Mnemonic

[John Bode]

jacob navia wrote:

[snip]

PS. BTW by many points of view C itself is a legacy language or nearly
one. Since you want to forget history and legacy so badly, why don't
you consider developing for one of the many shiny new languages popping
up every now and then. I suggest C#/CLI/.NET. It has many of the
features that you are constantly trying to bolt onto C.

I do not think that C is a legacy language.

It already is in a number of domains, and I think that number is
growing as newer tools are developed. While still popular for kernel
and embedded programming, I can't think of that much new application
development being done with pure C. The desktop on the Windows side
is firmly in .Net land (C# or VB), and I *think* Apple is finally
dropping the C-based Carbon API in OS X 10.5 (which was meant to be a
temporary measure while developers transitioned over to the Obj-C
Cocoa interface). Unix and Linux development is more of a mixed bag,
I'll grant you, but even there I'm seeing a trend away from C to other
languages like C++ and Java (and as the Mono project gains steam, I
expect a trend away from C++ to C#).

All programming languages have a limited useful lifetime. They never
really die, but as time goes on their niches shrink as the nature of
the computing environment changes (Exhibits A and B: COBOL and
Fortran). C's been around for something like 35 years now, initially
designed in an era of dumb terminals large time-share systems, and
simply doesn't have the toolkit to handle modern-day demands in a
consistent, platform-independent manner. Sure, the Standard has been
extended to add new capabilities, but I doubt we'll ever see the
addition of a platform-independent network layer in the standard
library, for example.

By that same token, I doubt C# and Java will enjoy their current
popularity 30 years from now.

Professionally speaking, I'm pretty much done with C. My company has
officially adopted a C#-based framework for all new products, although
my specific project is C++-based. The last time I had to look for a
general software development job, all the requests were for C#, VB, or
C++ experience.

 

[jacob navia]

jacob navia wrote:

[snip]

PS. BTW by many points of view C itself is a legacy language or nearly
one. Since you want to forget history and legacy so badly, why don't
you consider developing for one of the many shiny new languages popping
up every now and then. I suggest C#/CLI/.NET. It has many of the
features that you are constantly trying to bolt onto C.

I do not think that C is a legacy language.

[snip]


Professionally speaking, I'm pretty much done with C. My company has
officially adopted a C#-based framework for all new products, although
my specific project is C++-based. The last time I had to look for a
general software development job, all the requests were for C#, VB, or
C++ experience.

OK. I would propose that you do not participate in this group, that
is dedicated to the C language. Since you consider that language
just legacy, and you do not want to develop anything new in that
language that would be at least a consistent point of view.

Your company, and many others, are going the way of OO and more
complexity, what is a big mistake in my opinion. The simplicity
of C makes it a better choice than C++ in many applications.

C# is a single platform language, and will be the language of
the day until Microsoft discovers a new one. Microsoft made
the MFC classes the "standard" under windows, only to replace it
with Java a few years later. Java was the "new paradigm" until
Sun wanted a share of the pie. At that point Java was dead, to
be replaced by C#; that is THE language that will replace ALL
the others, of course.

I will believe all the hype when I see a real world application like
a text processing application or an Excel clone, or a similar
application in C#.

VB is another story. As you know, the VB.NET version of the language is
incompatible with the earlier version, and people are forced to
REWRITE all their applications in the new VB.NET or face the fact
that the platform where they build has disappeared. Nice. They
at least learned their lesson.

Not you. You will learn your lesson in a few years, when
Microsoft decides that .NET is obsolete (as COM is now)
and you have to rewrite all your software in the new language
of the day.

Good Luck!

 

[Richard Heathfield]

[I try hard not to reply to Mr Navia, despite th... well, never mind that.
But on this occasion I'm going to make an exception.]

jacob navia said:

On Nov 4, 2:04 am, jacob navia <[email protected]> wrote:

I do not think that C is a legacy language.

[snip]

Professionally speaking, I'm pretty much done with C.

OK. I would propose that you do not participate in this group, that
is dedicated to the C language.

It is very evident that John Bode is a careful and skilled C programmer, as
his many excellent contributions to this newsgroup have shown time and
time again. If he were to stop participating in comp.lang.c, I for one
would miss his positive and knowledgeable input to the group.

Since you consider that language just legacy,

What he actually said is: "Professionally speaking, I'm pretty much done
with C." In other words, he doesn't use it at work. Is there anything to
stop him using it at home? He clearly enjoys using the language, or he
wouldn't continue to frequent this group even though he doesn't have a
current professional use for the language.

and you do not want to develop anything new in that
language that would be at least a consistent point of view.

