Richard's C# blog

Languages get standardized...either by "formal" oranizations or by vendors. However, the idea that Mono represents a viable "multiplatform" C# seem rather silly to me. The minute Mono looks like it will cost MS market share they will break it with a new version of .Net. Guaranteed. C# is for all practical purposes a Windows specific language. It will never run on the platforms I care most about.

The fact is that the process at the ECMA is not all that open or robust. The process that C++ goes through for standardization is very different from the one C# goes through.

I agree with your posting, Richard! I was dismayed by Stroustrup's dismissive appraisal of C#. I also don't see much sense in Jim Blizard's rebuttal. So what if MS broke Mono with a new version of .NET? That would only apply to the Windows operating system. Every other platform could still support open standards. Mono would continue to work on those platforms. Wouldn't they be the platforms he 'cared most about'?

Blizard also blasts the process at the ECMA. I don't really see his point there, I'm afraid. Mono obviously finds the standard open and robust enough. It's built on the damn thing!

I am very excited by C#. It truly seems to represent an evolutionary step forward in programming.

"the incremental improvements C# has made to programming"

Taken from M$ page directly:

-The bool type: There is no conversion between the bool type and other types (specifically int).

-The switch statement: Unlike the C++ switch statement, C# does not support fall through from one case label to another.

-Preprocessor directives are used for conditional compilation. No header files are used in C#.

-The Main method is declared differently from the main function in C++.

-Pointers are allowed in C# but only in unsafe mode.

-Strings: C# strings are different from C++ strings.

-Destructors: In C#, you don't have control over when a destructor is called.

-C# does not support bit fields.

-# input/output services and formatting rely on the run-time library of the .NET Framework.


This means that any C++ code won't ever compile in this "incremental improvement". Now, that's great, who would ever want to switch to this horrible mess? This language can't even compare to C++. Bjarne doesn't get C# because nobody understands obfuscated, deformed languages, which are always based on an existing, working, efficient one. The world really DOES NOT need C#. And nobody ever will. Your brain is shrinking.

Martin: you speak harshly and dogmatically but offer no reasoning to back up your statements. Pretty much everything you've mentioned are widely regarded as GOOD THINGS for a language to do. The fallacy in your attitude is that making it more difficult to make a programming error by constraining language behavior somehow insults the intelligence of the developer and causes them to be 'stupid'. If you think this is the case, why would you not program in less-safe languages than C++??

I will address some of your points.

>> -The bool type: There is no conversion between the bool type and other types (specifically int).

There is no *implicit* conversion. There are plenty of ways to convert whatever you want to a bool. This prevents conditional statements from being true under common typos like if(a=b) vs. if(a==b).

>> -The Main method is declared differently from the main function in C++.
>> -Strings: C# strings are different from C++ strings.

Ah, so *different* is now *categorically bad*. These statements reveals that you do not care about the real-world implications of language differences, but are, in fact, criticizing it because it is different.

>> -Pointers are allowed in C# but only in unsafe mode.

Again, no reason given by you. Pointers are available when necessary, but otherwise C# and .NET manage typed references for you. Not only does this make the language easier to use, but safer for pointer-related bugs.

>> -Destructors: In C#, you don't have control over when a destructor is called.

There are endless debates on Microsoft's C# and C++ newsgroups as to why nondeterministic finalization is good and desireable. There are also numerous workarounds to this.

>> -# input/output services and formatting rely on the run-time library of the .NET Framework.

Because we wouldn't want C#'s input/output to work with VB.NET / Perl.NET / JScript.NET or any other .NET language, would we?

>> This means that any C++ code won't ever compile in this "incremental improvement".

I hope you weren't thinking that was ever the goal of C#!.

Bottom line: Ad hominem attacks against C# will do very little to convince anyone who's ever honestly tried the language that it is 'bad' or 'unnecessary'.

Richard,
A fitting reply to Martin.
I like you bottom line too.
--Rama

Let the religious wars begin!

Frankly, some of the comments by C# fanatics lead me to believe they are far from experts in C++ and are not in a position to compare the languages.

I started doing commercial C programming in 1989 and have been doing commercial C++ architecture and implementation since 1994 (10 years.) I'm an expert.

Now I'm doing C# stuff, and I can tell you, C# is NOT AN INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENT over C++! It is not a descendant of C++, it is more of a sibling. It has lexicographical elements in common. There are semantic attributes of C#, such as garbage collection, not using include files, and the common lanuage runtime that allows language interoperability, that make the language easier for novices and more convenient for typical Web and Windows applications. But some omissions (at least so far) are SERIOUS LOSSES if you want to try to do major enterprise level applications, to say nothing of embedded systems, simulation tools, compiler development, signal processing, image processing....

