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:OBo4yzwZHHA.1580
@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.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" <[e-mail]:

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, [e-mail] wrote:

On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <[e-mail]:

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********@gmail.comschreef in bericht
news:11**********************@l75g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...

On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <[e-mail]:

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********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@l75g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...

On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <[e-mail]:

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" <[e-mail]:

<[e-mail] in message

news:11**********************@l75g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...

On Mar 15, 8:51 am, "Mythran" <[e-mail]:

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********@gmail.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]:

"Mike Hofer" <[e-mail]:

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 SomeRadicallyDifferentFunctionName(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

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Mike,

"Mike Hofer" <kc********@gmail.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:

I was referring to C# because I considered the last sentences after the
rhetorical question in your statement to target C#. With "interface wiring"
I meant implementation of interfaces and connecting methods to the
interfaces' members.

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.

No problem :-).

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

Again, no problem and no need to apologize.

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

[Nitin Sharma]

Reason for hate to C# can be

Case sensitive language
semicolns
etc....
but i don't think so that anyone can hate c# due to that and in fact
these are not the reasons to hate c#.

So here we go.......

Nitin Sharma NXS

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

[Nitin Sharma]

Reason for hate to C# can be

Case sensitive language
semicolns
etc....
but i don't think so that anyone can hate c# due to that and in fact
these are not the reasons to hate c#.

So here we go.......

Nitin Sharma NXS

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=]

Mike Hofer wrote:

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.

Interrestingly enough, some VB programmers can't handle declaring arrays
with the upper boundary, so they consistently dimension arrays with one
item more than they will use.

As this rarely causes any errors, they can continue doing so for a long
time without realising it.

:)

--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com

[Mike Hofer]

On Mar 16, 8:56 am, Göran Andersson <[e-mail]:

Mike Hofer wrote:

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.

Interrestingly enough, some VB programmers can't handle declaring arrays
with the upper boundary, so they consistently dimension arrays with one
item more than they will use.

As this rarely causes any errors, they can continue doing so for a long
time without realising it.

:)

--
Göran Andersson
_____http://www.guffa.com

Heh

I suppose, in a fairly innocuous way, that's a memory leak. Depending
on whether or not it's cleaned up appropriately. Thank the powers that
be for garbage collection.

I shouldn't have said "can't handle." That was needlessly harsh, and
unduly inappropriate on my part. What I was trying to get at was that
the vast majority of languages declare arrays using the number of
elements in them, not by their boundaries. VB is fairly enigmatic that
way. I believe (and this is purely opinion here, so be forewarned)
that it's merely the volume of ardent VB users that made the argument
FOR a upper-bound based declarations compelling.

I'd have preferred the change to "standard" means of array
declarations; but I understand that it would have represented a shift
in thinking, and that it might have produced a lot of defects. It
would have also complicated porting of existing software, and can
empathize with those who didn't want to see it changed. Still, it
would have been nice. But I am not the totality of the universe; it
certainly doesn't revolve around me and my preferences, so I can live
without it.

[Branco Medeiros]

Göran Andersson wrote:
<snip>

Interrestingly enough, some VB programmers can't handle declaring arrays
with the upper boundary, so they consistently dimension arrays with one
item more than they will use.

As this rarely causes any errors, they can continue doing so for a long
time without realising it.

:)

<snip>

What amuses me the most is the fact that the vast majority of C/C++
coders never managed to use pointers correctly... Differently from
VB'ers misuse of the upper bound dimmension, that became the source of
so many bugs that they had to create not one but two, mind you, two
new languages (without the pesky pointers) to remedy the situation...

=)))

Branco.

[Rad [Visual C# MVP]]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:19:08 -0400, PJ6 wrote:

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

If I had a dollar ever time I ran into this debate! After reading thousands
of arguments of why VB is better and thousands others why c# is better I
came to the realization that it is like arguing that calculus is better
than algebra, or that the Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones.

At the end of the day, as long as you get what you want done with your
choice, *it doesn't matter!* Different strokes for different folks
--
Bits.Bytes
http://bytes.thinkersroom.com

[james]

"Rad [Visual C# MVP]" <no****@nospam.comwrote in message
news:10****************@thinkersroom.com...

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:19:08 -0400, PJ6 wrote:
If I had a dollar ever time I ran into this debate! After reading
thousands
of arguments of why VB is better and thousands others why c# is better I
came to the realization that it is like arguing that calculus is better
than algebra, or that the Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones.

