Revenge of Redmond – C# and the .Net Frameworks
-
Over the many years that I have been programmer, I have detected a growing arrogance on the part of Microsoft employees. I find this strange because Microsoft depends so much upon its customer base. Yet, whenever some flaw is found in its software, Redmond is quick to argue that the bug is really a feature. This has occurred to me, personally, since Visual Studio 4. This arrogance spiked with the release of the C# programming language and its associated multiple .Net frameworks. Having been a member of the X3J9 Pascal technical committee (circa 1978), I am aware of what makes a “good” programming language. We teach these attributes to serious students of language design. Unfortunately, Redmond either didn’t take the classes or neglected their import. As a result, we have C# in its fourth generation (surprisingly not called "C#-4GL"). Generics, LINQ, and so forth have been added. Unfortunately, they were not part of the original C# language. They are "corrections" to missteps taken by Redmond in its attempt to be all things to all people. And they make my programming job much more difficult. I truly would like to see a new, simple, stripped-down version of C#. What I liked the most with the original C# language were the ArrayList and garbage collection. I believe that all the rest is unnecessary object oriented revenge. Peace.
Gus Gustafson
-
Over the many years that I have been programmer, I have detected a growing arrogance on the part of Microsoft employees. I find this strange because Microsoft depends so much upon its customer base. Yet, whenever some flaw is found in its software, Redmond is quick to argue that the bug is really a feature. This has occurred to me, personally, since Visual Studio 4. This arrogance spiked with the release of the C# programming language and its associated multiple .Net frameworks. Having been a member of the X3J9 Pascal technical committee (circa 1978), I am aware of what makes a “good” programming language. We teach these attributes to serious students of language design. Unfortunately, Redmond either didn’t take the classes or neglected their import. As a result, we have C# in its fourth generation (surprisingly not called "C#-4GL"). Generics, LINQ, and so forth have been added. Unfortunately, they were not part of the original C# language. They are "corrections" to missteps taken by Redmond in its attempt to be all things to all people. And they make my programming job much more difficult. I truly would like to see a new, simple, stripped-down version of C#. What I liked the most with the original C# language were the ArrayList and garbage collection. I believe that all the rest is unnecessary object oriented revenge. Peace.
Gus Gustafson
gggustafson wrote:
I have detected a growing arrogance on the part of Microsoft employees
You're not alone.
-
Over the many years that I have been programmer, I have detected a growing arrogance on the part of Microsoft employees. I find this strange because Microsoft depends so much upon its customer base. Yet, whenever some flaw is found in its software, Redmond is quick to argue that the bug is really a feature. This has occurred to me, personally, since Visual Studio 4. This arrogance spiked with the release of the C# programming language and its associated multiple .Net frameworks. Having been a member of the X3J9 Pascal technical committee (circa 1978), I am aware of what makes a “good” programming language. We teach these attributes to serious students of language design. Unfortunately, Redmond either didn’t take the classes or neglected their import. As a result, we have C# in its fourth generation (surprisingly not called "C#-4GL"). Generics, LINQ, and so forth have been added. Unfortunately, they were not part of the original C# language. They are "corrections" to missteps taken by Redmond in its attempt to be all things to all people. And they make my programming job much more difficult. I truly would like to see a new, simple, stripped-down version of C#. What I liked the most with the original C# language were the ArrayList and garbage collection. I believe that all the rest is unnecessary object oriented revenge. Peace.
