I want to rant, but I'm too busy at the moment.
Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?
Paul
Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?
Paul
-
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
"PJ6" <noone@nowhere. netwrote in news:OBo4yzwZHH A.1580
@TK2MSFTNGP05.p hx.gbl:
The semicolon ... but that's a personal preference. C# developers probablyWho else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?
have a lot of things that they hate about VB too ;-)
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
People who hate C# :PWho else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?
>
Mythran
Comment
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <kip_pot...@hot mail.comwrote:I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of>Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?
People who hate C# :P
>
Mythran
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.
Comment
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of:-)standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.
Thanks,
Seth Rowe
On Mar 15, 12:31 pm, sdbills...@gmai l.com wrote:On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <kip_pot...@hot mail.comwrote:
>>Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?>People who hate C# :P>Mythran
I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.
Comment
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
:-)
Cor
<sdbillsfan@gma il.comschreef in bericht
news:1173976308 .953275.200600@ l75g2000hse.goo glegroups.com.. .On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <kip_pot...@hot mail.comwrote:>>>Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?
>People who hate C# :P
>>
>Mythran
I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.
>
Comment
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
<sdbillsfan@gma il.comwrote in message
news:1173976308 .953275.200600@ l75g2000hse.goo glegroups.com.. .Hmmm. Whose standard would that be? How many languages follow it?On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <kip_pot...@hot mail.comwrote:>>>Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?
>People who hate C# :P
>>
>Mythran
I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.
Comment
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
On Mar 15, 2:30 pm, "PJ6" <n...@nowhere.n etwrote:You know, it's funny. I code in VB.NET every day. I love the language.<sdbills...@gma il.comwrote in message
>
news:1173976308 .953275.200600@ l75g2000hse.goo glegroups.com.. .
>>On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <kip_pot...@hot mail.comwrote:Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?>People who hate C# :P>Mythran>I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.
Hmmm. Whose standard would that be? How many languages follow it?
But I have to say, I love C# as well. Why? Because these guys are
right. It's a fantastic implementation of standard object-oriented
principles. It's OOP on steroids.
Sure, it lacks some of the high-gloss enamel that VB has. But let's be
honest. The high gloss enamel native to VB.NET is intrinsic to Visual
Basic; in its original design, VB.NET was a lot like C#, but certain
decisions were made to placate VB6 developers who couldn't handle
things like declaring arrays with the number of elements instead of
the upper boundary. VB.NET lacks support for operator overloading,
unsigned types (but hey, that's not supported by the CTS, so ixnay on
atthay) and a few other things.
But in the end, you can develop applications with BOTH of them, and
they both get compiled down to IL. They both use the same
Framework(s). It's just a question of syntax. So you have to type a
semicolon. Big whoop-ti-doo.
Use the language that makes you most productive or that your boss
requires. If you can't change it, don't waste your breath or frazzled
nerves complaining about it. It doesn't change anything. Focus your
attention on solving the coding issues, and move on. You're typically
not solving coding problem with a language in .NET; you're typically
solving it with the Framework.
Language wars will rage on for as long as there will be languages and
there are zealots to fuel them. We'll argue back and forth about
things that don't really mean anything, and in the end, the work will
still get done, regardless of the language that's used to do it.
So, in the end, the argument is moot. As Officer Barbrady says, "Move
along people. Nothing to see here."
Move
Comment
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
"Mike Hofer" <kchighland@gma il.comschrieb:I have to disagree. I consider implicit interface wireing based on equal>>>Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?>>>People who hate C# :P>>>Mythran>>I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.
>Hmmm. Whose standard would that be? How many languages follow it?
You know, it's funny. I code in VB.NET every day. I love the language.
But I have to say, I love C# as well. Why? Because these guys are
right. It's a fantastic implementation of standard object-oriented
principles. It's OOP on steroids.
member names dangerous and suboptimal.
What's the problem with that?Sure, it lacks some of the high-gloss enamel that VB has. But let's be
honest. The high gloss enamel native to VB.NET is intrinsic to Visual
Basic; in its original design, VB.NET was a lot like C#, but certain
decisions were made to placate VB6 developers who couldn't handle
things like declaring arrays with the number of elements instead of
the upper boundary.
That's wrong. VB 2005 supports operator overloading and unsigned types andVB.NET lacks support for operator overloading,
unsigned types (but hey, that's not supported by the CTS, so ixnay on
atthay) and a few other things.
a few other things.
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Comment
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
On Mar 15, 6:54 pm, "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-
h...@gmx.atwrot e:Visual Basic .NET doesn't use IMPLICIT interface wiring. It uses"Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gma il.comschrieb:
>
>
>
>
>>Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?>People who hate C# :P>Mythran>I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.>Hmmm. Whose standard would that be? How many languages follow it?>You know, it's funny. I code in VB.NET every day. I love the language.
But I have to say, I love C# as well. Why? Because these guys are
right. It's a fantastic implementation of standard object-oriented
principles. It's OOP on steroids.
I have to disagree. I consider implicit interface wireing based on equal
member names dangerous and suboptimal.
EXPLICIT interface wiring through the use of the Handles clause. For
example:
Public Sub SomeRadicallyDi fferentFunction Name(ByVal sender As Object,
ByVal e As EventArgs) _
Handles MyButton.Click
End Sub
It's merely a convention to use similarly named functions these days.
