 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / January 2006Logic
If I code my app in c#, I can port it to mono and use it in Linux. If I code my app in java, I can use it in Linux or windows. If I use Windows to code my app in c#, and use VS.NET, it costs money but is efficient. If I use Linux or Windows to code my app in java, and use Eclipse, it doesn't cost money, but is less efficient. If I code my app in mono, I can develop in Linux and port it to Windows. If I use web services, I can write my client app in java or c# and use it in Linux and Windows. If I want my app to run on a PDA and code it in c# then I can run it on a Windows CE device using CF and port it to mono and run it on a Linux PDA. If I want my app to run on a PDA and code it in java, then I can run it on PalmOS, WindowsCE, Symbian or Linux using the J2EE mobile. How should I code my app? Fallacy #1: Coding in Windows is not limited to VS.NET. You can always a text editor, thus removing the cost for VS. Additionally, the new Express products are available and are free until November.  SignatureChristopher A. Reed "The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient." > If I code my app in c#, I can port it to mono and use it in Linux. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > How should I code my app? > Fallacy #1: Coding in Windows is not limited to VS.NET. You can always a > text editor, thus removing the cost for VS. Text editors are not an option for a really efficient programmer. > Additionally, the new Express > products are available and are free until November. There is also #develop from the ICSharp people. But that's not a real choice, since, as I read it, VS.NET 2005 and NET 2.0 are not upgrades to 2003 and 1.1 -- but almost completely different products. For example, generics. For another example, the ability to write to SQL Server 2005 -- which now supports mixed SQL/c# code for stored procedures...and has native XML datatypes. >> > If I code my app in c#, I can port it to mono and use it in Linux. >> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> > >> > How should I code my app? > Text editors are not an option for a really efficient programmer. If, by "efficient", you mean "able to generate large amounts of code", you may be right. If you mean "able to solve the problem quickly and correctly", the most efficient programmers I know personally use either vi or Emacs. Regards, Patrick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO | systems design and implementation. pjm@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML) Yep, you could even use L1n0x stuff such as GTk, or gcc, or bash (thanks to MinGW & Cygwin), or Java of course. In that case your productivity drop to multiplatform linux level, of course. But that's to be expected. However after that you could proudly say, look at my Multiplatform Message box with 3 buttons! I just have to run install Migw, install MinGW, ./configure --instal=/program\ files, make all install and it compiles and run on all platform! It tooks me only 256 lines of C code! and 56 line of makefile! (and 436 lines of configure.ac) to code that! > Fallacy #1: Coding in Windows is not limited to VS.NET. You can always a > text editor, thus removing the cost for VS. Additionally, the new Express [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> >> How should I code my app? > Yep, you could even use L1n0x stuff such as GTk, or gcc, or bash (thanks to > MinGW & Cygwin), or Java of course. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It tooks me only 256 lines of C code! and 56 line of makefile! (and 436 > lines of configure.ac) to code that! Sounds like you don't like Linux. If the OP doesn't have to worry about releasing his code to the public he can make a binary release and forego the issues of making a Make file and a configure.ac and your argument would therefore be thrown out the door. > Sounds like you don't like Linux. If the OP doesn't have to worry about > releasing his code to the public he can make a binary release and forego > the issues of making a Make file and a configure.ac and your argument > would therefore be thrown out the door. Not at all. I'm "criticizing" the development process. The result are just as good whatever tools you use. It's just not very productive to do FreeBSD developement (or worst, multiplatform developement) at the time I was trying hard to do. .NET came such as such a relief, reliable, single, simple and consisten API to do everything. Yep was there before but,somehow, not completely satisfactory... > Not at all. > I'm "criticizing" the development process. The result are just as good > whatever tools you use. That's only true, of course, in an idealized environment in which there's never a rush to release anything. In reality, productivity and code quality are inextricably intertwined with each other. Different developers are more productive with different tools... but there are certain tools available in modern development environments that I think are too valuable to dismiss... things like language-aware refactoring tools. I find that without these tools available, code quality does suffer because it changes the whole picture from a change being tedious or even dangerous to being perfectly safe and taking less than a second. > It's