knows what you next
employer
> will want!?!?!
>
> "Jamie" <jamcquay@hotmail.BOOM.com> wrote in message
> news:afum6s$24h$1@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >
> > > I'll also checkout VB.net as soon as I've got a bit of C# under my
belt. [colo
r=darkred]
> > >
> > Why? They are essentially the same, they only differ in syntax and C#[/color]
can
> > embedded unmanaged C++ code...
> >
> > Jamie
> >
> >
>
>

RichardJW

2002-07-04, 6:05 pm

quote:
Actually I don't think it does. If you write the same code in VB.NET and C#
it gets compiled to the same Common Runtime, and is therefore the same
code+performance!

No. C# is quicker - but both seem pretty slow to me. Do you know that of all the code you write, only about 5% of it actually executes compared to the bulk which is library functions and similiar? So it hardly seems to matter either way. Performance is important but an important issue amongst many. Go for the C# over VB .NET if you're undecided.

Sam Smith

2002-07-16, 7:25 pm

I'd almost consider that a reason.

"Jamie" <jamcquay@hotmail.BOOM.com> wrote in message
news:afum6s$24h$1@news1.xs4all.nl...
>
> > I'll also checkout VB.net as soon as I've got a bit of C# under my belt.
> >
> Why? They are essentially the same, they only differ in syntax and C# can
> embedded unmanaged C++ code...
>
> Jamie
>
>

diala

2002-07-31, 2:25 am

I'm thinking of learning C#. Anyone used it ? what do you think? will
it
be popular ?

I'm trying to get a feel for the takup on it. Will Java win out? Is
Microsoft just using it as a bully tactic?

Any comments welcome

AlexS

2002-07-31, 9:25 am

While environment is better than most of currently existing one
(technologically and in design), I think it will be slow in adoption - MS
tactics are questionable at the very least and framework is not yet fully
mature - e.g. WebServices or WebForms - it works, but not as good as should.
But I wouldn't bet on Java too - it's just another language with specific
limitations

In nearest future both will coexist and fight each other - so, what do you
want? to gamble or develop? Language choice is task dependent - for each
task you can find its own best language...

IMHO

"diala" <diala_r@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4792ac7b.0207310002.45d5333@posting.google.com...
> I'm thinking of learning C#. Anyone used it ? what do you think? will
> it
> be popular ?
>
> I'm trying to get a feel for the takup on it. Will Java win out? Is
> Microsoft just using it as a bully tactic?
>
> Any comments welcome

Helen C. O'Boyle

2002-07-31, 6:25 pm

Alex/Diala/others,

Alex, You raised the question of platform maturity. One of the nicest
things I can say about the .Net Framework, is that it's *quite* mature for a
1.0 technology.

Certainly, comparing .Net 1.0 with java at a similar point in its evolution,
shows .Net to be far more evolved in terms of distributed processing (Web
Services mainly, but also COM interop), user interface development
(WinForms), database interfaces, etc. than early java versions were. For
me, this means I can use it to develop real-world applications today, with a
reasonable expectation that I'll be able to produce working apps... as
opposed to in the java world, where the platform's first handful of years
were marked with promises of what would be implemented/standardized/fixed in
upcoming versions.

What room do I have to talk about this? Among other things, I did
early-adopter support/debugging for the java-based client side of an
enterprise product, for several years. Yes, the early-adopter timeframe
lasted several years, because of difficulty stabilizing the product, mostly
due to run-time issues. The java run-time kept morphing, and the product's
code had to keep changing to match the changing API's and underlying
run-time functionality. Similarly, things that had to work reliably for
business apps in a traditional IT/data-driven environment just didn't -- for
example, only recently has the JRE gotten its field navigation/focus issues
close to ironed out. Thus, we had to spend more time chasing bugs, and the
dev had to spend more time learning the JRE internals enough to work around
obscure issues. Seriously, it has taken a LONG time for java to approach
the level of production stability .Net already has.

The bright side for people just getting into one or the other today, is that
java's past most of its major growing pains... and that .Net has avoided
many of those that plagued java. As you say, savvy developers will continue
to evaluate languages/frameworks on their usefulness, and both .Net and the
java platform have their uses.