There ISN'T anything wrong with that. I don't have anything against VB>Sure, it lacks some of the high-gloss enamel that VB has. But let's be
honest. The high gloss enamel native to VB.NET is intrinsic to Visual
Basic; in its original design, VB.NET was a lot like C#, but certain
decisions were made to placate VB6 developers who couldn't handle
things like declaring arrays with the number of elements instead of
the upper boundary.
What's the problem with that?
or C#. The whole point of my post was that it doesn't make a
difference one way or another.
You got me there. I, unfortunately, am still working in .NET 1.1 (we>VB.NET lacks support for operator overloading,
unsigned types (but hey, that's not supported by the CTS, so ixnay on
atthay) and a few other things.
That's wrong. VB 2005 supports operator overloading and unsigned types and
a few other things.
haven't embraced VS 2005 or .NET 2.0, thanks to the lack of what the 3-
letter job titles are calling "a compelling need"), so I often forget
to spell that out in my posts. Thanks for reminding me.
I should have made that clear. But my point that the CTS doesn't
support unsigned types remains valid...at least, last time I checked.
They were considered nonportable. And that was why the VB language
designers chose not to support them. I don't believe that the CTS has
been revised to include unsigned types.
Again, I should have made that clear, and for that, I apologize.
Mike
Comment
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
Mike,
"Mike Hofer" <kchighland@gma il.comschrieb:I was referring to C# because I considered the last sentences after the>>>Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?>>>People who hate C# :P>>>Mythran>>I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having
to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in
VB
instead.>>>Hmmm. Whose standard would that be? How many languages follow it?>>You know, it's funny. I code in VB.NET every day. I love the language.
But I have to say, I love C# as well. Why? Because these guys are
right. It's a fantastic implementation of standard object-oriented
principles. It's OOP on steroids.
>I have to disagree. I consider implicit interface wireing based on equal
>member names dangerous and suboptimal.
Visual Basic .NET doesn't use IMPLICIT interface wiring. It uses
EXPLICIT interface wiring through the use of the Handles clause. For
example:
rhetorical question in your statement to target C#. With "interface wiring"
I meant implementation of interfaces and connecting methods to the
interfaces' members.
No problem :-).>>>VB.NET lacks support for operator overloading,
unsigned types (but hey, that's not supported by the CTS, so ixnay on
atthay) and a few other things.
>That's wrong. VB 2005 supports operator overloading and unsigned types
>and
>a few other things.
You got me there. I, unfortunately, am still working in .NET 1.1 (we
haven't embraced VS 2005 or .NET 2.0, thanks to the lack of what the 3-
letter job titles are calling "a compelling need"), so I often forget
to spell that out in my posts. Thanks for reminding me.
Again, no problem and no need to apologize.Again, I should have made that clear, and for that, I apologize.
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Comment
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
Reason for hate to C# can be
Case sensitive language
semicolns
etc....
but i don't think so that anyone can hate c# due to that and in fact
these are not the reasons to hate c#.
So here we go.......
Nitin Sharma NXS
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Comment
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
Reason for hate to C# can be
Case sensitive language
semicolns
etc....
but i don't think so that anyone can hate c# due to that and in fact
these are not the reasons to hate c#.
So here we go.......
Nitin Sharma NXS
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Comment
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
Mike Hofer wrote:Interrestingly enough, some VB programmers can't handle declaring arraysThe high gloss enamel native to VB.NET is intrinsic to Visual
Basic; in its original design, VB.NET was a lot like C#, but certain
decisions were made to placate VB6 developers who couldn't handle
things like declaring arrays with the number of elements instead of
the upper boundary.
with the upper boundary, so they consistently dimension arrays with one
item more than they will use.
As this rarely causes any errors, they can continue doing so for a long
time without realising it.
:)
--
Göran Andersson
_____
Comment
-
Re: reasons to hate C#
On Mar 16, 8:56 am, Göran Andersson <g...@guffa.com wrote:HehMike Hofer wrote:>The high gloss enamel native to VB.NET is intrinsic to Visual
Basic; in its original design, VB.NET was a lot like C#, but certain
decisions were made to placate VB6 developers who couldn't handle
things like declaring arrays with the number of elements instead of
the upper boundary.
Interrestingly enough, some VB programmers can't handle declaring arrays
with the upper boundary, so they consistently dimension arrays with one
item more than they will use.
>
As this rarely causes any errors, they can continue doing so for a long
time without realising it.
>
:)
>
--
Göran Andersson
_____http://www.guffa.com
I suppose, in a fairly innocuous way, that's a memory leak. Depending
on whether or not it's cleaned up appropriately. Thank the powers that
be for garbage collection.
I shouldn't have said "can't handle." That was needlessly harsh, and
unduly inappropriate on my part. What I was trying to get at was that
the vast majority of languages declare arrays using the number of
elements in them, not by their boundaries. VB is fairly enigmatic that
way. I believe (and this is purely opinion here, so be forewarned)
that it's merely the volume of ardent VB users that made the argument
FOR a upper-bound based declarations compelling.
I'd have preferred the change to "standard" means of array
declarations; but I understand that it would have represented a shift
in thinking, and that it might have produced a lot of defects. It
would have also complicated porting of existing software, and can
empathize with those who didn't want to see it changed. Still, it
would have been nice. But I am not the totality of the universe; it
certainly doesn't revolve around me and my preferences, so I can live
without it.
Comment
Comment