C# 6 Features
-
This thread[^] is sparking some debate in the new section, but we should probably do that here, right? So, the first thing is notice is that I find myself really hating string interpolation with a passion. Anything in a string should be string, not some sneaky variable name. C# is not PHP. Await in catch/finally sounds great though. In the past I've needed ugly hacks to approximate that.
* Static initializers - I can't imagine using it for Console.WriteLine or something (we always type cw{Tab} anyway, right?) And there's a problem that some methods don't have an intuitive name without the class name, like
Tuple.Create. But I like that I can now import extension methods from classes instead of namespaces. * Auto property initializers - Very neat. Should have been there from the beginning. * Dictionary initializers - I guess it's a more intuitive way of writing this particular code but was it absolutely necessary? No. Now we just have 2 slightly different ways of writing the same thing. * String interpolation - I agree it doesn't look pretty, but the old way ({0},{1},{2},etc) didn't look pretty either. * nameof() - Very small feature, but it makes sense to use it everywhere you can. * Expression-bodied members - I think this is a confusing feature. It doesn't even save that much typing. Methods don't look like methods anymore and properties no longer have a 'get' keyword. * Exception filters - Should be useful on rare occasions, but will be abused more often. * Await in catch/finally - Without it, async/await is an incomplete feature, so it should be there, but I don't expect to use it much. * Null conditional - This takes away a lot of ugly, boring, annoying code. Very nice. But it will make C# more cryptic for novice programmers. -
The null check will be dead useful, not sure if I'd adopt much of the other stuff. But then I still for "foreach" like the dinosaur I am.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
I still for "foreach" like the dinosaur I am
No! Use
forwhenever you can! Avoidforeachand its ilk unless it's the only thing that will work. -
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
I still for "foreach" like the dinosaur I am
No! Use
forwhenever you can! Avoidforeachand its ilk unless it's the only thing that will work. -
This thread[^] is sparking some debate in the new section, but we should probably do that here, right? So, the first thing is notice is that I find myself really hating string interpolation with a passion. Anything in a string should be string, not some sneaky variable name. C# is not PHP. Await in catch/finally sounds great though. In the past I've needed ugly hacks to approximate that.
Static Using Syntax - I think its usefulness really depends on the use-case. If you have a class that makes heavy use of
Consoleor static members inMath, it can be beneficial; otherwise, things might get weird easily. Auto-Property Initializers - I don't use much of the syntactic sugar since C# 3.0, but it's good for people who like it because this feature makes auto properties complete. Dictionary Initializers - I don't really care. String Interpolation - Looks better than theString.Formatsyntax but can be problematic when it comes to localization. Still, I like it a lot. nameof() Expression - A small but very welcome feature, I use it everywhere I can. This one really shines in Roslyn-based refactorings. Expression-bodied Methods and Properties - I don't really care, not too beneficial. Exception Filters - I guess this one has been supported by the CLR ever since, now it is exposed by C#. Can be useful, but like many others I see a large abuse vector. Await in Catch/Finally - I don't do much async stuff, but it makes the whole feature complete. Null-Conditional Operator - Surely a nice to have shortcut, but it makes the code harder to read, especially for people who are not used to it. I think this version of C# brought some very welcome additions, but it's also beginning to get seriously bloated. Too much choices and syntactic sugar can become problematic and a mess if you're working on projects with different kinds of coding guidelines. -
Not as efficient as a
forfor the same task. -
Not as efficient as a
forfor the same task.OK, but that may be a bit outdated - for example, the difference between private static int test1(int[] ar) { int sum = 0; foreach (var i in ar) { sum += i; } return sum; } and private static int test2(int[] ar) { int sum = 0; for (int i = 0; i < ar.Length; i++) { sum += ar[i]; } return sum; } Is .. not much. The loop bodies are
_loop1:
mov eax,dword ptr [rdx+r9+10h]
add ecx,eax
inc r8d
add r9,4
cmp r8d,r10d
jl _loop1_loop2:
mov eax,dword ptr [rdx+r9+10h]
add ecx,eax
inc r8d
add r9,4
cmp r8d,r10d
jl _loop2Literally the same thing, it even used the same registers.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
What's wrong with foreach?
The young'uns prefer using linq for everything these days. Apparently unreadable, single-line, non-debugabble code using slow features like anonymous methods is the way to go :)
-
OK, but that may be a bit outdated - for example, the difference between private static int test1(int[] ar) { int sum = 0; foreach (var i in ar) { sum += i; } return sum; } and private static int test2(int[] ar) { int sum = 0; for (int i = 0; i < ar.Length; i++) { sum += ar[i]; } return sum; } Is .. not much. The loop bodies are
_loop1:
mov eax,dword ptr [rdx+r9+10h]
add ecx,eax
inc r8d
add r9,4
cmp r8d,r10d
jl _loop1_loop2:
mov eax,dword ptr [rdx+r9+10h]
add ecx,eax
inc r8d
add r9,4
cmp r8d,r10d
jl _loop2Literally the same thing, it even used the same registers.
Now try the
forin reverse. And try it with something more complex than an array ofints. -
Now try the
forin reverse. And try it with something more complex than an array ofints. -
foreachis more general in that it can work on anyIEnumerable, whereasforis more general in that it doesn't require anIEnumerable. ::shrug:: I find thatfor, particularly a reversefor(which reduces calls to Length or Count or whatever), can perform much better thanforeach. Though the actual time saved may not be significant, still you don't know what else is going on in the system. On why to use DataViews[^]