Develop Reference

c# compile source code from database

I would like to build an application framework that is mainly interpreted.
Say that the source code would be stored in the database that could be edited by the users and always the latest version would be executed.
Can anyone give me some ideas how does one implement sth like this !
cheers,
gabor

In .Net, you can use reflection and CodeDOM to compile code on the fly. But neither approach is really very simple or practical. Mono has some ability to interpret c# on the fly as well, but I haven't looked closely at it yet.
Another alternative is to go with an interpreted .Net language like Boo or IronPython as the language for your database code.
Either way, make sure you think long and hard about the security of your platform. Allowing users to execute arbitrary code is always an exercise fraught with peril. It's often too tempting to look for a simple eval() method, and even if one exists, that is not good enough for this kind of scenario.

Try Mono ( http://www.monoproject.org ). It supports many scripting languages including JavaScript.

If you don't want to use any scripting you can use CodeDOM or Reflection (see Reflection.Emit).
Here are really useful links on the topic :
Dynamically executing code in .Net (Here you can find a tool which can be very helpul)
Late Binding and On-the-Fly Code
Generation Using Reflection in C#
Dynamic Source Code Generation and
Compilation

Usually the Program uses a scripting language for the scriptable parts, i.e. Lua or Javascript.

To answer your technical question: You don't want to write your own language and interpreter. That's too much work for you to do. So pick some other language, say Python or Lua, and look for the documentation that lets your C program hand it blocks of code to execute. Of course, the script needs to be able to do something, so you'll need to find how to expose your program's objects to the script. Also, what will happen if a client is running the program when you update its source code in the database? Should the client restart? Are you going to store the entire program as a single row in this database, or did you want to store individual functions? That affects how you structure your updates.
To address other issues with your question: Why do you want to do this? Making "interpreted language" part of your design spec for a system is not often a good sign. Is the real requirement something like this: "I update the program often and I want users to always have the latest copy?" If so, there are other, better ways to go about this (just give us your actual scenario and requirements).

C# how to create functions that are interpreted at runtime

I'm making a Genetic Program, but I'm hitting a limitation with C# where I want to present new functions to the algorithm but I can't do it without recompiling the program. In essence I want the user of the program to provide the allowed functions and the GP will automatically use them. It would be great if the user is required to know as little about programming as possible.
I want to plug in the new functions without compiling them into the program. In Python this is easy, since it's all interpreted, but I have no clue how to do it with C#. Does anybody know how to achieve this in C#? Are there any libraries, techniques, etc?

It depends on how you want the user of the program to "provide the allowed functions."
If the user is choosing functions that you've already implemented, you can pass these around as delegates or expression trees.
If the user is going to write their own methods in C# or another .NET language, and compile them into an assembly, you can load them using Reflection.
If you want the user to be able to type C# source code into your program, you can compile that using CodeDom, then call the resulting assembly using Reflection.
If you want to provide a custom expression language for the user, e.g. a simple mathematical language, then (assuming you can parse the language) you can use Reflection.Emit to generate a dynamic assembly and call that using -- you guessed it -- Reflection. Or you can construct an expression tree from the user code and compile that using LINQ -- depends on how much flexibility you need. (And if you can afford to wait, expression trees in .NET 4.0 remove many of the limitations that were in 3.5, so you may be able to avoid Reflection.Emit altogether.)
If you are happy for the user to enter expressions using Python, Ruby or another DLR language, you can host the Dynamic Language Runtime, which will interpret the user's code for you.
Hosting the DLR (and IronPython or IronRuby) could be a good choice here because you get a well tested environment and all the optimisations the DLR provides. Here's a how-to using IronPython.
Added in response to your performance question: The DLR is reasonably smart about optimisation. It doesn't blindly re-interpret the source code every time: once it has transformed the source code (or, specifically, a given function or class) to MSIL, it will keep reusing that compiled representation until the source code changes (e.g. the function is redefined). So if the user keeps using the same function but over different data sets, then as long as you can keep the same ScriptScope around, you should get decent perf; ditto if your concern is just that you're going to run the same function zillions of times during the genetic algorithm. Hosting the DLR is pretty easy to do, so it shouldn't be hard to do a proof of concept and measure to see if it's up to your needs.

You can try to create and manipulate Expression Trees. Use Linq to evaluate expression trees.

