|
Home > Archive > alt.os.linux > June 2002 > C# Compiler
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Rosenfeld Yonatan 2002-06-24, 7:12 pm |
| Hi ,
i using RED-HAT 7.3 , and i want to develop in c#.
1) is there a c# compiler for Linux.
2) where i can download it.
yoni.
| |
| Nils O. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sel=E5sdal?= 2002-06-24, 7:12 pm |
| In article <aev0e6$8nk$1@news.inter.net.il>, Rosenfeld Yonatan wrote:
> Hi ,
> i using RED-HAT 7.3 , and i want to develop in c#.
> 1) is there a c# compiler for Linux.
Its under development.
> 2) where i can download it.
www.go-mono.org
Use Java - my $0.02
| |
|
| Rosenfeld Yonatan wrote:
> Hi ,
> i using RED-HAT 7.3 , and i want to develop in c#.
> 1) is there a c# compiler for Linux.
> 2) where i can download it.
>
> yoni.
1) yes but use java instead
2) http://www.go-mono.com/c-sharp.html
brought to you from your friendly neighborhood google search
| |
| Joachim Feise 2002-06-24, 7:12 pm |
| Rosenfeld Yonatan wrote:
> Hi ,
> i using RED-HAT 7.3 , and i want to develop in c#.
Use Java. It is the better language, actually, C# is derived
from it, and you could call C# the Microsoft version of Java.
> 1) is there a c# compiler for Linux.
No.
| |
| Martha H Adams 2002-06-24, 7:12 pm |
| Aren't you heading off in a severely bad direction? C# is Microsoft's
carefully-crafted-incompatible version of C++. A part of their darkly
hidden Enhance/Embellish/Extinguish strategy to force out the
competition, boost prices, and reduce and complexify services. Surely
you can see that a few carefully placed embellishments in their C#
will give you code that only compiles through a Microsoft compiler and
binaries that only run in a particular version of some Microsoft
environment.
In my view, if that is what you want because all the systems where you
are use only Microsoft, then you are in a bad place. If that is what
you want because you think Microsoft is better somehow, then you are
at best misinformed.
Finally, here in a Linux newsgroup is not the best place to find C#
information anyhow.
Cheers -- Martha H Adams
| |
| Steven Pasztor 2002-06-24, 7:13 pm |
| > 1) is there a c# compiler for Linux.
Why?!?
| |
|
| comes as default. With RedHat Linux it is gcc
Steven Pasztor wrote:
>>1) is there a c# compiler for Linux.
>
>
> Why?!?
>
>
>
| |
| moonie 2002-06-24, 7:13 pm |
| Axon wrote:
> comes as default. With RedHat Linux it is gcc
>
He asked about C#, NOT C/C++
--
moonie 
Registered Linux User #175104
| |
| www.insaner.com 2002-06-24, 7:13 pm |
| >i using RED-HAT 7.3 , and i want to develop in c#.
why? why use closed see cad when theres already a fully deployed user base
of java which works on pretty much all architectures?
>1) is there a c# compiler for Linux.
is there a stable os from microsucks?
>2) where i can download it.
at vaporware.microsucks.com
| |
| Pavlos Tr 2002-06-24, 7:14 pm |
| moonie wrote:
> Axon wrote:
>
>> comes as default. With RedHat Linux it is gcc
>>
> He asked about C#, NOT C/C++
what is this C#? is it new? is it fast? is it good? Nee I don't
think so 'cause it's from M$hit & co (m*c OS z).
hey people don't waste your time with crap, help the
GCC (GNU Compiler Collection) be the best software-creating
suite on the planet.
--
destroy your M$Winshit pirated CD and install a real OS. L-I-N-U-X.
| |
| Michael Nelson 2002-06-24, 9:25 pm |
| C# is Microsoft's attempt to do in Java, but it doesn't seem to be a bad
language as languages go (my opinion will become better defined after
I've written something more substantial with it).
Let's see:
Take C++
1) Dump multiple inheritance.
2) Dump templated functions and classes
3) Add interface (and interface inheritance, of course) support
4) Make all data types inherit from a common base
5) Add event handling as a language feature.
