reasons to hate C#

[PJ6]

I want to rant, but I'm too busy at the moment.

Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?

Paul

[Spam Catcher]

"PJ6" <no***@nowhere. netwrote in news:OBo4yzwZHH A.1580
@TK2MSFTNGP05.p hx.gbl:

Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?

The semicolon ... but that's a personal preference. C# developers probably
have a lot of things that they hate about VB too ;-)

[Mythran]

Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?

People who hate C# :P

Mythran

[sdbillsfan]

On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <kip_pot...@hot mail.comwrote:

Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?

People who hate C# :P

Mythran

I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.

[rowe_newsgroups]

I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of

standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.

:-)

Thanks,

Seth Rowe
On Mar 15, 12:31 pm, sdbills...@gmai l.com wrote:

On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <kip_pot...@hot mail.comwrote:

Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?

People who hate C# :P

Mythran

I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

:-)

Cor
<sd********@gma il.comschreef in bericht
news:11******** **************@ l75g2000hse.goo glegroups.com.. .

On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <kip_pot...@hot mail.comwrote:

Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?

People who hate C# :P

Mythran

I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.

[PJ6]

<sd********@gma il.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ l75g2000hse.goo glegroups.com.. .

On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <kip_pot...@hot mail.comwrote:

Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?

People who hate C# :P

Mythran

I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.

Hmmm. Whose standard would that be? How many languages follow it?

[Mike Hofer]

On Mar 15, 2:30 pm, "PJ6" <n...@nowhere.n etwrote:

<sdbills...@gma il.comwrote in message

news:11******** **************@ l75g2000hse.goo glegroups.com.. .

On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <kip_pot...@hot mail.comwrote:

Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?

People who hate C# :P

Mythran

I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.

Hmmm. Whose standard would that be? How many languages follow it?

You know, it's funny. I code in VB.NET every day. I love the language.
But I have to say, I love C# as well. Why? Because these guys are
right. It's a fantastic implementation of standard object-oriented
principles. It's OOP on steroids.

Sure, it lacks some of the high-gloss enamel that VB has. But let's be
honest. The high gloss enamel native to VB.NET is intrinsic to Visual
Basic; in its original design, VB.NET was a lot like C#, but certain
decisions were made to placate VB6 developers who couldn't handle
things like declaring arrays with the number of elements instead of
the upper boundary. VB.NET lacks support for operator overloading,
unsigned types (but hey, that's not supported by the CTS, so ixnay on
atthay) and a few other things.

But in the end, you can develop applications with BOTH of them, and
they both get compiled down to IL. They both use the same
Framework(s). It's just a question of syntax. So you have to type a
semicolon. Big whoop-ti-doo.

Use the language that makes you most productive or that your boss
requires. If you can't change it, don't waste your breath or frazzled
nerves complaining about it. It doesn't change anything. Focus your
attention on solving the coding issues, and move on. You're typically
not solving coding problem with a language in .NET; you're typically
solving it with the Framework.

Language wars will rage on for as long as there will be languages and
there are zealots to fuel them. We'll argue back and forth about
things that don't really mean anything, and in the end, the work will
still get done, regardless of the language that's used to do it.

So, in the end, the argument is moot. As Officer Barbrady says, "Move
along people. Nothing to see here."

Move

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

"Mike Hofer" <kc********@gma il.comschrieb:

Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?

>People who hate C# :P

>Mythran

I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.

Hmmm. Whose standard would that be? How many languages follow it?

You know, it's funny. I code in VB.NET every day. I love the language.
But I have to say, I love C# as well. Why? Because these guys are
right. It's a fantastic implementation of standard object-oriented
principles. It's OOP on steroids.

I have to disagree. I consider implicit interface wireing based on equal
member names dangerous and suboptimal.

Sure, it lacks some of the high-gloss enamel that VB has. But let's be
honest. The high gloss enamel native to VB.NET is intrinsic to Visual
Basic; in its original design, VB.NET was a lot like C#, but certain
decisions were made to placate VB6 developers who couldn't handle
things like declaring arrays with the number of elements instead of
the upper boundary.

What's the problem with that?

VB.NET lacks support for operator overloading,
unsigned types (but hey, that's not supported by the CTS, so ixnay on
atthay) and a few other things.

That's wrong. VB 2005 supports operator overloading and unsigned types and
a few other things.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Mike Hofer]

On Mar 15, 6:54 pm, "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-
[e-mail] e:

"Mike Hofer" <kchighl...@gma il.comschrieb:

Who else hates working in C#? What's your biggest pet peeve?

People who hate C# :P

Mythran

I hate how it's so straightforward with its readability and use of
standard object oriented keywords and syntax. I got tired of having to
obfuscate my C# code before deploying so I just started writing in VB
instead.

Hmmm. Whose standard would that be? How many languages follow it?

You know, it's funny. I code in VB.NET every day. I love the language.
But I have to say, I love C# as well. Why? Because these guys are
right. It's a fantastic implementation of standard object-oriented
principles. It's OOP on steroids.

I have to disagree. I consider implicit interface wireing based on equal
member names dangerous and suboptimal.

Visual Basic .NET doesn't use IMPLICIT interface wiring. It uses
EXPLICIT interface wiring through the use of the Handles clause. For
example:

Public Sub SomeRadicallyDi fferentFunction Name(ByVal sender As Object,
ByVal e As EventArgs) _
Handles MyButton.Click
End Sub

It's merely a convention to use similarly named functions these days.

Sure, it lacks some of the high-gloss enamel that VB has. But let's be
honest. The high gloss enamel native to VB.NET is intrinsic to Visual
Basic; in its original design, VB.NET was a lot like C#, but certain
decisions were made to placate VB6 developers who couldn't handle
things like declaring arrays with the number of elements instead of
the upper boundary.

What's the problem with that?

There ISN'T anything wrong with that. I don't have anything against VB
or C#. The whole point of my post was that it doesn't make a
difference one way or another.

VB.NET lacks support for operator overloading,
unsigned types (but hey, that's not supported by the CTS, so ixnay on
atthay) and a few other things.

That's wrong. VB 2005 supports operator overloading and unsigned types and
a few other things.

You got me there. I, unfortunately, am still working in .NET 1.1 (we
haven't embraced VS 2005 or .NET 2.0, thanks to the lack of what the 3-
letter job titles are calling "a compelling need"), so I often forget
to spell that out in my posts. Thanks for reminding me.

I should have made that clear. But my point that the CTS doesn't
support unsigned types remains valid...at least, last time I checked.
They were considered nonportable. And that was why the VB language
designers chose not to support them. I don't believe that the CTS has
been revised to include unsigned types.

Again, I should have made that clear, and for that, I apologize.

Mike