What do you guys think of C# ?

>>57921964
good if you like being cucked by .net and mono

It makes no damn sense at all, you can copy and paste an example into a C# compiler and half the time it still doesn't work

equivalent to B double sharp

>>57922111
wat

>>57922111
the language it's so good, it pushes you to write the code yourself until you get it right

>>57922111
Are you using the same version of the language the examplr is written in?

>>57921964
Its a nice language, easy to use and decent performance for what it is.

>>57922111
This is a superficial critique from a beginner programmer.

>>57921964
I'm not a massive fan of being so tightly locked to one IDE. It's possible to write C# in something like Vim, it's just unpractical.

>>57921964
it's like C++
except proprietary and owned by Microsoft!
and not compiled! and makes all your source code public!
with added bloat!

>>57922294
You're an idiot.

>>57922294
>and not compiled! and makes all your source code public!
Is there anyone on /g/ that actually knows what they are talking about?

>>57922335
if you disagree with those facts you don't know the first thing about c#

>>57921964
It's a great language. Hopefully mono can keep up with the enhancements M$ is making so one day it can truly be free.

>>57922343
It compiles to CIL you half-wit.

>>57922351
Mono was bought by microsoft so it should be keeping up better.

>>57922374
Unless you obfuscate, it's almost trivial to decompile back to original source sans comments

It's shit for retards.

>>57922374
el-oh-el

>>57922442
>It's not compiled!
>Yeah well its easy to decompile!
Nice back pedalling.

>>57922374

Decompiling CIL is absolutely trivial most of the time

>>57922477
Yes and? Thats not what he said. He claimed it wasn't compiled.

>>57922473
not the same person retard
you click open in reflector and get the source because the program isn't "compiled"
"compiled to CIL" is not "compiled"
I can't believe you're even a real person at this point

>>57922530
>Compiling isnt compiling because I said so
Its not compiled to machine language but it is compiled.

>>57922501

He was half right in the part it makes your source code pretty much public unless you take additional measures

I love C# and more often than not is my first choice when my day job demands me to be productive, but that's like my main issue against it

>>57922555
lol.
>this post has been compiled using the english language xD

>>57922581
So you have no argument then? C# is compiled to CIL. All .net and mono languages are.

>>57922607
Honestly, I wouldn't call it 'compiling', it's more like transpiling to CIL (which is a programming language by itself)

>>57922607
you're using an alternative definition of the word compile to conveniently fit your non-standard usage
just like I demonstrated in the previous post
if I open the file in a dissembler I wont see x86 asm on my machine
it's not compiled.
if you want to be a pedant because it's your only way out of defeat in this argument then go ahead
but that makes you a raging faggot

I keep meaning to learn it but all I seem to be using these days is C++.

ITT: Pedantic arguing about the meaning of the word 'compiled'

>>57921964
It's a better Java, but unfortunately too tied to the Microsoft environment.

>>57922294
>and not compiled! and makes all your source code public!
It's compiled, just to a VM instruction set (like Java) rather than native code. And what's this about "makes all your source public"? Yeah, you can't distribute a C# program without the bytecode, but bytecode isn't source.

>>57922530
>"compiled to CIL" is not "compiled"
Yes it is. Compilation means translating from one language to another, as opposed to interpretation, which is actually reading code in some language and then taking certain actions based on it (technically, a CPU is an interpreter for machine code, but we rarely think of it as such because we reserve the term interpreter to software).

So if you have some Java code, you can compile it to Java bytecode (which is then interpreted by the JVM, itself a program compiled to native machine code from some other language like C or C++), or to native machine code (I think the GNU Java compiler can do that). Either way, it's compiling. Likewise QB64 takes BASIC source code, compiles it to C or C++ code, and then compiles that to machine code. Compilation doesn't just refer to generation of native machine code.

>>57922581
How is that compiling? What language was the source code of the post written in?

Think of it this way: typing ASCII code into your editor isn't compiling. But if you write a program to generate HTML boilerplate, and then insert the contents of a text file into the body of the HTML file, then you have written a very simple compiler.

Linux user here. Can I write and use C# programs on and for Linux?

>>57922664
Stop this transpiling meme. A compiler is just a program that transforms one source language into a target language.
A C compiler only compiles to assembly for instance. An assembler has to be used to get machine code.

>>57922706
>It's a better Java, but unfortunately too tied to the Microsoft environment.

On the bright side they seem to be moving on the right direction with .NET Core

>>57922713
Yeah, mono
Seems counter to the whole Linux concept, though

>>57922676
The only one making up their own definition is you. C# is compiled into CIL it just mean to comvert it into another lower level language. You havr absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

>>57922676
A transpiler is a program compiling the source code to another language of the same abstraction.
C# and CIL are definitely not of equivalent abstraction.

>>57922664
Transpiling is just a special case of compiling; the general action is still compilation. And even then, transpiling technically implies that the two languages have a similar level of abstraction; CIL is less abstract than the source language, it's basically the same idea as the intermediate representation generated by most compilers.

>>57922676
It doesn't have to produce x86 asm to qualify as "compilation". It's still compiling, just to a different instruction set than x86.

