3 ms·
> But that would mean optimising for "hello world" and other small script scenarios, which isn't a goal of the language design. Fairly complex programs can be
by jeswin 7y ago
> But that would mean optimising for "hello world" and other small script scenarios, which isn't a goal of the language design.
Fairly complex programs can be written with just plain functions, all of them elegantly starting off column 0 instead of being tabbed for namespaces and classes. It works especially well with directory structure based namespaces. eg: Microsoft's own TypeScript.
> Like "dynamic" in C# 4 ?
No not dynamic, I wouldn't use that very much either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_type_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_type_system
- nbevans 7y agoIt sounds like you are using the wrong language. F# is what you want to be using.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago> No not dynamic Ok, I see that structural typing is a third type system option. But honestly, I don't want C# and .NET to contain every feature and paradigm ever created. It would be bloated and hard to use. Already there is significant legacy and different ways of doing the same thing, and it's likely to get even worse. If the language that you ideally want is built around structurally typed free-floating functions, then it probably isn't C#. It probably exists, it's likely possible on the .NET platform, but it doesn't work and think like C#.