Talk:C Sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the WikiProject .NET. This project primarily focuses on the improvement of Microsoft .NET related articles.

Contents 1 External Links and spam 2 Politics, patents, open-ness 3 Regarding references to VB.NET 4 This article needs to be cleaned up 5 Component-oriented programming 6 Compiled (JITted) Code Cache and ngen.exe 7 Complete Hash 8 Is C# Just a Java Clone? 9 Delphi's Influence 10 Paragraph Too Technical 11 C# to C# 12 Should Remove Marketing Entry 13 MSIL or CIL 14 C# does NOT use Virtual Machine 15 C# Critique 16 Category: Java programming language family 17 C# does not define any implementation details 18 Syntax highlighting 19 Why such an ugly example? 20 Move proposal 21 MI? 22 Timeline 23 Title 24 C♯ or C# (again) 25 Suspicious naming fact 26 Standardization and "ownership" of the language 27 "C Pound" 28 # sign 29 Confusing 30 Java as a proprietary language 31 Dates 32 Contradictions Between Articles 33 HTML comment near the beginning of the source says... 34 Issues with "Language features" section 35 Claim regarding RAD-ness seems questionable. 36 Memory management corrections 37 Wrong tone and questionable content 38 C# vs VB 39 Gtk#... a language? 40 The Programmers joke is boring 41 Politics: Don't confuse C# with the .NET framework. 42 New article "Microsoft Visual C#" 43 Reverted Removal of "C Pound" 44 System.Console is not technically an Object 45 I don't think this will ever happen, but... 46 Inclusion of C# Online.NET in external links - consensus? 46.1 Would someone explain to me why this link does not meet the criteria 47 Possibility of weak typing 48 "The public static void portion is a subject for a slightly more advanced discussion." 49 Microsoft's implementation 50 XML Documentation? 51 "He can be cited in interviews" 52 Factual Error 53 C# - play on words?

[edit] External Links and spam

The links added to this article (and indeed all development topics) must be encyclopedic in the sense that they provide valuable context to the article at hand. C# is no exception. Otherwise the External links section would end up being a repository for everyone's pet C# development website. So if you're wondering why your link was removed, that's why. This is no different from any other WP topic that deals with popular things that have relatively large web coverage like Pokemon or iPod accessories. -- klaus

I object to the use of the term "spam" for a site one does not think belongs on the external links list of a certain page. It is derogatory and inflammatory. I would like to understand the sysyem. What is the justification for having the C# compilers and Mono project links here?

---71.252.197.197

I'd object to the term "spam" as well, belive me. I understand there is no commercial gain here whatsoever. I don't think anyone is accusing you of that (well, I'm not). But that's what it's called for some reason, "link spam". I guess it's an unfortunate label. BTW, for the guide on external linking see Wikipedia:External links. In the case of your site for example, I simply don't see any uniqueness factor that would justify including the link. The C# and Mono compilers are here because they are "encyclopedic" in that they refer directly to the topic at hand. -- klaus

You might want to read Wikipedia's guidelines on external links in order to understand what should and should not be linked. Also this section on how not to be a spammer. If your only reason for participating in Wikipedia is to add external links, then you probably shouldn't bother, as Wikipedia is not a link farm. But if you'd like to contribute content, that would be welcome. --Craig Stuntz 16:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics, patents, open-ness

Hi, regarding the following statements:

• "However, that standard library provided with C#, including the extensive GUI library, is not an open or completely documented [library], ..."
  • C# and the .NET libaries upon which it is based are open. You're referring to the implementation as provided by one arbitrary company. You cannot judge that and say it's the same as C# itself. You might as well be saying that C# includes Gtk# if you say that it includes WinForms.
  • Whether third parties (i.e., not the standards bodies themselves) release closed-source libraries implemented in .NET is immaterial to the language's inherent openness. Although it may be worthwhile to mention in a neutral way, I believe this section violates NPOV in its judgment of C# (which is standardized by the ECMA and ISO), based on the actions of one company. For instance, if some rival company decided to come up with a Gtk# or WinForms competitor that was closed source and internally undocumented, it would still not be an argument against C#/.NET as an open development platform. C# is open; it is a matter of course that not all things written with it will be also.
• "so an independant implementation which can run all programs written for Microsoft's C# would be difficult"
  • This is true; however, that is not a correct standard by which we should judge C#. Microsoft developed C#, this is true, but submitted the language and its core libraries for standardization by the independent bodies ECMA and ISO. As I mention above, it is not NPOV to judge the language and its standardized libaries on the basis that one company has released undocumented, closed-source libraries.
  • For example, Microsoft has also released a plethora of libraries written in C++, such as MFC. It is likewise not an argument against C++ (nor is it even worth mentioning) that some company (Microsoft) has written a closed library (MFC) available in C++.
• "and of questionable legal basis (see discussion about Mono)."
  • This is not true. The legal basis is firmly established. The ISO standards body requires that all standards ratified are free of restricting patents; that is, any standard approved by the ISO may be implemented without fear of patent protections. This is true of the C# language and .NET platform. The Mono website itself (an independent, open-source .NET and C# implementation) states:
    • "The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA, (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent) ... Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose."
  • Even if this were not true, the terms of ISO require free implementation, as I mentioned earlier.
  • It may be the case that WinForms is covered by some patents. However, as discussed above this is not relevant to the discussion of C# itself. If any company released any library covered by patents targeted at .NET, is this worth mentioning in a discussion on C#? I say no, it is not.
  • It is very important to be clear that C# and .NET are standards defined by ISO and ECMA, and no one else. What other companies do, in terms of the proprietary libraries they release or the patents they own on their own libaries, cannot be used fairly as a criticism of C#.
  • If you look at most of the recent standards published by the ECMA and ISO, you will see that the majority of them have been developed by single companies or coalitions of companies. For example, the famous language JavaScript (more correctly named ECMAScript) was developed by Netscape Communications. It became standardized and now is under development by many companies. There is even a JavaScript implementation for .NET. Once a technology becomes standardized, it is irrelevant who originated it. Does it matter that the unit of energy, the Joule was named after and developed by James Prescott Joule? No. It's a standard now, and when you're talking about Joules, you're referring to the SI unit. Microsoft in this situation does not pretend that WinForms and similar libraries are part of the .NET framework standards. They are independent libraries published independently, and one cannot judge the C#, as standardized (which is what this article is about!) based upon them.
  • Please respond, as I believe article violates NPOV.
  • Xiphoris 22:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write this so I won't defend it, but I'll point out that this seems to me to be yet another manifestation of the very common confusion between C# in particular and .NET in general. There are large parts of MS's .NET framework implementation which are not based on any standard, whereas C# is completely standardized as are the parts of the framework on which it relies. The article could probably do a better job of clarifying this general difference between C# and .NET, especially now that ".NET 3.0" will be shipping with C# 2.0 during C# 3.0's development, or so it appears. --Craig Stuntz 02:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would go further and say that C# per se has nothing to do with the .NET framework or the BCL. Quoting from the ECMA spec, "Although Microsoft’s implementation of C# relies on CLI for library and runtime support, other implementations of C# need not, provided they support an alternate way of getting at the minimum CLI features required by this C# standard."

Furthermore, C#'s actual requirements of a library are quite modest,and are detailed in the spec's "Annex D. Standard Library". This covers certain required exception classes, array members, interfaces for enumeration, and base data types such as int.

With that in mind, it's clear that much of this article's content is off-topic. I/O classes, garbage collection, and reflection, to name a few, are not a part of C#. Neither is MIDL, for that matter. We need to make this much clearer, probably by creating a different topic, named something like "C# Programming in the .NET framework". Leotohill 04:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to discuss the standard library that Microsoft provide. That is what most people will think of when they think about C#, and what most books discuss. Mrjeff 21:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think we need to emphasize the difference. People are already badly confused about this, and it's only going to get worse when MS releases ".NET 3.0" containing and built with the C# 2.0 compiler, with C# 3.0 to follow later on. Furthermore, a discussion of the framework is no more or less relevant for any other .NET-compatible language. For example, one of the key features of .NET generic classes which separate them from C++ templates is that they are language-independent. Understanding the difference between C# and the .NET framework is in my opinion a critical point of understanding. We can and should discuss the libraries in other articles, however, and we can link to them here. --Craig Stuntz 16:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Craig has hit the nail on the head. It makes no sense to discuss garbage collection, reflection, I/O, and such as if they were attributes of C#, when in fact the exact same things could be said of any .NET programming language that uses the .NET framework. Proper links between the topics is the way to go. Leotohill 17:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. BTW, This is fun, you guys. I'm enjoying collaborating with all of you to improve this article. There are some links between the CLI/CLR and the C# language; I will do some research and see if I can establish what the relationships are between them :) Xiphoris 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am troubled, under this same heading, by a remark made in the opening paragraph describing C#:

• "C# has a procedural, object-oriented syntax based on C++..."

When one reviews the Java programming language topic, one doesn't see the reference to Java being a "procedural" language at all - and rightly so, in my view. Knowing both, as I do, but perhaps lacking the academic background to judge this empirically as another academic reading this might, I have to ask why C#, as distinguished from Java, would be defined or characterized as 'procedural' whereas Java is not? If there's no sound rationale for describing C# as such, I reccomend deletion of the terms 'procedural' and 'procedure-based' in referring to C# throughout the article. ross613 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding references to VB.NET

Gaijin42 added the following to the section on managed memory:

"C# and VB.net provide explicit control of unmanaged resources, such as database connections, ... (IDisposable stuff)"

I don't feel that mentioning VB.NET here serves a purpose. C# provides such things only because it's a .NET language, and all .NET languages support the same IDisposable interface. There's no more reason to mention VB.NET than there is, say, IronPython or JavaScript.NET (yes, there is JavaScript.NET). I think the most correct thing might be to say that .NET provides that feature, but since this is an article on C# it's reasonable to say that C# provides that feature; it's OK to leave it unstated that it's actually provided through .NET, which C# sits on top of. In any case, there's no specific reason to mention VB.NET here, as this is an article on C#. I recommend we remove this reference. It might be more relevant to include it in the article comparing C# and VB, or perhaps in a section of this article comparing it to other languages, but not here.

Gaijin42, I support the notion of an article comparing VB to C#; however, do you think we could expand it to include all major .NET languages (not toy ones)? Also, was there a reason to mention VB.NET here that I didn't notice?

Xiphoris 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Received no response. Removing unnecessary references to VB.

Xiphoris 22:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm still not happy with the page. The article mentions C++ a number of times as a basis of comparison for language features. Does anyone have an idea how to clearly describe such features without unnecessarily referring to other languages, such as C++?

Xiphoris 22:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs to be cleaned up

When I have time over the next couple of days, I'm going to try to clean this article up. The article contains both poorly worded sentences and phrases as well as plainly counterfactual statements. Here's an example:

In languages that do not provide garbage collection, the programmer must explicitly free all allocated memory. Failure to do so is a common program bug, resulting in a memory leak, where the program continues to allocate more and more memory to itself.

