.NET Core 3.0
devblogs.microsoft.com
.NET Core 3.0
1–10 of 183 posts
Re: .NET Core 3.0
#2What's crazy is that this is what C# should have always been. I was into Mono way back because I thought niavely it was going to be more successful, but I think if C# had gone this route earlier -> the whole python / go etc popularity boom might have been softer and MS would have had a first class player that would have increase # of folks easily able to build in windows.
That and I never got to develop successfully beyond Forms - which I wish was not in preview from designer standpoint. I know old tech, but frankly for older programmers I find it easier and quicker to get stuff up with.
Re: .NET Core 3.0
#3> Nullable enables you to directly target the flaws in code that lead to NullReferenceException. The lowest layer of the framework libraries has been annotated, so that you know when to expect null.
I hope Java gets this one day.. would be a cool feature
Re: .NET Core 3.0
#4Non nullable reference types are so awesome! I'd love for the C# team to publish some posts on the creation of this feature. Most of the non nullable type systems exist in functional, or pseudo functional languages (Rust has rather functional semantics). It's very neat to see a honest to god mutable object oriented language implement non nullability. They probably had some interesting implementation challenges.
Also, is Java working on this too? I heard that they have Maybe, but that's pointless without non nullability.
Re: .NET Core 3.0
#5What's crazy is that this is what C# should have always been. I was into Mono way back because I thought niavely it was going to be more successful, but I think if C# had gone this route earlier -> the whole python / go etc popularity boom might have been softer and MS would have had a first class player that would have increase # of folks easily able to build in windows. That and I never got to develop successfully…
I’ve thought about this but I doubt it. The big change has been the perception shift.
.NET was always really solid tech. Microsoft has always had stellar developer technology. But the love affair with open source and the super villain role that Microsoft played, is what kept people away, not the tech itself.
I remember wanting to give a talk about how amazing C# was to a ruby group. I never did it, but it was definitely a quaint idea in 2011. But rubyists would’ve loved C#.
Re: .NET Core 3.0
#6> Nullable enables you to directly target the flaws in code that lead to NullReferenceException. The lowest layer of the framework libraries has been annotated, so that you know when to expect null. I hope Java gets this one day.. would be a cool feature
Optional ? But redoing the standard lib would be no go in javaland ? It's the non nullable reference I find interesting.
Re: .NET Core 3.0
#7Now you can easily write the following state machine in C#:
static State ChangeState(State current, Transition transition, bool hasKey) =>
(current, transition) switch
{
(Opened, Close) => Closed,
(Closed, Open) => Opened,
(Closed, Lock) when hasKey => Locked,
(Locked, Unlock) when hasKey => Closed,
_ => throw new InvalidOperationException($"Invalid transition")
};Re: .NET Core 3.0
#8What's crazy is that this is what C# should have always been. I was into Mono way back because I thought niavely it was going to be more successful, but I think if C# had gone this route earlier -> the whole python / go etc popularity boom might have been softer and MS would have had a first class player that would have increase # of folks easily able to build in windows. That and I never got to develop successfully…
I’ve thought about this but I doubt it. The big change has been the perception shift. .NET was always really solid tech. Microsoft has always had stellar developer technology. But the love affair with open source and the super villain role that Microsoft played, is what kept people away, not the tech itself. I remember wanting to give a talk about how amazing C# was to a ruby group. I never did it, but it was definit…
As someone with a Ruby background in a new job doing C# stuff, I really love C#!
Now the Windows exclusivity of .NET is no longer a thing it's much, much more appealing (who wants to run Windows Server over a Linux server if they can avoid it?).
Re: .NET Core 3.0
#9There are a few related announcements, here are some links:
- https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/announcing-net-core-3-...
- https://devblogs.microsoft.com/aspnet/asp-net-core-and-blazo...
- https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/announcing-f-4-7/
- https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/announcing-ef-core-3-0...
- https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download/dotnet-core (if you're on 2.2 you have until the end of the year to update to 3.1, which will be LTS)
- https://www.dotnetconf.net/ live now
Shame about the bad timing with the UN summit: http://webtv.un.org/
Re: .NET Core 3.0
#10What's crazy is that this is what C# should have always been. I was into Mono way back because I thought niavely it was going to be more successful, but I think if C# had gone this route earlier -> the whole python / go etc popularity boom might have been softer and MS would have had a first class player that would have increase # of folks easily able to build in windows. That and I never got to develop successfully…
I’ve thought about this but I doubt it. The big change has been the perception shift. .NET was always really solid tech. Microsoft has always had stellar developer technology. But the love affair with open source and the super villain role that Microsoft played, is what kept people away, not the tech itself. I remember wanting to give a talk about how amazing C# was to a ruby group. I never did it, but it was definit…
> But rubyists would’ve loved C#.
As a Rubyist, I'll admit that C# is the least bad of the C++/Java style of static OOP languages, but it was that it was always too tied to the .NET ecosystem and heavyweight enterprise tooling more than Microsoft's “supervillian role” with regard to FOSS that made it unattractive for lots of places where I would want to use Ruby. That's improved with Core, somewhat.