Google Go

[steeladept]

Yes, I tend to agree, but finding API details when you don't have a MSDN subscription can be a b****.

The one thing I like about Java over EVERY other language I have tried to work with is the self-describing documentation that can be viewed with any HTML browser.  Moreover, it is instantly available online or off (because it just reads the details from the jar file as part of your SDK).  It's format is also VERY easy to understand.

If Microsoft's API documentation was that easy to access and understand, I probably never would have started with Java.  Since it isn't....

[Renegade]

Yes, I tend to agree, but finding API details when you don't have a MSDN subscription can be a b****.

The one thing I like about Java over EVERY other language I have tried to work with is the self-describing documentation that can be viewed with any HTML browser.  Moreover, it is instantly available online or off (because it just reads the details from the jar file as part of your SDK).  It's format is also VERY easy to understand.

If Microsoft's API documentation was that easy to access and understand, I probably never would have started with Java.  Since it isn't....

-steeladept (June 26, 2011, 12:44 PM)

I'm not sure I follow you there. You can get all the documentation from the MS site. You don't need an MSDN subscription.

I actually have found the MSDN documentation to be much better and easier than other languages/SDKs/APIs.

Want a nightmare? Go try something with the Facebook API. Good f**king luck. In addition to being total s**t documentation, the API is broken. So, you are fumbling around in the dark, and running into land mines.

http://cynic.me/tag/facebook/

http://cynic.me/2011...09/wtf-is-an-id-for/
http://cynic.me/2011...-the-facebook-c-sdk/
http://cynic.me/2011...facebook-with-c-sdk/

I'm not sure what problems you've been trying to solve. Most often I can solve problems by searching and finding community articles. Community is really important, and that's a strength in .NET. You don't get that with some things.

But for docs, MS is damn good. And one of the reasons I tend to side with MS technologies. I just don't like farting around with zero docs. I have better things to do, like solve my own problems.

[Eóin]

While I had an MSDN subscription I had no better access to documentation than now. Got to agree with Renegade, MS docs are excellent.

[mashmata]

Yes, I tend to agree, but finding API details when you don't have a MSDN subscription can be a b****.

The one thing I like about Java over EVERY other language I have tried to work with is the self-describing documentation that can be viewed with any HTML browser.  Moreover, it is instantly available online or off (because it just reads the details from the jar file as part of your SDK).  It's format is also VERY easy to understand.

If Microsoft's API documentation was that easy to access and understand, I probably never would have started with Java.  Since it isn't....

-steeladept (June 26, 2011, 12:44 PM)

I'm not sure I follow you there. You can get all the documentation from the MS site. You don't need an MSDN subscription.

I actually have found the MSDN documentation to be much better and easier than other languages/SDKs/APIs.

Want a nightmare? Go try something with the Facebook API. Good f**king luck. In addition to being total s**t documentation, the API is broken. So, you are fumbling around in the dark, and running into land mines.

http://cynic.me/tag/facebook/

http://cynic.me/2011...09/wtf-is-an-id-for/
http://cynic.me/2011...-the-facebook-c-sdk/
http://cynic.me/2011...facebook-with-c-sdk/

I'm not sure what problems you've been trying to solve. Most often I can solve problems by searching and finding community articles. Community is really important, and that's a strength in .NET. You don't get that with some things.

But for docs, MS is damn good. And one of the reasons I tend to side with MS technologies. I just don't like farting around with zero docs. I have better things to do, like solve my own problems.

-Renegade (June 26, 2011, 01:03 PM)

This is a good piece of advice, many thanks

[steeladept]

I'm not sure I follow you there. You can get all the documentation from the MS site. You don't need an MSDN subscription.

I actually have found the MSDN documentation to be much better and easier than other languages/SDKs/APIs.

Want a nightmare? Go try something with the Facebook API. Good f**king luck.

