.net eclipse…

[Keebler Elf]

I have seen people saying they were working on a .net eclipse a couple differnt times. All the ones in the "Your Edit" section of the forum are locked. Do you know if anyone ever got close to finishing one.

[Robin]

No, and for a reason.

Creating Eclipse in .NET is like taking a two steps to the left and one step back. Walk forward and use a decent language.

[TimeBomb]

@Robin:

> No, and for a reason.
>
> Creating Eclipse in .NET is like taking a two steps to the left and one step back. Walk forward and use a decent language.

Huh? Is that why 95% of 2D MMO engines such as eclipse and mirage variations are still built off a programming language that will be discontinued in the next Windows operating system?

Anyways, I would probably skip over VB.Net and go straight to C#. It's quite a bit more manuverable and more powerful, while still using a similar syntax.

The problem is that those people saying they want to move Eclipse over from VB6 to another language usually:
1) Don't know much about VB6
2) Don't know much about the language they are switching over to
3) Don't have enough time
4) All of the above

For me, it'd mainly be a matter of time and how 'into it' I would be. If I were to move eclipse origins persay, from VB6 to C#, it would take a lot of time and dedication, and I'm not sure I can give a project like that enough of either of those.

[Helladen]

Aero is currently working on a .NET engine, but as for Eclipse I do not know. (Not Public usage)

[Skaterboy991]

I'm working on a .NET engine, actually.. have been for quite awhile now. Not for Eclipse but for my own team, but I am taking some characteristics from Eclipse (and improving them..) for it.

[Godlord]

@TimeBomb:

> Huh? Is that why 95% of 2D MMO engines such as eclipse and mirage variations are still built off a programming language that will be discontinued in the next Windows operating system?

The reasons why Mirage Source was created in VB6 is because at the time it was the language was very popular. All other engines like Eclipse have inherited the source and/or the language. The reason why Eclipse et al haven't moved to another language such as C/C++ is due to traditions and therefore "nationalism" and due to the fact that most developers, or better yet hobbyists or indie developers, are more familiar with VB6 and do not want to make such a move.

Also, VB6 has been considered obsolete since the release of VB7, which is better known as VB2003, and was made obsolete since Windows Vista.

@TimeBomb:

> Anyways, I would probably skip over VB.Net and go straight to C#. It's quite a bit more manuverable and more powerful, while still using a similar syntax.

C# is part of the .net framework as well and moving towards the .net framework wouldn't be a good idea either. The most ideal programming languages for game development are: C, C++, D and Java, where one might disagree with the two latter. All other languages are usually boosted, although they are usually seriously flawed for game development.

@TimeBomb:

> The problem is that those people saying they want to move Eclipse over from VB6 to another language usually:
> 1) Don't know much about VB6
> 2) Don't know much about the language they are switching over to
> 3) Don't have enough time
> 4) All of the above

It's better to say that the factors that affect that exact issue are time and knowledge in general. Time as some developers might not have the time to book progress. Knowledge as some developers do not possess a stable fundamental knowledge about game development, and that even less developers have an extended form of this.

@TimeBomb:

> For me, it'd mainly be a matter of time and how 'into it' I would be. If I were to move eclipse origins persay, from VB6 to C#, it would take a lot of time and dedication, and I'm not sure I can give a project like that enough of either of those.

I, myself, would never make the move from VB6 to C# for the simple reason that C# is a boosted language as I indicated above. If I were to port an engine I'd rewrite it in C, C++, D or Java as those are languages that are common in the world of game development.

@Robin:

> No, and for a reason.
>
> Creating Eclipse in .NET is like taking a two steps to the left and one step back. Walk forward and use a decent language.

I agree with your here and I really couldn't agree more. Most developers seem to put the emphasis on "easy" or "simple" when choosing a language instead of "decent".

Regards,
  Stephan.

[TimeBomb]

VB6 will literally not work at all after Windows 7 [I.e. the next OS released after W7].

On top of that, the .NET framework is very common nowadays, and Microsoft is trying to make it even more common. This would explain why the latest OS's released by Microsoft come with the .NET framework already installed.

