C# 3 is like a Moped

When I was growing up I used to occasionally hear the saying “a Moped is just fast enough to get you into trouble, but not fast enough to get you out of trouble.”  I have no idea where it came from, and never saw a single Moped until my twenties, but it’s an ideal way to describe something I was feeling this week.  We’re trying to do some language oriented programming in our new project with C# 3, and that generally means Fluent Interfaces.  We’re getting some real benefits out of our approach, but the fluent interface code itself can become completely opaque when it devolves into “generics hell” like this:


public abstract class LayoutExpression<THIS, MODEL, ELEM, EXPR> where ELEM : IScreenElement


public class TextboxLayoutExpression<MODEL> : LayoutExpression<TextboxLayoutExpression<MODEL>, MODEL, TextboxElement, TextEditingElementExpression>


public abstract class ControlDefinition<T, ELEM> : IElementSource<ELEM> where T : Control, new() where ELEM : IScreenElement 

The API using this code is okay and generally pretty usable, but pain accrues when it’s time to extend the Fluent Interface.

C# 3 is great, and I’m glad to have it, but the new language features apparently have their limitations.  You can drive out more code reuse with generics and lambda expressions, but the readability eventually collapses when you push it too hard.  We’re backing up and writing more lines of explicit code instead of trying so hard with generics.

A couple years back there was a blog meme floating around called Is Ruby an Acceptable Lisp?  When C# 3 came out, there was some quiet discussion in ALT.NET circles that maybe the new language features (the “var” keyword, better type inference, lambdas) would be enough to satisfy us in regards to Language Oriented Programming and keep us from clamoring for Ruby.  The answer for me after three months of hands on C# 3 is that C# 3 is NOT an acceptable Ruby.  Simply having Duck Typing (or maybe the super type inference that OCaml and other exotic languages have) would have made what we were trying to do easier to code and easier to read.  Some of the Fluent Interface work helps to boil down code into a much smaller surface area, but there’s still too many extraneous angle brackets, squiggley brackets, and semicolons floating around to make it really readable the same way that a Ruby or Python internal DSL can be.  Maybe my entire point here is that C# is simply not Ruby and we shouldn’t try so hard to use C# like Ruby.


So, anybody know any new news on IronRuby? 

About Jeremy Miller

Jeremy is the Chief Software Architect at Dovetail Software, the coolest ISV in Austin. Jeremy began his IT career writing "Shadow IT" applications to automate his engineering documentation, then wandered into software development because it looked like more fun. Jeremy is the author of the open source StructureMap tool for Dependency Injection with .Net, StoryTeller for supercharged acceptance testing in .Net, and one of the principal developers behind FubuMVC. Jeremy's thoughts on all things software can be found at The Shade Tree Developer at http://codebetter.com/jeremymiller.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
  • amita sexana

    MS Access Repair Software
    access password recovery
    Access Password Recovery Tool
    MS Access Password Recovery
    Excel Recovery
    download free key logger
    Access Password Recovery
    Chat Archive Recovery
    Database conversion software
    Excel file repair
    Data Recovery Tool
    Web Hosting
    Data wiper software
    Digital camera photo recovery software
    Disk Recovery Software
    Data recovery software free download
    Database Converters
    Free Keylogger
    Excel Files Recovery
    MS Access Password Recovery Tool
    Excel Recovery
    free keylogger software
    Floppy Recovery
    Excel Repair Software
    How to Repair Corrupted Excel Files
    recover msn password
    Excel recovery Software
    Floppy Disk Recovery
    Windows Data Recovery
    Keystroke Logger
    Hard drive data recovery
    Recover My Excel Files
    Windows Recovery Tools
    IE Password Recovery
    IPod Recovery
    Key logger
    Excel Recovery Tool
    download a free keylogger
    keyloggers free
    keylogger freeware
    Keylogger Spy Software
    keylogger software free
    keystroke capture
    Recovery Password
    free keylogger downloads
    best keylogger free
    msn password recovery
    Free Download Outlook Express Password Recovery Software
    password finder
    Keylogger Software Download
    Password Recovery
    password recovery software
    password recovery software free
    pen drive data recovery software
    Pen Drive Recovery
    PowerPoint Repair Tool
    Chat Recovery Software
    Recover Excel Software
    Fix Excel files
    Email Recovery
    Mobile phone data recovery software
    recovery for excel
    Repair Excel Files
    Advanced Excel Repair
    Data Recovery Software
    Sim Card Recovery
    SIM Card Data Recovery
    Key logger software
    downloadable keylogger
    download keylogger freeware
    free invisible keylogger
    data recovery
    Download Free Keylogger
    keystroke recorder
    software keylogger
    remote key logger
    SIM card recovery software
    SIM card data recovery software
    Backlinks Checker Tool
    remote keylogger free
    Spy Keylogger
    USB drive data recovery
    Free Backlink Finder Tool
    Recover ZIP files
    Data recovery software for NTFS
    Recovery Format Data
    Partition recovery software
    Backlinks Checker
    Mobile Phone Sim Card Recovery
    Word File Repair Tool
    data recovery services

    Thank you for you to tell us more interesting information, Thank you

  • http://www.ayende.com/Blog/ Ayende Rahien

    I can’t argue that Ruby is more popular than Boo, but I can’t think of something that I can do in Ruby that i can’t in Boo, and I can certainly think about it the other way around.
    Do you have any concrete example?

