I'd like for them to explain how "using System;" is better than "#include ". This occurs right away on the first line of their "Hello World". I don't even want to think about what the rest of it would look like.
What, you mean like this c++ code?:
#include using namespace std;
int main () {
... etc...
Given that std should be unique to iostream (to avoid namespace collision), I don't see a problem with this.
This is incorrect. Java has int, long, float, double, char, byte as primitives. REAL primitives. Not just wrappers. Yes, you can use wrappers but you don't have to. In fact this is actually considered by some a FLAW in the design of Java because Java is not "pure" OO since it has these primitives. But saying Java has no primitives is just incorrect. The primitives are just fundamental types, not native types (Good Thing).
I didn't claim that java didn't have primitives; just that when you have to use them in something which requires objects (ie. derived from Object), you need to wrap them using Integer, Float, Double, etc... which is something that is automatic in C#.
Java may well have JNI for dropping to native code; but you have to write a separate DLL for that. C# doesn't require this; you just mark a method as "unsafe", and all of a sudden, you're programming to the metal.
If you want Object Oriented programming with raw C-like access to the O/S, use C++. That's what its there for (ask Bjarne. he says this every time the subject comes up).
Well, given that Bjarne was asked to review the language, and gave it two thumbs up, I guess that's moot.
You write: Java doesn't let you use primitives (int, short, etc) as classes without wrapping them yourself (lots of overhead). what about java.lang.Integer, java.lang.long, java.lang.Character ? And using wrappers is hardly "lots of overhead".
java.lang.Integer is a wrapper that you have to use by doing:
Integer iobject = new Integer(int i);
It's then an object (or rather, an object with an int inside it).
So yes, I was correct; you do have to do this yourself in Java.
In C#, all you have to do is cast it - to type "object" or "Integer" - eg:
Integer iobject = (Integer) i;
Which is a lot less work if you have to do it over and over and over again - which you might if you're using collections a lot.
Combining pointers/gc. Are they INSANE? One or the other! How does the gc know when a user-created pointer is out of scope? How does the user free a pointer? By using something like malloc() and free(), right? So who's managing what? Do I collect my own pointers, leave them alone, or trust the gc to ALWAYS pick them up? Remember, Java makes no guarantees about WHEN an object is gc'd or even on which gc pass. It might hang around for two or three runs before the memory is needed. So very bad, this. What's the point of a gc if you have pointers?
Use the GC most of the time, and pointers only when you have to.
Also, you might note that you have to mark the method that pointers are used in as "unsafe", which allows you to start messing with them.
Looks this may be a windows only tool, sad to say. I should have guessed that MS would do something like this. Creating a language standard then patenting it, I think that would put a crimp in any competition in the compiler market..
MS tend to use patents defensively; ie. if you use their technology, you promise you won't use any patents you hold against them.
At least, that's what I saw last time I looked into anything like that.
Just after looking at this document I just wonder why it's called C# and not Java# because it's seem just about the same except for the "runs only on Windows platform" thing.
Java doesn't let you use primitives (int, short, etc) as classes without wrapping them yourself (lots of overhead).
C# does.
Java doesn't let you drop down to native code and turn off the garbage collector if you need to. Or use pointers if you want to talk to the underlying C-based OS.
C# does.
Java doesn't have a "foreach" statement.
C# does.
Java doesn't have property-handlers (eg. write functions that are treated as member variables - eg:
a.setName("MyName") would become: a.Name = "MyName" - but it would still go through a function.
These are great for encapsulation. C# has it - Java doesn't.
Java doesn't have any versioning mechanism (other than the woefully inadequate @deprecated tag.
C# does.
Java doesn't support indexers (methods on a class - say List, which allow you to take the object of type List, and use it like an array - eg:
Right, it's apparent from the article that this language (which I have chosen to call C-Pound;) is an attempt to "Embrace & Extend" C++. Which, really isn't necessary, but hey, we have to cut them some slack -- dirty tricks are the only games Microsoft knows how to play.
Er... what?
Stroustrup has approved the language by the way. Just thought you'd like to know.
You might find out why if you compare C# to some of Stroustrup's bitch list in "The Design and Evolution of C++"
Simon
Re:Sources too numerous to mention, here are a cou
on
Why Develop On Linux?