I will agree that relying on the .NET framework may not be the best idea when it comes to professional games, but these games made with VB6 engines are, or at least should only be for, hobbyists who want to make an ORPG.

I will say that CPP is probably the best choice for developing a professional game or MMORPG, but if you are just wanting to create a better hobbyist MOG engine [I.e. eclipse], then I would suggest using something more simple like C#.

If you are a good programmer with a lot of time and an actual development team, then I would suggest using either Java or CPP, as you have pointed out. I prefer java at the moment, but the main problem with that is that java requires a high amount of RAM usage for the server, and if your client is based in java as well, then it's not going to be very CPU-intensive-friendly.

[Godlord]

@TimeBomb:

> VB6 will literally not work at all after Windows 7 [I.e. the next OS released after W7].

It wasn't meant to be working since Windows Vista, but Microsoft failed once again.

@TimeBomb:

> On top of that, the .NET framework is very common nowadays, and Microsoft is trying to make it even more common. This would explain why the latest OS's released by Microsoft come with the .NET framework already installed.

It's so common that all the machines at my home and at my school do not support it and yes I'm talking about x86-machines (a.k.a. AMD/Intel). If you want to know, there are eight x86-machines at my home.

@TimeBomb:

> I will agree that relying on the .NET framework may not be the best idea when it comes to professional games, but these games made with VB6 engines are, or at least should only be for, hobbyists who want to make an ORPG.

Even for small games I wouldn't use it. What do you want? Be able to extend it because it's written in a decent language, or that you have to rewrite it again since it wasn't written in a decent language?

@TimeBomb:

> I will say that CPP is probably the best choice for developing a professional game or MMORPG, but if you are just wanting to create a better hobbyist MOG engine [I.e. eclipse], then I would suggest using something more simple like C#.

I don't see how C# is simpler than C++, having knowledge about both programming languages. Unless you think DarkGDK makes your life easy, in which case I'd just counter with SFML or SDL.

@TimeBomb:

> If you are a good programmer with a lot of time and an actual development team, then I would suggest using either Java or CPP, as you have pointed out. I prefer java at the moment, but the main problem with that is that java requires a high amount of RAM usage for the server, and if your client is based in java as well, then it's not going to be very CPU-intensive-friendly.

You don't need an "actual development team" to programme in Java or C++, neither do you need one for any other language such as C, D, Assembly and so on. The only requirement is that you possess knowledge about the language you want to use, and preferably (near) full knowledge and that you have knowledge about game development.

The reason why I wouldn't use anything other than C, C++ or D for game development and especially for intensive game development is that other languages will pass out the more you need and the more you optimise. (e.g. most programming languages do not support inline Assembly and therefore they have no access to SIMD-extensions like Altivec, SSE, 3DNow!, MMX, etc., which would be a requirement for 3D nowadays).

Regards,
  Stephan.

[AeroEBrown]

I am sure it would be fairly strait forward to port VB6 Eclipse to .NET.

To be honest, VB.NET is more powerful than most people know. So is C#, and C++.

Also, VB6 and VB.NET have some things in common, it would not take as much work as most think to port it. And you could easily add new features, better features.

I don't do any VB6 programming, because honestly, VB6 is a dead language to me. I would prefer to use a language that will be more useful in the coming years. C#, C++, VB.NET, etc. There are others, less famous others, but still.

Besides, you can use VB.NET and still target it for lower class computers. I am using C# targeted to .NET 2.0, which is available in Windows 98, 98 SE, 2000 SP3, ME, Server 2003, XP SP 2, Vista, and 7\. And I use DirectX 9.0c which is available for Windows 2000, 2000 Adv Server, 2000 Server, 2000 Pro, 2000 SP 2, 2000 SP 3, 2000 SP 4, 98, 98 SE, ME, Server 2003, XP, XP Home, XP Pro, XP Media Center, and XP SP 1\. It was included in all Windows Versions of XP SP 2 and above. That includes XP SP 3, Vista, and 7.