>>57922664
Using your definition nothing is compiled.

File: slab_method1.gif (14KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x400px

>mfw there are retards on /g/ not understanding what compiling means

>>57922728
>A C compiler only compiles to assembly for instance. An assembler has to be used to get machine code.
Some C compilers don't generate assembly, at least not assembly that's accessible to the user. And GCC can for example generate intermediate representation as well.

>>57922728
>>57922798
>>57922808
can we agree that the word 'compiled' has colloquially come to mean 'compiled to machine code' in the context of programming languages?

>>57922838
That is true. Both Clang and GCC does that.

>>57922832
Are you one of them?

>>57922844
Obviously we can not, because these buttblasted C# fellows will never admit it.

File: BStroustrup_MAIN.jpg (250KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 720x720px

>>57922312
No he's right c# is written in c++ dumass.

>>57922844
No. C# is a compiled language and your definition won't change that.

>>57922844
It hasn't. It means its been compiled to a lower level language than the source code.

>>57922335
You can easily decompile c# programs with ILSpy

File: 1481075075686.jpg (2MB, 1469x3401px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1469x3401px

>>57922853
>tfw to intelligent too understand compilers

>>57922844
Except it hasn't, retard.

>>57922865
Are you retarded? That's not what he claimed.

>>57922875
the fact that you can so easily convert between C# <-> CIL doesn't make it 'a lower level' in my book

>>57922889
Yes and? That's not what the debate is about.

>not just writing everything in machine code by hand
fucking plebs

>>57922901
So you are saying that CIL has as much abstraction than C#?

>>57922901
CIL is lower level than C# or any other .net language. Using your own definitions isn't going to change than.

>ITT: Anal pained autists insist that java and C# are compiled languages

>>57922895
The only thing I don't understand is how did trump do better with minorities lmfao

>>57922947
They are compiled.

>>57922914
Yea, it kinda is. A compiled program is usually very hard to decompile, C# is not hard to decompile by nature. So it was never fully assembled into machine code. Therefore is just as "compiled" python is.

>>57922844
So then what does javac do?

>>57922927
>>57922942
ok fine, technically it's compiled, but tell me what good does the compiling actually do (apart from static type checking)?

>>57922956
and he got 53% of the white female vote
I guess they enjoy being grabbed by the pussy

>>57922947
>what is compilation
i bet your failed prog 101 course taught you a lot!

>>57922956
Because he was anti ILLEGAL immigrants you dumb fuck.
Legal immigrants hate their guts.

>>57922990
Compiled doesn't mean converted to machine code it just mean its converted to a language that is lower level than itself. Using you definition C++ isn't compiled.

If C# wasn't compiled you wouldn't have to decompile it.

>>57921964
It's not bad. It's a better version of Java. It's got some nice things going on now, like tuples and lambdas that can be passed around as arguments. As far as the big languages go, it's great. F# is good too, and getting better all the time, if you want a more-officially supported OCaml/functional language without losing the benefits of a big language with a huge-ass developer community. Having compiler-level reflection is great, even for small-things like intelligent auto-complete via incrementally compiling your program.

File: rkt.jpg (67KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1280x800px

>>57923024
>>57922967
I legitimately can't tell if these posts are satire anymore.
Well done, lads

>>57923021
trump is alpha as fuck, dude

>>57923040
C++ isn't compiled. Enjoy your public source code.

>>57922901
Brainfuck (which can be thought of as an assembly language with only 8 instructions and only one addressing mode) can be easily converted to C, do you really think that means it has the same level of abstraction as C?

>>57923069
yes but can you get the original source code out of it as easily as you can get it from CIL?

>>57923004
It converts it too a lower level language that is common accross all of .net so that it is easier for the runtime compiler to compile it, makes it easier to mix .net languages, anf makes targetting multiple platforms easier. The CIL code is platform specific.

>>57922844
No, reddit. We can't 'agree' if you are wrong.
>>>/r/programmingmemes

>>57923061
C++ is compiled and assembled into machine code retard. Pretty hard to decompile that shit.

>>57923061
except when you disassemble c++ all you get is assembly instructions
when you "decompile" C#, you get nice C# source code back out

>>57923090
How is that relivent to whether or not it's compiled? Why should I takr special snowflake definitions that you make up on the spot to support your arguments seriously?

>>57922844
It has a real definition and that's not it, sorry redditor. Maybe you should go back to reading "LEARN PYTHON THE HARD WAY" and enjoy your coding bootcamps or something.

>>57922269
>What is MonoDevelop
>What is Xamarin

>>57922294
C# and .NET Core are F/LOSS now. MIT License

>>57921964
It's a beautiful language.

>>57923108
>>57923115
typical C# fags

how's the performance of the clr vs jvm these days?

>>57922947
So Java and C# are interpreted languages then? Fine then, show me one program that can take a .java or .cs file as input and run it without generating a binary first.

>>57922990
>Therefore is just as "compiled" python is.
Show me a binary generated by Python then.