On the topic of which language... Diala, why not learn at least a bit about
both? Many developers have multiple languages in their toolkit. This can
give you an advantage over others, because you can choose what tools to use
to develop an application based on what's technically best suited for the
project, rather than advocating a specific platform merely because it's the
one you know. For example, right now, if you want to work on UNIX as well
as Windows, java is likely to be a better choice. But in the future, with
the release of the .Net framework (or a clone of it, in the open source
tradition) for other platforms, this may change.

Also, be aware of the communities that use each of these languages. I've
seen java in use in dot-com environments, typical internal IT shops of large
companies, third-party development shops, and academia. C#, I've seen in
dot-coms, third-party development shops and academia. Typical IT shops
investigating .Net seem to be gravitating more toward VB.Net if they have a
history with VB (as most considering .Net seem to). So while in the java
world, there is one language to bring them all and in the darkness (or Sun
light) bind them, in the .Net world, the language you use depends a bit on
the community in which you're working. Fortunately, there's not a big
learning curve between C# and VB.Net once you know one or the other.

On the topic of .Net vs. java.... Anyone remember Netscape Navigator's
dominance? The pace of innovation in .Net looks not unlike that I remember
with IE once Microsoft got serious about the Internet. Nuff said.
--
* Helen *

"AlexS" < salexru2000NO@SPAMhotmailPLEAS
E.com> wrote in message
news:OzwyrBKOCHA.2196@tkmsftngp08...
> While environment is better than most of currently existing one
> (technologically and in design), I think it will be slow in adoption - MS
> tactics are questionable at the very least and framework is not yet fully
> mature - e.g. WebServices or WebForms - it works, but not as good as
should.
> But I wouldn't bet on Java too - it's just another language with specific
> limitations
>
> In nearest future both will coexist and fight each other - so, what do you
> want? to gamble or develop? Language choice is task dependent - for each
> task you can find its own best language...
>
> IMHO
>
> "diala" <diala_r@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4792ac7b.0207310002.45d5333@posting.google.com...
> > I'm thinking of learning C#. Anyone used it ? what do you think? will
> > it
> > be popular ?
> >
> > I'm trying to get a feel for the takup on it. Will Java win out? Is
> > Microsoft just using it as a bully tactic?
> >
> > Any comments welcome
>
>

Richard Warwick

2002-08-02, 6:25 pm

"On the topic of .Net vs. java.... Anyone remember Netscape Navigator's
dominance? The pace of innovation in .Net looks not unlike that I remember
with IE once Microsoft got serious about the Internet. Nuff said."

Again it is an example of a well funded corporation taking the ideas of open
source or free products so they can get a whole lot of commercial gain about
them. Without them they'd probably be sunk because they don't come up with a
whole lot of original ideas. Would patents be of any use to the open source
community?

