1. X is SO bloated and poorly engineered full of bad legacy decisions.
2. We can totally do better let's invent a new thing, Y!
3. Wow, Y is so clean and fast and understandable.
4. But it doesn't do this thing a bunch of people reasonably really need... let's add it.
(repeat 3 and 4 a few hundred times)
5. Y is so bloated and poorly engineered and full of legacy decisions. We can do better! (Go to 1.)
The grass is always greener, but mature complicated software is _usually_ complicated for... reasons.
As much as I beat the FP drum these days at work, I find the class syntax a much nicer way of organizing solutions to certain, pardon the pun, classes of problems.
Whether or not you find this to be semantic diabetes is a matter of taste, I suppose. I'm curious what, specifically, you find to be the major issue that makes you say they should have been left out.
The main issue with adding classes is that they're very, very complex if you want to make them useful. The initial version was pretty harmless, but it was also almost pointless. Now they need to back fill all of the missing features (eg: private fields), which brings in an enormous amount of complexity. Most of the time, if I need private fields, I can just use symbols (not quite private, but close), or I can do
let private = 123;
// use private in functions here
It adds (there ARE things classes are better add) very little compared to the insane amount of work that has to be put in the language to get it all working. Decorators are in a similar boat, where many decorator usages can be expressed just as easily with a higher order function, so adding the extra syntax is just bloat.
The cost isn't worth the reward.
Thats a great benefit, but Im not sure it's worth the trouble.
That's a really good point. I was about to disagree with you but then I created a thought experiment.
I wonder what the JS landscape would look like if ES6 Modules were introduced as part of ES5 about 8 years ago? I could definitely see how that would make classes fare less appealing if we already had a great module system (sure CJS existed but browser didn't support it).
Looking at the timeline of when these features were implemented in all major browsers:
* ES6 Class: implemented 2.5 years ago
* ES6 Modules: implemented 1 month ago
The rise of Java and the OOP revolution isn't that far behind us (2 decades seems like a lot in the tech world, but its still within a single generation of humans).
You can do almost everything with jsdoc comments in flow and TS, of course. It's awesome.
ES6+ flavors of JS & Typescript really made me take web programming seriously again.
Something about components just fits the class model well.
Well, I'm really happy that the class-statement got in ES6 though.
Now, there is the class-statement, and it's one less rabbit hole to get trapped in. I actually get more stuff done now that there is one right way to define a class, or class-like object with a constructor, properties, methods, etc.
Rebuild from scratch but also recreate all the existing functionality in a much better standard library and finally the chain can be broken. But nobody wants to do that.
MVC5 was never released though, and the changes have been rather minimal from ASP.NET Core v1 to v2 with straightforward migration guides, so it might look messier than it actually is if you were working through all the previews and release candidates instead.
Nevertheless, Microsoft has a long history of having messy v1.0 with most of the stability coming after v2.0, so you can consider the foundation pretty stable now that it's on v2.1 and more.
There are some challenges coming up with design changes to the compiler and C# that might overlap what F# already has but it'll get sorted out.
Great resources for getting started with F# at https://fsharp.org/
My personal preference is generally to install the SDK and use the http://ionide.io/ with VScode as it seems to work most reliably cross platform.
I have .NET Core but the whole thing seems to require Mono and it isn't clear from fsharp.org that you can do without.
TypeScript and JS underneath is actually quite malleable - you can escape static typing at any point and revert to simple JS object model when things don't map cleanly in the type system - and then still have types at the boundaries - makes meta-programming trivial in some cases - where it would look like a monstrosity in C#.
F# is interesting and has a lot of advantages over C#, but few people seem to be willing to invest the time to pick it up in the .NET community.
So I don't really view .NET core as a superior alternative, I've worked in JVM land, they are more mature and while Java sucks there are other languages on top of it as well and are decent to use (Kotlin ~ C#, Scala ~ F#)
Think you need to check yourself mate.
I believe the productiveness of more "expressive" language tends to be undermined by the loss of productivity that occurs when you're compelled to write blog posts or comment on hacker news about how amazingly productive and expressive your language is.
If I need to waste that time sifting trough boilerplate than I'm pretty upset because I get less shit done in that time window.
Chatting on forums is a casual brain teaser and keeping up to date on industry stuff.
> [I find that] using a language with limited expressiveness (C#) is not very productive for me.
Like, I'd figure you can be mad productive in any language (even COBOL?) although I'm only completely cosy in a couple. There's no need to be so dismissive of the tools that others use.
Why is C# not expressive? It has the DLR and `dynamic` keyword which behaves just like JS typing if that's what you want, because it seems like your issue is really with static typing in general. Functional languages are nice but it seems C# with functional its slowly and carefully integrated functional extensions is actually more productive for most developers.
Think about AutoMapper and then compare it to a TS solution using spread operator. How much boilerplate automapper crap do you see in your typical enterprise C# project ?
And that's not even touching on functional features, like you can't even have top level functions in C#, it's "one class per file dogma" + multiple wasted boilperplate lines and scrolling. I recently rewrote a C# program to F# - didn't even modify much in terms of semantics (OK having discriminated unions and pattern matching was a huge win in one case), just by using higher level operators and grouping stuff - line count went down to 1/3 and was grouped in to logical modules. I could read one module as a unit and understand it in it's context instead of having to browse 20 definition files with random 5 line type definitions. I could achieve similar improvements by rewriting to TS or Python.
C# adds overhead all over the place, people are just so used to it they don't even see it as useless overhead but as inherent problems they need solve - like how many of the popular enterprise patterns are workarounds around language limitations ?
When I bring this up people just assume I'm lazy about writing code - but I don't really care about writing the code out - tools mostly generate the boilerplate anyway. Having to read trough that noise is such productivity drain because instead of focusing on the issue at hand I'm focusing on filtering out the bloat from the codebase.
I could rewrite your entire comment in reverse about how I find C# highly expressive and readable while dynamic languages or Kotlin (blech) are a mess of inconsistent whack-a-doodle experimentation.
But my opinion is useless.
It's more that C# is static typing done poorly IMO - a relatively limited type system that adds overhead compared to dynamic languages or more expressive static languages.
I agree it makes JS better. I agree it's a good tool for its purpose.
But "fascinating" ?
It's hardly the most elegant scripting language down there (Ruby, Python, Kotlin and Dart doesn't have to live with the JS legacy cruft).
It has a very small ecosystem outside of the web.
The syntax is quite verbose for scripting.
It has very few data structures (and an all-in-one one).
Very poor stdlib.
Still inherits of important JS warts like a schizophrenic "this".
Almost no runtime support if you don't transpile it (which means hard to debug and need specific tooling to build).
And it's by no mean the only scripting language having good support for typing (e.g: VSCode has great support for Python, including intellisens and type checking).
What's so fascinating about ?
What's fascinates me is that we are still stuck with a monopoly on JS for the most important platform in the world.
The typing system is what is special though, especially in how seamless it is in adding strict types alongside pure dynamic objects, but also allowing you to choose pretty much anything in the middle of that spectrum depending on your definitions.
You can have a few strong-typed properties mixed with others in a generic type that inherits from something else but can only take a few certain shapes. It's unlikely you need all that in most programs but it's the fact that you can do it which makes it great. In fact, the Typescript type system is actually turing complete.
Perhaps this video on Typescript from Build 2018 would help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDACN-BGvI8
That's pretty much my point.
> he typing system is what is special though, especially in how seamless it is in adding strict types alongside pure dynamic objects, but also allowing you to choose pretty much anything in the middle of that spectrum depending on your definitions.
> You can have a few strong-typed properties mixed with others in a generic type that inherits from something else but can only take a few certain shapes. It's unlikely you need all that in most programs but it's the fact that you can do it which makes it great. In fact, the Typescript type system is actually turing complete.
Apparently you haven't read my comment because I clearly says it's not special. Others languages do it to.
> Perhaps this video on Typescript from Build 2018 would help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDACN-BGvI8
Perhaps this article would help: https://www.bernat.tech/the-state-of-type-hints-in-python/
I think we had a generation of ecosystems with Node, Ruby, Python, that tried to do solve the unapproachable systems around the Java/etc ecosystems and make them more open.
They succeeded, but the next generation seems to have been about solving the plethora of tools that came with those languages. Rust, Go, etc, having first-party tools are trying to improve upon that, and yes I think Rust is by far the best implementation I've seen.
I'm interested to see what the next generation is.
All services I've deployed built on rust pulls in a kitchen sink of deps.
Granted. I get a static binary as my end result, so maybe it's fine.
To be fair, it's not impossible for some improvement to occur in this process.
