[CentOS] OT: programming language for morons (newbie friendly language in Open Source world)

David Sommerseth dazo at users.sourceforge.net
Tue Dec 14 10:32:22 UTC 2010


On 14/12/10 00:20, Warren Young wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 3:02 PM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 14:49 -0700, Warren Young wrote:
>>> C# exists more for political and business
>>> reasons than technical ones; it fills the same space Java could fill, in
>>> a platform-agnostic world.
>>
>> False.  C# has significant technical advantages over Java - good
>> Generics and LINQ just being two.
> 
> I meant to say it was *created* more for political and business reasons 
> than technical ones.  Yes, the two have diverged since that time.
> 
>> Another advantage over Java is the namespaces were not created by a
>> addled drug addict.
> 
> I don't think naming arguments hold much water.  Memorization is a key 
> part of learning any programming language.  Nothing is truly intuitive 
> in computing.  ("The only intuitive interface is the nipple.")  You may 
> like your set of names more than another, but they all have to be 
> memorized if you want to use them.
> 
> To the OP's complaint, I think both languages have a similar problem, 
> that being the depth and scope of each platform's namespaces.  They're 
> both elephantine.  With Perl, at least, you can start by ignoring CPAN 
> and everything they added in Perl 5.  The Perl 4 core is a powerful but 
> readily grasped step up from shell scripting.
> 
> Besides, you shouldn't be throwing stones.  There's another "mono" that 
> is currently more common, according to Google.
> 
>>> Another poster mentioned a documentation advantage, but I imagine a lot
>>> of that advantage is eroded by being Windows and Microsoft centric.
>>
>> ...The portability is extremely good....
> 
> "Extremely?"  http://www.mono-project.com/Compatibility
> 
> Mono is an impressive project, but you can't tell me someone wouldn't 
> get into trouble by developing using Microsoft's documentation only.
> 
> Besides, CentOS doesn't come with a CLR, so I suspect it's not portable 
> enough for the OP.

Mono is a Intellectual Property and licence minefield.
<http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/6801/1/>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29#Mono_and_Microsoft.E2.80.99s_patents>

And considering what's happening with Novell these days as well, I would
be concerned relying on Mono until things gets clearer.  The Microsoft
agreement and Novell had is about to expire soon as well, iirc.


kind regards,

David Sommerseth




More information about the CentOS mailing list