He hasn't actually said that he doesn't want to develop anything new. He's
just said he doesn't need to use C at work. There is no Usenet rule that
says that one may only contribute to a programming language newsgroup if
one uses that language at work.

If even incompetent, intractable idiots are allowed to use this group (and
they are!), I see no reason why a very able and bright programmer like
John Bode should be forbidden from using it.

Your company, and many others, are going the way of OO and more
complexity, what is a big mistake in my opinion.

We don't know whether John had any input into that decision. It may well be
that the company went the C# route despite his opinion, rather than
because of it. (It wouldn't be the first time a company ignored its bright
people's technical advice.)

The simplicity
of C makes it a better choice than C++ in many applications.

I so rarely agree with Mr Navia that I felt obliged to leave this snippet
in place, for the novelty value.

VB is another story. As you know, the VB.NET version of the language is
incompatible with the earlier version, and people are forced to
REWRITE all their applications in the new VB.NET or face the fact
that the platform where they build has disappeared. Nice. They
at least learned their lesson.

Not you. You will learn your lesson in a few years,

Again, this assumes that it was John's decision for his company to move
away from C and into C#, but he has not told us this, so we don't know.

But whatever the truth of the matter, the fact remains that John's C
knowledge is broad and deep, and this newsgroup is the richer for having
access to it. Long may he post here.

<snip>

 

[John Bode]

santosh wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

[snip]

PS. BTW by many points of view C itself is a legacy language or nearly
one. Since you want to forget history and legacy so badly, why don't
you consider developing for one of the many shiny new languages popping
up every now and then. I suggest C#/CLI/.NET. It has many of the
features that you are constantly trying to bolt onto C.
I do not think that C is a legacy language.

[snip]

Professionally speaking, I'm pretty much done with C. My company has
officially adopted a C#-based framework for all new products, although
my specific project is C++-based. The last time I had to look for a
general software development job, all the requests were for C#, VB, or
C++ experience.

OK. I would propose that you do not participate in this group, that
is dedicated to the C language. Since you consider that language
just legacy, and you do not want to develop anything new in that
language that would be at least a consistent point of view.

Jacob, I have to know -- have you always been such a fucking drama
queen? Seriously, apart from a few dedicated trolls, I've never seen
anyone display quite the level of self-righteous sanctimony that you
exhibit day in and day out. You must be an absolute *joy* to work
with.

I said I was done with C *professionally*, because as far as I was
able to tell in my last job search, no one was using it for general
purpose applications development anymore, and that's especially true
at my current job (I'm not a systems or embedded programmer, don't
necessarily want to be either); I still play with it at home, simply
because it's the language I'm most familiar and comfortable with.
I've been programming in C since 1986, so the brain damage is
permanent. I still enjoy learning new things about the language,
which is why I still hang out here.

So I would propose you just plain keep your goddamned mouth shut on
proposing who should and should not participate in this newsgroup.

Your company, and many others, are going the way of OO and more
complexity, what is a big mistake in my opinion. The simplicity
of C makes it a better choice than C++ in many applications.

There are tradeoffs. It's true that you wind up writing a lot more
code to take advantage of some OO features (especially with C++). On
the flip side, once you do that, some things become a lot easier. And
once you figure out how templates actually work, you can save yourself
a *lot* of heartburn.

Some solutions are easier to visualize and implement in terms of
objects; concurrency is a big issue with this project, and an object-
based approach has made it reasonably straightforward and
consistent.

C# is a single platform language

This is true, but not the black mark you are trying to paint it as.
The platform is .Net, which has been ported to non-Windows systems
(i.e. Mono -- I've done some C# on my Gentoo box at home).

, and will be the language of

the day until Microsoft discovers a new one. Microsoft made
the MFC classes the "standard" under windows, only to replace it
with Java a few years later. Java was the "new paradigm" until
Sun wanted a share of the pie. At that point Java was dead, to
be replaced by C#; that is THE language that will replace ALL
the others, of course.

I think your sense of history wrt MS and Java is a *little* confused.

I will believe all the hype when I see a real world application like
a text processing application or an Excel clone, or a similar
application in C#.

You mean, like the .Net version of Microsoft Office?