·
· Score: 1
after years of misstarts by trying to do windows programming, with MFC and all its guckiness, I finally started doing some simple command line stuff under linux.
Man... so much easier and it actually makes sense!
Command line programming is always going to be easier than GUI programming. Regardless of Linux vs. MFC - did you know for example, that you can write ANSI C command-line apps UNDER WINDOWS?!!?!?!
Shock, horror!
Yep, it's all there. And Visual Studio will even generate "int main()" for you if you ask it nicely.
Functions are functions and you call them directly - after you fill out a few strucs - if you want to do something. MFC seems less a part of the c standard - too many callbacks (yech! c was not meant for this!) and levels of abstraction.
If C wasn't meant for callbacks, why did they bother putting function pointers in the language?
Clue: Sometimes a function pointer can be orders of magnitude more efficient than a switch statement. And when you have to do direct binding, nothing else will do.
Simon
Re:Parallels between MS App Studio and "Titanic"..
on
Why Develop On Linux?
·
· Score: 2
With app studio you get huge apps that take up lots of resources. Titanic was a huge ship that took a lot of resources. Did you see all the coal in the engine room?
Apps on Windows are not properly protected from each other; any app can crash the whole system. Titanic's bulkheads were too short to keep the ship from sinking when one compartment got flooded.
C programming under windows requires those near, far where are my variables stuff. Titanic... "...near, far, wherever you are...".
More...???
Well, given that apparently the last time you touched Windows you were programming it under Windows 3.1, no thanks.
NEAR/FAR - went with Win3.1 & DOS. GONE. FINITO.
Windows app protection : across the board in 95/98, and NT/2000 unless it crashes the 98/95 kernel or uses 16bit drivers. In NT/2000, all apps are protected from one another.
App studio creates "huge apps with lots of resources". Only if you use the default settings, in which case, it's YOUR fault. Change them. Don't be afraid - it works just like under UNIX.
I agree completely. I just don't understand why everyone else just doesn't understand that they're wrong.
Because you're a geek, you think in binary.
When it comes to issues that are not black, and not white, but in fact are a shade of gray, you get confused and polarise to the nearest position, rather than being willing to spend some time in that fuzzy, analog space.
Don't worry about it - in time you'll mature, and it'll get out of your system, and you'll be able to think in that gray space. But only if you question your thought processes on a regular basis.
. Example:- MSVC server cgi dll = 115k (prints hello world) apache server cgi exec. = 5k (prints hello world) Need I say any more...
Try cracking your project file open and taking OUT all the DLLs - like winspool, GDI, etc etc. Only link to msvcrt.dll - and change linker alignment to/ALIGN:16
You'll find - lo and behold - that all of a sudden, your HELLO WORLD becomes about 2K long (give or take).
Well, maybe one day they'll stop loading Microsoft products on all their machines. One can only hope.
What would you rather they bundled on them?
Whatever I choose. Which for now, as Linux still doesn't hack it for your average Joe, is Windows.
Not that I'm your average joe, but after spending 4 hours a few weeks back installing an ne2000 compatible network card and getting it to work on Mandrake 7, I don't have the time to screw about with Linux. Not to mention the fact that to get Mandrake to install, I had to futz with the BIOS before and after installation to get it to work (didn't like LBA mode... pshaww).
That way no application means no editing rather than no picture, which is how dear old "we know what you want" MS have done it.
Actually, MS did it the way you described above as the way it should be done. It's called View Caching. And most converters don't bother because they haven't implemented all of OLE Structured Storage (or at least enough of it to be able to *use* that part).
Well I remember trying to write a 6 page research paper during my college days using Word 6.0. I spent a lot of time tweaking the format, making sur that it would stay on 6 pages and not more. Then I brought that file to school to print, and when Word 7.0 opened it, BINGO, all the formatting was destroyed and it now took 6 pages and 2-3 lines! I tweaked it there and when it got sent to the HP laserjet, it came out as 6 pages and 2-3 lines again! Truly MS word is WYSIWYG! Can you please explain why MS can read the document graphics, but can't maintain format consistency? They seem to have improved a lot in this regard, but so what? All the other guys trying to write a compatible editor are exactly in the position MS itself was a few years ago.
