Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 87

Thread: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??

  1. #1
    Richardb Guest

    Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??


    Isn't all the hoo haa regarding whether to use VB.Net or C# basically irrelevent?.
    I will have the choice of which dotnet language to use dictated to me by
    management.

  2. #2
    John Butler Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??


    "Richardb" <rbuckingham@loyalty-magic.com> wrote in message
    news:3b858e72$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > Isn't all the hoo haa regarding whether to use VB.Net or C# basically

    irrelevent?.
    > I will have the choice of which dotnet language to use dictated to me by
    > management.


    Well, some of use are:

    a) management
    b) not bound by any management

    therefore, the discussion of C# vs Visual Ronnie/Fred/Albert vs Delphi vs
    Java vs blah blah, remains a topic of high interest.

    Since many of our careers are highly dependent on programming in general and
    MS specifically, this issue is not going away anytime soon...

    ...at least until it becomes obvious to all that C# is the "Chosen One", that
    is....


    And, as for you, wait in your cubicle until Pointy Haired Boss tells you
    what to do! <grin>

    rgds
    John Butler





  3. #3
    Arthur Wood Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??


    And some of us are in a situation where the management will allow the use
    of a mix of tools, as long as the tools are essetnially compatible - and
    VB.Net/C# are EXTREMELY compatible - it is very realistic to build SOME pieces
    with VB.NET and other pieces with C# and still other pieces with C++.NET

    So the discussion is very relevant.

    Arthur Wood


    "John Butler" <jrbutler@nospambtclick.com> wrote:
    >
    >"Richardb" <rbuckingham@loyalty-magic.com> wrote in message
    >news:3b858e72$1@news.devx.com...
    >>
    >> Isn't all the hoo haa regarding whether to use VB.Net or C# basically

    >irrelevent?.
    >> I will have the choice of which dotnet language to use dictated to me

    by
    >> management.

    >
    >Well, some of use are:
    >
    >a) management
    >b) not bound by any management
    >
    >therefore, the discussion of C# vs Visual Ronnie/Fred/Albert vs Delphi

    vs
    >Java vs blah blah, remains a topic of high interest.
    >
    >Since many of our careers are highly dependent on programming in general

    and
    >
    >...at least until it becomes obvious to all that C# is the "Chosen One",

    that
    >is....
    >
    >
    >And, as for you, wait in your cubicle until Pointy Haired Boss tells you
    >what to do! <grin>
    >
    >rgds
    >John Butler
    >
    >
    >
    >



  4. #4
    Aaron Sevivas Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??


    i think platform is a more relavant business decision than choosing a language.
    if u choose the .NET platform and build a components based system, i can
    see why choosing a syntax would be irrelevant. Many companies like to standardize
    though.

    If I had to make a decision on syntax, I would choose c# or java. For all
    those java coders out there, isn't the syntax beautifully elegant. I worked
    with vb/c++ for 5 years, switched to Java(J2EE) a year ago, got my certifications
    and so forth. Just last week I found a VB project on my harddrive(One of
    those old "home" projects that you start/stop/rewrite every couple months).
    I said, "yeah, I'm gonna clean this up and finish it!" I noticed straight
    away how abnormal the vb syntax is. The dim keyword, the lack of support
    for proper class display in the ide (Have all gui code under one heading,utils
    here,etc,etc) No contructors so on/so forth..(we've all talked about this
    before).. Anyways, I still think Java is sorely lagging behind MS .NET stuff
    when it comes to depth of integration in the operating system (java is a
    lowest common denominator language because of its cross-platform ability).
    For example, I think Java gui's _feel_ nasty.. Any of you who have used
    them can sort of feel its non-nativeness when using them. Java programmers,
    raise your hand if your tired of 300 lines of GUI code just to make a simple
    gui with a few labels and text boxes (thisObject.addActionListener(new ActionListener(){do
    something..}).. ugh.. In other words, give me java syntax and structures,
    with direct Windows Integration (but it won't run on Linux! Boo frigging
    hoo!).. In other words, C#.

