| shaf | oh please don't make start having to code c# for living |
| shaf | 'make me' I mean |
| Per | says | so now they are done taking features from Haskell, I wonder what language is next... |
| Schwarz | says | Intercal maybe? |
| Per | says | I am hoping for Perl or PHP personally! |
| Schwarz | says | yes, they shold include the PHP way of OOP |
| Ilyazz | they need to do smth, as c# doesn't have any growth in popularity |
| amix | i root more for PHP's equality relation: "false" == true -> true while "false" == false -> false |
| Per | says | "anystring" == 0 > true is more fun |
| Per | says | anyways, just use === if you want strict equality |
| amix | actually it was "false" == 0 i thought about |
| Per | says | that "any string equals 0" is pretty hard to debug when you encounter it the first time, trust me.. |
| amix | yea, i could imagine |
| Spand | says | Personally, I cant wait till I can do <?php ?> in C#, or maybe <?jscript ?>. oh the opportunities ! |
| mxstone | says | I code in c# and I digg it as a language, I think a lot of the things in 3.5 make for lazy programming though. |
| mxstone | says | but the use of generics in c# is far more limited than their java brethren IMHO |
| amix | i thought c#'s generics were more powerful than java's (because they are available at runtime) |
| Telperion | is | not very familiar with C# |
| amix | knienmczak: then they are more powerful in C# as in java they are only available on compile time |
| Schwarz | says | The static part is far less expressive than the Java counterpart |
| Schwarz | says | but of course the runtime availabilty is great to have |
| Schwarz | says | Never understood why it isn't in java |
| amix | maybe because that would require big changes in the JVM and Java bytecode |
| Schwarz | says | well you could just put the type in a field |
| Schwarz | says | and let the compiler tie it together |
| Schwarz | says | that is how inner classes work... |
| amix | jea, that could work. weird that they don't add it as it would open up for a lot of hackery and make reflection easier |
| Schwarz | says | basically yes |
| Schwarz | says | But in java the model is not that a type is passed as a parameter |
| Schwarz | says | Java generics are more expressive than that |
| Schwarz | says | yes |
| Schwarz | says | that is what we just talked about. I think they should add the reflection to java |
| Schwarz | says | but it would be harder to use in java since the type parameters do not have to be proper types like in C# |
| sweetestsmiles | says | still in c /java environment. |
| sweetestsmiles | says | will consider migration if is useful for mathematical / computation work and others |
| Schwarz | says | for example you can say List<String> in both java and C# is you say |
| Schwarz | says | But in java a type can also be List<? extends String> which is not a proper type |
| Schwarz | says | that is slightly harder to make sense of through reflection, even if you had the type available |
| Schwarz | says | that may be why you can't in Java... |
| Spand | says | Pretty sure the official reason is the bytecode change.. and not because something wouldnt be possible via reflection |
| Schwarz | says | yes the official reason was the bytecode change |
| Schwarz | says | It isn't that it wouldn't possible to do reflection. It is just that it would be hard to create a good API since the type system is |
| Schwarz | says | actually very complicated |
| Schwarz | says | most people only scratch the surface of the java generics |
| Spand | says | Well its not like it shields implementation details from the user now anyways.. It would almost be a shame to make it easy to use now |
© copyright 2007-2012 Plurk Search People Search Verified Account APIFAQ
Contact Us About Blog Jobs Terms Privacy