"Helen C. O'Boyle" <hoboyle@nospamhereplease.com> wrote in message
news:OWK3E#OOCHA.1160@tkmsftngp11...
> Alex/Diala/others,
>
> Alex, You raised the question of platform maturity. One of the nicest
> things I can say about the .Net Framework, is that it's *quite* mature for
a
> 1.0 technology.
>
> Certainly, comparing .Net 1.0 with java at a similar point in its
evolution,
> shows .Net to be far more evolved in terms of distributed processing (Web
> Services mainly, but also COM interop), user interface development
> (WinForms), database interfaces, etc. than early java versions were. For
> me, this means I can use it to develop real-world applications today, with
a
> reasonable expectation that I'll be able to produce working apps... as
> opposed to in the java world, where the platform's first handful of years
> were marked with promises of what would be implemented/standardized/fixed
in
> upcoming versions.
>
> What room do I have to talk about this? Among other things, I did
> early-adopter support/debugging for the java-based client side of an
> enterprise product, for several years. Yes, the early-adopter timeframe
> lasted several years, because of difficulty stabilizing the product,
mostly
> due to run-time issues. The java run-time kept morphing, and the
product's
> code had to keep changing to match the changing API's and underlying
> run-time functionality. Similarly, things that had to work reliably for
> business apps in a traditional IT/data-driven environment just didn't --
for
> example, only recently has the JRE gotten its field navigation/focus
issues
> close to ironed out. Thus, we had to spend more time chasing bugs, and
the
> dev had to spend more time learning the JRE internals enough to work
around
> obscure issues. Seriously, it has taken a LONG time for java to approach
> the level of production stability .Net already has.
>
> The bright side for people just getting into one or the other today, is
that
> java's past most of its major growing pains... and that .Net has avoided
> many of those that plagued java. As you say, savvy developers will
continue
> to evaluate languages/frameworks on their usefulness, and both .Net and
the
> java platform have their uses.
>
> On the topic of which language... Diala, why not learn at least a bit
about
> both? Many developers have multiple languages in their toolkit. This can
> give you an advantage over others, because you can choose what tools to
use
> to develop an application based on what's technically best suited for the
> project, rather than advocating a specific platform merely because it's
the
> one you know. For example, right now, if you want to work on UNIX as well
> as Windows, java is likely to be a better choice. But in the future, with
> the release of the .Net framework (or a clone of it, in the open source
> tradition) for other platforms, this may change.
>
> Also, be aware of the communities that use each of these languages. I've
> seen java in use in dot-com environments, typical internal IT shops of
large
> companies, third-party development shops, and academia. C#, I've seen in
> dot-coms, third-party development shops and academia. Typical IT shops
> investigating .Net seem to be gravitating more toward VB.Net if they have
a
> history with VB (as most considering .Net seem to). So while in the java
> world, there is one language to bring them all and in the darkness (or Sun
> light) bind them, in the .Net world, the language you use depends a bit on
> the community in which you're working. Fortunately, there's not a big
> learning curve between C# and VB.Net once you know one or the other.
>
> On the topic of .Net vs. java.... Anyone remember Netscape Navigator's
> dominance? The pace of innovation in .Net looks not unlike that I
remember
> with IE once Microsoft got serious about the Internet. Nuff said.
> --
> * Helen *
>
>
> "AlexS" < salexru2000NO@SPAMhotmailPLEAS
E.com> wrote in message
> news:OzwyrBKOCHA.2196@tkmsftngp08...
> > While environment is better than most of currently existing one
> > (technologically and in design), I think it will be slow in adoption -
MS
> > tactics are questionable at the very least and framework is not yet
fully

> > mature - e.g. WebServices or WebForms - it works, but not as good as
> should.
> > But I wouldn't bet on Java too - it's just another language with
specific
> > limitations
> >
> > In nearest future both will coexist and fight each other - so, what do
you
> > want? to gamble or develop? Language choice is task dependent - for each
> > task you can find its own best language...
> >
> > IMHO
> >
> > "diala" <diala_r@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4792ac7b.0207310002.45d5333@posting.google.com...
> > > I'm thinking of learning C#. Anyone used it ? what do you think?
will[
color=darkred]
> > > it
> > > be popular ?
> > >
> > > I'm trying to get a feel for the takup on it. Will Java win out? Is
> > > Microsoft just using it as a bully tactic?
> > >
> > > Any comments welcome
> >
> >
>
>[/color]

Tim

2002-08-02, 9:25 pm

"Richard Warwick" <richard.warwick@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eH5DaFoOCHA.2420@tkmsftngp11...

> Again it is an example of a well funded corporation taking the ideas of
open
> source or free products so they can get a whole lot of commercial gain
about
> them. Without them they'd probably be sunk because they don't come up with
a
> whole lot of original ideas. Would patents be of any use to the open
source
> community?

Yeah, it was really shameful what Netscape did with Mosaic. Thank goodness
MS (illegally?) forced them to stop charging for their browser.

Helen C. O'Boyle

2002-08-02, 11:25 pm

Richard and others,

"Richard Warwick" <richard.warwick@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eH5DaFoOCHA.2420@tkmsftngp11...
> "On the topic of .Net vs. java.... Anyone remember Netscape Navigator's
> dominance? The pace of innovation in .Net looks not unlike that I
remember
> with IE once Microsoft got serious about the Internet. Nuff said."
>
> Again it is an example of a well funded corporation taking the ideas of
open
> source or free products so they can get a whole lot of commercial gain
about
> them.

