.NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Project

Re:.NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Pr... by goto11 on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @09:32AM (#21258148)

Consider something like the Math class. In practice it just works like a namespace for math-related functions. The only reason to have a class is because the language requires it.

It would certainly be cleaner without having to define a useless class.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:.NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Pr... by rafaelvasco on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @03:59PM (#21274818)

Well, a static Math class always did make perfect sense to me. Never bothered me. Even after I discovered languages that allow you to define functions everywhere, I still prefer static classes; As long as there's no performance penalties, I'm good. In fact, static classes method calls are really fast;

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:.NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Pr... by jayd16 on Tuesday October 15, 2019 @04:23PM (#21263301)

Yeah, except I like that Log() isn't already a reserved function name.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:.NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Pr... by goto11 on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @07:38AM (#21269266)

I don't think anyone is suggesting the function names should be reserved names. They would still exist in a namespace.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:.NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Pr... by dragonsngoblins on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @09:18PM (#21278050)

I don't really understand how this is significantly different than having a static class with the function

[ Parent | on HN ]