Related
C# will not allow to write non-member functions and every method should be part of a class. I was thinking this as a restriction in all CLI languages. But I was wrong and I found that C++/CLI supports non-member functions. When it is compiled, compiler will make the method as member of some unnamed class.
Here is what C++/CLI standard says,
[Note: Non-member functions are treated by the CLI as members of some unnamed class; however, in C++/CLI source code, such functions cannot be qualified explicitly with that class name. end note]
The encoding of non-member functions in metadata is unspecified. [Note: This does not cause interop problems because such functions cannot have public visibility. end note]
So my question is why don't C# implement something like this? Or do you think there should not be non-member functions and every method should belong to some class?
My opinion is to have non-member function support and it helps to avoid polluting class's interface.
Any thoughts..?
See this blog posting:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/06/22/why-doesn-t-c-implement-top-level-methods.aspx
(...)
I am asked "why doesn't C# implement feature X?" all the time. The answer is always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented and shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. All of them cost huge amounts of time, effort and money. Features are not cheap, and we try very hard to make sure that we are only shipping those features which give the best possible benefits to our users given our constrained time, effort and money budgets.
I understand that such a general answer probably does not address the specific question.
In this particular case, the clear user benefit was in the past not large enough to justify the complications to the language which would ensue. By stricting how different language entities nest inside each other we (1) restrict legal programs to be in a common, easily understood style, and (2) make it possible to define "identifier lookup" rules which are comprehensible, specifiable, implementable, testable and documentable.
By restricting method bodies to always be inside a struct or class, we make it easier to reason about the meaning of an unqualified identifier used in an invocation context; such a thing is always an invocable member of the current type (or a base type).
(...)
and this follow-up posting:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/06/24/it-already-is-a-scripting-language.aspx
(...)
Like all design decisions, when we're faced with a number of competing, compelling, valuable and noncompossible ideas, we've got to find a workable compromise. We don't do that except by considering all the possibilites, which is what we're doing in this case.
(emphasis from original text)
C# doesn't allow it because Java didn't allow it.
I can think of several reasons why the designers of Java probably didn't allow it
Java was designed to be simple. They attempted to make a language without random shortcuts, so that you generally have just one simple way to do everything, even if other approaches would have been cleaner or more concise. They wanted to minimize the learning curve, and learning "a class may contain methods" is simpler than "a class may contain methods, and functions may exist outside classes".
Superficially, it looks less object-oriented. (Anything that isn't part of an object obviously can't be object-oriented? Can it? of course, C++ says yes, but C++ wasn't involved in this decision)
As I already said in comments, I think this is a good question, and there are plenty of cases where non-member functions would've been preferable. (this part is mostly a response to all the other answers saying "you don't need it")
In C++, where non-member functions are allowed, they are often preferred, for several reasons:
It aids encapsulation. The fewer methods have access to the private members of a class, the easier that class will be to refactor or maintain. Encapsulation is an important part of OOP.
Code can be reused much easier when it is not part of a class. For example, the C++ standard library defines std::find or std::sort` as non-member functions, so that they can be reused on any type of sequences, whether it is arrays, sets, linked lists or (for std::find, at least) streams. Code reuse is also an important part of OOP.
It gives us better decoupling. The find function doesn't need to know about the LinkedList class in order to be able to work on it. If it had been defined as a member function, it would be a member of the LinkedList class, basically merging the two concepts into one big blob.
Extensibility. If you accept that the interface of a class is not just "all its public members", but also "all non-member functions that operate on the class", then it becomes possible to extend the interface of a class without having to edit or even recompile the class itself.
The ability to have non-member functions may have originated with C (where you had no other choice), but in modern C++, it is a vital feature in its own right, not just for backward-comparibility purposes, but because of the simpler, cleaner and more reusable code it allows.
In fact, C# seems to have realized much the same things, much later. Why do you think extension methods were added? They are an attempt at achieving the above, while preserving the simple Java-like syntax.
Lambdas are also interesting examples, as they too are essentially small functions defined freely, not as members of any particular class. So yes, the concept of non-member functions is useful, and C#'s designers have realized the same thing. They've just tried to sneak the concept in through the back door.
http://www.ddj.com/cpp/184401197 and http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill02.htm are two articles written by C++ experts on the subject.
Non member functions are a good thing because they improve encapsulation and reduce coupling between types. Most modern programming languages such as Haskell and F# support free functions.
What's the benefit of not putting each method in a named class? Why would a non-member function "pollute" the class's interface? If you don't want it as part of the public API of a class, either don't make it public or don't put it in that class. You can always create a different class.
I can't remember ever wanting to write a method floating around with no appropriate scope - other than anonymous functions, of course (which aren't really the same).
In short, I can't see any benefit in non-member functions, but I can see benefits in terms of consistency, naming and documentation in putting all methods in an appropriately named class.
The CLS (common language specification) says that you shouldn't have non-member functions in a library that conforms to the CLS. It's like an extra set of restrictions in addition to the basic restrictions of the CLI (common language interface).
It is possible that a future version of C# will add the ability to write a using directive that allows the static members of a class to be accessed without the class name qualification:
using System.Linq.Enumerable; // Enumerable is a static class
...
