4 ms·

You could try C# (or Kotlin if you have a MS bias ;-)). Both really nice general purpose languages, quite performant despite having a GC and great available too

• anonyfox 3y ago
  I think I still would have to deal with a lot of OOP and imperative code there, C# feels like a kitchen sink of stuff - right?
  • zamalek 3y ago
    C# is horribly OOP. I use it in my day job, and the frameworks wield OOP overcomplexity proudly. It has likely gone beyond Java as the posterchild for OOP: interfaces that are implemented once, classes that are instantiated once. You can't get away from it either, it is practically part of the stdlib and everyone cargocults it. Rust is imperative too, though.
    • hadrien01 3y ago
      The language doesn't push you towards interfaces implemented once, but many developers indeed persist doing it for no reason at all. With proper code review we're able to make that practice go away on the projects I'm working on.
      • vips7L 3y ago
        Isn't this just mostly an issue with mock testing in C#? Developers cargo cult single implementation interfaces because its so hard to mock concrete classes.
        • za3faran 3y ago
          I've seen the same in golang, which ironically is supposed to be vehemently against OOP.
        • rjbwork 3y ago
          >Isn't this just mostly an issue with mock testing in C# Yes. You have two choices: Interface implemented once, or virtual on all your public members. I personally think Interface is the sane choice. Would be nice if the .NET devs let us mock POCO's though...
          • hadrien01 3y ago
            You can mock (well, "fake") POCOs with packages like AutoFixture that use reflection to generate mostly fake data, depending on what you need. You don't need interfaces or virtual, but you do need public getters unfortunately.
      • diarrhea 3y ago
        Lots (all?) major frameworks push for dependency injection though, where interfaces are a must, as far as I know (not for DI-the-principle, but DI-as-implemented). ASP.Net Core is a good example. It's not C# at the language level forcing interface-driven development, but frameworks like ASP.Net are so tightly integrated that boundaries blur.
        • zamalek 3y ago
          Yup, that's what I meant by "practically." Nobody forces you to use the Microsoft.x nuget packages, but good luck at finding packages that don't rely on Microsoft.DI, or Microsoft.Hosting, or what-have-you.
        • hadrien01 3y ago
          You don't need interfaces for dependency injection, you can inject classes directly. I see interfaces more for separation of concerns (with domain-driven design pushed from all parts in the .NET world at the moment...), but that's not an obligation.
      • rowls66 3y ago
        I have seen way too much of interfaces implemented once in Java, and have argued against it unsuccessfully many times. I am not working in Go, and see the same.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • chronofar 3y ago
    You can avoid quite a bit of OOP with Kotlin if you like, and with Arrow make some really nice functional code. Imo it offers a great balance of imperative vs functional, providing powerful tools for whatever style suits the project best.