Gus Gustafson
Ever since my birth I've seen a growing ignorance of behalf of people. They assume what they don't need must be irrelevant to the world, if they don't understand something it must be born out of stupidity, and the future was perfectly predictable if you are as smart as them. Sorry. Umm... peace.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
Over the many years that I have been programmer, I have detected a growing arrogance on the part of Microsoft employees. I find this strange because Microsoft depends so much upon its customer base. Yet, whenever some flaw is found in its software, Redmond is quick to argue that the bug is really a feature. This has occurred to me, personally, since Visual Studio 4. This arrogance spiked with the release of the C# programming language and its associated multiple .Net frameworks. Having been a member of the X3J9 Pascal technical committee (circa 1978), I am aware of what makes a “good” programming language. We teach these attributes to serious students of language design. Unfortunately, Redmond either didn’t take the classes or neglected their import. As a result, we have C# in its fourth generation (surprisingly not called "C#-4GL"). Generics, LINQ, and so forth have been added. Unfortunately, they were not part of the original C# language. They are "corrections" to missteps taken by Redmond in its attempt to be all things to all people. And they make my programming job much more difficult. I truly would like to see a new, simple, stripped-down version of C#. What I liked the most with the original C# language were the ArrayList and garbage collection. I believe that all the rest is unnecessary object oriented revenge. Peace.
Gus Gustafson
ArrayList was an abortion which should never have seen the light of day - particularly in a language that may be used for teaching. The generic List construct was a vast improvement. Personally, I would rather have seen
gotorestricted tounsafeblocks to make it harder for lazy people to use it...Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
-
Over the many years that I have been programmer, I have detected a growing arrogance on the part of Microsoft employees. I find this strange because Microsoft depends so much upon its customer base. Yet, whenever some flaw is found in its software, Redmond is quick to argue that the bug is really a feature. This has occurred to me, personally, since Visual Studio 4. This arrogance spiked with the release of the C# programming language and its associated multiple .Net frameworks. Having been a member of the X3J9 Pascal technical committee (circa 1978), I am aware of what makes a “good” programming language. We teach these attributes to serious students of language design. Unfortunately, Redmond either didn’t take the classes or neglected their import. As a result, we have C# in its fourth generation (surprisingly not called "C#-4GL"). Generics, LINQ, and so forth have been added. Unfortunately, they were not part of the original C# language. They are "corrections" to missteps taken by Redmond in its attempt to be all things to all people. And they make my programming job much more difficult. I truly would like to see a new, simple, stripped-down version of C#. What I liked the most with the original C# language were the ArrayList and garbage collection. I believe that all the rest is unnecessary object oriented revenge. Peace.
Gus Gustafson
gggustafson wrote:
Generics, LINQ, and so forth have been added
IIRC Correctly, generics were always supposed to be part of the language spec, but could not be developed in time for the for 1.0 & 1.1 versions of the framework, following the usual .net pattern of being over-aggressive about what can be achieved per release. This is not a correction. Generics / Template classes were the thing I missed most when I moved from c++ to c# As for LINQ, assuming it is the syntax you object to, you don't have to use it. You can even use the underlying methods (such as
Select,Whereetc) as methods. So I fail to see why this is a bad thing. Saying that adding features that were not part of the original language is bad, is the same as saying the language should not change.gggustafson wrote:
What I liked the most with the original C# language were the ArrayList
You are kidding right? Again
ArrayListis still there (sadly) so you can still use it. I can't work out why, in effectList<object>, which is pretty much equivalent toArrayList, is better than List<type> because we then need to spend time type-checking and I'd much rather get compile time errors than run-time ones. What is more interesting are the features that have been added that are I'd say are more controversial that you haven't mentioned. I know people who have stopped .net development because of things like dynamic typing, anonymous types and even implicit typing. I at least understand their position, even if I don't agree with it. We can still churn out v1.0 / v1.1 code using the v4.0 compiler (mod any breaking changes to classes) but it is simply harder. As for the increasing arrogance of the Microsoft employees, I don't know, I don't have to deal with them.Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Over the many years that I have been programmer, I have detected a growing arrogance on the part of Microsoft employees. I find this strange because Microsoft depends so much upon its customer base. Yet, whenever some flaw is found in its software, Redmond is quick to argue that the bug is really a feature. This has occurred to me, personally, since Visual Studio 4. This arrogance spiked with the release of the C# programming language and its associated multiple .Net frameworks. Having been a member of the X3J9 Pascal technical committee (circa 1978), I am aware of what makes a “good” programming language. We teach these attributes to serious students of language design. Unfortunately, Redmond either didn’t take the classes or neglected their import. As a result, we have C# in its fourth generation (surprisingly not called "C#-4GL"). Generics, LINQ, and so forth have been added. Unfortunately, they were not part of the original C# language. They are "corrections" to missteps taken by Redmond in its attempt to be all things to all people. And they make my programming job much more difficult. I truly would like to see a new, simple, stripped-down version of C#. What I liked the most with the original C# language were the ArrayList and garbage collection. I believe that all the rest is unnecessary object oriented revenge. Peace.
