I hate recent C# versions!

Behzad Sedighzadeh

Am I the only one who hates recent addings to the language? Some examples: ?? Named/optional arguments () ?[] discards :confused:

(_, _, area) = city.GetCityInformation(cityName);

Switch expressions The list can go on and on. They are trying to make programming much easier and at the same time are making the syntax more and more unreadable:mad::mad:

Behzad

Lost User

Hutber's law - Wikipedia[^].

Lost User

No, I get it. And that process isn't limited to C#.

Richard Deeming

Behzad Sedighzadeh wrote:

... recent addings to the language ...

I'm not convinced by your definition of "recent"! :laugh:

Behzad Sedighzadeh wrote:

Named/optional arguments

Added in C# 4, which was released in April 2010.

Behzad Sedighzadeh wrote:

?? ?[]

The null conditional / coalescing operators were added in C# 6 (July 2015).

Behzad Sedighzadeh wrote:

discards

C# 7 (March 2017)

Behzad Sedighzadeh wrote:

()

Not entirely sure what you're referring to here. I'm going to guess that you mean value tuples, which were also added in C# 7 (March 2017).

Behzad Sedighzadeh wrote:

Switch expressions

C# 8 (September 2019). As with any addition to the language, nobody is forcing you to use them. If you want to stick to writing C# 1.0 code, then you're free to do so. It's only when you come to read someone else's code that you might need to understand the newer constructs - but even then, there are ways to convert the code to an older syntax.

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter

Be more positive - learn these additions, but use only if fits... After all - they do not force you!!!

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." ― Albert Einstein

OriginalGriff

Some of them are pretty useful. For example:

   private void DroppedURL\_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
        {
        if (sender is BackgroundWorker worker)
            {
            ...

Makes code much cleaner than the traditional way:

   private void DroppedURL\_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
        {
        BackgroundWorker worker = sender as BackgroundWorker;
        if (worker != null)
            {
            ...

"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!

lmoelleb

I really like ?? since they made it possible to throw.

something = myParameter ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(...)

also handy in if statements. Optional arguments: better than 100 overloads, but as with everything use with care. (): If indeed value tuples - better than what we had (no more Item1, Item2) ?[]: Never used it, but I use ?. all the time -and it would be strange if ?[] wasn't available as well. Discards: Handy when needed - do not use them a lot, but when you do they make it clear right away. Switch expressions: Why oh why.... where they not added earlier. No more crappy switch statements full of returns or variable assignments - and a compiler warning when I am missing a state. I need to figure out how to use them nicely with enums though - I want a catch all that throws if not a defined enum value, but still want a warning if a new enum value is added and I do not handle it And nullable in general is of course the best thing since sliced bre... no, wait - I can just eat the bread without slicing it! Just too bad it is a bit crippled as we still need to call legacy code and the required keyword isn't coming before next version.

Nelek

lmoelleb wrote:

I need to figure out how to use them nicely with enums though - I want a catch all that throws if not a defined enum value, but still want a warning if a new enum value is added and I do not handle it

Once you figure it out... write a tip ;) :-D

M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

Marc Clifton

lmoelleb wrote:

Switch expressions: Why oh why.... where they not added earlier.

Yes, exactly!

Latest Article:
Create a Digital Ocean Droplet for .NET Core Web API with a real SSL Certificate on a Domain

Marc Clifton

Maybe you would prefer VB 6.0? ;) Everything on your list is stuff that I use every day (except the ?[] - hardly ever have to specifically index something.

Latest Article:
Create a Digital Ocean Droplet for .NET Core Web API with a real SSL Certificate on a Domain

PIEBALDconsult

Never hate. I don't use any features of C# newer than v3. The other week I found that I was using a Dictionary Initializer (which is a v6 feature), so I reverted it to a Collection Initializer (which is a v3 feature). I use the ?? operator (the null-coalescing operator, a C# 2 feature) occasionally, such as when interpreting a command line.

Sander Rossel

Just like many here I use them daily. Especially ?? and ?. Sure as hell beats if (x != null && x.Y != null && x.Y.Z != null)... Discards are useful when you don't need the variable (for example, when doing a TryParse, but only want to validate and not directly use the value). Tuples are great and also beat having to write one-off classes that you'll never use again. Are you sure you hate the features or that you hate having to keep up and not understanding them?

Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript

lmoelleb

You might want to watch this one: The functional journey of C# - Mads Torgersen - NDC Copenhagen 2022 - YouTube[^] It shows why some of these changes are made. Indeed the language is shifting to keep up with modern development, and if your mindset stays in the "traditional OO", then this just looks like bloat. You can also watch this one to see some of the things coming: Where’s C# headed? - Mads Torgersen - NDC Copenhagen 2022 - YouTube[^] Yep, more "functional programming" concepts are coming, and I am all for it.

den2k88

C++ joined the chat

GCS/GE 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

Lost User

The language needs to change as marketing decrees; otherwise it looks like it has halted in it's development. They can't sell something that is tested and tried, something that is reliable. It has to be shiny and new, not boring. That is also the reason VB6 did not die yet. It is tested, tried, reliable and doesn't change. As hard as we try, we cannot kill the beast.

Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

OriginalGriff

Sander Rossel wrote:

Are you sure you hate the features or that you hate having to keep up and not understanding them?

That may be the case. It does seem to get harder to constantly update your skillset, but every time I've done it so far it's been well worth it in the long run. The last big jump update was abandoning C++ (where feature creep is even worse than in C#) in favour of C#. And I have never regretted it: the speed of development and the clarity of the code is so much better - and that impacts the reliability and maintainability of the code as well.

"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!

Sander Rossel

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

As hard as we try, we cannot kill the beast.

Or can't we kill the beast because some of us aren't trying? I know a developer who'd still start new VB6 projects in 2022 because that's all he knows, it works and clients are satisfied. Why learn something new when the old still works? This person also uses hidden controls on a form to store values, instead of using variables like the rest of us do. Also, because it works, so why try harder? He'll be retiring later this year and he gets to keep all of his software and clients because no one, and I mean no one, could ever unearth whatever it is that he built. There are plenty of people like that, sort of technical quakers. We had technology in 1999, which is what God intended, and we need nothing newer.

Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript

PIEBALDconsult

Umm ... is predates as, yes? as is intended as an improvement over is.

Lost User

`is` with a built-in `as` is new though

Lost User

Sander Rossel wrote:

I know a developer who'd still start new VB6 projects in 2022 because that's all he knows, it works and clients are satisfied. Why learn something new when the old still works?

Well, that's the entire problem; it is reliable, doesn't change, and does exactly as intended for years on end. If his clients are satisfied, then they'll pay, even if the language is not "officially" supported. To make it worse; this person will have experience, and will have solved these problems before, where we are confronted with changes to the language each six months.

Sander Rossel wrote:

This person also uses hidden controls on a form to store values, instead of using variables like the rest of us do. Also, because it works, so why try harder?

I worked for someone who wrote our new flagship in C#, while I maintained the VB6 version, who put 31 booleans in a string-field in the database and claimed it to be efficient. You can be an idiot in any language, and I met some academically trained idiots too.

Sander Rossel wrote:

He'll be retiring later this year and he gets to keep all of his software and clients because no one, and I mean no one, could ever unearth whatever it is that he built.

You might want to learn from that :)

Sander Rossel wrote:

There are plenty of people like that, sort of technical quakers. We had technology in 1999, which is what God intended, and we need nothing newer.

We do not change for change's sake. Improvements, very welcome; but both the UI-changes since beveled components and the changes to the language specification (with breaking cost-inducing changes) are mostly changes without improvements. There's a cost to everything :)

Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.