VB is another story. As you know, the VB.NET version of the language is
incompatible with the earlier version, and people are forced to
REWRITE all their applications in the new VB.NET or face the fact
that the platform where they build has disappeared. Nice. They
at least learned their lesson.

And what lesson was that, Jacob? That they *should* have stayed in
the past? That they *shouldn't* embrace the new?

Not you. You will learn your lesson in a few years, when
Microsoft decides that .NET is obsolete (as COM is now)
and you have to rewrite all your software in the new language
of the day.

Good Luck!

Same to you.

Prick.

 

[santosh]

santosh wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
[snip]

PS. BTW by many points of view C itself is a legacy language or
nearly one. Since you want to forget history and legacy so badly,
why don't you consider developing for one of the many shiny new
languages popping up every now and then. I suggest C#/CLI/.NET. It
has many of the features that you are constantly trying to bolt
onto C.
I do not think that C is a legacy language.

[snip]


Professionally speaking, I'm pretty much done with C. My company has
officially adopted a C#-based framework for all new products,
although my specific project is C++-based. The last time I had to
look for a general software development job, all the requests were
for C#, VB, or C++ experience.

OK. I would propose that you do not participate in this group, that
is dedicated to the C language.
Nonsense.

Since you consider that language
just legacy, and you do not want to develop anything new in that
language that would be at least a consistent point of view.

He didn't say he personally considered C legacy and dead. He said his
_company_ favours more recent languages.

Your company, and many others, are going the way of OO and more
complexity, what is a big mistake in my opinion. The simplicity
of C makes it a better choice than C++ in many applications.

Apparently a large majority of desktop applications development houses
think otherwise.

Note BTW, OO languages needn't be complex. They are often written that
way because designing classes is _much_ harder than designing
functions. Also C++, which is very widely used and often pointed to by
OO phobics as an example of the "complexities" of OO programming, is
more complex than an OO language _needs_ to be because it made the
tactical choice of building upon a non-OO base language. There are
arguably better designed alternatives.

Not you. You will learn your lesson in a few years, when
Microsoft decides that .NET is obsolete (as COM is now)
and you have to rewrite all your software in the new language
of the day.

Software, whatever language it's written in has a finite lifetime.

Tell me, do you still use CP/M or OS 360? Do you still use EDLIN for
editing, NSCA Mosaic for WWW browsing, mail for email, WordStar for
word processing and so on?

Why should _everyone_ stick with a single language for _every_ kind of
s/w development just because you say so? Different people have
different requirements, which was one reason why more than one
programming language was developed.

PS. Not everyone in the s/w industry can be in the enviable position of
self-employment like you. Sometimes we just have to work for others and
abide by their rules, however different be our personal tastes.

PPS. Whatever his professional reasons it's clear that John Bode is a
highly skilled C programmer and his posts are much valued in this
group. So you telling him to leave the group is totally rude and
uncalled for.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

C# is a single platform language

This is true, but not the black mark you are trying to paint it as.
The platform is .Net, which has been ported to non-Windows systems
(i.e. Mono -- I've done some C# on my Gentoo box at home).[/QUOTE]

Experience has shown that trying to run Windows (*) in other than the
MS-approved way, is a losing proposition. I'm speaking as a long ago
OS/2 supporter (who swooned at the promise of running Windows as an OS/2
task) and a present-day Linux supporter (who still swoons at such
possibilities, even though I know better).

You're always going to be a step behind; you're always going to saying
"Well, look, it _almost_ works". VMWare comes the closest, of course,
but that's essentially cheating. And even then, it's not quite the
same.

(*) Yes, I know you said ".NET", not "Windows", but its the same thing.
We all know how MS likes to blur the line between OS and application.

 

[John Bode]

[I try hard not to reply to Mr Navia, despite th... well, never mind that.
But on this occasion I'm going to make an exception.]

jacob navia said:

On Nov 4, 2:04 am, jacob navia <[email protected]> wrote:

I do not think that C is a legacy language.

[snip]

Professionally speaking, I'm pretty much done with C.

OK. I would propose that you do not participate in this group, that
is dedicated to the C language.

It is very evident that John Bode is a careful and skilled C programmer, as
his many excellent contributions to this newsgroup have shown time and
time again. If he were to stop participating in comp.lang.c, I for one
would miss his positive and knowledgeable input to the group.

You *have* seen me get reamed by Dan, Jack, Keith, or Kaz for posting
some really stupid shit, right?

[snip]

We don't know whether John had any input into that decision. It may well be
that the company went the C# route despite his opinion, rather than
because of it. (It wouldn't be the first time a company ignored its bright
people's technical advice.)