You can also use CodeDom to compile and run a function.
For sure you can google to see some examples that might fit your needs.
It seems that this article "How to dynamically compile C# code" and this article "Dynamically executing code in .Net" could help you.

You have access to the Compiler from within code, you can then create instances of the compiled code and use them without restarting the application. There are examples of it around
Here
and
Here
The second one is a javascript evaluator but could be adapted easily enough.

You can take a look at System.Reflection.Emit to generate code at the IL level.
Or generate C#, compile into a library and load that dynamically. Not nearly as flexible.

It is in fact very easy to generate IL. See this tutorial: http://www.meta-alternative.net/calc.pdf

ExpandoObject (dynamics) my greatest friend or my new greatest foe?

Yes I know that it shouldn't be abused and that C# is primariy used as a static language. But seriously folks if you could just dirty up some code, in the python style, or create some dynamic do hicky, would you?
My mind is working overtime on this having spent a while loving the dynamics of python, is c# going over to the dark side through the back door?
Is the argument for static typing a dead one with this obvious addition?
Is the argument for less Unit testing a bit silly when we are all grown ups?
Or has the addition of dynamics ruined a strongly static typed and well designed language?

I lost the desire to use dynamic types when I started using type inference.

C# has expanded to including some aspects of dynamic typing, yes, but that doesn't mean that static typing is dead. It simply means that C# has added some tools that allow developers of all persuasions to solve all kinds of problems in many different ways.
I have a problem with the concept of one type system being "better" than another. That is like saying a hammer is better than a screwdriver. Without know the context of the task at hand it is impossible to make that determination! Dynamic typing is better than static typing for certain problems and situations and vice-versa. The superiority of the approach is entirely conditional on the problem at hand.
So to stick with my tool analogy, it is best to have a toolbox that contains hammers and screwdrivers and know how to use each efficiently. This will make you a better developer as you will be best equipped to solve any problem you face. C#'s new dynamic typing additions are simply an effort to help you by providing these tools in a single, convenient package.

Is the argument for static typing a
dead one with this obvious addition?
Is the argument for less Unit testing
a bit silly when we are all grown ups?
Or has the addition of dynamics ruined
a strongly static typed and well
designed language?
For a while, languages have been moving more and more into the domain of "statically typed when possible, dynamically typed when necessary". And with structural typing (statically checked duck typing) starting to work its way into mainstream languages, we might see languages evolve to the point where they're basically statically checked Python.
For what its worth, dynamically typed code is just as mindful of types as statically typed code. Idiomatic C# is still statically typed, and will remain that way for a long time to come.

As I understand it, the dynamic keyword was introduced more to facilitate interop and method invocation on unknown types at runtime rather than the kind of dynamic typing you find in languages like python.
Essentially, where you would previously have to call InvokeMember to call a method on an unknown type, you would instead create a dynamic object and just call the method, which would be resolved at runtime. The code becomes a great deal easier to read. Why would you want to call a method (or access a property) on an unknown type? Well, WPF does it all the time when you use databinding.
You also use it when you want to use an interop dll using weak binding, such as for example, if you wanted to write code that used office interop, but you wanted to support more than one version of office. I've had to do this before, and the code for it is horrendous. The dynamic keyword would make such code far easier to read and understand.
See this article for more info:
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/C4AndTheDynamicKeywordWhirlwindTourAroundNET4AndVisualStudio2010Beta1.aspx

As far as i remember, type errors is about 5-10% of all found errors, so we have fewer errors for languages with static typing for free. Unit and regression tests is also a few smaller for static typing.
Dynamic typing is nice for OO languages. In case of FP language (and with HM type system especially) dynamic vs static typing don't impact your decisions of program design at large.
But there is moment where you want nice code performance and that moment will show dark side of dynamic types to you.

Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.

Strong typing is still the best way to go for large projects. Not only does it make code completion (IntelliSense) much better, but it can tell you obvious problems at compile time. For example, say socket.Write takes a string. In C# you won't be able to run your program if you try to pass it a number, while in Python you would only find out about your bug when your program crashes.
On the other hand, it's easy to imagine how useful it would be to have a JSON parser that acts like an expando object, automatically growing the properties specified in the JSON.
To elaborate my point a bit, I think C# will mostly stay safe from the evils of dynamic typing, while still reaping its benefits. This is because the system still encourages types on everything, as opposed to other dynamic languages where types are entirely optional (or even just advisory). In C# you will be able to just "git 'er done" with duck typing, expando properties, and other dynamic typing goodness, but it will be well-marked with the dynamic keyword which helps you to keep it self-contained.

