Slashdot Mirror
C# for Java Developers
First things first First of all, let's deal with the Microsoft issue. I was surprised to find that this book even existed given the problems MS has had in the courts recently. I was even more surprised to find that C# for Java Developers is very balanced and does not hype up C# at the expense of Java -- throughout the book there are places where the authors say that "Java is better at this" or "We have no idea what the C# designers were thinking." A refreshing attitude from a company that is not known to be an admirer of Java.
I was reluctant to pay for a Microsoft book, but I have to admit that I am impressed. This is the first MS book I have ever purchased, and it is clearly written, well thought-out and very, very comprehensive. One of the best features for me is that all of the instructions for compiling and managing code assume that you are using the command-line tools, rather than Visual Studio. For someone on a tight budget, this was a real bonus.
The Scoop
The first part of the book is an overview of .NET, and contains the boiler-plate description that you get from the .NET web site. Not that useful, but pretty short. There is a chapter that compares .NET to Java (J2SE and J2EE), but again, there is nothing new or important there.
The second part of the book covers the C# language, using Java as a starting point. The coverage seems comprehensive, and explains where the two languages are the same (quite often), where they are different (now and then) and when they appear to be the same, but you are likely to spend a couple of hours tracking down something weird (more often than I would like). I had started playing around with C# before buying this book, and all of the problems that I had in the early days were detailed here with clear explanations.
Part three delves into the .NET class library, covering basic topics such as collections, IO and handling XML. Once again, I was impressed with the depth of coverage and the way in which the authors use Java classes to explain the workings of .NET. It was while I was reading through this section that I realized just how different C#/.NET and Java can be.
The last part of the book covers "advanced" topics. There seems to be little reason for the division between basic and advanced topics, but chapters cover areas such as threading, security and networking. The one thing that is consistent in this part of the book is that there is less of a parallel between Java and C#. For example, "Windows Forms" is used to build client UI applications, but is very different toolkit from Swing/AWT.
The appendix list is a little dull, covering topics like GC and configuration files. There are some interesting snippets, but I got the impression that these were topics that the authors thought were important, but didn't know where else they should go. The exception is the "Java to .NET API Reference" which, for me at least, sets this book apart from the competition. Every class from the J2SE class library is mapped to an equivalent .NET class and a reference to where the topic is covered in the book -- having something like this has saved me hours of searching.
What's to Consider?
This book uses a lot of C# fragments to demonstrate how classes are used, but contains very few full "working" examples. I found this to be great once I knew the basics of C# (because I could focus on the topic), but difficult at first (because I could not play with complete code).
C# for Java Developers covers much more of the .NET Framework than the other books in my local bookstore, but because of this the text can be dense at times, as the authors try and pack in a bit too much detail.
I can't find major fault with this book, and a (small) part of me admires Microsoft for publishing such an unbiased book.
Summary
If you are a Java programmer who wants or needs to learn about C# and .NET, then this is a great book. Don't be put off by the Microsoft logo, and bear in mind that you don't need a copy of Visual Studio to follow the examples.
The book effectively uses Java as a tool to teach C# and explain the workings of .NET. If you are like me, then you will find this book invaluable and will likely keep it close at hand for quick reference.
Table of Contents
- Introducing .NET
- Introduction to Microsoft .NET
- Comparing Java and .NET Technologies
- The C# Language
- Creating Assemblies
- Language and Syntax Features
- Data Types
- Advanced Language Features
- Programming .NET with C#
- Strings and Regular Expressions
- Numbers and Dates
- Collections
- Streams, Files, and I/O
- XML Processing
- Advanced Topics
- Reflection
- Threading and Synchronization
- Networking
- Remoting
- Database Connectivity
- Security and Cryptography
- Graphics and UI
- Introduction to XML Web Services
- Appendices
- Platform Integration
- Shared Assemblies
- Configuring Applications
- Garbage Collection
- Cross-Language Code Interoperability
- Java to .NET API Reference
You can purchase C# for Java Developers from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Now, C# is a pretty language. MS looked at Java and started on their list... "This is good in Java, lets include it. This isn't, lets either not include it or make a nicer alternative." They made quite a nice, competitive language.
.NET framework. Now, once you are in the framework, you'll see that VB.NET is easier to use, has the OO that Java/C++ people desire, and can make the deadlines easier to make.
.NET isn't as platform independent as Java atm, so I'll stick with my cup-of-joe.
But I think C# will be used to convert the C, C++, and Java crowd into the
Yeah, I think C# is MS's way to convert everyone to VB.NET.
Luckily,
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Funny, I thought that C# was supposed to reduce complexity.
Although pronouncing it "C-sharp" is a little counter intuitive; my first thoughts are always "C-pound". The maybe the first `Obfuscated C#' contests can center on it's name.
The thing that finally got me to play with C# was Terrarium. Players create 'creatures' which then compete in a peer-to-peer set of virtual terrariums. You can create plants, herbivores, or carnivores. It was quite fun (in a super geek way) and VERY challenging.
"... very balanced and does not hype up C# at the expense of Java -- throughout the book there are places where the authors say that "Java is better at this" or "We have no idea what the C# designers were thinking."
Try finding that balance in a Java book, most of which devote all of Chapter 1 to a buzzword parade and list of Java perks (prevents bugs, write once run anywhere, cures baldness, etc).
I'm really suprised by this (especially with the book being from MS) but I think it is a nice to see on Slashdot.
.NET languages (such as VB.NET) because it allows you to write unsafe code (ie, code that doesn't have to go through the garbage collector). Not that most MS programmers will need this capability, but its nice to have if you need the extra performance over maintainability/safety.
.NET languages. The real question is- how does it compare with Java. Honestly, I believe there are some differences in syntax and power, but I don't know the details (as I am not that experienced with Java) but it would seem this book could help answer that question. I plan on taking a look at this book. Thanks for the review, and again- nice to see this kind of thing on Slashdot!
C# really is a nice language. It is more powerful than other
C# also gives you the ability to write XML comments in your code that can be parsed by the compiler to generate documentation. There is also an open source project called "NDOC" (hosted on Source Forge) that lets you generate really cool and helpful docs.
However, the majority of Slashdot readers probably don't care how C# is better than other
The thing that makes C# so much better than Java is that there are so many free Java VMs and development tools. If you want a VM for Java, all you have to do is go out to blackdown.org and download one. Well, what does that say about the quality of the language? Back when I was a wee pup we had a phrase, "you get what you pay for." Well, at least C# development tools cost a fair amount, to me that suggests that it is a much better language. After all if Java was so good they wouldn't be giving it away for free.
Also with the upcoming war on Iraq it's best if we're all patriotic and support our country's companies with our hard-earned dollars. Why, if you use Java, you might as well hang an Iraqi flag in your yard and wear a Republican Guard uniform to work every day. That's how important this is. Don't you Java developers feel ashamed of yourselves? I would.
Mirrors:
- Mirror 1
- Mirror 2
- Mirror 3
- Mirror 4
- Mirror 5
Translations:If anyone wants to port Java application to .Net platform, wouldn't it make more sense to use J#? With .Net's language insensitive nature, C# vs J# should not matter, and so J# would naturally make more sense to someone wanting to attempt to port a Java application into the .Net platform.
A Comparative Overview of C#
This is a great site. If anyone wants to learn C# coming from a C/C++ or Java background I send them here. Shows source in all three languages (where applicable). Good place to start.
I must say I was a hard-core Java fan until I found C#. I must qualify that statement since I develop exclusively for Windows.
If you write code that will only live in the Windows world, you owe it to yourself to check out C#/.NET.
A speech...
While not part of the language but rather somewhere in the .NET APIs, Windows.Forms is a really cool set of classes and methods that let you do GUI building with relatively little pain. Now I'm no Microsoft apologist, but what they did with Windows.Forms is a LOT nicer than AWT and Swing, and as far as I can tell, the backend was written in native code.
There are some articles about it too.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
C# is obviously the future of .NET programming
.NET is the future of the internet
.NET is an acronym for "Proprietary Lock-In". Keep this in mind as you learn C# and immerse yourself into the .NET "experience".
