What Language Features Do You Miss In C#?
-
if you know the interface you can always cast to IFoo. thanks to Covariance[^]
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
That works for IEnumerable but not for IList (to show a limitation). In fact, if you need to give parameters to the Foo object (in the command case, you add a parameter to the command) it can at maximum be an "in T", so you can't use IFoo<object> Also, even "out T" will not work which structs. Try to get an IEnumerator<int> as an IEnumerator<object>. It does not work. But for such situation there is the non-generic that works in a more generic way... you can use an IEnumerator without a generic parameter. In such case there is such interface, but that's not always the case. And as a note... using IFoo<object> is contravariance, not covariance.
-
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
The ability to look at a variable's memory location while in another part of the program. In C++, I sometimes use what I call the "Stakeout Debugging Pattern": I create a Watch expression on the address of a variable, so I can see how it changes while not in scope. (The debugger won't show variables not in scope). E.g. *(int *)0x12345678 But there's no way (that I know of) to do this in C#. This would help with debugging.
-
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 BlogI completely agree. Even if we can simulate multiple inheritance with interfaces and extension methods, well, extension methods are ugly, require a special using to be available and can't be virtual. So, multiple inheritance will be great. And if there are persons that use it incorrectly, well... there are persons that do all kinds of stupid things.
-
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
THROWS, as an optional declaration. I would like the following... public void myfunction(int x) throws ArgumentException, OverflowException { } And, Java needs the other form of throws too, which I'd like to see in C# public void myfunction(int x) throws NONE { } ... for methods which can't throw exceptions.
-
I believe that's been there since version 1.0
Riiiiight...
-
This one is type dependent and not a language future but some class method. Same as Split() (very useful method by the way) or IsNullOrEmpty() for example.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
What does it matter that it's a framework implementation and not implemented by the C# specification? Just as long as it accomplishes the same thing.
-
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 miss that it's not Java... ;P
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
I do not really agree, since
casestatements form a valid label andgotoLABEL is a realgoto. Why was goto brought to C (and therefore to C++, C#, ...) anyway? It is REALLY simple to implementgotoin C (for transferring into assembler). Its jut a plainJMP. Labels can be transferred nearly 1-1, so having agotothe way it has been introduced to C makes sense.switch-casestatements have just a list ofJEstatements, i.e. usinggotois the way to use those labels outside of the usual flow. Here is howswitch-caseresults in MSIL:IL_0001: ldc.i4.5
IL_0002: stloc.0 // a
IL_0003: ldloc.0 // a
IL_0004: stloc.1 // CS$4$0000
IL_0005: ldloc.1 // CS$4$0000
IL_0006: switch (IL_0015, IL_0022)
IL_0013: br.s IL_002F
IL_0015: ldstr "Zero"
IL_001A: call LINQPad.Extensions.Dump
IL_001F: pop
IL_0020: br.s IL_003C
IL_0022: ldstr "Zero"
IL_0027: call LINQPad.Extensions.Dump
IL_002C: pop
IL_002D: br.s IL_003C
IL_002F: ldstr "Nothing"
IL_0034: call LINQPad.Extensions.Dump
IL_0039: pop
IL_003A: br.s IL_003CThe line IL_0006 will result in the list of
JEstatements. The following program was used to produce these lines of IL code:void Main()
{
var a = 5;switch(a) { case 0: "Zero".Dump(); break; case 1: "One".Dump(); break; default: "Non-Zero".Dump(); break; }}
If you would now compare this to usual labels you would see that both are identical. It's really just a syntax thing that case statements start with
case, hence since one has always to specify the full label, thecaseneeds to be included for anygotocall on those labels.So?
-
What does it matter that it's a framework implementation and not implemented by the C# specification? Just as long as it accomplishes the same thing.
The force is not as strong with the framework as it’s with the language itself. :-D
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
The ability to look at a variable's memory location while in another part of the program. In C++, I sometimes use what I call the "Stakeout Debugging Pattern": I create a Watch expression on the address of a variable, so I can see how it changes while not in scope. (The debugger won't show variables not in scope). E.g. *(int *)0x12345678 But there's no way (that I know of) to do this in C#. This would help with debugging.
Doesn't .NET constantly relocate variables to other memory locations? Which would mean you could watch an address, but if it changes that doesn't mean the variable you were watching is unreachable or out of scope. So what would you get out of it?
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
} -
Doesn't .NET constantly relocate variables to other memory locations? Which would mean you could watch an address, but if it changes that doesn't mean the variable you were watching is unreachable or out of scope. So what would you get out of it?
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}You're right that garbage collection and relocation would invalidate the address, but this is only done when the application runs out of memory. Even better would be a way to watch a variable in another class, which would track these relocations. But that would require a more extensive change to the framework. Watching an address would be just about as useful, and is a more modest request.
-
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)
This is the most exotic opinion I have heard lately...[]
-
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
They could improve C# in threading. C# is still a bit clumsy around threading. A thread is provided as a class in the system.threading namespace. And yet a lock is part of the C# language itself. I would like a syntax like:
Future f = async double square(double x){return x * x;}
A variable should be synchronizable with the "synchronized" keyword so that only one thread can access it at a time, like:
synchronized double Balance;
-
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
-
So?
What you mean "So"?
gotois justgoto- so that statement that it's different is wrong. -
What you mean "So"?
gotois justgoto- so that statement that it's different is wrong.The concept is different.
-
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.
Yes, or what I frequently need:
assign default values ;
switch ( args.Length )
{
case 4 : parse parameter 4 ;
case 3 : parse parameter 3 ;
case 2 : parse parameter 2 ;
case 1 : parse parameter 1 ;
default : do something ;
} -
THROWS, as an optional declaration. I would like the following... public void myfunction(int x) throws ArgumentException, OverflowException { } And, Java needs the other form of throws too, which I'd like to see in C# public void myfunction(int x) throws NONE { } ... for methods which can't throw exceptions.
But you can't know what may be thrown by something it calls, so I don't see the point.
-
The concept is different.
What kind of concept are you talking about? That the labels are also used from the switch statement? That's certainly true but has nothing to do with
goto. But you have been talking about thatgoto SOME_LABELis different thangoto case WHATEVER- which is wrong. I think you have never seen any assembler output from C code or MSIL from C#, just look at my example which will give you an impression of the MSIL generated from a switch-case in C#.
