Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Why is getting a project up and a running a pain? I can get a simple project up and running (a simple dialog with four buttons that moves a ball in the window) in about five minutes. That's from a no VS, to starting VS, creating the solution, writing the code, compiling, and running the app.

How long should it take? And note, most of the time is spent writing the code (~4 minutes).




Speaking for myself, it's not getting a "project" up and running that's a pain, it's getting a single line of code up and running. I don't like to have to make a project (or even a Main method) to do that; I would prefer a REPL.

When working on a big project, if I want to just test out a piece of code, I actually find myself launching the project, pausing it, and using the "Immediate" window in Visual Studio as a REPL, even though it's inconvenient for the purpose.


For REPL, check out LINQPad. Its "Statement" and "Program" modes are great for that.

http://www.linqpad.net/CodeSnippetIDE.aspx


I also highly suggest supporting the developer of LINQPad by purchasing the auto completion (once you have evaluated the program). Its quite cheap for a licence, and makes the app twice as useful.


It just feels wrong when a dynamic language doesn't come with a dynamic interpreter.


C# isn't a dynamic language - it is totally static. The introduction of the "dynamic" keyword in 4.0 has confused some people into thinking it is truly a dynamic language, but in actuality that keyword is just a compiler hint that causes any references to that "dynamic" variable to use run-time reflection.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: