Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming Books Media Book Reviews IT Technology

C# for Java Developers 382

Posted by timothy
from the pointy-pointy dept.
joefrench writes: "It might seem strange to review a C# book on Slashdot, especially one published by Microsoft, but I felt that there must be a lot of readers like me -- programmers who know Java, but want/need to learn something about C# and .NET. C# for Java Developers aims to teach experienced Java programmers how to write in C#." Joe outlines what he considers the book's good points (many) and weak points (few) in the rest of his review, below.
C# for Java Developers
author Allen Jones, Adam Freeman
pages 548
publisher Microsoft Press
rating 9
reviewer Joe French
ISBN 0735617791
summary A comprehensive C# from Java tutorial

First things first

First of all, let's deal with the Microsoft issue. I was surprised to find that this book even existed given the problems MS has had in the courts recently. I was even more surprised to find that C# for Java Developers is very balanced and does not hype up C# at the expense of Java -- throughout the book there are places where the authors say that "Java is better at this" or "We have no idea what the C# designers were thinking." A refreshing attitude from a company that is not known to be an admirer of Java.

I was reluctant to pay for a Microsoft book, but I have to admit that I am impressed. This is the first MS book I have ever purchased, and it is clearly written, well thought-out and very, very comprehensive. One of the best features for me is that all of the instructions for compiling and managing code assume that you are using the command-line tools, rather than Visual Studio. For someone on a tight budget, this was a real bonus.

The Scoop

The first part of the book is an overview of .NET, and contains the boiler-plate description that you get from the .NET web site. Not that useful, but pretty short. There is a chapter that compares .NET to Java (J2SE and J2EE), but again, there is nothing new or important there.

The second part of the book covers the C# language, using Java as a starting point. The coverage seems comprehensive, and explains where the two languages are the same (quite often), where they are different (now and then) and when they appear to be the same, but you are likely to spend a couple of hours tracking down something weird (more often than I would like). I had started playing around with C# before buying this book, and all of the problems that I had in the early days were detailed here with clear explanations.

Part three delves into the .NET class library, covering basic topics such as collections, IO and handling XML. Once again, I was impressed with the depth of coverage and the way in which the authors use Java classes to explain the workings of .NET. It was while I was reading through this section that I realized just how different C#/.NET and Java can be.

The last part of the book covers "advanced" topics. There seems to be little reason for the division between basic and advanced topics, but chapters cover areas such as threading, security and networking. The one thing that is consistent in this part of the book is that there is less of a parallel between Java and C#. For example, "Windows Forms" is used to build client UI applications, but is very different toolkit from Swing/AWT.

The appendix list is a little dull, covering topics like GC and configuration files. There are some interesting snippets, but I got the impression that these were topics that the authors thought were important, but didn't know where else they should go. The exception is the "Java to .NET API Reference" which, for me at least, sets this book apart from the competition. Every class from the J2SE class library is mapped to an equivalent .NET class and a reference to where the topic is covered in the book -- having something like this has saved me hours of searching.

What's to Consider?

This book uses a lot of C# fragments to demonstrate how classes are used, but contains very few full "working" examples. I found this to be great once I knew the basics of C# (because I could focus on the topic), but difficult at first (because I could not play with complete code).

C# for Java Developers covers much more of the .NET Framework than the other books in my local bookstore, but because of this the text can be dense at times, as the authors try and pack in a bit too much detail.

I can't find major fault with this book, and a (small) part of me admires Microsoft for publishing such an unbiased book.

Summary

If you are a Java programmer who wants or needs to learn about C# and .NET, then this is a great book. Don't be put off by the Microsoft logo, and bear in mind that you don't need a copy of Visual Studio to follow the examples.

The book effectively uses Java as a tool to teach C# and explain the workings of .NET. If you are like me, then you will find this book invaluable and will likely keep it close at hand for quick reference.

