61–70 of 214 posts
Is type-sensitive code totally acceptable now? I do use it at times but generally try to avoid it.
Is type-sensitive code totally acceptable now? I do use it at times but generally try to avoid it.
It's less abstract, simpler and potentially much faster, it's only considered bad by people that think writing OO software is the goal and not a tool to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
as an aside, if you got Rider as part of your resharper subscription, try it out, it is basically a drop in replacement for visual studio but faster and with many many little quality of life improvements you never knew you needed :)
> replacement for visual studio but faster How can a IntelliJ Idea derivative written in Java be faster than VistalStudio which is native code? Both Idea and PyCharm work much slower than VisualStudio on my machine.
I wrote up how I'd do this in scala, just to compare and contrast val shape: Option[Shape] = ??? shape.map { case Square(0) | Circle(0) => 0 case Triangle(b, h) if b == 0 || h == 0 => 0 case Rectangle(l, h) if l == 0 || h == 0 => 0 case Square(side) => side * side case Circle(radius) => radius * radius * math.Pi case Triangle(base, height) => base * height / 2 case Rectangle(length, height) => length * height } what…
C# 8 also has nullable reference types, i.e. comprehensive nullability analysis, which is comparable though not identical to an option type. I really wish for exhaustive pattern matching and ADTs in C#, though.
In F# this is already an issue when you want to use Option/Result but as soon as you do anything with the BCL you need to handle exceptions instead, and convert to/from error cases of ADTs.
I can't list how many time's I've ran into this kind of issue when trying to explain to a peer/intern.. (Only know I probably messed up a bit now) And HN links like this just remind me that I would love to take a 'bus mans holiday' just to catch up on the framework.
This is a huge plus to the benefits of sending employees and me (please send me) to those release conferences. 'New dotNet Core coming ?' : I want to be there, but I have to live in Europe and not able to take holidays, so the stream is saved; I'll watch it later (I rarely do). :(
Whatever about patterns and higher level issues, knowing the framework is also damn key important and often overlooked as a given. Really knowing the framework, all the way down to the compile time really offers some incredible results, I have been fortunate to work with some who really knew the framework versions that we were in and it was always so much fun to put bets on how much time that team would save from ours and other teams from even just a light refactor. Most important is that developers should know the framework, not because of high time savers, but so that nobody is re-writing the wheel (intentionally did not say : 'not reinventing')
I wish I had the time to always dig through the release notes of the latest framework abilities, not to mention 'Core'.. I might bring this up as a task for the team, but does anyone genuinely have good suggestions on how to drill into fellow team mates that its important to check up on framework functionality..
I really feel kinda insulting to say: 'maybe google it to see if there is a simular issue that could shine a light?'
God bless HN.
Edit: ReSharper is my best colleague.. I'll copy an important note from below:
>Note : I am not fighting against tools, just that sometimes, me included, the tools make us not go and search why resharper is screaming: 'you're an idiot'!
Here's an example of the new syntactic sugar: public static double ComputeArea(object shape) { switch (shape) { case Square s: return s.Side * s.Side; case Circle c: return c.Radius * c.Radius * Math.PI; case Rectangle r: return r.Height * r.Length; default: throw new ArgumentException( message: "shape is not recognized", paramName: nameof(shape)); } } The when clause can be used to deal with special cases (e.g. to a…
With C# 8 you can also write it as: public static double ComputeArea(object shape) => shape switch { Square s => s.Side * s.Side, Circle c => c.Radius * c.Radius * Math.PI, Rectangle r => r.Height * r.Length _ => throw new ArgumentException( message: "shape is not recognized", paramName: nameof(shape)) };
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Java proves that limiting language features for "simplicity" just pushes the complexity somewhere else and generally much worse. C++ is usually taken as a language with too many features but really it just has a few very flexible features and people abused those features to do all kinds of metaprogramming. As C++ has been adding more native metaprogramming idioms it has actually been getting simpler to code in.
The only thing Java proved about language design is that popularity and good language design have zero correlation. If you want to see simplicity that stood the test of time, look at Smalltalk or Lisp.
Lisp's limited syntax allows everyone to create their own "language" and that's arguably worse than the fixed set of statements that exist in other languages. I'd even argue that Lisp is inhuman because it's brutal compared to natural languages.
This is probably why neither language is more than an intellectual curiosity. COBOL, Fortran and BASIC have also all "stood the test of time".
Resharper has proven to be a great way for me to start learning and integrating new language features. I code in my original style and resharper suggests changes based on new features like pattern matching. At first I didnt see the benefit, but this is a hugely powerful feature once you start to wrap your mind around it.
Infact, I get nervous when I'm working on a VS without it..
I don't want to NOT know why ReSharper is screaming at me!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> replacement for visual studio but faster How can a IntelliJ Idea derivative written in Java be faster than VistalStudio which is native code? Both Idea and PyCharm work much slower than VisualStudio on my machine.
Visual Studio isn't native though. It's .NET and COM. That's also why we're still stuck with 32-bit VS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With C# 8 you can also write it as: public static double ComputeArea(object shape) => shape switch { Square s => s.Side * s.Side, Circle c => c.Radius * c.Radius * Math.PI, Rectangle r => r.Height * r.Length _ => throw new ArgumentException( message: "shape is not recognized", paramName: nameof(shape)) };
Their long game is to slowly convert C# into F# without anyone realizing it. They're roughly half way through already.