What Language Features Do You Miss In C#?
-
Sure, it's on another discussion site[^], but that doesn't mean we can't also discuss it here. Personally, while it certainly doesn't fit in the "missing" category, I see them moving it closer and closer to a hybrid C#/JavaScript language with each new version.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Multiple inheritance. Interfaces are useful as abstractions, but there are times I want to inherit concrete functionality from multiple classes. Marc
Latest Article: C# and Ruby Classes: A Deep Dive
My Blog -
Sure, it's on another discussion site[^], but that doesn't mean we can't also discuss it here. Personally, while it certainly doesn't fit in the "missing" category, I see them moving it closer and closer to a hybrid C#/JavaScript language with each new version.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
I would like to see the addition of a keyword to allow fallthrough in a switch statement (maybe "nobreak"?). I don't need/want to do that often, so the compiler preventing "accidental" fallthrough is nice; however, it sure would be nice to be able to fall through when necessary.
you can type several 'case' statements one after the other. contrived example:
int number = GetNumberBetween1And5();
string text = null;
switch( number ) {
case 1:
text = "1";
break;
case 2:
case 3:
case 4:
text = "2 or 3 or 4";
break;
case 5:
text = "5";
break;
}is that type of fall-through what you said you're missing?
-
A
goto caseis not agoto. But, yes, I don't likebreakin aswitch; in my opinionbreakshould only be for loops only.I agree - it isn't. But...it is a out-of-structure code flow indicator, which can easily create the same spaghetti code as a goto. So on balance, while I found the no-drop-through rule limiting at first, I don't miss it so much now. I just restructure the code to not need it in the same way that I don't need goto itself. And I definitely agree on
break- theswitchversion should have used a different word: "esac" or "join" perhaps.If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
-
You certainly go straight to The Heart of Everything[^]
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
Because I have A Dangerous Mind[^] :-D
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
-
-
In my case, actually, for every Foo<T> I also have an IFoo where the parameters are as object instead of T. I think java have such feature (I know, in java the implementation is completely different)... I think they use: Foo<?> to say that they don't know the type being used. It is slower than having it rightly typed, but it is faster than having it as dynamic or through reflection.
why the heck you just don't use a generic method?
public void DoGenericStuff(Foo foo)
{
....
}I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p) "Given the chance I'd rather work smart than work hard." - PHS241
-
Method-scoped variables like in VB (static). Defining Extension Methods by applying the Attribute like in VB (rather than
this). A proper assignment operator like in Pascal:=:-D A properdefinedirective like in C/C++# define Pi 3.14Support forenuminwhereclauses for generic types --class C<T> where T : enum ...No default modifiers (public,private,virtual,sealed, etc.). Multiple Inheritence would be good too.PIEBALDconsult wrote:
A proper assignment operator like in Pascal
:=:-D
A properdefinedirective like in C/C++# define Pi 3.14... Multiple Inheritence would be good too.if any of thouse got added i would be sooo mad, i alread have too much bad code to deal even without those...
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p) "Given the chance I'd rather work smart than work hard." - PHS241
-
What I would like to see in the language: - Destructors that destruct (not the silly Dispose() stuff) [you can easily trigger local garbage collection with an exit from scope] - Ability to use arrays with non-zero origin - inline operator||(), inline operator&&() which implement short circuit logic
-- Harvey
H.Brydon wrote:
Destructors that destruct (not the silly Dispose() stuff) [you can easily trigger local garbage collection with an exit from scope]
I couldn't agree more.
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p) "Given the chance I'd rather work smart than work hard." - PHS241
-
I want lambda expressions, that can be evaluated at compile time, allowed in attributes, to avoid nasty string literals.
that's not allowed with an Expression parameter?
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p) "Given the chance I'd rather work smart than work hard." - PHS241
-
Plugin support is always an issue with C#. You can't use User Controls inside a Console Application, which makes that coding needs to be done each class. C++ holds great support for adding plugins for extra code (.h files sepcifically are useful) but in the end, you can't blame Microsoft for their .NET approach to everything, The time of a CLI is dead (Except PowerShell, IMO)
-
Nice! Although one difference in my envisioned approach would be that I could potentially have sequential or embded #thread blocks within the same function. With this, you have to make each thread a function as opposed to using it in a for or while loop, for example.