Table of Contents

  1. Introducing .NET
    1. Introduction to Microsoft .NET
    2. Comparing Java and .NET Technologies
  2. The C# Language
    1. Creating Assemblies
    2. Language and Syntax Features
    3. Data Types
    4. Advanced Language Features
  3. Programming .NET with C#
    1. Strings and Regular Expressions
    2. Numbers and Dates
    3. Collections
    4. Streams, Files, and I/O
    5. XML Processing
  4. Advanced Topics
    1. Reflection
    2. Threading and Synchronization
    3. Networking
    4. Remoting
    5. Database Connectivity
    6. Security and Cryptography
    7. Graphics and UI
    8. Introduction to XML Web Services
  5. Appendices
    1. Platform Integration
    2. Shared Assemblies
    3. Configuring Applications
    4. Garbage Collection
    5. Cross-Language Code Interoperability
    6. Java to .NET API Reference


You can purchase C# for Java Developers from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

C# for Java Developers

Comments Filter:
  • by FortKnox (169099) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @11:36AM (#4189124) Homepage Journal
    Now, C# is a pretty language. MS looked at Java and started on their list... "This is good in Java, lets include it. This isn't, lets either not include it or make a nicer alternative." They made quite a nice, competitive language.

    But I think C# will be used to convert the C, C++, and Java crowd into the .NET framework. Now, once you are in the framework, you'll see that VB.NET is easier to use, has the OO that Java/C++ people desire, and can make the deadlines easier to make.

    Yeah, I think C# is MS's way to convert everyone to VB.NET.

    Luckily, .NET isn't as platform independent as Java atm, so I'll stick with my cup-of-joe.
    • by km790816 (78280) <wqhq3gx02@snCOMM ... .com minus punct> on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @11:48AM (#4189224)
      Slow down, turbo.

      No one at Microsoft likes VB.NET. It was meant as a crutch to get old VB developers into the new programming model.

      All of the .NET class libraries were written in C#. I don't think they are planning no changing that in the near future.
      • exactly. That was gonna be my point. I can tell you, most of the ASP+/.NET examples are in C#, not VB
      • Is is now safe to say that Microsoft's goal is to convert people from using C, C++, Java and VB to .NET?

        Seems reasonable: get the competition using product.
      • Another interesting note is that all of Microsoft's .ASP scripts on microsoft.com are written in JScript. Odd that they stay away from VB as much as possible but promote it so much!
      • I can quite honestly say that you are wrong.

        I love VB.NET. On the scale of most flexible to least flexible, you've got managed c++, C#, and VB.NET, however, the difference in capabilities between C# and VB.NET is so miniscule that i suspect that if i were in a situation that vb.net didn't address, i'd do it in MC++ and expose it to VB.NET anyhow.

        So for me C# is the niche language - its for people that are too snobby to use VB, and does't really have any day-to-day benefits over C#.

        I happen to love the case-insensitivity, and the code-block autocompletion. Finally, the background IDE-mode compiler is fantastic.

        VB.NET is easily the most productive development tool i've ever used. For grins, I loaded up one of my old unix C++ apps in xemacs and hacked around on it. c++ on solaris with xemacs and ddd is nowhere CLOSE to the ease of use and quick turnaround from idea to debugged code, for me anyway :)

      • VB.NET (Score:3, Informative)

        by Bodrius (191265)
        Well, I don't know about Microsoft, and I do know a lot of VB developers that hate VB.NET with all their guts, but I have to say I find it impressive for the same reasons they hate it: it's a language that forces OO design, uses modern libraries, and in the end it's all source code.

        I'm not a big fan of VBisms such as "MustOverride", "MustInherit", "NotInheritable" etc, which can easily become unreadably verbose for my taste as you combine them, but after trying it out for a couple of simple apps as an experiment I find it an outstanding improvement over the original VB.

        I think it's perfectly feasible to build a relatively big project in VB.NET without destroying some hardware and going on Prozac, as I would expect with any other VB.

        Not that I would, but it has become a matter of taste or distaste for the VB-like syntax, not a major disfunctionality of the language itself.