Using reflection for code gen?

I'm writing a console tool to generate some C# code for objects in a class library. The best/easiest way I can actual generate the code is to use reflection after the library has been built. It works great, but this seems like a haphazard approch at best. Since the generated code will be compiled with the library, after making a change I'll need to build the solution twice to get the final result, etc. Some of these issues could be mitigated with a build script, but it still feels like a bit too much of a hack to me.
My question is, are there any high-level best practices for this sort of thing?

Its pretty unclear what you are doing, but what does seem clear is that you have some base line code, and based on some its properties, you want to generate more code.
So the key issue here are, given the base line code, how do you extract interesting properties, and how do you generate code from those properties?
Reflection is a way to extract properties of code running (well, at least loaded) into the same execution enviroment as the reflection user code. The problem with reflection is it only provides a very limited set of properties, typically lists of classes, methods, or perhaps names of arguments. IF all the code generation you want to do can be done with just that, well, then reflection seems just fine. But if you want more detailed properties about the code, reflection won't cut it.
In fact, the only artifact from which truly arbitrary code properties can be extracted is the the source code as a character string (how else could you answer, is the number of characters between the add operator and T in middle of the variable name is a prime number?). As a practical matter, properties you can get from character strings are generally not very helpful (see the example I just gave :).
The compiler guys have spent the last 60 years figuring out how to extract interesting program properties and you'd be a complete idiot to ignore what they've learned in that half century.
They have settled on a number of relatively standard "compiler data structures": abstract syntax trees (ASTs), symbol tables (STs), control flow graphs (CFGs), data flow facts (DFFs), program triples, ponter analyses, etc.
If you want to analyze or generate code, your best bet is to process it first into such standard compiler data structures and then do the job. If you have ASTs, you can answer all kinds of question about what operators and operands are used. If you have STs, you can answer questions about where-defined, where-visible and what-type. If you have CFGs, you can answer questions about "this-before-that", "what conditions does statement X depend upon". If you have DFFs, you can determine which assignments affect the actions at a point in the code. Reflection will never provide this IMHO, because it will always be limited to what the runtime system developers are willing to keep around when running a program. (Maybe someday they'll keep all the compiler data structures around, but then it won't be reflection; it will just finally be compiler support).
Now, after you have determined the properties of interest, what do you do for code generation? Here the compiler guys have been so focused on generation of machine code that they don't offer standard answers. The guys that do are the program transformation community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_transformation). Here the idea is to keep at least one representation of your program as ASTs, and to provide special support for matching source code syntax (by constructing pattern-match ASTs from the code fragments of interest), and provide "rewrite" rules that say in effect, "when you see this pattern, then replace it by that pattern under this condition".
By connecting the condition to various property-extracting mechanisms from the compiler guys, you get relatively easy way to say what you want backed up by that 50 years of experience. Such program transformation systems have the ability to read in source code,
carry out analysis and transformations, and generally to regenerate code after transformation.
For your code generation task, you'd read in the base line code into ASTs, apply analyses to determine properties of interesting, use transformations to generate new ASTs, and then spit out the answer.
For such a system to be useful, it also has to be able to parse and prettyprint a wide variety of source code langauges, so that folks other than C# lovers can also have the benefits of code analysis and generation.
These ideas are all reified in the
DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit. DMS handles C, C++, C#, Java, COBOL, JavaScript, PHP, Verilog, ... and a lot of other langauges.
(I'm the architect of DMS, so I have a rather biased view. YMMV).

Have you considered using T4 templates for performing the code generation? It looks like it's getting much more publicity and attention now and more support in VS2010.
This tutorial seems database centric but it may give you some pointers: http://www.olegsych.com/2008/09/t4-tutorial-creatating-your-first-code-generator/ in addition there was a recent Hanselminutes on T4 here: http://www.hanselminutes.com/default.aspx?showID=170.
Edit: Another great place is the T4 tag here on StackOverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/t4
EDIT: (By asker, new developments)
As of VS2012, T4 now supports reflection over an active project in a single step. This means you can make a change to your code, and the compiled output of the T4 template will reflect the newest version, without requiring you to perform a second reflect/build step. With this capability, I'm marking this as the accepted answer.

