Content deleted Content added
Line 211:
:::You also have to consider orthogonality, i.e. how well integrated the features are, how cohesive the design is (e.g. are "similar" features implemented in similar or different ways). If features are well integrated they may even remove complexity in cases where you would otherwise find limitations strange. Case in point: Methods in Javas anonymous inner classes can only refer to ''final'' members from the lexical scope. This is baffling to many Java newcomers. Even if closures with full lexical scope capture may seem an "extra" feature you can also make the argument that it makes the language a better "fit" with fewer surprises. [[User:Useerup|Useerup]] ([[User talk:Useerup|talk]]) 11:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
::: I can see how a red-is-bad and green-is-good mindset may be deceiving. Maybe we could prefix the table with a reference to a (new) section which discusses complexity vs. simplicity? Then there's the pragmatic dimension: Does "average" developers really need to understand C# has built-in (VM supported) marshalling or type-integration features (operator overloading, conversions) or is it ok that only library developers fully appreciate these features? [[User:Useerup|Useerup]] ([[User talk:Useerup|talk]]) 11:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
::: There is a distinct difference between the two languages that, I believe, has a direct bearing on the sizes of the feature sets of the two languages. C# is sold as product, and so has to have new features added every 18 months to make it necessary to buy the next version of Visual Studio. Java is not sold as a product in the same way. The rate of change of the language feature set has many repercussions outside the act of programming. For example, the availability and stability of third-party tools (particularly free/open-source tools). Also, the rate at which skills become out of date in the job market. [[User:Spockwithabeard|Spockwithabeard]] ([[User talk:Spockwithabeard|talk]]) 19:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
: Also, when reading through the code examples it seems that they always follow C# conventions (look at method names etc). Kinda clear it was written by someone with C# as their main language. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.229.219.4|85.229.219.4]] ([[User talk:85.229.219.4|talk]]) 11:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Always? The ''only'' example of this I can find is in the section ''Delegates / method references''. Feel free to change the Java example (I wrote it and to tell you the truth I really don't think it is too instructive: It doesn't demonstrate delegates very well and the Java "counterpart" comes across as contrived). Perhaps we should come up with a better example? Anyway, if you think that the conventions used are somehow bias'ed you should consider changing them. However, I fail to see how that is somehow skewing the article. I have written considerable amount of both Java and C# code and if you can point out where you think examples or text can be improved I'm ready to give it at shot. However, I feel that this article i about to outgrow itself and perhaps we should consider splitting up in sub-articles? [[User:Useerup|Useerup]] ([[User talk:Useerup|talk]]) 12:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
| |||