Am 14.08.2012 13:59, schrieb Invisible:
> On 14/08/2012 12:33 PM, clipka wrote:
>> C# was never meant to win a design contest. It was meant to be a decent
>> everyday programming language.
>
> And surely starting with a solid design is the best way to do that.

The C# design /is/ pretty solid for a modern language. Much more solid 
at least than the current Java language (which has added tons of kludgy 
stuff because they found their initial elegang solution wasn't that 
elegant after all for plenty of use cases), or the newest C++ 
incarnation (which has added badly needed stuff - like smart pointers, 
to name just one example - via templates, leading to a somewhat 
cumbersome syntax for everyday stuff).

The reason for C# being pretty solid is precisely that they did /not/ 
aim for an elegant core language to add the other features on top, but 
rather designed a language that provides all the features out of the 
box, with a somewhat consistent syntax and all.


>> Besides, there's no such thing as as an elegant design that solves
>> everything [with reasonable effort for the language user].
>
> I disagree.

You're free to do that. Still, do you happen to know any counterexample? 
(And if so, why aren't you using that language?)


>> Many tasks
>> require certain common design patterns you don't want to re-implement
>> over and over again, so one way or another you'd end up adding layers on
>> top of that elegant design, which - because the elegant design doesn't
>> provide them out of the box - will often be far from elegant to use.
>
> Again, I do not agree.

Again, a few counterexamples might give your disagreement a /bit/ more 
weight.


Oh, and don't bother to mention Haskell in this context; you've done a 
fair share of ranting about that language already to disqualify it for 
the position of "an elegant design that solves everything [without 
accumulating non-elegant layers of additional features]".

Post a reply to this message