  • http://flimflan.com/blog Joshua Flanagan

    If you haven’t yet, spend at least a weekend programming in Boo. For someone that has been “thinking C#” for a few years, I think it is much easier to jump into and be immediately productive with Boo as compared to Ruby.

  • http://dotnet.agilekiwi.com/blog/2006/10/shorthand-interfaces.html John Rusk

    I’ve found it helpful to take a slightly different tack regarding fluent interfaces. By leveraging a few C# features, the amount of method chaining can be reduced, which makes the API easier to construct. Some details here: http://dotnet.agilekiwi.com/blog/2006/10/shorthand-interfaces.html

  • http://brackett@ufl.edu Mark Brackett

    @Neil Mosafi (re: typedef)

    In C#, that’s written as:

    class StringIntDictionary : Dictionary { }

    Problem solved.

  • http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeremy.miller Jeremy D. Miller


    I knew you’d pop in here sooner or later. I think that Ruby has a far richer existing ecosystem and a bigger community than Boo. I know that you really like Boo, but it’s basically Ayende on one side versus hundreds of other people for Ruby. Boo is interesting, but I think I don’t think it ever makes the mainstream if IronRuby really takes off. Besides, I’m already using Ruby for little tasks and like the language.

    And I think you’re getting it backwards in terms of language oriented features, which is what I’m really wanting here. From the examples and literature I’ve seen Boo is not as expressive as Ruby and doesn’t have nearly the same metaprogramming abilities.

  • http://Csaba.Urbaniczky@Hotmail.com Csaba


    You should look at the Cobra language.
    Best of Pyton with static and duck typing in .NET and more!!!!!

    For an overview see: http://cobra-language.com/docs/papers-etc/Cobra-Lang.NET-2008-Slides.pdf
    For more info, see in http://cobra-language.com/docs/why/


  • http://www.ayende.com/Blog/ Ayende Rahien

    This is not the first time you stated that you are waiting for IronRuby.
    Is there a reason for this?
    Boo is here, stable, and has more language oriented features than Ruby.
    And reason you are not exploring that?

  • http://www.ejstembler.com Edward J. Stembler

    @Jeremy: I think convergance is simply the natural progression here. Recently, we saw C# 3.0 gain some features traditionally found in dynamic languages. The next version, 4.0, is gaining dynamic lookup.

    It’s not difficult to imagine a language/compiler combination, in the not too distant future, which could gracefully embrace both worlds. Granted, this environment should be architected from from the ground-up. Not something which is added on as an after thought to an existing system with existing limitations.

  • http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeremy.miller Jeremy D. Miller


    I don’t see convergence as a good idea. Let’s do polyglot programming and have languages that are simpler to do one thing very well instead of one size fits none languages. Do you really think a language with both fullblown, compiler enforced Design By Contract *and* dynamic typing/open classes/metaprogramming is possible without collapsing under its own weight?

  • http://www.ejstembler.com Edward J. Stembler

    @ Mike: I agree, we’ll likely see a polyglot phase before and on the way towards the ultimate convergance.

  • http://blowmage.com/ Mike Moore

    @Edward More to your point about language convergance: I think we won’t see languages converge as much as we see different languages cooperate well together. This is the promise of putting the DLR on top of the CLR, and adding new languages to the JVM.

    I think there _will_ continue to be discussions about dynamic vs. static, and compiled vs. interpreted, but those will be discussions about _which_ language to use to solve the problems in a particular “tier” of the application. This is the Polyglot Programming model.

  • http://blowmage.com/ Mike Moore

    @Edward You raise an interesting point about C#’s evolution to a hybrid language. I agree we will see the lines blur between languages, but not in the ways we might always want. I actually had a somewhat viral blog conversation about this.

    First, Chad Myers wrote an interesting article called “Dynamic-like Typing using Anonymous Delegates in C#”

    I commented on the article on his blog, and Chad followed up with “Moore on the Anonymous Delegate Approach”

    I replied on my blog with “The Rubification of C#”

    Bertrand Le Roy left a comment on my blog, which I replied to in “The Failure of Static Languages”

    So, you know, FYI. Apologies for the self-promotion. :)

  • http://www.ejstembler.com Edward J. Stembler

    It seems C# is slowing evolving into a hybrid language. However, I cannot help but to wonder: At what point is it better to consider a different approach?

