5 ms·
I'd much rather prefer them to spend their time to add stuff to the CLR to remove the boiler code required for simple things. We need more of the likes of "Sys
by cm2187 7y ago
I'd much rather prefer them to spend their time to add stuff to the CLR to remove the boiler code required for simple things.
We need more of the likes of "System.IO.File.ReadAllLines()", one liner functions that take care of the most common things. Like if you want to encrypt with AES you need a 8-10 lines of codes, if you want to convert a byte array to a hex string or do case insensitive string comparisons, you need to create your own helper functions, etc. Until recently there was no json serializer out of the box.
For some of the features mentioned here, I can only wonder how many developers will really use them, while the cost is to make the syntax even more cryptic to a beginner.
- bathtub365 7y agoI’d rather they leave this kind of functionality to libraries than to include every possible thing they think people will use the language for.
- cm2187 7y agoThe “battery included” approach worked well for python. Yeah sure, you can always create your own dlls and load a bunch of nuget packages every time. But it’s cumbersome for small projects and it makes code snippets non shareable.
- non-entity 7y ago> We need more of the likes of "System.IO.File.ReadAllLines()", one liner Funny part is VB.NET gas had that for a while