Which language should I learn?

[arienh4]

[QUOTE=ZeekyHBomb;24290692]What I meant by that is that C++ requires less 'help' from the OS that C# does.
But like I said, I don't know if that is true for the languages without their standard libraries.
[/QUOTE]
As I said, Mono bundles stop this problem. They need just as much 'help' from the OS as C++.
[QUOTE=ZeekyHBomb;24290692]
You also need to make sure to use stuff like System.Environment.EndLine and System.IO.Path.PathSeperator, but even if you run into issues with that, these are easily debugged and fixed.
I did get a rather weird crash on OSX with a Windows.Forms app though, which ran fine on Windows and Linux.
Gtk# didn't really appeal to me, as it seemed to require more work and I was just after a quick and simple GUI.[/QUOTE]
That goes for C++ too. If you compile an app using CRLF on Windows you'll run into trouble as well. .NET just makes it easier by helping you out.

WinForms have always worked well for me, not sure what your issue was.

[ZeekyHBomb]

[QUOTE=arienh4;24290785]As I said, Mono bundles stop this problem. They need just as much 'help' from the OS as C++.[/QUOTE]
No.
Mono and .NET are just implementations of Microsofts CLI.
Besides, the gcc runs on way more platforms than Mono does.

My point there isn't really the availability of those languages, but the portability thereof. For example, C++ does not have native threads, C# does (System.Thread). This requires the platform to be able to handle multiple tasks.
If you take out the standard libraries though, I do not know if there are such additional requirements.

[QUOTE=arienh4;24290785]That goes for C++ too. If you compile an app using CRLF on Windows you'll run into trouble as well. .NET just makes it easier by helping you out.[/QUOTE]
I didn't mean that as a point against C#s portability.
But yes, you run into those problems in C++ as well as in C#.

[arienh4]

[QUOTE=ZeekyHBomb;24291034]No.
Mono and .NET are just implementations of Microsofts CLI.
Besides, the gcc runs on way more platforms than Mono does.

My point there isn't really the availability of those languages, but the portability thereof. For example, C++ does not have native threads, C# does (System.Thread). This requires the platform to be able to handle multiple tasks.
If you take out the standard libraries though, I do not know if there are such additional requirements.[/QUOTE]
C# code can be used on any platform that Mono supports. C++ can run on [b]only[/b] the platform it was compiled for, and even cross-compiling usually requires some degree of porting.

[jA_cOp]

There's no difference between C# and C++ on the porting part. You can use non-portable libraries in C# as well.

[arienh4]

[QUOTE=jA_cOp;24293630]There's no difference between C# and C++ on the porting part. You can use non-portable libraries in C# as well.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but C# assemblies can run on different systems unmodified, just like Python scripts for example. C# uses system-agnostic calls for everything.

As per threading, timeslots can be emulated.

[ZeekyHBomb]

I am talking about the portability of the language itself, not its program made with it or executables.

[jA_cOp]

[QUOTE=arienh4;24293830]Yeah, but C# assemblies can run on different systems unmodified, just like Python scripts for example. C# uses system-agnostic calls for everything.

As per threading, timeslots can be emulated.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't help if the library isn't portable. It will just runtime-error instead of erroring at compile-time.

Binary portability will always be less portable than portability at the source-code level, where languages like C excel over languages running on the .NET platform. And even in terms of binary portability, C#.NET is looking bleak compared to, for example, the Java platform.

edit:

And there's no guarantee that C# "uses system-agnostic calls for everything". If you use a library which isn't designed to work on multiple platforms, having its binary be executable on several platforms is completely useless.

[arienh4]

[QUOTE=jA_cOp;24294228]That doesn't help if the library isn't portable. It will just runtime-error instead of erroring at compile-time.

Binary portability will always be less portable than portability at the source-code level, where languages like C excel over languages running on the .NET platform. And even in terms of binary portability, C#.NET is looking bleak compared to, for example, the Java platform.

edit:

And there's no guarantee that C# "uses system-agnostic calls for everything". If you use a library which isn't designed to work on multiple platforms, having its binary be executable on several platforms is completely useless.[/QUOTE]
True. It just depends on the code itself.

[turb_]

[QUOTE=jA_cOp;24294228]And even in terms of binary portability, C#.NET is looking bleak compared to, for example, the Java platform.[/QUOTE]

Mono is 100% binary compatible with .NET, the only issues it has is the implementations of some parts of the library (namely W*F)

[K3ND0G]

C++ ftw biatch

[POWA KILLERDeux]

ASM

Nah just fucking with you, C++.

[st0rmforce]

You should make your own language
And then learn that

[efeX]

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;24333288]You should make your own language
And then learn that[/QUOTE]

wise words right here

[turb_]

[QUOTE=POWA KILLERDeux;24330668]ASM

Nah just fucking with you[/QUOTE]

:saddowns:

[Longbear]

As a beginner C# and JAVA are pretty simple and straight forward languages.
Personally C++ in my opinion is something that someone with a programming background should get into.

You can start learning how to use variables in things like batch make
kewl skriptz and hax peple and then move your way up to actual languages
if programing seems complicated at first.

[supersnail11]

PHP + html for web development
AS3 or Java for Web Applications.
C++, C, Java, C#, Python. Ruby, Perl, ETC. for Desktop Apps.
C#, C++, Python for Games

Just basic apps....C++ or Python, Python's Easier

[turb_]

[QUOTE=supersnail11;24412457]PHP + html for web development
AS3 or Java for Web Applications.[/QUOTE]

no

[i300]

[QUOTE=supersnail11;24412457] Ruby, Perl, ETC. for Desktop Apps.[/QUOTE]

no

[jA_cOp]

[QUOTE=turb_;24419668]no[/QUOTE]

Agreed!

[QUOTE=i300;24419698]no[/QUOTE]

Now what's wrong with that?

[turb_]

[QUOTE=jA_cOp;24432174]Now what's wrong with that?[/QUOTE]

I assume by desktop apps, he means GUI apps. If so, Tk (not sure which is the predominant Ruby GUI library) is a mess.

[TheBoff]

[url]http://wxruby.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl[/url] ?

[jA_cOp]

[QUOTE=turb_;24432534]I assume by desktop apps, he means GUI apps. If so, Tk (not sure which is the predominant Ruby GUI library) is a mess.[/QUOTE]

Well there's a bunch to choose from like with any popular language, including bindings for all the major GUI libraries. It's pretty pointless to pick at Ruby and Perl but not Python, for example.

[editline]10:07PM[/editline]

[QUOTE=TheBoff;24432640][url]http://wxruby.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl[/url] ?[/QUOTE]

[url=http://stackoverflow.com/questions/260905/whats-the-best-easiest-gui-library-for-ruby]A quick search[/url] seems to confirm that wxRuby should be pretty good.

edit:

Wow, did you notice that the extension for that page is .pl? :v:

[TheBoff]

Yeah I did :D Thought it was pretty ironic, especially as the TLD is "rubyforge.org".