    my couple o' coins

    ~aaron
    "Arthur Wood" <wooda@saic-trsc.com> wrote:
    >
    >And some of us are in a situation where the management will allow the use
    >of a mix of tools, as long as the tools are essetnially compatible - and
    >VB.Net/C# are EXTREMELY compatible - it is very realistic to build SOME

    pieces
    >with VB.NET and other pieces with C# and still other pieces with C++.NET
    >
    >So the discussion is very relevant.
    >
    >Arthur Wood
    >
    >
    >"John Butler" <jrbutler@nospambtclick.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>"Richardb" <rbuckingham@loyalty-magic.com> wrote in message
    >>news:3b858e72$1@news.devx.com...
    >>>
    >>> Isn't all the hoo haa regarding whether to use VB.Net or C# basically

    >>irrelevent?.
    >>> I will have the choice of which dotnet language to use dictated to me

    >by
    >>> management.

    >>
    >>Well, some of use are:
    >>
    >>a) management
    >>b) not bound by any management
    >>
    >>therefore, the discussion of C# vs Visual Ronnie/Fred/Albert vs Delphi

    >vs
    >>Java vs blah blah, remains a topic of high interest.
    >>
    >>Since many of our careers are highly dependent on programming in general

    >and
    >>
    >>...at least until it becomes obvious to all that C# is the "Chosen One",

    >that
    >>is....
    >>
    >>
    >>And, as for you, wait in your cubicle until Pointy Haired Boss tells you
    >>what to do! <grin>
    >>
    >>rgds
    >>John Butler
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >



  5. #5
    Kevin Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??


    That's it in our case. Corporate has decided on C#, probably because all the
    C bigots are there. The outlying business units like us are full of VB programmers.
    It will be good for us personally to learn C#, but I think it's a dumb business
    decision. All of us are immediately turned into junior programmers who are
    developing the applications of the future for our company. We'll see.

    "Richardb" <rbuckingham@loyalty-magic.com> wrote:
    >
    >Isn't all the hoo haa regarding whether to use VB.Net or C# basically irrelevent?.
    >I will have the choice of which dotnet language to use dictated to me by
    >management.



  6. #6
    Willy Van den Driessche Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??

    Arthur, have a look in the VB.announcements room (and not for my post).
    Seems VB8 and C#2 will be diverging again.

    --
    Van den Driessche Willy
    For a work in progress :
    http://users.skynet.be/wvdd2/index.html
    "Arthur Wood" <wooda@saic-trsc.com> wrote in message
    news:3b85acd2$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > And some of us are in a situation where the management will allow the use
    > of a mix of tools, as long as the tools are essetnially compatible - and
    > VB.Net/C# are EXTREMELY compatible - it is very realistic to build SOME

    pieces
    > with VB.NET and other pieces with C# and still other pieces with C++.NET
    >
    > So the discussion is very relevant.
    >
    > Arthur Wood
    >
    >
    > "John Butler" <jrbutler@nospambtclick.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >"Richardb" <rbuckingham@loyalty-magic.com> wrote in message
    > >news:3b858e72$1@news.devx.com...
    > >>
    > >> Isn't all the hoo haa regarding whether to use VB.Net or C# basically

    > >irrelevent?.
    > >> I will have the choice of which dotnet language to use dictated to me

    > by
    > >> management.

    > >
    > >Well, some of use are:
    > >
    > >a) management
    > >b) not bound by any management
    > >
    > >therefore, the discussion of C# vs Visual Ronnie/Fred/Albert vs Delphi

    > vs
    > >Java vs blah blah, remains a topic of high interest.
    > >
    > >Since many of our careers are highly dependent on programming in general

    > and
    > >
    > >...at least until it becomes obvious to all that C# is the "Chosen One",

    > that
    > >is....
    > >
    > >
    > >And, as for you, wait in your cubicle until Pointy Haired Boss tells you
    > >what to do! <grin>
    > >
    > >rgds
    > >John Butler
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >




  7. #7
    Richard Curzon Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??

