.net eclipse…

[AeroEBrown]

@Stephan:

> @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.

Conclusions come at the end of a post.

@Stephan:

> @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.

I didn't say my post had no opinions. But you based your entire argument on the OPINION that C++ was better. Mine was based on Facts, relating to the topic. Instead all your posts ramble that C++ is better than .NET. I think the question in the first post was whether or not Eclipse could be ported to .NET. Not whether or not .NET was the best.

@Stephan:

> 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.

You found four facts in that entire post? Amazing. How many opinionated statements? Oh we ignored that part. I'm sorry.

@Stephan:

> @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?

My FIRST post, which you deliberately attacked, was about the fact the Eclipse COULD be ported to .NET. Pay attention.

@Stephan:

> @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.

Yes, of course, I have the buttplug in my arse. I am the one rambling on about a coding language NOT EVEN RELATED to the topic. You keep discussing C++, not C++.NET, or anything else .NET. So it's got NO PLACE in this topic.

@Stephan:

> @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.

Hmmm, I think they WOULD know their options, and WOULD know that whatever they pick is the best for them. But of course, I have faith in people, not some overrated "*NIX" god complex.

@Stephan:

> @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.

Who said anything about switching to C++? We WERE talking about .NET, C++.

@Stephan:

> @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.

I'm attacking like a wild goat, yes. That MUST be it.

@Stephan:

> @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.

http://www.schrotenboer.com/foothill/csharp.htm
http://www.raritanval.edu/uploadedFiles/academics/course_outlines/CISY265.pdf
http://continuingeducation.bellevuecollege.edu/computers/csharp/

That was just a quick Google Search.

@Stephan:

> @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.

And that shows ignorance? Because I am arguing against C++. Awesome. What's that make you? God?

@Stephan:

> 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.

Yay? You like assembly. Woohoo. Now the world is SO MUCH better. You can like assembly, that's fine, but when are you planning on getting back on topic. Assembly, Unisemble, and C/C++ are not .NET. So, are you done with your god rant that has to personally attack everyone? Cool. You can make fun of me. I don't give a flying f***. Maybe you shouldn't either. Getting all worked up online. God damn. You grow up.

@Ballie:

> @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.

Joke all you want.

@Stephan:

> @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.

Nope. Stephan doesn't need to do research. He KNOWS EVERYTHING. He's Brainwashed by "*NIX", so he KNOWS all MS'es secrets.

Thanks,
Aero/EBrown

[Keebler Elf]

O_O My poor thread. It just got raped.

[Drummerpete]

@Aero/EBrown:

> I don't care what YOU think. No one does.

I do. I'd take his word any day. I trust him and he is an insane programmer.

[azure]

@Keebler:

> O_O My poor thread. It just got raped.

That's the norm of eclipse. People have started it, but no one has finished it. It can be done, but probably not nearly as efficiently as it could be in another language.

[AeroEBrown]

@Keebler:

> O_O My poor thread. It just got raped.

I apologize for that.

Thanks,
Aero/EBrown

[Robin]

lololol walls of text.

[balliztik1]

@Aero/EBrown:

> Joke all you want.

Whoa, bro. I was just joking with Robin. Loosen up. It was a lighthearted comment based in fact. You don't find too many schools offering .NET outside North America for the reason I jokingly stated. Microsoft DOES sponsor schools around here to teach its languages and send employees their way. It's not a bad setup, really.

As for the issue of .NET vs. everything, it's really just pointless. Take it to the debate board or something. Stephan is a mod. He can split the topic if need be. I'll just lock this.

@Keebler, Robin and a few others touched upon the fact that there are no public Eclipse.NET releases. As to why, that can be debated elsewhere, but it appears that your desire for a VB.NET version might not be fulfilled for a while.

[Godlord]

@Ballie:

> As for the issue of .NET vs. everything, it's really just pointless. Take it to the debate board or something.

That already happened many times before and I basically have to say that none of the debates actually worked because of the .net fan boys, technically I'd be better to not begin about such subjects anyway. Since prevention is better than solving a problem.

@Ballie:

> Stephan is a mod. He can split the topic if need be. I'll just lock this.

I keep it locked, I have no reason to split this thread up. Unless the OP wants to, in case he does feel like his question isn't answered.

Regards,
  Stephan.