[LONG] C# too sharp for me

[arthur.mcginty]

Man I've grown tired with C#/.NET the last three days I spent trying to
put a NULL value in a database. C# initializes all uninitialized
properties to 0 (for numeric types) and didn't have until C# 2 any
concept of NULLs. I keep wondering how you guys built all these .NET
apps on the top of a database. And guess what? If you fail to
initialize a DateTime (maybe because you just don't want to touch it!)
you get it infact initialized to {01/01/0001 0.00.00} but of course
when you try to put it in a SQLServer db you get this error in return:

SqlDateTime overflow. Must be between 1/1/1753 12:00:00 AM and
12/31/9999 11:59:59 PM

Now in C# 2 you have the option to choose to declare something as a
Nullable... but it's just a hack (even if builtin the language) and
using Nullables prevents you from doing all sort of things, and strings
cannot be declared as Nullable but at least they are initialized
correctly if you don't touch them!

I understood just yesterday what's all the buzz around dynamic
languages since, even being a Python amateur, I still didn't get it
fully: I wanted to pass a property like Foo.Number as a parameter to a
method and I would have to use a delegate or an anonymous method
(another new feature... and, yeah, you cannot pass a property by ref
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/w86s7x04) which they tell you
that you can use it everywhere you would use a delegate but no, not
there, not where you need it the most or maybe with odd consequences.
Quoting from Jesse Liberty "Visual C# 2005 a Developer's Notebook"
published by O'Reilly:

<quote>
....what happens if I reference local variables in my anonymous block?
Good question. This can cause quite a bit of confusion and is a natural
trap to fall into, especially if you don't fully understand the
consequences.
C# allows local variables to be captured in the scope of the
anonymous code block, and then they are accessed when the code block
is executed. This can create some odd side effects, such as keeping
objects around after they might otherwise have been collected.
</quote>

Ok properties are not fields/variables but pardon me if I was looking
to implement yet another workaround to my problem.

And you now what: how about not knowing the type of a property you pass
to this function, well, you gotta use a generic (another new feature of
C#2)... and all this for doing somethinig that in Python and Ruby is
not even a problem... ah and did I tell you the best thing? ADO.NET
which is your only chance to talk to a database in the .NET managed
world doesn't support Nullable types: I found maybe by chance or
because, after all, god still loves me, a workaround since as Microsoft
confirmed there are no solutions, only workarounds if you want to pass
a NULL value to a SqlParameter. BTW I thought that using SqlClient you
would just bypass ADO.NET and talk directly to SqlServer if you didn't
mind tying you hands and foots to SqlServer. A guy had to write
Nullable types himself to use NULL values in C# v. 1
(http://nullabletypes.sourceforge.net/)

The only kinda dynamic feature of C# is Reflection which is another
way to say introspection which is one of those features I thought I
would never need even to learn in the C# "we give you everything out
of-the-box world" but actually comes handy in many places due to the
_limitations_ of the .NET platform.

Well, I'm done... this morning I bought a copy of Programming Ruby!

Arthur

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

<"Richard Blewett [DevelopMentor]" <richard at nospam dotnetconsult
dot co dot uk>> wrote:

You can create synchonrized methods in C#.
Yes - it's not part of the actual language though, which was what I was
comparing. I should have made that clearer though.
I wouldn't recommend it as it
tends too lead to very coarse grained locking

Likewise.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[eye5600]

> In what way is C# *simpler* than Java? The way I see it, it's more

complicated than Java, as a language. If we consider Java 1.4 vs C# 1.0
(which is roughly fair, as would be Java 1.5 vs C# 2.0) then:

I not going to fight a Holy War, although I'm amused to have drawn such a
sharp response. By simpler, I mean easier to learn and use. Obviously, some
added features make a language easier, some have potential to make it harder.
(Is a car with an automatic choke simpler or more complicated than one with a
manual choke?) There is no point is differentiating between complexity in the
language per se and libraries; they are both in the mix. A lot of the
complication in Java is due to the desire for universality over machines and
cultures. So far, I've seen nothing in C# to rival the mysteries of
GridBagLayout, or LayoutManagers, in general. Nor has C# forced me to the
extremity shown below for formatting anumber. And I heard of a Java program
that was found to be spending 60% of its time creating new Gregorian
calendars....

As noted by someone else, you basically cheated on your list. Several of the
entries (properties, attributes, events,...) are things that are also easily
done in Java, perhaps under a different name.