Microsoft didn't just "take" the idea of an open source product and
reimplement it -- they were actually a legitimate commercial licensee of
restricted-use NCSA Mosaic source. Details for those surprised by this: In
1994, University of Illinois had arranged to have a company called Spyglass
handle the licensing of Mosaic, in exchange for royalties (which apparently
amounted to millions). This was good news for Spyglass, who was one of the
first companies to go public as part of the web/internet boom, based on
their business coup of being the Mosaic master licensing organization. And
Spyglass made a good amount of money licensing Mosaic to many, many people
who ponied up the required licensing dollars, Microsoft among them.

Microsoft added more improvements to the base code than many others did,
turned theirs into a free product (vs. other software publishers like
Netscape who sold Mosaic-based browsers for $49 or more), and by their
efforts and marketing, dominated. Of course, folks got upset at this, so
Spyglass and Microsoft fought about it in the courts, and Microsoft ended up
owning a Mosaic license for a flat fee of (estimated) $20 million That
wasn't free, but I'll agree that the return on investment on those dollars
was WAY up there, in comparison to what they spent on it.

Regarding patent protection for open or closed source.... earlier this year,
England's BT Group went after Prodigy, claiming that Prodigy users were
violating a patent on hyperlinks that was granted "years before the Internet
as we now know it even existed". They picked Prodigy as their test case to
see if it was worth going after folks like AOL, etc. Fortunately, it didn't
fly. Most "true developers" I know (the kind who'd spend time working on
open source projects) prefer coding to fighting legal battles. Not only are
software patent fights time-consuming, but expensive as well.

And where would open source be with patents? Much of the GNU project
wouldn't exist, because it re-implemented a suite of handy command-line
tools that were part of the licensed-source UNIX environment, which surely
would have been patented by its owner if that was the industry standard way
of protecting intellectual property. And Linux? Some cash-strapped college
student would've found himself on the wrong end of a legal battle with AT&T
or Novell (or whoever owned the trademarked UNIX at the time). Mono, the
open source .Net implementation? A no-no. WINE, the WINdows Emulator for
Linux? UnixODBC? Any thoughts on how patents could solve the issue of
for-profit companies profiting by incorporating ideas or code from open
source, while allowing open source companies to clone non-open commercial
products?

Sure, for-profit companies have taken original ideas from source with loose
licensing (BSD-style rather than GPL-style) and profited. On the other
side, a little company called Red Hat is doing OK with an open-source clone
of UNIX, too.

I'll agree with you that Microsoft probably looked at java, saw some merits
in the technology but also some shortcomings, and then created their version
of a similar environment. In the true spirit of what many open source folks
hope to do for the industry, they released something that wasn't just a
clone of what had gone before, but an evolution of it, advancing the state
of the art. And they're even letting folks look at a source version of
*some* of it, for non-commercial purposes, to share some of this innovation.
Sounds a lot like how Sun makes available Solaris (Sun's UNIX) sources for
personal/non-commercial use (or used to... I have no idea if they still
do...).

Actually, there are some things .Net handles better than java, but it's too
late to change the way java works now. Java has some unique good points as
well. As we all know, platform wars are not won based on technical
superiority, but on the whole package -- marketing, pricing, developer
support, 3rd party add-on support, user acceptance, etc.
--
* Helen *, who hides only from spambots and AOL newbies, and wonders about
people who apparently mean to post to alt.humor.bad or
alt.oops-i-did-it-again, but make tremendous typos and end up posting their
trolls to technical newsgroups instead

Pamela Fanstill

2002-08-03, 9:23 pm

LOL

"Tim" <spammers@begone> wrote in message
news:#JyP0wpOCHA.2372@tkmsftngp10...
> "Richard Warwick" <richard.warwick@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eH5DaFoOCHA.2420@tkmsftngp11...
>
> > Again it is an example of a well funded corporation taking the ideas of
> open
> > source or free products so they can get a whole lot of commercial gain
> about
> > them. Without them they'd probably be sunk because they don't come up
with
> a
> > whole lot of original ideas. Would patents be of any use to the open
> source
> > community?
>
> Yeah, it was really shameful what Netscape did with Mosaic. Thank goodness
> MS (illegally?) forced them to stop charging for their browser.
>
>