just not very productive to do FreeBSD developement (or worst, > multiplatform developement) at the time I was trying hard to do. Multiplatform UNIX development in C can indeed be something of a bear, if you're trying to do something that goes beyond the standard C API and using POSIX/libc functions to do it. This is made worse by the culture that dictates that it shouldn't matter which C compiler you use (hence autoconf and friends... which are actually nice, but you have to know enough to know when to use them). It requires a very high level of experience and fluency in the API and the many potential portability issues that arise. Few people have that kind of knowledge available to them. IME, most serious real-world application-level development, except for open-source stuff anyway, is done using C++ rather than C, and frameworks like ACE or the like that remove those problems. And Java, of course, which also provides nice portable APIs to do GUI development and basically anything else you've ever wanted to do, ever, plus about a gazillion things you didn't. Signaturewww.designacourse.com The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere. Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer MindIQ Corporation > Fallacy #1: Coding in Windows is not limited to VS.NET. You can always a > text editor, thus removing the cost for VS. If you're coding vanilla applications, that's true. If you're creating, say, web services and clients, VS.NET's magic generation is a big part of the development process. Trying to get all the coding conventions correct relying only on the documentation would not be easy. Nor would doing without a debugger, of course. >> Fallacy #1: Coding in Windows is not limited to VS.NET. You can always a >> text editor, thus removing the cost for VS. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > relying only on the documentation would not be easy. Nor would doing > without a debugger, of course. First of all, I started programming back when there wasn't such a thing as an IDE. Text editors was all there was and in many platforms, there still are. Secondly, if you've ever used Brief, you would know that you could "create" without an IDE. As for .NET, I've been programming .NET for the past four years without VS because I felt more comfortable in the text editor. I have written web services, remoting servers and clients, and web apps using just a text editor. Granted, on occasion, I have used the IDE to get the gist of what I needed to do, but with respect to VS .NET 2002/2003, my code is better structured and much easier to read than what would be produced by these IDEs. As for using the MSDN SDK documentation, it has been great. There are some instances where I needed more information, so I would search the web. Otherwise, I would use the good old trial and error method. As for debugging, there is the DbgClr debugger that comes with the SDK. Maybe not as fancy as the VS debugger, but it's not bad for the price -- free. As for "coding vanilla applications", I probably can program circles around many a newbie because I'm not a point and click jockey but a real programmer. Can an application be created faster in an IDE? Yes. Is it more efficient? Not necessarily. By the way, I have been using VWD Express since it came out and I think it's great. Personally, the new VS 2005 IDEs are by far the best ones Microsoft has produced in Windows. And as I had stated previously, but you did not capture below, the Express products are free until November. SignatureChristopher A. Reed "The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient." >> Fallacy #1: Coding in Windows is not limited to VS.NET. You can always a >> text editor, thus removing the cost for VS. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > relying only on the documentation would not be easy. Nor would doing > without a debugger, of course. > If you're coding vanilla applications, that's true. If you're creating, > say, web services and clients, VS.NET's magic generation is a big part of > the development process. Well, wsdl.exe is part of the .NET SDK, of course. No need for Visual Studio just to use those tools. I don't know that I'd try to embark on a significant development project without Visual Studio. (I really don't know.) But I very often write and distribute small utilities and sample code to customers of MindIQ that interact with our web services from C# or "C++" and .NET; I do it from within Eclipse with a basic set of plugins I wrote in a weekend to hook up with the .NET SDK, and it works fine. No nice syntax highlighting or source code formatting or refactoring, of course. Signaturewww.designacourse.com The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere. Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer MindIQ Corporation > You can always a text editor, thus removing the cost for VS. The latest version of the Zeus for Windows IDE comes with support for the C#/Mono languages: http://www.zeusedit.com/features.html Using the Mono source it is even possible to configure Zeus to do C#/Mono code intellisensing: http://www.zeusedit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=211 Note: Zeus is shareware (45 day trial). Jussi Jumppanen Author: Zeus for Windows Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.