Thanks,
Aero/EBrown

[TimeBomb]

@Stephan:

> @TimeBomb:
>
> > VB6 will literally not work at all after Windows 7 [I.e. the next OS released after W7].
>
> It wasn't meant to be working since Windows Vista, but Microsoft failed once again.
> **Alright then**
>
> @TimeBomb:
>
> > On top of that, the .NET framework is very common nowadays, and Microsoft is trying to make it even more common. This would explain why the latest OS's released by Microsoft come with the .NET framework already installed.
>
> It's so common that all the machines at my home and at my school do not support it and yes I'm talking about x86-machines (a.k.a. AMD/Intel). If you want to know, there are eight x86-machines at my home.
> **It comes preinstalled with Microsoft's two latest OS.**
>
> @TimeBomb:
>
> > I will agree that relying on the .NET framework may not be the best idea when it comes to professional games, but these games made with VB6 engines are, or at least should only be for, hobbyists who want to make an ORPG.
>
> Even for small games I wouldn't use it. What do you want? Be able to extend it because it's written in a decent language, or that you have to rewrite it again since it wasn't written in a decent language?
> **Could you say this so it makes sense?**
>
> @TimeBomb:
>
> > I will say that CPP is probably the best choice for developing a professional game or MMORPG, but if you are just wanting to create a better hobbyist MOG engine [I.e. eclipse], then I would suggest using something more simple like C#.
>
> I don't see how C# is simpler than C++, having knowledge about both programming languages. Unless you think DarkGDK makes your life easy, in which case I'd just counter with SFML or SDL.
> **The syntax is simpler and the editors actually help you a tad, unlike CPP.**
>
> @TimeBomb:
>
> > If you are a good programmer with a lot of time and an actual development team, then I would suggest using either Java or CPP, as you have pointed out. I prefer java at the moment, but the main problem with that is that java requires a high amount of RAM usage for the server, and if your client is based in java as well, then it's not going to be very CPU-intensive-friendly.
>
> You don't need an "actual development team" to programme in Java or C++, neither do you need one for any other language such as C, D, Assembly and so on. The only requirement is that you possess knowledge about the language you want to use, and preferably (near) full knowledge and that you have knowledge about game development.
> **You can not make a good, professional game with just one person.**
>
> The reason why I wouldn't use anything other than C, C++ or D for game development and especially for intensive game development is that other languages will pass out the more you need and the more you optimise. (e.g. most programming languages do not support inline Assembly and therefore they have no access to SIMD-extensions like Altivec, SSE, 3DNow!, MMX, etc., which would be a requirement for 3D nowadays).
> **There are so many workarounds for everything in the .NET framework it really isn't much of a problem**
>
> Regards,
>   Stephan.

My responses in bold under your responses :)

[Keebler Elf]

Alright so I will take it as a yes/why would someone do that… Also I was just curious.

[Homicidal Monkey]

> The syntax is simpler and the editors actually help you a tad, unlike CPP

real programmers use vim.

[cody4camp]

There are several frameworks and libraries you could use to make a professional 2D game in .NET. It depends how much time you want to spend.

[TimeBomb]

@Zetta:

> > The syntax is simpler and the editors actually help you a tad, unlike CPP
>
> real programmers use vim.

10 years ago that would be true. Nowadays there is little reason why to restrict yourself so much when there are so many studios and editors that you can use to speed up the programming process.

If I were to use just a plain, simple editor for programming, not counting some of the major editors nowadays [eclipse, the microsoft studios, etc etc], I would probably stick with NotePad++.

[Godlord]

@Aero/EBrown:

> To be honest, VB.NET is more powerful than most people know. So is C#, and C++.

It's so powerful that it still had/has some issues with bitwise operators. Anyway, there is a difference between C++ and C++.net, where you most-likely meant the latter here. One should not even bother discussing which .net language is good, since they all represent the same "framework", but in reality native C++ is way better than using (C++).net, especially since the latter doesn't even follow the standards set up by ISO.

@Aero/EBrown:

> Also, VB6 and VB.NET have some things in common, it would not take as much work as most think to port it. And you could easily add new features, better features.

The COM-framework is another cup of tea, to be honest. Comparing VB6 with VB.net is like comparing shoes with boots, they both have to do with your feet, but the way they feel, are being represented, etc. are way different. The same counts for comparing VB6 and VB.net, they both are from the same origin and they both are the same "language", but they have so many differences when you take a closer look.

