Is c# so easy? Easier than c? Think again...

[jbailo]

Subject: dotnet is a farce.

You know, I was always impressed with
the way one could write a http program
with c# or java. To me, it showed how
'superior' these languages are because
they made it so 'easy' to
set up connection points, open a socket,
send the request.

But, I never really know how to do it in
c! So I wasn't comparing it with anything.
Then, I just received one of my four new
books yesterday, 'Advanced Linux Programming'
from New Riders, and there was some sample
code for opening a socket and reading
http data.

IT'S THE SAME THING AS IN C# !!!!!!

If anything, it's less and more elegant.

Tell me that:

connect(socket_fd, &name, sizeof( struct sockaddr_in))

a SINGLE line that sets up the connection followed
by a while loop to read the data is not
THE SAME EXACT SYNTAX as in c# for doing the same thing.

See -- UNIX has always had 'ASSEMBLIES' -- or SYSCALLS

-- or OPERATING SYSTEM LEVEL LIBRARIES AND METHODS

DOT NET IS A FARCE (!)(!)(!)(!)(!)

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

"Dead Dave, Founder of Wendy's" wrote:

[snip]
Some of the best, most useful and most
stable software systems in the world
were not 'thrown together' but built up
painstakingly over decades, building in
the best ideas.
The marketing department specs tail fins this year and oversized rims
next year. Some companies don't do IT architecture. They do chrome and
fuzzy dice.
You know, one of the problems of a group
like this is that when posters say 'software'
they almost always mean desktop applications.

The desktop vs server paradigm is outdated. What I see on my desktop may
be running somewhere else. Or, components of the app. may be running in
several places at once.

This isn't a concept that the typical hub and spoke Windows architects
seem to understand. Or maybe they do understand it, but that approach
won't sell one copy per desktop.

I have worked in an environment where all the Windows software ran on a
server in a closet somewhere. We could support from 10 to 20 desktops
with each Windows license, using an add-on package that would send a
Windows 'desktop' to each display via X11. This was a huge cost savings,
both in licenses and a centralized point at which the Windows apps could
be administered. The displays could be anything including SunOS, HP-UX,
Tektronix Xterms or....Linux.

But this environment didn't sell extra copies of Windows.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa**@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
c (velocity of light in a vacuum) = 1.8x10^12 furlongs per fortnight