Perhaps.
Absolutely not.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I believe it was The Register which approached this topic in some detail. For me, I've found that the best cross-cultural pronunciation is "C-hash". "C-octothorpe", though perhaps the most precise and technically correct, doesn't roll off the tongue nearly as fluidly.
~Idarubicin
There is a somewhat free version available for Linux. It's called Project Mono I believe. Here is the URL:. html
.NET compliant components, including a C# compiler, a Common Language Runtime just-in-time compiler, and a full suite of class libraries, the Mono Project will enable developers to create .NET applications and run them on Windows or any Mono-supported platform, including Linux and Unix. Besides greatly improving the efficiency of development in the open source world, the Mono Project will allow the creation of operating-system-independent programs. "
http://www.ximian.com/devzone/projects/mono
Small SUmmary from page, "The Mono Project is a community initiative to develop an open source, Linux-based version of the Microsoft.NET development platform. Incorporating key
Where in any of the court documentation for any of the court proceedings that MS is invloved with does it say, "You have to divest yourself of your publishing brand?"
There is absolutely nothing strange with not keeping your head buried in the sand. Just because some folks seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to all things Microsoft doesn't mean Slashdot should be expected to ignore relevant and widespread programming practices.
personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
As a java developer, I prefer to call it D flat.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
This article is a bit old, in fact, the folks at ExtremeTech probably celebrated its birthday just recently, but nevertheless, it turned out to have a lot of useful information for me when it was just published.
ExtremeTech: Java vs. C#, a Code-for-Code Comparison
They're not Oreilly, but they do have a good reputation for quality books. Code Complete and Rapid Development are amazingly good books by Steve C McConnell, put out by MS press.
Zapman
I'm impressed that MS Press wrote a content packed book. Most of their publications were light on the tech details and more like FUD, it's nice to see they're actually writing some useful material.
.NET to Slashdot. It's new technology that will affect us in a few years. While I don't like MS, I don't understand C# or .NET, and I know that in 2 years I'll wish I did.
And no, there's nothing wrong with posting books about C# or
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Gee, I always pronounced it "see-hack".
Once again someone misses the point in its entirety of high-level languages.
If you decide that you're going to stick only to assembly and nothing else, you're going to find little love in the computer industry.
High-level languages are designed so that you don't have to go through a couple billion lines of extraneous code to do something. Sure, if you program in assembler, your code will be cleaner, faster and has a greater potential for looking brilliant to other hackers, but I dare you to try coding around in assembler making a couple of graphics engines and tell me how simple it is in x86 against C++.
I mean, christ, I love assembler. You can do whatever you want with the memory, write self-modifying code, know at all times what is going on with the processor and everything else in the system, but fer crying out loud, if I want to make something as simple as a function call in Motorola HC11 that requires about 6 lines of code per call. A simple 4-line if block can result in a 20-line assembly instruction that would just be bloody easier to do if you just let a compiler automagically run it for you.
While Assembly is pretty, and I encourage that if you want to be a programmer, learn it and use it well, but for crying out loud, don't stop there.
Karma: Non-Heinous
While I am a Java developer and I am interested in C# from a knowledge-about-languages perspective, this review is far from getting me there. At exactly one point the reviewer mentions threads and Swing. But then what about it? At more than four places Microsoft press is mentioned and it is advised to give them a fair chance. Well, after reading this review I still don't have a clue what the book is about. The ToC is interesting but not helpful. I bet that a 'Python for Perl Programmers' book would get an objective review with less focus on publishers and book contents/excerpts that would do the topic some justice. What I am trying to say is that there is no 'java angle'
;-)
I propose slashdot community lay down some guidelines about reviewing a technical book. I applaud the reviewer's efforts and for keeping an open mind towards the source
It really is just scared developers concerned that anything redmond can cough up is too mainstream and below them...
Take a look at the ecma standards, download mono, and crawl out of your shell.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I would like to see more assembly being taught at all levels: high schools and collegiate.
FYI, there are kids taking high school level Visual Basic that can't fathom the concept of a loop... Let alone assembly.
