Languages popularity

[Ufit]

http://www.dedasys.com/articles/language_popularity.html

According to above informations C# is the most sought and perspective language.
This seems very strange for me. Can anyone explain why there are so high hopes
with C#? Why not C++ or java or VB?
What's so better about C#?

UF

 

[Victor Bazarov]

http://www.dedasys.com/articles/language_popularity.html

According to above informations C# is the most sought and perspective
language. This seems very strange for me. Can anyone explain why
there are so high hopes with C#? Why not C++ or java or VB?
What's so better about C#?

Nothing. Ask those people who share the views presented on that
web page. I think it's bogus to derive "perspectiveness" from hits
or dollars of advertisement poured into some proprietary system by
the owner and its affiliates.

V

 

[John Harrison]

http://www.dedasys.com/articles/language_popularity.html

According to above informations C# is the most sought and perspective language.
This seems very strange for me. Can anyone explain why there are so high hopes
with C#? Why not C++ or java or VB?
What's so better about C#?

UF

This just proves that C# customers are more willing to pay others to
solve their problems for them.

john

 

[Divick]

Well in my view C# indeed is a well designed language. It is more of a
conglomerate of ideas/good features from C++ and Java (the major reason
for its success and popularity).

Every langauage has an evolution period. C++ has stopped evolving (may
be not at the pace at which C# or Java has evolved). While Java is also
a popular language but is not preferred by those who want speed in
their code. Though the best part about Java is that it allows backward
compatibility (older program still continue to work, with only warnings
showing the code as deprecated for non supported constructs / language
freatures / methods). Thus java is extensively used for Web development
stuff.

Since C# derives most of its ideas from Java but being Microsoft
proprietary, supposedly runs faster on Windows based platforms than
Java.

May be it is difficult with C++ to evolve it so rapidly, which is the
reason, people are looking for options so that they can do rapid
application dcevelopment. But as far as speed goes no body can beat
C++. That's why it is still used widely in scientific and R&D
communities.

 

[Howard]

stuff.

Since C# derives most of its ideas from Java

Actually, much of the design of C# comes from Delphi (a Pascal language).
One of Delphi's main designers took on the task of developing the C#
language, and he brought a lot of the Delphi design ideas with him.

-Howard

 

[mlimber]

Divick wrote:
[snip]

Every langauage has an evolution period. C++ has stopped evolving (may
be not at the pace at which C# or Java has evolved).

[snip]

I'm not clear on what you mean here. Sure, C++ is pretty stable
compared to C# or Java, but it is still evolving, especially the
standard library.

May be it is difficult with C++ to evolve it so rapidly, which is the
reason, people are looking for options so that they can do rapid
application dcevelopment.
Huh?

But as far as speed goes no body can beat
C++. That's why it is still used widely in scientific and R&D
communities.

Well, pure C can often beat C++ in speed of execution, and assembler
can beat that. Speed of development is another thing, however.

Cheers! --M

 

[Howard]

Huh?

Perhaps he didn't word that well, but if you've ever developed in a language
like Delphi, you'll find that it's easier to develop many types of software
(esp. database, xml, gui, and other non-c++-standard stuff), in a short
period of time, than it is when using C++. I can write a windows app with
those features in no time, while doing so in C++ takes significantly longer.
Granted, part of that ease is the IDE, and part is the libraries you use to
develop such apps with. But the standard C++ language itself doesn't make
it easy to do such things. (Indeed, it doesn't even know about such
things!) C++ is not considered a RAD tool in this sense, and I think that's
what he was referring to.

-Howard

 

[Walter Bright]

May be it is difficult with C++ to evolve it so rapidly, which is the
reason, people are looking for options so that they can do rapid
application dcevelopment. But as far as speed goes no body can beat
C++. That's why it is still used widely in scientific and R&D
communities.

D can beat C++ for speed. See
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=dlang&lang2=gp
p&sort=fullcpu and see the benchmark at the end of
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/cppstrings.html.

-Walter
www.digitalmars.com C, C++, D compilers

 

[Dave Vandervies]

Well in my view C# indeed is a well designed language. It is more of a
conglomerate of ideas/good features from C++ and Java (the major reason
for its success and popularity).