        VB.NET is a crutch. But it's a crutch that manages to fix VB as a language. I consider that an achievement, to say the least.

    • "Now, C# is a pretty language. MS looked at Java and started on their list... "This is good in Java, lets include it. This isn't, lets either not include it or make a nicer alternative." They made quite a nice, competitive language."

      You're right, I think it is a much nicer alternative to Java for client side apps.

      "But I think C# will be used to convert the C, C++, and Java crowd into the .NET framework. Now, once you are in the framework, you'll see that VB.NET is easier to use, has the OO that Java/C++ people desire, and can make the deadlines easier to make."

      C# is far from just a tool to convert people to the .NET framework. C/C++ people will probably still use C++ .NET if they want .NET development. C# directly targets Java developers, but it can easily be decoupled from the .NET framework (look at Mono). Personally I'd rather not use the .NET Framework for C#, but until Mono becomes more mature I'm stuck using the .NET Class Library unless I want to rewrite all that stuff myself. VB.NET is simply C# with the VB words. VB.NET is nothing like VB6 and earlier. I can't say that 100% but from the VB.NET examples in the class library that sit along side the C# ones, they're so similar.

      "Yeah, I think C# is MS's way to convert everyone to VB.NET."

      I think its other way around.

      "Luckily, .NET isn't as platform independent as Java atm, so I'll stick with my cup-of-joe."

      True. I refuse to use ASP.NET on IIS since IIS is such a crock. I hope Mono keeps going strong for client side however.
    • Yeah, I think C# is MS's way to convert everyone to VB.NET.

      I think the opposite.

      C# is made easier than C++. VB.NET is *very* rewritten in .NET to be much more object oriented *and* easy to move from to C#.

      But, of course, due to the nature of .NET, it's equally easy to move from C# to VB.NET.

      However, C# wasn't written to match VB.NET. VB.NET, on the other hand, went throught one of its greatest rewrites so far to match C#. Make up what you want from that.
  • Terrarium (Score:3, Interesting)

    by killthiskid (197397) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @11:38AM (#4189142) Homepage Journal

    The thing that finally got me to play with C# was Terrarium [gotdotnet.com]. Players create 'creatures' which then compete in a peer-to-peer set of virtual terrariums. You can create plants, herbivores, or carnivores. It was quite fun (in a super geek way) and VERY challenging.

  • Refreshing indeed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "... very balanced and does not hype up C# at the expense of Java -- throughout the book there are places where the authors say that "Java is better at this" or "We have no idea what the C# designers were thinking."

    Try finding that balance in a Java book, most of which devote all of Chapter 1 to a buzzword parade and list of Java perks (prevents bugs, write once run anywhere, cures baldness, etc).
  • by glh (14273) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @11:39AM (#4189147) Homepage Journal
    I'm really suprised by this (especially with the book being from MS) but I think it is a nice to see on Slashdot.

    C# really is a nice language. It is more powerful than other .NET languages (such as VB.NET) because it allows you to write unsafe code (ie, code that doesn't have to go through the garbage collector). Not that most MS programmers will need this capability, but its nice to have if you need the extra performance over maintainability/safety.

    C# also gives you the ability to write XML comments in your code that can be parsed by the compiler to generate documentation. There is also an open source project called "NDOC" (hosted on Source Forge) that lets you generate really cool and helpful docs.

    However, the majority of Slashdot readers probably don't care how C# is better than other .NET languages. The real question is- how does it compare with Java. Honestly, I believe there are some differences in syntax and power, but I don't know the details (as I am not that experienced with Java) but it would seem this book could help answer that question. I plan on taking a look at this book. Thanks for the review, and again- nice to see this kind of thing on Slashdot!
    • In a one sentence summary of the difference between Java and C#: C# is like Java with convenient C++ extensions such as structs, enumerations, multiple inheritance, but also with some of the problems of C++ like unsafe code.

      There's of course much, much more to it like the .NET framework's focus on web services, XML and other things.