That's not what a memory leak is.

I am not the best writer in the world, so any help improving the phrasing of my additions is appreciated. However, I would request that people make suggestions about rephrasing here and allow me to rephrase my own sentences instead of making the changes yourself. Thanks! —Xiphoris 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Xiphoris, please provide here an alternate definition of a memory leak that you find acceptable.

The part that I had issue with was this, mostly because of the low quality and lack of clarity:

"Failure to do so is a common program bug, resulting in a memory leak, where the program continues to allocate more and more memory to itself."

The language "continues to allocate more and more memory to itself" isn't technical language. Plus, it has nothing to do with a memory leak. Whether the program continues to allocate memory is immaterial -- all it needs to do is allocate one object and lose track of it for a leak to occur.

Also, specifically, a memory leak is not when a program does not free memory, it's when it cannot. The issue of whether some allocated object is a memory leak is an issue, to use technical language, of reachability. Specifically speaking, all reachable objects are not leaked; all leaked objects are unreachable. A program only leaks memory if it loses track of something it has allocated. For example,

int* i = new int();

i = 0; // lost the integer allocated with new

If the program still has access to the object and has the ability to deallocate it, it is not a memory leak. Indeed, if the program still has access to the object, it can still potentially use that object. The only way to say for sure that some object has been leaked is when you know that the program no longer has the ability to deallocate it.

You have a very orthodox definition of memory leak. Nothing wrong with that - I'm just accustomed to a more liberal one. My definition encompasses programs that could release the memory, but do not. For example, consider a program that keeps some session state based on a an http seesion id. It has a data structure (e.g., Hashtable) that is indexed by sessionId. This poorly written program does not remove the entry from the table when a session ends. No functional harm is done, but the memory associated with that session state is retained. So, if 1,000 users login and logout, the program has retained the session state of all 1,000, even though none are logged in any more. I'd call that a memory leak. Note that my definition allows for the existence of memory leaks in GC environments, while yours does not. GC eliminates one cause of leaks, but not all. I think my description is consistent with Memory leak.

I agree that my one-sentence description in the article is neither technical nor complete. It is non-technical on purpose: as far as possible within context, I try to make an article understandable by the non-specialist reader. (In this case, though, I'm tilting at windmills, because I've inserted my non-technical description inside a big pile of jargon written by others.) But even if not complete, I think the statement works well. In particular, in this article I would not bother to cover the case of the memory leak that is unnoticed. But when choosing between a simple example of a leak that does not cover all cases, and the complete description that does, I'd favor the former, and refer to Memory leak for the full definition.

My definition encompasses programs that could release the memory, but do not.

That's what GC is, isn't it? Apart from the notion of automatically tracking memory, GC systems don't instantly free it (like refcounting systtems would). They can release the memory but do not. I don't think that's a good definition of memory leaks, therefore.

Note that my definition allows for the existence of memory leaks in GC environments, while yours does not. GC eliminates one cause of leaks, but not all.

But the causes of memory leaks in GC environments almost never have to do with allocation of memory. Instead, they're "conceptual" leaks (that really have nothing to do with memory allocation) like failing to close a file or socket. (The resources are not actually 'leaked' per se; they're just closed a long time after the object is last used). Whether you consider such things memory leaks is a matter of definition; maybe I'll be picky and call them 'resource leaks' :)

But even if not complete, I think the statement works well. In particular, in this article I would not bother to cover the case of the memory leak that is unnoticed. But when choosing between a simple example of a leak that does not cover all cases, and the complete description that does, I'd favor the former, and refer to Memory leak for the full definition.

The problem I had with the existing definition was the part about "continuing to allocate memory into itself". I think the definition would be fine if we simply mentioned that programs allocate memory but don't free it, and how/why GC prevents this.

Xiphoris 02:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what GC is, isn't it?

No - the difference is that GC eventually releases memory when it is appropriate to do so , and a memory leak is when a program doesn't release memory when it would be appropriate to do so. So I'd say that a memory leak is when a program should release memory, but doesn't. Sometimes it doesn't because it can't (as in your example) and sometimes it doesn't because it's stupid (as in mine).

That said, the current wording with the "more and more" removed is fine. Nice to hash it out with you.

Leotohill 04:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Although your definition of memory leak is arguably more correct, it is less useful. After all, if a program has a memory leak, but nobody notices, who cares? The only memory leaks of consequence are those that cause excessive memory use.

Xiphoris 20:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't agree with your change of "object" to "component". I've never heard of a "component-oriented language". What are the characteristics of such a language? Why is that a better description of C# than "object-oriented"? Leotohill 12:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, now I see that you have introduced a talk section on component OP. I'll place some comments there.

[edit] Component-oriented programming

It is more specific to say that C# is a component-oriented language because the principle division of elements of the system is the component, which is a portable, self-contained set of functionality. .NET implements this notion as an assembly. Depending on your perspective, component-oriented programming may be either a subset or superset of object-oriented programming. However, a number of C#'s features are specifically component-oriented (such as delegates) and I believe it is more accurate to describe the language this way. In case users are interested, I have specific industry experience related to this language. I have been a programmer of many languages for many years, and have extensive experience in many of them. Nevertheless, I have corporate affiliation of a sort that some users might use to argue that I am biased. I do see myself as biased on many issues, but programming languages is not one of them. I believe I can factually evaluate the pros and cons of this language, and others, despite my industry affiliation. I invite those who are interested to read more about me on my user page. —Xiphoris 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the change. I see component-orientation as a aspect of a design of the artifacts produced by programming. It might be easier to produce components with one language, over another, but a language itself is not component-oriented. A language does not contain functionality, while a component does. If the assembly indicates that C# is component-oriented, then so is any .NET language, because all produce assemblies. Are you saying that VB.NET, COBOL, Python, and all the other languages that are implemented in .NET are component-oriented? Leotohill 12:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A language does not necessarily have to be component-oriented or not; component oriented-programming can easily be enabled by a library as much as a language. For instance, non-CLI C++ can do component-oriented programming through use of COM. C++ has no component-oriented development features because it is unaware of ABIs -- compiled code of various compilers is often not able to interact with compiled code of other compilers; as a result libraries must often settle for the 'common denominator' of a C-like calling convetion. For example, if I write and compile a class in Borland C++, put it in a DLL file, I will not be able to instantiate and call that class using Visual C++. The reason I cannot do this is because the C++ language has no component-oriented features. But it is also possible for a language to specifically be aware of and empower component-oriented development.

I will agree that component-oriented programming refers to the way that compiled units interact with each other, not the way that code within the language interacts. However, it is possible for language features to facilitate the way that compiled units interact. For instance, C# has access keywords like public, private, and internal which go far beyond the semantic in C++; in C++, the notion of private completely disappears when code is compiled, and I can (using a pointer) modify a private variable from outside in a class; in C# though, the semantics of private aspects of components are enforced using the security model and simply cannot be accessed without a security bypass. In this case, the component-oriented access keywords of the language exist to facilitate the interactions of the compiled units.

C#'s compilation target is .NET, and many of the features it offers are congruent with .NET features. As a result, one can say that that language features that C# offers serve to provide component services to compilation units. The C# language feature private corresponds to much more than just what happens in the language, and that private designation can be seen by VisualBasic, IronPython, or any other .NET language. It is a component-oriented programming feature for that reason, in my opinion.

If those other .NET languages offer component services, such as the distinction between various access modifiers, then one could say that they are component-oriented. One critical piece of component-oriented programming is that components are self-describing; i.e., I don't need some "header file" or whatnot to use them -- all the relevant information is in the component itself.

Another critical feature of component-oriented development is the focus on interface implementation instead of class inheritance. Object-oriented programming literature generally discusses how GermanShepherd derives from Dog derives from Animal, and all of them have variously more complex definitions of EatFood(). OOP generally does not present the term interface, which is a completely implementation-free contract. In component-oriented development, the essential form of contract is the interface, inheritance from which has very different semantics than class inheritance. COP and C# generally discourage class inheritance in favor of interface inheritance in all but a very few circumstances. Indeed, the .NET class library only does it rarely, but uses interface inheritance frequently.

Since you are new to the term, I thought I might provide some resources for you to read about component-oriented programming so that we may discuss this issue effectively.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_componentry - Section titled "Differences from object-oriented programming"
2. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596102070/sr=8-1/qid=1149576405/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5591093-9912923?%5Fencoding=UTF8 -- the book "Programming .NET Components" is one of the best books I've read on .NET, and it covers the essential points of what it means to make a component and how to do it well. If you're a .NET programmer I would highly recommend this book. It's possibly the best programming book I've ever read. (Every other book I've read spends tons of time telling me things I already know, like what a for loop means. This book dives right in act exactly the level of sophistication I want on the subjects that are in the book.)
3. [Aspect-oriented programming is a very different but related concept, in that it may either be implemented in a language itself or with support libraries. There are libaries such as called Aspect# which allow aspect-oriented programming to be used in C# even though C# has no specific aspect-oriented features; but there are also programming languages that specifically include aspect-oriented features to make this process easier.

I see your points an am not 100% behind the edit I previously made. However, I do still believe it's right and see the point of this discussion about figuring out which way to introduce the language as being more beneficial. Perhaps I'll ask some people at work how they would prefer the language be described and report back. Anyway, let me know what you think!

Xiphoris 06:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

good points, but still not enough to convince me that the designation is appropriate. If anything, your arguments apply to the .NET platform more than to C# in particular. And then there's a language like Powerbuilder, which has private class members, and events, and self-describing modules. Have others publicly described C# as a COL? Is the designation in any way becoming popular? We don't want to be creating controversial new designations on WP. If it were very clearly a better designation I might go for it, but it's not so clear to me. Leotohill 01:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted component-oriented to object-oriented. I'll revisit this topic sometime in the future once there is better, or at least more public, evidence supporting the ocmponent-oriented designation. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Xiphoris 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compiled (JITted) Code Cache and ngen.exe

From the article:

"The resulting binary code is stored temporarily (in a memory cache), so if the program uses that portion of code again, the cached version is used. However this is only in effect during the runtime of the program. If a .NET application is run again, this compilation process is done again."

I happen to know that certain libraries and executables are compiled to native code and stored in some sort of cache on the hard drive under some conditions. ngen.exe is part of the procedure that makes this possible. Someone (or myself) should do the research to make the necessary corrections to the article.

Samrolken 09:53, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this is technically incorrect. I am pretty sure that the object code is usually written to disk, but I might be wrong. Certain run-time optimizations may prevent this, I am not sure.

In .Net object code is normaly never writen to disk, JIT compile it when needed and that's all (So the MSIL->x86 compilation appends for every launch) but that's true that you could ngen your assemblies and then the object code will be used)

The standard practice is what do microsoft : using ngen to generate native assemblies during the setup of the program

Virtualblackfox 28 June 2005 21:57 (UTC)

---

[edit] Complete Hash

Certain cynics have suggested that C# should be pronounced complete hash.