IEnumerable<int> range = Range(1, 10); // finds Enumerable.Range
Then there will be no need to change the CLS and existing libraries.
These blog posts demonstrate a library for functional programming in C#, and they use a class name that is just one letter long, to try and cut down the noise caused by the requirement to qualify static method calls. Examples like that would be made a little nicer if using directives could target classes.
Since Java, most programmers have easily accepted that any method is a member of a class. I doesn't make any considerable obstacles and make the concept of method more narrow, which make a language easier.
However, indeed, class infers object, and object infers state, so the concept of class containing only static methods looks a little absurd.
Having all code lie within classes allows for a more powerful set of reflection capabilities.
It allows the use of static intializers, which can initialize the data needed by static methods within a class.
It avoids name clashes between methods by explicitly enclosing them within a unit that cannot be added to by another compilation unit.
I think you really need to clarify what you would want to create non-member static methods to achieve.
For instance, some of the things you might want them for could be handled with Extension Methods
Another typical use (of a class which only contains static methods) is in a library. In this case, there is little harm in creating a class in an assembly which is entirely composed of static methods. It keeps them together, avoids naming collisions. After all, there are static methods in Math which serve the same purpose.
Also, you should not necessarily compare C++'s object model with C#. C++ is largely (but not perfectly) compatible with C, which didn't have a class system at all - so C++ had to support this programming idiom out of the C legacy, not for any particular design imperative.
Csharp does not have non-member function because it has copied or inspired by java's philosophy that only OOPs is the solution for all the problems and it will only allow things to be solved using OO way.
Non-member functions are very important feature if we really want to do generic programming. They are more reusable compared to putting them in a class.
CSharp has to come up with ExtensionMethods due to absence of non-member functions.
As now programming languages are moving towards functional programming paradigm and it seems to be the better way to approach and solve the problem and is the future. CSharp should rethink about it.
Bear something in mind: C++ is a much more complicated language than C#. And although they may be similiar syntactically, they are very different beasts semantically. You wouldn't think it would be terribly difficult to make a change like this, but I could see how it could be. ANTLR has a good wiki page called What makes a language problem hard? that's good to consult for questions like this. In this case:
Context sensitive lexer? You can't decide what vocabulay symbol to match unless you know what kind of sentence you are parsing.
Now instead of just worrying about functions defined in classes, we have to worry about functions defined outside classes. Conceptually, there isn't much difference. But in terms of lexing and parsing the code, now you have the added problem of having to say "if a function is outside a class, it belongs to this unnamed class. However, if it is inside the class, then it belongs to that class."
Also, if the compiler comes across a method like this:
public void Foo()
{
Bar();
}
...it now has to answer the question "is Bar located within this class or is it a global class?"
Forward or external references? I.e., multiple passes needed? Pascal has a "forward" reference to handle intra-file procedure references, but references to procedures in other files via the USES clauses etc... require special handling.
This is another thing that causes problems. Remember that C# doesn't require forward declarations. The compiler will make one pass just to determine what classes are named and what functions those classes contain. Now you have to worry about finding classes and functions where functions can be either inside or outside of a class. This is something a C++ parser doesn't have to worry about as it parses everything in order.
Now don't get me wrong, it could probably be done in C#, and I would probably use such a feature. But is it really worth all the trouble of overcoming these obstacles when you could just type a class name in front of a static method?
Free functions are very useful if you combine them with duck typing. The whole C++ STL is based on it. Hence I am sure that C# will introduce free functions when they manage to add true generics.
Like economics, language design is also about psychology. If you create appetite for true generics via free functions in C# and not deliver, then you would kill C#. Then all C# developers would move to C++ and nobody wants that to happen, not the C# community and most certainly not those invested in C++.
While it's true you need a class (e.g. a static class called FreeFunctions) to hold such functions, you're free to place using static FreeFunctions; at the top of any file that needs the functions from it, without having to litter your code with FreeFunctions. qualifiers.
I'm not sure if there's actually a case where this is demonstrably inferior to not requiring the function definitions to be contained in a class.
Look, other programming languages have a hard time to define the internal nature of a function instance from the compiler's point of view. In Pascal and C, the instances are basically defined as something that can be processed as pointer only. Especially, since reading/writing to executable code positions is what 7 out of 9 computer science professors are dead set against. As member of a class, no one does need to care how to treat its manifestation because this manifestation's type is derived from a class property. It is possible to create something that is exactly processed like a global function: a lambda function, assigned to a variable:
Func<int,int> myFunc = delegate(int var1)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}",var1*2);
return var1*3;
};
. And it can simply be called like a global function by its variable name.
If so, the difference would be implementing a new object type on the lowest level with same behavior as another one. That is considered bad practice by experienced programmers, and was perhaps scrapped because of this.
There are quite a lot of deviations in Java and C# languages, one of which I observed was we cannot add variable constants in an interface. Being from Java background I got baffled to see compilation error when I tried this.
Does anyone has explanation why it is so?
A field is an implementation detail of a class and should not be exposed an its interface.
An interface is a way to abstract away implementation details of a class. These two concepts look contradictory and don't really fit together.
You can declare properties in interfaces instead.
