4 ms·

I used to be a hardcore C# developer. From the initial beta of .NET through v3.5, I used it at least 25% of my time. But, since then I've not used it. Last y

by ap22213 12y ago

I used to be a hardcore C# developer. From the initial beta of .NET through v3.5, I used it at least 25% of my time. But, since then I've not used it. Last year, I inherited a .NET v4.0 project, so I've been back in Visual Studio quite a lot. And, maybe it's that my skills are rusty. That very well could be. But, the latest version of C# just feels like a sloppy mess.

ygra 12y ago
Could you elaborate what's so messy in your eyes? Most features that were added are more or less only visible if you actively use them and shouldn't distract from anything.
- ap22213 12y ago
  Again, I could be using C# stupidly, or the existing code that I have could be all hacked up. But, it seems like C# is trying to be everything to everyone. There are too many features of the language that allow things to be done many different ways. This leads to a lot of inconsistencies when the code base is relatively large and there are lots of developers working on it. Some things just seem 'bolted on', like unit tests, functional idioms, NuGet, etc. It's almost as if MS started C# as a competitor to Java and now has tried to make it a competitor to everything else (Python, JavaScript, Java, etc.). I'd rather that MS have created new languages and provided transformations to port existing C# code to those languages. Or, perhaps I've been spoiled over the last few years working with dynamically typed languages with lots of functional idioms designed in from the start. Edit: Obviously there are some die-hard C# advocates here. So, I hope to retract my opinions. I'm clearly doing something wrong.
  - mattmanser 12y ago
    3.5 => 4 hasn't really changed the way you should code much, so it's a bit confusing what about it you suddenly don't like? All the functional stuff was added in 3.5, 4 was really optional/named params, which are a godsend, dynamic, which you should use once in a blue moon, and a bunch of stuff to make COM interop easier. The big question is when using LINQ whether to use the pseudo SQL syntax (I have no idea what it's formally called) or just use the methods. I find the former hard to read/write and as far as I can tell most people have simply avoided the pseudo SQL. A quick scan through SO's LINQ tag seems to confirm that the methods are much more commonly used, whereas when it first came out it seemed to be the other way around. Then again I don;t really do much on SO any more, so may be out of touch on that. Is that the problem you're hitting, given you are saying there are too many ways to do something?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
recursive 12y ago
The big features that were added after c#3 are dynamic references and async. They both seem to be quite well done as far as I can tell. Could you comment more specifically on problems you saw?
lbruder 12y ago
What, exactly, is a mess? The language itself, or the project you inherited?

by ap22213 12y ago

ygra 12y ago

Could you elaborate what's so messy in your eyes? Most features that were added are more or less only visible if you actively use them and shouldn't distract from anything.

ap22213 12y ago
Again, I could be using C# stupidly, or the existing code that I have could be all hacked up. But, it seems like C# is trying to be everything to everyone. There are too many features of the language that allow things to be done many different ways. This leads to a lot of inconsistencies when the code base is relatively large and there are lots of developers working on it. Some things just seem 'bolted on', like unit tests, functional idioms, NuGet, etc. It's almost as if MS started C# as a competitor to Java and now has tried to make it a competitor to everything else (Python, JavaScript, Java, etc.). I'd rather that MS have created new languages and provided transformations to port existing C# code to those languages. Or, perhaps I've been spoiled over the last few years working with dynamically typed languages with lots of functional idioms designed in from the start. Edit: Obviously there are some die-hard C# advocates here. So, I hope to retract my opinions. I'm clearly doing something wrong.
- mattmanser 12y ago
  3.5 => 4 hasn't really changed the way you should code much, so it's a bit confusing what about it you suddenly don't like? All the functional stuff was added in 3.5, 4 was really optional/named params, which are a godsend, dynamic, which you should use once in a blue moon, and a bunch of stuff to make COM interop easier. The big question is when using LINQ whether to use the pseudo SQL syntax (I have no idea what it's formally called) or just use the methods. I find the former hard to read/write and as far as I can tell most people have simply avoided the pseudo SQL. A quick scan through SO's LINQ tag seems to confirm that the methods are much more commonly used, whereas when it first came out it seemed to be the other way around. Then again I don;t really do much on SO any more, so may be out of touch on that. Is that the problem you're hitting, given you are saying there are too many ways to do something?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

recursive 12y ago

The big features that were added after c#3 are dynamic references and async. They both seem to be quite well done as far as I can tell. Could you comment more specifically on problems you saw?

lbruder 12y ago

What, exactly, is a mess? The language itself, or the project you inherited?