On 6/14/2015 11:28 PM, david at andl.org wrote: > I won't abuse the patience of our hosts by prolonging this debate, but I > disagree strongly with this theme.
So you disagree with a disagreement? > I have almost certainly written more C/C++ code than you or most of the > people on this list, I doubt it. > and I never choose it first. I am personally at least 3 > times as productive in C# as I am in C (slightly narrower margin in C++), > and computers are far cheaper than brains. C# is just a bastardized version of C++ which is a bastardized version of C. If you only program in C# then I guess you have only written code for PC's. A whole other world exists beyond PC's and Microsoft. C# is in no way portable, neither is C++. Only C is truly portable. Both C++ and C# require committing to a specific compiler product which is the antithesis of C. I am often forced to use C++ as the cross compiler platforms (such as C# or Embarcadero (Borland) compiler) force such to use the system GUI, but all of "My" code, as compared to the GUI code, that does the real work is written in C. C++ is merely a wrapper around the C language. C and C++ co-mingle very nicely. > This theme is strongly reminiscent of arguments over moving from assembly > language, and it's basically wrong. Well a bunch of very experienced programmers, with very diverse backgrounds seem to disagree. > The best tool is the one that gets the > required job done with maximal speed at minimal cost. Which is more important: How fast you can crank out code with minimal effort (which means you are letting others write the canned code portion of your code), or creating something new where you do the hard work so the end user has a well designed efficient product? > And just for the record, C# does not compile into byte code. I suggest you > check your facts. Quite believable. Which is why Microsoft software is so efficient, fast, small, and lacking of bugs. ------------ Scott Doctor scott at scottdoctor.com ------------------