UPDATE (after realizing the question was about constants, not variable fields): I think (purely my personal speculation) that Java decided to allow such a construct because it didn't have enum types back then. C# has had enums since the beginning and preferred those to constants most of the time. Moreover, you can create a static class in C# and add everything you like in it and ship it along the interface without any real hassles. Supporting such a construct would just make interface definitions more complicated.
I've rarely wanted to have an actual constant in an interface - they usually make more sense in classes. The practice of using a Java interface to just contain constants (in order to reduce typing in classes that use them) is nasty; I'd only put constants in interfaces where they were related to functionality within the interface itself.
However, on occasion I've thought it would be nice to be able to define an enum within an interface, if that's the only context in which the enum is anticipated to be used. Interestingly, VB allows this even though C# doesn't.
Effectively both of these would be a way of turning the interface into a "mini-namespace" in its own right. However, I can't say I've missed it very often when writing C#. As the C# team is fond of saying, features aren't removed - they're added, and the cost of adding a feature is very high. That means the feature really needs to pull its weight - there has to be a significant benefit before the feature is added. I personally wouldn't put this very high up on the list.
Related thought: it might be nice to be able to define a nested class within the interface, usually an implementation of the interface - either to express its contracts or to act as a "default" implementation for situations where there is such a thing.
and adding constants to interfaces is discouraged in Java too (according to Effective Java at least)
Adding constants to an interface is wrong and should almost never be done. In the past many people declared Interfaces with many constants and then made another class implement this interface so they could make use of the constants without qualifying said constant. This is of course another anti pattern and was only done because people were lazy. If you really want a constant in an interface define a method that returns that constant.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
For c# developers that are staring out to learn Java, are there any big underlying differences between the two languages that should be pointed out?
Maybe some people may assume things to be the same, but there are some import aspects that shouldn't be overlooked? (or you can really screw up!)
Maybe in terms of OOP constructs, the way GC works, references, deployment related, etc.
A few gotchas off the top of my head:
Java doesn't have custom value types (structs) so don't bother looking for them
Java enums are very different to the "named numbers" approach of C#; they're more OO. They can be used to great effect, if you're careful.
byte is signed in Java (unfortunately)
In C#, instance variable initializers run before the base class constructor does; in Java they run after it does (i.e. just before the constructor body in "this" class)
In C# methods are sealed by default. In Java they're virtual by default.
The default access modifier in C# is always "the most restrictive access available in the current context"; in Java it's "package" access. (It's worth reading up on the particular access modifiers in Java.)
Nested types in Java and C# work somewhat differently; in particular they have different access restrictions, and unless you declare the nested type to be static it will have an implicit reference to an instance of the containing class.
here is a very comprehensive comparison of the 2 languages:
http://www.25hoursaday.com/CsharpVsJava.html
Added: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Java_and_C_Sharp
I am surprised that no one has mentioned properties, something quite fundamental in C# but absent in Java. C# 3 and above has automatically implemented properties as well. In Java you have to use GetX/SetX type methods.
Another obvious difference is LINQ and lambda expressions in C# 3 absent in Java.
There are a few other simple but useful things missing from Java like verbatim strings (#""), operator overloading, iterators using yield and pre processor are missing in Java as well.
One of my personal favourites in C# is that namespace names don't have to follow the physical directory structure. I really like this flexibility.
There are a lot of differences, but these come to mind for me:
Lack of operator overloading in Java. Watch your instance.Equals(instance2) versus instance == instance2 (especially w/strings).
Get used to interfaces NOT being prefixed with an I. Often you see namespaces or classes suffixed with Impl instead.
Double checked locking doesn't work because of the Java memory model.
You can import static methods without prefixing them with the class name, which is very useful in certain cases (DSLs).
Switch statements in Java don't require a default, and you can't use strings as case labels (IIRC).
Java generics will anger you. Java generics don't exist at runtime (at least in 1.5), they're a compiler trick, which causes problems if you want to do reflection on the generic types.
.NET has reified generics; Java has erased generics.
The difference is this: if you have an ArrayList<String> object, in .NET, you can tell (at runtime) that the object has type ArrayList<String>, whereas in Java, at runtime, the object is of type ArrayList; the String part is lost. If you put in non-String objects into the ArrayList, the system can't enforce that, and you'll only know about it after you try to extract the item out, and the cast fails.
One thing I miss in C# from Java is the forced handling of checked exceptions. In C# is it far to common that one is unaware of the exceptions a method may throw and you're at the mercy of the documentation or testing to discover them. Not so in Java with checked exceptions.
Java has autoboxing for primitives rather than value types, so although System.Int32[] is an array of values in C#, Integer[] is an array of references to Integer objects, and as such not suitable for higher performance calculations.
No delegates or events - you have to use interfaces. Fortunately, you can create classes and interface implementations inline, so this isn't such a big deal
The built-in date/calendar functionality in Java is horrible compared to System.DateTime. There is a lot of info about this here: What's wrong with Java Date & Time API?
Some of these can be gotchas for a C# developer:
The Java Date class is mutable which can make returning and passing dates around dangerous.
Most of the java.util.Date constructors are deprecated. Simply instantiating a date is pretty verbose.
I have never gotten the java.util.Date class to interoperate well with web services. In most cases the dates on either side were wildly transformed into some other date & time.
Additionally, Java doesn't have all the same features that the GAC and strongly-named assemblies bring. Jar Hell is the term for what can go wrong when linking/referencing external libraries.