You may wish to use CodeDom, so that you only have to build once.
First, I would read this CodeProject article to make sure there are not language-specific features you'd be unable to support without using Reflection.

From what I understand, you could use something like Common Compiler Infrastructure (http://ccimetadata.codeplex.com/) to programatically analyze your existing c# source.
This looks pretty involved to me though, and CCI apparently only has full support for C# language spec 2. A better strategy may be to streamline your existing method instead.

I'm not sure of the best way to do this, but you could do this
As a post-build step on your base dll, run the code generator
As another post-build step, run csc or msbuild to build the generated dll
Other things which depend on the generated dll will also need to depend on the base dll, so the build order remains correct

How does Objective-C compare to C#? [closed]

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I've recently purchased a Mac and use it primarily for C# development under VMWare Fusion. With all the nice Mac applications around I've started thinking about Xcode lurking just an install click away, and learning Objective-C.
The syntax between the two languages looks very different, presumably because Objective-C has its origins in C and C# has its origins in Java/C++. But different syntaxes can be learnt so that should be OK.
My main concern is working with the language and if it will help to produce well-structured, readable and elegant code. I really enjoy features such as LINQ and var in C# and wonder if there are equivalents or better/different features in Objective-C.
What language features will I miss developing with Objective-C? What features will I gain?
Edit: The framework comparisons are useful and interesting but a language comparison are what this question is really asking (partly my fault for originally tagging with .net). Presumably both Cocoa and .NET are very rich frameworks in their own right and both have their purpose, one targeting Mac OS X and the other Windows.
Thank you for the well thought out and reasonably balanced viewpoints so far!

No language is perfect for all tasks, and Objective-C is no exception, but there are some very specific niceties. Like using LINQ and var (for which I'm not aware of a direct replacement), some of these are strictly language-related, and others are framework-related.
(NOTE: Just as C# is tightly coupled with .NET, Objective-C is tightly coupled with Cocoa. Hence, some of my points may seem unrelated to Objective-C, but Objective-C without Cocoa is akin to C# without .NET / WPF / LINQ, running under Mono, etc. It's just not the way things are usually done.)
I won't pretend to fully elaborate the differences, pros, and cons, but here are some that jump to mind.
One of the best parts of Objective-C is the dynamic nature — rather than calling methods, you send messages, which the runtime routes dynamically. Combined (judiciously) with dynamic typing, this can make a lot of powerful patterns simpler or even trivial to implement.
As a strict superset of C, Objective-C trusts that you know what you're doing. Unlike the managed and/or typesafe approach of languages like C# and Java, Objective-C lets you do what you want and experience the consequences. Obviously this can be dangerous at times, but the fact that the language doesn't actively prevent you from doing most things is quite powerful. (EDIT: I should clarify that C# also has "unsafe" features and functionality, but they default behavior is managed code, which you have to explicitly opt out of. By comparison, Java only allows for typesafe code, and never exposes raw pointers in the way that C and others do.)
Categories (adding/modifying methods on a class without subclassing or having access to source) is an awesome double-edged sword. It can vastly simplify inheritance hierarchies and eliminate code, but if you do something strange, the results can sometimes be baffling.
Cocoa makes creating GUI apps much simpler in many ways, but you do have to wrap your head around the paradigm. MVC design is pervasive in Cocoa, and patterns such as delegates, notifications, and multi-threaded GUI apps are well-suited to Objective-C.
Cocoa bindings and key-value observing can eliminate tons of glue code, and the Cocoa frameworks leverage this extensively. Objective-C's dynamic dispatch works hand-in-hand with this, so the type of the object doesn't matter as long as it's key-value compliant.
You will likely miss generics and namespaces, and they have their benefits, but in the Objective-C mindset and paradigm, they would be niceties rather than necessities. (Generics are all about type safety and avoiding casting, but dynamic typing in Objective-C makes this essentially a non-issue. Namespaces would be nice if done well, but it's simple enough to avoid conflicts that the cost arguably outweighs the benefits, especially for legacy code.)
For concurrency, Blocks (a new language feature in Snow Leopard, and implemented in scores of Cocoa APIs) are extremely useful. A few lines (frequently coupled with Grand Central Dispatch, which is part of libsystem on 10.6) can eliminates significant boilerplate of callback functions, context, etc. (Blocks can also be used in C and C++, and could certainly be added to C#, which would be awesome.) NSOperationQueue is also a very convenient way to add concurrency to your own code, by dispatching either custom NSOperation subclasses or anonymous blocks which GCD automatically executes on one or more different threads for you.

