[Dev-C++] A few notes re: C#

Hi,

I hate to step into this at this point, but what the heck...

First off, let me state for the record that my .NET experience is measure in
days (approx. 1 week at this point), and that although I am always open to
solid alternatives, I do find I get more done with MS products than with any
others.  (I've done the Linux/BSD/QNX thing, tried Corel/Sun (StarDivision)
and a handful of other office apps -- I've tried Borland/Metrowerks and a
veritable mountain of free/open development tools, but in the end...).

Now let me say... it's going to be a long post, but hopefully worth a read.
(If you were worried about being long-winded Mac... 8-)

(Oh! Please _reply directly_ to me.  The list doesn't need three months of
C# discourse, unless it becomes a Dev-C++ option...)


I'd like to clarify a few things at this point... I'll give you my read, you
tell me if I'm right/wrong/or just have a differing opinion.

First... enough of this real language crap.  I've been working developing
business-oriented systems for the past 3 years, and I've found VB6 does what
I need to get things done.  It's not considered a "real" language, but it
gets results, and it runs in plenty of real-time, round the clock (even
mission critical) venues.  Want to see some hardcore, top-notch VB
programmers, stop by VISBAS-L/VISBAS-BEGINNERS on peach.ease.lsoft.com.
You'd be surprised what you can do with any language if you take the time to
figure out what you should be doing, and how it can best be done in that
language...

Next, the whole C# syntax.  Yeah, it looks like Java (it also looks like C,
and it's got a hint of Delphi... as I understand it, the lead language
designer was a Delphi designer at Borland before joining MS...).  The point
here, is does it have what is needed to be a useful programming language?

Well, it's got all the standards.  There are decision structures (including
a switch statement, that doesn't require goto, though it's used as to
illustrate what MS are referring to as a jump-statement in the SDK docs...
_break is there_, same as it is in C... if you don't use it, you'll drop
through... same as C/C++/etc.).  There are loop structures.  You can declare
functions (and classes --- with easy property (set/get) function setup).
You can declare variables in a rainbow of types.  There are trendy, and
useful things like namespaces, and self-generating documentation too...
It's a modern programming language folks.  It's really not that ugly, or
tough when it comes right down to it.  It even protects you from mucking
around in memory (pointers are powerful, but dangerous...).  However, if you
really want unmanaged stuff... apparently it's there.

For those worried about platform independence... well, great thing is this.
Write your code in C#, and you can integrate with anybody writting in any
other .NET language (loads of 'em thus far as I understand it... even COBOL
if you like... <shudder>).  According to the Mono project, you can currently
use Mono on Linux, Windows and Solaris.  Even MS were going to port .NET to
FreeBSD if I recall properly...

As to what can be done with C#... well, I'm taking a leap of faith here and
saying you probably can't write drivers with it (or an OS)... at least not
exceedingly easily.  However, compilers... sure.  Will they produce native
executables?  If you like... an executable is just a chunk of binary data
with a specific format, like a lot of other data formats.  There are
variations (ELF, COFF, etc.), right.  If you know the spec., and had the
desire, you could right something to generate an EXE.

Finally, regarding APIs, and virtual machines, etc.  No, none of these are
particularly new.  Does it matter.  OOP has been around since SmallTalk
(late 70s, early 80s)... is it cool today?  Why?  (hint... it's useful).
Besides, if MS decided not to do any of this stuff... they'd be blasted for
being out of touch with what reality; if they change things too radically...
it's too much change.  Why do you think VB programmers were ticked with MS
over VB.NET? (which was tweaked to avoid some unpleasant breaks in
compatibility)  If you wanted something completely different (and
innovative) you'd have something filling a niche (like Lisp).

MS are out to make money (aren't you?), and they do that by offering a
quick, easy tools to folks who have to go out into world and use those tools
to meet the ill-defined nature of turning human behaviour into solid
partially (or fully) automated systems.  It's not about the code, it's about
the people who use it (programmers and _especially_ end users).  I still
program for fun, but not when somebody is paying me to protect their
livelihood.  (It's one of the things I didn't think about on the road to
becoming a programmer, but it's something I strive to keep in mind every
waking moment now!)

Simply put... Easier language = more time to figure out how people work (and
translate that into "their" software... as opposed to producing something
and then telling people how they have to behave to use "my" software).

So, I've said my piece and I'm feeling better about it.

How are you after having read it? 8-)

Wait!!!  Before you answer that... respond to me directly (see below for my
email).  This is a Dev-C++ mailing list!  I'll respond as best I can (I
expect to be out of the loop in the next little while... becoming a father,
and all that jazz...).

On a side note (or to bring things back to around to Dev-C++).

Why not make the IDE more generic?

Should just be project files that are somewhat proprietary.  Syntax
colouring is available for a ton of languages these days... There would have
to be a way to plug in the languages (to keep things simple), or maybe just
default to MinGW C++, and allow the user to specify the compiler/make
tool/etc.  (Already done in part, I'm using Dev-C++ on my own installation
of MinGW... not the one bundled with 5... works like a charm.)

In fairness... I know.  It comes down to time, and energy.  So, maybe a
vision for the future (haven't checked the Dev-C++ page in awhile, it could
be, and very likely is, that this is, in at least some degree, mentioned
there.  I've even heard you can find out how to unsubscribe from the mailing
list somewhere there too! 8-)

Take 'er easy folks.  I look forward to hearing from you.

---
Matthew Hickson
mhickson AT sympatico DOT ca  (you know what to do)