At the end of the day, as long as you get what you want done with your
choice, *it doesn't matter!* Different strokes for different folks
--
Bits.Bytes
http://bytes.thinkersroom.com

Best answer of all !
james

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Best answer of all !

james

In my opinion can it not beat this one. The one from Rad I have seen already
in others ways. For me the one bellow from X is unique (if you understand
it) althouhg I don't agree with it..

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

[RobinS]

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nlwrote in message
news:uH**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>Best answer of all !
james

In my opinion can it not beat this one. The one from Rad I have seen
already in others ways. For me the one bellow from X is unique (if you
understand it) althouhg I don't agree with it..

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,

I thought he was being sarcastic when he said that, since he stated it
backwards.

I'm having to do some C# stuff now, and the case-sensitive
not-fixing-my-typing thing is driving me loco. Not that it's a long trip,
mind you. (The C# people would argue that it is forcing me to be more
precise. :-P)

Robin S.

[RobinS]

So who *do* you think is better, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

Robin S.
p.s. I'M KIDDING!!!
----------------------------------
"Rad [Visual C# MVP]" <no****@nospam.comwrote in message
news:10****************@thinkersroom.com...

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:19:08 -0400, PJ6 wrote:

>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

If I had a dollar ever time I ran into this debate! After reading
thousands
of arguments of why VB is better and thousands others why c# is better I
came to the realization that it is like arguing that calculus is better
than algebra, or that the Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones.

At the end of the day, as long as you get what you want done with your
choice, *it doesn't matter!* Different strokes for different folks
--
Bits.Bytes
http://bytes.thinkersroom.com

[Rad [Visual C# MVP]]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:57:42 -0700, RobinS wrote:

So who *do* you think is better, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

Robin S.
p.s. I'M KIDDING!!!
----------------------------------

Surely you jest! Isn't it obvious? Sting & The Police!
--
Bits.Bytes
http://bytes.thinkersroom.com

[Mike Hofer]

On Mar 17, 3:25 am, "Rad [Visual C# MVP]" <[e-mail]:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:57:42 -0700, RobinS wrote:

So who *do* you think is better, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

Robin S.
p.s. I'M KIDDING!!!
----------------------------------

Surely you jest! Isn't it obvious? Sting & The Police!
--
Bits.Byteshttp://bytes.thinkersroom.com

YOU'RE ALL WRONG!! The greatest music of all time was Pat Boone's
cover of Metallica!!!

:P

[RobinS]

"Rad [Visual C# MVP]" <no****@nospam.comwrote in message
news:ub**************@thinkersroom.com...

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:57:42 -0700, RobinS wrote:

>So who *do* you think is better, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

Robin S.
p.s. I'M KIDDING!!!
----------------------------------

Surely you jest! Isn't it obvious? Sting & The Police!
--
Bits.Bytes
http://bytes.thinkersroom.com

Well, I have to agree with that, being quite a fan myself, although Sting's
direction on his latest album is a bit questionable. (16th century lute
music? Is that a vanity project or what?)

It looks like you might have a chance to see The Police again this summer,
if you have as much energy as you did when they were popular. ;-)

Robin S.

[RobinS]

"Mike Hofer" <kc********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...

On Mar 17, 3:25 am, "Rad [Visual C# MVP]" <[e-mail]:

>On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:57:42 -0700, RobinS wrote:

So who *do* you think is better, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

Robin S.
p.s. I'M KIDDING!!!
----------------------------------

Surely you jest! Isn't it obvious? Sting & The Police!
--
Bits.Byteshttp://bytes.thinkersroom.com

YOU'RE ALL WRONG!! The greatest music of all time was Pat Boone's
cover of Metallica!!!

:P

I thought that was Paul Anka. (Oh, great, now I have that horrible song,
"Having My Baby", from the late 70's, running through my head. Damn that
Paul Anka! Damn him!)

Robin S.

[PJ6]

OK, I'll fess up as to why I dragged out this horse to beat.

For all the pontificating C# people make, I've yet to see problems with VB
quite as deep as these two:

- crippled constructor chaining
- can't have parameterized properties

These are real language shortcomings, and have nothing to do with
differences in syntax or IDE behavior.

Paul

"PJ6" <no***@nowhere.netwrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>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

[Mike Hofer]

On Mar 21, 8:12 pm, "PJ6" <[e-mail]:

OK, I'll fess up as to why I dragged out this horse to beat.

