Skip to comments.C# striking a chord with programmers
Posted on 05/04/2002 11:54:48 AM PDT by Bush2000
click here to read article
C# is not displacing any languages, because most C# users are trying out the technology instead of committing to it wholeheartedly, an Evans Data representative said.
So let's see.... nobody has decided to replace Java with C#. Sounds like a total victory for Microsoft.
VB.NET == C#
C# = VB.NET
The choice between using VB and C# is more a matter of taste than a serious technology choice. The manuals for each language are almost identical and they give you the VB and C# syntax for every class libarary method. The reason C# will destroy Java is that C# can be compiled down to binary, Java is terrible for writing User Interface programs, Java is slow and usually runs on a buggy Virtual machine, and Java is not portable, while with C# the issue is who cares about portability.
C++ is still not totally obsolete and will remain a core langage for doing high performance graphics until MS gives me a replacement for COleControl in C#
I am working on a project in C# to view DNA Sequences and I hope to have it available on the net in a couple of weeks. I took a look at Human Chromosome 5 in my viewer this week and I am trying to make a generic DNA viewer for examining Sequences and performing Protein, cross linking, Coiling, and search operations. There is an entire new field of Bio-Informatics that is going to change the future even more than the invention of the Semiconductor chip changed the present. I hope to have something to show by next week. The real trick in computer programming is Installation, because any idiot can write good software with the tools available these days.
It is not an established fact that any new C# code is going to be running on my customers computers.
Software is easy, installation is hard.
Not bad, so far.
If you are writing Java on Windows, then it isn't portable, but every other version of Java I've used runs anywhere. There are complilers available that take Java source code and generate machine code, which isn't portable. C# normally generates CLI not machine code which runs on the .NET runtime engine (which isn't portable yet) and is very similar to the Java virtual engine.
If you want to write in C# you can, but please be accurate about what C# and Java are.
I'm afraid Java and C# will die from the same cause, bloat. The core languages while being small is lost to the very large number of library functions you have to learn to take advantage of the language.
Like my bubbi used to say... "You never hear a fish monger yelling 'Rotten fish for sale!'"
I'm surprised only 14% have tried it. Most everyone I know has tried C#. Most Java developers checked it out, looking to see if we could do anything better. I built a few small reporting components, and a Jeapordy game.
Many problems, but some promise. Most of the problems are architectural, and can be worked out over the next few years.
So far, C# is a nice first implementation with a lot of problems. If it survies 3 years, and fixes a bunch of the problems, it *should* start being used on some production systems.
But as of now, .NET is Java with the scalability, reliability and cross platform taken out.
You notice this was posted by the unethical MS salesman. I'm certain that the 20% of programming shops out there that are MS-only will migrate to this -- eventually.
The other 80% likely won't.
Oh, and if anyone is suggesting .NET is ready for production systems now . . . well, only salesmen and college students use a 1.0 version of *anything* for mission critical work. And they're *always* sorry. Especially with MS offerings.
MS has is famous for their history of selling buggy tech which the salesmen promise is ready, a history of not making even usable tools for the first 4 or 5 releases that the salesmen tell you is the world's best. So like with all MS technology, use this at your own risk. There are certainly built-in problems that MS either doesn't yet know about or isn't telling anyone about. Just like all their other stuff. There are already serious unpatched security issues with .NET web services (no surprise there).
But do use .NET. Play with it, learn it. Learn *all* new tchnologies, if you have the time. I am pro-C#.
As I've been told by the salesman who posted this, I'm not pro-C# enough, since I see both pro's and con's of C# (in the MS sales world, all criticism of MS is not to be tolerated, MS and their offerings are only good, never bad).
But I like the direction MS is heading with .NET.
Seems high to me, I don't know anyone who has tried it, or who plans to.
That's just plain wrong. VB.Net is in no way, shape, or form backwards compatible with VB 6.
Try using the DEFINT command in Dot Net. Try using the Goto command. Try using the Gosub/Return commands in Dot Net. They aren't there any longer.
Dot Net may have some cool new features in it, but don't kid yourself about it being backwards compatible. It isn't. Less than 40% of VB 6 code will compile in Dot Net. The object property differences in .frms/.frxs alone is staggering...
Now, if all you've ever written are Hello World programs for your college profs, I can understand that you wouldn't comprehend that MS threw out the backwards compatibility baby with the bathwater, but if someone is paying you money for your VB knowledge, then they deserve what they've got...
This C# vs. Java things seems the same. The bigots are the same. If Microsoft produces it, it must suck. If a UNIX company produces it, it must be good.
If that's what you are using VB6 for, your code sucks. None of those three items have been a best practice.
I have a 25 KLOC program that converted completely, and runs without changes. The VB.NET upgrade wizard for VB6 worked perfectly. Of course, that won't be the case with all programs, but for many mainstream, conservative programs, it will be.
You still doing those drugs, eh?
I agree with you. I really like C#. It is a much much easier syntax than C/C++ for me. It is, like Java and unlike C, a rich language. You have to go searching for the class that will do the job but it is probably there.
