Remix clone Hacker News

I wouldn't say "all" - C# doesn't have discriminated unions yet, which is kind of a big one, especially when you're also looking at pattern matching. A

▲

caspper69 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It has been in discussion for quite some time. I believe they'll get there soon: (example) https://dev.to/canro91/it-seems-the-c-team-is-finally-consid...

In the interim, MS demonstrates how C# 8.0+ can fake it pretty well with recursive pattern matching: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-ref...

Not the same I know, and I would love me a true ADT in C#.

Edit (a formal proposal): https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/18a527bcc1f0bdaf54...

▲

tubthumper8 a day ago | parent [-]

There's also going to be quite a big ecosystem / standard library difference between languages that had fundamental type system features since the beginning vs. languages that added fundamental features 23 years later.

Imagine all the functions that might return one thing or another, which was inexpressible in C# (until this proposal is shipped), will all these functions release new versions to express what they couldn't express before? Will there be an ecosystem split between static typing and dynamic typing?

▲

caspper69 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Having reviewed the proposal (of course no guarantee that's what discriminated unions (aka product types aka algebraic data types) will look like), and it appears that it very much integrates nicely with the language.

I don't suspect they'll make too many changes (if any) to the existing standard library itself, but rather will put functions into their own sub-namespace moving forward like they did with concurrent containers and the like.

Given their penchant for backwards compatibility, I think old code is safe. Will it create a schism? In some codebases, sure. Folks always want to eat the freshest meat. But if they do it in a non-obtrusive way, it could integrate nicely. It reminds me of tuples, which had a similar expansion of capabilities, but the integration went pretty well.

▲

tubthumper8 7 hours ago | parent [-]

>that's what discriminated unions (aka product types aka algebraic data types)

Just an FYI, discriminated unions are not product types, they are sum types. It's named so because the total number of possibilities is the sum of the number of possibilities for each variant.

Ex. A sum type Color is a PrimaryColor (Red, Blue, Yellow) OR a SecondaryColor (Purple, Green, Orange), the total number of possibilities is 3 + 3 = 6.

For a product type, if a ColorPair is a PrimaryColor AND a SecondaryColor, the total number of possibilities is 3 * 3 = 9

Both sum types and product types are algebraic types, in the same way that algebra includes both sums and products.

For the standard library, I'm curious for the family of TryParse kind of functions, since those are well modeled by a sum type. Maybe adding an overload without an `out` argument would give you back a DU to `switch` on

	▲	caspper69 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I make that mistake more often than I care to, but you are 100% spot-on. They are sum types, not product types. Thank you for making me walk the walk of shame!

▲

feoren 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

While we wait for the official discriminated union feature, the OneOf package is a pretty good stand-in: https://github.com/mcintyre321/OneOf