As far as packaging/deployment is concerned:
it can be difficult to package up web applications in an EAR/WAR format that actually install and run in several different application servers (Glassfish, Websphere, etc).
deploying your Java app as a Windows service takes a lot more effort than in C#. Most of the recommendations I got for this involved a non-free 3rd party library
application configuration isn't nearly as easy as including an app.config file in your project. There is a java.util.Properties class, but it isn't as robust and finding the right spot to drop your .properties file can be confusing
There are no delegates in Java. Therefore, aside from all the benefits that delegates bring to the table, events work differently too. Instead of just hooking up a method, you need to implement an interface and attach that instead.
One thing that jumps out b/c it's on my interview list is that there is no "new" keyword analogue in Java for method hiding and there fore no compiler warning "you should put new here". Accidental method hiding when you meant to override leads to bugs.
(edit for example)
Example, B derives from A (using C# syntax, Java behaves same way last I checked but does not emit compiler warning). Does A's foo get called, or B's foo? (A's gets called, probably surprising the dev who implemented B).
class A
{
public void foo() {code}
}
class B:A
{
public void foo() {code}
}
void SomeMethod()
{
A a = new B(); // variable's type is declared as A, but assigned to an object of B.
a.foo();
}
Java doesn't have LINQ and the documentation is hell. User interfaces in Java are a pain to develop, you lose all the good things Microsoft gave us (WPF, WCF, etc...) but get hard - to - use, hardly documented "APIs".
The most harrasing difference to me when I switch to java it's the string declaration.
in C# string (most of the time)
in Java String
It's pretty simple, but trust me, it makes you lose so much time when you have the habit to s not S !
The one issue I've run into so far when working with Java coming from C# is Exceptions and Errors are different.
For example you cannot catch an out of memory error using catch(Exception e).
See the following for more details:
why-is-java-lang-outofmemoryerror-java-heap-space-not-caught
It's been so long since I've been in Java but the things I noticed right off the bat in application development was C# event model, C# drag and drop vs using Layout Managers in Swing (if your doing App dev), and exception handling with Java making sure you catch an exception and C# not required.
In response to your very direct question in your title:
"C# developers learning Java, what are the biggest differences one may overlook?"
A: The fact that Java is considerably slower on Windows.
C# will not allow to write non-member functions and every method should be part of a class. I was thinking this as a restriction in all CLI languages. But I was wrong and I found that C++/CLI supports non-member functions. When it is compiled, compiler will make the method as member of some unnamed class.
Here is what C++/CLI standard says,
[Note: Non-member functions are treated by the CLI as members of some unnamed class; however, in C++/CLI source code, such functions cannot be qualified explicitly with that class name. end note]
The encoding of non-member functions in metadata is unspecified. [Note: This does not cause interop problems because such functions cannot have public visibility. end note]
So my question is why don't C# implement something like this? Or do you think there should not be non-member functions and every method should belong to some class?
My opinion is to have non-member function support and it helps to avoid polluting class's interface.
Any thoughts..?
See this blog posting:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/06/22/why-doesn-t-c-implement-top-level-methods.aspx
(...)
I am asked "why doesn't C# implement feature X?" all the time. The answer is always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented and shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. All of them cost huge amounts of time, effort and money. Features are not cheap, and we try very hard to make sure that we are only shipping those features which give the best possible benefits to our users given our constrained time, effort and money budgets.
I understand that such a general answer probably does not address the specific question.
In this particular case, the clear user benefit was in the past not large enough to justify the complications to the language which would ensue. By stricting how different language entities nest inside each other we (1) restrict legal programs to be in a common, easily understood style, and (2) make it possible to define "identifier lookup" rules which are comprehensible, specifiable, implementable, testable and documentable.
By restricting method bodies to always be inside a struct or class, we make it easier to reason about the meaning of an unqualified identifier used in an invocation context; such a thing is always an invocable member of the current type (or a base type).
(...)
and this follow-up posting:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/06/24/it-already-is-a-scripting-language.aspx
(...)
Like all design decisions, when we're faced with a number of competing, compelling, valuable and noncompossible ideas, we've got to find a workable compromise. We don't do that except by considering all the possibilites, which is what we're doing in this case.
(emphasis from original text)
C# doesn't allow it because Java didn't allow it.
I can think of several reasons why the designers of Java probably didn't allow it
Java was designed to be simple. They attempted to make a language without random shortcuts, so that you generally have just one simple way to do everything, even if other approaches would have been cleaner or more concise. They wanted to minimize the learning curve, and learning "a class may contain methods" is simpler than "a class may contain methods, and functions may exist outside classes".
Superficially, it looks less object-oriented. (Anything that isn't part of an object obviously can't be object-oriented? Can it? of course, C++ says yes, but C++ wasn't involved in this decision)
As I already said in comments, I think this is a good question, and there are plenty of cases where non-member functions would've been preferable. (this part is mostly a response to all the other answers saying "you don't need it")
In C++, where non-member functions are allowed, they are often preferred, for several reasons:
It aids encapsulation. The fewer methods have access to the private members of a class, the easier that class will be to refactor or maintain. Encapsulation is an important part of OOP.
