C# and Maturity

Question

So I've been using C# since 1999 and it has grown large since then. In last few versions of C#, it seems like MS team is adding features that are making C# language more and more complex.

Do you think MS should stop adding more to it now and close the case?

Vulpes · Answer

One thing I've always wanted to see is an unmanaged version of C# which doesn't use a garbage collector but another approach such as reference counting to destroy unused objects. There is in fact a language called Vala which uses C# syntax currently under development and I wrote an article about it earlier this year: http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/b942f9/5986/ I'd have liked this language better if it compiled to C++ rather than C code as that would have enabled method overloading operator overloading and other stuff which is inconsistent with C whilst still keeping it 'cross platform'. Whether this language will catch on remains to be seen but it does show early promise.

Sam Hobbs · Answer

The problem is that C# is defined as being dependent on the CLI. Certainly it is not all of .Net but the dependence of C# on the CLI causes C# to be not independent of .Net.

Vulpes · Answer

I'd draw a distinction between changes to: 1. The C# language itself 2. The .NET framework and associated APIs 3. The IDEs and tooling. It seems to me that the changes to #1 are relatively trivial compared to the seismic shifts in #2 and #3 over recent releases. Worse still there's now going to be yet another seismic shift in #2 and #3 to support Metro applications under Windows 8. Now there is a view among some developers that C# 2.0 was optimal and that LINQ dynamic and async/await are just 'syntactic sugar' which you can (and indeed should) ignore. That's fair enough and as long as future changes to C# always preserve backwards compatibility I don't see any reason why developers who believe this can't co-exist with those (like me) who don't believe you can afford to stand still. However it's clear that asynchronous operations are going to be a major part of Metro programming and you're certainly going to struggle with that if you don't use async/await.

Mahesh Chand · Answer

This is exactly the point I am making what Dipal just said. I raised this question at the MVP Summit when MS speaker asked what they should do about the releases. My feedback was to release a major version not before every 2 years (Language Visual Studio etc). But there are too many APIs new versions new features so it is difficult to keep up. I see developers using Visual Studio 2010 but still not using any new features introduced in C# 2.0 or later. This is because they did not have enough time for the migration (learning curve). I still see 80% of developers do not use new features. I believe MS needs to slow things down. They add a few new features and call it a new version :).

Dipal Choksi · Answer

there was a time when C++/Visual C++ was used for serious apps and Visual Basic was the tool for 'quick' apps. VB was commercial level - just so much faster to churn out apps. we need something like that - a VB# for quick and dirty development and C# for deeper development. the versions of vb.net and c# have run almost neck-to-neck.. i think in some ways atleast someone from MS has similar views as Mahesh's OP - they do introduce products such as LightSwitch for simplified development. i would love to get a time machine which holds time stationary for a little bit so i can take a breath and catch up with all that's out here.. (not just talking abt C# here ;))

Vulpes · Answer

I used the example of C++/CLI because it's the only version of C++ which is directly comparable with C#. I agree that destructors in standard (unmanaged) C++ are probably as good as they can be.

Sam Hobbs · Answer

The design of destructors in the C++ standard language is vastly different from the C++/CLI syntax for a destructor (IDisposable) and a finalizer (C# destructor). Destructors in the C++ standard language are simple and precise. Note that my reply was worded to avoid saying that the C# language is not documented; I said explicitly  I am not saying that the C# language documentation is not adequate .

Vulpes · Answer

Well it's not an easy read but I'd have thought that the C# 4.0 specification would contain all the detail you'd ever need: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/mapo/archive/2010/04/29/download-the-c-4-0-language-specification.aspx This is also available in book form with annotations by various C# experts: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Programming-Language-Covering-Microsoft-Development/dp/0321741765 Given the way the .NET garbage collection mechanism works I see little alternative to IDisposable and the 'using' statement and even if there was I can't see them altering it now. C++/CLI has syntax for both a destructor (IDisposable) and a finalizer( C# destructor) but I don't really think that it's better than the C# mechanisms - it's just different :)

Sam Hobbs · Answer

Of course they won't do what I say but in my opinion they should stop developing the language at least temporarily. They should stop and document what they have already done. I am not saying that the C# language documentation is not adequate but there is much more of what they have done that is not clearly documented. Of course if they document everything better then there will be less need for C# Corner but I think there will still be abundant opportunity. The other reason I think they should stop developing C# is so they can allow greater peer review and such. People complain that improving C++ takes years but C++ is better because of the peer review and involvemnent. I think that some things about C# and .Net (probably .Net mostly) are not designed well such as IDisposable and related designs. Certainly there is value in improving C# and .Net but there is also some significant baggage that would be better left behind somehow.

Suthish Nair · Answer

This is a non stop business for Microsoft. As Vulpes said even though there is no major updates happens still they release a new version every two year. Am still having projects of VS 2005 and VS 2008. Now VS 11 already in beta.

Vulpes · Answer

Personally I don't think so. If there are features which developers really want and which are consistent with the rest of the language then they should try and add them. If they don't then C# will stagnate and loose ground to other languages. Of course they only have so much time between releases and considerable work is needed to add even minor features if backwards compatibility is to be maintained. So they're only going to add stuff which has a high priority and/or fits in with the 'big theme' of the next release. It looks like async/await will be the only major feature added to C# 5.0 (there was some other minor feature but I can't remember what it was) and that 'compiler as a service' will be the centrepiece of C# 6.0.