See-Pound is also sometimes used (by me, at least!). -mhr 07:09, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cynics of nearly everything have alternate pronunciations/spellings for products they wish to jeer. Point? Samrolken 09:53, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To add a reference to the whole "C-Hash" thing, I give the infamous TheRegiter's take on it all: [1] they also have some opinions of readers on the issue: [2] and yes, it's all very cynical. But hey I've pronounced it 'C Hash' since before I knew how it was supposed to be pronounced, and I still do out of my cynicism. - SHayter 23:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is C# Just a Java Clone?

Many sources say that C# is more or less a copy of Java with some minor changes / enhancements. Could somebody elaborate on this please? 213.3.87.59 02:26 30 Dec 2002 (UTC)

C# has many of the same features as Java, but also has some noticeable differences. It is obvious that the C# designers used a lot of concepts from Java, but they took some from C++ as well.

The big differences are in the actual class heirarchies and actual executable representation. Java has a big set of base classes, as does C#. But Java's and C#'s class libraries bear little resemblance to one another.

A Java executable contains byte-code which must be executed via a Java Virtual Machine (JVM). Similarly, C# executables contain MSIL which must be JITted via the .NET framework (or the CLR). The JVM converts byte code into binary code as it is executed. The binary output of C# code is cached and used again if the program uses that part of the code again. So C# may be faster in execution since it caches the binary code and most JVM's do not.

Critics state that C# is MS's attempt to kill Java. Who knows if this is true, but the reality is that C# fixed and added a lot of features that Java excluded. Java still has its place as does C# now.

Feel free to include any of this information in the article as you see fit.

—Frecklefoot 20:43 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think beginners are helped if there is a clear distinction made between programming languages, used to express a programming idea, and the mechanisms supplied to interpret that language. Is it really true that C# programs will only ever be interpreted by the .NET framework? AJim 18:57, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, that Microsoft's plan. They plan to install the .NET Framework on all future versions of their operating systems (the MSIL is "portable" in this manner), but I don't think they'll stop anyone who wants to write their own version of the CLR for a different OS. Being Microsoft, they'll just change it so often that it will be impossible to keep it as up to date as the Windows CLR. Why do you ask? —Frecklefoot 19:09, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Java And C-Sharp Compared has a pretty good comparison of the two languages. - Bevo 20:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is a lot of politics here, no question. Microsoft is Microsoft. Windows needed a new development platform. A Java-like language with a supporting runtime was a natural choice - it was popular, easier to program (in some ways) than C/C++, and could cleanly support multiple languages, even multilanguage projects.

If Java was open source, Microsoft wouldn't be able to touch it. Java is corporate sponsored by Sun, which has been a clear enemy of Microsoft (in the 90's the CEO was very vocal about MS). So Microsoft could not invest in Java without giving huge credibility and control to Sun. Even then, Java and a JVM alone would not unify the platform the same way .NET does. The natural choice was to make a similar language, C#, and a new runtime (CLR).

Dude, sign your posts. :-) Use ~~~ or ~~~~ (the latter timestamps your signature, like mine). — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:41, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

C# is hardly a Java clone. One could claim that Java is a C++ clone, ad infitum if you wanted to start equivocating wildly. C# has had from the beginning strong Java influences, yes, but not a clone. C# retains the concept of pointers, enumerations (just added in J2SE5... wtf, they skipped 3.5 numbers!), event handling (it is a "first class citizen" in the language, so to speak), operator overloading (Java needs this to be a better OO language, IMO), the foreach loop, and others. Moreover, IMO, C# has the right amount of verboseness, having programmed in both Java and C# extensively, I say it is smarter to write "bool" rather than "boolean".

I don't think Java, or any other language for that matter, needs operator overloading to be a better OO language. After all, it's just syntactic sugar for method calls. In fact, I think Java needs to get rid of the way you can call static methods via instance references to be a better OO language. — JIP | Talk 07:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Syntactic sugar? Come on! It makes statements a lot more readable... someClass + someInt is more readable (and more concise) than someClass.toInt() + someInt. DoomBringer 01:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Syntactic sugar does mean enchanced readability. Avoid the features like pointers and enumerations (which are not C++ - deriviations) and you get a pure Java OOP source code compiled into Java bytecode. C++ source code looks completely different and is unservicable/unrecognisable/unmanagable by intelligent IDEs. --Javalenok 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to agree with the last reply - C# is FAR from a Java clone. It is somewhat similar syntactically but the fact that it's part of the CLR makes it a different animal entirely, not to mention some other miscellaneous (but major) differences such as switching on strings being allowed (and optimized to a hashtable behind the scenes when advantageous), the absence of checked exceptions (a very deliberate omission by the C# team), and allowing pointers a la C++ (as the previous posted mentioned) in "unsafe" mode. In fact, I think these differences are very important and relevant and should be included in the article. Overall C# is a very simple, uncluttered, and I would say beautiful language. One can't truly appreciate it (and will probably instead attack it for being a brainchild of the evil Microsoft) until one has used it. --WayneMokane 07:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adopting "programming with potinters" concept into Java does not kill its spirit, neither make it c++ deriviateve (there is a bunch of languages besides C supporting the pointers). Both language synthax, Javadoc, all the libs starting from the root Object class, GC, exceptions, bytecode VM - everything is stolen. The most considerable difference, the Microsoft's inventation, is getting money from developers for pinning your application users at their commertial platform. Actually, this behaviour is not an attempt to kill the Sun-Java, it is not a revenge - Microsoft just did not have such a tool for effective application development. Microsoft was forced to make a clone to prevent the drift of developers and users from the Windows on the Java platform. Not only C# is clone of Java - the whole .Net is a clone of Java platform.--Javalenok 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... following this logic Java and C# are both clones of Smalltalk. I Think we can agree that they are not that, at least. Hogan 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's more or less Microsoft's response to losing that lawsuit from Sun. They took MS-Java and removed the OS-compatibility, then kept the same syntax and structures that Java uses. Perhaps a section refering to the similarities should be made?

Even if it is based on a different framework, the syntax of C# is very similar to Java, so actually programming in C# isn't much different than Java/J#. Having had some experience in Java and J#, learning C# was very easy. --71.227.190.111 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to C# and .NET specifically, if you take a step back they bear a striking resemblance to Java:

• Bytecode (yes, MSIL is bytecode).
• JIT.
• Monolithic support class library
• Cross-platform in theory as designed by Microsoft, and in practice as implementod by Mono and DotGNU.

But it does support things that Java doesn't:

• Delegates, aka function pointers.
• Real properties (although this could be implemented in the Java language as syntactic sugar for getters and setters).
• Tighter control of element overriding.
• Stack objects aka structs.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. While I do think that .NET copied a lot of the design of Java, it's equally obvious that they put a lot of thought into the things that they changed/added and didn't just "copy Java." --Chris (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They tried to "just 'copy Java'" (J++) and Sun beat them in court. Hence, C#: the I-can't-believe-it's-not-Java. --70.104.16.183 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delphi's Influence

C#'s chief architect is Anders Hejlsberg, the brains behind Turbo Pascal and arguably the main brain behind Delphi. The similarities between C# and Delphi are striking to anyone familiar with both languages. This point deserves a bit of expansion, I think: you can't grok C# if you only think about Java and C++, because a lot of the stuff that's alien to both is part of Delphi.

Quite true. C# addresses a number of problems and annoyances that are found in C++, much more so than Java did. I can certainly see the Delphi influence in C#, although It's probably more obvious in the IDE than in the language itself. C# also takes programming languages a step beyond existing languages with the concept of attributes. --69.5.156.155 5 July 2005 13:35 (UTC)

I'd have to agrue that point -- most people would say that attributes take the language back a step to C or ASM. Attributes while having a nice OO sounding name slap the face of OO programming. Attributes (while nice feature) are really just (user programmable) pragmas or macros. Hogan 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. Only some uses of attributes result in them being similar to macros and pragmas. One use you're thinking is probably something like [Deprecated]. However, there are a number of other things that one can do with attributes. For example, they're available at runtime via reflection -- that's nothing like macros or pragma. They're used in very interesting and powerful ways within the .NET framework, ways which have a non-obvious OO equivalent. Take a look at XmlSerializer for example.

Xiphoris 01:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] Paragraph Too Technical

The following paragraph needs elaboration (better language, more context, eg. comparsion with Java JIT compilers which have been around for some years now; language too technical. From a user point of view it is important too know if the programs are as slow as Java programs or not.)

The verb to jit is not generally known.  ;-)

When the program is executed, the .NET framework JITs the intermediate code into machine language as it is run. The JITting is very fast and is not noticeable on most modern PCs. As different parts of the program are used, they are JITted. Once JITted, that portion of the program does not need to be JITted again for that run (the program will use the JITted version). Each time a .NET application is run, it needs to be JITted in this fashion. Because the .NET applications require this JITting, only computers with the .NET framework can run .NET applications.

--Hirzel 13:07 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How's this?

When the program is executed, the .NET framework JITs the intermediate code into binary code as it is run. The JITting is very fast and is not noticeable on most modern PCs. As different parts of the program are used, they are JITted and the resulting binary code is cached. If the program uses that portion of code again, the cached binary version is used. Each time a .NET application is run, it needs to be JITted in this fashion. Because the .NET applications require this JITting, only computers with the .NET framework can run .NET applications.

I'm technical, so it's hard for me to see what is "too technical" about this paragraph (I wrote it originally). I included links for JIT which I realize is unfamiliar to many people. I'd appreciate someone unfamiliar with the field to take a swipe at it, but the whole JITting thing is pretty technical. I don't know if it can be made any easier to understand. But just because it's hard to grasp doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. I read TONS of stuff in Wikipedia that I don't understand. :-) —Frecklefoot 20:28 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I gave it a try. I avoided using the abreviation jit as a verb. I added two subtitles. It would be nice to have something about the syntax as well. --Hirzel 22:25 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The syntax is similar to both Java and C++. For example, in C++ you might use class.foo() or class->foo() depending on the situation. In Java and C#, you always use the dot notation (i.e. class.foo()).

C# also has a really nice feature called Properties. With a Property, you can get/set values in classes in a more familiar manner while still hiding information. Let me put this into plain English. In C++ or Java, to get or set a private member, you'd have to do this:

int foo = myClass.GetFoo();

myClass.SetFoo( foo );

However, with properties in C#, you can do this:

int foo = myClass.Foo;

myClass.Foo = foo;

It looks like you are setting and getting a public member, but in reality you are accessing the private instance of foo (notice capilization). The manner in which properties are declared in C# looks like this:

public class Bar

{
  private int foo;
  ...
  public int Foo
  {
     get
     {
        return foo;
     }
     set
     {
        foo = value;
     }
  }
  ...
}

Note the special keywords "get", "set" and "value". The example above just returns and sets the private member, but anything can be put into the get/set routines--they behave just like regular functions.

C# also won't allow you to directly access memory like you can in C++ (it is similar to Java in this manner). But you can access memory directly if you enclose the code in a block declared as "unsafe". If you do this, you, the programmer, are responsible for releasing any memory you allocate as the GC won't.

