Is that C# and C#.NET are entirely different?

[preethi_ga]

Hi,
Im new to this C#. So I have learned VB.NET and also ASP.NET, So now im also thinking to learn C#.NET. but i donno C#. So im confused that whether i have to learn first C#. and then start C#.NET ??? can anyone please enlighten me?

[camilojvarona]

Hi,

C# and C#.NET are the same thing. You need to specify with VB because there are other VB 'versions'(e.g VB 6...) out of the .NET platform.

Regards,
Camilo

[Narue]

>C# and C#.NET are the same thing.
Technically that's not true. C# is an internationally standardized language that isn't bound to the .NET framework as long as the implementation conforms to the CLI specification. The .NET framework is one such implementation. Mono is another.

>can anyone please enlighten me?
C# is C#. There's no such thing as C#.NET in terms of official designations, but I suppose you could refer to C#.NET if you're using .NET-specific libraries in your C# code.

[camilojvarona]

Hi

>There's no such thing as C#.NET in tems of official designations.

Maybe is no 'official' bu go to this link and tell me fi you still think that is not correct that are the same thing.

http://books.google.com/books?q=C%23.net+msdn&source=citation

Also this is the description of C# int the MSDN Visual C# Developer Center.

"Visual C# is a simple, general-purpose programming language that enables you to build rich, connected Web and client applications on the .NET Framework."

My point its the closed connection C# - .Net Framework

I also found this link to another forum with the same Question

http://www.uberasp.net/forum.aspx?mode=thread&TopicID=673

I think that if any one really want to know should go here:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308470

Regards,
Camilo

[Narue]

>Maybe is no 'official' bu go to this link and tell me fi
>you still think that is not correct that are the same thing.
Visual C# .NET is a compiler for C# on the .NET framework. That doesn't in any way prove that C# and C#.NET are the same thing in the way you suggest.

>Also this is the description of C# int the MSDN Visual C# Developer Center.
No, that's a description of Visual C#, which is a compiler, not the C# language itself. You seem to have difficulty differentiating between a programming language and an implementation of that language.

>My point its the closed connection C# - .Net Framework
How do you explain Mono then? Why don't you point out in the ECMA C# standard where it says that C# requires the .NET framework. I can tell you without looking that it only mentions .NET as containing the first implementation of C# and that CLI (another international standard) is based off of a subset of the .NET framework.

If you want to talk about C#, talk about C#. If you want to talk about C# in terms of .NET, talk about .NET. We're past the point where using C# means you're also using .NET.

[camilojvarona]

Hi,

Obviously you didn't read the last link that I post.

Regards,
Camilo

[Narue]

>Obviously you didn't read the last link that I post.
Oh, you mean the one that compares Microsoft's VB.NET compiler and C# compiler? Once again, I claim that you don't know the difference between a language and an implementation of that language.

The only link you gave that even comes close to proving your point is the second to last, but that link is nothing more than some random nameless person answering the same question who also happens to be clueless.

[camilojvarona]

Hi,

>Oh, you mean the one that compares Microsoft's VB.NET compiler and C# compiler?

Why don't you call it C#.Net compiler since they call it like that almost throughout the whole article ;-)

The title is:

"Differences Between Visual Basic .NET and Visual C# .NET"

And the end is:

APPLIES TO
• Microsoft Visual Basic .NET 2002 Standard Edition
• Microsoft Visual C# .NET 2002 Standard Edition

by the way would you still said this
>There's no such thing as C#.NET in terms of official designations

> some random nameless person answering the same question who also happens to be clueless.

I give you that one but what are we :-)

Regards,
Camilo

[Narue]

>Why don't you call it C#.Net compiler since they call
>it like that almost throughout the whole article ;-)
Because there's no need. If I say "Microsoft's C# compiler", you know that it's on .NET. If I say "Visual C#", you know that it's Microsoft's. And by the way, even Microsoft has recently started dropping .NET from the names of their products. For example, check out the documentation on Visual C# 2005 and Visual C# 2008.

[camilojvarona]

Hi,

Fallowing your logic
>Because there's no need. If I say "Microsoft's C# compiler", you know that it's on .NET. If I say "Visual C#"

there is no need of say C#.Net when you say C# is the same as if you were saying C#.NET

And as you should saw in my las post "Visual C#" terms exist since 2002. And 2005 and 2008 are just the realised years. And of course that forms part of the names that represent some adds to the previous versions(Marketing).

Regards,
Camilo

[Narue]

>there is no need of say C#.Net when you say C# is the same as if you were saying C#.NET
Makes sense to me. So even if you're wrong in saying that C# and C#.NET are the same thing (which you are), you can still simply say C# and the effect is as if you weren't wrong. Nice how that works, isn't it? :)

>And as you should saw in my las post "Visual C#" terms exist since 2002.
I still don't see your point. Are you trying to argue that because a single implementation is called Visual C# .NET, suddenly we have to accept C#.NET as a viable name for the internationally standardized language as a whole? You don't find that ludicrous?

