4 ms·

> Really? Perhaps read the 'Principle of Least Astonishment' [1] to see why this is a problem. If I create a new object I would expect the 'init time' propertie

> Really? Perhaps read the 'Principle of Least Astonishment' [1] to see why this is a problem. If I create a new object I would expect the 'init time' properties to be initialised. The Principle of Least Astonishment definitely applies. It's a deliberate design choice that unfortunately violates the principle. > Great insight. Let's not run the 'init time' properties for a newly initialised object, just in case it works as expected. This 'feature' can't even be manually resolved by doing post-`with` updates (because often the properties are init/read-only). It makes the whole init-property feature brittle as fuck. ? I'm not sure I follow what you are going with here, but yeah, in general you'd have to carefully limit all uses of "with" for objects with precomputed values to inside the encapsulation of said objects. Alternatively, as you mentioned, you could just not have precomputed properties.

louthy 1y ago
> in general you'd have to carefully limit all uses of "with" for objects with precomputed values What you’re describing is incidental complexity. It is not a good thing. We can’t constrain the complexity with language constraints, we have to rely on the programmer following some guidance and never ever making a mistake. In large teams and large code-bases that's a problem. And it's an offloaded problem from Microsoft to every software development team on the planet that uses C#. The incidental complexity for the average C# developer has increased, whereas a better direction of travel would be toward correctness and declarative features. I would prefer it if the csharplang team worked toward that.
- cbsmith 1y ago
  > What you’re describing is incidental complexity. It is not a good thing. Yes.