Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Official proposal for Type Unions in C#

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 315 posts

Re: Official proposal for Type Unions in C#

#131

Post by tialaramex »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #103
tialaramex wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you want to compare to why C++ has multiple inheritance, you need to first explain which mainstream languages in the mid-1980s had multiple inheritance so we can contrast. Like algebraic data types, multiple inheritance wasn't novel, but what were the big famous languages from that time which showed this was a must have for Bjarne's language?

That's not the comparison I'm making. It's possible for a proposed language to add something despite not being popular at the time, but that's not the default . I'm suggesting that if ADTs were not already popular at the time, it would be the unsurprising default for them to not be in a new language. In today's language landscape, by contrast, it would be surprising and disappointing for a new language to not have ei…

But the actual answer is revealing. Bjarne implemented multiple inheritance in C++ because it was easy. It's a New Jersey language. The priority is simplicity of implementation.

It's not about what was popular, or that Stroustrup was at Cambridge not Edinburgh (all the exciting Programming Language theory stuff in that era like ML was from Edinburgh as you perhaps know). If ADTs were easy, C++ would have ADTs.

Re: Official proposal for Type Unions in C#

#132

Post by arwhatever »

jerf wrote: post #90
arwhatever wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've nailed the definitions. However the definitions make the 2 choices (adding new types vs adding new functions/operations) sound like a toss-up. It is the fact that I tend to find the FP/DU approach so much more frequently useful for my/my team's own code that makes me wonder if I'm missing something. Perhaps the important distinction I've been missing is in Wikipedia's definition: "The goal is to define…

The reason why it matters less than people intuitively think is precisely that it matters a lot less when you're in full control of both the operations and the types anyhow, and that's actually the most common case. Generally you are "composing" in library code, that is, just using it, not extending the library itself. When you are extending, you actually want to choose the correct thing depending on what you need. G…

Sum types are not a new discovery for me, personally.

Re: Official proposal for Type Unions in C#

#133

Post by viraptor »

Fervicus wrote: post #102
giancarlostoro wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's not a single widely distributed infra application in C# out there. Azure has entered the chat. Microsoft Orleans has entered the chat. ASP .NET Core has entered the chat. Ever played Halo online? Used StackOverflow? (very likely) Visited any website on Azure? (most likely) Microsoft Orleans (Virtual Actor framework) powers the Halo server infrastructure since at least 2011 if not sooner, which arguably the…

I'll add Bitwarden and Jellyfin to the list of cross platform apps written in C# that are widely popular.

And all the high seas software (sonarr, radarr, etc.)

Re: Official proposal for Type Unions in C#

#134

Post by TillE »

tester756 wrote: post #114
ComputerGuru wrote: post #8

Every time the question of preferred programming languages comes up, I'm usually in the extreme minority with my preferences being Rust (for small/fast) and C# (for productive and easy, where GC is acceptable), a combination that doesn't seem to appeal to too many people. But for the projects that fall right about in the middle where it could go either way and I could see either language working, I almost always pick…

I've been writing C, C++, C# and some js/sql/ts/python for money. Lua for lulz. And *nothing* gets even fucking close in terms of productivity to C#. Great language, mature and robust ecosystem with sane compilation times and great tooling: package manager, test runner, strong debugger, one CLI with almost all tools needed. I wish C++ was half as enjoyable as C# is.

I'm a big fan of C#, but to be fair nothing else you've named is really aiming for the same niche. The better comparison would be Swift, Go, Java/Kotlin, stuff like that.

But yeah I think C# is often unfairly viewed as a boring enterprise-y language when it's actually become a very comfy swiss army knife.

Re: Official proposal for Type Unions in C#

#135

Post by maxbond »

pseudopersonal wrote: post #82
ComputerGuru wrote: post #8

Every time the question of preferred programming languages comes up, I'm usually in the extreme minority with my preferences being Rust (for small/fast) and C# (for productive and easy, where GC is acceptable), a combination that doesn't seem to appeal to too many people. But for the projects that fall right about in the middle where it could go either way and I could see either language working, I almost always pick…

You must really hate REPLs. You cling to your ADTs, I cling to my REPLs.

I've seen comments like this a few times, and I think there's a misunderstanding at play. I think people who are used to using REPLs look at people who aren't and conclude that, since they don't have a REPL in their toolbox, they don't have a tool in there that does what a REPL does. But I think most of the time, they are accomplishing the same tasks with a different workflow.

For instance, I use throwaway files instead of REPLs, even when I have access to one. I'm still running small and isolated experiments to build my understanding, but I get to use the editor I'm comfortable with and it's easy to copy the code into my project afterwards.

