 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Well, when it was a pretty new thing, I heard that # in the name was
>> actually four + symbols, so it's C++++, ie. "C# is to C++ what C++ is
>> to C".
>
> Given that it's pronounced "C Sharp", I expect it's because it's half a
> note higher than C. Like, on a piano keyboard.
That's the one.
C++ is C postincremented by 1 in C syntax.
C# is C incremented by one semitone in musical syntax.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Well, when it was a pretty new thing, I heard that # in the name was
> > actually four + symbols, so it's C++++, ie. "C# is to C++ what C++ is
> > to C".
>
> Given that it's pronounced "C Sharp", I expect it's because it's half a
> note higher than C. Like, on a piano keyboard.
Yes. Java decided to diss C/C++ by dropping any mention to it in the name, but
Microsoft in their infinite marketing wisdom felt they should instead try to
get to the hearts of old C/C++ folks. They also catered for buying managers by
substituting the irrelevant term "bytecode" for "managed code": you know, if
it's managed, it knows its place. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> But also, languages like python and ruby are often used where performance
> doesn't really matter.
The sad thing is that the places where performance shouldn't really matter is
the place where C/C++/Java/C# are firmly entrenched: running custom apps in TI
sections of non-software developer firms. It doesn't matter because such apps
are not usually infrastructure and if more performance is needed, it should
suffice to just throw more hardware. OTOH, throwing more programmers at late
projects is a bad idea, according to Fred Brooks...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> substituting the irrelevant term "bytecode" for "managed code":
Bytecode comes from Smalltalk, where each opcode was a byte. "Managed
code" means your resources are managed by the VM. So they really do mean
different orthogonal things.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The sad thing is that the places where performance shouldn't really matter is
> the place where C/C++/Java/C# are firmly entrenched: running custom apps in TI
> sections of non-software developer firms.
I think that one reason for that is the vast amount of libraries available
for those languages, as well as the amount of programmers with experience.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think that one reason for that is the vast amount of libraries available
> for those languages, as well as the amount of programmers with experience.
I think Haskell won't start really winning big-time until it has at
least one or other of those things.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> C++ is C postincremented by 1 in C syntax.
Strictly, shouldn't it be ++C? I mean, "C++" would have the same value
as "C" (yet incrimenting C afterwards).
> C# is C incremented by one semitone in musical syntax.
That's a noteworthy fact.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > substituting the irrelevant term "bytecode" for "managed code":
>
> Bytecode comes from Smalltalk, where each opcode was a byte. "Managed
> code" means your resources are managed by the VM. So they really do mean
> different orthogonal things.
But that's not the point. The point is that "bytecode" running in a "VM" were
suplanted by "managed code" because that sounds better to manager ears: if
it's managed, then it's code that know its place and works in schedule. ;)
Microsoft are marketing geniuses.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Microsoft are marketing geniuses.
Finally, a comment I won't disagree with...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Microsoft are marketing geniuses.
I think that goes without saying. (Yes, I understood what you were
saying. I was just clarifying where the terms came from, in general,
showing off my big brain. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