>>57923004
>what good does it do
What do you mean, what "good does it do"? So now it only counts as "compiling" if it provides some abstract benefit? Do you also think C isn't a compiled language because in some cases the binaries are larger than the source code?

>>57923090
Yes, because it's converted to a strict subset of C that is semantically identical to the original BF code.

>>57923308
> C# is partly compiled. When decompiled it produces the source code, instead of assembly code. Meaning it wasn't fully compiled.

>>57923135
Okay then, let's see you extract the original source from a C++ binary.

>>57923308
>Show me a binary generated by Python then.
the reference implementation (CPython) generates bytecode (.pyc files) for every python source file it encounters, https://docs.python.org/3/library/dis.html

>>57923363
Okay then, C# is ASSEMBLED, not COMPILED.

>>57923381
Nope. It's compiled into byte code, then interpreted.

You only assemble things into machine code via assembly which c++ and c are compiled into then assembled into machine code.

>>57923381
C# is not assembly its not assembled.

>>57923363
Compiled does mean converted to machine code it means converted to another lower language code. C# is compiled into CIL which is then interpretted during run time.

>>57923548
Doesn't*
I hate typing on a phone.

>>57923381
Wow, you're some dense Programming 101 failure.

>>57923494
>>57923523
Bytecode is a form of machine code. It's a numerical representation of an instruction set, which is the definition of machine code. And assembly is just a language that has 1-to-1 correspondence to the underlying machine code. Which means, if C# can be converted to bytecode and back again with no loss of information, it IS an assembly language.

>>57923583
C# is not an assembly language.

>>57923583
Byte code is processed by a virtual machine.

>>57923628
To add onto this bytecode is interpretted by the virtual machine into machine code.

>>57921964
Have worked for a fortune 500 company and use c# extensively.

It's a godsend, so many wonderful libraries to work with.

>>57923628
>>57923661
A virtual machine is just a piece of software that imitates a physical CPUs. There ARE physical CPUs that can run Java bytecode natively, just like you can have a virtual machine that runs x86 or ARM machine code.

>>57923099
>everyone who disagrees with me is reddit, because I said so

idiot tumblr /pol/ nigger nazi SJW
go die

>>57923119
>everyone who disagrees with me is reddit, because I said so

idiot tumblr /pol/ nigger nazi SJW SAMEFAG
go die

>>57923712
Bytecode is interepetted it is not assembly.

>>57921964
Better than Java in every way

>>57923847
It's interpreted by a (usually simulated) CPU. Just like x86 machine code is interpreted by a (sometimes simulated) CPU.

>C# doesn't generate native executable machine code in normal cases so it's not ideal for performance programming
>its a platform locked invention made only for the benefit of Microsoft
>its features are as lackluster as any iteration of imperative languages
I genuinely don't see why people use it beyond situations where they're encouraged to. Like for the game engine Unity or on the windows platform when they're developing Windows forms apps.

There's rarely much reason to use it above C or C++. And frankly I predict retarded arguments against this comment which include features that you could easily achieve using well established libraries in C/C++.

It's like directx vs opengl. You really only use directx for preference. Drivers support ogl equally or better than dx and it's what amd/nvidia are pushing for. They're very similar but one has you lose out on portability. Unless you happen to know dx by chance or poor past decisions it shouldn't be a consideration.

Similar with C#.

>>57924159
lol

File: 1478810092975.png (212KB, 540x363px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 540x363px

Recently learned it for work. Like C++ and Java's bastard offspring. Perhaps that's too harsh. Its honestly not bad, and if it wasn't tied to Microsoft it would be a decent alternative for GUI design

File: 8-inch-floppy.jpg (14KB, 430x319px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 430x319px

>>57921964
C# is Microsoft's "Me Too!" effort at cloning everything about Java except Java's primary strength (cross-platform).

>>57921964
It's alright for a beginner language because it holds your hand but I'd rather use Java simply because of the freedom you have with it

Enjoy forcing people to install .NET runtime libraries.

If done from scratch you can avoid it, but at that point just use C++. Or just use Java in the first place so you won't be limited to Microsoft and might get a career out of Android or mobile, which is massive right now.

File: YZQvyw.png (149KB, 720x326px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 720x326px

Proprietary M$ crap. Kill it with fire.

>ITT: retards gettings trolled

>>57925106
try again kid

https://www.microsoft.com/net/core

Why did l open this thread

>>57922778
another anon here
you suck

that's not compiled, you dingus

I'm sorta interested what's different/better/worse C# compared to C++

File: 1480720999265.gif (925KB, 332x332px) Image search: [Google]

925KB, 332x332px

>ITT: the C# isn't cross platform meme
https://github.com/dotnet/corefx#build--test-status

>>57922844

No, Anon, no it hasn't. It was called compiling when it was done with Java -> Java bytecode, and it's called compiling now.

>>57922901

>the fact that you can so easily convert between C# <-> CIL doesn't make it 'a lower level' in my book

CIL doesn't translate perfectly back into C sharp. Things like class field names basically have to be preserved (because an assembly contains more than just executable code), but local variables are not, and decompiled .NET assemblies will often have a lot of variables like num1, num2, num3... unless explicitly edited by someone.