Why not develop new language

[Prashant]

There are lot of dicussion on C# is much better than C++. Why there is
no language to compute C#. This way we are accepting monopoly of M$.
Why there is no group which seriously tring to develop new language
better than C#.

[Peter Koch Larsen]

"Gernot Frisch" <[e-mail] > skrev i en meddelelse
news:2p******** ****@uni-berlin.de...

Is there any C# construct that is not supported by C++?

Nice one. I join this statement.

Okay .... then perhaps you can tell me what it means? I read it as
"everything can be done if you program in assembly" ;-)

/Peter

[Ioannis Vranos]

Peter Koch Larsen wrote:

Okay .... then perhaps you can tell me what it means? I read it as
"everything can be done if you program in assembly" ;-)

C++ is a multi-paradigm language and supports 4 paradigms. The Object
Oriented programming paradigm, the generic programming paradigm
(templates), the procedural programming paradigm and the modular
programming paradigm (namespaces).

Each paradigm is supported *well* with optimal space and time efficiencies.

For OO in particular, that multiple inheritance is supported along with
abstract interfaces etc.
C# currently supports only 1 paradigm, the OO one and this not
completely, but only single inheritance and multiple inheritance only
for interfaces.
These from a paradigm perspective.


Regards,

Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Howard]

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@guesswh.at .grad.com> wrote in message
news:ch******** ***@ulysses.noc .ntua.gr...

Each paradigm is supported *well* with optimal space and time efficiencies.

"Optimal" is a pretty strong term, isn't it? Can you demonstrate that, or
point me to a paper that demonstrates how C++ is "optimal" in any particular
fashion? After all, it's a quality-of-implementation issue, isn't it? I'm
pretty sure one could write a C++ compiler that produced extremely
inefficient code. Not to mention that when optimizing for space, one often
sacrifices time efficiency, and vice-versa.

(Hmmm...ever notice that when someone says "Not to mention...", they go
ahead and mention it? :-))

-Howard

[Howard]

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@guesswh.at .grad.com> wrote in message
news:ch******** ***@ulysses.noc .ntua.gr...

C# programmers are like Java ones. You see only them come, exactly like
the Java ones, to bother C++ newsgroups of their language superiority.

I'd say that C# programmers are much like C++ programmers. They do the work
they're paid to do.
Thus demonstrating their ignorance. C++ is superior to C# in all aspects
even in .NET world.

But of course EVERYONE knows that Delphi beats them both! :-)

-Howard

[Casper]

Gernot Frisch wrote:

Is there any C# construct that is not supported by C++?

Nice one. I join this statement.

A language is worth little without a consistant class library. This is
where C# shines brighter than Java and definately C++ (STL/ATL/MFC bla
bla...)

/Casper

[tom_usenet]

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:28:14 +0100, Stewart Gordon
<sm*******@yaho o.com> wrote:

Java already exists; if you don't want to follow the Microsoft route,
then Java is a similar alternative.
C++, C# and Java aren't better or worse than each other. Just different.

Right. Did you misread "similar" as "superior"?

If you want a compiled, more efficient language, then C and C++ fill
that niche quite well, but I agree there is room for a better and
better marketed language.

<snip>

All four languages do get compiled; moreover, all of them probably can
be compiled to native code.

For that matter, there is a freestanding C++ implementation (Managed
C++) that can be compiled to bytecode.

As for efficiency - I guess it depends onwhat you do with them, and how good the respective compilers are at
optimising.

Yes, I suppose I should have said a "runtime efficient language". That
is, one designed with priniciples such as "what you don't use you
don't pay for" and where speed is not traded for safety at a language
feature level (although obviously libraries should be able to make
such design choices if they wish).

Basically, a language suitable for games programming and systems
programming as well as server and applications programming.

Tom

[Howard]

"Ioannis Vranos" <iv*@guesswh.at .grad.com> wrote in message
news:ch******** ***@ulysses.noc .ntua.gr...

Prashant wrote:

There are lot of dicussion on C# is much better than C++. Why there is
no language to compute C#. This way we are accepting monopoly of M$.
Why there is no group which seriously tring to develop new language
better than C#.

Is there any C# construct that is not supported by C++?

Yes. The "try...fina lly" construct comes to mind. While we have RAII in
C++, which *may* be better, I've used the same try..finally construct
extensively in Delphi (Pascal), and found it quite useful. C++ has no such
construct. (I'm not saying it should, mind you, just answering your
question. :-))

-Howard

[Jeff]

"Johan Nilsson" <johan.nilsso [e-mail] > wrote in message news:<lz******* ************@hy dra.nntpserver. com>...

"Prashant" <pr*********@ho tmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca******** *************** **@posting.goog le.com...

There are lot of dicussion on C# is much better than C++. Why there is
no language to compute C#. This way we are accepting monopoly of M$.

I won't dispute whether C# is better or worse than C++ (it's probably a bit
of both), but the important part is that C#/.NET isn't Windows only:
http://www.mono-project.com/about/index.html .

I admire the skill and courage of the people trying to port C# and
..Net to Linux, but strategically speaking, it only re-enforces
Microsoft's dominance. Even if the mono project got to the point of
100% compatibility, which would be an unprecedented feat, it would
only confirm that Microsoft has developed a really great system.

Everyone working on alternatives to M$ products would be better served
to develop something totally different from M$, and preferably
something better. Invent a new language. Or promote and polish some
other language like Python or Haskell.

[Ioannis Vranos]

Howard wrote:

"Optimal" is a pretty strong term, isn't it? Can you demonstrate that, or
point me to a paper that demonstrates how C++ is "optimal" in any particular
fashion? After all, it's a quality-of-implementation issue, isn't it? I'm
pretty sure one could write a C++ compiler that produced extremely
inefficient code. Not to mention that when optimizing for space, one often
sacrifices time efficiency, and vice-versa.

(Hmmm...ever notice that when someone says "Not to mention...", they go
ahead and mention it? :-))

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/esc99.html

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys/do...eaking-cpp.pdf

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/crc.pdf

http://www.biltek.ieee.metu.edu.tr/s...01/bs_eng.html


Regards,

Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

[Ioannis Vranos]

Casper wrote:

Gernot Frisch wrote:

Is there any C# construct that is not supported by C++?

Nice one. I join this statement.

A language is worth little without a consistant class library. This is
where C# shines brighter than Java and definately C++ (STL/ATL/MFC bla
bla...)

Now we got ourselves in this C# thing, but anyway. You know C#... has
not any standard library.


Regards,

Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys