http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
Chances are your favorite lanugage is in that list. If Cobol and Lisp are in there, so is your language.
Flames will be used to roast marshmellows.
-Buggi
For those who think .NET is a fad...
Moderator: Moderators
I don't really care how many languages they support, I just don't know what the advantages are. Right now, I only see less portability, slower startup times (because of the bytecode that has to be converted to native machine code) and users having to download .NET redistributable package. If you want code to run out of the box on multiple platforms without compilation, use java. For the other stuff, what's wrong with native code?
Jesus people, .NET is a MODEL.
And who else would come up with something new than the company who's OS is on 95% of the worlds computers? okay 95 is a bit high... but still.
They ARE trying to improve things regardless of what you may think.
To run Java you need the Java VM, to run Perl you need the Perl interpreter... Every language requires some sort of "in between" work.
-Buggi
And who else would come up with something new than the company who's OS is on 95% of the worlds computers? okay 95 is a bit high... but still.
They ARE trying to improve things regardless of what you may think.
To run Java you need the Java VM, to run Perl you need the Perl interpreter... Every language requires some sort of "in between" work.
-Buggi
Closed source software will lose in quality, performance, user-friendlies, speed for open-source software.
.NET is definetly one unsucceed thing from micro$hit.
I just turned for python and pyrex from pure C (and C++), why did I do that?
There are some reasons:
With pyrex I can get the pros of C and make it almost as fast as my software were before moving into python.
Also if you think about linux and free BSD, they have some design issues which makes it somehow complex to get graphical interfaces to work as excepted.
I'm thinking some solution in this problem whole time and know already how it can be moved to lightyears farther from Windows and mac graphical interfaces. Windows graphical interface is bulky and doesn't allow the developer and user to customize it too much.
Also, as tip of the mountain, That title .NET Languages is provocative! Like the languages would been owned by microshit which is not true.
.NET is definetly one unsucceed thing from micro$hit.
I just turned for python and pyrex from pure C (and C++), why did I do that?
There are some reasons:
- - Faster to write which C is not.
- More clear language which C is with bit of work.
- Simpler syntax which C doesn't have.
- Fast to test and use which C doestn' have.
- Multiplatform (mostly) which must be done with special tools in C.
- Great portability into C and Python (Pyrex)
- User-friendly which C is not.
- Batteries included which C haven't.
- Excellent tools for nowaday's requires which C doesn't have.
With pyrex I can get the pros of C and make it almost as fast as my software were before moving into python.
Also if you think about linux and free BSD, they have some design issues which makes it somehow complex to get graphical interfaces to work as excepted.
I'm thinking some solution in this problem whole time and know already how it can be moved to lightyears farther from Windows and mac graphical interfaces. Windows graphical interface is bulky and doesn't allow the developer and user to customize it too much.
Also, as tip of the mountain, That title .NET Languages is provocative! Like the languages would been owned by microshit which is not true.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
No it's not. At least not in the desktop market.Buggi wrote:... the company who's OS is on 95% of the worlds computers? okay 95 is a bit high...
As far as i know, there is a 5% market share for Macintosh and a 0,5~2% share for Linux.
They, who? That list is not refering to languages suported by Microsoft's implementation of the .NET framework.Buggi wrote:...
They ARE trying to ...
That list refers to languages suported by a great variety of Virtual Machines other than Microsoft's.
If you would program in 2 languages that work on 2 diferent VMs, that would mean that the user would need to install 2 VMs to run both aplications.Buggi wrote:The point is to show how many languages are being supported by the new model.
...
As of now, i think that the mono's VM,
http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page
runs console aplications (and mostly everything else) compiled for the Microsoft's .NET framework but has still not yet implemented a good use of System.Windows.Forms (everything that concerns windows, buttons, text boxes, etc). So, a programm using them, compiled for Microsoft's VM, would not run well on mono.
The best would probably be to use Mono instead of Microsoft's implementation of .NET and using GTK# instead of System.Windows.Forms .
And it would probably be easier to install Mono than Microsoft's .NET framework, since alot of people seem to be having a hard time installing it.
Well that's no fun! How am I supposed to cook the Hot Dogs?
.NET sux because it's not open source or compatible with anything but windows (whats the point of a portable solution if it's only portable within one software architecture), wxWidgets sux because it's needlessly obfuscated and doesn't impliment signifigant bits of the UI because it has to be portable, Java is the devil of hogging too much memory and CPU, Python is really an interpretted solution for dealing with problems that people usually use Java for... I'm pretty sure that the best bet is to program the underlying code in a C++ standard way and then adjust the OS integration stuff like windows and dialogs and buttons and forms in whatever native enironement you choose... like Visual Studio C++ and MFC for windows... and whatever linux uses for linux... oh, and Macs suck.
Re: Well that's no fun! How am I supposed to cook the Hot Do
MACS DOESN'T SUCK!SinbadEV wrote:Macs suck.
Mac has excellent user interface.
Buggi, .NET is good and everything, multiple languages under a common runtime enviroment, I quite like Microsoft's idea, but unhappily it's very poorly implemented in other OSs other than Windows. I still don't believe that Mono deliver us the goods the way we want it to be.
And that's where the problem lies, many of us are trying to make Spring and its tools available to as many people as possible through other Open Source implementations, fast and effective implementations. I'm sure Mono can support the standalone utilities, but it's clearly not the answer for everything. But so aren't Java, C, C++, Python and their interpreters, compilers, virtual machines, etc, each have their specialized uses.