For awhile, "Burn the Diskpacks!" was a battle cry of the Squeak Smalltalk community. That sort of policy fights bloat, but leaves old users in the lurch. I think that we are now to the point where a language/environment can trim bloat while not abandoning old users. If the language has enough annotation, and has the infrastructure for powerful syntactic transformation tools, then basic library revisions can be accompanied by automated source rewriting tools. We were pretty close to it in Smalltalk, without the annotations.
Neovim is an effort to modernize and remove cruft from vim, so they get to keep all the good parts and throw out the backward compatibility. If it works out it can eventually replace vim, not to different to what vim did to vi.
I'd like to see similar stuff done to much of the GNU tools. Make for instance has to worry about backward compatibility and posix compliance that makes it hard to progress. As of today there have been about 12,000 attempts to replace it with something else and I find all of them inferior for one reason or another, they've all reinvented the wheel poorly. If someone had taken the fork and modernize approach we might have something better by now.
It doesn't even have to be a "hostile" fork. The same can be done by the developers of the existing tools.
Think about Java, it solved a class of problems that C was unable to address (e.g. unsafe memory, native threads). Thus enabling a new class of programs. But the new class of programs created opportunities for new platforms to solve with the benefit of a clean slate and fresh design having learned from past successes and failures.
There's a disturbingly low-level of historical knowledge passed along in programming. Some bits and pieces are encountered in a quality Computer Science curriculum, but usually in rarefied, theoretical form, and inevitably balkanized into drips and drabs as part of subject-oriented coursework.
New platforms bring exciting and meaningful evolution often at the cost of what techs like .net and Java have a few decade advantage in. It's also interesting to see what Java devs are innovating with themselves, Scala, Kotlin both have good things happening.
Maybe using one large, inter-syntax friendly world like JVM will help.
When experience is overlooked for youth, we relearn and reimplement the same libraries repeatedly in every new tech to feed some developers needs to build temples to their greatness.
Still, Fitzgeralds quote comes to mind... "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." and technology is held back by reinventing the wheel.
That hole I can credit as giving C# the advantage in that tight niche, and stilling the development of the JVM platform in general.
By the time that the rust on JVM improvements were dusted off, all initiative was lost. Java was playing catchup to the competition.
IBM gave up on the first counter proposal, Red-Hat and Google didn't bother to rescue Sun.
So we might even have been left with either Java 6 or being forced to port our applications.
Loop, as it might seem, doesn't mean there is no progress made in between.
Of course, use cases will still evolve, and your initial understanding is always flawed, there's no magic bullet, designing general purpose software (or a language or platform!) meant to hit a wide swath of use cases flexibly is _hard_.
And then, yeah, like others have said, you need skilled, experienced, and strong leadership. You need someone (or a small group of people) who can say 'no' or 'not yet' or 'not like this' to features -- but also who can accurately assess what features _do_ need to be there to make the thing effective. And architects/designers who can design the lower levels of abstraction solidly to allow expected use cases to be built on top of them cleanly.
But yeah, no magic bullet, it's just _hard_.
As developer-consumers of software, we have to realize that _maturity_ is something to be valued, and a trade-off for immature but "clean" is not always the right trade-off -- and not to assume that the immature new shiny "clean" thing will _necessarily_ evolve to do everything you want and be able to stay that way. (On the other hand, just cause something is _old_ doesn't _always_ mean it's actually _mature_ or effective. Some old things do need to be put down). But resist "grass is always greener" evaluation that focuses on what you _don't_ like about the original thing (it's the pain points that come to our attention), forgetting to take into account what it is doing for you effectively.
I've used an excellent one. The Refactoring Browser parser engine in Smalltalk. I've used it to eliminate 2500 of 5000 lambdas used in an in-house ORM with zero errors -- all in a single change request. (Programmers were putting business logic into those lambdas.) Like any power tool, it's not stupid proof. However, it gives you the full syntactic descriptive power of the language. So if you can distinguish a code rewrite with 100% confidence according to syntactic rules, then you can automate that rewrite with 100% confidence.
Here's where it can go wrong: If your language is too large and complicated, there the probability you can run into a corner case that will trip you up. Also, it will always be possible for a given codebase to create something which is too hard to distinguish, even at runtime. (You can embed arbitrary code in a Refactoring Browser Rewrite transformation, so you can even make runtime determinations.)
"Bulletproof" isn't "invulnerable." A vest with an AR500 plate will stop certain bullets hitting you in certain places. It won't protect you from being stabbed in the eye or stepping on a landmine. Despite that, it is still a useful tool.