Not my decision; I'm just a grumpy code monkey who does what he's
told.

FWIW, I'm actually kind of glad that we aren't using C. I'm at my
happiest when on the steep end of a learning curve, and while I won't
claim to have an encyclopedic knowledge about C, there's simply not a
lot to left for me to learn that isn't minutia. At my last C-based
job I wound up being bored out of my skull; the work itself wasn't
challenging (at least from a technical point of view), I wasn't
learning any new tools or techniques, and I eventually lost interest
in what I was doing. My job performance suffered, I was supremely
unhappy, and was seriously considering getting out of software
altogether.

Although it certainly didn't seem like it at the time, getting laid
off (again) was actually a blessing; my next contract forced me to
really *learn* C++[1], not just pretend it was C with some extra
keywords. That got me out of my funk.

I'd actually be perfectly happy if I never had to write another line
of C for pay ever again. And when I get bored with C++ and Java and
C# (and haven't yet been forced into retirement), I'll be perfectly
happy to drink the new flavor of Kool Aid.

1. And bash scripting, and Linux LVM, and Linux disk management,
etc.

 

[John Bode]

This is true, but not the black mark you are trying to paint it as.
The platform is .Net, which has been ported to non-Windows systems
(i.e. Mono -- I've done some C# on my Gentoo box at home).

Experience has shown that trying to run Windows (*) in other than the
MS-approved way, is a losing proposition. I'm speaking as a long ago
OS/2 supporter (who swooned at the promise of running Windows as an OS/2
task) and a present-day Linux supporter (who still swoons at such
possibilities, even though I know better).

You're always going to be a step behind; you're always going to saying
"Well, look, it _almost_ works". VMWare comes the closest, of course,
but that's essentially cheating. And even then, it's not quite the
same.

(*) Yes, I know you said ".NET", not "Windows", but its the same thing.
We all know how MS likes to blur the line between OS and application.[/QUOTE]

I won't disagree with anything you said, and I freely admit that the
Mono port is far from perfect or complete. However, the fact that the
effort exists at all is encouraging. If nothing else, the Next New
Thing will have both Sun and Microsoft's examples to build upon.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

John Bode said:

You *have* seen me get reamed by Dan, Jack, Keith, or Kaz for posting
some really stupid shit, right?

Yeah, absolutely, but so what? Everyone goes through that stage. (I know I
did!) It's not the mistakes we make that matter, but how we react to them
when we find out about them.

 

[jacob navia]

C and C#

Why we haven't seen any big application written in C#?

The whole concept of C# (the virtual machine stuff) provokes a
performance hit of a factor of TEN at least.

You know the msh?

Is the microsoft shell, written in C#. Running in a top rated
machine, msh takes like 5 minutes to do this:

dir /S *.* | grep notfound

(in Unix shell it would be ls -R | grep notfound)

In a fairly big directory, it took 4 SECONDS to the CMD
shell written in C to do the same.

Yes, for GUI applications, where performance is not so important since
C# is just all the time calling the low level procedures written in C
that doesn't matter. But for any serious application C# will take a BIG
time performance hit. The same for Java.

This is a fact. A fact is also that C# was designed at the end of
the exponential growth in computer performance. People designing
C# thought that machines in 2006 would be running at 10GHZ, and that
computer power would be so cheap that they could afford having a
language whose performance was horrible.

But they miscalculated. Right after the first .NET implementation
came out, Intel, AMD, and Sun hit the GHZ WALL. As everyone now knows,
it is VERY difficult to go beyond 3GHZ.

VERY difficult. And that was it. Yes, machines are faster today than
last year, but not by much, and the parallel architectures being
written into silicon now go largely unused...

The languages of the future will be parallel. Not "object oriented",
even if object oriented software can be adapted to parallel
processing. But the emphasis is in "parallel execution" and that means
parallel data structures.

That is another discussion altogether.

Coming back to C#. The performance hit is lower now than what it
was 2-3 years ago... and it will be less next year. Maybe in 10
years we will have powerful computers that will be able to run C# as it
were a C program. Who knows.

But for the time being, C# is just dead, Microsoft notwithstanding.

Obviously, for small in house applications, where easy of programming
is much more important, C# will be used a lot. And anyway, if you
need some speed in your C# programs, I know of a C compiler that
interfaces to C# through COM, that will happily give you the needed
boost!