    That reference is interesting... and a bit scary....

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t356-s2093679,00.html

    ---8<--- snip ---8<---
    Microsoft will diverge its programming languages C# (pronounced C sharp) and
    Visual Basic in a tightrope act designed to retain its massive legacy
    developer community during the move to Web services. Microsoft told
    ComputerWire that the changes will be made after the company delivers the
    first implementation of its Visual Studio.NET development suite later this
    year.

    C# will become more complex through the addition of features designed to
    simplify development of Web services, and take it even closer to future
    versions of Sun Microsystems' Java. Visual Basic will eschew high-end
    features, and be targeted at Rapid Application Development (RAD)
    environments.

    Brian Harry, Microsoft common language runtime (CLR) product unit manager,
    said: "Visual Basic will become RADish and C# more complex ... more
    divergence will happen. Visual Basic and C# will be the mainstream
    languages." He did not say how Visual Basic, which is already a simple
    programming language, will be tailored to RAD environments.
    ---8<--- snip ---8<---


    Too much media mumbo jumbo to dig deep... "C# will become more complex ...
    to simplify development "

    Cut to developer saying: "Thanks for making it more complex, it's simpler
    now... " <g>.

    I really doubt that VB.net v 2 will abandon any VB.net version 1 working
    code. It's more likely the generics/template support that C# will be
    getting will not be in VB.net. Pretty much as expected. And probably not
    much else, you certainly can't tell from the article.

    Other than that, would they really cut VB of from taking advantage of
    changes as the CLR evolves? Somehow I doubt it... what do you think?

    regards
    Richard.

    --
    -----
    Live without dead time - Raoul Vaneigem
    May I borrow your towel, my car just hit a water buffalo - Chevy Chase
    Hate spam? Do what you can: www.spamcop.net customer



  8. #8
    Kathleen Dollard Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??

    Richard,

    > Other than that, would they really cut VB of from taking advantage of
    > changes as the CLR evolves? Somehow I doubt it... what do you think?


    I think strategy is good. Still trying to understand this strategy. Do you
    understand generics? They sound like a RAD tool on the surface, so it is not
    clear to me why they would be in the less RAD tool. Potentially the
    divergence is positive, because it would give a RAD and a deep tool that
    worked and played well together. It will be interesting to see what they
    mean by more RAD, since I think RAD is ready for some radical reworking
    (like VB was in its infancy). But as always, the devil's in the details.

    --
    Kathleen
    (MS-MVP)
    Reply in the newsgroup so everyone can benefit
    --



  9. #9
    Who Cares Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??


    "Willy Van den Driessche" <Willy.Van.denDriessche@skynet.be> wrote in
    message news:3b86d218@news.devx.com...
    > Arthur, have a look in the VB.announcements room (and not for my post).
    > Seems VB8 and C#2 will be diverging again.



    Duh. See Microsoft in panic mode.

    Somebody made some stupendous decisions lately...

    Product Activation - $500 dollars
    Fake letter campaign - $100K dollars
    Java lawsuit - $20 million dollars
    Discontinuing plug-in support and screwing
    millions of customers and companies
    without warning?!

    PRICELESS!

    Attendance at JavaOne 2001 was down. Down
    around 30%. Attendance at most of the IT
    conferences was down. A few of them
    were closed, even.

    But attendance is up 50% at one conference -
    http://linuxworldexpo.com/user-image...highlights.pdf

    Intel hedging their bets -
    http://www.linuxworld.com/ic_671140_6995_1-3133.html

    HP making new bet -
    http://www.linuxworld.com/ic_670988_6995_1-3134.html


    Go, you nutty Ballmer guys, go!



  10. #10
    Willy Van den Driessche Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??



    "Kathleen Dollard" <kathleen@nomailplease.org> wrote in message
    news:3b870ac8$1@news.devx.com...
    > Richard,
    >
    > > Other than that, would they really cut VB of from taking advantage of
    > > changes as the CLR evolves? Somehow I doubt it... what do you think?

