+- Sinisterly (https://sinister.ly)
+-- Forum: Coding (https://sinister.ly/Forum-Coding)
+--- Forum: Coding (https://sinister.ly/Forum-Coding--71)
+--- Thread: What out of these languages should i try? (/Thread-What-out-of-these-languages-should-i-try)
RE: What out of these languages should i try? - w00t - 11-13-2013
I was referring more to the standards for C#( it's the only one with provided standards ), as they do not contain information on how objects should interact, and even explicitly states that a conforming version of C# only follows some of the declared norms, and is allowed to add methods, namespaces, classes, etc.
RE: What out of these languages should i try? - cxS - 11-15-2013
Quote:as they do not contain information on how objects should interact
Explain.. I doubt any language does, and this would be an even thinner line for OO languages, of which, C# is. Define "objects" in this context, because that can have many meanings for .NET.
Quote:and even explicitly states that a conforming version of C# only follows some of the declared norms, and is allowed to add methods, namespaces, classes, etc.
What exactly explicitly states this? (reference)....Although, you're saying languages like C++ are not this way, you mean? :S
RE: What out of these languages should i try? - w00t - 11-15-2013
(11-15-2013, 05:14 AM)cxS Wrote: Explain.. I doubt any language does, and this would be an even thinner line for OO languages, of which, C# is. Define "objects" in this context, because that can have many meanings for .NET.
What exactly explicitly states this? (reference)....Although, you're saying languages like C++ are not this way, you mean? :S
I kiiind of expanded on this later in the statement, but the C# standard doesn't define any limits to what objects can do to other objects.
Page 3 in the book, page 25 using adobe reader, last paragraph.
Quote:A conforming implementation of C# is permitted to provide additional types, values, objects, properties, and methods beyond those described in this International Standard, provided they do not alter the behavior of any strictly conforming program.
The C# Standard
RE: What out of these languages should i try? - Dong - 01-11-2014
(11-09-2013, 02:52 AM)cxS Wrote: tl;dr - You just can't comprehend the point behind my post. I was simply saying the obvious; it is your opinion and not facts to re-assure someone reading your post that it's not by any means to be taken with more than a grain of salt, as any opinion would be. You're just raging because I disagree.
Opinion or not, it's still not very good reasons, hence why I said: "That's nowhere near a reason why one shouldn't begin with VB.net."
I could've said, I believe religion is silly because it can't be proven that it's exactly as it is interpreted. My opinion, yet still, no reason why one shouldn't have a religion, even though I am non-religious. Some people just need a faith to believe in, and that is their reason.
Just because it's your opinion, doesn't mean it's based on any good supporting ideas, and that's what I pointed out.
No language encourages bad habits. If it encourages something, it's meant to be part of that language, and therefore is not bad habit. If it is a bad habit, you are deviating from what is proper and the blame is on YOU, not the language. Very simple proof by induction for common sense here... A language is designed to encourage you to code the way the language was intended to be written, as by a programmer.
Does this not just prove that it's the programmer that chooses to adopt these bad habits then and not the language by any means as you were implying?
If it was too easy, why do I see so much horrible code then? Noting, that I see even worse code from C++ beginners and that is a language multiples more difficult than a .NET language. It was designed to be easy for fast application development, not to be used as a starter kit for an intro to programming, although that is a side effect of the framework that it's intended to be used with. In that case, I see it as a much better language to start off with, and this is my opinion, but there's much more factual reasoning behind my opinion on this one.
And who is guaranteed to always move on to becoming a C/C++ programmer or an Assembly programmer? (Rhetorical question) So why compare it's requirements to other languages? I know many professional developers that don't write in Assembly period, because it's just not required for their scope of work. Adversely, I know many who have never learned it, nor even touched a language like C/C++. I have touched all of them, including .NET. I know many web developers would not though, and keep in mind, there is ASP.net.
Clearly, so I see this less of an open minded debate here and more of a biased opinion due to your hate possibly influenced by rumors and other bad words about VB.net.
Your opinions stay as is, as do mine, but that doesn't mean that your opinions make sense.
I can't be bothered to go back and read my previous points from this debate... however, based on this post you make some fair points.
Quote:No language encourages bad habits. If it encourages something, it's meant to be part of that language, and therefore is not bad habit. If it is a bad habit, you are deviating from what is proper and the blame is on YOU, not the language.
Well said. You're right. Most of my points are only applying to the transition from one language to another. Such as the transition from VB.NET to a language like C or C++... if you bring along some of your habits and techniques from VB.NET to C you might find yourself in a bad position on multiple occasions. This isn't a counter-argument, I'm just making a statement.
Quote:It was designed to be easy for fast application development, not to be used as a starter kit for an intro to programming,
This is my main issue with people picking it up as a first language. I just believe in at least learning about a lot of the behind-the-scenes stuff that takes place before actually having the ability to implement them (which languages such as VB.NET allow you to do).
Quote:If it was too easy, why do I see so much horrible code then?
I mean "easy" in terms of how much the programmer has to worry about behind-the-scenes operations among other factors such as the amount of time, problem-solving, effort, and/or work that is required to create applications/programs. You don't have to write perfect code to develop a "working" application. I'm also referring to many of the pre-defined functions that exist in the libraries used by languages such as VB.NET, Java, etc. Some of these enable us to solve problems without actually knowing how the core of the solution works.
In fact, the C++ STL provides a lot of these as well.
I'm not against the existence of these libraries as they make life a HELL of a lot easier. Therefore, in short, I'd just recommend that beginners take initiative and try to learn about the many functions, templates, etc. they use and what they do. Just so they understand what's going on and how it's happening.
Note that this is a very broad opinion and it doesn't apply to every single instance or scenario.
Quote:And who is guaranteed to always move on to becoming a C/C++ programmer or an Assembly programmer? (Rhetorical question) So why compare it's requirements to other languages?
True. I guess it all depends on the beginner's goals when it comes to programming.
Quote:a biased opinion due to your hate possibly influenced by rumors and other bad words about VB.net.
I've used VB.NET on multiple occasions in the past. Most of my opinions are based on past experiences and my research on the topic at hand itself. I didn't hop into it with some sort of premeditated plan to develop a hatred for it. I was actually initially introduced to the language before I even worked with C (I was a lot younger). In fact, I don't hate it at all. I just think that if you're a beginner and you aspire to become a serious programmer with an in-depth understanding of problem-solving and how programs and computers actually work, you shouldn't start with languages like VB.NET. I believe that these people usually suffer from a difficult transition when moving from these languages to another a bit more lower-leveled.
Quote:Very simple proof by induction for common sense here
I don't see how proof by induction has anything to do with this. Lol.
Quote:You're just raging because I disagree.
I also think it would be in your best interest to revise the definition of "rage". Based on the references you made to my previous post, it doesn't appear like I was even the slightest bit angry with you. Why does everyone seem to throw this word around so much online?
Anyway, my reasons really weren't good enough to stray someone away from learning languages like VB.NET at first... unless they want to learn how to work at a lower level and potentially gain a better understanding of how programs work behind-the-scenes at some point in time. Because like I said, it can make for a difficult transition.
Sorry for the grave-dig... but I thought that I should set the record straight for future readers.