I think "anal-retentive programmer" doesn't fit your average (probably not even above-average) high school student.
Yep, that's also the #1 reason to use it according to MS.
.NET Framework (and only the .NET Framework - it doesn't even run a VM) you could just as well go for C#. It's not *that* hard of a transition to relearn at all. For me, it was enough with some tutorial browsing on the internet to get into C# with a couple of years of Java experience since earlier.
However, syntax is often the easiest thing to relearn when switching language. Often much easier than to relearn an entire API. And since J# use the
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
No registration required: download the Microsoft .NET Framework SDK. Includes command line utilities, documentation, etc.
The sound you here is a dozen moderators clicking 'Troll'.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Naw. It's *SEE-SHARP" for sure, as in
;-)
/MS Bash mode off
"Ouch!! That hurt! Fuck, now I'm bleeding cash!
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Isn't it sad that you have to qualify any statement that might make it seem like you actually like something Microsoft has created? I find myself qualifying anything related to MS that might seem positive with the same type of qualifier: "I'm not a MS drone" etc...
Sad really
Wow - this one earns modding up. :)
I only knew about Bruce Eckel's wonderful online books earlier (and lookie there - a C# book over there too!)
But I agree with you, I only needed a few web tutorials to get started. The online IDE help in VS.NET did the rest. What I found hardest in learning C# wasn't the syntax that's almost identical to Java or C++, but learning where to find everything in the huge Framework and how the classes were all organized.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Ah - didn't know that.. But you're right about it's pretty useless support in many cases. Or as useful as IE's "VM" in any case.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Just downloaded the excellent 4 MB mono 4 windows as mentioned in an earlier thread, and as a C# hobbyist, let me tell you, it is a pretty nice way to get acquainted with the language without having to download the 150 MB or so of the full .NET SDK.
And as is said elsewhere, every language has its place. C# is pretty nice for building Windows native applications. If you don't want to do that, then use a different language.
More on-topic, I'll definitely be checking this book out of the company library.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Couldn't have been Steve Gibson, UNLESS! Unless someone has DEVIOUSLY edited his post and STOLE all his capitalized words. The REAL Steve Gibson would NEVER have made such an unexciting post. HUZZAH!
> This is a maligned language.
Is it byte maligned, or word maligned?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Hey! If that's true, can't sun sue them for use of a trademarked acronym?
...do you REALLY expect to get EVERYTHING for free?
.NET provides a one-way ticket to the Microsoft Village; if you are comfortable with that, then, by all means, use C# and be happy. Those people looking for multiple-vendor technologies (i.e., lower risk technologies) should look elsewhere.
Not quite, since Java is widely implemented. Sun doesn't expend time and money trying to make these implementations incompatible; instead, Sun wants them to be compatible and has test suites available for that purpose. Conversely, Microsoft has a history of prefering their implementation over any others and works hard to drive other implementations into obscurity. Only time will tell if history will repeat itself with respect to efforts such as Mono.
No, but I do consider the amount of risk associated with a technology.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Showing my age here, but I remember UK computer magazines printing BASIC listings, often with a footnote which said 'our daisywheel printer only prints £ signs, please substitute # for £ in the program'.
You know that
Table-ized A.I.
We have no idea what the C# designers were thinking
Can you provide an example?
-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Why would anyone write a book about that?
All you have to do is add "MS" to the front of all the standard Java classes, methods, and member variables, and run your code through a C# compiler isn't it?
FWIW, C++ and other languages have long has this ability thanks to Doxygen and similar tools. It's cool stuff. Doxygen doesn't use XML, but the syntax is pretty straightforward.
Build stuff. Stuff that walks, stuff that rolls, whatever.
You mean you didn't get a platform indpendent app when you used the form designer and tried to add an ActiveX control?
What was so hard about developing a platform independant app with J++? It seemed pretty clear to me what was Win32 and what was Java.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Cash deals with some syntax odities of simular languages in a nice way. It's a languageconcept worth while implementing. .Net on the other hand sux. It's buggy as hell, runs only on Mickeysoft (so much for "platformindependent") and gains as the singular plus the choice between VB .Net, Cash .Net and some other proprietary M$ Coding lingua. Big fat hairy deal. .Net in a way that their offering products made with it? .Net is gonna fail - or it's gonna cost M$ another few billion and a change in market policy.