    >
    > I think strategy is good. Still trying to understand this strategy. Do you
    > understand generics?


    For an excellent article on generics (In Java but that's more or less the
    same) read the latest JavaPro magazine.
    Generics are the same as templates. However, the devil is in the details.
    C++ templates 'generate' classes and functions while the Java proposition
    uses generics as syntactic sugar to avoid the many typecasts required by
    Java (and soon C#).


    >They sound like a RAD tool on the surface, so it is not
    > clear to me why they would be in the less RAD tool. Potentially the
    > divergence is positive, because it would give a RAD and a deep tool that
    > worked and played well together. It will be interesting to see what they
    > mean by more RAD, since I think RAD is ready for some radical reworking
    > (like VB was in its infancy). But as always, the devil's in the details.
    >
    > --
    > Kathleen
    > (MS-MVP)
    > Reply in the newsgroup so everyone can benefit
    > --
    >
    >

    --
    Van den Driessche Willy
    For a work in progress :
    http://users.skynet.be/wvdd2/index.html



  11. #11
    Hussein Dharsi Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??




    "Kevin" <Kevin.Verble@GreatPlains.com> wrote:
    >
    >That's it in our case. Corporate has decided on C#, probably because all

    the
    >C bigots are there. The outlying business units like us are full of VB programmers.
    >It will be good for us personally to learn C#, but I think it's a dumb business
    >decision. All of us are immediately turned into junior programmers who are
    >developing the applications of the future for our company. We'll see.
    >
    >"Richardb" <rbuckingham@loyalty-magic.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>Isn't all the hoo haa regarding whether to use VB.Net or C# basically irrelevent?.
    >>I will have the choice of which dotnet language to use dictated to me by
    >>management.

    >



    Whether you go with VB.NET or C# you will still be a junior. It is not the
    underlying language that is different but it is the Architecture. When I
    moved to Delphi a few years ago, It was a steep learning curve, but now I
    see myself looking at C# and saying aha! exactly like Delphi - After all
    the designer of the .NET framework and C# is Anders who is the inventor of
    Delphi & the VCL Architecture!.



  12. #12
    Richard Curzon Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??

    If you're still checking here's another belated reply <g>.

    .... it's easy enough to say in a nutshell.

    In VB6, you sometimes use VARIANTS (for args and return values) just to
    avoid building a routine for integer, another for currency, another for
    strings, etc.

    The template/generic idea is to get the best of both worlds, with "just a
    trick or two". The "template" looks like your routine but there's a
    placeholder for the "types" that might change. In essence, the type of the
    routine becomes a variable.

    The template code wouldn't compile... it's not written for the compiler.
    It's handled by that marvelous C trick meister, the "precompiler". By the
    time the compiler sees it, a real type has been substituted.

    The benefit: you have only one version to maintain for all types. The
    catch: you have only one version to maintain for all types... and efficiency
    issues. Often, it looks cleaner at the 1000 foot level than in the code.

    So many times generics are compromises in efficiency anyway by the time they
    are complete. Or else they require writing an operator overload or two just
    to support the generic. Or they get more complex with nested #ifdefs
    anyway.

    Bottom line, is the code really easier to maintain with all the tricks?....
    rather than just writing the code that's needed? Another seductive C
    complication of just the sort VB should resist IMO.

    VB being able to use templates in "readonly" mode suggests they are becoming
    part of CLS standard though, and that'd be the first major CLS feature that
    would be outside VB capability I think? VB can't use pointers, but they are
    not part of the CLS specification.

    regards
    Richard





    --
    -----
    Live without dead time - Raoul Vaneigem
    May I borrow your towel, my car just hit a water buffalo - Chevy Chase
    Hate spam? Do what you can: http://spamcop.net customer
    "Kathleen Dollard" <kathleen@nomailplease.org> wrote in message
    news:3b870ac8$1@news.devx.com...
    > Richard,
    >
    > > Other than that, would they really cut VB of from taking advantage of
    > > changes as the CLR evolves? Somehow I doubt it... what do you think?