I've been programming in C, C++ and C# now for over 20 years, first started in 1990. I have just decided to have a look at the iPhone development and Xcode and Objective-C. Oh my goodness... all the complaints about Microsoft I take back, I realise now how bad things code have been. Objective-C is over complex compared to what C# does. I have been spoilt with C# and now I appreciate all the hard work Microsoft have put in. Just reading Objective-C with method invokes is difficult to read. C# is elegant in this. That is just my opinion, I hoped that the Apple development language was a good as the Apple products, but dear me, they have a lot to learn from Microsoft. There is no question C#.NET application I can get an application up and running many times faster than XCode Objective-C. Apple should certainly take a leaf out of Microsoft's book here and then we'd have the perfect environment. :-)

No technical review here, but I just find Objective-C much less readable.
Given the example Cinder6 gave you:
C#
List<string> strings = new List<string>();
strings.Add("xyzzy"); // takes only strings
strings.Add(15); // compiler error
string x = strings[0]; // guaranteed to be a string
strings.RemoveAt(0); // or non-existant (yielding an exception)
Objective-C
NSMutableArray *strings = [NSMutableArray array];
[strings addObject:#"xyzzy"];
[strings addObject:#15];
NSString *x = strings[0];
[strings removeObjectAtIndex:0];
It looks awful. I even tried reading 2 books on it, they lost me early on,
and normally I don't get that with programming books / languages.
I'm glad we have Mono for Mac OS, because if I'd had to rely on Apple
to give me a good development environment...

Manual memory management is something beginners to Objective-C seems to have most problem with, mostly because they think it is more complex than it is.
Objective-C and Cocoa by extension relies on conventions over enforcement; know and follow a very small set of rules and you get a lot for free by the dynamic run-time in return.
The not 100% true rule, but good enough for everyday is:
Every call to alloc should be matched with a release at the end of the current scope.
If the return value for your method has been obtained by alloc then it should be returned by return [value autorelease]; instead of being matched by a release.
Use properties, and there is no rule three.
The longer explanation follows.
Memory management is based on ownership; only the owner of an object instance should ever release the object, everybody else should always do nothing. This mean that in 95% of all code you treat Objective-C as if it was garbage collected.
So what about the other 5%? You have three methods to look out for, any object instance received from these method are owned by the current method scope:
alloc
Any method beginning with the word new, such as new or newService.
Any method containing the word copy, such as copy and mutableCopy.
The method have three possible options as of what to do with it's owned object instances before it exits:
Release it using release if it is no longer needed.
Give ownership to the a field (instance variable), or a global variable by simply assigning it.
Relinquish ownership but give someone else a chance to take ownership before the instance goes away by calling autorelease.
So when should you pro-actively take ownership by calling retain? Two cases:
When assigning fields in your initializers.
When manually implementing setter method.

Sure, if everything you saw in your life is Objective C, then its syntax looks like the only possible. We could call you a "programming virgin".
But since lots of code is written in C, C++, Java, JavaScript, Pascal and other languages, you'll see that ObjectiveC is different from all of them, but not in a good way. Did they have a reason for this? Let's see other popular languages:
C++ added a lot extras to C, but it changed the original syntax only as much as needed.
C# added a lot extras compared to C++ but it changed only things that were ugly in C++ (like removing the "::" from the interface).
Java changed a lot of things, but it kept the familiar syntax except in parts where the change was needed.
JavaScript is a completely dynamic language that can do many things ObjectiveC can't. Still, its creators didn't invent a new way of calling methods and passing parameters just to be different from the rest of the world.
Visual Basic can pass parameters out of order, just like ObjectiveC. You can name the parameters, but you can also pass them the regular way. Whatever you use, it's normal comma-delimited way that everyone understands. Comma is the usual delimiter, not just in programming languages, but in books, newspapers, and written language in general.
Object Pascal has a different syntax than C, but its syntax is actually EASIER to read for the programmer (maybe not to the computer, but who cares what computer thinks). So maybe they digressed, but at least their result is better.
Python has a different syntax, which is even easier to read (for humans) than Pascal. So when they changed it, making it different, at least they made it better for us programmers.
And then we have ObjectiveC. Adding some improvements to C, but inventing its own interface syntax, method calling, parameter passing and what not. I wonder why didn't they swap + and - so that plus subtracts two numbers. It would have been even cooler.
Steve Jobs screwed up by supporting ObjectiveC. Of course he can't support C#, which is better, but belongs to his worst competitor. So this is a political decision, not a practical one. Technology always suffers when tech decisions are made for political reasons. He should lead the company, which he does good, and leave programming matters to real experts.
I'm sure there would be even more apps for iPhone if he decided to write iOS and support libraries in any other language than ObjectiveC. To everyone except die-hard fans, virgin programmers and Steve Jobs, ObjectiveC looks ridiculous, ugly and repulsive.