      What I personally like most with C# is this:

      - Isn't a "layer" above another language, like C++. Clean.
      - The ease of use of Java with much of the power of C++.
      - Many annoying shortcomings in Java are fixed while preserving invaluable support for things like garbage collection.

      I'm not advertising VS.NET by this in any way. Always remember that *nix (and Windows!) users can go with the Mono project [go-mono.com] to get the C# language with platform independence, while still not supporting Microsoft if that's a concern. ;-) Unless they get tempted by the devil so to speak and switch to VS.NET of course. :)
      • I'm not advertising VS.NET by this in any way. Always remember that *nix (and Windows!) users can go with the Mono project [go-mono.com] to get the C# language with platform independence, while still not supporting Microsoft if that's a concern. ;-) Unless they get tempted by the devil so to speak and switch to VS.NET of course. :)

        I'm excited about the mono project. I hope it comes to fruition and can keep up. It would be nice to see what kind of development tool (if any) will be available on the linux platform. VI just doesn't do justice. Emacs might do the trick, but I like intellisense like VS.NET has (but I hate a lot of the nuances that come with it)

        I'd like to see some open source editors come out that could be used on different platforms. I wonder if anyone is working on that? I've used WebMatrix, not sure if that is open source, but it is free. There is also a free one called "Sharp Edit" but no auto complete, at least not the last time I checked.
    • It's more powerful than other .NET languages because the CLR is designed for C#, which means that all of C# is supported. Other .NET languages are the part of the original language that is possible with the CLR; that is to say, .NET languages are like real languages, except without the features which would make them better than C# for some uses.
    • also gives you the ability to write XML comments in your code that can be parsed by the compiler to generate documentation.

      Thats not exactly new, that the same feature
      as Javadoc did for java since version 1.0

    • FWIW, C++ and other languages have long has this ability thanks to Doxygen [stack.nl] and similar tools. It's cool stuff. Doxygen doesn't use XML, but the syntax is pretty straightforward.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The thing that makes C# so much better than Java is that there are so many free Java VMs and development tools. If you want a VM for Java, all you have to do is go out to blackdown.org and download one. Well, what does that say about the quality of the language? Back when I was a wee pup we had a phrase, "you get what you pay for." Well, at least C# development tools cost a fair amount, to me that suggests that it is a much better language. After all if Java was so good they wouldn't be giving it away for free.

    Also with the upcoming war on Iraq it's best if we're all patriotic and support our country's companies with our hard-earned dollars. Why, if you use Java, you might as well hang an Iraqi flag in your yard and wear a Republican Guard uniform to work every day. That's how important this is. Don't you Java developers feel ashamed of yourselves? I would.
  • by Carnage4Life (106069) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @11:41AM (#4189162) Homepage Journal
    The article C# From a Java Developer's Perspective [25hoursaday.com] which appeared on Slashdot last year [slashdot.org].

    Mirrors:
    1. Mirror 1 [soften.ktu.lt]
    2. Mirror 2 [monash.edu.au]
    3. Mirror 3 [infoiasi.ro]
    4. Mirror 4 [geneura.ugr.es]
    5. Mirror 5 [stevens-tech.edu]
    Translations:
    1. French [dotnetguru.org]
  • by SadatChowdhury (512992) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @11:41AM (#4189171)
    If anyone wants to port Java application to .Net platform, wouldn't it make more sense to use J#? With .Net's language insensitive nature, C# vs J# should not matter, and so J# would naturally make more sense to someone wanting to attempt to port a Java application into the .Net platform.
  • by km790816 (78280) <wqhq3gx02@snCOMM ... .com minus punct> on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @11:43AM (#4189189)
    A Comparative Overview of C# [genamics.com]

    This is a great site. If anyone wants to learn C# coming from a C/C++ or Java background I send them here. Shows source in all three languages (where applicable). Good place to start.

    I must say I was a hard-core Java fan until I found C#. I must qualify that statement since I develop exclusively for Windows.