    >
    > I think strategy is good. Still trying to understand this strategy. Do you
    > understand generics? They sound like a RAD tool on the surface, so it is

    not
    > clear to me why they would be in the less RAD tool. Potentially the
    > divergence is positive, because it would give a RAD and a deep tool that
    > worked and played well together. It will be interesting to see what they
    > mean by more RAD, since I think RAD is ready for some radical reworking
    > (like VB was in its infancy). But as always, the devil's in the details.
    >
    > --
    > Kathleen
    > (MS-MVP)
    > Reply in the newsgroup so everyone can benefit
    > --
    >
    >




  13. #13
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??

    On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 15:10:25 -0400, "Richard Curzon"
    <rcurzon@spamcop.net> wrote:

    >The template code wouldn't compile... it's not written for the compiler.
    >It's handled by that marvelous C trick meister, the "precompiler". By the
    >time the compiler sees it, a real type has been substituted.


    I think far too many tricks are being used nowadays at the behest of
    the software reuse claimants. The simple, boilerplate software which
    forms many of today's business applications is being made overly
    complex by coding gurus who think "complexity" means "good". I don't
    agree. Often the simplest of solutions turns out to be the best one in
    the long run. Even if it isn't perfect in every sense, being simple it
    *is* easy to fix if it does go wrong. A very complex system, however,
    will still go wrong no matter what, because you can never guarantee
    that the same guru who originally worked on the project is going to be
    around forever or that you will be able to find a replacement guru
    with similar credentials.

    My watchword with program design always has been to keep it as simple
    as possible so that a newbie can follow the code, or a contractor can
    be brought in if I happen to fall under a bus. And because my software
    works very well (because I take great pains to make it so), even
    though it is conceptually and practically simple, I eschew all forms
    of complexity wherever possible.

    ..NET = complexity.

    MM

  14. #14
    Ronald Laeremans [MSFT] Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??

    Hi Richard,

    What is a "pre-compiler"? If you mean pre-processor, then that is definitely
    not how templates are implemented in any C++ compiler.

    Ronald Laeremans
    Visual C++ compiler team

    "Richard Curzon" <rcurzon@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    news:3ba3a741@news.devx.com...
    > It's handled by that marvelous C trick meister, the "precompiler". By

    the
    > time the compiler sees it, a real type has been substituted.
    >
    > The benefit: you have only one version to maintain for all types. The
    > catch: you have only one version to maintain for all types... and

    efficiency
    > issues. Often, it looks cleaner at the 1000 foot level than in the code.
    >
    > So many times generics are compromises in efficiency anyway by the time

    they
    > are complete. Or else they require writing an operator overload or two

    just
    > to support the generic. Or they get more complex with nested #ifdefs
    > anyway.
    >
    > Bottom line, is the code really easier to maintain with all the

    tricks?....
    > rather than just writing the code that's needed? Another seductive C
    > complication of just the sort VB should resist IMO.
    >
    > VB being able to use templates in "readonly" mode suggests they are

    becoming
    > part of CLS standard though, and that'd be the first major CLS feature

    that
    > would be outside VB capability I think? VB can't use pointers, but they

    are
    > not part of the CLS specification.
    >
    > regards
    > Richard





  15. #15
    Willy Van den Driessche Guest

    Re: Talk of VB.Net vs C# is basically irrelevent??



    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3ba4d01a.5237228@news.devx.com...
    > On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 15:10:25 -0400, "Richard Curzon"
    > <rcurzon@spamcop.net> wrote:
    >
    > >The template code wouldn't compile... it's not written for the compiler.
    > >It's handled by that marvelous C trick meister, the "precompiler". By

    the
    > >time the compiler sees it, a real type has been substituted.

