Why [did you choose] C# ?

[TheCPUWizard]

And I have not seen (either here or via PM) a single re-world business application scenarion that addresses the points I made way back in post #106).....

[cjard]

And I feel you've entered on a nitpicking path here.

When I read a spec, and it's confusing I seek clarity. I wouldnt enjoy working for you if you dismissed it irritatedly as nit-picking..

If you have something you want to discuss please say what it is and be specific.

I have asked you many direct questions to you that have gone completely unanswered and ignored...

I've made lots of replies directly to you but you just leave them without comment.

...and I have deliberately avoided rising to some of your comments that I felt were being a little provocative/inflammatory.

Interestingly, I'm not ripping into you for not answering my questions; why rip into me for choosing to pay little more than a couple of sarcastic references to your flamebaits?

To discuss I need some structure otherwise this isn't going anywhere.

This discussion goes wherever you take it, given that you dont really respond to points others make, and digress spuriously to irrelevant topics such as thread renames.. Is there something of your conversational style I have misunderstood?

[cjard]

I just expressed bluntly what everybody knows except maybe naive programmers who ....

I like you; you make me laugh. I dont know where you get this from, but your opinions do tickle me. There's a very amiable quality to your needling; when I consider how you would debate this in person, I actually see Sabine Schmidt, ridiculing Jeremy Clarkson for his appalling efforts to drive a 2.7 litre bi-turbo diesel Jaguar round the Nurburgring in less than 10 minutes, before she went out and wiped the floor with his time, in a Ford Transit van.

With the obvious exception, of course, that your English is much better..

[cjard]

I've said (many times now) that I personally don't mind more complexity if it also delivers some tangible benefits (in the form of higher efficiency and more flexibility). I don't think I can express this clearer now.

Yup.. I totally understand that, which was why I expressed a while ago that, really, you already made your decision to use C++ because you perceive it is the only language capable of offering you the complexity you feel you need, regardless of context. What are we debating now?

[TheCPUWizard]

This topic reminds me of an old adage. "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler".

Yes, there are programming situations that require complexity. In my [30+ years] experience, these are almost always related to scientific programming, industrial control, embedded systems, hardware interfaces, etc. They almost never appear in business applications (which according to a 2005 Gartner survey accounted for over 85% of all code developed, and was the prime focus of over 92% of proffesional programmers). So even assuming that 10% (and I believe this to be high, as the routines containing the complexity can usually be encapsulated into a small portion of the total system) of the code in the above type systems require the complexity. We are dealing with about 0.8% of all code being developed.

Oh, and I am fairly sure the person responsible for the above quotation was neither "in-experienced" of "(sicentifically) naive"...It was Albert Einstein who spend his life trying to always find simper solutions.

[_uj]

Wha? But you have time to complain repeatedly that an admin has changed the title of your post.

Sure, it's the most extraordinary event that's happened in this thread. It was when some ADMIN decided he knew better than me what I wanted to call my own thread.

I don't have words for it really so I just call it "legally questionable".

[_uj]

Yup.. I totally understand that, which was why I expressed a while ago that, really, you already made your decision to use C++ because you perceive it is the only language capable of offering you the complexity you feel you need, regardless of context. What are we debating now?

Well you're wrong because you haven't been listening.

[_uj]

With the obvious exception, of course, that your English is much better..

I don't speak native english but on the other hand I'm a very good programmer. Is my english language mistakes bothering you? I don't mind you pointing them out so I can avoid them.

[TheCPUWizard]

Is my english language mistakes bothering you? I don't mind you pointing them out so I can avoid them.

Actually I took cjard's comment as a complement o you. I have never had even the slightest problem understanding your posts (from a linguistic point of view...I still don't understand your opinions ]

[cjard]

Sure, it's the most extraordinary event that's happened in this thread. It was when some ADMIN decided he knew better than me what I wanted to call my own thread.

Well, IMESHO, the current title is actually more pertinent to the discussion; it was previously a bit ambiguous, dont you think?

That said.. the suggestion a few pages back was hilarious..

[cjard]

Well you're wrong because you haven't been listening.

ROFL.. of course I have! I've just been struggling at all this cross purpose talk that's going on!

I note with further interest that you have still to answer pretty much every direct question I've asked of you ever since you complained that I dont respond to your points..

Not that I'm complaining that you dont respond to my questions.. I dont mind, I just find the double standard amusing.

[cjard]

I don't speak native english but on the other hand I'm a very good programmer. Is my english language mistakes bothering you? I don't mind you pointing them out so I can avoid them.

Well, I would offer a "you teach me C++, I'll teach you English" deal, but I'm not that cruel; you would have vastly more work to do than I, and a significantly thicker student, no doubt (being a C# programmer and all )

[Skoons]

Why c#, well I always slowly advance myself to new technolgies in software developing. My first programming language was C then C++ (about a year I wrote my C++ code in C style ) and now it`s a C#. Why? because current project I`m working with is writing on C#.

[TheCPUWizard]

Re-reading the thread, I realized I didn't respond to the following a while back:

C++/CLI has templates and C# has not. This difference isn't outweighted by your claim to not needing them because you're able to accomplish the same thing using generics. You can come close but you cannot fully replace templates. That's because the key feature of templates is that binding takes place at compile time and you cannot accomplish that with generics which binds at runtime. This gives templates the advantage of static typechecking something you miss out on with generics.

I have previously agreed that generics and templates are different animals. However, my comment of:

And I have not seen (either here or via PM) a single re-world business application scenarion that addresses the points I made way back in post #106).....

Still stands.

If someone can point out a business application scenario, where the differences between templates and generics has proven to:

a) Introduce or Limit Business Functionallity of a Business Application
or
b) Require a a significant difference in development time of a Business Application.
or
c) Caused a measurable and significant performance impace on a Business Application
or
d) Caused a measurable and significant maintainability issue on a Business Application

Then I would be very interested in hearing the deatails....

[Zaccheus]

If someone can point out a business application scenario, where the differences between templates and generics has proven to:

a) Introduce or Limit Business Functionallity of a Business Application
or
b) Require a a significant difference in development time of a Business Application.
or
c) Caused a measurable and significant performance impace on a Business Application
or
d) Caused a measurable and significant maintainability issue on a Business Application

Then I would be very interested in hearing the deatails....

I'll get back to you on that one.