-
you can type several 'case' statements one after the other. contrived example:
int number = GetNumberBetween1And5();
string text = null;
switch( number ) {
case 1:
text = "1";
break;
case 2:
case 3:
case 4:
text = "2 or 3 or 4";
break;
case 5:
text = "5";
break;
}is that type of fall-through what you said you're missing?
I already knew about (and use) that type of fallthrough (but thanks for pointing it out anyway). I'm talking about a case (no pun intended) where you have an action to perform in two cases that requires some kind of setup in one of the cases but not the other.
switch(whichAction)
{
case Actions.ActionWithSetup:
DoSetup();
case Actions.Action:
DoAction();
break;
}In this example, in the one case, DoSetup is performed, followed by DoAction; in the other case only DoAction is performed. You can do this in C (and Java as I recall) but not in C#. I'm fine with the language not allowing the fallthrough to happen unintentionally but think there should be a keyword to allow it. For example:
switch(whichAction)
{
case Actions.ActionWithSetup:
DoSetup();
nobreak;
case Actions.Action:
DoAction();
break;
}I realize that in my example I could simply call DoAction in both cases (and that's what I would do, given the C# limitation); and I also understand that if I've got a block of code in the second case, I can break it out into a separate method and call that method in both cases (which again is what I would do); however, if it's a really small block of code, I don't necessarily want to create a new method for it or duplicate the code.
-
I already knew about (and use) that type of fallthrough (but thanks for pointing it out anyway). I'm talking about a case (no pun intended) where you have an action to perform in two cases that requires some kind of setup in one of the cases but not the other.
switch(whichAction)
{
case Actions.ActionWithSetup:
DoSetup();
case Actions.Action:
DoAction();
break;
}In this example, in the one case, DoSetup is performed, followed by DoAction; in the other case only DoAction is performed. You can do this in C (and Java as I recall) but not in C#. I'm fine with the language not allowing the fallthrough to happen unintentionally but think there should be a keyword to allow it. For example:
switch(whichAction)
{
case Actions.ActionWithSetup:
DoSetup();
nobreak;
case Actions.Action:
DoAction();
break;
}I realize that in my example I could simply call DoAction in both cases (and that's what I would do, given the C# limitation); and I also understand that if I've got a block of code in the second case, I can break it out into a separate method and call that method in both cases (which again is what I would do); however, if it's a really small block of code, I don't necessarily want to create a new method for it or duplicate the code.
-
Inline assembler.
I believe that's been there since version 1.0
-
sprintf sscanf
Steve Wellens
Amen, would make life easier at the moment! mind you can get them from C++ Glenn
-
VB error handling, really?
-
Sure, it's on another discussion site[^], but that doesn't mean we can't also discuss it here. Personally, while it certainly doesn't fit in the "missing" category, I see them moving it closer and closer to a hybrid C#/JavaScript language with each new version.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Enum that supports other types, not just integral types. A required tag on the end of block regions. Why? Cause it can become a bitch knowing which '}' belongs with what after a while and folks are too lazy to comment. Or VS could get better and put a comment there for you. But then this isn't about VS. Improved Friend relationships between DLL's. Current way of setting up Friend relationships is awkward.
-
why the heck you just don't use a generic method?
public void DoGenericStuff(Foo foo)
{
....
}I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p) "Given the chance I'd rather work smart than work hard." - PHS241
Hahahahaha. You didn't get it at all. Imagine that for some reason you don't know the T type at compile-time. You are in an event or something and you are receiving a valid value, but it is cast as object. How do you do a call to the generic class without knowing its generic type? In such case, it is up to you to do the cast, but you don't have the destination type at compile time. The solution in such situation is to use reflection or dynamic. I solve the problem having an untyped interface. That works very well for my classes, but not to already existing classes. Even if it is not a generic class situation, you can see that happening with database connections. You have SqlConnection, OracleConnection, SqlCommand, OracleCommand, SqlParameter, OracleParameter and so on. But you can use all of them al IDbConnection, IDbCommand and so on. So, you create a parameter using the command... you dont know if it is an OracleParameter or SqlParameter... but it is not important, as when you add a parameter to a command the driver do the cast for you. (Ok, it is a little stupid that you create the parameter and it is not added automatically... but I want to ilustrate a situation where you have a valid value [the parameter] but you don't have the valid type).