Code can be reused much easier when it is not part of a class. For example, the C++ standard library defines std::find or std::sort` as non-member functions, so that they can be reused on any type of sequences, whether it is arrays, sets, linked lists or (for std::find, at least) streams. Code reuse is also an important part of OOP.
It gives us better decoupling. The find function doesn't need to know about the LinkedList class in order to be able to work on it. If it had been defined as a member function, it would be a member of the LinkedList class, basically merging the two concepts into one big blob.
Extensibility. If you accept that the interface of a class is not just "all its public members", but also "all non-member functions that operate on the class", then it becomes possible to extend the interface of a class without having to edit or even recompile the class itself.
The ability to have non-member functions may have originated with C (where you had no other choice), but in modern C++, it is a vital feature in its own right, not just for backward-comparibility purposes, but because of the simpler, cleaner and more reusable code it allows.
In fact, C# seems to have realized much the same things, much later. Why do you think extension methods were added? They are an attempt at achieving the above, while preserving the simple Java-like syntax.
Lambdas are also interesting examples, as they too are essentially small functions defined freely, not as members of any particular class. So yes, the concept of non-member functions is useful, and C#'s designers have realized the same thing. They've just tried to sneak the concept in through the back door.
http://www.ddj.com/cpp/184401197 and http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill02.htm are two articles written by C++ experts on the subject.
Non member functions are a good thing because they improve encapsulation and reduce coupling between types. Most modern programming languages such as Haskell and F# support free functions.
What's the benefit of not putting each method in a named class? Why would a non-member function "pollute" the class's interface? If you don't want it as part of the public API of a class, either don't make it public or don't put it in that class. You can always create a different class.
I can't remember ever wanting to write a method floating around with no appropriate scope - other than anonymous functions, of course (which aren't really the same).
In short, I can't see any benefit in non-member functions, but I can see benefits in terms of consistency, naming and documentation in putting all methods in an appropriately named class.
The CLS (common language specification) says that you shouldn't have non-member functions in a library that conforms to the CLS. It's like an extra set of restrictions in addition to the basic restrictions of the CLI (common language interface).
It is possible that a future version of C# will add the ability to write a using directive that allows the static members of a class to be accessed without the class name qualification:
using System.Linq.Enumerable; // Enumerable is a static class
...
IEnumerable<int> range = Range(1, 10); // finds Enumerable.Range
Then there will be no need to change the CLS and existing libraries.
These blog posts demonstrate a library for functional programming in C#, and they use a class name that is just one letter long, to try and cut down the noise caused by the requirement to qualify static method calls. Examples like that would be made a little nicer if using directives could target classes.
Since Java, most programmers have easily accepted that any method is a member of a class. I doesn't make any considerable obstacles and make the concept of method more narrow, which make a language easier.
However, indeed, class infers object, and object infers state, so the concept of class containing only static methods looks a little absurd.
Having all code lie within classes allows for a more powerful set of reflection capabilities.
It allows the use of static intializers, which can initialize the data needed by static methods within a class.
It avoids name clashes between methods by explicitly enclosing them within a unit that cannot be added to by another compilation unit.
I think you really need to clarify what you would want to create non-member static methods to achieve.
For instance, some of the things you might want them for could be handled with Extension Methods
Another typical use (of a class which only contains static methods) is in a library. In this case, there is little harm in creating a class in an assembly which is entirely composed of static methods. It keeps them together, avoids naming collisions. After all, there are static methods in Math which serve the same purpose.
Also, you should not necessarily compare C++'s object model with C#. C++ is largely (but not perfectly) compatible with C, which didn't have a class system at all - so C++ had to support this programming idiom out of the C legacy, not for any particular design imperative.
Csharp does not have non-member function because it has copied or inspired by java's philosophy that only OOPs is the solution for all the problems and it will only allow things to be solved using OO way.
Non-member functions are very important feature if we really want to do generic programming. They are more reusable compared to putting them in a class.
CSharp has to come up with ExtensionMethods due to absence of non-member functions.
As now programming languages are moving towards functional programming paradigm and it seems to be the better way to approach and solve the problem and is the future. CSharp should rethink about it.
Bear something in mind: C++ is a much more complicated language than C#. And although they may be similiar syntactically, they are very different beasts semantically. You wouldn't think it would be terribly difficult to make a change like this, but I could see how it could be. ANTLR has a good wiki page called What makes a language problem hard? that's good to consult for questions like this. In this case:
Context sensitive lexer? You can't decide what vocabulay symbol to match unless you know what kind of sentence you are parsing.
Now instead of just worrying about functions defined in classes, we have to worry about functions defined outside classes. Conceptually, there isn't much difference. But in terms of lexing and parsing the code, now you have the added problem of having to say "if a function is outside a class, it belongs to this unnamed class. However, if it is inside the class, then it belongs to that class."
Also, if the compiler comes across a method like this:
public void Foo()
{
Bar();
}
...it now has to answer the question "is Bar located within this class or is it a global class?"
Forward or external references? I.e., multiple passes needed? Pascal has a "forward" reference to handle intra-file procedure references, but references to procedures in other files via the USES clauses etc... require special handling.