There are other differences, but these are the two big ones that come to mind. —Frecklefoot 14:25 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

In our University we had a project- comparing of execution time of same applications(about 50 apps. of different types, sizes, etc.) writen in C# and J . not once J was faster and C# was faster 2-12 times!!!

[edit] C# to C^#

I noticed Dysprosia changed all the instances of C# to C^#. While I realize this would be correct for music notation, I have never seen C# written this way (even by Microsoft). If no one objects, I'll change it back to C#. Any objections?

Also, I changed the notation in the example from the K&R/Java style to the C++/C# style which is preferable for C# code. —Frecklefoot 14:19, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, wait, this is how MS themselves format it on the box...Dysprosia 03:56, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lookylooky [3] :) I suspect MS couldn't be bothered to always render C# as C^#... Dysprosia 04:06, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Microsoft marketing uses a logo that resembles ".net" but you'll find Microsft explictly states it's more corretly ".NET", so I expect C^# versus C# is the same, but I haven't looked for the style/trademark guide that says so. — Mark Hurd 19:07, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it'll be best to sup the sharp once, and leave the rest. I don't know :) Dysprosia 10:11, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm a total newb but I undid Nohats use of the proper sharp symbol mainly because it was showing up as a square in Internet Explorer and Opera. So I think the symbol used wasn't UTF-8 or something. Using a superscript version of the regular # seems to work best because it shouldn mess up searches too much. Pardon me if I goofed up, a newb still getting his bearings. Foofy 13:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You were absolutely right about this, Foofy. The large majority of readers (more than 95%) will just see screwed up characters, not the intended character, regardless of which is more correct. Let's stick to # and think about our readers. Deco 18:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

C# is referred to as C# by ECMA, Microsoft and the vast majority of all the other sources. C^# is shown on the logo (and that logo on the box) of C# but that is an artwork rather than an actual text reference. C# is C#. 213.46.246.133 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] Should Remove Marketing Entry

The "Marketing" entry in this article seems out of place, narrowly focused, and frankly it reads like an opinion more then a fact. I favor removing it, but wanted to solicit opinions before I did so. onebit 14 Jun 2004

Well, I think it's in place. It doesn't discuss the technical aspects of the language, but it's relevant. The section could probably have a better name, but other than that, I think it should stay. But I'm biased since I wrote it in the first place. —Frecklefoot 19:43, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make a judgement on relevance. Instead, I was making a judgement on whether the statements in the section are fact or opinion. The statement that Mobile Software can be developed out of the box with C# and not so with C++ is a fact. The assertion that this has to do with marketing or that it is meant to move people off of the C++ language is not a documented fact; and so in this context it is an opinion. I am attempting to follow the guidelines found here here Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

If the section stated that the opinions are opinions, and if the section was re-titled as politics and marketing, then that might be a way of improving the entry such that it doesn't need removing altogether. Frecklefoot, are you open to my taking a stab at such as modification? --Onebit 20:23, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. :-) That's what's so great about being Wiki. But that point of view is not just mine, but of course that doesn't make it a fact either (I'm not anti-MS, but it is something that is rather glaring about VS.NET). —Frecklefoot 21:03, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this is not quite NPOV. Also, how is being able to develop a C# mobile app from visual studio an example of MS's aggressive marketing of C#? When you're in there, try tacking that as well. --RanchoRosco 21:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The marketing entry Onebit removed. Placing it here so it can rewritten or re-added at some point:

==Marketing==

Microsoft is aggressively marketing C# as well as the other .NET languages. For example, purchasers of the latest version of Visual Studio .NET (Microsoft's popular IDE) can immediately develop mobile device applications in C#. To develop mobile device applications in other languages, such as C++ (which Visual Studio supports), developers have to download a separate IDE which does not integrate with Visual Studio. With these barriers, Microsoft is motivating developers to abandon C++ and switch to C#.

To RanchoRosco: Users can develop a mobile application in C# from Visual Studio .NET "right out of the box." It even has wizards to build frameworks for your mobile application in C#. However, if you want to develop a mobile application in C++, you have to download a different IDE. This is incongruous since VS.NET is a C++ IDE (as well as a VB.NET, Managed C++ and C# IDE). Many developers complained about this confusing split (IIRC, previous versions of Visual Studio supported development of mobile applications in C++). The C++ mobile IDE is not as advanced as Visual Studio .NET and has fewer features. Many developers couldn't understand the removal except as a ploy to get developers to embrace C# instead of C++. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:51, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

A possible reason for MS to do this, as you say, is to move developers to C#. A more likely reason is that the team that built this functionality only had a limited budget and put it into the language they used the most. However, even if they were motivated as you supposed, I don't think this falls into what is gererally considered as marketing. --RanchoRosco 21:19, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, that is a reasonable assumption except for the fact that they removed the mobile C++ functionality. MS doesn't have plans to put it back in–they are going to keep it separate. But you're right, "Marketing" probably isn't the best place for this; I just couldn't think of a better section. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:41, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're wrong when you say that they removed mobile C++ functionality. Could you clarify what you meant? The latest C++ compiler for mobile processors is out (version 4) and you could use managed C++ to develop for a mobile device, since it compiles to MSIL instead of native bytecodes. Feel free to correct me if I misinterpreted what you wrote or got something wrong.

I misspoke myself a little. To develop for mobile devices in C++, one cannot use Visual Studio.NET. One must download a seperate IDE. It is similar to Studio.NET, but lacks many of its features. On the other hand, one may develop mobile device applications in Studio.NET using any other language but C++. Yes, you can use managed C++, but that's just the point: why allow Managed C++ but not C++? Studio .NET is supposed to be a full-fledged C++ IDE, but one cannot use it to develop mobile applications in C++, just the .NET languages. HTH. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:45, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] MSIL or CIL

I'm not trying to point fingers, but Onebit has been going around and changing references from MSIL (Microsoft Intermediate Language) to CIL (Common Intermediate Language). I can't find any relevant references to CIL except here in Wikipedia (after Onebit's changes). Going to MSDN, doing a search on CIL turns up pages of irrelevant information. Doing a search on MSIL brings up, amazingly, information on Microsoft Intermediate Language. Is CIL a new name change by Microsoft that just hasn't perculated through the Internet yet or is it just a mistake? I've always hear references to MSIL and have never heard a reference to CIL until today. Please post opinions and any online references. Thanks. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:51, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant: http://dotnet.di.unipi.it/EcmaSpec/PartitionIII/index.html uses CIL. - Bevo 17:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CIL is very common. MSIL is used in documentation and obviously specifically in reference to .NET. CIL is the ECMA spec as mentioned above (obviously critical to the Common Language Infrastructure / CLI). Technically, the CLR is the Microsoft implementation of the CLI. Therefore, it's not incorrect to say MSIL, denoting the Microsoft runtime as a target platform. From one programmer to another, that makes sense. Of course, when you say .NET, you mean Microsoft anyway. I'm not aware of any inconsistency in MSIL from CIL spec.

Basically, MSIL is to CIL as CLR is to CLI and .NET is to CLS (Common Language Specification). I have seen MSIL/CIL, CLR/CLI, and .NET/CLS (often without the slash).

O'Reilly .NET Framework (2nd ed.) mentions MSIL only in the glossary, index, and Appendix D (Common Utilities). However I don't remember it in any of the book's chapters and all the "common utilities" (ilasm.exe, ildasm.exe, etc.) binaries are neutrally named. No hybrid names that I remember - mostly IL.

The Mono Project uses the term MSIL/CIL, according to a Google site: search. This is also used in mailing lists. That hybrid term communicates to me IL code that conforms to spec and .NET (right now an artificial difference as .NET should fully support CIL).

Microsoft documentation uses MSIL, IL, and CIL.

I would use IL in general, but we should conform to what's common. It's not good form to use MSIL to refer to all CIL (because we do have a spec and things like Mono), but I don't see anything wrong with using MSIL/CIL.

Microsoft Reference: http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/

Mono Project: http://www.mono-project.com/

Vector4F 04:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If memory serves me, CIL is actually the *old* name. I have at least one early-release .NET book that uses the phrase CIL, but all references on Microsoft's documentation was changed to MSIL by the time the Framework was released. I'm pretty sure it was a purely cosmetic name change, that is, MSIL == CIL. Searching Google for "CIL dotnet" shows a number of references, but mostly from 2002/2003 timeframe. For all I know, MS changed the name just so they could say 'missle' when talking about their technology :) Kutulu 15:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IL is intermediate language, the problem is that it is generic and could be used widely (java .class are in an intermediate language). MSIL is the first name that this technology got, but when microsoft standardized it they needed to remove the "microsoft" (MS) part of the name, so they choosen "comon intermediate language" CIL. But the name MSIL doesn't disapear. Actualy if you speak of the 2.0 version of the platform it could be wrong to speak about CIL, because the standardized version is still the 1.0 version. Virtualblackfox 28 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)

[edit] C# does NOT use Virtual Machine

Neither "stack-based", nor any other. Therein lies its main difference between Java and .NET. Java bytecode runs on VM, .NET Intermediate Language gets compiled upon its execution and only then it is executed. VM is simply not needed in this arrangement because .NET never executes bytecode directly (though one can definitely write a VM that will execute MSIL).

But the compilation is done by a "virutal machine" of sorts: the .NET framework. Without it, you can't run a CIL (or MSIL) program. The framework is present, constantly compiling any CIL code that needs to be executed. That's close enough to a VM for me.

And, dude, sign your posts. Use ~~~ or ~~~~. The latter is preferred by most, as it adds a timestamp to your signature. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:47, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if I understand the technology properly, the Framework installation actually changes the native process loader for Windows platforms. There is no virtual machine involved, merely calls into the JIT compiler.

For non-Windows platforms, the similarities are much closer; you need to explicitly run the mono program on a Mono application for it to work, though I'm not sure the internal workings of that. At any rate, the original point is technically accurate that C# doesn't use a VM -- at best, .NET uses a VM and C# compiles to .NET MSIL. Perhaps that's a better way to phrase it, or leave the VM/not-a-VM discussion for the .NET article?

Kutulu 14:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pointless trivia: the framework does change the native process loader but it doesn't need to on 32-bit windows. A pure MSIL binary is still a standard win32 x86 binary containing a single x86 instruction: a jump to CorExeMain in mscoree.dll. The loader only needs to be changed to allow truly cross-platform MSIL binaries.

The question of whether .NET uses a VM is fairly meaningless. Both Java and .Net define VMs in their specifications. Both Java and .Net implement their specifications by JITing the byte code into native code. (And there are interpreters for both, but they are slower.) The fact that Java uses an EXE to implement its VM (so all java processes have the same name) and .Net uses a DLL (so processes have their own names) actually makes no significant difference. For example, this doesn't have any implications for security. Indeed, the fact that .Net apps on Linux run in the same syle as Java apps shows the equivalence of the two approaches.