    If you write code that will only live in the Windows world, you owe it to yourself to check out C#/.NET.
    • by Kynde (324134) <kyndeNO@SPAMiki.fi> on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @12:03PM (#4189330)
      This is a great site.

      After a first glance I saw :

      This is typical code you might write in Java or C++:

      foo.setSize (getSize () + 1);
      label.getFont().setBold (true);

      The same code you would write like this in C#:

      foo.size++;
      label.font.bold = true;


      Now, if that isn't biased crap then I must be the guy bending over at goatse.cx. The rest of the article goes on in much the same way.

      I just knew it. For C/C++ coders C# is what Windows is to a proper OS users. It may be easier if you're a numwit, but I'm quite sure that the design is rigid and quite quickly you'll wind face to face with some illogicality or utter impracticality. And there you are... not happy as a clam, but happy as a lion with a hedgehog rammed up in it's butt.

      If you're now thinking "well, C++ is flawed, too" the you've missed the point or you only think you know C/C++. There's a big difference in knowing and mastering and my guess is that that in particular will be the problem with C#, as with all other Mickeyware.
      • Heh, no kidding.. You can achieve this same effect in java if you just declare your object's private variables to be public instead of using getters and setters. We all know this is the wrong approach, since it makes for crusty unmaintainable code down the road, right??? Right???
      • Heh, no kidding. You can achieve this same effect in java if you just declare your object's private variables to be public. But this breaks encapsulation, leading to crummy, hard to explain, understand, and maintain code. Everybody understands this, right?
      • This is typical code you might write in Java or C++:

        foo.setSize (getSize () + 1);
        label.getFont().setBold (true);

        The same code you would write like this in C#:

        foo.size++;
        label.font.bold = true;


        Now, if that isn't biased crap then I must be the guy bending over at goatse.cx. The rest of the article goes on in much the same way.


        Actually, IIRC, C# supports some syntactic sugar called "accessors;" basically, label.font.bold = true maps to a call to label.getFont().setBold(true). They didn't make the member data publically acessible, they just lowered the keystrokes to call simple mutator methods.
      • The above poster have gotten a 4 insightful, but rather should have a "-1 Dreadfully biased troll", for being way more biased than what he is bashing for being biased.

        What the f*** is so insightful about bashing language on the basis of it being high-level and created by Microsoft?

        C, C++, Java and C# all looks like nice languages, and even if you are sceptical you should base languages on its merits, and not who created it.

        I'm really paranoid about Microsoft, I run a small norwegian Linux site, and I'm a Linux user, but this is just BS.

        Besides, reasonable C-coders might prefer to code in C, but won't dismiss C# or Java as some sort of "Mickey Mouse"-language just because it is high-level. Some times you need the power of C, sometimes you just want rapid development without the hassle.

        There are at least enough C-coders that think C# is great, to create Mono [go-mono.com].
    • If you write code that will only live in the Windows world, you owe it to yourself to check out C#/.NET.

      If you write code that you think will only live in a windows world, you should always consider carefully using cross-platform or portable solutions. I've seen the windows-only assumption fail many times: the developers were stuck with the difficult and tedious task of gettin their built-for-ms code to be cross-platform.

      It's just one consideration. If vendor lock in doesn't bother you or your clients, or you will never need to reach other platforms or scale your solution, .MicroSoft might be right for you.

