Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #8237 > unrolled thread

I think Java or C# are not like C++

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  I think Java or C# are not like C++ Intelli2 <intelli2@mama.com> - 2017-12-21 17:52 -0500
    Re: I think Java or C# are not like C++ Inigo joseph <inigojoseph89@gmail.com> - 2018-01-23 02:17 -0800
    Re: I think Java or C# are not like C++ Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-01-26 11:16 -0800
      Re: I think Java or C# are not like C++ Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2018-02-19 15:15 -0600

#8237 — I think Java or C# are not like C++

Hello,

I think Java or C# are not like C++ or modern Object Pascal of Delphi 
and FreePascal compilers, because Java and C# wanted to be more high 
level that avoids more to leaking memory by for example forcing garbage 
collection and by being more high level by avoiding bugs of pointers and 
inline assembler, but forcing garbage collection is not optimally 
efficient and being high level as Java and C# by forbiding inline 
assembler and pointers is not raking wide or being more general, this is 
why Java and C# are not the solution for all, and this is why C++ 
compilers and FreePascal and Delphi compilers are still useful.


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8323

Java and C# by forbiding inline 
assembler and pointers is not raking wide or being more general, this is 
why Java and C# are not the solution for all, and this is why C++ 
compilers and FreePascal and Delphi compilers are still useful. https://www.besanttechnologies.com/training-courses/php-training/php-training-institute-in-chennai

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8340

On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 5:52:12 PM UTC-5, Intelli2 wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I think Java or C# are not like C++ or modern Object Pascal of Delphi 
> and FreePascal compilers, because Java and C# wanted to be more high 
> level that avoids more to leaking memory by for example forcing garbage 
> collection and by being more high level by avoiding bugs of pointers and 
> inline assembler, but forcing garbage collection is not optimally 
> efficient and being high level as Java and C# by forbiding inline 
> assembler and pointers is not raking wide or being more general, this is 
> why Java and C# are not the solution for all, and this is why C++ 
> compilers and FreePascal and Delphi compilers are still useful.
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> Amine Moulay Ramdane.

There is a key flaw in your logic. Namely, seeking "the solution for all".
NO programming language can be the best for all programming situations.
it is foolish to this of using C# for programming an 8051 processor.
And just as foolish to think of using assembler for programming
a banking application. Or using ksh to program an AI application.

I happen to have a poster showing the "family tree" of high level
programming languages from the 1950's thru early 2000's. there are
over 100 listed, though that includes some versions like Smalltalk
versions Smalltalk-72 to Smalltalk-80.

The bottom line is:
there is no language that fits all programming problems easily.

Enjoy,
  ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8363

On 1/26/18 1:16 PM, Ed Prochak wrote:
> There is a key flaw in your logic. Namely, seeking "the solution for all".
> NO programming language can be the best for all programming situations.

Exactly right. Any one-size-fits-all language attempt is going to be 
riddled with even more compromises than those that don't go that far.

You need to know what various languages are 'good' and 'bad' at 
accomplishing and when to use them, not try and learn one language to 
rule them all like some Tolkien character.


-- 
Randy Howard
(replace the obvious text in the obvious way if you wish to contact me 
directly)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web