> Greentext

7540 readers

2 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

231

Anon discovers .NET (programming.dev)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 76 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (13 children)

pervasive unchecked nullability

Framework management is hell, fat binaries inconvenient and not default

No option monad in the standard lib

Cross version dependencies simply don't work in some contexts

Compiler output only marginally better than working with c++

At least it doesn't have Gradle.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)

pervasive unchecked nullability

Addressed nowadays with the question mark and exclamation mark syntax, and programming without nullability is a pain

Framework management is hell, fat binaries inconvenient and not default

Nuget?

Compiler output only marginally better than working with c++

No one claims it's faster at runtime than good C++, it's just a lot easier to write decent code

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Nullable reference types are (a completely mandatory) bandaid fix in my opinion as a .net dev. You will encounter lots of edge cases where the compiler is unable to determine the nullability of an object, e.g. when using dependency injection to populate a field, or when using other unusual control flows like MediatR. You can suppress the warnings manually at the slight risk of lying to the analyzer. Objects supplied by external library code may or may not be annotated, and they may or may not be annotated correctly. The lack of compile-time null checking is occasionally an issue. But that said, NRT makes nullability a significantly smaller issue in C# than it used to be

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)