@Aero/EBrown:

> I don't do any VB6 programming, because honestly, VB6 is a dead language to me.

VB6 is dead, yes, but unlike .net it was given at universities and colleges through courses.

@Aero/EBrown:

> I would prefer to use a language that will be more useful in the coming years. C#, C++, VB.NET, etc. There are others, less famous others, but still.

The only useful language you mentioned there is C++. The .net framework is only a populist in the programming world and knowing Microsoft they'll surely replace it by something different in the future, making it obsolete just like VB6.

@Aero/EBrown:

> Besides, you can use VB.NET and still target it for lower class computers. I am using C# targeted to .NET 2.0, which is available in Windows 98, 98 SE, 2000 SP3, ME, Server 2003, XP SP 2, Vista, and 7\. And I use DirectX 9.0c which is available for Windows 2000, 2000 Adv Server, 2000 Server, 2000 Pro, 2000 SP 2, 2000 SP 3, 2000 SP 4, 98, 98 SE, ME, Server 2003, XP, XP Home, XP Pro, XP Media Center, and XP SP 1\. It was included in all Windows Versions of XP SP 2 and above. That includes XP SP 3, Vista, and 7.

When I programme in C or C++, my application has support for OpenGL, DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 making it work on virtually any operating system and on most consoles and embedded devices. I don't see why one would want to use .net, then.

@TimeBomb:

> **It comes preinstalled with Microsoft's two latest OS.**

Great for the people who use Microsoft Windows, but I don't and I know a lot of people who don't either. So, basically we have to get discriminated since Microsoft decides to only support their crap? I thought game developers were supposed to develop with the player in mind, not with themselves or any capitalistic company in mind.

@TimeBomb:

> **Could you say this so it makes sense?**

It should have made sense, but let me rephrase it for you: "So by porting from VB6 to C# you'll have an engine that works, but to get more out of it, you'll have to rewrite it yet again. So what's wrong with doing it right just once?"

@TimeBomb:

> **The syntax is simpler and the editors actually help you a tad, unlike CPP.**

The syntax isn't simpler. If you want a simple syntax, my recommendation would be Intel-syntax Assembly, not C et al. Besides, not everybody uses a RAD IDE to make their life simple. I, for instance, use Gedit, which works just as well as a big memory-clogging IDE like Code::Blocks or Microsoft Visual Studio.

@TimeBomb:

> **You can not make a good, professional game with just one person.**

I never said that and I have to disagree with you there: you can. If Michelangelo can paint a masterpiece on a roof all by himself, why couldn't a lone-wolf developer develop a good game to play?

@TimeBomb:

> **There are so many workarounds for everything in the .NET framework it really isn't much of a problem**

Workarounds? That must be either a slow-performing abstraction or an ugly hack like most C-programmers used to use and still use actually.

@Zetta:

> > The syntax is simpler and the editors actually help you a tad, unlike CPP
>
> real programmers use vim.

Or vi.

@cody4camp:

> There are several frameworks and libraries you could use to make a professional 2D game in .NET. It depends how much time you want to spend.

There are several native libraries that have been written in C that allow you to write a cross-platform, professional and astonishing 2D/3D game in C, C++, ObjC and/or D. It just depends on how dedicated you are and how much you know.

@TimeBomb:

> 10 years ago that would be true.

You definitely hang around at other communities than I do, since that's actually true.

@TimeBomb:

> Nowadays there is little reason why to restrict yourself so much when there are so many studios and editors that you can use to speed up the programming process.

Programming in a slim editor like vi(m) or even Gedit allows you to programme way faster since you aren't constantly hold up by the lag. That's why an *NIX-environment is preferred by some developers, including me.

@TimeBomb:

> If I were to use just a plain, simple editor for programming, not counting some of the major editors nowadays [eclipse, the microsoft studios, etc etc], I would probably stick with NotePad++.

Notepad++ lacks features to be a great tool for programming (and I'm talking about syntax parsing, tab settings, etc.), on top of that Microsoft Windows just isn't made for simplistic development unlike *NIX, where you can do everything in a single terminal with just vi, bash, make and gcc.

Regards,
  Stephan.

[Keebler Elf]

Maybe my question should be moved to debate?