10 Oct 2005

While you are correct that .Net doesn't use a VM, but you are incorrect in assuming that all java bytecode is interpreted. Most JVMs (even some relatively early JVMs) used a JIT compiler to compile and execute some bytecode directly. Some JVMs allow JIT compilation to be turned off and a few only do bytecode interpretation. So to correctly state the matter you should say that a JVM *can* interpret bytecode while the .Net runtime cannot. See this for more: JVM Taft 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C# Critique

I wrote a C# critique at (a dead link now) which I believe should be added to the external links. I won't add it myself because that could be construed as blatant self-promotion.

I read it, not bad. I added it to the list, but we should probably trim a few if the list gets any longer. Get too many links and the list becomes worthless. Next time, dude, sign your post (anyone can still go back in the history and see who made the post, but signing saves them the extra work). You can sign your post by using 3 tildes (~~~) or 4 (~~~~). The latter gives your signature a timestamp. If you're concerned about privacy, create an account. If you sign posts without an account, your IP address is shown. With an account, just your username is shown without any other information. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:51, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at the OpCodes enumeration in System.Reflection.Emit. The MSIL is stack-based. Obviously compiled MSIL is targeted to a platform. phx

[edit] Category: Java programming language family

Why was this article added to the this category? C# is not part of the Java family of languages in any formal sense -- it may have been influenced by a lot of Java features, but it was influenced by C++ and Delphi features as well. There are pretty significant aspects of the language (and especially the base class libraries) that differ from Java. I'd say this category ought to be reserved for languages that have some kind of formal relationship with Java (e.g. they compile down to Java bytecode in their standard implementation, they can seemlessly interop with Java, the language is an extensive of Java like Pizza is, and so on). Neilc 03:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• You are correct in your depiction of C#,Java,Pizza. However, the intention of the family categorization in Category:Programming language families is currently more lax than what you think it ought to be: it arose from recentTalk:Programming language suggestions and its purpose is to fuzzily relate languages according to their overall structure (Pascal,PL/I <-- Algol, for example; or J,K,Nial <-- APL; etc.) or "look and feel". IMO, in this last, more general sense, it is very hard to argue against the case that C#, coming after Java as it did, has a rather similar look and feel. In any case, this is surely a controversial topic. Please let me know what you think. Wish you a good day. —danakil 03:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] C# does not define any implementation details

technically C# has nothing to do with .NET, i think the article should be written with information about the standardized C# language, information pertaining to .NET software, such as the CLR or the JIT should be linked to a article on .NET or the microsoft C# compiler.

in fact the only thing in the article that is relevant to the language itself is the rather poor code example...

i am new to wikipedia, what is the politcally correct way of asserting my opinion as to the contents of this article, can i re-write it? --24.43.174.39

This is exactly the right place to assert your opinions. Thanks for not doing it in the article itself first. :-) The only thing wrong with post is that you didn't sign it (I signed it for you above). You can do this with either 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred, as it also leaves a timestamp. You may also want to create an account if you plan to contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis.

I agree C# doesn't have to be about .NET, but right now it is. C# doesn't exist as an entity seperate from .NET. A software company could come out with a compiler for C# that compiles to binary, for example, but none have (yet). Right now, C# is a .NET topic. If C# becomes widespread and is used outside of the .NET realm (unlikely), than it would make sense to split the article up. But for right now, it may remain. You could mention, however, that C# doesn't have to be a .NET topic, if you like.

What's wrong with the code example? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:28, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

ok, sorry about the lack of wiki syntax, as you can tell i am new to wiki beyond the scope of reading.

i guess my argument is focused on the fact that, if you were writting C# for one of the other existing C# platforms (like mono, where there is growing usage) then this article largely doesn't make a lot of sense, to me an article titled C Sharp programming language should talk about the language. Implementations are certainly valid talking points, but should not the main focus be on language features, contrast and comparison to other languages, etc? a "summary" if you will of the language standards?

about the code sample, i didn't mean to be harsh, i just feel it could either be more succinct, or provide some sort of explanation to what each section is 24.43.174.39 04:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, those are valid points. The article would be better with those items. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:50, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Syntax highlighting

Does anyone else feel the examples would be better/easier to read if they appeared with the syntax highlighting the MS IDE provides? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:50, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral - Eh. It's not standard on Wikipedia, and the examples are so simple that (hopefully) they're readable without highlighting. But I wouldn't oppose anyone who wanted to go through the trouble of highlighting all of the samples... Starwiz 02:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why such an ugly example?

In my opinion, the example given is not very suitable to present the nature of C#. What more, random string generation can be done more efficiently (fewer lines of code).

I would suggest giving some example manifesting C# language specific concepts such as operator overloading, polymorphism, properties, delegates, events,.. I do not want to delete the example myself and providing mine, I do not know how this is treated on Wiki

Sincerely, Marek 84.47.61.214 23:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you are unsure about your own example, you can post it here, on the Talk page, for review by others first. I'm sure quite a few people watch this article, so you're sure to get plenty of comments. :^) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:19, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, with no offense intended to the authors, that the example is ridiculously huge and inelegant. It might be a fine program but not a great first exposure to the language. How about a "hello world" for starters? Deco 04:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the example; there is already a "hello world," which I think is good enough for an encyclopedia article. Neilc 10:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I favour this change. Deco 20:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal

It would seem to me that the title C Sharp is perfectly unambiguous, unless we expect articles to be written on individual musical notes in the near future. I propose a move. Any objections? (waiting 2 days) Deco 04:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've tried moving it, but C Sharp is in the way and can't be deleted for a while for technical reasons. Deco 05:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

C Sharp redirects to this page now, so can the move be done? Kutulu 14:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nope, C Sharp can't be deleted until the software is upgraded because of the block compression issue. Deco 20:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move is finally done! Deco 02:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As both a musician and a programmer, I feel compelled to point out that there are articles on individual musical notes (see B (musical note)). I'm about to add a blurb to the top of the article linking to Musical notation. Does anyone object? Starwiz 02:55, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me, though I'd point out that that artilce (B (musical note)) is a stub and not a true, full-length article. But I think the notice you propose would help people who are actually looking for an article on the C# note. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. However, this page should remain the primary topic — this should not become a disambiguation page. A good many more people are liable to want to know about C# the programming language than C# the musical note. Deco 07:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MI?

From the article:

As in Java, only single inheritance is available, but a class can implement any number of abstract interfaces. This functions mainly to simplify the runtime's implementation.

Is there a reference for the claim that the lack of MI is "mainly" for the purpose of simplifying the runtime implementation? I would think a major reason for not including MI is that some people consider to be too complex, implementation trickiness aside. Neilc 05:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the implementation of CLR is one problem, CLS compliance is the another. We cannot tell which is the main problem, but C# as the "mainstream .NET language" can not (and should not) support multiple inheritance. An interview with Eric Gunnerson about this issue can be found here http://www.artima.com/intv/dotnet.html 84.47.7.5 00:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that C# does not implement MI is because it has no choice, because the CLR does not (and it would be gruesome to implement it on top of the CLR). The reason the CLR does not, on the other hand, has nothing to do with language feature complexity, because C# could still have chosen to drop MI even if the runtime supported it. On the other hand, I suppose they might have reasoned that they have no intention of building a language with MI on top of the CLR, so that was part of why they chose not to support it. Deco 01:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

I think it is interesting to know things like when C# 1.0 first came out and when the standard was accepted. Hirzel 09:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title

From the official Microsoft FAQ on the language [4]:

Q. What is the symbol in the name "C#"?

A. It's not the "hash" (or pound) symbol as most people believe. It's actually supposed to be the musical sharp symbol. However, because the sharp symbol is not present on the standard keyboard, it's easier to type the hash ("#") symbol. The name of the language is, of course, pronounced "see sharp".

So I have moved the article back to the name it's "supposed" to be.

Also, Unicode Character 'MUSIC SHARP SIGN' (U+266F) ♯ is in fact a proper UTF-8 symbol [5]. Nohat 18:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

But users can't type the proper symbol, so they would not be able to search for it. UTF-8 or not, it still does not show up properly in anything but Firefox. At the very least just use ^#. -- Foofy 19:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone can type it by using "Character Map" or an appropriate keyboard layout. Mac users can type it using the Character Palette. Equivalent utilities exist for other platforms. But it's not even necessary for users to type it because all the redirects still work correctly. It shows up perfectly fine in Windows Internet Explore, Firefox for Mac and Windows, and Safari for me. ^# is not an approximation of the correct symbol at all. The vertical lines in the sharp symbol are strictly vertical and the horizontal lines are at a slight angle; in the hash symbol, the horizontal lines are straight and the verticals are at an angle. Superscripting the hash symbol just makes the incorrect symbol smaller. We use correct typography like dashes, International Phonetic Alphabet, Katakana, etc. on many pages on Wikipedia even though some older browsers don't display it correctly. Why should this article be any different? Nohat 20:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Screenshots here and here. I get the same on a few different computers, all using plain out-of-the-box installations of Windows 2000, XP, and 2003. Also it still can't be typed for search purposes. Foofy 20:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

As I explained, yes it can be typed using the character map utility, but that doesn't matter because you can search for "C sharp" and you will still get this page. The reason a search for "C♯" doesn't return anything useful presently is because the search index hasn't been updated with the proper typography, and likely won't if you keep reverting. A search for "C#" doesn't work either, mind you. The problem with IE is a lack of adequate font coverage, and nothing can be done about that until MS starts making fonts that have complete character sets with default installs. There are many pages on Wikipedia that have characters that are not included in default Windows installs, and nobody is up in arms about how some IE users may have some trouble with them. Why is this page special? Nohat 20:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I am "up in arms" about all of them, as I'm sure you're aware. Others might tolerate characters that don't render for most of our readers in the body of a technical article, but in the title? It looks like it just says "C"; the other character is invisible. We should certainly not have page titles including characters that do not print on browsers comprising a large majority of our readership. I am moving this page back, again. Deco 01:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can cite considerable precedent in this matter.

• Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_Wikipedia_article_on_Mathematics#Using_special_symbols: it is generally better to be rather conservative with the use of symbols in order to reach a larger audience
• Talk:Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#Japanese_characters (cited in [6] as a tradeoff of Accessibility and Accuracy)
• m:Help:Special_characters
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks): Do not use special symbols such as ^TM and ® unless they are important to the context.