-Renegade (June 26, 2011, 01:03 PM)

No thank you - I don't need any more nightmares either.  Maybe it is just that I don't know where to look/how to search for the proper API's then.  I just know every time I looked for different information on various classes, method, whatever; I could never find them and when I asked other developers I work with, they always say you have to look it up in MSDN.  When I tell them I don't have a subscription, they always told me they couldn't help me then.  Guess I should have known better and asked here instead    When I go to change languages to C#, I will definitely know who to ask if I get stuck trying to find documentation 

[Renegade]

I'm not sure I follow you there. You can get all the documentation from the MS site. You don't need an MSDN subscription.

I actually have found the MSDN documentation to be much better and easier than other languages/SDKs/APIs.

Want a nightmare? Go try something with the Facebook API. Good f**king luck.

-Renegade (June 26, 2011, 01:03 PM)

No thank you - I don't need any more nightmares either.  Maybe it is just that I don't know where to look/how to search for the proper API's then.  I just know every time I looked for different information on various classes, method, whatever; I could never find them and when I asked other developers I work with, they always say you have to look it up in MSDN.  When I tell them I don't have a subscription, they always told me they couldn't help me then.  Guess I should have known better and asked here instead    When I go to change languages to C#, I will definitely know who to ask if I get stuck trying to find documentation 

-steeladept (June 27, 2011, 12:29 PM)

I hear you about not needing more nightmares~! (Facebook has been driving me nuts with it's almost complete lack of documentation.)

If you're looking for resources on C#, here's where to go for fast answers 95% of the time:

1) MSDN
2) The Code Project
3) StackOverflow

If you can't find answers there, then most likely you're going to need to delve into the deep dark world of developer blogs. However, at that point you won't be looking for answers about C# or .NET, you'll be trying to solve other problems that aren't really language dependent, and are really just topical problems.

Here's an example of the kind of thing I mean:

http://cynic.me/2011...facebook-with-c-sdk/

That's about Facebook, and solving a problem there, but the problem isn't limited to C#. So it's those kinds of things where you end up needing to really dig for answers.

Oh, and some of the abstract concepts in computing -- MSDN covers them, but it's so massive that you quite often end up missing them, looking at the method/class documentation, and missing it, and ending up finding an answer elsewhere.

I can't possibly express how valuable the Code Project and StackOverflow are. You'll find all manner of problems solved there.

After those, then there's Codeplex, Github, etc. But then you're basically looking at implementations of solutions there, and not getting much "educational" value out of them without diving into the deep end of the code. With the Code Project, I find I can get answers with explanations, which is always valuable.

[Renegade]

Oh, I should point out this guy's blog at MSDN:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/

A WEALTH of information. I find I can just read and read there.

But other MSDN blogs are similarly good. And the MSDN forums, though quite often I end up only finding a teaser of an answer in the forums.

And Channel 9 too. Lots there.

Have fun~!

[steeladept]

I guess what I was looking for was something like the JavaDocs.  You know you want to implement a class to generate a random number, for example.  You then go and find it is in the Math class (or whatever, not going to look it up now), but then what method do you use to impliment it?  What are the parameters that need to be provided (if any), simple stuff like that.  As I recall, when I went to look for something like that on MSDN, it would say "Random library - usage: install .dll into the standard library to use."  Something totally useless like that.  Perhaps it has changed, or as I said, perhaps I just didn't know how to use it.  Either way, I found Javadocs much easier to navigate for a total noob like me.

When I try my hand at C# again, though, I will definitely be looking for some help from the likes of you guys and girls if I run into similar issues again.  At least the coding logic and format of C# and Java are almost identical

EDIT - I got curious since, and went out to MSDN again, just after writing that, and found it has changed...A LOT!  They have it a little more obscure than the Javadoc is, but that appears to be more because there is just flat out more there to document.  With the new Bing Search there, I was able to quickly find a class implimentation I might concieveably want to use (such as my random example above), complete with usage, samples, parameters, and even a tab for .Net implimentations in each of the .Net languages, not just C# or VB.Net, but also F#, C++, and JScript.  WOW, that has changed!  Thank you for getting me to look at it again.

BTW:  Just for reference, if it matters, the last time I looked at it was when I choose to study Java instead.  That was around 2007/2008 timeframe.  These changes are drastic and significantly better since then - either that or like I said, I was looking in the completely wrong place.

