On: Update to the .NET language strategy

[hardware2win]

>And then C# has some questionable features (extension methods: methods for a class but that are not part of the class code).

I dont think people share this opinion.

Extension methods are very handy and powerful while being simple and you can see how similar vision works well in Rust: impl trait for type

It allows e.g library makers to create strong small core and users/community to create their wrappers/integrations easily

[javcasas → hardware2win]

Extension methods are "I want a function whose first parameter is this type defined outside, but the programming language shoehornes me so much into classes and objects that I have to do all this extra ~bullshit~ boilerplate to have a function whose first parameter is this type defined outside".

Imagine having to create a monad, including the `pure` and `bind` operations every time you want to increment a variable. That would be bullshit, well, because it's bullshit. Even the haskell guys figured out it's bullshit and implemented types and operations (IORef) to simplify it.

C# hasn't figured out yet you should not have to wrap your function in a namespace and a class.

[hardware2win → javcasas]

Weird definition since it misses the point.

Extension methods are: I want to add a new method(not function) to object which I dont have control of (in the code sense)

So I can call "externalObj.MyNewMethod()", so extend its behaviour

[javcasas → hardware2win]

Yep, a weird definition.

"I want to add a new not-a-method (because it can't access private stuff, unlike real methods) so that I can do "externalObj.MyNewMethod()" because doing "myNewOperation(externalObj)" is somehow forbidden."

[hardware2win → javcasas]

Of course it cannot access internals because youd break "sane oop"