PDA

View Full Version : if you like java try c#


MadMax334
10-13-2003, 03:22 PM
Well if you like java then you should try c#, its almost the same(kinda like they gave j++ more power). Plus you would be using the windows api and not the java swing or awt components which are slower. And you could always use opengl or dx if you would like to.

elam
10-15-2003, 01:48 AM
And you also have to buy and use .NET studio, unless you wanna try Mono (http://www.go-mono.com/), but I don't know if they have a C# compiler for Windows.

Elclipse (http://www.eclipse.org) uses native Windows components for it's windowing systems. And it's extremely verstatile and popular.
And you can use OpenGL (https://jogl.dev.java.net/) with Java. Do you know what your talking about, or are you being a troll?

C# is cool, but so is Java. And Java is free. And it has more goodies.

dead_eye
10-15-2003, 02:10 AM
C# can be free too. Borland has C# Builder as well. The personal edition can be downloaded for free, for non-commercial development only.

http://www.borland.com/products/downloads/download_csharpbuilder.html

OC-NightHawk
10-29-2003, 05:55 AM
If you like c# and java you might like j#.

shrimp_chip
10-29-2003, 03:50 PM
If you want a nice C# IDE and you can't afford VS.NET, another IDE is sharpdevelop, also known as #develop.

http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/

It's a clone of the VS.NET IDE, only it's written in C# itself.

MadMax334
10-29-2003, 04:57 PM
java just started supporting opengl, havent checked on it since java2 originally came out. back there 3d api was not great. Interpreted languages are alwasy slower than compiled or assembly langagues when it comes to graphics....so i would co with c/c++ its not that hard. then u could use bloodshed dev-c++ which is free.

elam
10-29-2003, 06:04 PM
uh, Java is both compiled and interpreted.
You can also use the GCJ compiler to convert to native machine code.

Java 3d has supported both OpenGL and DirectX since Java 1.2
3d graphics processing in all modern graphics cards is done by the gpu anyway, so there is no distinction between how Java, using jogl, and c/c++ interact and render real time graphics.

It's not a matter of hard. No language is that hard to learn. It's a matter of elegance and simplicity and less time debugging, pointer arithmetic, and all the other baggage that goes along with c/c++.

MadMax334
10-29-2003, 06:47 PM
if you want to go for ellegance do lisp, (recursive heaven):-D.....not my favorite language...is gcj free...ive only used what come with the javasdk....

and really thats hard to understand when sun released java 3d api didnt come out till 1.2 (which is still part of java2 ) and it didnt and still dosent incorporate opengl and direct x.....u can access them like u can access any other c/c++ dll from java....



and i dont mean call the the open gl procedure URL=http://www.codeproject.com/java/opengl.asp](like here)[/URL] where its basically a wrapper .

im talking about a real api and not wrapper.....there are a couple on source forge trying to make an api but i wouldnt use them just yet. also java those not have the speed of c/c++ programs when it come to graphics and games. any one will tell you this.

c++ and java are both equally ellegant ....its up to the programmer to make his code under standable.

markyjerky
11-10-2003, 01:52 AM
Above it was said ... "Interpreted languages are alwasy slower than compiled or assembly langagues when it comes to graphics....so i would co with c/c++ its not that hard. then u could use bloodshed dev-c++ which is free."

It's about the display lists. Java is plenty fast enough to construct OpenGL display ... which after construction ... they don't give a hoot what language was used to bind to OpenGL.

Shoot even the construction part is pretty fast. Look man ... it's 3GHZ PCs and g5 macs on the horizon for all of us. Plenty of CPU to waste using any language you want.

A guy at work always says to me ... "C Sharp, The JAVA KILLLER". Of course it's mostly in jest. So I had to take notice of the original post to make sure it wasn't from him. LOL.

elam
11-11-2003, 04:26 PM
c++ and java are both equally ellegant ....its up to the programmer to make his code under standable.

Yes, this is true, but it's kind of like the difference between Python and Perl( if you've used those). Sometimes looking at all those *, ->, &, can drive me insane after a while. :surprised

MadMax334
11-11-2003, 04:54 PM
i agree -> can drive u nuts sometimes....but if u write clean code people should understand it.......but i do see ur point

Darkor
11-26-2003, 11:24 AM
Intepreted languages are slower, that's a definite. But Java still runs pretty well though it's not a language I'd use for commercial games.

C++ is not as elegant as Java, just because Java is a more perfect OO language. I guess C# attempts to better that, and it's quickly gaining recognition as the replacement for all languages.

Well, although I'd be sticking to C++, C# looks pretty good from my point of view. Just wait till they come up with more impressive stuff.

