.Net 5 Freakin Annoying
-
It's screaming about a bunch of warnings that didn't crop up in .Net Framework. CS8600, 8601, 8602, and 8618. I see no benefit when the objects it's screaming about can in fact be null without hurting anything. In fact, my code is written to handle it gracefully. Nanny state bullsh|t...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
It's screaming about a bunch of warnings that didn't crop up in .Net Framework. CS8600, 8601, 8602, and 8618. I see no benefit when the objects it's screaming about can in fact be null without hurting anything. In fact, my code is written to handle it gracefully. Nanny state bullsh|t...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013you can suppress certain warnings in Visual Studio, if you want. Suppress warnings for projects and NuGet packages - Visual Studio (Windows) | Microsoft Docs[^]
-
It's screaming about a bunch of warnings that didn't crop up in .Net Framework. CS8600, 8601, 8602, and 8618. I see no benefit when the objects it's screaming about can in fact be null without hurting anything. In fact, my code is written to handle it gracefully. Nanny state bullsh|t...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Open the .csproj file and change "the" line to read:
disableAnd yes, bloody annoying.Latest Articles:
ASP.NET Core Web API: Plugin Controllers and Services -
It's screaming about a bunch of warnings that didn't crop up in .Net Framework. CS8600, 8601, 8602, and 8618. I see no benefit when the objects it's screaming about can in fact be null without hurting anything. In fact, my code is written to handle it gracefully. Nanny state bullsh|t...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
It's screaming about a bunch of warnings that didn't crop up in .Net Framework. CS8600, 8601, 8602, and 8618. I see no benefit when the objects it's screaming about can in fact be null without hurting anything. In fact, my code is written to handle it gracefully. Nanny state bullsh|t...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013FYI: Nullable reference types | Microsoft Docs[^]
#realJSOP wrote:
Nanny state bullshit..
FTFY
Software Zen:
delete this; -
It's screaming about a bunch of warnings that didn't crop up in .Net Framework. CS8600, 8601, 8602, and 8618. I see no benefit when the objects it's screaming about can in fact be null without hurting anything. In fact, my code is written to handle it gracefully. Nanny state bullsh|t...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Let me see. I can enable null check - clearly advertising intent outside my method - make it very clear where I can ignore null check and get the compiler to tell me where I need it. Reference types and value types both able to advertise clearly if they are nullable or not. Or I can disable nullable check and accept more null reference exceptions - often not telling you enough to easily tell what was null when all you have is a log file from a production server. When calling a method always having to wonder "hmm, can this return null or not" - and either forget to handle null in one or another edge case, or clutter the code with null handling code that will never execute. And have value types that can communicate if they can be null or not, while my reference types can't. And in case you say "never happens to me". Well, congratulation for working on such a simple code base. It is not exactly a hard choice for new code. I can't think of a single reason to disable it besides "I am not used to it". For old code it is of course a question if it is worth the investment which will vary from project to project. It is unfortunately not as good as it should be due to the requirement to link to libraries developed before null checks, but at least it is an attempt to fix one of the most serious design mistakes in the .NET type system. Can we please get more "nanny state" to let the compiler deal with this trivial crap so I can concentrate on the domain.
-
Let me see. I can enable null check - clearly advertising intent outside my method - make it very clear where I can ignore null check and get the compiler to tell me where I need it. Reference types and value types both able to advertise clearly if they are nullable or not. Or I can disable nullable check and accept more null reference exceptions - often not telling you enough to easily tell what was null when all you have is a log file from a production server. When calling a method always having to wonder "hmm, can this return null or not" - and either forget to handle null in one or another edge case, or clutter the code with null handling code that will never execute. And have value types that can communicate if they can be null or not, while my reference types can't. And in case you say "never happens to me". Well, congratulation for working on such a simple code base. It is not exactly a hard choice for new code. I can't think of a single reason to disable it besides "I am not used to it". For old code it is of course a question if it is worth the investment which will vary from project to project. It is unfortunately not as good as it should be due to the requirement to link to libraries developed before null checks, but at least it is an attempt to fix one of the most serious design mistakes in the .NET type system. Can we please get more "nanny state" to let the compiler deal with this trivial crap so I can concentrate on the domain.
Just to add to my own argument.... Why should:
int i = null;
be an error and you have to write
int? i = null;
while
object obj = null;
is supposed to be OK? And yes, I understand the technical and historical reasons for this. And they are exactly that: technical and historical. The compiler can finally move us beyond this.
-
It's screaming about a bunch of warnings that didn't crop up in .Net Framework. CS8600, 8601, 8602, and 8618. I see no benefit when the objects it's screaming about can in fact be null without hurting anything. In fact, my code is written to handle it gracefully. Nanny state bullsh|t...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013I'd have thought it was more annoying that .NET 5 is only supported until May: Microsoft .NET and .NET Core - Microsoft Lifecycle | Microsoft Docs[^] The current "long-term support" version is .NET 6, which is supported until ... November 2024[^]. Turns out not having to rewrite everything every three years is yet another bonus to sticking with .NET Framework 4.8.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined" - Homer
-
I'd have thought it was more annoying that .NET 5 is only supported until May: Microsoft .NET and .NET Core - Microsoft Lifecycle | Microsoft Docs[^] The current "long-term support" version is .NET 6, which is supported until ... November 2024[^]. Turns out not having to rewrite everything every three years is yet another bonus to sticking with .NET Framework 4.8.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Before the release of .NET 6: 1) Do you want support longer than 3 months? If so, use .NET Core 3.1 or .NET Framework 4.8 2) Do you want to receive security updates through Windows updates? If so, use .NET 5 or .NET Framework 4.8. 3) Do you want to use latest Open API standard? If so, use .NET 3.1 or 5.0. Ehh...
