Balboos
Mon Dec 01 20:16:43 CST 2003
Like all things, in programming it is also true: one exchanges
convenience for control. One driving force of going to a lower level
language is that one finds in the higher level language one "can't get
there from here". Or the path is very cumbersome and inefficient.
A chain saw is better at cutting down trees, and a hand saw will take a
much longer time to do the job. But then, when you need to cut a board
to size, the chain saw may lose its appeal.
As for C# - it appears to be an unnecessary step - almost redundant with
Visual Basic (or will it truly replace it?). An it sure looks an awful
lot like JAVA.
Excuse me for being cynical, but MS would have better served its
customers by using the C# development crew to debug Windows !
Other's opinions will vary. My view may be distorted by having found,
in the past, Assembly Language the correct solution at times.
Balboos
Alan B wrote:
> "Jack" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in news:8f0c01c3b5db
> $8739e710$a601280a@phx.gbl:
>
>
>>Hi Alan,
>>What if I use SQL/views to poplulate controls, grids and
>>access/save data. Would it be any easier? Are the
>>controls similar to VFP? Is C# OPP lite and RAD like VFP?
>
>
> Again, might be easier but nothing will be as easy as it is in VFP! The
> controls are broadly similar, i.e. a Textbox will have much the same
> properties and events as a VFP textbox.
>
> C# has C-like syntax but is much simpler - a lot of the tedium of pure C
> like pointers, memory management and so on is removed. To me it's like C
> with all the annoying crap you have to do to get anything working removed.
> Also, ADO.Net is probably easier for data access.
>