Sam Smith

2002-08-07, 7:23 pm

> Actually, there are some things .Net handles better than java, but it's
too
> late to change the way java works now. Java has some unique good points
as
> well. As we all know, platform wars are not won based on technical
> superiority, but on the whole package -- marketing, pricing, developer
> support, 3rd party add-on support, user acceptance, etc.

I actually think that platform wars are won if the product can be copied
and/or pirated easily.

Look at the Playstation mod chip, the original Windows (3/95/98), even DOS.
These programs all became the norm becasue they were so easy to copy and
distribute.

Microsoft Networks

2002-08-08, 8:23 pm

Helen, I tried to send you an e-mail on Friday 9 Aug but I got an
"undeliverable mail message back", 554 Quota violation. Can you investigate
this please?

Richard

"Helen C. O'Boyle" <hoboyle@nospamhereplease.com> wrote in message
news:eCpz2fqOCHA.1724@tkmsftngp13...
> Richard and others,
>
> "Richard Warwick" <richard.warwick@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eH5DaFoOCHA.2420@tkmsftngp11...
> > "On the topic of .Net vs. java.... Anyone remember Netscape Navigator's
> > dominance? The pace of innovation in .Net looks not unlike that I
> remember
> > with IE once Microsoft got serious about the Internet. Nuff said."
> >
> > Again it is an example of a well funded corporation taking the ideas of
> open
> > source or free products so they can get a whole lot of commercial gain
> about
> > them.
>
> Microsoft didn't just "take" the idea of an open source product and
> reimplement it -- they were actually a legitimate commercial licensee of
> restricted-use NCSA Mosaic source. Details for those surprised by this:
In
> 1994, University of Illinois had arranged to have a company called
Spyglass
> handle the licensing of Mosaic, in exchange for royalties (which
apparently
> amounted to millions). This was good news for Spyglass, who was one of
the
> first companies to go public as part of the web/internet boom, based on
> their business coup of being the Mosaic master licensing organization.
And
> Spyglass made a good amount of money licensing Mosaic to many, many people
> who ponied up the required licensing dollars, Microsoft among them.
>
> Microsoft added more improvements to the base code than many others did,
> turned theirs into a free product (vs. other software publishers like
> Netscape who sold Mosaic-based browsers for $49 or more), and by their
> efforts and marketing, dominated. Of course, folks got upset at this, so
> Spyglass and Microsoft fought about it in the courts, and Microsoft ended
up
> owning a Mosaic license for a flat fee of (estimated) $20 million That
> wasn't free, but I'll agree that the return on investment on those dollars
> was WAY up there, in comparison to what they spent on it.
>
> Regarding patent protection for open or closed source.... earlier this
year,
> England's BT Group went after Prodigy, claiming that Prodigy users were
> violating a patent on hyperlinks that was granted "years before the
Internet
> as we now know it even existed". They picked Prodigy as their test case
to
> see if it was worth going after folks like AOL, etc. Fortunately, it
didn't
> fly. Most "true developers" I know (the kind who'd spend time working on
> open source projects) prefer coding to fighting legal battles. Not only
are
> software patent fights time-consuming, but expensive as well.
>
> And where would open source be with patents? Much of the GNU project
> wouldn't exist, because it re-implemented a suite of handy command-line
> tools that were part of the licensed-source UNIX environment, which surely
> would have been patented by its owner if that was the industry standard
way
> of protecting intellectual property. And Linux? Some cash-strapped
college
> student would've found himself on the wrong end of a legal battle with
AT&T
> or Novell (or whoever owned the trademarked UNIX at the time). Mono, the
> open source .Net implementation? A no-no. WINE, the WINdows Emulator for
> Linux? UnixODBC? Any thoughts on how patents could solve the issue of
> for-profit companies profiting by incorporating ideas or code from open
> source, while allowing open source companies to clone non-open commercial
> products?
>
> Sure, for-profit companies have taken original ideas from source with
loose
> licensing (BSD-style rather than GPL-style) and profited. On the other
> side, a little company called Red Hat is doing OK with an open-source
clone
> of UNIX, too.
>
> I'll agree with you that Microsoft probably looked at java, saw some
merits
> in the technology but also some shortcomings, and then created their
version
> of a similar environment. In the true spirit of what many open source
folks
> hope to do for the industry, they released something that wasn't just a
> clone of what had gone before, but an evolution of it, advancing the state
> of the art. And they're even letting folks look at a source version of
> *some* of it, for non-commercial purposes, to share some of this
innovation.
> Sounds a lot like how Sun makes available Solaris (Sun's UNIX) sources for
> personal/non-commercial use (or used to... I have no idea if they still
> do...).
>
> Actually, there are some things .Net handles better than java, but it's
too
> late to change the way java works now. Java has some unique good points
as
> well. As we all know, platform wars are not won based on technical
> superiority, but on the whole package -- marketing, pricing, developer
> support, 3rd party add-on support, user acceptance, etc.
> --
> * Helen *, who hides only from spambots and AOL newbies, and wonders about
> people who apparently mean to post to alt.humor.bad or
> alt.oops-i-did-it-again, but make tremendous typos and end up posting
their
> trolls to technical newsgroups instead
>
>

