 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> evidence for the need for better error messages
I was actually pretty impressed by the C# IDE from MS. I wrote
void do_it(int a, int b, int c = 0) { ... }
and the error message wasn't ") or , expected" or "syntax error", but rather
a pointer to the = and the message "C# does not support default arguments."
I was also impressed when I started up my program under test in full screen
and the IDE bumped its debugger windows over to the second screen and put
them back when the program exited. Cool attention to detail. Not that this
has anything to do with the current thread.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/25/2010 02:58 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> evidence for the need for better error messages
>
> I was actually pretty impressed by the C# IDE from MS. I wrote
>
How have you liked C# so far? I last tried it when it was a pretty new
language and it came across as a slightly altered version of Java, but I
imagine it's changed a fair bit since then.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> I was actually pretty impressed by the C# IDE from MS. I wrote
> void do_it(int a, int b, int c = 0) { ... }
> and the error message wasn't ") or , expected" or "syntax error", but rather
> a pointer to the = and the message "C# does not support default arguments."
But is that kind of message the rule or the exception?
And it's not like gcc didn't have similar-sounding error messages:
error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of 'x' with no type
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:39:25 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> One of the better ones I've seen.
>
> http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/writing_rant.html
He missed "Pseudocode", which I'd write as:
Coding in pseudocode is like a metaphor.
;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/25/2010 05:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/writing_rant.html
>
> He missed "Pseudocode", which I'd write as:
>
> Coding in pseudocode is like a metaphor.
I like it! (although given your sentence construction shouldn't that be
"simile", or alternatively "Coding in pseudocode is a metaphor"?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> How have you liked C# so far?
I do. I've been using it on and off from early on.
> I last tried it when it was a pretty new
> language and it came across as a slightly altered version of Java,
Well, at first glance it looks like that, but deeper in it has a whole lot
of good stuff Java doesn't. Until you start going into complex stuff, it's
just "Java, fixed." Once you start trying to do something difficult (like
access to native languages, deployment, web scripts, generating code at
run-time, etc) it's way better.
> imagine it's changed a fair bit since then.
Indeed it has. C# 1.0 was sort of "Java, improved." C# 3.x by now has all
kinds of goodies in it that Java lacks.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> But is that kind of message the rule or the exception?
The error messages are all good, but I usually don't get an error at compile
time because the IDE puts a red squiggly under compile-time errors and a
green or blue squiggly for warnings, as you type. The IDE is really an order
of magnitude better than anything else I've ever used.
That was just surprising, because MS anticipated that someone would do that
and special-cased the parser just to handle a common error message.
> And it's not like gcc didn't have similar-sounding error messages:
> error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of 'x' with no type
I've gotten a few of those and not understood them, actually. I don't
remember what I had, but having something more along the lines of "you
forgot an #include" would be a better error message, I think. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:15:40 -0800, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> On 02/25/2010 05:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/writing_rant.html
>>
>> He missed "Pseudocode", which I'd write as:
>>
>> Coding in pseudocode is like a metaphor.
>
> I like it! (although given your sentence construction shouldn't that be
> "simile", or alternatively "Coding in pseudocode is a metaphor"?)
Technically, I guess "simile" would be correct there - I always get the
two mixed up. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:15:40 -0800, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>
>> On 02/25/2010 05:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/writing_rant.html
>>> He missed "Pseudocode", which I'd write as:
>>>
>>> Coding in pseudocode is like a metaphor.
>> I like it! (although given your sentence construction shouldn't that be
>> "simile", or alternatively "Coding in pseudocode is a metaphor"?)
>
> Technically, I guess "simile" would be correct there - I always get the
> two mixed up. :-)
At least I have something to show for all the effort my teachers spent
hammering the difference into my head!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> How have you liked C# so far?
>
> I do. I've been using it on and off from early on.
>
>> I last tried it when it was a pretty new language and it came across
>> as a slightly altered version of Java,
>
> Well, at first glance it looks like that, but deeper in it has a whole
> lot of good stuff Java doesn't. Until you start going into complex
> stuff, it's just "Java, fixed." Once you start trying to do something
> difficult (like access to native languages, deployment, web scripts,
> generating code at run-time, etc) it's way better.
Makes sense. I think the runtime code generation was what I was
particularly interested in, and I'm pretty sure it didn't have much in
the way of that when I last looked at it. Now that I have Visual Studio
maybe I'll take a look at it again sometime.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