Is this an Encyclopedia of the Few? We must consider our readers' needs, not callously insist they upgrade their browser, because they won't, they'll just not read our encyclopedia. I will absolutely not tolerate the title that you desire, despite the fact that it is technically more correct. Deco 01:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

One last point: the name "C#" would be incorrect, but the name "C Sharp", currently in use, may be seen as a transliteration of the correct name. Deco 01:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You need to fix all the double redirects when you move a page. For someone who claims to have so much concern for our readers, you don't seem to care much that a great many of the links to this page no longer work properly. Nohat 04:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Done -- Chris 14:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I assumed you were going to move it back, so I was going to wait until this discussion had stabilized before churning lots of linking pages back and forth. Sorry for any inconvenience that this may have caused anyone. Deco 18:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added a section, Language name, which hopefully explains the sharp character issue and reduces reverts/renames of this article. -- Chris 19:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm unhappy with the change. What's so special about the Sharp symbol anyway? Does it look like this: ^# ? If so, we can just do that (^#) instead of using non-universal characters. That's my input. Right now, to a lot of readers, it looks like we are saying the correct character is a block. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The only thing special about it is that it is the technically correct symbol, according to Microsoft. Part of my mod was to leave the symbol in only two places: in the wrongtitle template, with a corresponding note stating that it may not be visible in all browsers, and in the new section. The rest of the article uses the hash mark. Also, everywhere the symbol appears it is followed by the text "sharp symbol" so that those who cannot see it are not left hanging. To address, ^#, it is still not a sharp symbol. In the sharp symbol, the left-right lines are slanted and the up-down lines are truly vertical [7]. As to it being non-universal, see Nohat's note above and this link; it is universal, just apparently not well-supported. Ultimately, if you still feel unhappy about it, change it back; I certainly won't revert. But please take into acccount that the symbol only appears in a few places and is then noted that it may not be visible. -- Chris 20:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with how it is now. I'll just pray the next C-based language isn't named C followed by some Chinese character. Deco 05:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

In the Yeeeear Two-Thousannnnd...

...entire wikipedia articles, consisting entirely of characters and symbols your web browser has no chance in hell of displaying, will be written from scratch and promptly achieve featured article status, much to your chagrin.

— FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to C♯, especially since we can't have an article at C# due to technical limitations. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Since ECMA (not MS) owns the language, we use their name ("C#") instead of MS's ("C♯") where it is technically feasible, right? Or did I miss a discussion where we decided to use MS's name instead of ECMA's. The Rod 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That comment was made before I was fully aware of the facts of the matter, see my comments below. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C♯ or C# (again)

There is a notice at the top of the article stating that the correct title is C♯, and later in the article it's mentioned that Microsoft states that C♯ is the correct name [8], however according to the ECMA-334 specification it's C#, I think we should go with the standard and not a Microsoft FAQ. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The article now uses the math template to attempt to give the correct title ("wrongtitle|title=C"), but the math template expands to HTML with an image tag in it ("C<img class='tex' src="/math/7/8/1/7818bf5748ed97579507cd14a1d5bb65.png" alt="\sharp" />"). I do not think that author intended to say that the correct title of the article should include an image, but rather that the correct title of the article should include a sharp sign. Even that statement, though, is contrary to the ECMA spec, as noted above by Ævar. Best would be to revert to the one with the hash/pound sign (#) (or possibly to the opera-incompatible "wrongtitle" note with the sharp sign (♯)), right? The Rod 19:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think if we have conflicting sources we should go with the most convenient one for us, which would be the symbol supported by all browsers. No reason not to mention what the FAQ says though. Deco 00:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added this edit war to Wikipedia: Lamest edit wars ever. It's just such a silly thing to fight about. :-) Deco 19:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Awww, come on! This is the name of the language we're talking about! Isn't that important?!?! Think of the children!!! <g> - Chris 02:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't intend the wrongtitle reversion as part of an edit war. I thought the reference to ECMA's spec after the other #/♯ discussions settled the matter. If anyone now thinks the ECMA spec is inappropriate, wrong, misinterpreted, or non-authoritative, please say so. I'll consider this issue a difference of opinion and stop reverting the wrongtitle. Otherwise, wrongtitle edits to "C♯" appear unaware of the "6. Acronyms and Abbreviations" section of ECMA spec 334 [9]. The Rod 19:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As I suggested on your talk page, I must relent on my opinion that the actual sharp symbol is correct. ECMA would, indeed, have ultimate say in the matter as I understand the development of the language. In this vein, I would like to start a discussion on the language as it relates to ECMA, ISO/IEC, and Microsoft. I'll start another section here to discuss (perhaps the discussion will not take very long) on the "ownership" of the language and how it was developed to standardization. I'd love to get your input, as well as all others. - Chris 02:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The following e-mail message from Microsoft Customer Support supports calling the language "C#":

So, MS and ECMA do agree on the official written name of the language, but the # symbol "represents" the ♯ symbol. The Rod 16:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say this puts it to bed. Thanks for the e-mail. - Chris 08:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Instead of what we have in the Language name section now, would you mind responding to that e-mail and request that we be allowed to use their response as MS' official statement on the subject? Either that, or request that they change their FAQ if it is indeed "inaccurate" as you put it? (CC'd to your talk page) - Chris 20:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Following is MS's approval:

I updated the article with their explanation, but I don't know how to cite the e-mail message, as it has no URL. How are e-mail messages cited? The Rod 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In research papers I sometimes see "Private correspondence with author" or some such thing. You could post the e-mail to a subpage and use an internal link, although there isn't precedent for this as far as I know. Be careful, though, because the representative didn't explicitly release his e-mail under the GFDL. Deco 22:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I would put it in a text file, then upload the text file to Wikipedia (like you would a picture) and then create a link to it. JesseHogan 01:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy carp! I didn't even KNOW there was a difference between sharp and pound. You learn something new everyday.

Regardless, I still choose to type # when I mean sharp, simply because I don't like typing non-keyboard characters. Viltris 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspicious naming fact

I noticed this fact in the naming section:

Another name for the # symbol is "octothorpe", which when combined with a hard C sound, results in the pronunciation "cock-toe-thorp". This form, spoken emphasising the first syllable, is occasionally used as an expletive by programmers.

As crass as programmers are, I find this a little difficult to believe. Anyone have a reference? Deco 00:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not received any reply in two weeks, and so I am removing this claim. Deco 20:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the specific claim, but the ANSI name for the # character is octothorpe.

[edit] Standardization and "ownership" of the language

As part of the on-going difference of opinions on the name of the language (of which I think I have the least popular one), I'd like to get a better understanding of how the language came to be. I understand that Microsoft "submitted C# to the ECMA for formal standardization", but what does this mean to the evolution of the language? I have always assumed that Anders Hejlsberg created the language while employed with Microsoft. But who commissioned it? How was it "born"? Who started the standardization process? Did Microsoft go to ECMA or the other way around (I assume the former)? And, in the end, who "owns" the language? - Chris 02:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The question of "ownership" seems impossible to answer. The ECMA standard defines the language, but not the extended C# implementation published by Microsoft, and Microsoft's is really the only implementation of the language (other than the incomplete open-source ones). I don't think anyone has the power to decide how the standard must be interpreted in particular situations, but there are certainly figures whose opinions are respected, such as Hejlsberg. Deco 05:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Good comment Chris. However, why do we have to assume that it was ECMA who approached MS? Cheers -- Svest 21:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Indeed, it seems I can see nothing to support that assumption. As well, from reading a few more articles, I see nothing but the standard line about the language being developed by Hejlsberg at Microsoft. - Chris 14:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That would mean that he got paid for that job! In other words, as long as there are no information about how Hejlsberg started developing the language, in case he did before joining MS, we must say that the language was developed by MS. Cheers -- Szvest 18:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

I think only a part of C# is standardised via ECMA (the core of the language, and not for example the Forms, etc... parts that are specific to the MS environment (still can be emulated, but may be not so simply). Why not adding this sort of information on the "Standardization" section ? Hervegirod 09:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's wrong. Windows Forms are part of the .NET framework, not C#. --Craig Stuntz 13:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the ECMA standardization of C# is adressing the VM and syntax part of the language, and not its librairies. The ECMA standard states that The Standard specifies: The representation of C# programs, The syntax and constraints of the C# language, The semantic rules for interpreting C# programs, The restrictions and limits imposed by a conforming implementation of C#. If I am right, it should be fair to explain this in the standardization section. I agree that most of the libraries are part of the .NET framework, but the libraries are also important for the users. Hervegirod 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not "most of the libraries," all of them. I don't know of any parts of the C# language which are "specific to the MS environment." However, it might be worth noting that the C# and BCL standards are widely confused, and that many people presume that things which are actually part of the BCL are parts of C#. --Craig Stuntz 19:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

you are right, the bunch of terminologies (.NET, C#, CLI, CLR, etc..) can create some confusion, it is also the case in Java (JDK, JRE, VM, Java, bytecote), but I think it is more confusing in C#, because there are more acronyms Hervegirod 20:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "C Pound"

• This # is a pound sign. Every person I talk to says C Pound. Can we please change this?--God of War 18:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you'd like something in the article to change regarding the way to pronounce the name of the language, but I don't understand whether you want to change the article to agree with your acquaintences' pronunciation or to warn people like your acquaintences to say "C Sharp" instead of "C Pound". If you want the former, the place to take up your argument is with the ECMA, the owners of language specification, as they say it's pronounced "C Sharp". If you want the latter, that's already in the Language name section. The Rod 20:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Change your friends? That's your job! Tell them to stop pronouncing "C++" as "C increment" while you're at it. :-) Deco 02:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The pronunciation of "Sharp" comes from music, where saying "A#" would be a change from the 'A' note. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp might explain it a little better.Mr.hotkeys 04:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] # sign

Why are article titles not allowed to have the # sign?? Georgia guy 19:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Because HTML URLs reserve it to separate a page name from an anchor name created by the A REF tag. Deco 20:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Click on a link in a table of contents, and see how it is used in the URL.--Max Talk (add) • Contribs • 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing

This edit added {{confusing}} to the article without any discussion on the talk page. What is confusing about this article? The Rod 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see anything confuding in the article. Trifon Triantafillidis 11:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Java as a proprietary language

I removed the reference to Java as a proprietary language in the Politics section. Given that Java has a community process which directs its progress as a language (The Java Community Process; see also http://www.jcp.org/en/home/index), it either deserves mentioning or we should choose more clearly proprietary languages as examples. No need to introduce needless controversy. :) Taft 22:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Some dates, such as when the language was first released, would be nice. Dan100 (Talk) 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions Between Articles

There's a significant and obvious contradiction between the C# vs Java article and the main C# article, specifically, about garbage-collection. The main article states, "A common misbelief is that they are garbage-collected, though they are not; they are true value-types and are stack allocated (with an exception for System.Object, and due to interning, System.String)." while this article begins, "As two modern garbage-collected runtime-compiled languages derived from C and C++, Java and C# are very similar."

I'm not familiar enough with the lanugage to fix this myself, but wanted to note it for others to take a look at.

Cross-posted to the Comparison of Java and C# talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.100.221.52 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-10 05:28:23 (UTC)

There is no contradiction betwen those two correct statements. Like Java, C# implements garbage-collection for objects allocated from the heap. The local value type variables to which the C# article refers need no such heap allocation since they are kept on the stack. The compiler takes advantage of the limited lifetime of those value variables and still uses garbage collection for the heap-allocated objects to which any reference variables refer (although the stack-based references themselves are freed when the method returns). The Rod (☎ Smith) 05:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And like C# Java uses stack allocation for local varables. (Side note: Stack for local varables has been around forever.... cobal didn't and fortran did... of course newer versions of these language do.) Hogan 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

To be precise, the compilers of those languages use stack allocation for local variables. Obviously a compiler (for whatever language) can store variables anywhere it wants as long as the results are the same, and not all architectures have a stack as a natural part of memory (the CLR and the JVM do, obviously). Even global variables à la COBOL and Fortran could be allocated on the stack if the compiler detected the variables are live only within function calls (rather than across), but this would be difficult and error-prone and requires a closed-world assumption. 194.151.6.67 14:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HTML comment near the beginning of the source says...