Did anyone in the Industrie notice yet that near to zilch people are actually using
Either I wanna go M$, then I go native. Or I want go independent, then I go Java. Is that so hard to get across?
No, folks,
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
As much as I hate Microsoft stuff, and am against closed source, C# is a very nice language. The whole time I've used Java, I've felt like "I wish something better would come out that wasn't so quirky".
We need an open source language similar to C#. Java's not open source, either. But I'd rather see a C#-type language than a Java-type language.
I hate to say it, but C# is definitely the better language. It's main drawback for me is that it doesn't (currently anyway) run on anything but the shitty Windows platform. C# on Linux and I'd be in heaven.
Oh quit your bitching. Want to reuse the same few functions across a set of classes? That's what the clipboard is for. You know, copy and paste. Just paste that useful code into every class that needs it.
Want to change, extend, or trim back that code that cut-pasted code that should have been a base class? That's what search-and-replace is for. You've got a lovely IDE, learn to use it.
Me? Bitter?
Seriously though, I've been thinking about creating a language called D. D is a half-step above C#. D will look just like C#, but it will add a new keyword: derivesfrom. Then you can write code like this:
public class BaseClass
// you know
{
// implementation and stuff goes here
}
public class Widget derivesfrom BaseClass, OtherBaseClass : IWhatever, ISomethingElse
{
}
The D "compiler" will read such things and emit perfectly compilable C# code, sparing you the cut-paste madness known as "code reuse" in the C# world. The only question is whether D should be implemented as a perl script (because I have a sense of humor) or as a D application (because geeks (like me) are fond of self-reference).
As a friendly gesture to those who oppose MI, the D compiler will spit out an error message if you attempt to derive from two classes that share a common base class. This one pathological example seems to have scared the bejeezus out of language designers everywhere. Other abuses of MI might be handled with stern warnings.
I submitted the project to the good people at SourceForge a few minutes ago. In the meantime, contact me directly if you're interested in bringing D to fruition.
Build stuff. Stuff that walks, stuff that rolls, whatever.
And since it only runs on Windows, hence x86, I need to produce bytecode why?
We've already heard about Windows CE.NET, which runs on ARM. MS has released a "preview" of a 64-bit version of Windows for Itanium, and it is making noises about a new version optimzed for the AMD Opteron.
I believe MS intends to eventually produce one deliverable (the CLR bytecode assembly) which will be compiled into native code on the ARM, x86, Itanium and Opteron, with different optimizations for each.
Also, one of the concepts I like about the CLR is the possibility of optimizing for your platform at the last possible moment. Imagine having different JIT compilers for Pentium III, Pentium IV and the Athlon, producing a different executable depending on your machine. I doubt it will happen, though.
well, ASP.net is *nominally* better than jsp; at least with the design UI that VS.net gives you; asp.net are roughly equivalent in functionality to taglibs.
But jsp pages are nasty for complex code, so are asp.net pages. And the execution of some of the ASP.net controls take up a lot of bandwidth; the calendar control is an example.
ASP.NET's web service model is good; it is very easy to export methods from a class as SOAP actions against a URL. But to build and deploy a production quality, high availablity web service is always a management and config nightmare, and there java still has the edge over IIS+WinNT.
Market full of suckers.
I agree with this. Programming matured quite a while ago, and most recent contributions have added only unneccessary complexity to what should be a tractable situation.
The last five years have introduced more acronyms, buzzwords, and brand names into my vocabulary than my brain can handle. Yet, what am I using on a daily basis? 20-year-old technology: vi, sh, sccs, make, etc. Relatively few new software technologies have really pushed beyond where we were in 1982, and many of those technologies are simply eye candy-enabled versions of what was around 10, 20, and even 30 years ago.