[AeroEBrown]

Stephan,
Most of your information there is based on opinion. In fact, almost all of it is.

@Stephan:

> @Aero/EBrown:
>
> > To be honest, VB.NET is more powerful than most people know. So is C#, and C++.
>
> It's so powerful that it still had/has some issues with bitwise operators. Anyway, there is a difference between C++ and C++.net, where you most-likely meant the latter here. One should not even bother discussing which .net language is good, since they all represent the same "framework", but in reality native C++ is way better than using (C++).net, especially since the latter doesn't even follow the standards set up by ISO.

You keep defending C++, that is NOT what this thread was about. And then your opinionated statement that C++ is better. I don't care what YOU think. No one does. They care what is easiest to them. Hence why .NET works well for much of the Programming world. VB.NET, C#, and C++.NET, as you stated, use different syntax's, but with .NET they can all do the same thing with them. You can easily switch fron VB.NET to C#, or vice-a-versa.

@Stephan:

> @Aero/EBrown:
>
> > Also, VB6 and VB.NET have some things in common, it would not take as much work as most think to port it. And you could easily add new features, better features.
>
> The COM-framework is another cup of tea, to be honest. Comparing VB6 with VB.net is like comparing shoes with boots, they both have to do with your feet, but the way they feel, are being represented, etc. are way different. The same counts for comparing VB6 and VB.net, they both are from the same origin and they both are the same "language", but they have so many differences when you take a closer look.

I didn't say they were the same.
@Aero/EBrown:

> VB6 and VB.NET have some things in common

God damn. Read my post.

@Stephan:

> @Aero/EBrown:
>
> > I don't do any VB6 programming, because honestly, VB6 is a dead language to me.
>
> VB6 is dead, yes, but unlike .net it was given at universities and colleges through courses.

Oh BS. You can take C#, VB and others at university's you dolt.

@Stephan:

> @Aero/EBrown:
>
> > I would prefer to use a language that will be more useful in the coming years. C#, C++, VB.NET, etc. There are others, less famous others, but still.
>
> The only useful language you mentioned there is C++. The .net framework is only a populist in the programming world and knowing Microsoft they'll surely replace it by something different in the future, making it obsolete just like VB6.

Again with an opinion. And yes, MS will replace .NET in the future. But NOT in the next operating system like VB6.

@Stephan:

> @Aero/EBrown:
>
> > Besides, you can use VB.NET and still target it for lower class computers. I am using C# targeted to .NET 2.0, which is available in Windows 98, 98 SE, 2000 SP3, ME, Server 2003, XP SP 2, Vista, and 7\. And I use DirectX 9.0c which is available for Windows 2000, 2000 Adv Server, 2000 Server, 2000 Pro, 2000 SP 2, 2000 SP 3, 2000 SP 4, 98, 98 SE, ME, Server 2003, XP, XP Home, XP Pro, XP Media Center, and XP SP 1\. It was included in all Windows Versions of XP SP 2 and above. That includes XP SP 3, Vista, and 7.
>
> When I programme in C or C++, my application has support for OpenGL, DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 making it work on virtually any operating system and on most consoles and embedded devices. I don't see why one would want to use .net, then.

I don't give a rat's ass about when you program. No one does. So what? You have to add headers and library's for your OpenGL, or DirectX. Yay? That makes you special because you don't use DLL's doesn't it.

In conclusion, most of your post was crap opinions that you made up yourself to sound "cool."

Thanks,
Aero/EBrown

[TimeBomb]

Stephen I am going to have to agree with Aero. On top of that, you really need to do more research of certain programming languages before you attack them. Some of your biased info given is also just plain wrong.

To me, so I will say the following statement is indeed an opinion, C# has a simpler syntax then C++. But, once again an opinion, VB.Net has some of the simplest syntax of all the latest programming languages.

What do I mean by workarounds? It's called knowing the code and working around it's basic restrictions to achieve what you need to achieve. It works sometimes, but should not be relied upon all the time.

C++ is one of the 'best' languages to most advanced programmers, but there are at the very least a few others which can accomplish a lot of every-day tasks quite a bit faster then C++, which makes them useful as well.