Pointers are fun... hell I'm sticking to C++. Given of choice of Java and C#, I'd probably pick the latter.

MGernot
11-26-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Darkor
Intepreted languages are slower, that's a definite. But Java still runs pretty well though it's not a language I'd use for commercial games.

C++ is not as elegant as Java, just because Java is a more perfect OO language. I guess C# attempts to better that, and it's quickly gaining recognition as the replacement for all languages.

Well, although I'd be sticking to C++, C# looks pretty good from my point of view. Just wait till they come up with more impressive stuff.

Pointers are fun... hell I'm sticking to C++. Given of choice of Java and C#, I'd probably pick the latter.

I just found out that you can use pointers in C#
I like that.

MadMax334
11-26-2003, 04:34 PM
yup...i like c# as the best of both worlds

Darkor
11-26-2003, 04:37 PM
That's one reason why I'd pick C# over Java. Though the arguments for why Java uses references are quite valid. But man are pointers more powerful.

But C#'s great really, now with WinForms, it's like you don't need VB for quick GUI stuff anymore.

StefanDidak
11-26-2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by elam
And you also have to buy and use .NET studio, unless you wanna try Mono (http://www.go-mono.com/), but I don't know if they have a C# compiler for Windows.

If you download the free redist pack of the .NET Framework, 1.0 or 1.1, you will find csc.exe is installed by default. That is the MS C# compiler. You don't need an IDE to toy around with it so there would be no reason to shell out for VS.NET if someone just wants to fiddle with it and try it out.

Our network build tools directly use csc.exe without requiring any VS.NET licenses for the distributed machines. It is even quite possible to develop complex C# Apps and DLL's without using any IDE whatsoever. Back to how we had to do it in the old days, yay. :)

MadMax334
11-26-2003, 05:44 PM
yup....im a c++ buy since i mostly done low level work. Where pointer are so much a necessesaty....plus i like the way c++ and asm work well with each other

dead_eye
11-26-2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by StefanDidak
If you download the free redist pack of the .NET Framework, 1.0 or 1.1, you will find csc.exe is installed by default. That is the MS C# compiler. You don't need an IDE to toy around with it so there would be no reason to shell out for VS.NET if someone just wants to fiddle with it and try it out.

Our network build tools directly use csc.exe without requiring any VS.NET licenses for the distributed machines. It is even quite possible to develop complex C# Apps and DLL's without using any IDE whatsoever. Back to how we had to do it in the old days, yay. :)

Cool very interesting, but I've never been a big fan of using command-line compilers directly :scream:. The only thing I miss about the old days is that it was much simpler to program stuff, there wasn't a jillion headers and libraries with jillions of functions, classes, and interfaces. Nowadays, there's so much stuff it's impossible to be good at all of it.

Darkor
11-27-2003, 05:14 AM
Yeah man in the good old days, you didn't know what you're doing until you're finished. Now, you still don't even after you're finished. So many things happen under the hood and you gotta be crazy to try to learn everything that does.

I believe that command line compilers serve a purpose in automating the build proccess. I'd personally would hate to have to do WinForms while having -only- the compiler.

Anyway what are the network build tools you are talking about? I know that Ant has been quite a popular tool.

StefanDidak
11-27-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by dead_eye
Cool very interesting, but I've never been a big fan of using command-line compilers directly :scream:. The only thing I miss about the old days is that it was much simpler to program stuff, there wasn't a jillion headers and libraries with jillions of functions, classes, and interfaces. Nowadays, there's so much stuff it's impossible to be good at all of it.

You're right about that. Then again it does seem to be the way things evolve as feature-richness increases. A speech API here, a Pen API there, things nobody had to contend with in the past. The CGI industry has undergone the same division of labor; modelers, texture artists, animators, etc. whereas in the good old days we did the art and the coding, the texturing, everything, with just a few folks. :)

I'm quite pleased with the move towards managed code, .NET and Mono, etc. because a lot of the clutter and confusion between all the different API's and componentized parts is taken out of it. A good understanding of the namespaces and contents helps a lot in having a more intuitive sense of where certain functionality is located. Sure beats hunting header files to check where a certain something belongs. I think things have gotten simpler again, even though the sheer volume can still be overwhelming to even a seasoned veteran.

StefanDidak
11-28-2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Darkor
I'd personally would hate to have to do WinForms while having -only- the compiler.

That would, indeed, be a royal pain in the butt. :)
Though looking at the upcoming C# 2.0 and the use of XAML files there does seem to be a good direction towards separation of code and UI. Doing UI component and property tags as if it's XML certainly allows for interesting things.


Anyway what are the network build tools you are talking about? I know that Ant has been quite a popular tool.

