I hate recent C# versions!
-
But it could! Except then it might just be roughly equivalent to a
foreachanyway. :sigh:Which they added to C++ anyway ... :laugh:
"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!
-
Which they added to C++ anyway ... :laugh:
"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!
You can't keep anything nice. (I've only ever dabbled in C++ .) I may need to look at D again.
-
obermd wrote:
Don't use it if you don't want to
You'll have to learn them, if you want to read new and foreign code-bases, so little choice there. There's a trade-off though, and I can't see how much value they add that can justify the confusion and the costs. As an industry, we'd be better of with consistency and fewer changes, saving them up for a few years and come with a decent change. Not just more sugar every umpteen months; if it were as interesting as animated icons on the desktop, then I'd be all for it, but it not even half that good, if anything, it's contra-productive and generating more costs than it is adding in value.
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.
This C# discussion is an age old one. Remember: if it ain't broke don't fix it. Change is the enemy of working. Better is the enemy of good. Perfection is the enemy of good. Static = no growth, no growth = death .... on the other hand when a fix corrects something broken, its a good thing. When change = easier, its a good thing (sometimes) ....
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
-
This C# discussion is an age old one. Remember: if it ain't broke don't fix it. Change is the enemy of working. Better is the enemy of good. Perfection is the enemy of good. Static = no growth, no growth = death .... on the other hand when a fix corrects something broken, its a good thing. When change = easier, its a good thing (sometimes) ....
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
jmaida wrote:
When change = easier, its a good thing (sometimes)
Hmm, rarely. And something which merely "saves keystrokes" is best avoided. I can save an awful lot of keystrokes just by not writing comments and documentation.
-
jmaida wrote:
When change = easier, its a good thing (sometimes)
Hmm, rarely. And something which merely "saves keystrokes" is best avoided. I can save an awful lot of keystrokes just by not writing comments and documentation.
-
jmaida wrote:
When change = easier, its a good thing (sometimes)
Hmm, rarely. And something which merely "saves keystrokes" is best avoided. I can save an awful lot of keystrokes just by not writing comments and documentation.
Agree. However they do not just save keystrokes, hence I like the features listed here. Reducing the risk of errors (like the switch expressions) and reducing the amount of code that is not clearly expressing the intend of your algorithm (like ?. and ??) Is a clear benefit for me. I can even get behind the minimalistic stuff, once they expand it to cover all classes. I have no need for one single class to look completely different. But I guess they will eventually realize the main use case for C# is not only doing cool demos at conferences and expand it to us who have "complicated" programs needing two or more classes.
-
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
Speak for yourself. I, for example, love ?? and switch expressions for making the syntax more readable, actually. They are concise, that is, there's less syntax to achieve the same thing, meaning less overhead to parse when reading.
-
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
I believe they are competing with JS and python, because programming Meme always noted that python is fast in a single hello world sample, And others are not. The things I'm not sure about is why companies such as JetBrains also support those bad manners, and force users to change code to some of these style, while they just could ignore the user style (that may depend on the surranding and could change readability regarding to that)
-
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
i hope it does not sound patronizing for me to i say that i "love" the discussion of "I hate recent C# versions" :) what a pleasure for an old man about to get new eyes, to savor the illuminations of many of CP's brightest-bulbs. Kornfeld's signature quote from Einstein: "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." Did make me chuckle ... as I thought of the tree-climbing mudskipper fish whose evolutionary history is detailed in Richard Dawkins' magisterial survey, "The Ancestor's Tale." (see "The Lungfishes' Tale").
Quote:
Another common name, ‘climbing fish’, comes from their habit of climbing mangrove trees looking for prey. They cling to the trees with the pectoral fins, aided by a kind of sucker which is made by bringing the pelvic fins together under the body.
That boomeranging thought leads me to ponder if the evolution of C# ... leads us to believe we ... are ... smart. Is the "destiny" of C# (my favorite grab-bag of syntax and functionality masquerading as a "computer language") to have as much junk in its DNA as we, Homo Saps, do ? cheers, Bill
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
-
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
-
Seems kludgey. We need a whole new language with everything we've learned over the past twenty years included, with cleaner syntax, rather than bits stuck on at odd angles.