  • While not part of the language but rather somewhere in the .NET APIs, Windows.Forms is a really cool set of classes and methods that let you do GUI building with relatively little pain. Now I'm no Microsoft apologist, but what they did with Windows.Forms is a LOT nicer than AWT and Swing, and as far as I can tell, the backend was written in native code.
    There are some articles about it too. [gotdotnet.com]
    • In about two seconds, you can make a XML gui maker with java... then take your JFrame,
      XMLEncoder xe = new XMLEncoder( new FileOutputStream( "gui.xml" ));
      xe.writeObject(yourJFrameObjectHere);
      and then here's the code to read it back:
      XMLDecoder xd = new XMLDecoder( new FileInputStream("gui.xml"));
      JFrame jf = (JFrame)xd.readObject();
      jf.show();
      Hopefully, the java FUD of the 1990s is laid to rest, as java HotSpot and native binary compilers have really improved alot since the first-generation slow-ass JVMs. Then M$FT comes along and copies Java, calling it J++ then going to some panacea java-replacement platform called .NET to get away from a perceived foot-hold gained by sun. java might be dead on the wintel platform, but it sure-as-shit isn't anywhere near dead in ISV/IT/IS/IM/I* world. Enterprise JavaBeans and JSPs are the best thing to happen application servers. Too bad M$FT doesn't like open standards that everyone else is using. Sux to their as-mar.
      • Hopefully, the java FUD of the 1990s is laid to rest, as java HotSpot and native binary compilers have really improved alot since the first-generation slow-ass JVMs.

        This attitude wont help java anywhere. Even with hotspot, java is slow, especially the GUI stuff on Linux/Unix. Array handling sucks big time too. Tomcat jsp:s get wiped down with hacks like php. Setting up J2EE is a real pain in ass. Etc, Etc. Never done .net, but I am looking elswhere from the java world. Probably c++/QT.

        If java want's to survive, sun needs to make it easier and faster, and show studies PROVING it. The "Pet shop is not a benchmark" cry needs to replaced by "Hey, this version beats .net version in both speed and implementation time".

  • "First of all, let's deal with the Microsoft issue. I was surprised to find that this book even existed given the problems MS has had in the courts recently."


    Where in any of the court documentation for any of the court proceedings that MS is invloved with does it say, "You have to divest yourself of your publishing brand?"

  • by Quixote (154172) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @11:49AM (#4189237) Homepage Journal
    Too good, in fact. Am I the only one who was reminded of the recenty story about 'stealth advertising', with paid "actors" using cool gadgets as if they were normal users, to create a buzz? This review, with its liberal dosage of "I was skeptical of ... but was pleasantly surprised to find ... " reminds of just such marketing efforts.

    • Of course, when the next Java review comes out no one will by crying conspiracy.
      • We all know the vast secret conspiracy against poor Microsoft does not tolerate these kind of behaviour. Anyone speaking against Java, Linux, Apache and other fine technologies will be as good as dead for the mainstream media and the general public as is anyone who speaks for Microsoft. They all go down the same wall of silence we dump Chomsky and Moore on.
    • Am I the only one who was reminded of the recenty story about

      The Cappuchino PC pt. 3?
    • This coming from a guy with a Java contest sponsored by Sun as his sig...
    • by GCP (122438)
      What I noticed was just how uncomfortable the author seemed, to be seen saying anything positive about something from MS to this crowd.

      Pretty sad when the political orthodoxy is so overwhelming that every sentence has to start with the equivalent of "please don't hate me for saying it, but this wasn't as bad as I naturally assumed..." when discussing a book on programming.

      C# is what you get if you take several years of Java real-world experience and ask "if we could do it over again from scratch, with no backward compatibility requirements with existing Java, what would we do?"

      C# is what you get if, instead of taking Sun's attitude of "please, you're a programmer, not a language designer -- if what you're asking for were a good idea, we would have done it", you take MS's "mercenary" attitude of "what changes would you make to Java if you could?".

  • by Tattva (53901) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @11:50AM (#4189243) Homepage Journal
    It might seem strange to review a C# book on Slashdot

    There is absolutely nothing strange with not keeping your head buried in the sand. Just because some folks seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to all things Microsoft doesn't mean Slashdot should be expected to ignore relevant and widespread programming practices.

  • This article is a bit old, in fact, the folks at ExtremeTech probably celebrated its birthday just recently, but nevertheless, it turned out to have a lot of useful information for me when it was just published.
    ExtremeTech: Java vs. C#, a Code-for-Code Comparison [extremetech.com]
  • by Zapman (2662) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @11:53AM (#4189276)
    They're not Oreilly, but they do have a good reputation for quality books. Code Complete and Rapid Development are amazingly good books by Steve C McConnell, put out by MS press.
  • by Lxy (80823)
    I'm impressed that MS Press wrote a content packed book. Most of their publications were light on the tech details and more like FUD, it's nice to see they're actually writing some useful material.