I do find that delegates and events in C# are harder to understand (so far)
than the Listeners in Java. I may catch on eventually. I am amazed that there
isn't a properly defined DateBox control in C# (whine, whine, whine) that
implements a Windows standard date entry. (Data entry people HATE the
DateTimePicker. )

eye

class bcFormat{
DecimalFormat DF0d;
DecimalFormat DF1d;
DecimalFormat DF2d;
DecimalFormat DF3d;
DecimalFormat DF4d;

public bcFormat(){
Locale l = new Locale("en","US ");
//Locale l = new Locale("fr","FR ");
DecimalFormatSy mbols dfs = new DecimalFormatSy mbols(l);
DF0d = new DecimalFormat(" ###,###,###",df s);
DF1d = new DecimalFormat(" ###,###,###.0", dfs);
DF2d = new DecimalFormat(" ###,###,###.00" ,dfs);
DF3d = new DecimalFormat(" ###,###,###.000 ",dfs);
DF4d = new DecimalFormat(" ###,###,###.000 0",dfs);
}// end constructor
}// enc bcFormat

[kevin cline]

eye5600 wrote:

So far, I've seen nothing in C# to rival the mysteries of
GridBagLayout, or LayoutManagers, in general.

There's noting in Windows Forms with the functionality of GridBadLayout
either. If you want dynamic layouts you have to roll your own.

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

eye5600 <ey*****@discus sions.microsoft .com> wrote:

In what way is C# *simpler* than Java? The way I see it, it's more
complicated than Java, as a language. If we consider Java 1.4 vs C# 1.0
(which is roughly fair, as would be Java 1.5 vs C# 2.0) then:
I not going to fight a Holy War, although I'm amused to have drawn such a
sharp response.

I wouldn't say my response was sharp - just amazed, given how easy it
was for me to compile those two lists.
By simpler, I mean easier to learn and use. Obviously, some
added features make a language easier, some have potential to make it harder.
(Is a car with an automatic choke simpler or more complicated than one with a
manual choke?) There is no point is differentiating between complexity in the
language per se and libraries; they are both in the mix.
I'm afraid I disagree with pretty much all of this. To me, there's more
to learn in C#, therefore it's a less simple language. It's certainly a
joy to use, but I don't think it's simpler.

There's *definitely* a distinction to be drawn between language and
libraries - especially as in both cases multiple languages target the
same libraries. The design of the languages can be discussed entirely
separately from the design of the libraries.
A lot of the complication in Java is due to the desire for
universality over machines and cultures.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. It has better support for
internationalis ation in some respects, and worse in others. Its
encoding support isn't nearly as well thought out as .NET's, but its
date/time handling, while more complex than .NET's (partly due to
having about three goes at it) is definitely better.

I really can't say I find Java complicated - and as a language, I still
believe it to be simpler than C# (pre-1.5, at least; generics bring a
whole different ball-game in there).
So far, I've seen nothing in C# to rival the mysteries of
GridBagLayout, or LayoutManagers, in general.
No, more's the pity. Fortunately, flexible layout management (which is
sorely missing, or at least underplayed)
Nor has C# forced me to the
extremity shown below for formatting anumber.
I can't say I've often had to use five different number formats varying
only by precision in the same program, personally...
And I heard of a Java program that was found to be spending 60% of
its time creating new Gregorian calendars....
Then someone wasn't being careful enough - it's very easy to avoid
that, in almost all situations. It's easy to fall into performance
traps on both platforms.
As noted by someone else, you basically cheated on your list. Several of the
entries (properties, attributes, events,...) are things that are also easily
done in Java, perhaps under a different name.
They're in no way part of the language though. Just because the pattern
can still be followed doesn't make them part of the language. Does C
have namespaces? No. You can follow a pattern of prefixing all function
calls with a namespace, but that's not the same as the language having
a namespace feature.
I do find that delegates and events in C# are harder to understand (so far)
than the Listeners in Java.
Interesting - I find exactly the reverse is true. I love C# events and
delegates. The biggest thing I miss in Java is the "using" statement,
to be honest. I very rarely need explicit try/finally blocks in C# :)
I may catch on eventually. I am amazed that there
isn't a properly defined DateBox control in C# (whine, whine, whine) that
implements a Windows standard date entry. (Data entry people HATE the
DateTimePicker. )

Not being a data entry person, it hasn't bothered me much. Most of what
I miss when writing C# is the excellence of Eclipse in terms of
navigation, refactoring and unit testing. Some of that will change,
with any luck with VS 2005. What won't change (at least for a while) is
C#'s lack of an equivalent to Java 1.5's enums which, while
occasionally a little rough around the edges, are incredibly handy.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too