Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 10th Sep 2005 19:26 UTC
Mono Project "We consider Mono 1.1.9 stable enough to recommend it for all users. Those upgrading from the 1.0.x series should note that these notes only contain the differences between 1.1.8 and 1.1.9."
Permalink for comment 29558
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Boo Programming Language
by segedunum on Sun 11th Sep 2005 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Boo Programming Language"
Member since:

You are just showing your ignorance.

Well, you're showing quite a bit of blind faith.

Just because all languages are compiled down to a base thing does not make them the same.

Wow, really Sherlock?

For many boo programs I would be challenged to write an equivalent in C#. For instance, a single generator (1 line of boo code) splays out to about 30 lines of C#.

Hmmm, let me see. That would be through the use of behind the scenes macros and libraries giving you the appearance of writing less code but generated the same compiled code like I described in my earlier post? Wow, like no one has ever done that with a language before. You might want to generate some IL from those programs and see whether they really are different ;-).

My God, the LOC (that would be Lines of Code) fanboys are out in force I see. Bloody hell. Write x% less code(tm) with this shiny new technology(tm). Err, no. I'm afraid the world just doesn't work like that. People have been trying it for years. At then end of the day a different language has to provide something tangibly different. That might mean some incompatibility, but hey, that's why you're using something different in the first place!

Boo, if it has your favorite syntax, and someone else can access it in C#, because they prefer its syntax or haven't seen boo yet.

Language decisions based on choice of syntax? Ho, hum. Certainly in the case of VB.Net, many developers would take issue with you there. It does make .Net sound good though, I'll grant you that :-).

Unless either Boo or VB.Net (or JScript et al) provides something fundamentally different for programmers it is a totally mute point. Many VB developers today are questioning their usage of VB.Net, because the advantages and specific tasks they could perform with classic VB have all evaporated.

As far as I can see, technically is actually more capable than C#.

Wow, really?

Like boo, VB supports late binding which is an insanely handy feature that allows easy plugin systems

C# actually does support late binding, and it's quite easy to do, but in many cases it just isn't necessary. .Net is simply an environment set up to be statically typed. An easy method is to still early bind (after all, you still need to know what's in a DLL or an assembly either way to use it) but control through code when things are instantiated and whether they are available. As such, you still get the advantages of early binding and type safety where you need it (which has been the main point of .Net all along). VB.Net might let you get away with a tiny little bit more syntactically, but quite frankly, who cares? They're artificial compiler differences and both languages get compiled to the same thing anyway. There's no tangible difference coming out the other end.

Most answers you get on this topic are people (the usual MVP suspects) on forums and mailing lists desperately trying to tell you there's a use for JScript or even VB.Net. There isn't. Anybody who thinks you need a different language simply for that needs their head tested.

There's no reason to speak different languages when you are in different moods, there's no reason to use different programming languages for different tasks.

Well, certainly in the case of .Net I couldn't agree more with you there.

Reply Parent Score: -2