It seems we could be better off not reinventing the platform on which everything is built every five years. FORTRAN, C, C++, Java, C# all touted revolutionizing our lives. FORTRAN and C really did revolutionize things; they broke us free of assembly code. But what about the rest? Why is software quality about the same now as it always has been? It's because none of these newer platforms have changed the fundamental complexity of making good software. Writing software today still requires the same amount of "brains" as it did decades ago.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Either I wanna go M$, then I go native
.Net API is the replacement for the native Win32 API. This is a fact you ignore at your own peril.
.Net is gonna fail - or it's gonna cost M$ another few billion and a change in market policy.
.Net "suxx0rz" noobmaster flex.
The
No, folks,
Thanks for the prophecy nostradumbass. Can you back any of what you said up with facts and not FUD? Are you a developer or do you just play one on TV? Go write more than a hello world before you blab about how
I got an idea.
If you all really care SO MUCH, go to your local Barnes & Noble and RTFB.
If you want to know if something if bullshit, there's really nothing like seeing for yourself.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
What I noticed was just how uncomfortable the author seemed, to be seen saying anything positive about something from MS to this crowd.
Pretty sad when the political orthodoxy is so overwhelming that every sentence has to start with the equivalent of "please don't hate me for saying it, but this wasn't as bad as I naturally assumed..." when discussing a book on programming.
C# is what you get if you take several years of Java real-world experience and ask "if we could do it over again from scratch, with no backward compatibility requirements with existing Java, what would we do?"
C# is what you get if, instead of taking Sun's attitude of "please, you're a programmer, not a language designer -- if what you're asking for were a good idea, we would have done it", you take MS's "mercenary" attitude of "what changes would you make to Java if you could?".
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
We all know the vast secret conspiracy against poor Microsoft does not tolerate these kind of behaviour. Anyone speaking against Java, Linux, Apache and other fine technologies will be as good as dead for the mainstream media and the general public as is anyone who speaks for Microsoft. They all go down the same wall of silence we dump Chomsky and Moore on.
I agree with you. I think that J# was probably a huge waste of time and money for MS.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
The "Programming C#", as well as the "Professional C#" by Wrox mentioned in another post seem to be the two forerunners. Both have very good Amazon reviews, and both have several people who reccomend the other (while for the most part still conceding both are very good). Which you get seems to be more a matter of taste than anything else. If you're wondering, I just got the Wrox press one a couple weeks ago. I picked it because it has a bunch more pages. (Hey; I needed a tie-breaker, and that's a little better than a coin flip.)
I do reccomend the Petzold though. (I got that in the same shipment.) If you're not familiar with Windows Forms and want to do client programming for Windows, you'll almost need it. The Wrox Press book gives an intro on WinFoms (the O'Reilley appears to as well from a listing of topics on Amazon), but if you do any serious development you'll want a dedicated book. (It's expensive though; order it online for a lot less; it's $60 retail, but I paid $42 on Amazon. I believe other OL places have similar deals.)
Download the SDK from MS. It's just like downloading the Java SDK (JDK) from Sun.
.Net for non-Windows platforms.
It's free. You'll get a C# compiler, a bunch of class libraries, and a runtime, plus other goodies (e.g. other languages, but stick with C# if you're starting new.)
Get a beginning C# book and go to work. It's no different from learning what Java was about in Java's early days.
If your complaint is then, "but I'm not a Windows user", I can relate. One of the main reasons I became a Windows user was because I was having such a hard time learning the "cross-platform" Java language on my Mac back in the early days.
If you're not a Windows user, you should be used to waiting by now, so wait for (or go help) Mono. Since I'm not a Windows user on the server side, I have to wait with you for some things, but I think that there will eventually be an excellent
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Well, I don't know about Microsoft, and I do know a lot of VB developers that hate VB.NET with all their guts, but I have to say I find it impressive for the same reasons they hate it: it's a language that forces OO design, uses modern libraries, and in the end it's all source code.
I'm not a big fan of VBisms such as "MustOverride", "MustInherit", "NotInheritable" etc, which can easily become unreadably verbose for my taste as you combine them, but after trying it out for a couple of simple apps as an experiment I find it an outstanding improvement over the original VB.
