Closed Poll: Which language is the least bad?
-
Oh, he's serious. It's a very useful feature actually.
-
Sorry, I was watching my dwarves fight wolves and one of them got injured.
-
Well, .NET does actually have non-typesafe variables - only they're introduced differently. So I wouldn't go into full-out rage about it.
I imagine it's not that easy to misspell 'var' as 'dynamic' :D
-
Oh, he's serious. It's a very useful feature actually.
So you're both stupid? Have the imagination of @blakeyrat?
-
What are we talking about?
EDIT: oh the LINQ thing? Think of like a C++ Template, where the compiler just create as many versions of the code as it needs to cover all the possible types that can be passed-in to it. LINQ heavily relies on it, but it's handy for a bunch of other stuff.
-
What are we talking about?
When someone says, "There's probably a way to do all that using something other than this one particular implementation detail." And then people go, "No, but that detail is how they do X."
Maybe it's just lack of reading comprehension.
-
I lack comprehension of your post. So I guess your theory is correct.
-
Shhh. You don't want them to learn that VB.Net is basically C# with different syntax, and not old-school VB, do you?
-
-
-
Well, it's either create those numerous tiny classes yourself, or let the compiler do it for you.
Be honest, unless you're a sadist, you'll let the compiler do the heavy lifting.
-
Shhh. You don't want them to learn that VB.Net is basically C# with different syntax, and not old-school VB, do you?
They should have called it something else. V# .NET, maybe.
-
Well, it's either create those numerous tiny classes yourself, or let the compiler do it for you.
Be honest, unless you're a sadist, you'll let the compiler do the heavy lifting.
Step away from the shoulder aliens.
-
-
a well-known ex-Microserf suggested that VB.NET should have a completely different name — Visual Fred. This rapidly caught on.
It... did? I've never heard that before in my life.
-
I told Fred, "Change this variable."
"Right", said Fred.
-
The wolves are all dead, but one of my marksdwarves got his beard damaged.
And the right half of his body, for that matter.
-
unless you're a sadist
Strictly, that would be “masochist” unless you're using a whip to beat some other poor programmer into writing out all those little classes. Not my thing, really.
-
Whip me. Beat me. Make me write COBOL.
The original ended with "Make me install Oracle" but I'm trying to stay on topic.
-
-
Was this before or after his did his little turn on the catwalk?
-
I don't have any hate for Foo foo = new Foo(); like a lot of people, and I kind of dig it since it seems to drive so many people nuts.
I finally read the top of this thread.
The problem with code like:
Foo foo = new Foo()
is that if you refactor the function to now take aBar
instead of aFoo
, you have to go back and change all your variable declarations individually. If you use var everywhere, you save a lot of refactoring time.This actually came up for me recently, where I had a bunch of classes that were passing around WinForms
Color
objects, but I wanted to refactor them to pass around a newDoubleColor
type I'd created. Refactoring that was a BITCH! But the real annoying part is thatDoubleColor
had the same members asColor
, so it would have been trivial if I had usedvar foo
instead ofColor foo
.That benefit of the var keyword is entirely independent of its use in LINQ and shit.
-
I'm surprised C# is getting so much love despite its poor support for non-Windows environments.
C# has a better IDE in Linux (MonoDevelop) than most "Linux-native" languages have.
By that standard, I'd say C# is better supported in Linux over, say, Ruby.
OS X is a different story.
-
The problem with code like: Foo foo = new Foo() is that if you refactor the function to now take a Bar instead of a Foo, you have to go back and change all your variable declarations individually. If you use var everywhere, you save a lot of refactoring time.
If changing that to
var foo = new Foo()
suddenly makesfoo
aBar
, I'm concerned as to what your compiler is doing with theFoo
constructor.
-
If changing that to var foo = new Foo() suddenly makes foo a Bar,
var color = ColorFactoryOrWhatever.GetColor()
-
Don't respond to him, he's just pretending to be fucking stupid to make the world's lamest joke.
-
Don't respond to him, he's just pretending to be fucking stupid to make the world's lamest joke.
Experience has taught me to resolve Poe's law to "idiocy" by default.
-
That and pointing out that you could have used a better example, especially since you're referring to functions.
-
Find all references, refactor/rename those instances........wow, that was hard.
-
The problem with code like: Foo foo = new Foo() is that if you refactor the function to now take a Bar instead of a Foo, you have to go back and change all your variable declarations individually. If you use var everywhere, you save a lot of refactoring time.
