Talk:Comparison of C Sharp and Java: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:44, 24 May 2012

Revision as of 06:54, 30 August 2012

Line 16:

}}

__TOC__

== Simplicity vs. feature richness ==

Line 25 ⟶ 26:

This article has the potential to be good, however at the moment it's nothing more than a load of biased waffle. I use both C# and Java extensively and have no bias towards one or the other, but this page definitely does. [[Special:Contributions/86.26.141.146|86.26.141.146]] ([[User talk:86.26.141.146|talk]]) 17:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:Once again (see below): this article compares two languages by listing their features and mentioning alternatives on hethe other side. BecaueBecause C# has more features than Java, C# comes out as ... well, having more features. There is no bias in that whatsoever. Commenters like you keep coming here on how the article is 'biased towards' C#. I don't see any such bias. Please point it out. There definitely needs to be an opinion piece to explain to people using software that more features doesn't always equate better, but this article is not the place for that, I think. [[User:Rp|Rp]] ([[User talk:Rp|talk]]) 18:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

::<font face="Lucida Console">'''Article.biased() == false;'''</font> C# is simply a newer language than Java and thus has more features, because the C# programmers thought of stuff that the Java guys didn't. But that doesn't make it better. How it's ''used'' is important as well. Cheers, [[User talk:68.173.113.106|The Doctahedron]], 00:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

:I use both Java and C#. I prefer C# solely for its support of events. Now I've seen events in old pascalPascal code, so they aren't exactly a new concept - I know that this is just one example of a feature that Java is missing, but is it really that biased to point it out? After all, C# support on mobile phones is inexistent in most cases, and poor on Android - is there any free C# compiler for Android? This "missing feature" for C# is also pointed out in the article, along with arbitrary-length floats. Yes, Java has a lot of red boxes in that list, but that doesn't mean that the list is biased - just that Java has less features than C#. We could compare C# and Java to x86 assembly, and assembly would be almost a solid pane of red boxes - but this doesn't mean that it is worse or inferior, just that it is intended for a different purpose. [[Special:Contributions/90.194.203.69|90.194.203.69]] ([[User talk:90.194.203.69|talk]]) 12:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

::<font face="Lucida Console">'''Article.biased() == false;'''</font> C# is simply a newer language than Java and thus has more features because the C# programmers thought of stuff that the Java guys didn't. But that doesn't make it better. How it's ''used'' is important as well. Cheers, [[User talk:68.173.113.106|The Doctahedron]], 00:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

::My understanding was that this is supposed to be a discussion about the semantics of the language, and that the underlying platforms were compared elsewhere. C# has language-level support for a lot of things Java doesn't, so a feature-comparison (an objective way to compare the two) will intrinsically favor C#. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/152.23.122.74|152.23.122.74]] ([[User talk:152.23.122.74|talk]]) 20:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I use both Java and C#. I prefer C# solely for its support of events. Now I've seen events in old pascal code, so they aren't exactly a new concept - I know that this is just one example of a feature that Java is missing, but is it really that biased to point it out? After all, C# support on mobile phones is inexistent in most cases, and poor on Android - is there any free C# compiler for Android? This "missing feature" for C# is also pointed out in the article, along with arbitrary-length floats. Yes, Java has a lot of red boxes in that list, but that doesn't mean that the list is biased - just that Java has less features than C#. We could compare C# and Java to x86 assembly, and assembly would be almost a solid pane of red boxes - but this doesn't mean that it is worse or inferior, just that it is intended for a different purpose. [[Special:Contributions/90.194.203.69|90.194.203.69]] ([[User talk:90.194.203.69|talk]]) 12:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

::I used both C# and Java after a long time with C++. I think the debiasing of the article should be done by ''explaining'' the differences of the two languages, not only enlisting them. If Java is "missing" some features because it is older, this should be clearified and referenced. If a feature thought to be missing 'cause it's intended for a different purpose, again, a referenced information is needed. I think this discussion here shows that the article ''seems'' to be biased, but actually lacks referenced clarifications. As I used Java around two years and C# less than a year in projects, I think others with more experience would be more appropriate for this job. To the experts: Please, please do not forget that you are writing for an encyclopedia. I plead to the prophets of both languages to add facts, if they are interested to add anything, and not a list of dogmas. [[User:Sae1962|Sae1962]] ([[User talk:Sae1962|talk]]) 06:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

::My understanding was that this is supposed to be a discussion about the semantics of the language, and that the underlying platforms were compared elsewhere. C# has language-level support for a lot of things Java doesn't, so a feature-comparison (an objective way to compare the two) will intrinsically favor C#. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/152.23.122.74|152.23.122.74]] ([[User talk:152.23.122.74|talk]]) 20:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Unified type system ==