On top of all this, why would you limit yourself to a less-resource-intensive editor when there are so much more powerful ones out there, to fit with today's more powerful computers.

Also, we are talking about, for the most part, programming languages made by Microsoft, so they mainly run only on Windows OS, as that is were most gaming is done nowadays, and that is what most of us are trying to accomplish with our programming on this forum - something involving gaming, I.e. an MMORPG.

[Godlord]

@Aero/EBrown:

> In conclusion, most of your post was crap opinions that you made up yourself to sound "cool."

In conclusion your whole reply is filled with total irony and the only thing you're trying to do here is flame me since I dislike the only thing you can actually work with and that is .net. Seriously, grow up.

@Aero/EBrown:

> Stephan,
> Most of your information there is based on opinion. In fact, almost all of it is.

I think you forget two things here:

@Aero/EBrown:

> I am sure **it would be fairly strait forward to port VB6 Eclipse to .NET.**
> To be honest, VB.NET is **more powerful than most people know**. So is C#, and C++.
> Also, VB6 and VB.NET have some things in common, **it would not take as much work as most think to port it. And you could easily add new features, better features.**
> I don't do any VB6 programming, because honestly, **VB6 is a dead language to me**. I would prefer to use a language that will be more useful in the coming years. **C#, C++, VB.NET, etc.** There are others, less famous others, but still.
> Besides, you can use VB.NET and still target it for lower class computers. I am using C# targeted to .NET 2.0, which is available in Windows 98, 98 SE, 2000 SP3, ME, Server 2003, XP SP 2, Vista, and 7\. And I use DirectX 9.0c which is available for Windows 2000, 2000 Adv Server, 2000 Server, 2000 Pro, 2000 SP 2, 2000 SP 3, 2000 SP 4, 98, 98 SE, ME, Server 2003, XP, XP Home, XP Pro, XP Media Center, and XP SP 1\. It was included in all Windows Versions of XP SP 2 and above. That includes XP SP 3, Vista, and 7.

To get just some facts out my reply:

> It's so powerful that it still had/has some issues with bitwise operators.

> since they all represent the same "framework"

> C++.net, especially since the latter doesn't even follow the standards set up by ISO.

> and knowing Microsoft they'll surely replace it by something different in the future, making it obsolete just like VB6.

For the latter, it will not be true at this moment, but it will be as everything has to come and go, therefore it is automatically a fact, whether you like it or not.

@Aero/EBrown:

> You keep defending C++, that is NOT what this thread was about.

This thread isn't about you defending .net either, so what are you doing here?

@Aero/EBrown:

> And then your opinionated statement that C++ is better. I don't care what YOU think. No one does.

Apparently you do, since you are writing like you have a buttplug all shoved up into your arse. Also tell me how can a virtual machine be faster than the processor the native machine is being executed on? If you can explain that, you've just invented the holy grail for virtual machines.

@Aero/EBrown:

> They care what is easiest to them.

How does one know what is easiest, when they don't know their options? That's like going to the elections without knowing what programmes the parties have.

@Aero/EBrown:

> Hence why .NET works well for much of the Programming world. VB.NET, C#, and C++.NET, as you stated, use different syntax's, but with .NET they can all do the same thing with them. You can easily switch fron VB.NET to C#, or vice-a-versa.

Therefore performance will be based on .net, which is definitely slower than C++ in its native form, which is why the switch to C++ would make you rewrite the thing all over again meaning that you just wasted your time getting the thing ported to .net.

@Aero/EBrown:

> I didn't say they were the same.
> God damn. Read my post.

Well define "some", before attacking me like a wild goat. Since "some" can go from two to two hundred and even beyond that.

@Aero/EBrown:

> Oh BS. You can take C#, VB and others at university's you dolt.

Well show me, since when I looked the only options I ever found were: C, C++, Java, Assembly and VB6.

@Aero/EBrown:

> Again with an opinion. And yes, MS will replace .NET in the future. But NOT in the next operating system like VB6.

Which means the port is useless compared to C/C++, since those languages will most-likely not be replaced for quite some time.

@Aero/EBrown:

> I don't give a rat's ass about when you program. No one does. So what? You have to add headers and library's for your OpenGL, or DirectX. Yay? That makes you special because you don't use DLL's doesn't it.

