What's wrong with C#?

  • null everywhere.
  • const nowhere.
  • APIs are inconsistent, e.g. mutating an array returns void but appending to a StringBufferreturns the same mutable StringBuffer.
  • Collection interfaces are incompatible with immutable data structures, e.g. Add in System.Collections.Generic.IList<_> cannot return a result.
  • No structural typing so you write System.Windows.Media.Effects.SamplingMode.Bilinear instead of just Bilinear.
  • Mutable IEnumerator interface implemented by classes when it should be an immutable struct.
  • Equality and comparison are a mess: you've got System.IComparable and Equals but then you've also got:
    System.IComparable<_> System.IEquatableSystem.Collections.IComparer System.Collections.IStructuralComparable System.Collections.IStructuralEquatable System.Collections.Generic.IComparer System.Collections.Generic.IEqualityComparer
  • Tuples should be structs but structs unnecessarily inhibit tail call elimination so one of the most common and fundamental data types will allocate unnecessarily and destroy scalable parallelism.

    Comments

    Post a Comment

    Popular posts from this blog

    Benchmarking in the web age

    The TechEmpower website contains some fascinating benchmarks of servers. The results on this benchmark of multiple requests to servers provide some insight into the performance characteristics of .NET on a modern problem. Specifically, the C# on ASP.NET Core solutions range from 2.5-80× slower than fastest solution which is written in Rust. In fact, C# is beaten by the following programming languages in order: Rust Java Kotlin Go C Perl Clojure PHP C++ Furthermore, .NET Core is Microsoft's new improved and faster version of .NET aimed specifically at these kinds of tasks. So why is it beaten by all those languages? I suspect that a large part of this is the change in workload from the kind of number crunching .NET was designed for to a modern string-heavy workload and I suspect .NET's GC isn't as optimised for this as the JVM is. As we have found, .NET has really poor support for JSON compared to other languages and frameworks, with support fragmented across many non-stand...
    Read more

    Purely functional games

    A recent blog post entitled " Follow up to functional programming doesn't work " recently caused a bit of a stir, encouraging Haskell programmers to dredge up the nearest things Haskell has to real computer games. A Super Mario clone , Frag (a reimplementation of part of Quake), a Gradius clone , 4Blocks and a game that blows all of the others away called Bloxors: This beautiful little OpenGL-based puzzle game weighs in at just 613 lines of purely functional code (many of the other games use unsafe* functions to introduce uncontrolled side effects). This is also one of the few programs that cabal install actually works on. Check it out here !
    Read more

    Why are tuples not value types on .NET?

    Microsoft made all tuple types reference types in the interests of simplicity. Objectively, this was a mistake. Tuples with more than 4 fields are very unusual and should be replaced with a more typeful alternative anyway (such as a record type in F#) so only small tuples are of practical interest. My own benchmarks showed that unboxed tuples up to 512 bytes could still be faster than boxed tuples. Although memory efficiency is one concern, the dominant issue is the overhead of the garbage collector. Allocation and collection are particularly expensive on .NET because its garbage collector has not been very heavily optimized (e.g. compared to the JVM). Moreover, the default .NET GC (workstation) has not yet been parallelized. Consequently, parallel programs that use tuples grind to a halt as all cores contend for the shared garbage collector, destroying scalability. This is not only the dominant concern but, AFAIK, was completely neglected by Microsoft when they examined this probl...
    Read more