What else apart from these should a Java developer learning C# keep in mind?

[Tim Holloway]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:That sounds like Hungarian notation; see Joel Spolsky.

No, the use of underscores for non-public functions in Unix/C predates the very existence of Microsoft.

Hungarian notation is a now-discredited technique where the data type of a variable was encoded as a prefix into the variable's name. The underscore convention was a semantic signal that ordinary application programmers should use the indicated variable or function with care, if at all and was really just a way to avoid namespace collisions back before namespaces existed in the C-verse. Because of the prefix-underscore convention, application developers weren't going to accidentally/unknowingly name one of their own resources the same thing as an internal support resource with possibly tragic results.

Hungarian notation was a disaster in C++. I tried using it for a time, but I was refactoring my data types so often that the names and actual data types ended up at odds more often than not.

[Monica Shiralkar]

A feature that I saw in C# and not in Java is the support for Default parameters in methods.

[Tim Holloway]

Monica Shiralkar wrote:A feature that I saw in C# and not in Java is the support for Default parameters in methods.

It's in C++, though.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Tim Holloway wrote:. . . It's in C++, though.

As are operator overloading and multiple inheritance. Obviously one of the features Gosling rejected twenty‑five years ago for the design of Java®.

[Monica Shiralkar]

Was it rejected because of performance reasons ?

[Tim Holloway]

No, there shouldn't have been any problem with performance.

But as I just said elsewhere - apparently some conversations are leaking sideways today - it's a compiler designer's nightmare to handle default values with overloaded methods.

[Monica Shiralkar]

Thanks

[zacharia nicholson]

It also frustrates me when C# does not have concept of checkered exception and for the same reason does not have throws keyword.

[Tim Holloway]

zacharia nicholson wrote:It also frustrates me when C# does not have concept of checkered exception and for the same reason does not have throws keyword.

The original "throw/catch" was developed long ago in C, with the setjmp/longjmp functions. Which were fairly crude, and thus C++ added true throw/catch to its language. Except that unlike in Java, you could pretty much throw anything, not just exceptions (which were not originally part of C++).

I haven't looked at C# lately, but I doubt that they actually stepped backwards in that regard.

[Campbell Ritchie]

It's a long time since I wrote any C#, but I think it is the concept of checked exceptions they abandoned. We all know what a controversial feature of Java® it was, and I am not aware of other languages using checked exceptions.

[Monica Shiralkar]

While working on C#, I noticed that the below line will not even compile  :

Console.Writeline (100/0);

This is different from the case in java as the below line will compile( and later give exception at runtime ).

System.out.println(100/0);

[Stephan van Hulst]

Yes, C# disallows division by 0, if it can determine that the divisor is 0 at compile time.

[Monica Shiralkar]

So, C# disallows that at compile time whereas Java gives error at run time.

Is it related to the difference in the way C# and Java handle exceptions ?

[Campbell Ritchie]

Monica Shiralkar wrote:. . . difference in the way C# and Java handle exceptions ?

Please explain how those two things could be related.