5 ms·

More like 25. C# 1.0 already had capabilities Java developers are still dreaming of, like structs / value types, properties and operator overloading. C# 2.0 in

More like 25. C# 1.0 already had capabilities Java developers are still dreaming of, like structs / value types, properties and operator overloading. C# 2.0 in 2005 introduced generics, implemented far more competently than Java ever did.

pjmlp 4mo ago
The difference is BDFL or design by committee, a big difference between both ecosystems.
- stevefan1999 3mo ago
  Well, what's the difference between a (benefactory or not) dictator or an oligarch?
joe_mwangi 4mo ago
Notice you point out features that were easy to add during the beginning where there was no concern of backward compatibility? Now that java is porting value classes to mainline and we might have them soon, and planned operator overloading through type class, I believe java approach is making careful design choices that are semantically sound, rather than adding features that create edge cases such as boxing invariants in unions like C#.
- mrsmrtss 4mo ago
  So you try to say that Java gets to be more semantically sound by making bad choices early on? That does not make sense. Those choices are very difficult fix today and many of them can't be fixed. Say what you want but semantically more sound Java won't be. And the boxing with C# unions can and will be addressed later, this was a deliberate choice by the team to bring unions earlier.
  - lostmsu 4mo ago
    > and many of them can't be fixed... And the boxing with C# unions can and will be addressed later No, they won't. C# already got itself into a corner with 32 bit arrays and 32 bit spans. And if unions are introduced as reference only that will never be fixed due to binary compatibility requirement.
    - longor1996 4mo ago
      The new C# unions are not reference-only. The attribute/interface allows implementing custom union types by writing `TryGetValue`-methods instead of a single `object? Value {get;}`. The compiler handles this transparently.

pjmlp 4mo ago

The difference is BDFL or design by committee, a big difference between both ecosystems.

stevefan1999 3mo ago
Well, what's the difference between a (benefactory or not) dictator or an oligarch?

joe_mwangi 4mo ago

Notice you point out features that were easy to add during the beginning where there was no concern of backward compatibility? Now that java is porting value classes to mainline and we might have them soon, and planned operator overloading through type class, I believe java approach is making careful design choices that are semantically sound, rather than adding features that create edge cases such as boxing invariants in unions like C#.

mrsmrtss 4mo ago
So you try to say that Java gets to be more semantically sound by making bad choices early on? That does not make sense. Those choices are very difficult fix today and many of them can't be fixed. Say what you want but semantically more sound Java won't be. And the boxing with C# unions can and will be addressed later, this was a deliberate choice by the team to bring unions earlier.
- lostmsu 4mo ago
  > and many of them can't be fixed... And the boxing with C# unions can and will be addressed later No, they won't. C# already got itself into a corner with 32 bit arrays and 32 bit spans. And if unions are introduced as reference only that will never be fixed due to binary compatibility requirement.
  - longor1996 4mo ago
    The new C# unions are not reference-only. The attribute/interface allows implementing custom union types by writing `TryGetValue`-methods instead of a single `object? Value {get;}`. The compiler handles this transparently.