I think it's perfectly feasible to build a relatively big project in VB.NET without destroying some hardware and going on Prozac, as I would expect with any other VB.
Not that I would, but it has become a matter of taste or distaste for the VB-like syntax, not a major disfunctionality of the language itself.
VB.NET is a crutch. But it's a crutch that manages to fix VB as a language. I consider that an achievement, to say the least.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
The above poster have gotten a 4 insightful, but rather should have a "-1 Dreadfully biased troll", for being way more biased than what he is bashing for being biased.
What the f*** is so insightful about bashing language on the basis of it being high-level and created by Microsoft?
C, C++, Java and C# all looks like nice languages, and even if you are sceptical you should base languages on its merits, and not who created it.
I'm really paranoid about Microsoft, I run a small norwegian Linux site, and I'm a Linux user, but this is just BS.
Besides, reasonable C-coders might prefer to code in C, but won't dismiss C# or Java as some sort of "Mickey Mouse"-language just because it is high-level. Some times you need the power of C, sometimes you just want rapid development without the hassle.
There are at least enough C-coders that think C# is great, to create Mono.
Dear EvanED,
For someone who has done a good deal of research on languages, I find it odd that you should point to four of THE most superficial differences.
Had you pointed to differences between the CLR and the JVM, you might have had an audience.
Instead, you rehashed the oulde argument between C++ and Java. Who won that debate? The people who realized that it was a waste of time to argue THESE points.
EvanED, I wish you well in your research. I would like to point out to you that there is not a junior college on Earth that will give you any extra credit for your penetrating analysis.
Sincerely,
sweet jonnie
Look in VS.NET, all documentation and sample code for C# and VB.NET comes from the same source.
C++ samples are completely different (it is a really different language, with templates, MI etc).
In the VS.NET sample code there is a toggle that switches between VS.NET and C#. Really, the two are 100% equivalent, only the syntax differs.
I think that most traditional VB programmers shall stumble with VB.NET. Superficially they may think it is still the same language, but in reality it is totally different from what they knew. Only few of those can grasp VB/C#.NET.
The survivors come mainly from C++ background; for those, the C# syntax shall have more appeal.
Thus, VB shall die.
I didn't know Barnes & Nobles sold binaries...
Since when is a language which fixes a couple of serious flaws in Java 'mickeyware' ?
Oh, I see... It's not C++, so it must be stuff for kids or 'loonies' who think they are real programmers, right?
Grow up, kid. C# brings real type safety to the table + GC, which virtually eliminates the crap which bugs (pun intended) C++ code up till today and tomorrow. C++ is nice, but for most projects, it's just a language which requires too much overhead, too much typing (on the keyboard that is) and results in too complex code. Gee, Java and C# do a much better job in those areas. Limit yourself by choosing a language which holds you back in productivity, I don't care, nor do your competitors.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
I said it was free, and it is. It costs no more than the JDK, which is to say: nothing. That "if you already paid for Windows" stuff is silly. I already said that when Java was at this stage, I had to buy a whole PC to use it because the Mac version was hopelessly behind Windows (and the Linux version nonexistent.)
And what's this about source? Go ahead. Take that Java source, fork Java and see what happens to you. And where is the source for that darned javac? I can't seem to find it. I need it because I'd like to create a new dialect of the Java language to sell to scientific developers. Hmm.
If you want to customize a Java-like language without getting sued, start with ECMA C#.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
The review seems surprised that the book was very honest about C#. back in previous times of my career (when I did win16 and then later win32 C++ programming) all of the Microsoft Press books I bought and read were of good quality. And they included healthy criticisms of parts of the technologies that weren't so great.
In spite of Microsoft Press sharing the name with the company they have generally published books that are fair in their dealings with Microsoft technologies.
A Comparative Overview of C# [genamics.com] is blatant astroturfing from C# book author. The genamics.com review is riddled with problems, the author has ignored constructive feedback on the article, has a poor appreciation of OO and is inconsistency in his comparison. He also has a history of Atroturfing the forums.java.sun.com in support of C#.
IMHO this is a much higher quality comparative review.