C# perfected the C family

>ranting about nonsense things
So this is the power of the autism

one of these things is not like the others

>That's inconsistent and lacks robustness.
What if i told you that you using var keyword WRONG?
If you CAN use it doesn't mean you should use it.

var keyword is made to make declaring local variables easier AND declaring LINQ expressions, since they return anonymous type and without var you can't declare them.
You never do
var x = y;
NEVER, i never seen anybody write like this, its just wrong

var is made for this
var x = new Dictionary();
instead of
Dictionary x = new Dictionary();
Im pretty sure you got the point.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as C#,
is in fact, C++++, or as I've recently taken to calling it, a massive fucking travesty. C# is not a programming language unto itself, but rather a retarded Microsoft language extension on top of another language extension on top of the fully functioning ANSI C programming language, made to combat the critical security problems Microsoft’s army of Pahjeets create by limiting their freedoms.

Many programmers write in a modified version of the ANSI C standard every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of ANSI C which is only used by Microsoft is often called "C#", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically a raped version of the C programming language, standardized by ANSI.

There really is a C#, and these Indians are using it, but it is just a part of Microsoft’s hegemonic retardation. C# is an abomination: a language designed to prevent transparent access to the parts of the system that allocate the machine's resources. The .NET framework is not an essential part of the windows runtime, but useful for cockblocking Pahjeets; it cannot function in the context of a complete programming language. C# is normally used by people and organizations too dumb to figure out pointers in combination with the Windows operating system: the whole language is basically ANSI C with two layers of stupid added, or C++++. All the so-called "C#" programmers are really Microsoft scripters of Indian heritage.

>>If x was a class, it would be copied by reference. If x was a struct, you'd make a copy of it.
>The point of this comparison was to highlight that C# syntax is not as consistent as it seems.
How is this an argument? Do you even know what's the difference between a class and struct in C#?
Classes are managed structures which go through the garbage collector. They're meant to be allocated at initialization and silently deallocated.
>>>using code generators
>There is literally nothing wrong with code generation tools
What are libraries? C#'s syntax evolving directly addresses code generation issues.
>>why is this necessary.
>Static classes do not have one instance, they have no instances.
You're partially correct. They'll never be deallocated by the garbage collector, but you can still make a reference of a static class and even use it (though the compiler should warn you about this).
>If you want to avoid a class being constructed you need to do nothing more than give it a private constructor.
What fucking private constructor are you talking about? The only thing that comes to my mind about this is the static class constructor, automatically executed.

Cont.

>what is Lombok

>C# has a running problem with baking syntax salt into the language when you can express the same thing just as elegantly already.
You don't need to eat the entire box of syntatic sugar. Inline delegate methods and arrow functions do the same but arrow functions are more elegant.
C#'s syntatic sugar makes use of existing tokens to make a common problem simple. Take Tuple and ValueTuple. You'd need to specify every type argument for the Tuple when instantiating, whereas ValueTuple just uses an ordered set to specify its meaning.
>You're missing the point. Static classes do nothing to help you do FP. I was naming one example feature which may actually do so.
I didn't say they do, but they make it possible.
>>@Override using an entire line
>there's nothing stopping you putting it on the same line.
Would look retarded, and it is. Why make it a symbol attribute (or whatever the fuck's called) when you can make it a keyword? It'll clear semantic confusion.

>The behaviour of a single statement differs significantly depending on nonlocal information. That's inconsistent and lacks robustness.
You're missing the point of the var keyword. Replace var with the x's type and you get the same. Who would want to type in 13 type arguments for a Func delegate?

Thanks for bumping the thread autist.

Based & saved.

C
++
++