Disadvantages of C#??? just curious

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

If I remember correctly the Microsoft Robotics Studio was like a 50 MB
download or something. That's an awful lot of baggage considering I'm
only interested in the CCR. And you're right. It's an esoteric
placement since its usefulness goes far beyond robotics.

Maybe it's time for a blog entry. You never know how stirring things up
might just persuade MS to release it separately...

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=]

I didn't mention release *rate* - just release *availability*.

Which depends on the rate.

 

[Ravichandran J.V.]

Knowing about disadvantages first without knowing the field of
applicability is just a waste of time. Why not simply ask whether you
can do this with C#...

with regards,


J.V.Ravichandran
- http://www.geocities.com/
jvravichandran
- Or, just search on "J.V.Ravichandran"
at http://www.Google.com

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Mono has problems keeping up with the framework - but it tends to
manage to get the *language* features released earlier than Microsoft
does, IIRC.

It is much easier to write a compiler than to write tens of thousands
of library classes.

Frankly, I think MS is going to have to slow down the framework
development soon anyway - they've done an awful lot in 6 years, and I
think we could do with a bit of a break after LINQ has been released,
so everyone can catch up. Just MHO, of course. (Having said that, I
can't wait for CCR...)

MS has the money to keep on going, but as you say the customers
are having problems following.

Arne

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

It is much easier to write a compiler than to write tens of thousands
of library classes.

Absolutely.

MS has the money to keep on going, but as you say the customers
are having problems following.

Yes - I hope that MS will spend its time improving VS and possibly
creating new (isolated, separately downloadable) libraries to improve
development rather than extending the core framework itself - at least
for a while.

 

[JR]

I would suggest more refactorings.

JR


"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <[email protected]> ???
??????:[email protected]...

It is much easier to write a compiler than to write tens of thousands
of library classes.
Absolutely.


MS has the money to keep on going, but as you say the customers
are having problems following.

Yes - I hope that MS will spend its time improving VS and possibly
creating new (isolated, separately downloadable) libraries to improve
development rather than extending the core framework itself - at least
for a while.

 

[Guest]

Jon,
That CCR.Core assembly weighs in at just 154Kb. Thanks for reminding me to
go back and revisit that. Some very elegant and useful code there.
Peter

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

That CCR.Core assembly weighs in at just 154Kb. Thanks for reminding me to
go back and revisit that. Some very elegant and useful code there.

Mmm... maybe I'll download it after all. I'm just amazed that it hasn't
been released on its own

 

[Guest]

Even Jeffrey Richter's article demo code does not contain the CCR.Core
assembly. Could have something to do with the EULA. Too bad!
Peter
--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Even Jeffrey Richter's article demo code does not contain the CCR.Core
assembly. Could have something to do with the EULA. Too bad!

I was about to suggest you blogged about it to make another attempt to
prod MS into releasing it on its own. Then I went to your blog. Um,
okay, I'll go back to XLinq...

 

[Guest]

I believe what often happens is they have these "power groups" (e.g.,
Robotics) that come up with all these cool custom assemblies, and often they
are so focused on their "own little release" that they do not think in terms
of how individual pieces may be useful on their own to the general developer
community.

--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net

 

[Guest]

For those who have an interest, I did receive an answer to my post on the CCR
forum about "breaking it out" from the Robotics Studio:

N.B. I've left a suggestion post on the forum that they break out the CCR
assemblies and make them available separately. If you agree, adding a "Me
too" probably wouldn't hurt the effort.

-- And here is the answer:

"we have heard this feedback many times indeed. While we do definately see
alot of interest in the CCR from non robotics users, currently our team can
only afford the non-trivial release management process MSFT requires, for one
product/SDK. Other than the size of the download however, which i do agree is
alot for a 200k lib, the CCR can be used in any application you want, with no
burden or requirements on anything else in MSRS (it was and will continue to
be developed as a seperate, independent component).

Another thing to note ofcourse, given its current packaging, is that the CCR
is not free for commercial use. Its cost per deployment is about
2$ (our commercial license gives you 200 runtimes for 399$ for a single dev
license)"

So: the bottom line, as I interpret this, is that if I want to use CCR for
any kind of commercial application, I have to purchase the minimum dev
license for $399.00. Umm, OooKay...
-- Peter
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net

 

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

Hello,

There are some carriable ways to use C# as an object-oriented language
with COM support in "realtime" Systems.
For Example: the XILINX FPGA's
In many develobment-systems C# is/or will be
supported.
This is realtime.
Yes, VHDL is the better choise, but C# is an easy
to use/learn language.

C# and VHDL are not even comparable. VHDL is parallel, C# is sequential.

You might be able to define FPGA logic using a conventional functional
programming language. C#, no.

 

[Bill Burris]

You might be able to define FPGA logic using a conventional functional
programming language. C#, no.

There are C compilers for FPGA logic. I think they fake the parallelism
some how using libraries.

The really smart tools, turn some of the code into sequential logic for
the CPU cores and some into parallel logic for the FPGA logic blocks.
The idea is that in the early stages of development you don't have to
choose between software and hardware. Once you design works in the
simulator on the desktop, you start optimizing by choosing which blocks
go into CPU code and which go into logic blocks.

If you want to use C#, you probably need to go start a project on
sourceforge and hope you find enough smart people with lots of time to
waste to help you out.

If you need to do FPGA code now, use VHDL, Verilog, or C. It all
depends on your background and how much you are willing to pay for tools.

 

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

There are C compilers for FPGA logic. I think they fake the parallelism
some how using libraries.

When the compiler implements special handling for certain functions, I
consider that they have become "keywords" and the language is no longer C.
It's based on C syntax, like csh, C#, C++, Java, Javascript, Dynamic C,
Embedded C, Objective C, .... but no longer C.

Functional programs, written in languages like Scheme, naturally represent
parallelism, making them a good choice for compiling to logic.