30 ms·
>I feel that recent "features" are more in the "things I can do with a preprocessor or a code generator" than real language enhancements. Well, you can hack a
by hardware2win 3y ago
>I feel that recent "features" are more in the "things I can do with a preprocessor or a code generator" than real language enhancements.
Well, you can hack a lot with code gen, but thats not the way, imo.
But using your logic: are generics a feature? Since you could achieve almost identical results with code gen hacks
- luismedel 3y agoI didn't write that all additions to C# since 1.0 are useless. We have generics since .NET 2 (2005 IIRC) and at the time, the lang improvements had a reason to exist (framework support in some cases). At the time it was a nice thing to add, if you ask me. For me, the next big thing, if you ask, was LINQ. A few years later, I feel it's not the case with recent additions. But my comment is very subjective, of course. As I said, I can be very wrong. It's just that I find he lang "very complete", if that's a thing, since a few years.
- hardware2win 3y agoWell, is LINQ really a lang. feature? Extension methods are lang feature, LINQ is implemented with ext. Methods. You can argue that there is LINQ Query syntax instead of method chaining, but almost nobody is using this except for some specific cases (let keyword)
- ygra 3y agoLINQ to objects yes, but LINQ to SQL is a different beast where the C# code is translated to SQL. Expression trees are very much a language feature, I guess.
- hardware2win 3y agoFair, expression trees are really good But I thought they are implemented at library level, but now Im not sure