8 ms·

C# 4 added serious dynamic typing, so that you can make ruby/pthon/js-style dynamic objects; // properties not declared anywhere; runtime property definiti

C# 4 added serious dynamic typing, so that you can make ruby/pthon/js-style dynamic objects; // properties not declared anywhere; runtime property definitions dynamic myObject = new JavaScriptStyleObject(); myObject.firstProperty = "hello"; myObject.secondProperty = 1; C#5 added async/await, which I think is one of the most 'integrated' ways I've seen of doing async programming. Think node.js with a lot less syntactic cruft around the callback functions; in C#5 you could write, say; // evented I/O using the 'await' keyword; var fileContent = await ReadFile(@"c:\foo.txt"); Console.WriteLine(fileContent); rather than; fs.readFile('c:\\foo.txt', 'utf8', function (err,data) { console.log(data); }); This eliminates the need to write lambdas while retaining the evented I/O style. Both of these seem pretty significant.

MichaelGG 13y ago
Both of which have been in F# for years, and C# re-implemented them later, poorly. F#'s dynamic is extensible (and around since 2007? 2008? earlier?)). If you wanted to implement a "dynamo" object, go ahead. If you want loosely typed CSV-reader access, go ahead. (You get the ? and ?<- operators to define as you'd like.) C#'s async comes from F#'s async (available since Oct 2007), which in F# is just a library. That's because F# supports workflows aka computation expressions aka warm fuzzy things. What F# does as a library feature, C# requires baking into the compiler. So for 5 years now, MS has added these two features. They've still yet to deliver a REPL, or finish implementing type inference, or any such stuff. It looks like Anders Hejlsberg, the main C# designer, seems more interested in adding some basic features to JavaScript, lately. C# seems fairly abandoned, language-wise, to me. They seem to be content to have put Java in its place, and leave it at that. P.S. C#'s a great language, and I'm not trying to insult the people that have done great work on it. As a popular language, it's one of the nicest ones out there IMO.
- stevecooperorg 13y ago
  I would dearly love for the C# type system to get a bit stronger and less verbose. It's also confused, I think, because you have explicit classes, anonymous types, and dynamic, and they aren't always very well put together. I actually also like what Anders did in TypeScript around structural types, and wouldn't mind some of that mojo in C#. I take your point about pace, though. I wonder how it compares over the same timeframe vs other languages? In the 5 years for C# to cover that distance, what have other languages achieved? The biggies are particularly interesting (JavaScript, Python, Ruby, Java, C++, etc) because users probably demand more in terms of support and compatibility. (For others contributing, I'm thinking language-specific, so not libraries, frameworks, or runtimes, just pure syntax.) It's also worth throwing uptake into the mix here; it's not much use if there's a version of the language defined in a spec but everyone's using the compiler from 1999 (JavaScript, I'm looking at you) I'm not a pythonista but I understand Python 3 has struggled with uptake, too. Not too sure of the details; happy to be corrected.
rbanffy 13y ago
> C# 4 added serious dynamic typing, so that you can make ruby/pthon/js-style dynamic objects; So you can match the so-so performance of dynamic languages (which is debatable, BTW) with C#'s horrid (when compared to Python or Ruby, at least) syntax. I fail to see the advantages here. If I'm doing something that demands dynamic types, I do it in Python. If I need static-types, I do it in C, C++, Objective-C, Go, Java- whatever better fits the problem.
- pdwetz 13y ago
  Dynamic typing support helps in a pinch in C#, as you can avoid a lot of code in some cases where performance isn't paramount. I've personally used that in a few cases in the past.
- bryan_rasmussen 13y ago
  What problems are there that you would consider choosing a statically typed language for them, because of the typing?
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    Static typing helps generating very concise and fast native code. I'd go with C or C++ when speed and or very precise control are absolute requirements. It also doesn't hurt you when you have a clearly defined problem that will never change - when you know you'll never receive a float instead of a 64-bit integer. But there are other reasons to pick static typing. Using Java is natural for writing Android apps, Go has a very natural syntax for expressing concurrency and C# is the best choice when you want to write a Windows app. A programmer should always pick the language that better fits the problem it has to solve.
- NicoJuicy 13y ago
  Develop in Asp.Net MVC and change your viewmodels to dynamic (ExpandoObject) types. You'll notice the advantages :) ps. want to iterate over the object like in reflection, just convert the object to a (IDictionairy<string,object>)
- jpalomaki 13y ago
gngeal 13y ago
C#5 added async/await, which I think is one of the most 'integrated' ways I've seen of doing async programming. What's with the C# developers ans async/await? Almost every time I read their exhortations it feels like they're blissfully unaware that other languages have already had their own mechanisms for doing concurrency.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  Because it allows a nice syntax for async callbacks, instead of callback hell like JavaScript and C# APIs prior.
- sitharus 13y ago
  Having worked in a few languages over the years, all with different ideas of concurrency, the C# system is one of the nicest. It's a bit tough to get your head around, but it does a good job of keeping code readable while correctly blocking and descheduling threads. A lot of developers get async wrong, so anything to help get it right is a plus. Personally I prefer the F# async system, but it's harder for a curly-brace developer to learn F# than a new C# keyword.
- statictype 13y ago
  Built-in to the language itself? Very few mainstream languages have that.
- stevecooperorg 13y ago
  We're talking languages here; the way a grammar construct helps the programmer. The C# async language effectively writes a whole batch of code that you'd need to write yourself in other languages; try/catch blocks, callback functions, thread synchronization code, code to wait for results, etc. In effect, it makes into a language feature something that has previously been considered a design pattern. So something like this in C# 5; 01 var foo = await LongProcess1(); 02 var bar = await LongProcess2(foo); 03 var baz = await LongProcess(bar); does a significant amount of work. If I were to code it without the language support, I'd be writing a great deal of crufty code to handle errors, to make sure one thread completes before using the result in another thread (see foo set on line 01 and used on line 02 for an example) and it avoids the callback hell problem of languages like JavaScript, which become apparent in Node.js programming, for instance. I'd be interested to know what other mainstream languages have as complete a solution for asynchronous programming -- afaik, JS, Python, Ruby, Java, and C++ don't have this. I'm guessing erlang probably has it built right in, but I'm not sure. Anyone care to share?