The point is that MS's.doc is a joke specification, if it ever was at all. Sure you could read the files, but the specification is NOT COMPLETE. That is why many people are having a hard time converting.
This is because Word 6.0 rendered according to screen metrics, Word 7.0 rendered according to printer metrics for better quality output at low font sizes, and Word 8.0 now renders according to *font design* metrics, which means that while it'll look reasonably like what you get on the printer, and obey margins, it will squish the fonts a pixel or two together at times to get the best fit.
It's nothing to do with the.DOC format at all - it's all to do with the render layer.
That pretty much sums it up, and from a Microsoft VP, no less. You can pretend that Microsoft is a benevolent company all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
The facts being that Vinod Vallipolli wasn't a Microsoft VP, nor even anywhere near that. He was a grunt.
Now if you'd said he was a Microsoft V V, then I'd have to agree with you.
I can sit down right here and now and write a document that claims the best way for Microsoft to make money is to take Linus, strap him to a chair with electrodes on his testicles, and fry him like a bug on a hotplate.
This document would get leaked.
Does this mean that this is happening in real life? Well, goddamnit YES! Linus is strapped to a chair! Right now! With electrodes on his testicles!
Funny how you never saw the leaked document which says that Microsoft would be better off if they gave all the lower-level peter-principle'd management a good kicking, stopped the infighting, and stopped the use of brute force in their development practices.
Slashdot Mirror
...and you were saying about portablity?
Er, no actually> I don't believe I mentioned portability once.
Si
Another difference: One of these languages, not the one ending in '#'. has multiplatform open-source implementations available. See http://kaffe.org.
But still no open-standard. What a shame.
Give MS time; they only released the spec today. Java's had 5 years. And still isn't an open standard.
Si
I'd like for them to explain how "using System;" is better than "#include ". This occurs right away on the first line of their "Hello World". I don't even want to think about what the rest of it would look like.
What, you mean like this c++ code?:
#include
using namespace std;
int main () {
... etc...
Given that std should be unique to iostream (to avoid namespace collision), I don't see a problem with this.
Simon
This is incorrect. Java has int, long, float, double, char, byte as primitives. REAL primitives. Not just wrappers. Yes, you can use wrappers but you don't have to. In fact this is actually considered by some a FLAW in the design of Java because Java is not "pure" OO since it has these primitives. But saying Java has no primitives is just incorrect. The primitives are just fundamental types, not native types (Good Thing).
I didn't claim that java didn't have primitives; just that when you have to use them in something which requires objects (ie. derived from Object), you need to wrap them using Integer, Float, Double, etc... which is something that is automatic in C#.
Java may well have JNI for dropping to native code; but you have to write a separate DLL for that. C# doesn't require this; you just mark a method as "unsafe", and all of a sudden, you're programming to the metal.
Simon
If you want Object Oriented programming with raw C-like access to the O/S, use C++. That's what its there for (ask Bjarne. he says this every time the subject comes up).
Well, given that Bjarne was asked to review the language, and gave it two thumbs up, I guess that's moot.
Simon
You write: Java doesn't let you use primitives (int, short, etc) as classes without wrapping them yourself (lots of overhead).
what about java.lang.Integer, java.lang.long, java.lang.Character ? And using wrappers is hardly "lots of overhead".
java.lang.Integer is a wrapper that you have to use by doing:
Integer iobject = new Integer(int i);
It's then an object (or rather, an object with an int inside it).
So yes, I was correct; you do have to do this yourself in Java.
In C#, all you have to do is cast it - to type "object" or "Integer" - eg:
Integer iobject = (Integer) i;
Which is a lot less work if you have to do it over and over and over again - which you might if you're using collections a lot.
Simon
Combining pointers/gc. Are they INSANE? One or the other! How does the gc know when a user-created pointer is out of scope? How does the user free a pointer? By using something like malloc() and free(), right? So who's managing what? Do I collect my own pointers, leave them alone, or trust the gc to ALWAYS pick them up? Remember, Java makes no guarantees about WHEN an object is gc'd or even on which gc pass. It might hang around for two or three runs before the memory is needed. So very bad, this. What's the point of a gc if you have pointers?
Use the GC most of the time, and pointers only when you have to.
