>>107888342
>Why would they call it "c#"?
"I Can Believe It's Not Java" was too long of a name.

>>107888342
C# is not bad in its modern form. It used to be total cancer because you were forced to write everything in a cancerous object oriented style with the

namespace MyApp {
    static class Program {
        public static void Main(String[] Args)
        {
            REAL CODE GOES HERE
        }
    }
}

kind of bullshit but nowadays I hear you can just write code directly in the file and it works.

>>107888396
I guess i wasnt the only one who complained about it

>>107888342
>the example of terrible syntax is a boilerplate that hasn't been required for several years now.
Retard

>>107888342
Rust has the best syntax of all languages, as long as you don't do compile-time calculations (regardless of whether it's through the turing complete trait system or through macros)

File: calendar.png (3.16 MB, 9779x3472)

3.16 MB PNG

>>107888948
>Rust has the best syntax of all languages
correct

>>107888956
Where did you get this image from?

File: calendar.jpg (3.92 MB, 7997x4450)

3.92 MB JPG

>>107888979
I made it

>>107888988
Really? Where do you post it?

File: calendar_small.jpg (3.99 MB, 7907x5941)

3.99 MB JPG

>>107888993
here

>>107888956
The non function chaining version would be 10x the size and complexity.
You don't have to use function chaining if you don't want to anyway.

>>107888342
I use Java and I have never once in my professional life written the main method manually.
There are instances, though, where I just don't use a feature because the syntax is annoying.
For example, I don't use the final modifier for local variables even if I don't intend on modifying them.
In Kotlin I would default to val, but in Java I'd have to clutter my code with final everywhere which I'm just not gonna do.
I simply can't remember ever having a bug that would have been prevented by this, so it's okay.
On another note I find C++ style syntax incredibly ugly.

>>107889001
>modifying
*reassign. you can still modify final objects.

File: rust.jpg (38 KB, 359x223)

38 KB JPG

Rust might not be worth using if you are low IQ and genuinely do not care about the benefits it brings even to low level code.

I had to look into a flutter project.
Maybe it makes sense to people that know it, but considering that dart is quite new, I would assume the code would be clear and readable.
I'm just trying to track one event that changes bool flag but there's just so much code about it...

class NetworkBloc extends Bloc<NetworkEvent, NetworkState>
    with SnackBarNotification {
  final Logger _logger = Logger('NetworkBloc');
  final CoreRepositoryInterface _CoreRepository = CoreRepository();

  NetworkBloc() : super(const NetworkState()) {
    _logger.fine(LogMessage(message: 'Bloc created'));

    on<NetworkEvent>(
      (event, emit) => switch (event) {
        InitNetwork() => _init(emit),
        SetEthernetEnabledNetwork(:final enabled) =>
          _setEthernetEnabledNetwork(event, emit),
      },
      transformer: restartable(),
    );
  }

>>107889273
>I'm just trying to do something retarded.

>>107888342
>At what point does the syntax become so terrible that its simply not worth using the language no matter the benefits it might have under the hood?
(the-point (where (you-stop doing (this)))) && StartDoing this;

>>107889283
yeah I agree with you, dart and flutter were mistake

>>107888956
niggerbabble
>>107888342
Stop the cap, c# has okay-ish syntax for what its usecase (unity games and boring backend apis). There is no reason to use it for anything else but it's not that bad.

>>107888396
I wish they didn't add more useless black box syntax, you only need to write main once.

File: 45326732.png (16 KB, 755x132)

16 KB PNG

>>107888342
you don't need any of that btw. just the Console.Writeline by itself will compile

File: 6437284.png (28 KB, 1383x387)

28 KB PNG

you can just write classes like this. this is not 1997 anymore