I started from scratch using the DotNet SDK and had a website up and running in nothing flat. I am now using the website and VS.Net to learn ASP.Net and C#. This is a great system, easy to learn and easy to use and I haven't found any fatal flaws yet.
Also, my opinion on the VB.Net versus C#.Net issue: I think the "Real Programmers" will move to C#.net rather than VB.Net becuase it is a more natural evolution from either their C/C++ or Java roots. The Visual VB people will probably stick with VB.net even though this is a big change for them. Performance-wise there is probably not going to be a huge difference so the choice is really just one of personal preference.
Try it, you will like it.
Disclaimers: I don't work for Microsoft. I like Java. I even like Visual FoxPro. I like Oracle. I don't like the Governor of California.
I get tired of so-called "conservatives" bashing Microsoft out of envy and fear and ignorance. I thought those two qualities were the marx of liberals. I don't necessarily support MS in these discussion because I like them. I do it because I am tired of liberals trying to tear down the fabric of this nation, which includes our corporations, which liberals call "evil".
Ever notice that the liberals want the government to put MS out of business? Just like a pretty liberal. These ladies want big daddy to do their bidding. That is why I am here. I am sick of the liberal infestations.
I hate to say it, but ASP created a class of programmer that knows little about structured or object programming. That learning curve will most likely be the biggest hurdle, as it was in 1991 with going from C to C++.
At least there is no FUD about that statement. I can't argue with opinion! LOL!
And that is where you will find .NET makes it money. The administration/installation of a .NET app is soooooo simple. No more DLL crap, or missing supporting files or libraries.
Is that the best you can do?
Let's have an ethical salesman test:
What do you tell clients about:
Surely if you're an ethical salesman, you inform your prospective clients of the truth, yes? So I'm honestly curious -- how would you respond to an informed client raising these issues?
These are serious, honest concerns that a business must be on top of. You can destroy a business by using a buggy release of a new, untested technology. I'd like to know how you answer such concerns?
The main reason I ask is that I've got past experience with other MS salesmen who promised that NT 4.0, IIS, Win2k, WinXP and now .NET are ready for prime time. Then when the problems popped up and projects had to be killed or migrated to Java, and it became apparent the salesman lied and didn't tell us about known problems, the salesman just vanished and left our company twisting in the wind. I could tell you a loooong story about this last fella who sold part of our accounting dept on trying IIS/Win2k/SQLServer 7. That one small platform gave us more trouble than all our big iron together . . .
So alieve my fears that you are just such a salesman. MS salesman are famous for lofty, untrue promises around here. How would you answer these questions?
As a systems engineer with 23 years of experience, I'm happy to answer your questions.
· Already known problems with .NET?
What problems? Name them.
· Using a 1.0 release of *anything* for mission critical work (which is considered professional incompetence in the IT industry)?
.NET has been in production systems for two years now, although it was released to the masses this past January. People complain when Microsoft doesnt field test their products well or long enough, so for .NET they did. .Net 1.0 is a true 1.0 production version, not a BETA.
· Using a brand-new technology from MS (which clearly in the past has been a bad thing)?
That would be your personal opinion drawn from your hatred of Microsoft, not a technical evaluation of the .NET product. Visual Basic 1.0 was a great entry product. Visual C++, the same. Windows XP, another 1.0 product win. Windows NT 3.5, another first release win. Yes, many products, not just from Microsoft, suck when first released. Even Visual Studio 7 needs a service pack to fix many problems, but it still works very well, and well enough for production software. The .NET framework just had an SP.
· The problems of using IIS as your web server (which, again, is considered professional incompetence in the IT industry)?
IIS runs millions of web servers, so, again, that statement would be your personal hatred of Microsoft, and not a technical evaluation of IIS. The serious overhead of UNIX systems warrants a look at IIS. TCO is a primary reason I win sales using Microsoft products. I also enjoy the UNIX crowd giving their high-priced song-n-dance about how Microsoft cannot perform. I show the performance and the companies using IIS, and I win hands down. I love it.
· The fact that the vast majority of real servers are Unix or Linux, which won't run .NET for years?
Again, that statement is your personal opinion of Microsoft products, not a realistic evaluation. IIS and Windows 2000 server drive a large portion of the web and client/server applications. You must be ignoring the case studies proving Microsoft products and technologies work.
If Microsoft products and technologies do not work so well, how is it that Microsoft, a $55 billion company, with 40,000+ global employees, works so well using them?
I believe MS has a few problems that need addressing, but nothing that warrants dismissing their products or technologies.
For the record, I now work for Ciber as a Microsoft practice manager. We know you work for CSC, and Bush2000 and InnocentBystander work or have worked for Microsoft, just to set the table of who's who.
XP was so wonderful that you have to download over 17MB of product fixes. NT started at v3.1, not 3.5. And the service packs to take it to a STABLE release also known as 3.51 are not small.
Yes, you have your head up their @$$.