541–550 of 626 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
as long as you stay in the MS womb You don't need to debase an otherwise great conversation with incendiary language like that.
I certainly didn't write it to be incendiary, and I don't read it that way? I'm not going to go back and edit it, but I'll ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt that I meant it to be as as far from incendiary as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C# programmer for a couple years, and I think C# is OK (it's definitely way ahead of Java or C++) but I've definitely got a big list of things I don't like about it. The top of it reads: - Events and properties aren't first-class, which is lame. I can't even easily get the "get" or "set" method of a property without either using reflection or making a wrapper lambda. - No syntax sugar for tuples. - No syntax sugar fo…
Most of your issues are addressed by the Base Class Library (BCL), which is provided by the runtime itself. You cannot use C# without the BCL, so why evaluate it without the BCL? How do the following sit with you? - Events, i.e. the observer pattern, are indeed supported first class by way of the `event` keyword and BCL `Delegate` type. And the whole point of properties is to be syntactic sugar to hide implementation…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just not true. All the suggestions on the list make sense, and many like them have been added over teh past few years. To me it seems that all of them except the 'reference types that are not nullable' one could be easily added without breaking backward compatibility. In fact, I wouldn't be amazed if a C# 6 has sugar for tuples and destructuring assignments and the likes. It matches the language well (already…
What you suggest could work, but I'm not sure how useful that would be in the end when you still have to declare the type for fields initialized in the constructor. The var keyword inside methods covers most cases of using variables. A "var" keyword on the field level would cover less than half of the cases. Plus, you'd have to add a new keyword to do it as "variable" doesn't quite fit the meaning. Just not sure how…
I think it could be OK even without return type inference on methods. Imagine you could type this:
(int, bool) TryParse(string str) {
// do stuff
return (num, success);
}
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bless you! Standard ML is the closest thing we have to a perfect language, in my opinion. My only wish would be a solution to the non-extensible overloading issue, but to fix it without also fixing the formal semantics around it feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and is why I haven't gotten into Felix or Mythryl. I mostly use Haskell myself. I find myself missing the laziness and purity when I use S…
Thanks! Yes, the overloading issue requires changes to both the parsing rules and some fairly tricky formal semantics changes as well. I've talked with Dave MacQueen about it in the past, and it didn't sound like something he was terribly averse to, just that it would take a long time to really get _right_. And then it places a burden on the SML implementations, though at this point that's really SML/NJ, MLton, and p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's more like the IDE is augmenting your brain and fingers. The code comes out readable, but you only have to type a fraction of the characters. It's a code-writing assistant robot. Also, it makes APIs incredibly discoverable. Not sure what a `IQueryable` provides? IQueryable iq = null; iq. and scroll through the popup. Instant one-line descriptions are available in the tooltips, and you can get full documentati…
Agree on the discovery part, this is the biggest reason why I stay away from vim.
I see a lot of votes for python, but a disproportionately small representation of python fans in the comments. If you asked me a year ago, I'dve said python. But lately, I've been using Clojure for personal projects, and it's making python seem just... boring. (I get the same feeling when I write in Ruby too) The "one right way" paradigm is a great one, and the language is solid. The built-ins are top-notch, and whil…
If you don't mind my asking, as a Python person, how did you learn Clojure? I'm mostly programming in Python and JavaScript today, and I want to learn Clojure, but I keep seeing these very strange talks. I don't know how to articulate it, really. My best metaphor is, it feels a little like I wanted to go out and learn about Catholicism and they said, "oh, that's easy, we'll just have you sit in on a bunch of confessi…
http://books.google.com/books?id=a47neDIBaSkC&printsec=f...
It starts assuming virtually no background in the faith and it really gets you into the nuts and bolts quickly.
C# really feels like the most mature language that I've ever dealt with. Writing it feels clear, if something is wrong the debugger is very clear. The number of features that are there is incredible (especially post C# 2.0 when they added generics). Properties are delightful. How do you convert to a string? Convert.ToString(). How about an integer? Knowing only that one, it's what you'd expect! I also picked JavaScri…
I have to agree with this. If only ruby or python had such a powerful development environment (sigh). There's simply nothing in the open source community that rivals the beautiful, simple power of that IDE and language combination. Tools matter when you're trying to ship code.