No, I was giving an example of why C/C++ would be a better choice than .net, but instead of getting the point you're again acting like someone with a buttplug shoved up into his arse. Also, your ignorance is shown here since every application written for Microsoft Windows platform is enforced to dynamic link against DLLs, unless you are going to use system calls all the time.

Next time you reply, try to get that buttplug out of your arse first when someone dislikes .net. Oh and for the record, my preferred language of choice is Assembly and next to that my own creation in development: Unisembly, and not C/C++, since those languages have flaws in my world as well.

Regards,
  Stephan.

[Robin]

@Aero/EBrown:

> Oh BS. You can take C#, VB and others at university's you dolt.

American Universities teach .NET? Wow. The only stuff you'll find over here is C, C++, Java and Assembly.

[Godlord]

@TimeBomb:

> Stephen I am going to have to agree with Aero. On top of that, you really need to do more research of certain programming languages before you attack them. Some of your biased info given is also just plain wrong.

I don't have to do any research here, I'm not the one who is brainwashed by Microsoft, since that's what you most-likely are.

@TimeBomb:

> To me, so I will say the following statement is indeed an opinion, C# has a simpler syntax then C++. But, once again an opinion, VB.Net has some of the simplest syntax of all the latest programming languages.

Actually, the holder of the simplest syntax for me is ARM Assembly, but that isn't part of the "latest programming languages", since it's as old as the ARM-architecture itself.

@TimeBomb:

> What do I mean by workarounds? It's called knowing the code and working around it's basic restrictions to achieve what you need to achieve. It works sometimes, but should not be relied upon all the time.

That isn't an answer to what I took into question: if C programmers tend to use inline Assembly for SSE or any other SIMD, what would a .net language use in its case, according to you?

@TimeBomb:

> C++ is one of the 'best' languages to most advanced programmers, but there are at the very least a few others which can accomplish a lot of every-day tasks quite a bit faster then C++, which makes them useful as well.

Faster in terms of programming speed or faster in terms of processing speed?

@TimeBomb:

> On top of all this, why would you limit yourself to a less-resource-intensive editor when there are so much more powerful ones out there, to fit with today's more powerful computers.

Because all the so-called "features" they ship aren't needed by me. Why buy something, when you don't need it?

Regards,
  Stephan.

[balliztik1]

@Robin:

> @Aero/EBrown:
>
> > Oh BS. You can take C#, VB and others at university's you dolt.
>
> American Universities teach .NET? Wow. The only stuff you'll find over here is C, C++, Java and Assembly.

Of course they do, Robin. And in Canada. Microsoft likes to breed them close to home.

[cody4camp]

.Net IN COLLEGES? That's dumb, even though I like the .NET framework, it's just too "Incomplete". VB.NET and C# are two languages that are being developed TOGETHER. C# is just a different syntax, and will only go as far as VB.

[TimeBomb]

@Robin:

> @Aero/EBrown:
>
> > Oh BS. You can take C#, VB and others at university's you dolt.
>
> American Universities teach .NET? Wow. The only stuff you'll find over here is C, C++, Java and Assembly.

Well Microsoft is located in the US, and the .NET languages were made by Microsoft for the Windows OS. The previously stated languages are a bit more global and quite a bit less limiting. As well, some [if not all, I am not too familiar with C/C++/Assem] are not created by Microsoft, and are therefore more globally taught.

@Stephen:

> Faster in terms of programming speed or faster in terms of processing speed?

Obviously processing speed.

> Because all the so-called "features" they ship aren't needed by me. Why buy something, when you don't need it?

Some of the programs are free, and are only meant to help speed up your programming speed.

> Actually, the holder of the simplest syntax for me is ARM Assembly, but that isn't part of the "latest programming languages", since it's as old as the ARM-architecture itself.

Which is why I stated that it was my opinion. Also, just out of curiosity, why use such an old, outdated programming language when almost everything you need to do involving programming can be done at more then double the efficency with programming languages such as C and C++? What does Assembly bring to the table nowadays?

> I don't have to do any research here, I'm not the one who is brainwashed by Microsoft, since that's what you most-likely are.