This is another thing that causes problems. Remember that C# doesn't require forward declarations. The compiler will make one pass just to determine what classes are named and what functions those classes contain. Now you have to worry about finding classes and functions where functions can be either inside or outside of a class. This is something a C++ parser doesn't have to worry about as it parses everything in order.
Now don't get me wrong, it could probably be done in C#, and I would probably use such a feature. But is it really worth all the trouble of overcoming these obstacles when you could just type a class name in front of a static method?
Free functions are very useful if you combine them with duck typing. The whole C++ STL is based on it. Hence I am sure that C# will introduce free functions when they manage to add true generics.
Like economics, language design is also about psychology. If you create appetite for true generics via free functions in C# and not deliver, then you would kill C#. Then all C# developers would move to C++ and nobody wants that to happen, not the C# community and most certainly not those invested in C++.
While it's true you need a class (e.g. a static class called FreeFunctions) to hold such functions, you're free to place using static FreeFunctions; at the top of any file that needs the functions from it, without having to litter your code with FreeFunctions. qualifiers.
I'm not sure if there's actually a case where this is demonstrably inferior to not requiring the function definitions to be contained in a class.
Look, other programming languages have a hard time to define the internal nature of a function instance from the compiler's point of view. In Pascal and C, the instances are basically defined as something that can be processed as pointer only. Especially, since reading/writing to executable code positions is what 7 out of 9 computer science professors are dead set against. As member of a class, no one does need to care how to treat its manifestation because this manifestation's type is derived from a class property. It is possible to create something that is exactly processed like a global function: a lambda function, assigned to a variable:
Func<int,int> myFunc = delegate(int var1)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}",var1*2);
return var1*3;
};
. And it can simply be called like a global function by its variable name.
If so, the difference would be implementing a new object type on the lowest level with same behavior as another one. That is considered bad practice by experienced programmers, and was perhaps scrapped because of this.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 9 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I mostly use Java and generics are relatively new. I keep reading that Java made the wrong decision or that .NET has better implementations etc. etc.
So, what are the main differences between C++, C#, Java in generics? Pros/cons of each?
I'll add my voice to the noise and take a stab at making things clear:
C# Generics allow you to declare something like this.
List<Person> foo = new List<Person>();
and then the compiler will prevent you from putting things that aren't Person into the list.
Behind the scenes the C# compiler is just putting List<Person> into the .NET dll file, but at runtime the JIT compiler goes and builds a new set of code, as if you had written a special list class just for containing people - something like ListOfPerson.
The benefit of this is that it makes it really fast. There's no casting or any other stuff, and because the dll contains the information that this is a List of Person, other code that looks at it later on using reflection can tell that it contains Person objects (so you get intellisense and so on).
The downside of this is that old C# 1.0 and 1.1 code (before they added generics) doesn't understand these new List<something>, so you have to manually convert things back to plain old List to interoperate with them. This is not that big of a problem, because C# 2.0 binary code is not backwards compatible. The only time this will ever happen is if you're upgrading some old C# 1.0/1.1 code to C# 2.0
Java Generics allow you to declare something like this.
ArrayList<Person> foo = new ArrayList<Person>();
On the surface it looks the same, and it sort-of is. The compiler will also prevent you from putting things that aren't Person into the list.
The difference is what happens behind the scenes. Unlike C#, Java does not go and build a special ListOfPerson - it just uses the plain old ArrayList which has always been in Java. When you get things out of the array, the usual Person p = (Person)foo.get(1); casting-dance still has to be done. The compiler is saving you the key-presses, but the speed hit/casting is still incurred just like it always was.
When people mention "Type Erasure" this is what they're talking about. The compiler inserts the casts for you, and then 'erases' the fact that it's meant to be a list of Person not just Object
The benefit of this approach is that old code which doesn't understand generics doesn't have to care. It's still dealing with the same old ArrayList as it always has. This is more important in the java world because they wanted to support compiling code using Java 5 with generics, and having it run on old 1.4 or previous JVM's, which microsoft deliberately decided not to bother with.
The downside is the speed hit I mentioned previously, and also because there is no ListOfPerson pseudo-class or anything like that going into the .class files, code that looks at it later on (with reflection, or if you pull it out of another collection where it's been converted into Object or so on) can't tell in any way that it's meant to be a list containing only Person and not just any other array list.
C++ Templates allow you to declare something like this
std::list<Person>* foo = new std::list<Person>();
It looks like C# and Java generics, and it will do what you think it should do, but behind the scenes different things are happening.
It has the most in common with C# generics in that it builds special pseudo-classes rather than just throwing the type information away like java does, but it's a whole different kettle of fish.
Both C# and Java produce output which is designed for virtual machines. If you write some code which has a Person class in it, in both cases some information about a Person class will go into the .dll or .class file, and the JVM/CLR will do stuff with this.
C++ produces raw x86 binary code. Everything is not an object, and there's no underlying virtual machine which needs to know about a Person class. There's no boxing or unboxing, and functions don't have to belong to classes, or indeed anything.
Because of this, the C++ compiler places no restrictions on what you can do with templates - basically any code you could write manually, you can get templates to write for you.