Also, you might note that you have to mark the method that pointers are used in as "unsafe", which allows you to start messing with them.
Si
the difference is: one of the languages actually exists.
Actually, the difference is:
One of these languages has been passed to an official standards organization for standardization and ratification; the other has not.
The one that has not, by the way, begins with "J".
Si
Looks this may be a windows only tool, sad to say. I should have guessed that MS would do something like this. Creating a language standard then patenting it, I think that would put a crimp in any competition in the compiler market..
MS tend to use patents defensively; ie. if you use their technology, you promise you won't use any patents you hold against them.
At least, that's what I saw last time I looked into anything like that.
Si
Just after looking at this document I just wonder why it's called C# and not Java# because it's seem just about the same except for the "runs only on Windows platform" thing.
Java doesn't let you use primitives (int, short, etc) as classes without wrapping them yourself (lots of overhead).
C# does.
Java doesn't let you drop down to native code and turn off the garbage collector if you need to. Or use pointers if you want to talk to the underlying C-based OS.
C# does.
Java doesn't have a "foreach" statement.
C# does.
Java doesn't have property-handlers (eg. write functions that are treated as member variables - eg:
a.setName("MyName") would become: a.Name = "MyName" - but it would still go through a function.
These are great for encapsulation. C# has it - Java doesn't.
Java doesn't have any versioning mechanism (other than the woefully inadequate @deprecated tag.
C# does.
Java doesn't support indexers (methods on a class - say List, which allow you to take the object of type List, and use it like an array - eg:
List l;
l[index] = "asjdasid"
C#, however, does.
Need I continue?
Simon
PhotoCD is out there, already available, and good for storing quite a few high-quality images. They're also readable on most good DVD players (IIRC).
Alternatively, Panasonic make DVD recorders now, for DVD5 format disks.
What I say still stands, NT's security model is an abomination.
It's actually better than the one used in Linux.
Better control. Finer grained. The only difference is that on most installations, it's turned off by default.
On Windows 2000, however, it's not.
Simon
Right, it's apparent from the article that this language (which I have chosen to call C-Pound ;) is an attempt to "Embrace & Extend" C++. Which, really isn't necessary, but hey, we have to cut them some slack -- dirty tricks are the only games Microsoft knows how to play.
Er... what?
Stroustrup has approved the language by the way. Just thought you'd like to know.
You might find out why if you compare C# to some of Stroustrup's bitch list in "The Design and Evolution of C++"
Simon
Gee, I guess you've not used NT have you?
Simon
after years of misstarts by trying to do windows programming, with MFC and all its guckiness, I finally started doing some simple command line stuff under linux.
Man... so much easier and it actually makes sense!
Command line programming is always going to be easier than GUI programming. Regardless of Linux vs. MFC - did you know for example, that you can write ANSI C command-line apps UNDER WINDOWS?!!?!?!
Shock, horror!
Yep, it's all there. And Visual Studio will even generate "int main()" for you if you ask it nicely.
Sheesh.
Simon
Functions are functions and you call them directly - after you fill out a few strucs - if you want to do something. MFC seems less a part of the c standard - too many callbacks (yech! c was not meant for this!) and levels of abstraction.
If C wasn't meant for callbacks, why did they bother putting function pointers in the language?
Clue: Sometimes a function pointer can be orders of magnitude more efficient than a switch statement. And when you have to do direct binding, nothing else will do.
Simon
With app studio you get huge apps that take up lots of resources. Titanic was a huge ship that took a lot of resources. Did you see all the coal in the engine room?
Apps on Windows are not properly protected from each other; any app can crash the whole system. Titanic's bulkheads were too short to keep the ship from sinking when one compartment got flooded.
C programming under windows requires those near, far where are my variables stuff. Titanic... "...near, far, wherever you are...".
More...???
Well, given that apparently the last time you touched Windows you were programming it under Windows 3.1, no thanks.
NEAR/FAR - went with Win3.1 & DOS. GONE. FINITO.
Windows app protection : across the board in 95/98, and NT/2000 unless it crashes the 98/95 kernel or uses 16bit drivers. In NT/2000, all apps are protected from one another.
App studio creates "huge apps with lots of resources". Only if you use the default settings, in which case, it's YOUR fault. Change them. Don't be afraid - it works just like under UNIX.
