Software developing software page 2

39 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by feartehstickman:
Originally posted by stage_phrite:

This whole post is of course irrelevant if the OP intends to develop for any OS other than Microsuck Winblows

Seeing as windows is the most widely used OS, I’d say that it’s most likely that he uses windows. And, based on what he said “(something) that i can use to make my own software” and “the software i am going to make will be a sticky note type thing”, I’m going to assume he’s making something for his personal use, or his friends.
So, I could be wrong, but I’d say, statistically, that it’s most likely that developing in C# will not damage the usability of his software.

If it’s just something small for personal use he might as well just use python or java which will run almost anywhere and can be rapidly prototyped.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by draganviper:

If it’s just something small for personal use he might as well just use python or java which will run almost anywhere and can be rapidly prototyped.

I doubt Java is in any way easier or more suitable for rapid prototyping than C#.

 
Flag Post

But it will run anywhere (well, most places). + with my understanding Java is usually a little bit easier for people to use.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RTL_Shadow:

But it will run anywhere (well, most places). + with my understanding Java is usually a little bit easier for people to use.

.net programs will run on most systems too. C# has a similar syntax, but far more features, like a unified type system, properties, events, optional and named arguments, lambdas, operator overloading, unmanaged code,… which makes it easier to use and much more flexible than Java.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jheiling:

.net programs will run on most systems too. C# has a similar syntax, but far more features, like a unified type system, properties, events, optional and named arguments, lambdas, operator overloading, unmanaged code,… which makes it easier to use and much more flexible than Java.

Wait..you are listing properties…and events…as advantages C# has over Java?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Drakim:
Originally posted by jheiling:

.net programs will run on most systems too. C# has a similar syntax, but far more features, like a unified type system, properties, events, optional and named arguments, lambdas, operator overloading, unmanaged code,… which makes it easier to use and much more flexible than Java.

Wait..you are listing properties…and events…as advantages C# has over Java?

I think they are. I’d rather make a quick getter and setter then make get and set methods. Two reasons – one, it’s easier to access myObj.val++; vs. myObj.setVal(myObj.getVal()+1); Second, it’s better for maintainability. If I hnave a public variable, and I need a getter/setter, I can change it and those using my class won’t be affected.

I also think events are just as nice as Java’s build a class for every event listener paradigm.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jheiling:
Originally posted by RTL_Shadow:

But it will run anywhere (well, most places). + with my understanding Java is usually a little bit easier for people to use.

.net programs will run on most systems too. C# has a similar syntax, but far more features, like a unified type system, properties, events, optional and named arguments, lambdas, operator overloading, unmanaged code,… which makes it easier to use and much more flexible than Java.

I mean’t you can usually run java from browsers, afaik you can’t do that with C#.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

I think they are. I’d rather make a quick getter and setter then make get and set methods. Two reasons – one, it’s easier to access myObj.val++; vs. myObj.setVal(myObj.getVal()+1); Second, it’s better for maintainability. If I hnave a public variable, and I need a getter/setter, I can change it and those using my class won’t be affected.

I also think events are just as nice as Java’s build a class for every event listener paradigm.

That’s cool but then he should by all means list getters and setters as advantages over Java, not “properties”. His list is a bit wacky, since when was “named arguments” a feature to brag about? I believe we have had that since Fortran? Maybe next he will tell us about C# being better because it has classes? :p

I think C# is a much better language than Java but listing these as after saying “C# has a similar syntax, but far more features” is very misleading and might cause people to seriously misunderstand. Especially mixed in with features like operator overloading that Java does not have, potentially leading people to believe that Java does not have named arguments.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Drakim:

Wait..you are listing properties…and events…as advantages C# has over Java?

Java doesn’t have properties or events as language constructs. I don’t understand your issue with jheiling’s statement; properties are one of the things I usually cite as to why C# is better than Java too.

Neither of them is a prototyping language, though. You want something dynamic for that.

And Java doesn’t have named arguments, does it? Just for clarification, named arguments means calling the arguments by name, e.g.

function something(a:int, b:int) { ... }

something(b:42, a:107);
 
Flag Post

Java doesn’t have properties

That’s because the hipsters decided to call them “fields”.

class WhatTheHeckAreYouSayingAboutJava {

	public int ohCrapItsAProperty; //OH CRAP! IT'S A PROPERTY!

	public static void main(String[] args) 
	{ 
		(new WhatTheHeckAreYouSayingAboutJava()).ohCrapItsAProperty = 5; 
	}

}

 
Flag Post

ah, I see, I thought he meant the actual names of the arguments in the functions, which all programming languages seem to have.

But obviously Java has “properties”. As truefire says, they simply have a different name. To not have properties would mean it’s not a functioning language.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Drakim:

ah, I see, I thought he meant the actual names of the arguments in the functions, which all programming languages seem to have.

But obviously Java has “properties”. As truefire says, they simply have a different name. To not have properties would mean it’s not a functioning language.

Here a property is defined as a thing that appears to be a regular field, but secretly has getters/setters behind it. It’s like x/y in AS3. In Java, all you can do is make getX() setX() methods for example.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by truefire:

That’s because the hipsters decided to call them “fields”.

A field isn’t a property, in particular the ability for the setter to validate and notify are very useful.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RTL_Shadow:

I mean’t you can usually run java from browsers, afaik you can’t do that with C#.

If you want to run it in a browser you could just use js.

Thanks to BobTheCoolGuy and BobJanova for making clear what I meant!