For all the pontificating C# people make, I've yet to see problems with VB
quite as deep as these two:

- crippled constructor chaining
- can't have parameterized properties

These are real language shortcomings, and have nothing to do with
differences in syntax or IDE behavior.

Paul

"PJ6" <[e-mail] in message

news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Could you clarify what you mean by "crippled constructor chaining"?
"Crippled" implies that it's so broken as to be useless. You'd have to
make some pretty compelling arguments to me that it's constructor
chaining was crippled. I've been working with VB.NET since Beta, and
have yet to see any problems with VB.NET's implementation of
constructors; certainly nothing to lead me to believe that it's
crippled.

Further, the lack of parameterized properties is not a VB.NET thing--
it's a .NET thing. Parameterized properties are indexers, if I recall
correctly. Further, I don't believe it's enforced by the compiler;
it's just not a best practice (though I could be wrong).

For information on parameterized properties, see here:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...61(VS.80).aspx

[Mike Hofer]

On Mar 22, 7:22 am, "Mike Hofer" <[e-mail]:

On Mar 21, 8:12 pm, "PJ6" <[e-mail]:

OK, I'll fess up as to why I dragged out this horse to beat.

For all the pontificating C# people make, I've yet to see problems with VB
quite as deep as these two:

- crippled constructor chaining
- can't have parameterized properties

These are real language shortcomings, and have nothing to do with
differences in syntax or IDE behavior.

Paul

"PJ6" <[e-mail] in message

news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Could you clarify what you mean by "crippled constructor chaining"?
"Crippled" implies that it's so broken as to be useless. You'd have to
make some pretty compelling arguments to me that it's constructor
chaining was crippled. I've been working with VB.NET since Beta, and
have yet to see any problems with VB.NET's implementation of
constructors; certainly nothing to lead me to believe that it's
crippled.

Further, the lack of parameterized properties is not a VB.NET thing--
it's a .NET thing. Parameterized properties are indexers, if I recall
correctly. Further, I don't believe it's enforced by the compiler;
it's just not a best practice (though I could be wrong).

For information on parameterized properties, see here:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...1(VS.80).aspx- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just to clarify: VB.NET does support parameterized properties. But the
best practice is to use them as indexers (that is, they should take
one argument, and that argument should be an index into an array or a
collection; the data type of the index can be any of the standard .NET
data types).

Wasn't sure I was clear -- in re-reading my post, it seemed I had
constradicted myself.

[PJ6]

Mike,

In my post, I was referring to C# shortcomings, not VB.NET.

C# has no property indexers, if that is the proper term. Not "best
practice"? That's bunk.

To clarify the constructor chaining problem; in C#, you can't take values
derived within the method body of one constructor and feed them into
another. If you've worked in VB enough, this should strike you as
surprisingly crippled.

Paul

"Mike Hofer" <kc********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@d57g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...

On Mar 22, 7:22 am, "Mike Hofer" <[e-mail]:

>On Mar 21, 8:12 pm, "PJ6" <[e-mail]:

....

[Mike Hofer]

C# has no property indexers, if that is the proper term. Not "best

practice"? That's bunk.

To clarify the constructor chaining problem; in C#, you can't take values
derived within the method body of one constructor and feed them into
another. If you've worked in VB enough, this should strike you as
surprisingly crippled.

Paul

"Mike Hofer" <[e-mail] in message

news:11**********************@d57g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...On Mar 22, 7:22 am, "Mike Hofer" <[e-mail]:

On Mar 21, 8:12 pm, "PJ6" <[e-mail]:

...

Paul,

First, I owe you an apology. If my post came across as accusatory or
critical, it was not my intent. The first paragraph of the post
*seemed* to be saying that the issues with constructor chaining and
lack of parameterized properties lay with VB. From your response, that
clearly wasn't your intent, and I apologize for having misunderstood
you.

Now, in the interests of carrying on a clear, calm, and (hopefully)
intelligent discussion (on my part), I'm going to ask a question to
make sure that I understand what you mean in your response. :) I have
an *idea* of what you mean, but I want to be sure before I fly off the
handle and make an unfounded assumption, and say something stupid.
(Again.)

In your response, you said:

C# has no property indexers, if that is the proper term. Not "best
practice"? That's bunk.

It's the "that's bunk" part that I'd like to discuss. Can you expand
on your viewpoint on that?

