C# Strikes a Chord
Syntax Comparison
Table 1 summarizes the comparison between C++, Java and C#. We have deliberately put C# in the middle column flanked by C++ and Java to make it easier to see in what direction C# leans with regard to each feature. The Executable Environment and Language APIs are also included in the comparison. These are as important as the language's syntax in determining how the programming language gets used. In fact, this has always been true with languages. The choices between interpreted versus common .obj files and linking options have determined the flexibility and critical runtime performance of a number of languages. In addition, the availability of a common set of subroutine libraries and system APIs have been a selling point for languages from Fortran to C to Smalltalk and now Java and C#.
The first thing you note is that similarities between C++, Java and C# go well
beyond HelloWorld. The number of common or synonymous keywords, operators
and flow of control statements never drops below 75 percent. And why not? Pascal
derived much syntax from Algol, and of course C++ from C. That programming language
designers are following Isaac Newton's suggestion and deriving their syntax
from a common starting base is no small boon to programmers. Already pressed
with unremitting change in hardware and software technology, anything that helps
to keep a language familiar and easily learned is welcome.
There may seem to be some anomalies among the 75-percent-common syntax features.
Even though C# has only 52 operators, because C++ has about a dozen keyword
equivalents to character operators (such as bitand == "&" and bitor
== "|") it has a number of duplicate operators matching C# equivalents.
The result is that 59 C++ operators map into some (but not all) of the 52 C#
operators. Note also we have called these "common or synonymous". Thus we consider
C#'s is operator to be substantially synonymous with Java's instanceof.
Perhaps the best approach is to highlight the notable differences in syntax
between the two languages.
|
Table
1 |
|||||
| Syntax Features |
C++ |
C# | Java | ||
| Program code to intermediate code | No | Yes | Yes | ||
| Single inheritance, all objects implicitly derived from master class, Object | No | Yes | Yes | ||
| Unicode for char, String, identifiers | No | Yes | Yes | ||
| Uniform implementation of primitive type bitsizes | No | Yes | Yes | ||
| All primitive types derived from Object | No | Yes | No | ||
| Allows pointers, explicit memory mgmt. | Yes | Yes | Simple, =null | ||
| Struct, enum | Yes | Yes | No | ||
| Common or synonymous keywords to C# | 56 of 74 | 69 of 69 | 46 of 50 | ||
| Flow of control statements | 9 | 9 | 7* | ||
| Common or synonymous operators to C# | 59 of 70 | 52 of 52 | 47 of 56 | ||
| Explicit exception handling with throw, try-finally-catch | Yes, no finally | Yes | Yes | ||
| Operator overloading | Yes | Yes except for = | No | ||
| Preprocessor statements (#define etc) | Yes | Yes | No | ||
| In-processing attributes | No | Yes | No | ||
| Parameter options in, out, ref, params | No | Yes | No | ||
| Compiler aids/hints asm, inline, register | Yes | No | No | ||
| Templates, generic programming | Yes | No | No | ||
| Executable Environment | |||||
| Open, cross-platform intermediate language code | No | Promised | Yes | ||
| Garbage collection and memory management | No | Yes | Yes | ||
| Type safe assignments, method invocation, initializations, array bounds checks | Some | Yes | Yes | ||
| Explicit invocation sequence for applets, servlets, beans/components | No | No | Yes | ||
| Fine-grained security of access/operation | No | Yes | Yes | ||
| Disassembly and metadata sharing | Some | Yes | Yes | ||
| JIT-Just In Time compilation and performance enhancers | No | Yes | Yes | ||
| Language API | |||||
| Number of standard classes and methods | 100's | 100's | 1000's | ||
| Open source API | Some | To be decided | All | ||
| Standard container, math, I/O classes, etc | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| Direct tie to XML for documentation | No | Yes | Yes | ||
| Direct use of XML for interface and remote procedure calls | No | Yes | No | ||
* 7 are identical: no foreach, goto
Next: Notable Differences
