Best language to start with for noobs?

[Yegg]

My experience with system level programming is very low, but i know which languages are best suited for which style of programming. I also understand that majority of the things done in C could be completed in C#., after all it was influenced by C/C++.

Just curious, but what sort of things made in C should have been made in C#.

[Barabajagal]

could, not should...

[Hell-Lord]

Well what i was referring to was in applications not as such at a system level. Because C is still used often in applications and well quite obviously C# is. I wouldn't have so much of a clue as to what could be done with either at a system level as my experience is low.

[devcode]

I would have to agree with Banana on this, C is perfect for system level programming. It was designed purely for System programming.

And your experience in System programming is what? Or are you just going with the grain?
It's advantages at the system level are outweighed by it's bad points.

You act as if C is the only language you can work at the lowest level with. Considering even Java and C# have been used for Systems programming (however, highly unpractical to implement by most hobbyists), it does show the viability of other languages as System level languages.

Some that come to mind are Pascal and D as languages which can easily have their toolchain edited to work at the low level. Both are pretty fun too.

lol @ Warrior's comment about C being  a bad language, C# fanboyz in teh hizzouse! For the various embedded low level development I've done/doing incl. mobile devices, I haven't seen C# used but I've seen a JVM layer running atop of the operating system and the entire application layer is written in Java. Everything else was in C/assembly.

[Falcon[anti-yL]]

Wasn't C# influenced by Java as well? I remember in my last year of HS CS we did C# programming and a lot of syntax was identical with Java.

[Yegg]

Wasn't C# influenced by Java as well? I remember in my last year of HS CS we did C# programming and a lot of syntax was identical with Java.

Yes.

[Camel]

I mean, at least when I argued this same thing with Camel on the x86 forums he was able to come up with some competent responses.

I was simply stating that Java is supported by my operating systems than .NET; I actually didn't know the XBox 360 supported .NET, that's pretty cool.


@Falcon: C# was influenced heavily by C and OO design, not necessarily Java. Java had the same influences, so it shouldn't be surprising that there's overlap.

[Warrior]

I mean, at least when I argued this same thing with Camel on the x86 forums he was able to come up with some competent responses.

I was simply stating that Java is supported by my operating systems than .NET; I actually didn't know the XBox 360 supported .NET, that's pretty cool.


@Falcon: C# was influenced heavily by C and OO design, not necessarily Java. Java had the same influences, so it shouldn't be surprising that there's overlap.

Yea, it's enjoyable discussing with you. I was merely pointing it out. Much easier when it isn't degenerated to ad hominem attacks.

I think C# was influenced heavily by both Java and OO, it does a lot right and I'm very enthusiastic about it. I've dabbled with Java and it's never left a bad impression on me either. I don't press the fact that C# is superior to Java or vice versa, just that it's definitely a player in the same category.

[Warrior]

I would have to agree with Banana on this, C is perfect for system level programming. It was designed purely for System programming.

And your experience in System programming is what? Or are you just going with the grain?
It's advantages at the system level are outweighed by it's bad points.

You act as if C is the only language you can work at the lowest level with. Considering even Java and C# have been used for Systems programming (however, highly unpractical to implement by most hobbyists), it does show the viability of other languages as System level languages.

Some that come to mind are Pascal and D as languages which can easily have their toolchain edited to work at the low level. Both are pretty fun too.

lol @ Warrior's comment about C being  a bad language, C# fanboyz in teh hizzouse! For the various embedded low level development I've done/doing incl. mobile devices, I haven't seen C# used but I've seen a JVM layer running atop of the operating system and the entire application layer is written in Java. Everything else was in C/assembly.

So anyone who disagrees with your personal opinion about C is a fanboy? Right.
I've never said C# (god no) was better than C at system programming. I merely stated that C is just one of many alternatives.

You're right though, most nano kernels are implemented in C/ASM at the very (very low) levels. This usually relays to filling out certain tables in memory locations, writing to and from hardware ports, etc.

Singularity, an OS written in mostly C# uses C++/ASM for it's very low level stuff. The advantage of a managed kernel are many. You can be assured of a lot of things, and it saves the headache of certain security mechanisms. Additionally, since all code is proofed to be type safe and sealed, it's possible to run everything in one address space which allows the flexibility and power of a Microkernel without the expense of a Context Switch.

That's for another topic however.

[devcode]

I would have to agree with Banana on this, C is perfect for system level programming. It was designed purely for System programming.

And your experience in System programming is what? Or are you just going with the grain?
It's advantages at the system level are outweighed by it's bad points.

You act as if C is the only language you can work at the lowest level with. Considering even Java and C# have been used for Systems programming (however, highly unpractical to implement by most hobbyists), it does show the viability of other languages as System level languages.

Some that come to mind are Pascal and D as languages which can easily have their toolchain edited to work at the low level. Both are pretty fun too.

lol @ Warrior's comment about C being  a bad language, C# fanboyz in teh hizzouse! For the various embedded low level development I've done/doing incl. mobile devices, I haven't seen C# used but I've seen a JVM layer running atop of the operating system and the entire application layer is written in Java. Everything else was in C/assembly.

So anyone who disagrees with your personal opinion about C is a fanboy? Right.
I've never said C# (god no) was better than C at system programming. I merely stated that C is just one of many alternatives.

You're right though, most nano kernels are implemented in C/ASM at the very (very low) levels. This usually relays to filling out certain tables in memory locations, writing to and from hardware ports, etc.

Singularity, an OS written in mostly C# uses C++/ASM for it's very low level stuff. The advantage of a managed kernel are many. You can be assured of a lot of things, and it saves the headache of certain security mechanisms. Additionally, since all code is proofed to be type safe and sealed, it's possible to run everything in one address space which allows the flexibility and power of a Microkernel without the expense of a Context Switch.

That's for another topic however.

Hi.

[Warrior]

Hi.

What? You wanted a response, and I gave you one. It's one of those "cant stand the heat get out of the fire" type things.
Thanks.

[devcode]

Hi.

What? You wanted a response, and I gave you one. It's one of those "cant stand the heat get out of the fire" type things.
Thanks.

Bright sunny day out here.

[Warrior]

Hi.

What? You wanted a response, and I gave you one. It's one of those "cant stand the heat get out of the fire" type things.
Thanks.

Bright sunny day out here.

It's so-so here.

[Barabajagal]

Somewhat cloudy for me. Which sucks cause I'm on solar...

[warz]

Humid and hot in Texas!