|
:::::As [[User:Sander_S%C3%A4de|<span style="font-family:Courier; color:#555">Sander Säde</span>]] says, you are linking to the ''non-generic'' version (comparable to a "raw" type in java). C# has generic versions of collections and in there you will find a List<T> as was demonstrated to you in the example above. Repeat: Value types are first-class citizens and unlike in Java '''no boxing''' is performed when stored in a generic collection of the same type. It has to do with the fact that C# has reified generics and does not erase the type of generics parameters.--[[User:Useerup|Useerup]] ([[User talk:Useerup|talk]]) 16:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Trying to implement a Complex type in C# is a good exemple of what C# can do with value types and operator overloading (kind of new primitive types). It is impossible in Java. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/193.8.222.12|193.8.222.12]] ([[User talk:193.8.222.12|talk]]) 10:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== I think you're missing the point... ==
Some contributors have hinted at what I'm going to say. Perhaps it should be stated directly.
It's "obvious" that a language with "more" and "better" features is the "superior" language, right? Well, ''maybe''. This article ignores the point that the differences among languages aren't as important as the differences among the ''programs'' you write with these languages. For example...
How do Java's seeming "deficiencies" affect one's ability to implement a particular programming approach?<br />
How often do programmers have to "work around" particular features in either language?<br />
How do the languages' features and syntax affect one's ability to write clear, easily maintainted code?<br />
In other words... how do the differences between Java and C# affect their utility as programming tools, including algorithmic "expressiveness"?
I'm sure programmers more-experienced than I will have caught things I've missed. But the article is too low-level; it overlooks the broader issues. [[User:WilliamSommerwerck|WilliamSommerwerck]] ([[User talk:WilliamSommerwerck|talk]]) 20:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
::(not sure what/who the above comment is aimed at but here goes) No, it is not obvious that a language with more features is "superior" (as you out it). The objective of this article is not to pass judgement on which is superior. You are setting up a straw-man argument. A wikipedia article is about verifiable facts. This article should only under exceptional circumstances label anything as a "deficiency" - and should only do so if there are ample authoritative sources for such a claim. Whether a language supports a specific (or equivalent) feature, or even how it supports a given programming discipline (functional programming, dynamic programs, object oriented programs, numeric or financial applications etc) can be demonstrated by careful examples. However, turning the article into a survey or synthesis of how the languages are actually used would violate WP:NOR. That said, I'm all for creating a more ''discipline'' oriented article (as opposed to a feature-oriented article). It is, however, very difficult to do so without introducing original research. [[User:Useerup|Useerup]] ([[User talk:Useerup|talk]]) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
::: I'm concerned that this article contains really a lot of original research, which is maybe inevitable considering the amount of content in it. But I think it has much too many content for its subject. Sticking to valid sources would reduce its content, but improve its quality (and be in line with Wikipedia rules BTW). For now even for programmers its very difficult to read. BTW there is a tendency in this article to explain concepts, but I would prefer to have the explanation in the specific articles about these concepts (example Delegates) rather than in this already overly long comparison article. [[User:Hervegirod|Hervegirod]] ([[User talk:Hervegirod|talk]]) 21:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:: I agree with [[User:WilliamSommerwerck|WilliamSommerwerck]]. A "feature rich" language tends to be more efficient in some aspects, but it is harder to understand and to maintain. Languages are used to write applications. In more features more treacherous details may hide. For example, comparing signed and unsigned integers may create a serious problem in C/C++. Not having unsigned integers means significant simplification of "rules of the game". In my opinion this is no defficiency, this is GOOD. The article marks not having unsigned integers as Java defficiency, this is ignorance. However, from the point of view C programmer the differences between C# and Java are too small to say which language is "better". Maybe Python ;) --[[Special:Contributions/193.165.212.242|193.165.212.242]] ([[User talk:193.165.212.242|talk]]) 11:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC) ([[:cs:User:Pteryx]])
== Suggest correction to "High-Precision Floating Point" row on the feature table ==
Decimal is a fixed-point type. It's the exact opposite of floating point. The only thing they have in common is that they both can have a decimal point in their string representations. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.193.1.106|66.193.1.106]] ([[User talk:66.193.1.106|talk]]) 14:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Decimal is a [[Decimal floating point|floating-point]] type. It's modeled as -1<sup>sign</sup> * coefficient * 10<sup>-exponent</sup>. The exponent term determines where the decimal point will be, hence "floating-point." A [[Fixed-point arithmetic|fixed-point]] value is basically an integer with an assumed radix point at a predefined position. [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.sqltypes.sqldecimal.aspx SqlDecimal] is closer to a fixed-point type, but the scale is still adjustable and it doesn't have the performance benefit that you might expect from a true fixed-point type. [[User:Maghnus|Maghnus]] ([[User talk:Maghnus|talk]]) 12:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
== Incorrect/Outdate Comparison Chart ==
| 