One thing I love about objective-c is that the object system is based on messages, it lets you do really nice things you couldn't do in C# (at least not until they support the dynamic keyword!).
Another great thing about writing cocoa apps is Interface Builder, it's a lot nicer than the forms designer in Visual Studio.
The things about obj-c that annoy me (as a C# developer) are the fact that you have to manage your own memory (there's garbage collection, but that doesn't work on the iPhone) and that it can be very verbose because of the selector syntax and all the [ ].

As a programmer just getting started with Objective-C for iPhone, coming from C# 4.0, I'm missing lambda expressions, and in particular, Linq-to-XML. The lambda expressions are C#-specific, while the Linq-to-XML is really more of a .NET vs. Cocoa contrast. In a sample app I was writing, I had some XML in a string. I wanted to parse the elements of that XML into a collection of objects.
To accomplish this in Objective-C/Cocoa, I had to use the NSXmlParser class. This class relies on another object which implements the NSXMLParserDelegate protocol with methods that are called (read: messages sent) when an element open tag is read, when some data is read (usually inside the element), and when some element end tag is read. You have to keep track of the parsing status and state. And I honestly have no idea what happens if the XML is invalid. It's great for getting down to the details and optimize performance, but oh man, that's a whole lot of code.
By contrast, here's the code in C#:
using System.Linq.Xml;
XDocument doc = XDocument.Load(xmlString);
IEnumerable<MyCustomObject> objects = doc.Descendants().Select(
d => new MyCustomObject{ Name = d.Value});
And that's it, you've got a collection of custom objects drawn from XML. If you wanted to filter those elements by value, or only to those that contain a specific attribute, or if you just wanted the first 5, or to skip the first 1 and get the next 3, or just find out if any elements were returned... BAM, all right there in the same line of code.
There are many open-source classes that make this processing a lot easier in Objective-C, so that does much of the heavy lifting. It's just not this built in.
*NOTE: I didn't actually compile the code above, it's just meant as an example to illustrate the relative lack of verbosity required by C#.

Probably most important difference is memory management. With C# you get garbage collection, by virtue of it being a CLR based language. With Objective-C you need to manage memory yourself.
If you're coming from a C# background (or any modern language for that matter), moving to a language without automatic memory management will be really painful, as you will spend a lot of your coding time on properly managing memory (and debugging as well).

Here's a pretty good article comparing the two languages:
http://www.coderetard.com/2008/03/16/c-vs-objective-c/

Other than the paradigm difference between the 2 languages, there's not a lot of difference. As much as I hate to say it, you can do the same kind of things (probably not as easily) with .NET and C# as you can with Objective-C and Cocoa. As of Leopard, Objective-C 2.0 has garbage collection, so you don't have to manage memory yourself unless you want to (code compatibility with older Macs and iPhone apps are 2 reasons to want to).
As far as structured, readable code is concerned, much of the burden there lies with the programmer, as with any other language. However, I find that the message passing paradigm lends itself well to readable code provided you name your functions/methods appropriately (again, just like any other language).
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not very familiar with C# or .NET. But the reasons Quinn listed above are quite a few reasons that I don't care to become so.

The method calls used in obj-c make for easily read code, in my opinion much more elegant than c# and obj-c is built on top of c so all c code should work fine in obj-c. The big seller for me though is that obj-c is an open standard so you can find compilers for any system.