Assume what you want, it's obvious you are getting quite tense, or even moreso upset, from this conversation; and I have little to no idea why, besides for the obvious fact that Aero is trying to flame you in quite a bit of his posts, which, being such an advanced programmer, you have surely been around on the internet for a while, and should be quite used to flaming, and not really care. But maybe that's not entirely the case? Eh, whatever.
To answer your assumption: I am not brainwashed by Microsoft, thank you very much. I do proudly hate them for most of what they have done. The only reason I use the Windows operating system is because I am a gamer by heart, and no operating system even gets near matching Windows array of games available, both online and offline.

> That isn't an answer to what I took into question: if C programmers tend to use inline Assembly for SSE or any other SIMD, what would a .net language use in its case, according to you?

I truly have never come to a programming halt where I needed to do anything along these lines. The closest I have gotten to anything even mildy related to what you are saying would have to be where I referenced DLLs to help me do some advanced work that VB.Net can normally not do by itself.

[Godlord]

@TimeBomb:

> > Faster in terms of programming speed or faster in terms of processing speed?
>
> Obviously processing speed.

Then I'm going back to what I said earlier: "How can a virtual machine running on the same processor be faster than the processor?"

@TimeBomb:

> Some of the programs are free, and are only meant to help speed up your programming speed.

That was metaphoric, sorry. For me there's no advantage in using a bloated IDE as for programming speed.

@TimeBomb:

> Also, just out of curiosity, why use such an old, outdated programming language when almost everything you need to do involving programming can be done at more then double the efficency with programming languages such as C and C++? What does Assembly bring to the table nowadays?

For me there are quite a lot of reasons why to use pure Assembly over anything else. The performance of an Assembly application is usually greater than that of an application written in a high-level programming language such as C++, otherwise it should be near the same when the C++ application was compiled by a heavy-optimising compiler. Even though it might sound weird, Assembly is an easier language to programme in than most mathematically influenced languages like C et al and some people who have learnt Assembly have had less problems with it than when they learnt C. Yet another reason is that the development branch I perform my work in is the operating system development branch, where most low-level things cannot be done by anything other than Assembly.

There are only a few reasons why I wouldn't consider using Assembly: each processor has its own ISA and therefore it's own Assembly language and Assembly can get disgusting to look at when your styling convention is practically non-existent or just bad. For the prior reason I've my own Assembly in the works which is called Unisembly. Unisembly basically works by the manner that one can write in an universal or cross-platform programming language and when the result is being ran on a machine, it will get transcoded or simulated depending on the preference of the user.

@TimeBomb:

> Assume what you want, it's obvious you are getting quite tense, or even moreso upset, from this conversation;

I'm not really upset, in reality I'm actually laughing at some things I've read here in this thread, but it's not nice when someone pops in and tells you that your whole post is utter non-sense and when that person does not feel like talking with, but instead flaming you, simply because I dislike something what some people seem to love.

@TimeBomb:

> being such an advanced programmer, you have surely been around on the internet for a while, and should be quite used to flaming, and not really care.

I don't care about the flaming, I'm guilty to that myself in various older threads. Also, you're right, I've been on the internet for quite some time, but I'm amazed to find someone who at least respects my opinion and doesn't feel like beating the crap out of me behind some 5mm thick internet cable.

@TimeBomb:

> To answer your assumption: I am not brainwashed by Microsoft, thank you very much. I do proudly hate them for most of what they have done. The only reason I use the Windows operating system is because I am a gamer by heart, and no operating system even gets near matching Windows array of games available, both online and offline.

Ah, that seems to be the case by a lot of people I know and that's also the reason why they usually either dual-boot or stick with Windows.

@TimeBomb:

> I truly have never come to a programming halt where I needed to do anything along these lines. The closest I have gotten to anything even mildy related to what you are saying would have to be where I referenced DLLs to help me do some advanced work that VB.Net can normally not do by itself.

Ah well, that's fine. I've yet to find someone who attempted to use SIMD in .net though.

Anyway, ironically, I'm going to say that this thread is back about Eclipse.net engines and not about anything else. If people like to contact me for whatever reason, or someone else instead, they can PM the person they want to contact.

Regards,
  Stephan.