-
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.
Then you wont like this valid c# syntax:
if (jsonReader.TokenType is JsonTokenType.EndObject or JsonTokenType.EndArray)
{
//...
}Old syntax:
if (jsonReader.TokenType == JsonTokenType.EndObject || jsonReader.TokenType == JsonTokenType.EndArray)
{
//...
}Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
-
I agree with a desire to not pollute the scope with rubbish. On the other hand, maybe defining a new scope is the better solution -- define a new Method. In so many cases, when a scope becomes polluted, it's a side-effect of not splitting the logic into enough granularity. It seems like maybe C# needs a
withstatement :D . Or maybe not, I've never liked thewithstatement in languages which include it. But if C# could getwithright, maybe even I would use it. -
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
Some of the new features I really like. Some I don't. The issue for me is not about what I may or may not like, but the ever-increasing complexity. People say 'just don't use the features if you don't like them'. This is fine if you mainly work on your own, but what if you work in a team? Or worse, lead one? You're likely to have a mix of people, some of whom want to explore all the new features, and some who are just learning. The latter group will really struggle because of the former - their learning curve will be much steeper, they will require more support, and they may even lose confidence and decide this isn't for them. There's a good article here[^] that explores this. TL;DR: langauge design is a balance between keeping up, and overloading with complexity. If you don't add new features, the language dies; but new features eventually make the langauge die from complexity. Personally, I understand the need to keep evolving the langauage, and really appreciate some of the additions, but I would prefer a slower, more measured evolution.
-
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
I missed the latest stuff, as we are still using Visual Studio 2017. But in my opinion, null propagation, named arguments and lambdas are useful and increase readability. I haven't tried switch expression, but they look like the same goes for them. I'm not familiar with ?[] and (_, _, area)=...! Does it mean you can return multiple values? Looks a little untidy compared to returning an object.
-
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
I tend to agree with you on this one. C# has always been innovating, for the sake of trying new things or simply taking a swing to solve minor issues. I have no problem with Microsoft doing this. Most additions end up never being used in production anyway. As far as I can tell, they typically serve a very niche purpose and audience, and only rarely catch on.
-
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
null conditional in variables im still nah about var x = object?.value?.pointer1; tuples and tuple deconstructions are enjoy mainly from article from I think team creator about why he does not see many use tuples, and always just pairs which then is key/value pair, but tuples a bit more then that, and the syntax need to set and the deconstruct, so made it much easier. Can't find article but something like this [C# - Tuple Trouble: Why C# Tuples Get to Break the Guidelines | Microsoft Docs](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2018/june/csharp-tuple-trouble-why-csharp-tuples-get-to-break-the-guidelines) switch expression, similar, once know it clicks why would use instead of some other form makes sense. For me I dislike the syntax of most switch/break, is it : or brace :doh: , so I prefer if/else setups. then switch expression, for assigning a value, ohhh, yes. in comparison to if/else for value assign.
-
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
I think OP is only starting to see these in code bases. Not everyone is on latest/greatest day 1 :) adoption takes time. I have to also say something about "nobody forcing" is - try to write C# 1.0 code and get it past code review :) In the end everyone will have to just put up with it - if they like these features or not.
-
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
Yes! I don't program for PCs any more any just stick to embedded in C largely because all the higher level languages have been similarly afflicted.
-
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
It used to be that C# could tell a story, but not now and that has greatly reduced the maintainability. A lot of this has to do with it going to Open Source with its rapid cycle of updates. There is some perceived benefit to constant change. No one seems to be factoring in cost. Is there any wonder that there is a talent shortage? There is no benefit to terseness if it reduces readability or maintainability. And don't think this stuff is never used. You always have some contractors on the bleeding edge and they just create problems for people that want to engineer reliable, maintainable solutions. Companies may think it's new and hot, but it is just difficult to maintain.