Gus Gustafson
-
Over the many years that I have been programmer, I have detected a growing arrogance on the part of Microsoft employees. I find this strange because Microsoft depends so much upon its customer base. Yet, whenever some flaw is found in its software, Redmond is quick to argue that the bug is really a feature. This has occurred to me, personally, since Visual Studio 4. This arrogance spiked with the release of the C# programming language and its associated multiple .Net frameworks. Having been a member of the X3J9 Pascal technical committee (circa 1978), I am aware of what makes a “good” programming language. We teach these attributes to serious students of language design. Unfortunately, Redmond either didn’t take the classes or neglected their import. As a result, we have C# in its fourth generation (surprisingly not called "C#-4GL"). Generics, LINQ, and so forth have been added. Unfortunately, they were not part of the original C# language. They are "corrections" to missteps taken by Redmond in its attempt to be all things to all people. And they make my programming job much more difficult. I truly would like to see a new, simple, stripped-down version of C#. What I liked the most with the original C# language were the ArrayList and garbage collection. I believe that all the rest is unnecessary object oriented revenge. Peace.
Gus Gustafson
gggustafson wrote:
What I liked the most with the original C# language were the ArrayList and garbage collection
Garbage collection is still there. What makes you think it's disappeared. As for ArrayList - you honestly like your code to perform badly? Do the terms boxing and unboxing mean anything to you? As for the other features - in the most part, they are there to make the job of the day to day developer a lot easier. They aren't in there for the benefit of some ivory towered academics who don't do this for a living, they are for people who have applications to write for customers quickly and easily. I'm sorry, but I find your arguments specious. Now, if you'd picked on the var keyword, I'd have had to agree, or the lack of full templating support.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
gggustafson wrote:
What I liked the most with the original C# language were the ArrayList and garbage collection
Garbage collection is still there. What makes you think it's disappeared. As for ArrayList - you honestly like your code to perform badly? Do the terms boxing and unboxing mean anything to you? As for the other features - in the most part, they are there to make the job of the day to day developer a lot easier. They aren't in there for the benefit of some ivory towered academics who don't do this for a living, they are for people who have applications to write for customers quickly and easily. I'm sorry, but I find your arguments specious. Now, if you'd picked on the var keyword, I'd have had to agree, or the lack of full templating support.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Now, if you'd picked on the var keyword, I'd have had to agree
But I would disagree, then. :)
Veni, vidi, vici.
I knew that the OP's name rang a bell[^].
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Over the many years that I have been programmer, I have detected a growing arrogance on the part of Microsoft employees. I find this strange because Microsoft depends so much upon its customer base. Yet, whenever some flaw is found in its software, Redmond is quick to argue that the bug is really a feature. This has occurred to me, personally, since Visual Studio 4. This arrogance spiked with the release of the C# programming language and its associated multiple .Net frameworks. Having been a member of the X3J9 Pascal technical committee (circa 1978), I am aware of what makes a “good” programming language. We teach these attributes to serious students of language design. Unfortunately, Redmond either didn’t take the classes or neglected their import. As a result, we have C# in its fourth generation (surprisingly not called "C#-4GL"). Generics, LINQ, and so forth have been added. Unfortunately, they were not part of the original C# language. They are "corrections" to missteps taken by Redmond in its attempt to be all things to all people. And they make my programming job much more difficult. I truly would like to see a new, simple, stripped-down version of C#. What I liked the most with the original C# language were the ArrayList and garbage collection. I believe that all the rest is unnecessary object oriented revenge. Peace.
