. Topicala Page Index Token

A Journal about the experiences I have developing little applications in C#, Perl, Html and Javascript and talking about things new things that I use. Always Geeky; Always Nerdy; Always poor Grammer!

I am a Software Analyst Developer working in Southport, England but living in Liverpool. I develop mainly in C# and ASP.Net. I have been developing comercial software for several years now. I maintain this site (hosted at SwitchMedia UK) as a way of exploring new technologies (such as AJAX) and just generally talking about techie geek issues. This site is developed through a host of Perl scripts and a liberal use of Javascript. I enjoy experimenting with new technologies and anything that I make I host here.

Quick Search

Web www.kinlan.co.uk

Saturday, September 17, 2005

C# 3.0. Ugh!

I have just been reading some bits about [read: one or two posts] about some of the language features of C# 3.0. One of the new concepts is something called Lambda Expressions, while I am still trying to work out why they might be useful, I can tell you now I don't like the sytnax at all; It looks nothing like C#; It looks convoluted; It looks NASTY!!!

If someone knows better [most probably most of the world :)] then please leave a comment or email me: paul.kinlan@gmail.com

Abhinaba at Microsoft doesn't like it too much either, but for more well thought out reasons than I.

To Quote:
Why I don't like lambda expression in C#:

C# has originally developed from C++ /Java and is (was :^) ) a strongly typed object-oriented language. The new features being introduced like closure, continuation (yes, yes very limited continuation) in C#2.0 and now type inference, lambda expressions are de-generating the language. Even though there are people go gaga about continuation and lexical closures these are fundamentally functional language features and should be left to that. Introduction of bits and pieces of functional language features are not going to add value to C# and at the same time the surface area of C# is growing beyond what most developer can grasp.
Every language has a domain of application and an audience. Most people who work in C# developing web-services and web-based applications today are not necessary computer science grads. For them these concepts are a huge variation from the way C# used to behave. Functional programming is for the academia and not from the industry and should be left as such.
If I am asked, whether I'll use these language features, my answer will be maybe, and that is because the code written by me will be reviewed and maintained by people in MS who are fairly conversant with these. However, I think these features add burden to the learning curve of people who are not super interested in C# and should be avoided in favor of easier language constructs that might take couple of lines of code more, but would be more readable and maintainable.
These are just my opinions and I'm sure the designers of C# had given a lot of thought before adding them, but I strongly feel that these features are just adding more surface area to the language and will mostly go unused by the masses.


I do agree with him a little, as it stands now, at first glance I don't think I understand the point of it, nor do I want C# to change from an OO language into one that has seemingly convoluted Functional Programming constructs.

Technorati Tags
[feed], [feed], [feed], [feed], [feed], [feed], [feed], [feed], [feed], [feed], [feed]


Wikipedia Documents
Microsoft - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia ,Microsoft .net - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia ,Wikipedia: Msdn ,Wikipedia: Functional Programming ,C Sharp - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia ,Type Inference - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia ,Object-oriented Programming - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Comments: [Add New]

Functional programming is for the academia and not from the industry and should be left as such.

Amen.

By Anonymous Jesse, at Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:36:00 PM

Would recommend you look into VB.NET.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, September 22, 2006 3:54:00 AM

The more time passes, the more languages start looking like LISP. It seems that you guys have never programmed in a functional language to realize its power.

Phantom1024

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, December 29, 2007 6:04:00 PM

PingBack:

Functional programming is for the academia and not from the industry and should be left as such.

Amen.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:38:00 PM