Wiki Home

CSharp Opinion

Namespace: VB
I'm interested in hearing some opinions of C# before investing much time in it. Thanks.
What in particular? You mean C# vs VB.NET? Or C# in general? C# itself is just a programming language that isn't all that powerful until you combine it with the .NET Framework. Learning C# amounts to learning the framework, so your investment in C# can really be applied to VB.NET and other .NET languages. It is worth mentioning that because C# is an ECMA standard which is based on standard like C++ and Java, your investment will be pretty safe from being mishandled by its owner like a proprietary language can. -- Mike Helland (However, this really means little: I remember reading that Java is NOT an ECMA standard; it is essentially proprietary, though has been held steady by Sun, making it reliable and widely used. Apart and in conjunction with .Net, C# seems to me to be another Microsoft Category Killer to attempt to displace Java. -- ?wgcs)
What means very little? You're right, Java is not an ECMA standard, it still happens to be the defacto standard for alot of non MS development. And as far as C# being an attempt to compete with Java, what's your point? -- Mike Helland
It's cool. Seriously, like Mike said, there's learning C# syntax and "philosophy" and there's learning the .NET platform. It's been in use for 2-1/2 years so I'm pretty sure you can find as many opinions as stars. Maybe the newsgroups would be the best place to lurk to get a "feel" for the community?
My opinion, after a cursory look at C#, .NET and VS.NET and reading a bunch of stuff, is that it is definitely based on a great architecture and language. However, I'm going to wait until there are more "RAD" tools available. Using it all "as-is" out of the box would be, to me, the same as trying to take VFP and create full-blown apps without a "real" framework. The .NET framework amounts to TONS of re-usable classes, but there doesn't seem to be much out of the box that makes it easy (nor quick) to "build" from these just yet. I'm a "Wizards and Builders" kind of guy. (I'm spoiled by VFE) I need to provide solutions to clients fast, not spend my time creating new development tools and standards. (OK, so I'm a lazy bastard, hehe) FWIW, I have noticed some third party .NET RAD tools being advertised recently. I will be checking these out for sure. -- Randy Jean

Randy - this is true, and not. When VFP first came out there weren't alot of frameworks, but that didn't stop us from using VFP. Also, Kevin Mcneish (sp?) is rewritting his Mere Mortals (which was originally based on codebook) into .Net using C#. So, that should really flatten the learning curve for VFP/Codebookers out there.

Actually, it did stop me (well that and other circumstances) - I didn't get my feet wet with VFP until sometime in late 1997. I tried doing a simple single grid based screen and it was horrible. I knew nothing about views, etc. (I had been programming Foxbase/Pro since 1988) I took a look at CodeBook 3.0 and knew that was not the way for me (and I was a die-hard Codebook 2 programmer) Thank God I found Visual FoxExpress - although it was based on CodeBook, it had the necessary docs and wizards to ease me into a working app until I really *needed* to code-dive - and then that's when I actually started connecting what I read about OOP to what it REALLY meant. -- Randy Jean
While the existence of a framework can indeed make a good language much more usable, I'm not sure if it really flattens the learning curve. It's often been common advice that one needs to be pretty knowledgeable about the underlying language and technology in order to make effective use of a framework.

I recall back when CodeBook 3.0 came out, some folks were really upset because they thought it would help climb the VFP learning curve, and instead found they had just stepped off into the deep end of the pool. They ignored the target audience mentioned on the book cover as "intermediate to advanced" developers. I've worked with two outstanding VFP frameworks, but would have been totally lost if I hadn't been able to code-dive to figure out how the framework was constructed, so I could determine how to leverage it's functionality, or extend extend that functionality when needed. Can't do that unless you're pretty good with the language to begin with.
Contributors ???, Mike Helland, Nancy Folsom, Randy Jean, Steve Sawyer
Category DotNet Category Development Tools
( Topic last updated: 2003.01.24 08:22:10 PM )