>And 2005 and 2008 are just the realised years.
Yes, Microsoft decided that tacking .NET onto everything is redundant for their products. That makes sense for their products as Microsoft develops and distributes the .NET framework. It's reasonably safe to assume that they won't use another implementation of the CLI specification for their development tools.

[camilojvarona]

Hi,

I am glad you've got my point.

As you can see all the people that post in the C# sesion in this forum or in the msdn C# Forums(a lot of them Microsoft MVP) don't say C#.NET or Visual C# because they know(as we do) that they're talking about C#.NET(There are not other C#!. that is why there is no reason for specifying, but you know that). Which leads to the conclusion tha C# and C#.NET are the same thing.

Regards,
Camilo

[Narue]

>don't say C#.NET or Visual C# because they know
>(as we do) that they're talking about C#.NET
Well, they don't say Visual C# because it's possible to write and build C# code outside of that particular IDE. It's also rather silly to assume that the C# discussed on the MSDN forum isn't focused on .NET. And it's a safe assumption here too because most of the people asking questions are like you: completely oblivious to anything beyond Visual Studio.

>There are not other C#!
There's only one C#, and that's the C# defined by ECMA-334. There can be many implementations of C#, and .NET contains one of them. A completely different implementation is Mono, so would you call it "C# Mono" too?

>Which leads to the conclusion tha C# and C#.NET are the same thing.
C#.NET is a term invented by the clueless. I'm willing to accept it if you want to talk about C# code that uses .NET-specific libraries, but using it to refer to the language as a whole is actually an insult to all of the people who work hard to keep the language from being locked in to Microsoft platforms.

[camilojvarona]

Hi

>I'm willing to accept it if you want to talk about C# code that uses .NET-specific libraries

Can you tell me where its use C# outside of the .NET Framework.

>There's only one C#, and that's the C# defined by ECMA-334

Firs of all C# existed long before it was standarized. And ECMA-334 its just that.
A standard of the language.

>but using it to refer to the language as a whole is actually an insult to all of the people who work hard to keep the language from being locked in to Microsoft platforms.

C# was born at microsoft ;-).

> because it's possible to write and build C# code outside of that particular IDE.

Visual C# IDE is one of the forums in the msdn forums there is Visual C# General, and Visual C# Language(so I don't see the lock to the IDE)

"The Mono C# compiler is considered feature complete for C# 1.0 and C# 2.0 (ECMA) and also contains some of the C# 3.0 features."

As you can see C# 3.0 dosn't fallow the ECMA specification yiet. So its not C#?.

Regards,
Camilo

[Vilice]

There has no c#.NET .Just Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2005

[Narue]

>Can you tell me where its use C# outside of the .NET Framework.
How many times do I have to mention Mono before you actually read it?

>Firs of all C# existed long before it was standarized.
Yep, that's how it goes with all standardized languages.

>And ECMA-334 its just that. A standard of the language.
Yes, and the standard definition is the language. The standard doesn't require C# to be bound to the .NET framework. Is that such a difficult concept to understand?

>C# was born at microsoft ;-).
Java was born at Sun, what's your point?

>Visual C# IDE is one of the forums in the msdn forums there is Visual
>C# General, and Visual C# Language(so I don't see the lock to the IDE)
Note the "Visual" in the name. That's referring to the IDE, so "Visual C# General" is general discussion about the IDE and all that it contains. "Visual C# Language" is the version of C# that the IDE supports. Are you simply trying to be selectively stupid, or are you really that dense?

>As you can see C# 3.0 dosn't fallow the ECMA specification yiet. So its not C#?.
This is the first logical argument you've made, congratulations. And of course, the answer is that if the language is standardized, then any conforming implementation must support all of the features and rules of the standard. Extensions are allowed (which is where C# 3 falls), so until the C# 3 features are merged into the standard, they're simply extensions for Microsoft's compiler.

[camilojvarona]

Hi,

>How many times do I have to mention Mono before you actually read it?

Sorry I forget the word 'serious'

>Are you simply trying to be selectively stupid, or are you really that dense?

The one that start being selective with the names was you so is someone is selectively stupid it's not me.

And if you haven't notice the indistinctive use of 'C#', 'Visual C#', 'C#.NET', 'Visual C#.NET'. then I think that we haven't been posting in the same thread ;-).

Regards,
Camilo

[Narue]

>Sorry I forget the word 'serious'
Ah, so you think Mono is some kind of joke then. Well, that's your opinion, and as such doesn't count as an objective argument in favor of your claims.

>And if you haven't notice the indistinctive use of 'C#', 'Visual C#', 'C#.NET',
>'Visual C#.NET'. then I think that we haven't been posting in the same thread ;-).
All I've noticed is that the terms are used interchangeably in two situations:

1) It's obvious where and how C# is being used, so the compiler/IDE can be safely assumed and there's no need to be specific about the implementation. That doesn't mean C# and C#.NET are always the same thing. :icon_rolleyes:

2) The person talking (eg. you) is so terribly confused as to be unable to make a distinction.

[camilojvarona]

Hi,

Thanks for sticking with me. Believe me I will never say tha C# and C#.NET are the same thing.

Regards,
Camilo