yes,java is good lang,but i dont think it's better than c#,if no oracle or google support java will less and less.
C# is a good and easy lang.
i like C# .
but,C# cant compiled to native code.

So far, I have been searching for a language, like c # write efficiency, but more secure than that of c #, more efficient (runs), stronger (system-level, driving level)

On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 09:59:05 UTC, dnewer wrote:
> yes,java is good lang,but i dont think it's better than c#,if no oracle or google support java will less and less.
> C# is a good and easy lang.
> i like C# .
> but,C# cant compiled to native code.
>
> So far, I have been searching for a language, like c # write efficiency, but more secure than that of c #, more efficient (runs), stronger (system-level, driving level)


An other one is C# must rely on the CLR. but I prefer like Delphi that will need to be compiled into the exe or DLL.

so!hope D Lang is a good Select!

dnewer:

> but,C# cant compiled to native code.

Soon you will be able to compile C# natively.

Bye,
bearophile

On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 10:04:15 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> dnewer:
>
>> but,C# cant compiled to native code.
>
> Soon you will be able to compile C# natively.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

i know some thing about .net native.
but its too late.i dont think microsoft will rranslate all libiary to native.
and even c#  can be compile natively.
i dont think C# will support to can be used to write a driver!

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:08:23 +0000, dnewer wrote:

> and even c#  can be compile natively.
> i dont think C# will support to can be used to write a driver!

and you just don't need to write drivers.

On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 09:59:05 UTC, dnewer wrote:
> yes,java is good lang,but i dont think it's better than c#,if no oracle or google support java will less and less.
> C# is a good and easy lang.
> i like C# .
> but,C# cant compiled to native code.
>
> So far, I have been searching for a language, like c # write efficiency, but more secure than that of c #, more efficient (runs), stronger (system-level, driving level)

What has led you to this conclusion?  I don't personally find D very much like Java.  It definitely doesn't push OO design on you like Java (even where it isn't needed), and code is much more concise in my experience. I also find D very much more flexible.

I don't have any C# experience so I can't compare those languages much, but I've heard people say their are D / C# similarities.

Anyway, this isn't a criticism of your comment, I was just curious what (other than the shared C++ syntax heritage) you find so Java-like in D?

Cheers,

Craig

On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 13:52:13 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
>
> I don't have any C# experience so I can't compare those languages much, but I've heard people say their are D / C# similarities.
>
> Anyway, this isn't a criticism of your comment, I was just curious what (other than the shared C++ syntax heritage) you find so Java-like in D?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig

I've been using C# pretty extensively for the last year or so. Superficially, at least, C# and D are pretty similar, eg auto (var), foreach, lambdas, classes and structs. C# is more biased towards OO than D.

Metaprogramming is significantly weaker in C#. This is probably the one area where I've wished for some of D's functionality.

Reflection is all runtime.

C# has some AST capabilities that D doesn't. This is probably the main area where I envy C# when using D.

And C# has LINQ, which when combined with the last point is fricken awesome.

On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 23:46:28 UTC, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> And C# has LINQ, which when combined with the last point is fricken awesome.

what does LINQ offer that UFCS-style functional programming does not?

On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 23:57:33 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 23:46:28 UTC, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>> And C# has LINQ, which when combined with the last point is fricken awesome.
>
> what does LINQ offer that UFCS-style functional programming does not?

LINQ basically is a UFCS-style api. AST reflection is what makes it nice.

consider:

X.Where(x => x.Members.Count() == x.Admins.Count())

straightforward in both D and C# when X is an array or container type.

When X is a table in a database, things get tricky for D.

C# can interpret the lambda as an Expression<Func> (an AST type), so the implementation of X can reflect over the body of the lambda and use it to generate the appropriate SQL. ORMs such as entity framework and nhibernate do this now.

On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 00:56:24 UTC, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 23:57:33 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
>> On Saturday, 14 March 2015 at 23:46:28 UTC, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>>> And C# has LINQ, which when combined with the last point is fricken awesome.
>>
>> what does LINQ offer that UFCS-style functional programming does not?
>
> LINQ basically is a UFCS-style api. AST reflection is what makes it nice.
>
> consider:
>
> X.Where(x => x.Members.Count() == x.Admins.Count())
>
> straightforward in both D and C# when X is an array or container type.
>
> When X is a table in a database, things get tricky for D.
>
> C# can interpret the lambda as an Expression<Func> (an AST type), so the implementation of X can reflect over the body of the lambda and use it to generate the appropriate SQL. ORMs such as entity framework and nhibernate do this now.

Somewhat off-topic, but you could theoretically embed SQL directly in your D code using string mixins and have it statically checked at compile time (this would be pretty advanced usage, though).

mixin SQL!q{
    INSERT INTO Person(name, age, occupation)
    VALUES ('John', 25, 'Programmer')
};