Comments on: Language feature parity and the polyglot programmer http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer/ Strong opinions, weakly held Thu, 23 May 2013 23:40:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Dony http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer/#comment-4599 Dony Tue, 08 May 2012 10:37:00 +0000 /blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer.aspx#comment-4599 You can use most fluent interfaces from VB.NET, but -man- they really do look ugly compared to their C# counterparts. Especialy the use of lambda expressions for nearly anything creates an interface that's accessable from VB.NET, but nothing more. Supporting another interface with lots of optional (named) parameters is much more VB.NET minded, but you won't find it on any major project because C# cannot handle this interface so easily. Yes, you can use nearly every C# library from VB.NET, but that doesn't mean it's suited for VB.NET. And you can't switch an entire company from VB.NET to C# just because of those o-so-beautiful fluent interfaces ... You can use most fluent interfaces from VB.NET, but -man- they really do look ugly compared to their C# counterparts. Especialy the use of lambda expressions for nearly anything creates an interface that’s accessable from VB.NET, but nothing more. Supporting another interface with lots of optional (named) parameters is much more VB.NET minded, but you won’t find it on any major project because C# cannot handle this interface so easily.

Yes, you can use nearly every C# library from VB.NET, but that doesn’t mean it’s suited for VB.NET. And you can’t switch an entire company from VB.NET to C# just because of those o-so-beautiful fluent interfaces …

]]> By: Anonymous http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer/#comment-3356 Anonymous Wed, 04 May 2011 17:47:00 +0000 /blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer.aspx#comment-3356 Well, I see the approaching of development to about-face acerb appear a polyglot world, area we’ll use specific languages in affairs area anniversary accent shines, while some languages abound to absorb added and added appearance from added worlds. <a href="http://www.dealsbell.com/store/toshiba/" rel="nofollow">toshiba coupon codes</a> Well, I see the approaching of development to about-face acerb appear a polyglot world, area we’ll use specific languages in affairs area anniversary accent shines, while some languages abound to absorb added and added appearance from added worlds.

toshiba coupon codes

]]> By: RJ Ryan http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer/#comment-1310 RJ Ryan Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:43:56 +0000 /blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer.aspx#comment-1310 imperative... function vs. imperative! and since when was CSS or HTML a langauge? They are really just data formats. imperative… function vs. imperative!

and since when was CSS or HTML a langauge? They are really just data formats.

]]> By: Kevin Dente http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer/#comment-1309 Kevin Dente Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:36:46 +0000 /blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer.aspx#comment-1309 At the PDC, Anders specifically said that feature parity between VB.NET and C# is now the policy. At the PDC, Anders specifically said that feature parity between VB.NET and C# is now the policy.

]]> By: bogardj http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer/#comment-1308 bogardj Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:21:20 +0000 /blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer.aspx#comment-1308 @derick The only reason VB.NET exists is to bring existing VB6 applications over to .NET. VB and C# are a special case, where the language designers have tried to create distinct identities, but this came at a non-trivial cost. There are still features in one that aren't in the other, but major features should be shared, as MS itself designs its APIs for both languages. @derick

The only reason VB.NET exists is to bring existing VB6 applications over to .NET. VB and C# are a special case, where the language designers have tried to create distinct identities, but this came at a non-trivial cost.

There are still features in one that aren’t in the other, but major features should be shared, as MS itself designs its APIs for both languages.

]]> By: derick.bailey http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer/#comment-1307 derick.bailey Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:17:11 +0000 /blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer.aspx#comment-1307 I agree with @nightshade427 on this one. why would i want two different language options for the same syntax? VB and C# should be distinctive. noone would expect IronRuby to have the same features and functionality as C#. the programming models are so completely different - static vs. dynamic. just because C# and VB are both static languages, doesn't mean they should be in feature parity. it just muddies the water of language choice. please, Microsoft. Do the world a favor and create languages that are meaningfully separated, not just syntactically language flavor separated. I agree with @nightshade427 on this one. why would i want two different language options for the same syntax? VB and C# should be distinctive.

noone would expect IronRuby to have the same features and functionality as C#. the programming models are so completely different – static vs. dynamic.

just because C# and VB are both static languages, doesn’t mean they should be in feature parity. it just muddies the water of language choice.

please, Microsoft. Do the world a favor and create languages that are meaningfully separated, not just syntactically language flavor separated.

]]> By: nightshade427 http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer/#comment-1306 nightshade427 Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:17:43 +0000 /blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer.aspx#comment-1306 I would rather see the languages deviate and have differentiating features and work on bringing different language communities into a more active role. Then have external 3rd party framework writers have to worry about if their framework will work on language X or Y. Every language will have its own idioms and even if the feature parity exists I doubt idiomatic parity will be there. Which means as a framework writer if I want my framework to work in all languages I will have to take the least common denominator as far as expressiveness goes in order to make all languages happy. I dont feel it is good to sacrifice this expressiveness just for the sake of language parity. So even with feature parity in place frameworks geared to be optimized for a specific language will be more natural in that language no matter what we do. So these arguments will continue on forever. I think this is the way it should be. If other languages like the framework then learn that language and broaden your horizens or write a similar framework with your language idioms in place. I would rather see the languages deviate and have differentiating features and work on bringing different language communities into a more active role. Then have external 3rd party framework writers have to worry about if their framework will work on language X or Y.

Every language will have its own idioms and even if the feature parity exists I doubt idiomatic parity will be there. Which means as a framework writer if I want my framework to work in all languages I will have to take the least common denominator as far as expressiveness goes in order to make all languages happy. I dont feel it is good to sacrifice this expressiveness just for the sake of language parity.

So even with feature parity in place frameworks geared to be optimized for a specific language will be more natural in that language no matter what we do. So these arguments will continue on forever.

I think this is the way it should be. If other languages like the framework then learn that language and broaden your horizens or write a similar framework with your language idioms in place.

]]> By: Scott Bellware http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer/#comment-1305 Scott Bellware Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:37:06 +0000 /blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/02/15/language-feature-parity-and-the-polyglot-programmer.aspx#comment-1305 > what we won’t need to worry about is the difference between the two dominant languages The only thing you have to go on to predict the future is yesterday's weather. Yesterday's weather says that we will continue to have this problem long into the future. Not until you sit down with the actual, final implementations of these two next gen editions of these languages could you responsibly be able to come to and promulgate any opinion of the problems that will be introduced. The one thing we know about Microsoft is that they screw up something new in an inconceivable and unpredictable way with every new release. > what we won’t need to worry about is the difference between the two dominant languages

The only thing you have to go on to predict the future is yesterday’s weather. Yesterday’s weather says that we will continue to have this problem long into the future.

Not until you sit down with the actual, final implementations of these two next gen editions of these languages could you responsibly be able to come to and promulgate any opinion of the problems that will be introduced.

The one thing we know about Microsoft is that they screw up something new in an inconceivable and unpredictable way with every new release.

]]>