The network build system we're using is a home-grown design, actually. We looked at things like Ant and some commercial products but in the end nothing would really interface with our project management system (which is also a mostly home-grown system that evolved over the past 10 years). The real problem was mainly because a single network build system had to support C++, C#, Mono, Perl, and a few other tidbits and all that on both Windows and Linux systems. What we basically did was a server based management component that communicates over a TCP/IP pipe with a Windows Service that is installed on the machines (and likewise a custom Daemon on Linux) and instructs it what to do and grants temporary access to the source depots that are located on a 1Gbps SAN over the network. Remarkably enough the Windows Services were written in C# and really look clean and simple.

Something I recently heard about that models along the same system is a SourceForge project called Draco.NET (http://draconet.sourceforge.net/).

Darkor
11-29-2003, 01:57 AM
Well, currently we don't have the time nor resources to build a home grown design, but it would be nice to have one. So it also runs cvs or does it do versioning too?

StefanDidak
11-29-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Darkor
Well, currently we don't have the time nor resources to build a home grown design, but it would be nice to have one. So it also runs cvs or does it do versioning too?

Yeah, the time involved in creating a custom system that covers all that is substantial, though we only have one person on staff who does all the extending, fixing, maintaining. For the source tree depot we used ClearCase but switched to Perforce because it was easier to hook up with our system that acts as the front-end while Perforce basically only runs as an "engine" behind it. That has served us well so far but we're now also looking into the product line of SourceGear which is modeled after VSS but uses a SQL engine as the backend and provides a full API for integration.

mastermesh
12-04-2003, 01:05 AM
Cool very interesting, but I've never been a big fan of using command-line compilers directly . The only thing I miss about the old days is that it was much simpler to program stuff, there wasn't a jillion headers and libraries with jillions of functions, classes, and interfaces. Nowadays, there's so much stuff it's impossible to be good at all of it.

Someone else mentioned eclipse, and I think that it's the simplest solution... I read about this solution in Webservices Journal cd that I got on a cd with another mag... anyways... Here's the deal... IBM released Eclipse as open-source in November, 2001 (esitamated value of $40 million worth of software at the time) and it's free at http://www.eclipse.org You neede the eclipse Ide from http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/index.php and the .Net SDK from http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/downloads/howtoget.asp

Once you get all that install the C# Plugin for eclipse do the following in eclipse (excerpt from Article Eclipsing.net by Kyle Gabhart WSJ Vol 2 Issue 10 pg 28):
1) Open Eclipse by running eclipse.exe in the base of the eclipse directory.

2) Open the Update Manager perspective (Help -> Software Updates -> Update Manager).

3) In the "Feature Updates" view (bottom left), right-click in the view window and select: New -> Site Bookmark...

4) Fill the Name field with "Improve's Eclipse Plugin Site", and the URL with "www.improve technologies.com/alpha/updates/site.xml". This XML file describes the plug-ins available for download from Improve Technologies, and will allow you access to those plug-ins now, and in the future.

5) A new bookmark, "Improve's Eclipse Plug-in Site," has been added. Expand it untill you find the newest Improve C# plugin feature ("C Sharp Feature x.x.x"). If you select the feature, its description will be displayed in the "Preview" view. You can read the license agreement by clicking the link.

6) In order to install the feature, click the "Install" button in the "Preview" view: click "Next" for each page; and then "Finish". On the last page ("Feature Verification"), click on the "Install" button. Eclipse will automatically install the feature, and you will be asked whether you want Eclipse to reboot or not. Say yes.

7) Once Eclipse has rebooted, you can check that the feature has been installed: expand the item "Current Configuration" (in the "Install Configuration" view), and you will find the feature in the list of the installed features. If you expand "Configuration History", you will see all the previous configurations. You can save a specific configuration so you can restore it later: right-click on a configuration and click "save".

8) The last step is to configure the new Eclipse C# perspective to use the .NET C# compiler that was installed with the .NET SDK earlier. To configure the C# compiler, navigate to the Eclipse Workbench preferences (Window -> Preferences) and select the C# Preferences item. This preferences window should now look similar to Figure 3. To specify the C# compiler (csc.exe), click the "Browse" button and navigate to the Microsoft .NET/Framework directory. On Windows 2000, that directory is C:\WINNT\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.0.3705\csc.exe. (The name of the directory under the Framework directory may vary depending upon what version of the .NET SDK you have installed.)
====
edit - improve changed the site since that article was written the actual imrprove c# plugin is at http://www.improve-technologies.com/alpha/updates/site.xml

MadMax334
12-11-2003, 04:06 PM
Direct X offer Managed direct X for c# which helps its speed for graphics not up there with c++ but preety good. its documented in the directx9 sdk update

CGTalk Moderation
01-16-2006, 09:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.