I have. And i can absolutely not see what your linked posting has to do with my quoted text. That`s why i ask what your point is with this Fail attitude. Being rude and arrogant again? I already know that. You don`t need to prove it again all the time.
I made the point that we do not have C# snippets, you then quoted this and claimed otherwise. I then referred you to a detailed explanation of what I'm talking about. Then I got accused of being 'rude and arrogant'.
What exactly is the problem?
The "problem" is that putting a /FAIL behind a quote and throw in a link as an answer to a quote IS rude and arrogant
And i still think that your linked posting has nothing to do with the quoted text. It`s just your usual JS bashing and C# praising.
'Rude and arrogant'?
I didn't quote someone talking about one issue, then completely and utterly fail to comprehend what they were talking about in response. Then, when corrected, I didn't feign ignorance and start calling them names.
If you want to talk about a completely separate issue that's fine, just don't bring me into it m'kay?
Actually npsf3000, you come across like a complete dick 90% of the time on the forums. That's OK coming from me because I am a dick 99% of the time. Thought I'd share though.
Yes, i say it again, putting a /fail tag behind a quote and put a pure link to something that has nothing to do with the quote arrives as rude and arrogant at my end. Rude because it is everything but friendly to call a posting a fail. And arrogant because adding a link instead of an answer means you don`t even bother to give a useful answer at all. This is not calling you names by the way. And i did correct you, not the other way around. You just linked to a big wall of text, which has nothing to do with the issue you have quoted from me.
Anyways. You don`t even see where you are wrong. Every further word will just lead to more trouble from what i can see. So think what you want.
On with something completely different ...
Meh. I've been a dick and I've been a calm voice of reason. I've been a troll and I've been a helpful contributory. Sometimes I change, sometimes the views of those around me change.
In short, such is life.
@Aruderan, just for you:
If I'm a dick, don't quote me out of context, m'kay?
So about what code snippets are you talking here then? I thought and think that you talk about the code snippets in the scripting reference. Which is not quoted out of context.
EDIT, and i don`t call you a dick neither.
Well, I would suggest reading this thread or that post I gave you that specifically covered this issue... but we already know what the response to that has been don't we?
So I'll just spam the thread repeating myself:
As I posted in the thread that started this:
I might be able to support getting rid of US - there's very little to nothing it does well and there is a bunch of things it doesn't do well that among other things hurt the API.
Boo on the other hand offers a different paradigm, and has nifty features like CaaS which would be awesome to use. What it needs is more tutorials etc into how to use it, rather than relying upon prior Python knowledge.
To be honest - what can US do that C# can't? Very very little. Remembering that if U3D made the transition, they could adapt C#. For example:
could be a perfectly valid C#. There's no absolute requirement to have class, name space or import declarations - as my C# hero Jon Skeet notes in C# in Depth:
One of the challenges when writing a book about a computer language (other than scripting languages) is that complete programs—ones that the reader can compile and run with no source code other than what’s presented—get long pretty quickly. I wanted to get around this, to provide you with code that you could easily type in and experiment with. I believe that actually trying something is a much better way of learning about it than just reading.
With the right assembly references and the right using directives, you can accomplish a lot with a fairly short amount of C# code—but the killer is the fluff involved in writing those using directives, then declaring a class, then declaring a Main method before you’ve even written the first line of useful code. My examples are mostly in the form of snippets, which ignore the fluff that gets in the way of simple programs, concentrating on the important part. The snippets can be run directly in a small tool I’ve built called Snippy.
If a snippet doesn't contain an ellipsis (...) then all of the code should be considered to be the body of the Main method of a program. If there is an ellipsis, then everything before it is treated as declarations of methods and nested types, and everything after the ellipsis goes in the Main method. So for example, consider this snippet:
This is expanded by Snippy into the following:Code:
In reality, Snippy includes far more using directives, but the expanded version was already getting long. Note that the containing class will always be called Snippet, and any types declared within the snippet will be nested within that class.Code:
There are more details about how to use Snippy on the book’s website (http://mng.bz/Lh82), along with all the examples as both snippets and expanded versions in Visual Studio solutions.
So yeah, between a U3D version of C# snippets, the 'var' keyword, some new default extension methods and some minor changes to the API... you'll quickly find there US really isn't that much simpler... but it is far more limited.
im a newbie, and ive seen so many examples on here from boo to js to c#, i dont think anyone has a real problem with those languages being around, if you want to learn pick one and learn, its a matter of own taste i think, i use c# and js, i dont use boo for anything, but whats the point in taking out all those languages, its better for people to have other alternatives to try
No. We just know that you very easily go the rude and arrogant route. And you repeat it here.Well, I would suggest reading this thread or that post I gave you that specifically covered this issue... but we already know what the response to that has been don't we?
I should`ve been quiet as i wanted to. Think what you want. On with something completely different.
How things are != How things ought to be and it's also unrealistic to think you can always make it so with blunt sweeping actions. There is a substantial user base for US and a few random Boo users that would be alienated if Unity made it all C#. I myself use US, however I may learn C# in the future.
It has been said that US is better for beginners and some has disputed this claim. Allow me to settle this disagreement now, US is easier for beginners. Not because there is necessarily anything inherently easier about the syntax, I don't know, but because there are more tutorials for it for beginners.
Having said that, it would be a simple matter of making C# clones of all the tutorials to rectify that if C# was to become the only language. It would be a risky move by Unity because they would have to force everyone to switch and it would cause an uproar.
If you wanted to make C# the only language the best way to do it is to make more people use it so Unity doesn't feel any need to support JS or Boo anymore, even of those options are still available, they can focus their support on C#. How do you make everyone use C#? People like the one who made this thread start building C# tutorials and converting official US tutorials over to C#, make C# approachable. If C# is easy for beginners and allows compatibility plus it can be used for stuff outside Unity, people will switch over by themselves without Unity having to force anyone.
tl:dr; Make C# easy for beginners and US will die on its own.
Last edited by Khyrid; 07-09-2012 at 12:52 PM.
Laying down the framework for my new game project now.
My two cents too :P
The extra 2 namespace declarations at the top, and the line containing the class definition?
This whole suggestion is horrendously fascistic.
Great, so that's an opportunity for someone to write a library that does the same thing but is in C#.1.) Today I spent 4 hours working in frustration with a library from the asset store written completely in js. I couldn't use intellisense in the js files, nor could I refer to items or objects in the js files from my C# files. It was like working with two different systems. In what took me 4 hours to do, if the library was in C# I could have done in 1.5 hours.
Alternatively: you could have put the JS library in your Plugins/Standard Assets folder to move it to firstpass compile, or you could have built it as a class library in MonoDevelop and then just dropped the DLL into your project wherever.
While I don't advocate the elimination of US and Boo (or C# and Boo, or whatever, until there's only one), I certainly can understand why some people might get annoyed. I do too. A lot of bugs are still present since years. And Unity docs are not good at all. Probably, if they could focus on a single language, we would all have a better software. That said, I'd love if we could have 3 bugless languages (or at least as bugless as it's possible) and with good documentation. But, objectively, the last years showed it might not be possible - not that I lost my hope, though :P