Richard Warwick

2002-08-08, 8:23 pm

Helen C. O'Boyle

2002-08-09, 12:23 am

Hi Richard,

Yikes! Between 9am and 2:15pm today alone, my inbox received 7 meg of mail,
and that overflowed my mindspring quota. It's outa there now... go ahead
and resend your reply if you've still got it!

FYI, no, that's not a normal daily mail volume for me at all, and I was
pretty surprised to see it when I connected this evening after a day off the
net. I do tend to get a good volume of email, but not quite THAT much. ;-)
What with uncompressed PDF's of long forms a business contact emailed me in
entirety rather than putting that stuff on a web server for download, the
pleasant surprise of some new book chapters for a tech review I'm doing for
MS, and a friend who occasionally sends me e-cards picking this morning to
do so, in addition to normal email and incoming spam that gets through my
provider's filters, everything just came together at once today.

Thanks for attempting to give me a heads-up!
--
* Helen *

"Richard Warwick" <richard.warwick@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e1$9gi0PCHA.2052@tkmsftngp13...
> Helen, I tried to send you an e-mail on Friday 9 Aug but I got an
> "undeliverable mail message back", 554 Quota violation. Can you
investigate
> this please?
>
> Richard
>
> "Helen C. O'Boyle" <hoboyle@nospamhereplease.com> wrote in message
> news:eCpz2fqOCHA.1724@tkmsftngp13...
> > Richard and others,
> >
> > "Richard Warwick" <richard.warwick@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:eH5DaFoOCHA.2420@tkmsftngp11...
> > > "On the topic of .Net vs. java.... Anyone remember Netscape
Navigator's
> > > dominance? The pace of innovation in .Net looks not unlike that I
> > remember
> > > with IE once Microsoft got serious about the Internet. Nuff said."
> > >
> > > Again it is an example of a well funded corporation taking the ideas
of
> > open
> > > source or free products so they can get a whole lot of commercial gain
> > about
> > > them.
> >
> > Microsoft didn't just "take" the idea of an open source product and
> > reimplement it -- they were actually a legitimate commercial licensee of
> > restricted-use NCSA Mosaic source. Details for those surprised by this:
> In
> > 1994, University of Illinois had arranged to have a company called
> Spyglass
> > handle the licensing of Mosaic, in exchange for royalties (which
> apparently
> > amounted to millions). This was good news for Spyglass, who was one of
> the
> > first companies to go public as part of the web/internet boom, based on
> > their business coup of being the Mosaic master licensing organization.
> And
> > Spyglass made a good amount of money licensing Mosaic to many, many
people
> > who ponied up the required licensing dollars, Microsoft among them.
> >
> > Microsoft added more improvements to the base code than many others did,
> > turned theirs into a free product (vs. other software publishers like
> > Netscape who sold Mosaic-based browsers for $49 or more), and by their
> > efforts and marketing, dominated. Of course, folks got upset at this,
so
> > Spyglass and Microsoft fought about it in the courts, and Microsoft
ended
> up
> > owning a Mosaic license for a flat fee of (estimated) $20 million That
> > wasn't free, but I'll agree that the return on investment on those
dollars
> > was WAY up there, in comparison to what they spent on it.
> >
> > Regarding patent protection for open or closed source.... earlier this
> year,
> > England's BT Group went after Prodigy, claiming that Prodigy users were
> > violating a patent on hyperlinks that was granted "years before the
> Internet
> > as we now know it even existed". They picked Prodigy as their test case
> to
