C# 3.0

Hm, I don't think that I need any of the new things which are possible in C# 3.0.
The only real thing I want see is improved speed! :)

We still can't assume everybody has .net 1.0 installed, can't develop with final version of 2.0, and MS is already talking about the beauties of 3.0... ¿?

C# is simply becoming what it truly is:
"A Scripting-Language for Visual-Basic Runaways".

Why does anybody hate C#? Most of the programmers who hate C# have imho not programmed C# before in thier lives.
And terefang look at www.icsharpcode.net and then to SharpDevelop and now tell me that C# sucks. Have you programmed in VB or C++ anything that is nearly impressive as #develop? Can You?
(Btw. #develop becomes it's own .Net debugger in the next version 8) )

Who needs C# 3.0 when we can have Microsoft's KPL?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/coding4fun/coolapplications/kpl/default.aspx

sorry to impress you Maverick, but my "Language Experience" includes:
Logo, Basic, Prolog, Lisp, Smalltalk, 6205-Asm, 65k-Asm, 85xx-Asm, Atmel-Asm, x86-Asm, Pascal, C, C++, PHP, Perl, Java, Javascript, Visual-Basic and C#.

i do think that C# has its place in todays programming enviroments, but the examples you give are all gui/widget related whereas i'm concerned either about "limited resource"- and/or "high performance"-environments.

you simply cant write highperf stuff in C# within limited environments, but C/C++/Asm allows you to do this.

btw, its the same as with TCP vs. UDP vs. SCTP (go figure).

cheers,

"I think sometimes it's better to keep it simple." Agreed!

We will stay with .NET 1.1 (incl. our own Mixed native/managed Dll to communicate with Irrlicht, not the .NET Wrapper) for our Project (RPG with Toolset and Irrlicht as a base for our Engine)...

@john doe: KPL rocks - if we'd known earlier I bet we would have switched to KPL for our Game - looool! ...really amazing how M$ uses it's VB Stuff ;)

@Maverick: #develop? impressive? ...have I missed something?

@Duncan: yep too much i think.

I won't discuss this asm/c++ vs. c# any further, its ridiculous. I don't want to programm GUI Apps with ASM, and i don't want to programm time critical drivers with C#.

Ok, at one thing you are right. I also find other things more impressive. As mathmatician I find Maple impressive.
And this one is realy impressive. :)

ok, discussion ended, agreed.

yet i find it worth mentioning that i used to write win3.1 gui apps in asm,
and it's hard to change your way if your very first programming languages
have been Logo and Asm :).

no pun intended, cheers

In my time spent actually talking to the C# Team at TechEd, not a single one of them said C# was designed for anything other than type safety. This confused the hell out of me, considering the existence of The System.Collection namespace from .NET 1.0/1.1. Since at that time, my company was developing exclusivly in .NET 2.0, my confusion was somewhat short, thinking "hey, they started off slow, but atleast they're fixing it." Now, with this specification, I can't help but think they took two steps forward and 1 step back.

While I like some of the features (extension methods, object initializers, & lambda expressions), others (implicitly typed locals/arrays, anon. types) are just destroying the progress that was made in v2.0.