The mediocre API of C# is a known turnoff and a perpetual annoyance to the mono folks (because a lot of API isn't open), so using C#'s API design as a plus seems.... odd.
I don't think many here is saying that more language features are bad. A few were perhaps for a while, but the surprising response at the devoxx live javaposse was that virtually nobody really buys into the 'java is perfect as is / we can only go down from here' rhetoric. The difference is a bit more nuanced, and just as the C# folk here are preaching to the java folk that we drop our prejudices and have a good look, you should perhaps take your own advice on this one: I think people are taking a bit of an exception to the monkeyhouse method (toss shit at the wall, see what sticks) that C# is employing in regards to language features. Remember perl: There's already anecdotal proof out there that the sum is LESS than its parts when you toss good features at a language, too quickly and without thinking of a sensible whole. Simple case in point: C# 1.0 was a virtual java clone with different capitalization conventions, slightly different keywords, and very awkward libraries, and a different runtime. C# 3 is far less like the latest java, and the distance between them is almost entirely from the C# camp. I'm still annoyed that acknowledges oft used patterns do NOT swiftly make it into the language (case in point, BigInteger/BigDecimal syntax is evidently off the boards because of lack of interest. Well, duh. It's a really simple change that absolutely no one is going to put at the top of their list, but you have to divide the interest shown by the impact on the language, and in this case, you're pretty much dividing by 0. Get with it already, sheesh!) - the optimum IMO is C#'s laconic attitude to keeping the status quo combined with java's obsession to only do work on established patterns, instead of blazing new ground with e.g. LINQ. We'll let the trailblazing be done by other languages; that's what a common runtime is for. On Jan 11, 3:37 am, "James Dumay" <james.w.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:28 AM, phil.swen...@gmail.com > > <phil.swen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > When you spend pretty much all your work time coding, adding in > > features to a language doesn't seem that onerous to me. If you are a > > casual coder, I could see C# being a bit overwhelming. > > I disagree. > > In the Framework Design Guidelines book by Microsoft Press, the .NET > BCL Team at Microsoft state two imporant objectives of a good .NET > API: > 1) The API should not depend on any one language feature (LINQ is > probably an exception to this rule) > 2) That the API's are designed with care so that even the most > mediocre developer can use and understand them but still remain > powerful for more experienced developers. > > This idea has been extended somewhat to the C# language itself - the > fundamentals of the language are simple enough to grasp (Its no > different to Java 1.4) and the API's try not to force new language > features onto the developer. > > Cheers, > James --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