[f0dder]

steeladept: even around 2007-2008, iirc online MSDN documentation was just fine - it's built-in search used to be very very sucky, though. To the point where I'd use google when searching for API information, and tack on a "site:msdn.microsoft.com"

Once you're "in there", it's always(*) been easy enough to navigate around, though.

(*): always in the developer sense, meaning ~5 years or whatever

[40hz]

Ok, Go is now 'real' according to Heise Online's H-Open website (link here)

Now everyone can use Google's Go language on the company's App Engine cloud platform as the company has announced that the Go runtime, which has been in development since it was announced at Google I/O, is now generally available. Developers who have been creating Go-based applications can publish them using the latest version of the App Engine SDK.

Looks like Google is quite serious about this project after all. 

[Renegade]

I really wish people would stop screwing around and being complete friggin' idiots developing new languages that nobody wants or needs.

For Christmas sakes already!!!

Just let's all stick with this language and be DONE with it~!

[40hz]

I really wish people would stop screwing around and being complete friggin' idiots developing new languages that nobody wants or needs.

-Renegade (July 23, 2011, 07:21 AM)

What? And deprive our Renegade of so many ranting opportunities?

(Kidding! )

Google Go

-------

Love that link BTW.  

When I was in college I took a CS language course where we had to design and build a simple interpreter for our own computer language. (Note: I discovered the real challenge is getting the parser right.) My language was called TWIT. (That's What I Thought). Most of the system responses were slangy "laid back" expressions which were intended to be amusing.

My professor (formerly of SperryRand) was not amused. Despite the fact it worked, I still got a C+. (Lowest grade I ever got in my entire academic career. Bummer!) His note under the grade said: You would have gotten an B+ or maybe an A- had you taken my assignment more seriously!!!

"Old-guard" college professors! Jeez...

Used to think it was just an academic exercise since we "pros" all knew that interpreters were for babies. Real serious production code was COMPILED! Or so I thought until people started doing things like Perl, pHp, and Python - and started making some serious money off them.

Hindsight's always 20-20 right?

Onward!

[Renegade]

Love that link BTW. 

-40hz (July 23, 2011, 08:26 AM)

I thought someone would get a laugh out of that 'rant'.

When I was in college I took a CS language course where we had to design and build a simple interpreter for our own computer language. (Note: I discovered the real challenge is getting the parser right.) My language was called TWIT. (That's What I Thought). Most of the system responses were slangy "laid back" expressions which were intended to be amusing.

My professor (formerly of SperryRand) was not amused. Despite the fact it worked, I still got a C+. (Lowest grade I ever got in my entire academic career. Bummer!) His note under the grade said: You would have gotten an B+ or maybe an A- had you taken my assignment more seriously!!!

"Old-guard" college professors! Jeez...

-40hz (July 23, 2011, 08:26 AM)

Sounds like a profoundly unhappy person. You'd think that a normal person would appreciate the creativity and thought put into that.

[40hz]

"Old-guard" college professors! Jeez...

-40hz (July 23, 2011, 08:26 AM)

Sounds like a profoundly unhappy person. You'd think that a normal person would appreciate the creativity and thought put into that.

-Renegade (July 23, 2011, 09:45 PM)

Dunno. Seemed like a pretty happy guy. Quite pleased with himself actually...

But what can you expect from somebody who went back to this era of computer geekhood:



White shirt, skinny black necktie, pocket-protector (for staff), MontBlanc fountain pen (for managers)...his idea of daring was not wearing a tie to work. He was the classic "computer person" if ever there was one. I'd swear they based the stereotype on him.

He also wore his hair in a truly demonic 50's era flat-top:

  (this is not him BTW although this guy could pass as his twin)

when the norm for hair was more like this...

  (this is not us either)

But he actually wasn't a bad guy. Damn good instructor. Knew his stuff inside out - and could actually teach it. (That's a pretty rare talent based on my experience at college.)

It's just he had absolutely no sense of humor when it came to programming. I guess it was something that was very important to him.

I was saddened when I read of his passing away some years ago.