MichaelGG 13y ago

Both of which have been in F# for years, and C# re-implemented them later, poorly. F#'s dynamic is extensible (and around since 2007? 2008? earlier?)). If you wanted to implement a "dynamo" object, go ahead. If you want loosely typed CSV-reader access, go ahead. (You get the ? and ?<- operators to define as you'd like.) C#'s async comes from F#'s async (available since Oct 2007), which in F# is just a library. That's because F# supports workflows aka computation expressions aka warm fuzzy things. What F# does as a library feature, C# requires baking into the compiler. So for 5 years now, MS has added these two features. They've still yet to deliver a REPL, or finish implementing type inference, or any such stuff. It looks like Anders Hejlsberg, the main C# designer, seems more interested in adding some basic features to JavaScript, lately. C# seems fairly abandoned, language-wise, to me. They seem to be content to have put Java in its place, and leave it at that. P.S. C#'s a great language, and I'm not trying to insult the people that have done great work on it. As a popular language, it's one of the nicest ones out there IMO.

stevecooperorg 13y ago
I would dearly love for the C# type system to get a bit stronger and less verbose. It's also confused, I think, because you have explicit classes, anonymous types, and dynamic, and they aren't always very well put together. I actually also like what Anders did in TypeScript around structural types, and wouldn't mind some of that mojo in C#. I take your point about pace, though. I wonder how it compares over the same timeframe vs other languages? In the 5 years for C# to cover that distance, what have other languages achieved? The biggies are particularly interesting (JavaScript, Python, Ruby, Java, C++, etc) because users probably demand more in terms of support and compatibility. (For others contributing, I'm thinking language-specific, so not libraries, frameworks, or runtimes, just pure syntax.) It's also worth throwing uptake into the mix here; it's not much use if there's a version of the language defined in a spec but everyone's using the compiler from 1999 (JavaScript, I'm looking at you) I'm not a pythonista but I understand Python 3 has struggled with uptake, too. Not too sure of the details; happy to be corrected.

rbanffy 13y ago

> C# 4 added serious dynamic typing, so that you can make ruby/pthon/js-style dynamic objects; So you can match the so-so performance of dynamic languages (which is debatable, BTW) with C#'s horrid (when compared to Python or Ruby, at least) syntax. I fail to see the advantages here. If I'm doing something that demands dynamic types, I do it in Python. If I need static-types, I do it in C, C++, Objective-C, Go, Java- whatever better fits the problem.

pdwetz 13y ago
Dynamic typing support helps in a pinch in C#, as you can avoid a lot of code in some cases where performance isn't paramount. I've personally used that in a few cases in the past.
bryan_rasmussen 13y ago
What problems are there that you would consider choosing a statically typed language for them, because of the typing?
- rbanffy 13y ago
  Static typing helps generating very concise and fast native code. I'd go with C or C++ when speed and or very precise control are absolute requirements. It also doesn't hurt you when you have a clearly defined problem that will never change - when you know you'll never receive a float instead of a 64-bit integer. But there are other reasons to pick static typing. Using Java is natural for writing Android apps, Go has a very natural syntax for expressing concurrency and C# is the best choice when you want to write a Windows app. A programmer should always pick the language that better fits the problem it has to solve.
NicoJuicy 13y ago
Develop in Asp.Net MVC and change your viewmodels to dynamic (ExpandoObject) types. You'll notice the advantages :) ps. want to iterate over the object like in reflection, just convert the object to a (IDictionairy<string,object>)
jpalomaki 13y ago

gngeal 13y ago

C#5 added async/await, which I think is one of the most 'integrated' ways I've seen of doing async programming. What's with the C# developers ans async/await? Almost every time I read their exhortations it feels like they're blissfully unaware that other languages have already had their own mechanisms for doing concurrency.

MichaelGG 13y ago
Because it allows a nice syntax for async callbacks, instead of callback hell like JavaScript and C# APIs prior.
sitharus 13y ago
Having worked in a few languages over the years, all with different ideas of concurrency, the C# system is one of the nicest. It's a bit tough to get your head around, but it does a good job of keeping code readable while correctly blocking and descheduling threads. A lot of developers get async wrong, so anything to help get it right is a plus. Personally I prefer the F# async system, but it's harder for a curly-brace developer to learn F# than a new C# keyword.
statictype 13y ago
Built-in to the language itself? Very few mainstream languages have that.
stevecooperorg 13y ago
We're talking languages here; the way a grammar construct helps the programmer. The C# async language effectively writes a whole batch of code that you'd need to write yourself in other languages; try/catch blocks, callback functions, thread synchronization code, code to wait for results, etc. In effect, it makes into a language feature something that has previously been considered a design pattern. So something like this in C# 5; 01 var foo = await LongProcess1(); 02 var bar = await LongProcess2(foo); 03 var baz = await LongProcess(bar); does a significant amount of work. If I were to code it without the language support, I'd be writing a great deal of crufty code to handle errors, to make sure one thread completes before using the result in another thread (see foo set on line 01 and used on line 02 for an example) and it avoids the callback hell problem of languages like JavaScript, which become apparent in Node.js programming, for instance. I'd be interested to know what other mainstream languages have as complete a solution for asynchronous programming -- afaik, JS, Python, Ruby, Java, and C++ don't have this. I'm guessing erlang probably has it built right in, but I'm not sure. Anyone care to share?