Switch to a frickin' MAKEFILE if you have to.
Simon
I agree completely. I just don't understand why everyone else just doesn't understand that they're wrong.
Because you're a geek, you think in binary.
When it comes to issues that are not black, and not white, but in fact are a shade of gray, you get confused and polarise to the nearest position, rather than being willing to spend some time in that fuzzy, analog space.
Don't worry about it - in time you'll mature, and it'll get out of your system, and you'll be able to think in that gray space. But only if you question your thought processes on a regular basis.
Simon
. Example:- MSVC server cgi dll = 115k (prints hello world) apache server cgi exec. = 5k (prints hello world) Need I say any more...
/ALIGN:16
Try cracking your project file open and taking OUT all the DLLs - like winspool, GDI, etc etc. Only link to msvcrt.dll - and change linker alignment to
You'll find - lo and behold - that all of a sudden, your HELLO WORLD becomes about 2K long (give or take).
Simon
Well, maybe one day they'll stop loading Microsoft products on all their machines. One can only hope.
What would you rather they bundled on them?
Whatever I choose. Which for now, as Linux still doesn't hack it for your average Joe, is Windows.
Not that I'm your average joe, but after spending 4 hours a few weeks back installing an ne2000 compatible network card and getting it to work on Mandrake 7, I don't have the time to screw about with Linux. Not to mention the fact that to get Mandrake to install, I had to futz with the BIOS before and after installation to get it to work (didn't like LBA mode... pshaww).
Simon
.. I've built kiosks around Win95 and got what I deserved- Daily calls from the client- "The screen is all blue.."
Maybe you should try a different line of work then... because it would appear that you don't know quite what you're doing.
SImon
USA citizens: If you weren't going to bother voting, (and i know that's most of you) vote Nader.
Hmmm...
You might want to read about Nader here if anyone out there was seriously considering that as an option.
Simon
That way no application means no editing rather than no picture, which is how dear old "we know what you want" MS have done it.
Actually, MS did it the way you described above as the way it should be done. It's called View Caching. And most converters don't bother because they haven't implemented all of OLE Structured Storage (or at least enough of it to be able to *use* that part).
Simon
Well I remember trying to write a 6 page research paper during my college days using Word 6.0. I spent a lot of time tweaking the format, making sur that it would stay on 6 pages and not more. Then I brought that file to school to print, and when Word 7.0 opened it, BINGO, all the formatting was destroyed and it now took 6 pages and 2-3 lines! I tweaked it there and when it got sent to the HP laserjet, it came out as 6 pages and 2-3 lines again! Truly MS word is WYSIWYG!
.doc is a joke specification, if it ever was at all. Sure you could read the files, but the specification is NOT COMPLETE. That is why many people are having a hard time converting.
.DOC format at all - it's all to do with the render layer.
Can you please explain why MS can read the document graphics, but can't maintain format consistency? They seem to have improved a lot in this regard, but so what? All the other guys trying to write a compatible editor are exactly in the position MS itself was a few years ago.
The point is that MS's
This is because Word 6.0 rendered according to screen metrics, Word 7.0 rendered according to printer metrics for better quality output at low font sizes, and Word 8.0 now renders according to *font design* metrics, which means that while it'll look reasonably like what you get on the printer, and obey margins, it will squish the fonts a pixel or two together at times to get the best fit.
It's nothing to do with the
Simon
That pretty much sums it up, and from a Microsoft VP, no less. You can pretend that Microsoft is a benevolent company all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
The facts being that Vinod Vallipolli wasn't a Microsoft VP, nor even anywhere near that. He was a grunt.
Now if you'd said he was a Microsoft V V, then I'd have to agree with you.
I can sit down right here and now and write a document that claims the best way for Microsoft to make money is to take Linus, strap him to a chair with electrodes on his testicles, and fry him like a bug on a hotplate.
This document would get leaked.
Does this mean that this is happening in real life? Well, goddamnit YES! Linus is strapped to a chair! Right now! With electrodes on his testicles!
Funny how you never saw the leaked document which says that Microsoft would be better off if they gave all the lower-level peter-principle'd management a good kicking, stopped the infighting, and stopped the use of brute force in their development practices.
Simon