If this was not so, then answer why most all of Microsoft's software, including the C# compiler AND VISUAL C++, are still written in: C++.

For example, the lack of proper template support and the lack of embracing STL, are SERIOUS LOSSES for C#. That is, IF YOU ARE DOING CERTAIN TYPES OF SOFTWARE. (I don't think the lack of "bit fields" should be a big deal---you can still do bit manipulation quite easily if you are organized and careful.)

C# has great value for some types of software; C++ has and will continue to have great value for some types of software. And anyone using ANY existing language, or designing a new one, needs to understand that no one language is likely to serve all needs and few, if any, software projects make the choice of language or development environment arbitrary.

(I wouldn't use EITHER language for EVERY software problem I face--which is one reason why I have a working knowledge of 20 or 25 other languages, everything from Assembly to PL/I to XML to APL to LISP.)

So there's value in learning C#; there's value in becoming an expert in C++, and there is HUGE VALUE in really internalizing your understanding of object-oriented design concepts (polymorphism, the Liskov substitution principle, abstraction, encapsulation, information hiding, object messaging, etc.), not to mention older, more basic ideas like coupling, cohesion, reusability, stepwise refinement, design by contract, self-documenting code style, etc.)

BUT THERE'S ALMOST NO VALUE IN ARGUING ON A MESSAGE BOARD ABOUT WHAT LANGUAGE IS BETTER OR WHAT THE CREATOR'S INTENT WAS OR ATTITUDE ABOUT OTHER LANGUAGES IS. Spend the time learning the craft or yet another programming technology instead.

And if you think C# is on the verge of being a major multiplatform force, keep in mind that anyone who wants to implement a C# compiler for a non-windows platform will probably have to pay Microsoft a bunch of money, and this has NOT been a popular thing for companies to want to do in recent years.

I am a .net developer. it is what brings in almost every penny I make. I absolutely love to develop in C#. I enjoy the framework and what it allows me to do.

having said that, C# is nothing more than a product development kit. you will never write an operating system or embedded system with .net. I also am a great fan of java, but the same thing applies.

the strength of pure C++ is the freedom it allows you. granted you have to write a lot more code to do the same thing in an application, but I dont see applications like mozilla being written for every major operating system in .NET.

.NET still has a lot of room to grow. mass adoption of a technology doesnt usually happen until atleast the second version.

I see technology in the future that will be able to build a machine readable executable from a native image for any operating system or processor.

I think stroustrup knows more than any of us do... how many here have written a programming language which has changed the way everyone writes applications??? you wouldnt have .NET without his language, nor would you have the precious microsoft operating system we now all so much enjoy.

the fact of the matter is, that C++ is still the language of choice for many software developers because of what it allows you to do. many build their own set of frameworks to work from and develop multi-platform applications from it.

C# can beat ansi C++ in the RAD arena. and to many that is more important than what it can do. it still doesnt help me write applications for my OpenBSD system at home.

Wow, thanks for bringing my head back around Scott and MadHatter. Those first few posts had my head spinning. I am such a big fan of C++ that I thought I had to decide. It's important to remind ourselves that different languages are better for different reasons. Even though I want to say C++ is the greatest language it simply is not in certain areas. If you have no need for those things then C# can be a viable solution. I look forward to learning C# under Mono.

C# is effectively a Microsoft propritary language. If Microsoft releases a new version of C# and ECMA does not accept it, the market is broken into two. How may vendors out there can support a C# version that does not agree with Microsoft's C# version?

Bjarne is right in a way. The world may not need another language that has marginal improvements over C++.

Bjarne is wrong in a way. The world needs a new language that is a lot simpler than Java, is open-source and cross-platform. (I am dreaming).

In my humble though professional opinion C# is a poor langauge when compared to the likes of C/C++. Anyone reading this thread who is interested in learning how to program would do themselves a favor by buying a linux box (or perhaps a mac) and learning C/C++. Stay away from C# unless you know exactly what you are getting yourself into (i.e. you're getting paid to write C#). To be honest I am always astounded when knowledgable tech people use anything even distantly related to the Microsoft operating system. Just my two cents.

Look, if you're going to say C/C++ is better, give some reasons based on verifiable evidence, everyone has an opinion, but how well can you justify or defend yours?