You just buy it from a known vendor and plug it in. It will make
for a big boost to your C# engine.

 

[CBFalconer]

John Bode wrote:
.... snip ...


OK. I would propose that you do not participate in this group, that
is dedicated to the C language. Since you consider that language
just legacy, and you do not want to develop anything new in that
language that would be at least a consistent point of view.

Your company, and many others, are going the way of OO and more
complexity, what is a big mistake in my opinion. The simplicity
of C makes it a better choice than C++ in many applications.

C# is a single platform language, and will be the language of
the day until Microsoft discovers a new one. Microsoft made
the MFC classes the "standard" under windows, only to replace it
with Java a few years later. Java was the "new paradigm" until
Sun wanted a share of the pie. At that point Java was dead, to
be replaced by C#; that is THE language that will replace ALL
the others, of course.

I will believe all the hype when I see a real world application
like a text processing application or an Excel clone, or a
similar application in C#.

VB is another story. As you know, the VB.NET version of the
language is incompatible with the earlier version, and people
are forced to REWRITE all their applications in the new VB.NET
or face the fact that the platform where they build has
disappeared. Nice. They at least learned their lesson.

Not you. You will learn your lesson in a few years, when
Microsoft decides that .NET is obsolete (as COM is now)
and you have to rewrite all your software in the new language
of the day.

Well done, Jacob. The only portion that can really receive
criticism is your very first paragraph, and that criticism is
minor.

You might also concentrate on gentling your criticisms. Bear in
mind that you do not know the entire situation.

 

[Philip Potter]

Please quote context. I don't know who or what you were replying to.

C and C#

Why we haven't seen any big application written in C#?

Other than the .NET version of Microsoft Office, as John Bode said upthread?

The whole concept of C# (the virtual machine stuff) provokes a
performance hit of a factor of TEN at least.

You know the msh?

No, and a case study of one application proves nothing about the
language it was written in.

Yes, for GUI applications, where performance is not so important since
C# is just all the time calling the low level procedures written in C
that doesn't matter. But for any serious application C# will take a BIG
time performance hit. The same for Java.

And your evidence for this is...?

This is a fact.

Not until you back it up.

A fact is also that C# was designed at the end of
the exponential growth in computer performance. People designing
C# thought that machines in 2006 would be running at 10GHZ, and that
computer power would be so cheap that they could afford having a
language whose performance was horrible.

But they miscalculated. Right after the first .NET implementation
came out, Intel, AMD, and Sun hit the GHZ WALL. As everyone now knows,
it is VERY difficult to go beyond 3GHZ.

Well that's one story. Another is that it's useful to have languages
with built-in support for threads, networking and GUIs, and to have them
run on a virtual machine.

The languages of the future will be parallel. Not "object oriented",

Thanks, but I think I'll take my forecasts from slightly more reliable
sources.

even if object oriented software can be adapted to parallel
processing. But the emphasis is in "parallel execution" and that means
parallel data structures.

That is another discussion altogether.

Coming back to C#. The performance hit is lower now than what it
was 2-3 years ago... and it will be less next year. Maybe in 10
years we will have powerful computers that will be able to run C# as it
were a C program. Who knows.

Your entire argument seems to be that "C has significantly better
performance than C#" yet you offer no evidence for this whatsoever. On
top of this, most software doesn't have "must perform as fast as
possible" in the requirements - if C# is fast enough, why go lower-level?

There are many other reasons a business will use C# instead of C:

* C# has native support for networks, threads, and other useful things;
in C one must rely on libraries to do this, and the libraries may be
even less portable than C#
* Legacy code, or a particularly useful library, is in C#
* The existing programmers already know C#
* C# application development time may be faster than in C [although I
have no evidence for this, and it depends on the skills of the workers
anyway]

But for the time being, C# is just dead, Microsoft notwithstanding.

Oh really? And your evidence for this is?

Obviously, for small in house applications, where easy of programming
is much more important,

I think ease of programming is just as important for a great many other
types of project.

C# will be used a lot. And anyway, if you
need some speed in your C# programs, I know of a C compiler that
interfaces to C# through COM, that will happily give you the needed
boost!

Now this is the first thing I actually agree with. If performance really
is your concern, best to get something you can measure for bottlenecks
quickly, and rewrite them at a lower-level to get better performance.

Tell me Jacob, what brought on this polemic (since you love that word)
against C#?