-
Before the release of .NET 6: 1) Do you want support longer than 3 months? If so, use .NET Core 3.1 or .NET Framework 4.8 2) Do you want to receive security updates through Windows updates? If so, use .NET 5 or .NET Framework 4.8. 3) Do you want to use latest Open API standard? If so, use .NET 3.1 or 5.0. Ehh...
You missed one: 4) Do you want to use SQL Server Reporting Services? If so, use .NET Framework 4.8. The suggestion to develop a .NET Core report viewer[^] was "under review" for over 4 years, and was one of the highest-voted feedback items. Microsoft recently announced their plans for this: upgrade your reports to a Power BI Premium subscription[^]. Because paying them for the SQL Server license obviously wasn't enough money. :doh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
You missed one: 4) Do you want to use SQL Server Reporting Services? If so, use .NET Framework 4.8. The suggestion to develop a .NET Core report viewer[^] was "under review" for over 4 years, and was one of the highest-voted feedback items. Microsoft recently announced their plans for this: upgrade your reports to a Power BI Premium subscription[^]. Because paying them for the SQL Server license obviously wasn't enough money. :doh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I am sure there are plenty of other things. Software development has pretty much been torn apart by some things moving too fast while others move too slow. If you build very simple things you can be in either camp and it will work. But if you need anything slightly complicated, you will be stuck between the two and productivity will go out the window.
-
you can suppress certain warnings in Visual Studio, if you want. Suppress warnings for projects and NuGet packages - Visual Studio (Windows) | Microsoft Docs[^]
I realize that (and I've done it), but having to do it now when it's been good for 20 years is annoying.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
I'd have thought it was more annoying that .NET 5 is only supported until May: Microsoft .NET and .NET Core - Microsoft Lifecycle | Microsoft Docs[^] The current "long-term support" version is .NET 6, which is supported until ... November 2024[^]. Turns out not having to rewrite everything every three years is yet another bonus to sticking with .NET Framework 4.8.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
And that's why instead of renewing my 14 years old knowledge of C# I decided to send MS to the Hell they belong and move to Python for my RAD activities. For all my other activities C++ is the pinnacle of high level but usually only C is viable, and Assembler becomes a not unreasonable tool.
GCS d--(d-) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
-
I'd have thought it was more annoying that .NET 5 is only supported until May: Microsoft .NET and .NET Core - Microsoft Lifecycle | Microsoft Docs[^] The current "long-term support" version is .NET 6, which is supported until ... November 2024[^]. Turns out not having to rewrite everything every three years is yet another bonus to sticking with .NET Framework 4.8.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
In this case, I don't have a choice. I have to use .Net Core because I'm doing an Avalonia app.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
It's screaming about a bunch of warnings that didn't crop up in .Net Framework. CS8600, 8601, 8602, and 8618. I see no benefit when the objects it's screaming about can in fact be null without hurting anything. In fact, my code is written to handle it gracefully. Nanny state bullsh|t...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013I second your opinion. In the Good Old Days, software was written by people, a significant percentage of whom knew what they were doing. Nowadays, programming has been opened to the "masses", so syntactic sugar and nannying compiler messages have become the norm. I recognize the utility of lint-like warnings - at times, they can catch some real howlers. However, they are not necessarily a good default for an experienced programmer who knows what he/she/it is doing.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
I'd have thought it was more annoying that .NET 5 is only supported until May: Microsoft .NET and .NET Core - Microsoft Lifecycle | Microsoft Docs[^] The current "long-term support" version is .NET 6, which is supported until ... November 2024[^]. Turns out not having to rewrite everything every three years is yet another bonus to sticking with .NET Framework 4.8.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I'm seeing .Net 5 as a glorified beta release, where .Net 6 is the release version
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
In this case, I don't have a choice. I have to use .Net Core because I'm doing an Avalonia app.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013This one?
Avalonia is supported on all platforms that support .NET Standard 2.0.
.NET Standard 2.0[^] includes .NET Framework 4.6.1 and up, although support is pretty rough for anything earlier than 4.7.2.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Open the .csproj file and change "the" line to read:
disableAnd yes, bloody annoying.Latest Articles:
ASP.NET Core Web API: Plugin Controllers and ServicesNo need to edit, that
Nullableswitch is available under Properties/Build/General :)Luc Pattyn [My Articles] The Windows 11 "taskbar" is disgusting. It should be at the left of the screen, with real icons, with text, progress, etc. They downgraded my developer PC to a bloody iPhone.
-
Just to add to my own argument.... Why should:
int i = null;
be an error and you have to write
int? i = null;
while
object obj = null;
is supposed to be OK? And yes, I understand the technical and historical reasons for this. And they are exactly that: technical and historical. The compiler can finally move us beyond this.
I disagree with this sentiment. I think that the way a variable is declared is very important to allow the compiler to check for misuse. Any misuse found would indicate that the programmer means something other than what he wrote.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
I second your opinion. In the Good Old Days, software was written by people, a significant percentage of whom knew what they were doing. Nowadays, programming has been opened to the "masses", so syntactic sugar and nannying compiler messages have become the norm. I recognize the utility of lint-like warnings - at times, they can catch some real howlers. However, they are not necessarily a good default for an experienced programmer who knows what he/she/it is doing.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
I disagree, even an expert brain farts sometimes and the compiler warning you of that is, to me, useful to avoid bugs. And having the warnings in place can help in shared codebases, if you work alone sure, disable them. If it's shared I much prefer having them enabled and when you do weird stuff you disable it with a comment right there and not globally