I'm not sure I'd want to do that. I've had occasions like that, and having to go and fix stuff up has a couple of benefits. I'm looking at code and reviewing it, and often finding problems that need to be fixed. Additionally, it's often not as simple as changing the type, unless it's a very similar object, and then I'm probably using an interface, so maybe I don't need to change anything.
-
I've never really used LINQ, but did you seriously imply that the C# foreach keyword isn't good enough?
Quite the opposite, I indicated a use case for the var keyword based on a subsequent use of the foreach keyword.
-
And anyone who votes for Objective-C deserves their own corner of Hell.
I didn't, but I think Objective C is quite decent. What's your beef with it?
-
I didn't, but I think Objective C is quite decent. What's your beef with it?
1986 - Brad Cox and Tom Love create Objective-C, announcing "this language has all the memory safety of C combined with all the blazing speed of Smalltalk." Modern historians suspect the two were dyslexic.
-
C# has a better IDE in Linux (MonoDevelop) than most "Linux-native" languages have.
You know as well as I do that those types of people think IDEs are the devil and everything should be done in vim.
-
You know as well as I do that those types of people think IDEs are the devil and everything should be done in
FTFYvimemacs.
-
I didn't, but I think Objective C is quite decent. What's your beef with it?
Actually my beef is with the frameworks, Xcode, and the compiler that only succeeds 25% of the time. But since you're forced into Objective-C by those, it becomes guilty by association. I don't think Objective-C is ever used outside of that environment.
-
You know as well as I do that those types of people think IDEs are the devil and everything should be done in vim.
My main beef with IDEs is people who can't code outside of one, not that they exist. In other words: grabbing an IDE and using it shouldn't be an issue, but you should be able to fall back to using a text editor if your IDE barfs for whatever reason, and your IDE shouldn't get in the way of doing this, or interoperating with whatever-build-tooling-your-project-uses.
-
Actually my beef is with the frameworks, Xcode, and the compiler that only succeeds 25% of the time. But since you're forced into Objective-C by those, it becomes guilty by association. I don't think Objective-C is ever used outside of that environment.
-
My main beef with IDEs is people who can't code outside of one, not that they exist.
Yeah, this.
I've even met some people who are unable to set up new projects in their IDE of choice, especially if the project needs a small amount of customization, simply because their idea of building stuff doesn't extend beyond the concept of pressing "Build" (or whatever).
-
Once again, I'm surprised how C# swept the others away by such a large margin. Thanks to all who participated.
-
I'm surprised how well PHP did.
-
I didn't really look at the poll before... but why "C/C++" instead of separate answers? To me, those have very different probabilities I would choose them. Or why not say "C/C++/C#/Java/Objective-C", because the other languages have as much to do with C and C++ as C and C++ have to do with each other...
-
ObjectiveJavaCScript#++?
-
Now I'm interested in creating a worst of the worst poll. Would anyone like to see anything added to this list?
- C
- C++
- COBOL
- Java
- Javascript
- LISP/Scheme/etc
- Objective-C
- Perl
- PHP
- PL/SQL
- Python
- Tcl
- Visual Basic (not .NET)
-
- C#
- Ruby
- VBA
- ColdFusion
Note: C# should be there just for reasons of fairness, not for quality reasons.
-
-
Now that's probably what will happen, knowing us.
-
Oh, I forgot another TDWTF favorite:
- MUMPS
-
Once again, I'm surprised how C# swept the others away by such a large margin. Thanks to all who participated.
You must be new here.
-
My main beef with IDEs is people who can't code outside of one, not that they exist. In other words: grabbing an IDE and using it shouldn't be an issue, but you should be able to fall back to using a text editor if your IDE barfs for whatever reason, and your IDE shouldn't get in the way of doing this, or interoperating with whatever-build-tooling-your-project-uses.
I can't code outside an IDE. Well, I probably could, but at a tiny fraction of the speed. Is it so wrong that I never bother memorising method names (for example) and instead rely on a handy popup to list them all for a particular object? I knows what I want when I see it, but in Notepad or emacs or whatever? I'd have to go searching that info up.
I don't see how rote memorisation is a good thing, nor how it would improve my code. Let the IDE do as much work as possible, is my opinion. Let's me focus more on good code... at least, I think that's how I operate :)