The other thing I used to use REPLs for was introspection/looking up documentation, which my LSP handles nicely. You can think of the LSP as a sort of REPL integrated seamlessly into the editor; when I have a question, I'll query the LSP by writing a line of dummy code that causes the LSP to generate an annotation with the answer. So for instance if I want to know if `foo` implements a certain trait/interface, I can write a variable declaration like `let x: Box = Box::new(foo)` and see if my LSP annotated that as a type error. I can do this very quickly and without leaving my editor, so it helps me stay in the flow of things.

Re: Official proposal for Type Unions in C#

#136

Post by LAC-Tech »

lyu07282 wrote: post #120
mrkeen wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same objection but coming from the other side. The mainstream languages used to have pervasive mutation and side-effects. Now they have pervasive mutation and side-effects with lambdas. But my question is: what is missing from the OO side? What would it take for C# and/or others to "do OO well"?

> What would it take for C# and/or others to "do OO well"? Multiple inheritance. (j/k)

Unironically this.

Having "interfaces" and "abstract classes" is just a kludge, multiple inheritance covers all of this with one language construct.

The "diamond problem" is a C++ issue, every other language solved it.

Re: Official proposal for Type Unions in C#

#137

Post by LtWorf »

TillE wrote: post #134
tester756 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been writing C, C++, C# and some js/sql/ts/python for money. Lua for lulz. And *nothing* gets even fucking close in terms of productivity to C#. Great language, mature and robust ecosystem with sane compilation times and great tooling: package manager, test runner, strong debugger, one CLI with almost all tools needed. I wish C++ was half as enjoyable as C# is.

I'm a big fan of C#, but to be fair nothing else you've named is really aiming for the same niche. The better comparison would be Swift, Go, Java/Kotlin, stuff like that. But yeah I think C# is often unfairly viewed as a boring enterprise-y language when it's actually become a very comfy swiss army knife.

If it wasn't so linux distribution unfriendly…

Re: Official proposal for Type Unions in C#

#138

Post by darby_nine »

tester756 wrote: post #114
ComputerGuru wrote: post #8

Every time the question of preferred programming languages comes up, I'm usually in the extreme minority with my preferences being Rust (for small/fast) and C# (for productive and easy, where GC is acceptable), a combination that doesn't seem to appeal to too many people. But for the projects that fall right about in the middle where it could go either way and I could see either language working, I almost always pick…

I've been writing C, C++, C# and some js/sql/ts/python for money. Lua for lulz. And *nothing* gets even fucking close in terms of productivity to C#. Great language, mature and robust ecosystem with sane compilation times and great tooling: package manager, test runner, strong debugger, one CLI with almost all tools needed. I wish C++ was half as enjoyable as C# is.

> And nothing gets even fucking close in terms of productivity to C#.

C# gets compared to java a lot for a good reason, and yet the languages and ecosystems have since diverged in their priorities and abilities. This gets even more complicated when considering F# and Scala. Do you think Java would offer similar productivity, or are there aspects to the C# that are—in your personal experience—uniquely productive?

Re: Official proposal for Type Unions in C#

#139

Post by mattmanser »

bbkane wrote: post #119
xeromal wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My brain really likes how organizes C# libs tend to be compared to the 50 different organization schemes I deal with in node and python

Does C# impose a lot of organization? I've only worked in one C# codebase but it has partial classes everywhere and TONs of abstraction bloat. I found it difficult to reason about the organization.

C# doesn't really, but VS + the asp.net framework do.

You kinda have to fight against the IDE to not do a lot of things a certain way. For example, it'll automatically namespace new files according to your folder structure. They've also turned a certain amount of automatic linting on to gently suggest/nag you to write in a particular way.Suggest you write classes in certain ways, use newer language features, declare variables in better ways, etc. You can ignore all the nagging, but it's also incredibly easy for the next programmer to walk in and use the quick actions functionality to 'fix' the code in a few clicks.

And the asp.net core team have been incredibly opinionated, forcing a lot of good coding practices on the community.

So on the plus side, they pretty much forced DI to be the way we all work now. It's worked really well. Most library authors have now embraced it with gusto and you'll have a hard time using new libraries in a code base that's DI incompatible.

The bad side is that sometimes they made bad choices, but they are more minor things. Like they bizarrely went all in on JWT tokens which work really badly for corporate apps. Or the IOptions pattern for global settings which sucks compared to normal env variables in any other language. Lots of confusion over how they work on forums and SO.

Re: Official proposal for Type Unions in C#

#140

Post by foota »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #8

Every time the question of preferred programming languages comes up, I'm usually in the extreme minority with my preferences being Rust (for small/fast) and C# (for productive and easy, where GC is acceptable), a combination that doesn't seem to appeal to too many people. But for the projects that fall right about in the middle where it could go either way and I could see either language working, I almost always pick…

I also really like rust's support for deriving traits. Being able to generate hashes, equality, debug strings, etc., is really convenient for hacking around.
Post reply on HN