The most obvious example is adding things:
In C# and Java, the generics system needs to know what methods are available for a class, and it needs to pass this down to the virtual machine. The only way to tell it this is by either hard-coding the actual class in, or using interfaces. For example:
string addNames<T>( T first, T second ) { return first.Name() + second.Name(); }
That code won't compile in C# or Java, because it doesn't know that the type T actually provides a method called Name(). You have to tell it - in C# like this:
interface IHasName{ string Name(); };
string addNames<T>( T first, T second ) where T : IHasName { .... }
And then you have to make sure the things you pass to addNames implement the IHasName interface and so on. The java syntax is different (<T extends IHasName>), but it suffers from the same problems.
The 'classic' case for this problem is trying to write a function which does this
string addNames<T>( T first, T second ) { return first + second; }
You can't actually write this code because there are no ways to declare an interface with the + method in it. You fail.
C++ suffers from none of these problems. The compiler doesn't care about passing types down to any VM's - if both your objects have a .Name() function, it will compile. If they don't, it won't. Simple.
So, there you have it :-)
C++ rarely uses the “generics” terminology. Instead, the word “templates” is used and is more accurate. Templates describes one technique to achieve a generic design.
C++ templates is very different from what both C# and Java implement for two main reasons. The first reason is that C++ templates don't only allow compile-time type arguments but also compile-time const-value arguments: templates can be given as integers or even function signatures. This means that you can do some quite funky stuff at compile time, e.g. calculations:
template <unsigned int N>
struct product {
static unsigned int const VALUE = N * product<N - 1>::VALUE;
};
template <>
struct product<1> {
static unsigned int const VALUE = 1;
};
// Usage:
unsigned int const p5 = product<5>::VALUE;
This code also uses the other distinguished feature of C++ templates, namely template specialization. The code defines one class template, product that has one value argument. It also defines a specialization for that template that is used whenever the argument evaluates to 1. This allows me to define a recursion over template definitions. I believe that this was first discovered by Andrei Alexandrescu.
Template specialization is important for C++ because it allows for structural differences in data structures. Templates as a whole is a means of unifying an interface across types. However, although this is desirable, all types cannot be treated equally inside the implementation. C++ templates takes this into account. This is very much the same difference that OOP makes between interface and implementation with the overriding of virtual methods.
C++ templates are essential for its algorithmic programming paradigm. For example, almost all algorithms for containers are defined as functions that accept the container type as a template type and treat them uniformly. Actually, that's not quite right: C++ doesn't work on containers but rather on ranges that are defined by two iterators, pointing to the beginning and behind the end of the container. Thus, the whole content is circumscribed by the iterators: begin <= elements < end.
Using iterators instead of containers is useful because it allows to operate on parts of a container instead of on the whole.
Another distinguishing feature of C++ is the possibility of partial specialization for class templates. This is somewhat related to pattern matching on arguments in Haskell and other functional languages. For example, let's consider a class that stores elements:
template <typename T>
class Store { … }; // (1)
This works for any element type. But let's say that we can store pointers more effciently than other types by applying some special trick. We can do this by partially specializing for all pointer types:
template <typename T>
class Store<T*> { … }; // (2)
Now, whenever we instance a container template for one type, the appropriate definition is used:
Store<int> x; // Uses (1)
Store<int*> y; // Uses (2)
Store<string**> z; // Uses (2), with T = string*.
Anders Hejlsberg himself described the differences here "Generics in C#, Java, and C++".
There are already a lot of good answers on what the differences are, so let me give a slightly different perspective and add the why.
As was already explained, the main difference is type erasure, i.e. the fact that the Java compiler erases the generic types and they don't end up in the generated bytecode. However, the question is: why would anyone do that? It doesn't make sense! Or does it?
Well, what's the alternative? If you don't implement generics in the language, where do you implement them? And the answer is: in the Virtual Machine. Which breaks backwards compatibility.
Type erasure, on the other hand, allows you to mix generic clients with non-generic libraries. In other words: code that was compiled on Java 5 can still be deployed to Java 1.4.
Microsoft, however, decided to break backwards compatibility for generics. That's why .NET Generics are "better" than Java Generics.
Of course, Sun aren't idiots or cowards. The reason why they "chickened out", was that Java was significantly older and more widespread than .NET when they introduced generics. (They were introduced roughly at the same time in both worlds.) Breaking backwards compatibility would have been a huge pain.
Put yet another way: in Java, Generics are a part of the Language (which means they apply only to Java, not to other languages), in .NET they are part of the Virtual Machine (which means they apply to all languages, not just C# and Visual Basic.NET).
Compare this with .NET features like LINQ, lambda expressions, local variable type inference, anonymous types and expression trees: these are all language features. That's why there are subtle differences between VB.NET and C#: if those features were part of the VM, they would be the same in all languages. But the CLR hasn't changed: it's still the same in .NET 3.5 SP1 as it was in .NET 2.0. You can compile a C# program that uses LINQ with the .NET 3.5 compiler and still run it on .NET 2.0, provided that you don't use any .NET 3.5 libraries. That would not work with generics and .NET 1.1, but it would work with Java and Java 1.4.
Follow-up to my previous posting.
Templates are one of the main reasons why C++ fails so abysmally at intellisense, regardless of the IDE used. Because of template specialization, the IDE can never be really sure if a given member exists or not. Consider:
template <typename T>
struct X {
void foo() { }
};
template <>
struct X<int> { };
typedef int my_int_type;
X<my_int_type> a;
a.|
Now, the cursor is at the indicated position and it's damn hard for the IDE to say at that point if, and what, members a has. For other languages the parsing would be straightforward but for C++, quite a bit of evaluation is needed beforehand.