I for one have never used C#, and I'm happy with C for the work I do -
and in fact C# would be entirely unsuitable. But if others with
different requirements find that C# suits them better than C - what's
the problem? None of your arguments have convinced me one jot that C# is
not a useful language.

As the old mantra goes, business requirements often outweigh technical
requirements in language choice.

 

[John Bode]

Please quote context. I don't know who or what you were replying to.




Other than the .NET version of Microsoft Office, as John Bode said upthread?

<as we lurch ever further OT>

Actually, don't quote me on that; I'm not certain that Office has been
completely transitioned over to managed code yet. I've seen some
mumblage that parts of the suite have been converted, though.

I do know that MS is pretty much betting the farm on .Net, and I
expect future versions of MS products to be all .Net, all the time.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

C and C#

Why we haven't seen any big application written in C#?

Because you're not looking in the right place. In London, New York,
Frankfurt, Tokyo, Madrid and even Paris you'll find a lot of 'em,
churning billions of dollars through each day. At high speed.

The whole concept of C# (the virtual machine stuff) provokes a
performance hit of a factor of TEN at least.

Apparently you've zero experience of real-world virtual machine
environments. Look up Azul sometime. Look up z/OS.

that doesn't matter. But for any serious application C# will take a BIG
time performance hit. The same for Java.

And this would be why these languages are commonplace in, for example,
the forex trading world, where realtime global distribution of price
and trading data is *essential*.

But for the time being, C# is just dead,

*shrug*

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Richard Bos]

<as we lurch ever further OT>

Actually, don't quote me on that; I'm not certain that Office has been
completely transitioned over to managed code yet. I've seen some
mumblage that parts of the suite have been converted, though.

I do know that MS is pretty much betting the farm on .Net, and I
expect future versions of MS products to be all .Net, all the time.

Which makes them a losing proposition for those of us who do not
currently have the .COM framework, and do not intend to spend a lot of
modem time downloading it, and do not trust it enough to install it.

Ah well, yet more reason to make my next computer a Unix box. At least
that supports C.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

And this would be why these languages are commonplace in, for example,
the forex trading world, where realtime global distribution of price
and trading data is *essential*.

And they run those on .COM? Jeez. No wonder the markets have been
crashing all over the place recently. Probably all installed the same M$
"update".

Richard

 

[Friedrich Dominicus]

And this would be why these languages are commonplace in, for example,
the forex trading world, where realtime global distribution of price
and trading data is *essential*.

Well may be but on what data store do they work?

Regards
Friedrich

 

[Kenny McCormack]

And they run those on .COM? Jeez. No wonder the markets have been
crashing all over the place recently. Probably all installed the same M$
"update".

Richard

You raise an interesting point. One of things that is interesting about
studying history is looking at what events and practices caused
societies to crash. One example is the theory that lead (the chemical
element) from the aquaducts slowly poisoned the Romans. Another is the
story of Easter Island.

I can imagine some future historians looking back on .NET as the cause
of the big crash of the 21st century.

 

[jacob navia]

Because you're not looking in the right place. In London, New York,
Frankfurt, Tokyo, Madrid and even Paris you'll find a lot of 'em,
churning billions of dollars through each day. At high speed.


Apparently you've zero experience of real-world virtual machine
environments. Look up Azul sometime. Look up z/OS.

It is funny how you throw stuff around, thinking that
it will impress people:

AZUL (http://www.azulsystems.com/products/network_attached_processing.htm)

has NOTHING to do with dot net:
<quote>
Applications from heterogeneous hosts running different versions of
Java (1.4 or 1.5) can all tap into Compute Appliances at the same and
support Linux, Solaris, HP-UX and AIX operating systems.

And this would be why these languages are commonplace in, for example,
the forex trading world, where realtime global distribution of price
and trading data is *essential*.

OBVIOUS.

The business world has ALWAYS followed Microsoft since the Microsoft
Disk Operating System times (MSDOS). So what?

They payed for it years and years, and they do the same mistake now,
and they will do it again tomorrow. This is not a reason to do the
same and jump into the "Microsoft language of the day" anytime soon.

 

[Philip Potter]

OBVIOUS.

The business world has ALWAYS followed Microsoft since the Microsoft
Disk Operating System times (MSDOS). So what?

So in one message you say C# is dead, and in another you say it has the
support of the business world? What, praytell, do you mean by the
statement "C# is dead" then?

If you feel that the language is flawed, then good for you. You may even
be right. But so long as a language has business support, it will not be
dead. (This is the reason COBOL is still, to some extent, alive.)