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

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

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.

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