It gets worse. What if my_int_type were defined inside a class template as well? Now its type would depend on another type argument. And here, even compilers fail.
template <typename T>
struct Y {
typedef T my_type;
};
X<Y<int>::my_type> b;
After a bit of thinking, a programmer would conclude that this code is the same as the above: Y<int>::my_type resolves to int, therefore b should be the same type as a, right?
Wrong. At the point where the compiler tries to resolve this statement, it doesn't actually know Y<int>::my_type yet! Therefore, it doesn't know that this is a type. It could be something else, e.g. a member function or a field. This might give rise to ambiguities (though not in the present case), therefore the compiler fails. We have to tell it explicitly that we refer to a type name:
X<typename Y<int>::my_type> b;
Now, the code compiles. To see how ambiguities arise from this situation, consider the following code:
Y<int>::my_type(123);
This code statement is perfectly valid and tells C++ to execute the function call to Y<int>::my_type. However, if my_type is not a function but rather a type, this statement would still be valid and perform a special cast (the function-style cast) which is often a constructor invocation. The compiler can't tell which we mean so we have to disambiguate here.
Both Java and C# introduced generics after their first language release. However, there are differences in how the core libraries changed when generics was introduced. C#'s generics are not just compiler magic and so it was not possible to generify existing library classes without breaking backwards compatibility.
For example, in Java the existing Collections Framework was completely genericised. Java does not have both a generic and legacy non-generic version of the collections classes. In some ways this is much cleaner - if you need to use a collection in C# there is really very little reason to go with the non-generic version, but those legacy classes remain in place, cluttering up the landscape.
Another notable difference is the Enum classes in Java and C#. Java's Enum has this somewhat tortuous looking definition:
// java.lang.Enum Definition in Java
public abstract class Enum<E extends Enum<E>> implements Comparable<E>, Serializable {
(see Angelika Langer's very clear explanation of exactly why this is so. Essentially, this means Java can give type safe access from a string to its Enum value:
// Parsing String to Enum in Java
Colour colour = Colour.valueOf("RED");
Compare this to C#'s version:
// Parsing String to Enum in C#
Colour colour = (Colour)Enum.Parse(typeof(Colour), "RED");
As Enum already existed in C# before generics was introduced to the language, the definition could not change without breaking existing code. So, like collections, it remains in the core libraries in this legacy state.
11 months late, but I think this question is ready for some Java Wildcard stuff.
This is a syntactical feature of Java. Suppose you have a method:
public <T> void Foo(Collection<T> thing)
And suppose you don't need to refer to the type T in the method body. You're declaring a name T and then only using it once, so why should you have to think of a name for it? Instead, you can write:
public void Foo(Collection<?> thing)
The question-mark asks the the compiler to pretend that you declared a normal named type parameter that only needs to appear once in that spot.
There's nothing you can do with wildcards that you can't also do with a named type parameter (which is how these things are always done in C++ and C#).
Wikipedia has great write-ups comparing both Java/C# generics and Java generics/C++ templates. The main article on Generics seems a bit cluttered but it does have some good info in it.
The biggest complaint is type erasure. In that, generics are not enforced at runtime. Here's a link to some Sun docs on the subject.
Generics are implemented by type
erasure: generic type information is
present only at compile time, after
which it is erased by the compiler.
C++ templates are actually much more powerful than their C# and Java counterparts as they are evaluated at compile time and support specialization. This allows for Template Meta-Programming and makes the C++ compiler equivalent to a Turing machine (i.e. during the compilation process you can compute anything that is computable with a Turing machine).
In Java, generics are compiler level only, so you get:
a = new ArrayList<String>()
a.getClass() => ArrayList
Note that the type of 'a' is an array list, not a list of strings. So the type of a list of bananas would equal() a list of monkeys.
So to speak.
Looks like, among other very interesting proposals, there is one about refining generics and breaking backwards compatibility:
Currently, generics are implemented
using erasure, which means that the
generic type information is not
available at runtime, which makes some
kind of code hard to write. Generics
were implemented this way to support
backwards compatibility with older
non-generic code. Reified generics
would make the generic type
information available at runtime,
which would break legacy non-generic
code. However, Neal Gafter has
proposed making types reifiable only
if specified, so as to not break
backward compatibility.
at Alex Miller's article about Java 7 Proposals
NB: I don't have enough point to comment, so feel free to move this as a comment to appropriate answer.
Contrary to popular believe, which I never understand where it came from, .net implemented true generics without breaking backward compatibility, and they spent explicit effort for that.
You don't have to change your non-generic .net 1.0 code into generics just to be used in .net 2.0. Both the generic and non-generic lists are still available in .Net framework 2.0 even until 4.0, exactly for nothing else but backward compatibility reason. Therefore old codes that still used non-generic ArrayList will still work, and use the same ArrayList class as before.
Backward code compatibility is always maintained since 1.0 till now... So even in .net 4.0, you still have to option to use any non-generics class from 1.0 BCL if you choose to do so.
So I don't think java has to break backward compatibility to support true generics.