|
|
It's twice as good.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
...and c# is pointedly better! Hmmm... that doesn't work, sharp ---> points... but there isn't much use of pointers directly so that may be a bad analogy and therefore an even worse pun! However, with puns, the worst is the best so, yeah! 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Everything you said is nonsense and gibberish and yet I perfectly understood you. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you a VB Code reviewer? :p
|
|
|
|
|
VB Code is actually very easy to understand but you're right, the code written by some people in VB is atrocious.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
you can write bad code in any language, and as a programmer of 35 years ive seen more of it than u can shake a stick at, and as far as the VB v c# argument goes, it all compiles to the same IL anyway, the skill is in the programmers interpretation and solution, not for c# snobs to blindly say that its somehow 'better' - its a subjective argument
|
|
|
|
|
_WinBase_ wrote: he skill is in the programmers interpretation and solution, not for c# snobs to blindly say that its somehow 'better' - its a subjective argument
+5. I agree.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
C# is better because # is composed of four pluses, therefore 4 times better than C:
++
++
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
No, sorry not 4x+s or sharp but hash...
C was so good MS had to make a ... of it 
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's because it is a half tone above C.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but you can optimize those pluses and make the # with only two distorted pluses.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, now say something new. 
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: C is a better language than any language you care to name
No, I think I would much rather talk to someone using English. 
|
|
|
|
|
printf("Why is that then?");
|
|
|
|
|
|
C is still my favorite language. Most likely always will be. Took me years to migrate to C++ because any decent C programmer knows you can apply some OOP concepts to C. That being said, I think C++ is a great language, not so much in syntax for the STL, but overall.
If I'm keen to write a game or something extremely computationally intensive, I'd choose C every time. So he's right on that point. I know you can write C in C++ blah blah blah, but when in Rome. Anyway, the biggest disadvantage C has is it's getting crusty. Not many modern libraries for it or additions to the language like some of the goodies C++ 11 got.
If I'm writing a web application, I'd still go with something like PHP over C simply because of the amount of pre-existing libraries out there for that purpose I wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel. Unless it was meant to serve millions of users, then I'd write it in C regardless, much like how parts of YouTube are.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
And, dammit, that's good enough for him.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
So C++ is for two cookies?
(cookie++ ; ) 
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
I watched programming languages evolve for years, becoming steadily more efficient, powerful, readable and maintainable up to the epitome, Turbo Pascal 5.5. Then came C, and the death spiral of useful language development began. The devolution continues...;P
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote: Then came C, and the death spiral of useful language development began.
Nah, BASIC came first by 5 years! 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote: Then came C, and the death spiral of useful language development began.
It's like just as soon as computers get faster, we want to make the languages more bloated. That way we never enjoy the new speed, we simply keep things the same and have a new cool shiny layer that sounds technical to toss on top of it.
I've never made a programming language, but when I think of something like Ruby, which has some nice features, and then I think it's slow as dirt so I'll never use it. Just because CPUs are faster doesn't mean we can waste cycles, otherwise it's always a game of catch up.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: It's like just as soon as computers get faster, we want to make the languages more bloated.
...and it flows straight down to our operating systems and applications. IMHO - A fresh Windows 2K and Office 2K install is still the fastest, cleanest, most productive Microsoft office stack ever made.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
...for about a week....
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