...per ECMA, the name is C# (C sharp,) not C box, C square (however you pronounce the character.) What does that mean?? Georgia guy 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with "Language features" section

The following text is confusing and misleading (and possibly outright wrong):

"Most of C#'s intrinsic types correspond to value-types implemented by the CLI framework. A common misbelief is that they are garbage-collected, though they are not; they are true value-types and are stack allocated (with an exception for System.Object, and due to interning, System.String)."

• Instead of garbage-collected, I believe that the phrase should be heap-allocated. The issue is not how they are finalized (manual/reference-counted/garbage collected), but where they are allocated (stack or heap). Value-types are generally placed on the stack, but can be automatically boxed and placed on the heap (and therefore garbage collected).
• Since (almost) all types—even value types—technically inherit from System.Object, I think the mentioning of System.Object is awkard
• I don't see how interning causes System.String to not be stack-allocated. System.String is heap allocated because it is a reference type instead of a value type. Interning means that the compiler/runtime will try to share instances for equal strings (string x = "Foo"; string y = "Foo"; //x and y reference the same object because of interning). It has nothing to do with stack allocation or garbage collection. Perhaps what is meant is that interned strings may not ever be garbage collected, which may very well be true, but seeing as many strings are not interned, I think this may be irrelevant.
• Also, there's a difference between primitive types and value types in the CLI, and the primitive types are not the same as C#'s intrinsic types, either. For example, System.IntPtr is a primitive type to the CLI, but there's no intrinsic type for it in C# (it's treated like any other struct, although the compiler may do some optimizations). On the other hand, System.Decimal is not a primitive in the CLI, but C# treats decimal as if it were, to the point of allowing "const decimal" where the runtime doesn't directly support it. Whether or not strings are primitive types in the CLI escapes me at the moment. I believe that they are simply classes with a lot of special-case handling by the runtime and C# compiler, and the only special IL instruction for strings is related to loading them from the assembly.

—TheMuuj ^Talk 09:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Other parts of this article need an overhaul as well. There are many incorrect statements. For example, it is both stated and implied that C#, unlike Java, is just-in-time compiled to native code. Java has had JIT-compilation since JRE 1.2. In addition, while most (if not all) implementations of C# compile to CIL and most implementations of the CLI use a just-in-time compiler, this is not always the case. Mono provides a CIL interpreter in addition to several JIT-compilers for various architectures. Saying that C# is always JIT-compiled is like saying that C/C++ is always compiled to native code. Technically, GCC compiles to RTL, which is then converted to machine assembly. There are also C/C++ interpreters. So we need to be careful when talking about C# that we're talking about the language and not the platform which most C# code runs on. —TheMuuj ^Talk 09:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right about all this. I'm not sure what the editor who added that statement was thinking. There is something of a temptation to speak of things that apply only to the primary platform, especially since there's not another article on Microsoft's implementation, but we should be careful to distinguish. Deco 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Something more should be done (what?) to the Language features section, it says

Compared to C and C++, the language ... etc.

then comes an enumeration of features, among others:

True support for pointers ...

???

Yeah! C# supports pointers. But C and C++ are reknowned for their dare-devilish gymnastically free manipulation of pointers. So there's no difference there. Some PL comparison that was there, has been lost presumably!? /

Quaþ cowardly Anonymous Mr X, AKA tomas.kindahl@comhem.se.

[edit] Claim regarding RAD-ness seems questionable.

The article states that "C# was designed to fit both demands for a concise syntax (C++) and 'unlimited' rapid development (versus the 'limited' RAD of Visual Basic)."

Several assertions are packed into this short sentence:

1) C++ syntax is concise. (it supports concise expressions, but the overall syntax is arguably non-concise). 2) There is such a thing as "unlimited" RAD. (what would that mean?) 3) Visual Basic only supports "limited" RAD. 4) C# had RAD support as a design goal. (I doubt it.)

I'd like to remove the entire sentence. Any objections?

I agree. There is nothing concise about C++ syntax (it contains a great deal of redundant elements). It's evident they were thinking in comparison to VB - BASIC has always been verbose, using complete words for most of its elements. The other stuff just doesn't make sense. Deco 19:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memory management corrections

I corrected some mistakes.

1) ref counting is NOT used to detect objects eligable to GC. Other methods are used. 2) Dispose does NOT make the referring object object eligable for GC. Dispose informs an object that it should release its unmanaged resources. That's it. Leotohill 18:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong tone and questionable content

When combined with Windows and Web Forms and Visual Studio, it provides a scripting language with the power and performance of C++ with the ease of use and user interface design of Visual Basic for Windows and Web ASP.NET clients. It is designed to be safer, more productive, and easier to use than C++, somewhat like dull school scissors compared to sharp scissors. It is commonly deployed only in Windows environments with the large CLR runtime installed. Most sample code on the Internet is either C# or VB.NET. There is also a managed version of C++ which some have adopted for porting C++ programs such as 3D games, but source samples are scarce. If you want to develop new applications for Windows on PCs, and you have a bachelors degree in computer science, and you don't need to port to other platforms, and accept some memory and performance penalties in exchange for increased productivity, then C# is the language of choice.

I'm going to clip this paragraph out because it doesn't seem encyclopedic. If somebody wants to add it back or revert then go ahead, but the tone needs to change if stays. —TheMuuj ^Talk 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Tell me about it. This is a ridiculously biased paragraph with virtually no information content, just colorful metaphors and bold unsupported claims. Thanks for cutting it out. Deco 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Leotohill 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that. -- Szvest 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] C# vs VB

Based on some discussion in the VB talk, I created a new topic for comparing C# and VB. It needs significant work, but I think it will be a valuable topic. Have at it. Gaijin42 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gtk#... a language?

This statement claims that Gtk# is a language:

The "sharp" suffix has been used by a number of other .NET languages that are variants of existing languages, including J# (Microsoft's implementation of Java), A# (from Ada), F# (presumably from System F, the type system used by the ML family), and Gtk# (a .NET wrapper for GTK+).

While I know that is not the intent, it is still a little awkward as it is. I've pondered how to reword it but I can't seem to come up with anything that doesn't read worse (although being more clear). Anyone else want to take a shot? --Chris (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Programmers joke is boring

I didn't like the section with the programmer's joke, and now its been revised to something even more convoluted and contrived. I'd like to delete it. Comments? Leotohill 03:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote and shortened it. It could still use a source, though. What do you think? Deco 02:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's better. Thanks. Leotohill 03:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics: Don't confuse C# with the .NET framework.

I've removed a couple of sentences from the section.

"The relevant patents covering the .NET implementation were released for public use. "

I'm not sure that this is true or correctly phrased. "Released for public use" is not the right language for a patent. Can anyone provide a reference to this claim about patents?

"However, the standard library provided with C#, including the extensive GUI library, is not open or completely documented, so an independant implementation which can run all programs written for Microsoft's C# would be difficult and of questionable legal basis "

C# is a specification. No library is provided with it. This statement confuses C# with the .NET framework. C#, the specification, does not require the framework. It does not even require the CLR (CLI).

We need to divide this topic into two parts, or separate topics. One is C#, the specification. This would describe the characteristics of the language free of .NET framework context. The second topic would be "Microsoft C#". This would describe Microsoft's implementation of the spec, and could freely use .NET framework elements in the examples and other text.

Leotohill 21:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I believe the correct name for Microsoft's implementation is "Microsoft Visual C#." Even the commandline compiler (csc.exe) refers to itself in this way. —TheMuuj ^Talk 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The correct wording would be "licensed freely for public use", or something like that. Yes, parts of the article referring to Microsoft's specific implementation should be qualified as such. Deco 00:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article "Microsoft Visual C#"

Ok, I've gone and done it, that which we discussed. I've created Microsoft Visual C_Sharp. Let's work on moving all content that is specific to Visual C# to that article. LeoTohill June 17 2006

I've added a "design goals" section. It's taken verbatim from the ECMA standard. I'd usually try to avoid direct copies but a) I couldn't find any rephrasing, trimming, or expansion that would improve it and b) it's not copyrighted. Leotohill 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect, there really is very little or nothing in this article that needs to be moved to Microsoft Visual C_Sharp. That article will probably remain quite short, just describing the distinction between this and that. But I think it's useful, and should not be merged.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leotohill (talk • contribs) .

Well, other than being completely incorrect, that is. "Visual C#" isn't an implementation of the ECMA spec. Visual C#, in fact, uses the compiler implementation found in the Microsoft .NET Framework — the same C# implementation used in Borland Delphi, SharpDevelop, and other IDEs. Visual C# is an IDE, not a compiler implementation. It's really something of a misnomer since the product is actually named Visual Studio, but as Microsoft themselves use the name it's OK to have it here. I scarcely know where to begin with that article. --Craig Stuntz 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that when you run the C# compiler that comes with the .NET Framework, it identifies itself as "Microsoft (R) Visual C# .NET Compiler." So the .NET Framework comes with the free Visual C# compiler (even though the name "Visual" is dubious), and various Visual C#/Studio products (Express, Standard, Professional) come with IDEs for running the compiler. I do fully intend to contribute to both this and the Microsoft Visual C# articles in the future, and having to re-split the information will be a huge pain. I'd say that if anything Visual C# should be merged with Microsoft Visual Studio, but then the information would be harder to find. —TheMuuj ^Talk 19:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

MS's utter self-confusing regarding the names of ".NET"-branded products are a matter of public record. But it's clear from the MS link I give above what MS means when they talk about "Visual C#" in general. I agree that merging VC# and MSVS makes sense. The correct place to discuss MS's compiler, in my opinion, is in Microsoft .NET Framework, since the framework is the only place to get it, with or without VS. Oh, and some original research: I have it from sources I trust that a number of people involved with Visual Studio never really considered the fact that other people would make an IDE for .NET. This actually explains quite a bit, like the fact that the WinForms designer comes with the framework, but the designer for WinForms on Compact Framework does not. --Craig Stuntz 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Craig, the url you provided has a lot of content. Can you be more specific about what part of it supports your opinion? I see only statements for the opposite, such as this at http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/learning/default.aspx

"  Before you can get started writing any code at all, you are going to need some software. Generally speaking you need two things:
   * The Visual C# compiler to turn your programs into running applications. This is available as part of the .NET Framework SDK (a free download)
   * Some form of editor or IDE (Integrated Development Environment) in which to write your code."

They seem to be clear about it: Visual C# is NOT the IDE.

Leotohill 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Craig, I think that you are incorrect on another point. The .NET framework does not include the C# compiler. The content of the framework is clearly defined in [[12]], and can be verified at http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/gettingstarted/default.aspx . The C# compiler is included in the framework Software Development Kit (SDK).