    >
    > I think far too many tricks are being used nowadays at the behest of
    > the software reuse claimants. The simple, boilerplate software which
    > forms many of today's business applications is being made overly
    > complex by coding gurus who think "complexity" means "good". I don't
    > agree. Often the simplest of solutions turns out to be the best one in
    > the long run. Even if it isn't perfect in every sense, being simple it
    > *is* easy to fix if it does go wrong. A very complex system, however,
    > will still go wrong no matter what, because you can never guarantee
    > that the same guru who originally worked on the project is going to be
    > around forever or that you will be able to find a replacement guru
    > with similar credentials.


    I you have a guru who makes things complex then he's the wrong type of guru.
    One the most important design goals is to make the simplest thing that can
    work.
    Not more than two years ago I always wanted to make things that would be
    expandable in all directions. I've always had this urge in me, but in this
    case our deployment mechanism was to blame. When one of the base components
    was 'wrong' we had to deploy the entire application again, instead of one
    DLL which had be envisioned by our managers. Therefore I did my best to
    foresee as much as I could beforehand. It worked for a couple of months.
    Needless to say, I as much a visionary as anybody else, so more often than I
    would like, we had to change the base components.
    Lucky for me, that was about the time I read Becks book about eXtreme
    Programming. I took a long deep breath and convinced my management to change
    the deployment politics. Then I started to feel free again. We refactored
    the application throwing out everything we had never used before ( but which
    was 'expected' to be used once ). Our application is much cleaner now
    (we've managed to pull some lava out). The design is simpler now but still
    not as simple as could be.
    My own moral of the story is that simplicity is a surprisingly difficult
    thing to accomplish. Furthermore, and that's really troubling me,
    simplicity seems to be partly in the eye of the beholder. I find some of my
    designs extremely simple, while not all of my colleagues feel the same way.
    It's difficult to admit, but some times I must say to my colleagues 'trust
    me, I know what I'm doing'. Sounds very megalomanic but really it isn't.
    Now, after some principles have been applied (some for more than a year),
    some colleagues suddenly experience an aha! moment. All of a sudden they
    seem to 'see' ' the big why' of some designs. Now I am very aware that
    this is an extremely long time and that I am to blame for not explaining it
    until they do see it. Unfortunately, I have many problems explaining
    'simple' things. (That's something everybody can experience in my little
    website).
    The thing is, I'm the 'local guru' at my place. The most important reason
    is not that I am a super VB programmer (which, taken from the typical
    answers in this newsgroups, I'm not) , but that I have more experience. I
    am never too proud to listen to the advice of my colleagues and they've
    already managed to convince me quite a lot. The thing is, if they don't
    know something they always come to me. We think about it together and we
    find a solution. Sometimes they blindfoldedly accept a proposition of mine.
    I probably should remind them more often that something which takes 15
    minutes to come up with is only as a good as that : a 15 minute design.
    They rarely question a design, although I really urge them to do so. The
    bottom line is that you are not made a guru. It's something your colleagues
    make you, whether you want it or not.

    >
    > My watchword with program design always has been to keep it as simple
    > as possible so that a newbie can follow the code, or a contractor can
    > be brought in if I happen to fall under a bus. And because my software
    > works very well (because I take great pains to make it so), even
    > though it is conceptually and practically simple, I eschew all forms
    > of complexity wherever possible.
    >


    I have yet to see the first project that can be taken over painlessly when
    the entire existing staff leaves. I also have to see the first project that
    painlessly survives an architect leaving.
    I have a strong feeling that the simplicity you're talking about is not the
    simplicity I'm talking about. Simplicity means for me : being easy to
    understand and surviving (not foreseeing) obvious changes. Again,
    complexity is not something you design for. We have had numerous
    refactorings in the product life-cycle. If you don't constantly refactor a
    growing project, complexity emerges just like that. Simplicity for me is
    more like 'as simple as possible'. This doesn't imply that it is simple.
    It only means that the complexities that are in there, are in for very good
    reasons.



    > .NET = complexity.
    >
    > MM

    --
    Van den Driessche Willy
    For a work in progress :
    http://users.skynet.be/wvdd2/index.html





Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center