What Language Features Do You Miss In C#?
-
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#. -
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#.Florian Rappl wrote:
goto SOME_LABELis different thangoto case WHATEVERYes, of course.
Florian Rappl wrote:
assembler output
Has no bearing on the discussion.
-
Yes! And gosub.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
ahhh, the route to HELL :laugh:
-
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.
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
-
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
That's all I need[^] to know.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
-
That's all I need[^] to know.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
Good, I apologize[^] for the interruption ...
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
-
Good, I apologize[^] for the interruption ...
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
Why? What have you done?[^]
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
-
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
-
Florian Rappl wrote:
goto SOME_LABELis different thangoto case WHATEVERYes, of course.
Florian Rappl wrote:
assembler output
Has no bearing on the discussion.
Either you are incapable of understanding this or you just do not want to get this. Your statement that there are 2 gotos is wrong. From a language point of view using goto with some (arbitrary) label and with a case label is equivalent.
-
But you can't know what may be thrown by something it calls, so I don't see the point.
In Java, every function must declare all potential throws. The compiler looks down the call stack and makes sure that exceptions are either handled or declared in the throws. If not, it's a compilation error. That annoys many Java developers, which is why I think the feature should be optional. If it was optional, we could generate a warning on unhandled exceptions. IT would not be a compilation error like it is in Java. This wouldn't totally prevent any problems, but it would give developers a way to be more explicit about what exceptions can happen. For library designers this would be very helpful.
-
The only good feature of Ruby! AWESOME :)
