Why does C# have redundant syntax?
on
How C# Was Made
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
One thing I've never seen explained in any of the designer interviews on C# or Java is why they both have the redundant 'new' keyword.
Neither language allows you to create objects on the stack, so using new to denote 'on the heap' is completely redundant.
Also, why can't language designers take hints from the *productive* languages as well as the *popular* ones. I'm not saying that good programming is a speed typing contest, but modern, popular languages require far too many key presses to get stuff done.
C#/Java Type varName = new Type(args);
Python: varName = Type(args)
Want static typing? Why not type inference like OCaml? Damn them.
While it's true we don't fully understand the brain, we do understand it enough to be able to do stuff like this.
In particular we understand the part of the brain the researchers are utilising (motor cortex) quite well. The motor cortex is a strip of cortex running over your head pretty much from ear to ear. Your entire body is mapped onto this region in a generally consistent manner: adjacent body parts map to adjacent brain regions. The function of this part of the cortex is as a final relay as impulses are sent down the spinal cord to muscles. Luckily, this area is plastic/malleable and is self organising based on activity. If you implant electrodes to record impulses from a bunch of these neurones and have those electrodes affect something visible, then theoretically you should be able to learn to control the electrodes just like you learned to control your muscles when you were a baby.
This may work more effectively in a patient in whom some of the motor cortex is dormant.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing I've never seen explained in any of the designer interviews on C# or Java is why they both have the redundant 'new' keyword.
Neither language allows you to create objects on the stack, so using new to denote 'on the heap' is completely redundant.
Also, why can't language designers take hints from the *productive* languages as well as the *popular* ones.
I'm not saying that good programming is a speed typing contest, but modern, popular languages require far too many key presses to get stuff done.
C#/Java
Type varName = new Type(args);
Python:
varName = Type(args)
Want static typing? Why not type inference like OCaml?
Damn them.
While it's true we don't fully understand the brain, we do understand it enough to be able to do stuff like this.
In particular we understand the part of the brain the researchers are utilising (motor cortex) quite well. The motor cortex is a strip of cortex running over your head pretty much from ear to ear. Your entire body is mapped onto this region in a generally consistent manner: adjacent body parts map to adjacent brain regions. The function of this part of the cortex is as a final relay as impulses are sent down the spinal cord to muscles.
Luckily, this area is plastic/malleable and is self organising based on activity. If you implant electrodes to record impulses from a bunch of these neurones and have those electrodes affect something visible, then theoretically you should be able to learn to control the electrodes just like you learned to control your muscles when you were a baby.
This may work more effectively in a patient in whom some of the motor cortex is dormant.