And that's where the problem lies, many of us are trying to make Spring and its tools available to as many people as possible through other Open Source implementations, fast and effective implementations. I'm sure Mono can support the standalone utilities, but it's clearly not the answer for everything. But so aren't Java, C, C++, Python and their interpreters, compilers, virtual machines, etc, each have their specialized uses.
-
[K.B.] Napalm Cobra
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15
Re: Well that's no fun! How am I supposed to cook the Hot Do
Macs ruleCheery wrote:MACS DOESN'T SUCK!SinbadEV wrote:Macs suck.
Mac has excellent user interface.
-
el_muchacho
- Posts: 201
- Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 01:06
Saying that the .net platform support all sorts of languages is not enough. The virtual machine is optimized for certain types of languages, namely garbage-collected OO languages. Other languages (functional ones, for instance) can be adapted but are not as performant as they could be because the virtual machine cannot handle all sorts of optimizations.
Microsoft notion of portability is that everything should be able to be ported to.net, but it never says anywhere that .net itself should be portable and cross-platform, i.e that it should run on anything else than Windows. The Linux effort is not supported by Miscrosoft.
Microsoft notion of portability is that everything should be able to be ported to.net, but it never says anywhere that .net itself should be portable and cross-platform, i.e that it should run on anything else than Windows. The Linux effort is not supported by Miscrosoft.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
I supose you are asking for IDEs that work on Windows AND compile C# using Microsoft's .NET framework compiler...Alantai Firestar wrote:Ahk the only way I am aware of, to create .NET code is to buy VS .Net which is expensive. Ahk I need VC++ 7 or better.....
You have SharpDevelop. One of my friends in my programming course is using this one to do the C# programming.
It is free (from pay and with source code open). Download it here.
You have, from Borland, C# Builder. Very similar to Visual Studio.
It is free for non comercial use.
Of course you could try things like notepad, but...
The .NET framework (as well as mono), have they're own compilers, which i think is part of they're definition of framework, anyway. So, in theory, all you would need, would be one of those frameworks installed, a text editor and knowledge.
Number 1: applegeeks and CTRL-ALT-DEL are both excellent comics, and that comic is an excellent demonstration of why macs DO suck... there is no answer to the "There are not enough games for the MAC", argument, and most Macs out there don't have the balls to run the few that do.
Number 2:
The UI, however, is not something to be proud of.
First, the awful "lets put the menu bars way up top so you have to figure out which window is active before you issue commands. Along with this you have the "ALT-TABBING only switches between programs, not windows, and no bringing up a list of running programs if you hold it down" thing. Then theirs the whole Unix base thing, you would think this was a good thing, but the integration is annoying, downloadedfiles and installed programs inaccessable to other users by default... keystrings never working properly. Meanwhile, the limitations in the operating system mean that many programs that work great in windows, when ported to Mac are limmited in functionality. Now admittedly it looks pretty, and if all your doing is opening 1 window of 1 program at a time you won't run into any of these problems... which many begginer users do... you will probably like the system. And the technology behind it all is pretty solid so you get fewer crashes (in theory, the mac I used crashed all the time, lot's more the the PC, but that might be because I know the PC better). Finally that freaking noise when you start the system up gives me nightmares of computer classes back in grade school.
So Macs Suck, Sux, and Suxors!!1!1!!!!... to a great degree.
And if you want to argue with me, feel free, but don't try to argue that the UI is good unless you can counter my points.
Number 2:
The PowerPC processor and proprietary hardware are what make apple so good at quality control and despite the fact that they are still slower then comparatively priced IBM compatibles at most things... they do have advantages.Mac has excellent user interface.
The UI, however, is not something to be proud of.
First, the awful "lets put the menu bars way up top so you have to figure out which window is active before you issue commands. Along with this you have the "ALT-TABBING only switches between programs, not windows, and no bringing up a list of running programs if you hold it down" thing. Then theirs the whole Unix base thing, you would think this was a good thing, but the integration is annoying, downloadedfiles and installed programs inaccessable to other users by default... keystrings never working properly. Meanwhile, the limitations in the operating system mean that many programs that work great in windows, when ported to Mac are limmited in functionality. Now admittedly it looks pretty, and if all your doing is opening 1 window of 1 program at a time you won't run into any of these problems... which many begginer users do... you will probably like the system. And the technology behind it all is pretty solid so you get fewer crashes (in theory, the mac I used crashed all the time, lot's more the the PC, but that might be because I know the PC better). Finally that freaking noise when you start the system up gives me nightmares of computer classes back in grade school.
So Macs Suck, Sux, and Suxors!!1!1!!!!... to a great degree.
And if you want to argue with me, feel free, but don't try to argue that the UI is good unless you can counter my points.
-
maverick256
- Posts: 115
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 19:41
dude, at least keep the flame on topic, will ya? sheesh 
As far as I remember this is a flame war about .NET framework (I say about, not for nor against). Mac vs pc flame war can go in another thread, in another forum, like off topic. Hmmm, come to think of it, maybe this thread should be in off topic also...
Speaking of off topic, I think Apple's move to Intel is an excellent choice.
/me walks away whistling and trying to look innocent....
As far as I remember this is a flame war about .NET framework (I say about, not for nor against). Mac vs pc flame war can go in another thread, in another forum, like off topic. Hmmm, come to think of it, maybe this thread should be in off topic also...Speaking of off topic, I think Apple's move to Intel is an excellent choice.
/me walks away whistling and trying to look innocent....