Leotohill 22:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that you get the C# and VB compilers when installing just the .NET Framework. I don't install the SDK on most machines, and often rely on being able to use notepad and csc.exe in a pinch. With .NET 2.0, I believe MSBuild comes with the framework, whether or not it is actually a "part" of it (it's in the Microsoft namespace instead of System, for starters). —TheMuuj ^Talk 22:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That may be true - I'll have to test that on a clean machine. But in any case, since the MS doc is very clear about the definition of the fw, and that definition does not include the compiler(s), I don't think the fw topic should include MSVS.

Leotohill 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually intended to say the SDK when I said "framework," although I believe TheMuuj is correct that it's included with both. As for links from that page supporting what I say, well, [13]. But yes the SDK is where nearly all IDEs supporting C# on Windows get the compiler, including Visual Studio. --Craig Stuntz 00:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted Removal of "C Pound"

I reverted the changes by 70.17.32.75 that removed a sub-section about how C# is sometimes pronounced (see C_Sharp#Language_name). I don't think the edit was vandalism, but I don't think it should be removed without discussion, either. Feel free to remove it again, but include an explanation of why it should be removed. I have heard people refer to the language by the names mentioned, so it is not a factual error. However, if the information is not encylopedic or otherwise violates policy, then by all means re-remove it. —TheMuuj ^Talk 05:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. It's trivial and distracting. (perhaps move it to a "Trivia" section?) Also, I never heard the symbol referred to as "gate". Maybe it is, but not enough to cause confusion. Leotohill 11:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections are the garbage pile of Wikipedia. Since its inception, C# was always defined (and publicized) as being pronouced "c-sharp". Any other pronounciation as always been done after-the-fact and jokingly. --Spookfish 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] System.Console is not technically an Object

The Hello world example section states:

Console is a system object, representing a command-line console where a program can input and output text.

This may be a bit pedantic of me, but technically Console is a static class, and therefore there is never an "object" of that type. This is different from Java, where System is the static class and Console() returns an object, but in .NET, Console mostly consists of helper methods that call methods on Console.In and Console.Out. It's probably helpful to think of it as an object, and the design is a simpler way to implement the singleton pattern (rather than something like Console.Instance.WriteLine). But is it correct to call it an object? I don't know how to change it without making it confusing, so I'll leave it as is. —TheMuuj ^Talk 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "pedanticity," there is no System.Console() method in Java. There are three fields of System: in, out, and err (which can be reassigned to redirect output/input/error). --Chris (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is (or will be) a System.console() method, but it appears to be still in draft. (See JDK 1.6 Spec). I did get the capitalization wrong, but that was out of habit. —TheMuuj ^Talk 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you comparing currently released .NET aspects with yet-to-be-finalized aspects of a still-under-development Java? Secondly, static class methods can be thought of as methods of a singleton (global instance) object of that class. The concept of "object" doesn't just apply to class instances... a Java "Class" instance is proof of that since there can only be one instance of it per class definition. --Spookfish 02:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be ok with changing it to "Console is a system class, ..." Leotohill 03:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think this will ever happen, but...

What if someone creates a language called C Flat?? What would the symbol be?? Georgia guy 23:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Any serious computer language takes a lot of effort to develop. No serious developer(s) would go to that trouble to only then call it some joke/pun-on-words name. It would certainly result in no one taking it seriously enough to do any major development with. --Spookfish 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine "Cb." Or "B" if you wanted to be really clever. —TheMuuj ^Talk 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but there already was a B. Deco 02:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So C-flat would be a .NET implementation of Bell Labs B? —TheMuuj ^Talk 02:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of C# Online.NET in external links - consensus?

User User talk:71.252.197.197 has spent the last five days inserting this link [14] in the C# and Microsoft .NET Framework pages. He argues that his website is more relevant than the other thousands of C# websites out there. I don't have a problem with that, but someone other than him/her must also agree that the site is encyclopedic and relevant enough to be included in the list of external links. Any takers? -- klaus

That's any unfair characterization of my argument. It's not that it's more relevant than all the other sites, simply that it is relevant.--70.104.16.183 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I should add that the site is not even indexed by Google [15] -- klaus

Not so, Klaus. --70.104.16.183 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The site does not appear "commercial" at first glance (no ads, etc, though it may be used to advertise certain books). To be honest, I'm on the fence about this one. It's probably something I would use once the site has more content. It seems to properly distinguish between C# and Visual C#, so it is a candidate for this article. But really I don't know. (It's worth mentioning that the site doesn't use a free license on the content -- they reserve all of the content under their copyright. This isn't relevant to inclusion, just something interesting to point out.) --Chris (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of a two edged sword, Chris. No links, no traffic, no content--for a wiki-based site. Besides, you must be used to vast sites. I think almost 1,300 pages in a few months is pretty good and fast growing. --70.104.16.183 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would someone explain to me why this link does not meet the criteria

why this link does not meet the criteria for external links:

• C# Online.NET - free, wiki-based C# and .NET encyclopedia and forums

but these do:

• CSharpfriends community
• C# forum and community

--70.104.16.183 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that neither is sufficiently relevant. I don't think we need more than one "community" link anyway, and that one should preferrably be the most prominent C# community site. Those are often wikis, true (consider CLiki), but apparently not in this case (yet, anyway). Considering how fast wikis tend to grow, it would get some leeway in my opinion if it were a true wiki, but it's neither Free (copyright to all contributions is assigned to creators of that page, and they explicitly reserve the right to deny access to information to anyone they please, and use it for any purpose, including commercial) nor ad-free (plenty of Google text ads). So, my say would still be no. And remove the other two links as well, unless someone gives a convincing reason for why they are there. -- int19h 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibility of weak typing

It is obvious C# is normally strongly typed, but doesn't it allow for weak typing using the implicit type casts a programmer can specify? Shouldn't we note that in the Typing discipline part of the box at the top of the page? --85.145.148.191 02:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it was generally accepted practice for implicit casts to only be used for widening conversions, which really doesn't make C# any more weakly typed. Most strongly-typed languages allow for widening conversions, because there's less potential for bugs to spring up. There is the possibility of writing a Variant-like class that's like a tagged union and can be implicitly cast to any of the primitive types, but I still don't think that would make C# weakly typed, because you'd still be explicitly specifying the casting behavior somewhere in code. So the weak type behavior would still be limited to classes that are designed that way, and not any classes/types. —TheMuuj ^Talk 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite possible to do (limited) tagged variants with implicit casting in C#, by defining implicit conversion operators. Consider this code:

struct Variant
{
  private object value;
  
  // int
  
  private Variant(int value)
  {
    this.value = value;
  }
  
  public static implicit operator Variant(int value)
  {
    return new Variant(value);
  }
  
  public static implicit operator int(Variant v)
  {
    return (int)v.value;
  }
  
  // string
  
  private Variant(string value)
  {
    this.value = value;
  }
  
  public static implicit operator Variant(string value)
  {
    return new Variant(value);
  }
  
  public static implicit operator string(Variant v)
  {
    return (string)v.value;
  }

  // ...
}

So it can certainly be done for a finite set of types (i.e. all primitive types). Unfortunately, since there's no way to define generic conversion operators, you cannot do something like boost::variant in C#, nor can you make a variant type which could be implicitly converted to/from any other C# type. -- int19h 07:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The public static void portion is a subject for a slightly more advanced discussion."

Then either link to one, or provide an external link! Loganberry (Talk) 03:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft's implementation

We say both:

This article describes the language as defined in the ECMA and ISO standards, and avoids description of Microsoft's implementation. For a description of Microsoft's implementation, see Microsoft Visual C#

and

the Microsoft implementation of C# is by far the predominant one, and this article describes its characteristics and behavior, unless noted otherwise

This is confusing, and somewhat contradictory. — Matt Crypto 11:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make the article focus more on the ECMA standard and less on MS quirks in the recent cleanup edit, so I've removed the "this article describes its [Microsoft's implementation] characteristics and behavior, unless noted otherwise" statement and "contradictory" tag for now. But I'll appreciate if someone takes another look and checks if nothing of a kind has managed to slip past. -- int19h 12:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that, cheers. — Matt Crypto 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XML Documentation?

Should this page mention the XML documentation mechanism? What is that called, anyway? I don't think that the XML documentation is specific to Visual Studio, either; it was mentioned in an appendix of the C sharp standard, as a recommendation, I think or something like that. 68.198.48.49 03:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is part of the standard, so it should probably go in here as well as the Java/C# comparison page. I'll try to come up with something. -- int19h 07:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done it. The section is pretty minimalistic as it is. Does something like this deserve its own article? Javadoc has an article. 68.198.48.49 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded it a bit with info about standardization. Even so, it's pretty short (which is perfectly okay - we're not describing the language in detail here), so I don't think a separate article is worth the bother. Not sure why Javadoc has one, actually - it looks like it would be better placed in the main Java article. -- int19h 07:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There's also the question of whether or not linking to other documenters, even by way of an example (I'm thinking of NDoc here), might not also be a good idea. NDoc, in my humble experience, is a pretty popular way of doing code documentation and adds a few tags to the "standard" which one can find in sample code occasionally. Whether it's popular enough to be characterized as a de facto 'standard' is another matter. Does it matter if one points to examples where NDoc tags seemed which were not implemented in .NET Framework v1.1 seem to have been embraced in v2.0 & later? ross613 19:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "He can be cited in interviews"

Does anyone else find this wording strange: "He can be cited in interviews and technical papers as stating flaws in most major programming languages". Is there a better way to say this? I can't think of one off the top of my head though. Timbatron 04:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Error

"EMCA" and "ISO" standards are unadopted standards. C# is a Microsoft product; any other variations can not be considered C#.

What, are you next going to replace the Microsoft Windows article with an article about WINE and then put 'Microsoft's implementation' in a different article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.45.72.17 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't understand what you are trying to say here, or what you mean by "unadopted standards". Leotohill 02:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

C# is a language standardized by ISO and ECMA. Microsoft product is called Visual C#, and it fully implements those standards. Other implementations of the standards are Rotor by Microsoft, and Mono and DotGNU by third parties. With four widely known implementations in existence, I fail to see how the standards are in any way "unadopted". -- int19h 06:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C# - play on words?

The term C# is a play on words similar to the language name C++: the expression C++ in the language C means C incremented by one, and the author of C++ named the language C++ in reference to its incremental improvement over C, while the sharp in 'C#' implies that it is a 'step up' from C. A sharp symbol can be broken apart into four plus signs, so the name C# might be rendered as C++++, and the meaning being that it is C++ incremented by one.

There's no source for this. Is this original research? - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, for removing it. All these theories about the meaning of the name are just speculation, afaikt. Here's another one: "The name is meant to suggest 'see sharp(ly)', as in having acute vision or knowledge." I just made that up, but it's as good as the others. Wait, here's another: "The name is a double pun on 'The sea is flat'" . It means that C# is the language for navigating seas that are not flat (i.e., are sharp)." Wait, here's another... oh, never mind. Leotohill 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)