6) Add a deep, rich, object library (heavily Windows biased, of course :-) )
I've always found C++ to be useful and powerful, but inelegant* and
warty (I find C, on the other hand to be beautiful; flexible yet
simple). I find Java much more elegant, but on the practical side of
things, I wasn't impressed by it's sluggishness and I couldn't stand its
windowing library. It's been a few years since I've written any Java,
though. I suspect the situation has improved a lot since then.
* Believe me, I KNOW inelegant. I spent the last several years earning
my paycheck writing mortgage banking software for Windows based machines
with VB and MSVC++ (a lot of VB - a little C++, the company was
squirelly about using too much of it for some reason - you don't EVEN
want to know about the hacks involved - it was UGLY with a capital
UGLY!). Ever try to write to the Windows API in VB? I used to call is
"C" in "VB" and for some reason I was the only programmer at the company
willing to do it... I think that DEFINES inelegant.
Pavlos Tr wrote:
>
> what is this C#? is it new? is it fast? is it good? Nee I don't
> think so 'cause it's from M$hit & co (m*c OS z).
> hey people don't waste your time with crap, help the
> GCC (GNU Compiler Collection) be the best software-creating
> suite on the planet.
| |
| Nils O. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sel=E5sdal?= 2002-06-25, 2:25 am |
| In article <3D17D927.1090006@fakepartargyleman.com>, Michael Nelson wrote:
>
> I've always found C++ to be useful and powerful, but inelegant* and
> warty (I find C, on the other hand to be beautiful; flexible yet
> simple). I find Java much more elegant, but on the practical side of
> things, I wasn't impressed by it's sluggishness and I couldn't stand its
> windowing library. It's been a few years since I've written any Java,
Quite funny, I've doing GUI in Qt,GTK,MFC,wxWindows and I always miss
the nice,easy yet powerful GUI library of Java(Swing).
| |
| Richard James 2002-06-25, 3:25 am |
| Michael Nelson wrote:
> * Believe me, I KNOW inelegant. I spent the last several years earning
> my paycheck writing mortgage banking software for Windows based machines
> with VB and MSVC++ (a lot of VB - a little C++, the company was
> squirelly about using too much of it for some reason - you don't EVEN
> want to know about the hacks involved - it was UGLY with a capital
> UGLY!). Ever try to write to the Windows API in VB? I used to call is
> "C" in "VB" and for some reason I was the only programmer at the company
> willing to do it... I think that DEFINES inelegant.
I can understand some of your pain.
VB maketh no sense when you have used several[0] other "real" languages
[0] C,C++,Java,Perl,Basic[1],Assem
bler[2],APL,umm err I forget
[1] VIC-20,STOS,psion etc
[2] 6800,6809,6502,68000, Those little computer thingys you program to do
industrial stuff
I spent most of today doing an assignment in VB before I had to do a test
and write VBA macros
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHH
Richard 
--
I lost my train of thought, I think it's in a tunnel.
| |
| Michael Nelson 2002-06-25, 4:25 pm |
| :-) Maybe I've spent too much time in the Windows world, but I felt a
horrible lack of fine control with AWT 1.0. I got fed up with it
fairly quickly so perhaps I didn't learn enough of the ins and outs to
appreciate it and therefore judged too quickly. I will have to revisit Java.
Nils O. Selåsdal wrote:
> In article <3D17D927.1090006@fakepartargyleman.com>, Michael Nelson wrote:
>
>>I've always found C++ to be useful and powerful, but inelegant* and
>>warty (I find C, on the other hand to be beautiful; flexible yet
>>simple). I find Java much more elegant, but on the practical side of
>>things, I wasn't impressed by it's sluggishness and I couldn't stand its
>>windowing library. It's been a few years since I've written any Java,
>
> Quite funny, I've doing GUI in Qt,GTK,MFC,wxWindows and I always miss
> the nice,easy yet powerful GUI library of Java(Swing).
| |
| Nils O. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sel=E5sdal?= 2002-06-26, 2:25 am |
| In article <3D18E0C6.7090102@fakepartargyleman.com>, Michael Nelson wrote:
>:-) Maybe I've spent too much time in the Windows world, but I felt a
> horrible lack of fine control with AWT 1.0. I got fed up with it
> fairly quickly so perhaps I didn't learn enough of the ins and outs to
> appreciate it and therefore judged too quickly. I will have to revisit Java.
Oh.. If you use AWT I can understand you. It's way to basic. Try Swing,
standard part of Java2.
|
|
|
|
|