Gus Gustafson
I have tried arguing with Eric Lippert that some of the new C# decisions were wrong (in terms of consistency*), but that man can never be wrong... :| * Specifically the lack of lexical scoping when dealing with anonymous delegates/lambdas.
-
gggustafson wrote:
What I liked the most with the original C# language were the ArrayList and garbage collection
Garbage collection is still there. What makes you think it's disappeared. As for ArrayList - you honestly like your code to perform badly? Do the terms boxing and unboxing mean anything to you? As for the other features - in the most part, they are there to make the job of the day to day developer a lot easier. They aren't in there for the benefit of some ivory towered academics who don't do this for a living, they are for people who have applications to write for customers quickly and easily. I'm sorry, but I find your arguments specious. Now, if you'd picked on the var keyword, I'd have had to agree, or the lack of full templating support.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
As for ArrayList - you honestly like your code to perform badly? Do the terms boxing and unboxing mean anything to you?
If you exclude value types, all the assumptions are invalid. Casting a reference type is as cheap as it gets.
-
I knew that the OP's name rang a bell[^].
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
I think the
C#nature of 'evolving language' is a design choice, not a flaw. If you like only theC#original features, then why don't use just them?Veni, vidi, vici.
-
I knew that the OP's name rang a bell[^].
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
ArrayList was an abortion which should never have seen the light of day - particularly in a language that may be used for teaching. The generic List construct was a vast improvement. Personally, I would rather have seen
gotorestricted tounsafeblocks to make it harder for lazy people to use it...Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
OriginalGriff wrote:
ArrayList was an abortion which should never have seen the light of day
Nice slip there mister! :laugh:
'As programmers go, I'm fairly social. Which still means I'm a borderline sociopath by normal standards.' Jeff Atwood 'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
As for ArrayList - you honestly like your code to perform badly? Do the terms boxing and unboxing mean anything to you?
If you exclude value types, all the assumptions are invalid. Casting a reference type is as cheap as it gets.
leppie wrote:
If you exclude value types
And there's the rub. How much code do you have lying around that just targets reference types?
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
leppie wrote:
If you exclude value types
And there's the rub. How much code do you have lying around that just targets reference types?
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
How much code do you have lying around that just targets reference types?
I think you rather mean, how much code you have lying around that does not use value types in non-generic containers? Big difference in the meaning. Anyways, in .NET 1.x, we all used type-safe arrays (when boxing/unboxing was costly), no problems there.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
How much code do you have lying around that just targets reference types?
I think you rather mean, how much code you have lying around that does not use value types in non-generic containers? Big difference in the meaning. Anyways, in .NET 1.x, we all used type-safe arrays (when boxing/unboxing was costly), no problems there.
leppie wrote:
I think you rather mean, how much code you have lying around that does not use value types in non-generic containers?
Fair point, well made.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
ArrayList was an abortion which should never have seen the light of day - particularly in a language that may be used for teaching. The generic List construct was a vast improvement. Personally, I would rather have seen
gotorestricted tounsafeblocks to make it harder for lazy people to use it...Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
Exactly the List construct is definitely the way to go! I started using arraylists etc and nowadays everything goes into a List and if I can I will make it a list of objects and unbox at the other end...
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
leppie wrote:
I think you rather mean, how much code you have lying around that does not use value types in non-generic containers?
Fair point, well made.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Fair point, well made.
The answer is 'a lot'. Every time you use the ASP.NET, (pretty much) every value type gets boxed (specifically session, application states and request and response variables). The performance impact is minimal at best. To answer you previous question (pedantically): LOTS, everything in IronScheme is a reference type. All value types are boxed. Some of them like symbols and booleans and numbers from 1 - 1000 are also interned (so that makes equality simply a reference check). As for performance, I have not seen better options where boxing can be avoided. The extra indirection is more costly than unboxing.