Now, regarding the constructor issue in C#, I'll admit that I am
nowhere *near* as proficient in C# as I am with VB.NET. I agree that
the inability to invoke one constructor from another in the same class
would seem to be a serious shortcoming (if that's what you're saying,
and if it's not, I'd ask you to correct me). However, it's been a
while since I coded anything in C#, and I'll have to do some coding
with a few test applications to refresh my memory. (I'd prefer to do
something with it so I can speak knowledgably and not rely a vague
sense of recall.)

Thanks, and again, my apologies for misconstruing your intent.

Mike

[Brian Gideon]

On Mar 22, 7:46 am, "PJ6" <[e-mail]:

Mike,

In my post, I was referring to C# shortcomings, not VB.NET.

C# has no property indexers, if that is the proper term. Not "best
practice"? That's bunk.

A class can have a single parameterized indexer in C#, but like you
said, there is no support for parameterized properties.

To clarify the constructor chaining problem; in C#, you can't take values
derived within the method body of one constructor and feed them into
another. If you've worked in VB enough, this should strike you as
surprisingly crippled.

Paul

C# supports constructor chaining. Although the syntax happens to
appear before the constructor body, it is no less powerful than the VB
counterpart since VB requires the chained call to be first in
constructor body anyway.

[PJ6]

"Brian Gideon" <br*********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@n59g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
<...>

C# supports constructor chaining. Although the syntax happens to
appear before the constructor body, it is no less powerful than the VB
counterpart since VB requires the chained call to be first in
constructor body anyway.

Huh. Well I stand corrected.

Am I already forgetting VB? Nooooooooooo.....

Paul

[PJ6]

"Mike Hofer" <kc********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@l75g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...

Thanks, and again, my apologies for misconstruing your intent.

Sorry, Mike, I didn't intend my tone to be combative :)

Never mind about the constructor chaining, I was wrong...

Paul

[per9000]

On Mar 15, 4:19 pm, "PJ6" <[e-mail]:

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

I hate C# since I am unable to put files in the trashcan from it (but
I am able to do it from VB.NET (please tell me how to do it in C# if
you know it)).

Otherwise: I prefer C# to Visual Basic, except for the name. In
general "Basic" sounds cooler than "C", but than again I *am* a geek.

/Per

--

Per Erik Strandberg
..NET Architect - Optimization
Tomlab Optimization Inc.
http://tomopt.com/tomnet/

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=]

per9000 wrote:

On Mar 15, 4:19 pm, "PJ6" <[e-mail]:

>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

I hate C# since I am unable to put files in the trashcan from it (but
I am able to do it from VB.NET (please tell me how to do it in C# if
you know it)).

How do you do it in VB.NET, then? It should be quite trivial to
translate to C#.

Otherwise: I prefer C# to Visual Basic, except for the name. In
general "Basic" sounds cooler than "C", but than again I *am* a geek.

If you think that "Basic" sounds cooler tnan "C", you only think that
you are a geek. ;)

--
Göran Andersson
_____
http://www.guffa.com

[Rory Becker]

per9000 wrote:

>

>I hate C# since I am unable to put files in the trashcan from it (but
I am able to do it from VB.NET (please tell me how to do it in C# if
you know it)).

How do you do it in VB.NET, then? It should be quite trivial to
translate to C#.

I don't like C# much because of the case-sensitivity.

I don't know how the recycle bin delete is achieved but I'd guess it's a
simple matter of referencing the right assemblies (Perhaps Microsoft.visualbasic)
and calling the function with correct casing.

--
Rory

[per9000]

How do you do it in VB.NET, then? It should be quite trivial to

translate to C#.

Indeed, it *should* be...

Sub Main()
Try
My.Computer.FileSystem.DeleteFile("foo.bar",
FileIO.UIOption.OnlyErrorDialogs,
FileIO.RecycleOption.SendToRecycleBin)
Catch ex As Exception
Console.WriteLine("Error: " & ex.Message)
End Try
End Sub

Build it and take a look in reflector ( http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet/
), if you manage to do this in C# in 7 lines (not counting { or })
I'll buy you coffee thursday :-) (total value approx 5 SEK)

Also take a look at http://www.pererikstrandberg.se/projects/totrash/
for a small app based on this (the only app I've ever written in
"basic").

I'd really like this in C# to be able to combine more easily with
other stuff I build.

Otherwise: I prefer C# to Visual Basic, except for the name. In
general "Basic" sounds cooler than "C", but than again I *am* a geek.

