It doesn’t (usually) come with the Java culture 8 layers of abstraction. This isn’t in the Java language. This isn’t in OO. Yet nearly every Java programmer makes things way more complicated than it needs to be.
It’s a prettier language. Similar syntax with less bullshit.
Nah, C# suffers from a lot of the same shit Java does. Needing everything to be a class is just no longer a good design choice (if it ever was). AOT support is still lacking. I don’t get, why it does not have typdefs. I think the solution / project structure is unnecessary and I could probably think of more stuff I dislike about C#. But imho, it still beats Java.
Golang is my choice over C# any time. I strongly prefer how interfaces are handled and I actually like the error handling.
In 2015 they added scripting. If you’re making a real project, you should absolutely use classes. (It’s not that hard. Don’t do the Java shit.) But you can absolutely write one off scripts just fine.
AOT support is still lacking.
Publishing your app as Native AOT produces an app that’s self-contained and that has been ahead-of-time (AOT) compiled to native code. Source.
It’s better than Java, but they still chose to walk headfirst into the same trap that bites Java developers in the ass: associating interface implementations with the struct/class rather than the interface itself.
When you have two interfaces that each require you to implement a function with the same name but a different signature, you’re in for a bad time featuring an abomination of wrapper types.
Edit: I misread your comment as “like in C#” and wrote this as an answer to the non-existent question of “can’t you use explicit interfaces like in C#”
I haven’t kept up with recent Java developments, but with Go, you’re out of luck. Interface implementations are completely implicit. You don’t even have an implements keyword.
Didn’t understand my criticisms of Go and Java’s interfaces, or do you just enjoy LARPing as a senior programmer while living in a small world where the term “interface” strictly means object-oriented programming and not the broader idea of being a specification describing how systems can interact with each other?
I only had one job that used C#, and it was the worst job I ever had. Even with the worst possible way to be introduced to the language, I still love it.
C# is nearly the same, but much, much better.
If I could restrict the world of programming to two languages, it’d be C# and Rust. C# for most things and Rust for a lower level language.
Isn’t Visual Studio Code just a fancy editor and not an IDE?
Kids will never understand this. The same is with
JScript.I’ll take Python and Fortran, thank you very much
Python should be burning in hell
Nah, that’s Java and JavaScript.
Nah, C# suffers from a lot of the same shit Java does. Needing everything to be a class is just no longer a good design choice (if it ever was). AOT support is still lacking. I don’t get, why it does not have typdefs. I think the solution / project structure is unnecessary and I could probably think of more stuff I dislike about C#. But imho, it still beats Java.
Golang is my choice over C# any time. I strongly prefer how interfaces are handled and I actually like the error handling.
In 2015 they added scripting. If you’re making a real project, you should absolutely use classes. (It’s not that hard. Don’t do the Java shit.) But you can absolutely write one off scripts just fine.
Publishing your app as Native AOT produces an app that’s self-contained and that has been ahead-of-time (AOT) compiled to native code. Source.
I think you misunderstood my post. I am quite proficient with C#. I just think other languages do it better.
AOT is not where it should be yet, because not all libraries have full stripping support.
Is there anything I can read about how we’re moving away from everything being a class?
No sorry, but try literally any other language ;-)
It’s better than Java, but they still chose to walk headfirst into the same trap that bites Java developers in the ass: associating interface implementations with the struct/class rather than the interface itself.
When you have two interfaces that each require you to implement a function with the same name but a different signature, you’re in for a bad time featuring an abomination of wrapper types.
Edit: Clarity.
On that last note, can’t you use the explicit interface implementation in C#?
e.g.
public class SampleClass : IControl, ISurface { void IControl.Paint() { System.Console.WriteLine("IControl.Paint"); } void ISurface.Paint() { System.Console.WriteLine("ISurface.Paint"); } }Edit: I misread your comment as “like in C#” and wrote this as an answer to the non-existent question of “can’t you use explicit interfaces like in C#”
I haven’t kept up with recent Java developments, but with Go, you’re out of luck. Interface implementations are completely implicit. You don’t even have an
implementskeyword.Edit: For Java, a cursory search suggests that they haven’t yet added explicit interfaces: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19111090/does-java-support-explicit-interface-implementation-like-c
He mentioned C#, which does let you explicitly choose to implement same-name functions of two interfaces with different code
For some reason, my brain inserted a “like” before “in C#”, and answered the question of “can’t you use explicit interfaces like in C#.”
Pure oopium. All oop ‘design patterns’ exist solely to overcome the inherent flaws of oop.
Didn’t understand my criticisms of Go and Java’s interfaces, or do you just enjoy LARPing as a senior programmer while living in a small world where the term “interface” strictly means object-oriented programming and not the broader idea of being a specification describing how systems can interact with each other?
I only had one job that used C#, and it was the worst job I ever had. Even with the worst possible way to be introduced to the language, I still love it.