> > see if it was worth going after folks like AOL, etc. Fortunately, it
> didn't
> > fly. Most "true developers" I know (the kind who'd spend time working
on
> > open source projects) prefer coding to fighting legal battles. Not only
> are
> > software patent fights time-consuming, but expensive as well.
> >
> > And where would open source be with patents? Much of the GNU project
> > wouldn't exist, because it re-implemented a suite of handy command-line
> > tools that were part of the licensed-source UNIX environment, which
surely
> > would have been patented by its owner if that was the industry standard
> way
> > of protecting intellectual property. And Linux? Some cash-strapped
> college
> > student would've found himself on the wrong end of a legal battle with
> AT&T
> > or Novell (or whoever owned the trademarked UNIX at the time). Mono,
the
> > open source .Net implementation? A no-no. WINE, the WINdows Emulator
for
> > Linux? UnixODBC? Any thoughts on how patents could solve the issue of
> > for-profit companies profiting by incorporating ideas or code from open
> > source, while allowing open source companies to clone non-open
commercial
> > products?
> >
> > Sure, for-profit companies have taken original ideas from source with
> loose
> > licensing (BSD-style rather than GPL-style) and profited. On the other
> > side, a little company called Red Hat is doing OK with an open-source
> clone
> > of UNIX, too.
> >
> > I'll agree with you that Microsoft probably looked at java, saw some
> merits
> > in the technology but also some shortcomings, and then created their
> version
> > of a similar environment. In the true spirit of what many open source
> folks
> > hope to do for the industry, they released something that wasn't just a
> > clone of what had gone before, but an evolution of it, advancing the
state

> > of the art. And they're even letting folks look at a source version of
> > *some* of it, for non-commercial purposes, to share some of this
> innovation.
> > Sounds a lot like how Sun makes available Solaris (Sun's UNIX) sources
for
> > personal/non-commercial use (or used to... I have no idea if they still
> > do...).
> >
> > Actually, there are some things .Net handles better than java, but it's
> too
> > late to change the way java works now. Java has some unique good points
> as
> > well. As we all know, platform wars are not won based on technical
> > superiority, but on the whole package -- marketing, pricing, developer
> > support, 3rd party add-on support, user acceptance, etc.
> > --
> > * Helen *, who hides only from spambots and AOL newbies, and wonders
about

> > people who apparently mean to post to alt.humor.bad or
> > alt.oops-i-did-it-again, but make tremendous typos and end up posting
> their
> > trolls to technical newsgroups instead
> >
> >
>
>

2002-10-09, 8:23 pm

Is it not true that VB & C++ (theres no history of c#) have been compiled
for the win32 environment for years, with a substantial difference in
performance?

You haven't taken into account the maifestation of language features such
as variable declaration styles.- Surely there is a larger overhead with the
indefinite types vs rigid C style type declaration?

There will also be variations in compiler performance to consider (vb to
MSIL) vs (C# to MSIL) compilation to consider. This is completely different
to the MSIL to Executable code step.( which will have the same efficiency)

VB has always traded off performance for flexibility & simplicity, that
hasn't changed with the dot NET incarnation. C# however has dropped many of
the difficult to work with features of C++.

Who is to say which is better overall?

I'm sure that everyone here has an opinion on that!