    And no, there's nothing wrong with posting books about C# or .NET to Slashdot. It's new technology that will affect us in a few years. While I don't like MS, I don't understand C# or .NET, and I know that in 2 years I'll wish I did.
  • by gabbarsingh (207183) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @12:02PM (#4189326) Journal
    While I am a Java developer and I am interested in C# from a knowledge-about-languages perspective, this review is far from getting me there. At exactly one point the reviewer mentions threads and Swing. But then what about it? At more than four places Microsoft press is mentioned and it is advised to give them a fair chance. Well, after reading this review I still don't have a clue what the book is about. The ToC is interesting but not helpful. I bet that a 'Python for Perl Programmers' book would get an objective review with less focus on publishers and book contents/excerpts that would do the topic some justice. What I am trying to say is that there is no 'java angle'

    I propose slashdot community lay down some guidelines about reviewing a technical book. I applaud the reviewer's efforts and for keeping an open mind towards the source ;-)
  • by MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @12:25PM (#4189491)
    No registration required: download [microsoft.com] the Microsoft .NET Framework SDK [microsoft.com]. Includes command line utilities, documentation, etc.

    The sound you here is a dozen moderators clicking 'Troll'.
    • mono for windows (Score:4, Informative)

      by MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @12:48PM (#4189656)
      Just downloaded the excellent 4 MB mono 4 windows [formativ.net] as mentioned in an earlier thread, and as a C# hobbyist, let me tell you, it is a pretty nice way to get acquainted with the language without having to download the 150 MB or so of the full .NET SDK.

      And as is said elsewhere, every language has its place. C# is pretty nice for building Windows native applications. If you don't want to do that, then use a different language.

      More on-topic, I'll definitely be checking this book out of the company library.

  • You know that .NET is a failure when you start to see a lot of books titled, "Java for C# Developers".
  • We have no idea what the C# designers were thinking

    Can you provide an example?

    -- Brian
  • Why would anyone write a book about that?

    All you have to do is add "MS" to the front of all the standard Java classes, methods, and member variables, and run your code through a C# compiler isn't it?
  • Cash deals with some syntax odities of simular languages in a nice way. It's a languageconcept worth while implementing. .Net on the other hand sux. It's buggy as hell, runs only on Mickeysoft (so much for "platformindependent") and gains as the singular plus the choice between VB .Net, Cash .Net and some other proprietary M$ Coding lingua. Big fat hairy deal.
    Did anyone in the Industrie notice yet that near to zilch people are actually using .Net in a way that their offering products made with it?
    Either I wanna go M$, then I go native. Or I want go independent, then I go Java. Is that so hard to get across?
    No, folks, .Net is gonna fail - or it's gonna cost M$ another few billion and a change in market policy.
    • Either I wanna go M$, then I go native

      The .Net API is the replacement for the native Win32 API. This is a fact you ignore at your own peril.

      No, folks, .Net is gonna fail - or it's gonna cost M$ another few billion and a change in market policy.

      Thanks for the prophecy nostradumbass. Can you back any of what you said up with facts and not FUD? Are you a developer or do you just play one on TV? Go write more than a hello world before you blab about how .Net "suxx0rz" noobmaster flex.
  • As much as I hate Microsoft stuff, and am against closed source, C# is a very nice language. The whole time I've used Java, I've felt like "I wish something better would come out that wasn't so quirky".

    We need an open source language similar to C#. Java's not open source, either. But I'd rather see a C#-type language than a Java-type language.

    I hate to say it, but C# is definitely the better language. It's main drawback for me is that it doesn't (currently anyway) run on anything but the shitty Windows platform. C# on Linux and I'd be in heaven.

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.

Working...