If you think that "Basic" sounds cooler tnan "C", you only think that
you are a geek. ;)

This thread is has really hit the bottom, or as we say in Swedish:
"the botten is nådd..."

/Per

--

Per Erik Strandberg
..NET Architect - Optimization
Tomlab Optimization Inc.
http://tomopt.com/tomnet/

[rowe_newsgroups]

if you manage to do this in C# in 7 lines (not counting { or })

I'll buy you coffee thursday :-) (total value approx 5 SEK)

I like Kona coffee the best :-)

using Microsoft.VisualBasic.FileIO;

void Main()
{
try
{
FileSystem.DeleteFile("foo.bar",
UIOption.OnlyErrorDialogs, RecycleOption.SendToRecycleBin);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Error: {0}", ex.Message);
}
}

Thanks,

Seth Rowe
On Mar 27, 9:47 am, "per9000" <[e-mail]:

How do you do it in VB.NET, then? It should be quite trivial to
translate to C#.

Indeed, it *should* be...

Sub Main()
Try
My.Computer.FileSystem.DeleteFile("foo.bar",
FileIO.UIOption.OnlyErrorDialogs,
FileIO.RecycleOption.SendToRecycleBin)
Catch ex As Exception
Console.WriteLine("Error: " & ex.Message)
End Try
End Sub

Build it and take a look in reflector (http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet/
), if you manage to do this in C# in 7 lines (not counting { or })
I'll buy you coffee thursday :-) (total value approx 5 SEK)

Also take a look athttp://www.pererikstrandberg.se/projects/totrash/
for a small app based on this (the only app I've ever written in
"basic").

I'd really like this in C# to be able to combine more easily with
other stuff I build.

Otherwise: I prefer C# to Visual Basic, except for the name. In
general "Basic" sounds cooler than "C", but than again I *am* a geek.

If you think that "Basic" sounds cooler tnan "C", you only think that
you are a geek. ;)

This thread is has really hit the bottom, or as we say in Swedish:
"the botten is nådd..."

/Per

--

Per Erik Strandberg
.NET Architect - Optimization
Tomlab Optimization Inc.http://tomopt.com/tomnet/

[per9000]

I'll be damned,

By adding a reference to Microsoft.VisualBasic the magic namespace
FileIO appeared, before I had only VBCodeProvider in the namespace
Microsoft.VisualBasic.* (now I got lots of stuff), I guess you can
call me Grasshopper now master, or if you prefer: I could commit
harakiri and squeeze my guts by repeatedly opening and closing "DVD-
RAM Drive (D:)"

Seth, if you find me thursday: I will buy you coffee...

Since I no longer have any reason to hate C# perhaps the harakiri can
wait.

/P

--

Per Erik Strandberg
..NET Architect - Optimization
Tomlab Optimization Inc.
http://tomopt.com/tomnet/

On 27 Mar, 16:01, "rowe_newsgroups" <[e-mail]:

if you manage to do this in C# in 7 lines (not counting { or })
I'll buy you coffee thursday :-) (total value approx 5 SEK)

I like Kona coffee the best :-)

using Microsoft.VisualBasic.FileIO;

void Main()
{
try
{
FileSystem.DeleteFile("foo.bar",
UIOption.OnlyErrorDialogs, RecycleOption.SendToRecycleBin);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Error: {0}", ex.Message);
}
}

Thanks,

Seth Rowe

On Mar 27, 9:47 am, "per9000" <[e-mail]:

How do you do it in VB.NET, then? It should be quite trivial to
translate to C#.

Indeed, it *should* be...

Sub Main()
Try
My.Computer.FileSystem.DeleteFile("foo.bar",
FileIO.UIOption.OnlyErrorDialogs,
FileIO.RecycleOption.SendToRecycleBin)
Catch ex As Exception
Console.WriteLine("Error: " & ex.Message)
End Try
End Sub

Build it and take a look in reflector (http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet/
), if you manage to do this in C# in 7 lines (not counting { or })
I'll buy you coffee thursday :-) (total value approx 5 SEK)

Also take a look athttp://www.pererikstrandberg.se/projects/totrash/
for a small app based on this (the only app I've ever written in
"basic").

I'd really like this in C# to be able to combine more easily with
other stuff I build.

Otherwise: I prefer C# to Visual Basic, except for the name. In
general "Basic" sounds cooler than "C", but than again I *am* a geek.

If you think that "Basic" sounds cooler tnan "C", you only think that
you are a geek. ;)

This thread is has really hit the bottom, or as we say in Swedish:
"the botten is nådd..."