That doesn't make it a well-designed language. If anything, it makes
it less likely to be; the more good ideas or features are included in
a language, the more care it needs to be kept well-designed.

While Java is also
a popular language but is not preferred by those who want speed in
their code.

....except the people who realize that well-written Java with a good JIT
engine will be comparable with code from any other language, especially
when it's doing stuff that Java is good at.

But as far as speed goes no body can beat
C++.

Except Fortran, especially for the type of number-crunching that most
applications where run times are measured in weeks instead of seconds do.
And probably C in a lot of cases. And sometimes assembly. And, depending
on what you're doing, almost definitely some specialized language (like,
say, Matlab).

So, yeah, no other language except for most of the rest of the ones with
serious market share.


dave

 

[Thomas Tutone]

mlimber wrote:

[snip]

Well, pure C can often beat C++ in speed of execution.

I question the truth of this statement. Can you provide an example of
a C program that is faster when compiled as a C program than as a C++
program? And if that's not what you meant, then what overhead do you
believe a program using C++ idioms brings that results in it being
slower than an equivalent C program that doesn't use those idioms?

Best regards,

Tom

 

[mlimber]

I question the truth of this statement. Can you provide an example of
a C program that is faster when compiled as a C program than as a C++
program? And if that's not what you meant, then what overhead do you
believe a program using C++ idioms brings that results in it being
slower than an equivalent C program that doesn't use those idioms?

I was thinking of both languages without any compiler optimization
except what is intrinsic to the languages (e.g., #define and inline,
the latter of which is actually only a hint to the compiler and which
may be ignored while the former cannot be). Second, as you note, most
any C program will run under C++, but I was thinking of a "pure" C and
a "pure" C++ program using their respective idioms.

That being said, since any C++ program can be transformed into a "pure"
C program, there's really not that much difference, save that the C++
program (or the same program transformed into C) would have a few more
pointers passed around and a few more dereferences before function
calls. In general, I agree that these are negligible (though non-zero),
so while my statement that C-style programs "can often beat" C++-style
programs may be technically correct, in practice there *usually* isn't
all that much difference.

Cheers! --M

 

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Divick wrote:
[snip]

Well, pure C can often beat C++ in speed of execution, and assembler
can beat that. Speed of development is another thing, however.

Actually, I suspect with regard to C and C++ the converse might be closer to
the truth. Templates are really powerful in that regard. The simplest
example is probably comparing qsort from C to std::sort. The former
requires the overhead of a function call whereas the latter will most like
inline the comparison function. Thus, in C you have a tradeoff between
generic code and fast code that you do not necessarily encounter in C++.


Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

 

[Protoman]

What's D? Never heard of that language.

 

[Sherm Pendley]

What's D? Never heard of that language.

Have you heard of Google?

<http://fuckinggoogleit.com/search?q="D+Programming+Language">

sherm--

 

[Divick]

That's good to know. Thanks for correction.

-divick

 

[Divick]

That's good to know. Thanks for correction.

-divick

 

[Divick]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Indeed C++ is not a RAD tool.

As far as speed goes, I consider C++ a subset of C (or superset
depends on your perspective), so I don't distinguish between them
practically.

While with assembly, I feel if there was option of writing straightaway
the machine code that would have been the fastest (only if you could
optimize large and complex programs yourself without the compilers
aid). Thus I don't consider it as a programming language altogether.

Thanks Howard, once again, for the complementary note.

 

[Walter Bright]

What's D? Never heard of that language.

This should help: www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html the D Programming
Language

 

[Aleksey Loginov]

That doesn't make it a well-designed language. If anything, it makes
it less likely to be; the more good ideas or features are included in
a language, the more care it needs to be kept well-designed.



...except the people who realize that well-written Java with a good JIT
engine will be comparable with code from any other language, especially
when it's doing stuff that Java is good at.



Except Fortran, especially for the type of number-crunching that most
applications where run times are measured in weeks instead of seconds do.
And probably C in a lot of cases. And sometimes assembly. And, depending
on what you're doing, almost definitely some specialized language (like,
say, Matlab).

in what cases matlab can beat c++?
two year's ago c was better. anything changes from that time?
sorry if OT.