Craig

"Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
news:8WIU8.3192$7G4.493935@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Actually I don't think it does. If you write the same code in VB.NET and
C#
> it gets compiled to the same Common Runtime, and is therefore the same
> code+performance!
>
> "Jason Mauss" <JasonMauss@vsdotnetguru.com> wrote in message
> news:udWaNFkICHA.1124@tkmsftngp10...
> > One thing you are all neglecting to note is the REAL differences between
> the
> > two languages and the support they receive from the .NET CLR . First,
you
> > can't use XML Comments directly in your code in VB.NET. You can still
> > provide comments for your methods, classes, etc. but it's not nearly as
> easy
> > to do as in C#. Also, C# produces slightly more efficient IL. There are
> more
> > than just that but, thought I would mention those.
> >
> > I have picked up VB.NET easily just by learning C# and the framework
> > classes. It has also made reading Java and C, C++ code easier to
> understand.
> >
> > ----jason
> > www.vsdotnetguru.com
> >
> > "Glenn D. Crosse" <glenncrosse@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:eH$TizgICHA.1604@tkmsftngp12...
> > > C# has two other big advantages.
> > > The first is porting in snippets of code from Java etc.
> > > The second is it is easier to read code from C++ and Java and then
> switch
> > > over to a C# window and keep the train of thought going.
> > > I find it distracting to switch between VB and other languages.
> > > Glenn
> > > "Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:J_nU8.2897$7G4.407074@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > > > I don't think that learning C# is any harder than VB.NET. I'm
> currently
> > > > learnnig both and the only real difference? C# has annoying
> semicolons,[color
=darkred]
> > > and
> > > > C# is case senstive, which is a pain in the XXX compared to VB.NET.
> > > >
> > > > "Do Quyet Tien" <tiendo@24mb.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:uY83qHeICHA.2480@tkmsftngp10...
> > > > > Why u should learn C#?
> > > > >
> > > > > - It's .NET language (like C is Windows' language in the past)
> > > > > - Brand new and really cool, so easier to learn than VB.NET (with
> much
> > > > > changing from VB)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sam Smith" <sam@samsmith.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > news:P68U8.2559$7G4.377464@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > > > > > I disagree a little here. But it depends what you use. C# and
> VB. NET
> > > are
> > > > > > almost identical languages once you look though the syntax. If
> > you're
> > > a
> > > > VB
> > > > > > programmer learn VB.NET, and if you're a C programmer learn C#.[/color]
If
> > at
> > > a
> > > > > > later stage you find you need to learn the other half (VB.NET or
> > C#),
> > > > > you'll
> > > > > > find it really easy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Alexis" <cato628@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:usgwiURICHA.2212@tkmsftngp12...
> > > > > > > You should learn C#. It's the language of the future for MS.
MS
> > will
> > > > use
> > > > > > > this language as a standard.
> > > > > > > In my opinion, VB.NET was created for conversion from old VB
> code.
> > > If
> > > > > you
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > not need to convert any old VB programs, you should use C#
then. [colo
r=darkred]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>[/color]

Tim

2002-10-09, 10:23 pm

"a" <someone@b.com> wrote in message
news:3da4c8b5$0$8514$cc9e4d1f@
news.dial.pipex.com...
> Is it not true that VB & C++ (theres no history of c#) have been compiled
> for the win32 environment for years, with a substantial difference in
> performance?

In artificial benchmarks, yes. In typical real applications used by humans,
no, I think there usually is not a 'substantial' difference. And I'm a C++
programmer.

> You haven't taken into account the maifestation of language features such
> as variable declaration styles.- Surely there is a larger overhead with
the
> indefinite types vs rigid C style type declaration?

Are you talking about the Variant type? Why don't you try some benchmarking
with it in VB.Net? I also don't think you'd catch a professional VB
programmer ever using a Variant, but not even because of the likely
performance cost.

> There will also be variations in compiler performance to consider (vb to
> MSIL) vs (C# to MSIL) compilation to consider. This is completely
different
> to the MSIL to Executable code step.( which will have the same
efficiency)

Have you actually seen how different it is, or are you just assuming there
are major differences? I think ILDASM output is pretty easy to read, even
without any knowledge of IL.

Sponsored Links