/Per

--

Per Erik Strandberg
.NET Architect - Optimization
Tomlab Optimization Inc.http://tomopt.com/tomnet/

[rowe_newsgroups]

By adding a reference to Microsoft.VisualBasic the magic namespace

FileIO appeared, before I had only VBCodeProvider in the namespace
Microsoft.VisualBasic.* (now I got lots of stuff)

I always thought it was misleading to have access to VBCodeProvider
when you don't hold a reference to Microsoft.VisualBasic. I can't tell
you how confused I was when I started using C# and was trying to
access the Microsoft.VisualBasic.Devices.Network class!

Seth, if you find me thursday: I will buy you coffee...

Perhaps I'll take a raincheck - especially if you live in Sweden.

Since I no longer have any reason to hate C# perhaps the harakiri can
wait.

Good to hear! - I never have been an advocate for suicide :-)

Thanks,

Seth Rowe
On Mar 27, 10:20 am, "per9000" <[e-mail]:

I'll be damned,

By adding a reference to Microsoft.VisualBasic the magic namespace
FileIO appeared, before I had only VBCodeProvider in the namespace
Microsoft.VisualBasic.* (now I got lots of stuff), I guess you can
call me Grasshopper now master, or if you prefer: I could commit
harakiri and squeeze my guts by repeatedly opening and closing "DVD-
RAM Drive (D:)"

Seth, if you find me thursday: I will buy you coffee...

Since I no longer have any reason to hate C# perhaps the harakiri can
wait.

/P

--

Per Erik Strandberg
.NET Architect - Optimization
Tomlab Optimization Inc.http://tomopt.com/tomnet/

On 27 Mar, 16:01, "rowe_newsgroups" <[e-mail]:

if you manage to do this in C# in 7 lines (not counting { or })
I'll buy you coffee thursday :-) (total value approx 5 SEK)

I like Kona coffee the best :-)

using Microsoft.VisualBasic.FileIO;

void Main()
{
try
{
FileSystem.DeleteFile("foo.bar",
UIOption.OnlyErrorDialogs, RecycleOption.SendToRecycleBin);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Error: {0}", ex.Message);
}
}

Thanks,

Seth Rowe

On Mar 27, 9:47 am, "per9000" <[e-mail]:

How do you do it in VB.NET, then? It should be quite trivial to
translate to C#.

Indeed, it *should* be...

Sub Main()
Try
My.Computer.FileSystem.DeleteFile("foo.bar",
FileIO.UIOption.OnlyErrorDialogs,
FileIO.RecycleOption.SendToRecycleBin)
Catch ex As Exception
Console.WriteLine("Error: " & ex.Message)
End Try
End Sub

Build it and take a look in reflector (http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet/
), if you manage to do this in C# in 7 lines (not counting { or })
I'll buy you coffee thursday :-) (total value approx 5 SEK)

Also take a look athttp://www.pererikstrandberg.se/projects/totrash/
for a small app based on this (the only app I've ever written in
"basic").

I'd really like this in C# to be able to combine more easily with
other stuff I build.

Otherwise: I prefer C# to Visual Basic, except for the name. In
general "Basic" sounds cooler than "C", but than again I *am* a geek.

If you think that "Basic" sounds cooler tnan "C", you only think that
you are a geek. ;)

This thread is has really hit the bottom, or as we say in Swedish:
"the botten is nådd..."

/Per

--

Per Erik Strandberg
.NET Architect - Optimization
Tomlab Optimization Inc.http://tomopt.com/tomnet/

[per9000]

I always thought it was misleading to have access to VBCodeProvider

when you don't hold a reference to Microsoft.VisualBasic. I can't tell
you how confused I was when I started using C# and was trying to
access the Microsoft.VisualBasic.Devices.Network class!

Yeah, if I hadn't seen the namespace in the first place perhaps I
would have looked for it with a little more enthusiasm. Now I just got
frustrated especially since the C# code I got from reflector was
strange. I had some strange reference to My.Project - things I had no
idea where they came from.

Seth, if you find me thursday: I will buy you coffee...

Perhaps I'll take a raincheck - especially if you live in Sweden.

It was all part of my big plan to one day rule the universe *moa ha
ha*

Thanks again,
Per.

--

Per Erik Strandberg, Tomlab Optimization Inc.
Visual Basic .NET + SNOPT = http://tomopt.com/tomnet/products/snopt/