    For instance, while it’s true you can hack your way around many of C#’s language-imposed limitations (i.e. IoC, DI, Providers, plugins, duck typing et. al.). Those types of solutions usually work against the gain of the original intent of the (C#) language. They also add additional complexities and dependencies to your code base. Whereas they are usually non-issues in dynamic languages such as Python or Ruby. I’m not suggesting that dynamic languages are the end-all-be-all solution for everyone’s needs. However they are less prone to certain (static) design issues, and more conducive to flexibility.

    In any case, I think a few years from now we’ll see a convergance of sorts. We’ll be able to benefit from both worlds. There won’t be discussions about dynamic vs. static, or compiled vs. interperted…

  • http://neilmosafi.blogspot.com Neil Mosafi

    Hey wekempf good point – I didn’t know you write using aliases with generic types, that is quite useful, thanks.

    It’s not quite the same as with a typedef in C++, where you are actually exposing the type through the usage of your class/namespace to other classes which may use it. still good

  • http://wekempf.spaces.live.com wekempf

    C# does have that feature.

    using StringIntDictionary = System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary;

  • http://www.codethinked.com Justin Etheredge

    @Jeremy Miller – John Lam said at Mix that they wanted to have a non-trivial Rails app running on IronRuby by RubyConf (which is pretty soon, so I have no idea of that is going to happen), but that they expected to hit 1.0 in about a year. It was actually pretty interesting to hear him talking about the challenges of developing the DLR version of a language that has no spec, and how much testing and prodding they are having to do in order to fish out the runtime behavior of performing certain tasks. Hopefully IronRuby will be something that Microsoft will pursue whole heartily, as there certainly are a lot of tasks that Ruby is much better suited for than C#, and vice versa.

  • http://blowmage.com/ Mike Moore

    @Christopher A language-to-task analysis is a great idea for a blog post. I’ll add it to the pile of things I want to do but am behind on. :)

  • http://www.bluespire.com/blogs Christopher Bennage

    @Jeremym @Moore
    What I’d like to read is a “language to task” analysis. By that I mean, what is C# good for? What is Ruby good for? What is Boo good for? Python, OCaml, etc.
    If I’m to be a polyglot (and for inexplicable reasons I’m compelled to be), I need to know this.
    I’ve heard things like, but they are still too vague for me:
    OCaml is good for writing compilers. Boo is good for crafting DSL’s. C# is good for enterprisey things (whatever that means). F# is good for analysis (or the same things as OCaml). Ruby is just good.

    I’m currently learning Ruby and Boo, but I don’t know enough yet to answer these questions for myself. Maybe in a few months…

  • http://blowmage.com/ Mike Moore

    @Edward For me, the difference between duck typing and static compile time checking boils down to this: Static languages (like C#/Java) implement polymorphism though inheritance, while dynamic languages implement polymorphism through composition. In one you have a strict hierarchy, while in the other you don’t. Its as simple as that. Besides Jeremy’s examples you should definitely look outside the .NET and Java world to see why this is so important.

    @Jeremy Hurray! Glad to have you on the side of righteousness! I’ve been saying the same thing now for a while, although probably not as nicely as you just did. :)

    One nit though. Language Oriented Programming, or using Domain Specific Languages (DSL), is alot more than building a library with a fluent interface. I don’t consider a library with just a fluent interface to be a DSL.

    IronRuby is progressing nicely. The code drop from Mix looks to be pretty good, but it is not a complete Ruby implementation yet. The DLR hosting API should be much more stable moving forward as well. I believe the plan is for a 1.0 release later this year.

  • http://www.sergiopereira.com/articles/xmlbuilder.html Sergio Pereira

    Mmm, I thought the name of this site was “Code Better”… Not “Code Again” …
    You may be reading a blog that is not aligned with your priorities, that’s understandable, but a waste of your time when you should be getting the job done in the first place. Just a thought.

  • Rasmus Kromann-Larsen

    Well you could always use Boo…


    Works like a charm for me.

  • http://www.sergiopereira.com/articles/xmlbuilder.html Sergio Pereira

    It’s hard for me to adopt fluent interfaces in my C# code after having tasted how they are created and used in Ruby. I’m taking a pass on fluent C# APIs for the time being.

  • http://neilmosafi.blogspot.com Neil Mosafi

    Hmm agreed, but i still don’t think C# needs duck typing. it just doesn’t feel very C like and there are other languages out there which allow this.

    Actually I’ve always wished that C# had a “typedef” operator, like in C++… it lets you alias any type with another name. A simple example could be something like this:

    namespace MyNamespace {
    typedef StringIntDictionary Dictionary;

    Then you could then just use StringIntDictionary everywhere that the namespace gets imported. It would essentially allow you to alias all the generic arguments so you only have to define them in one place.

  • http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeremy.miller Jeremy D. Miller


    I’m trying to find better and better ways of doing things with less effort. “Just get ‘r done” often equates to “work hard, not smart.” According to the Standish Chaos report, something like 75%-80% of all software projects fail, so I don’t think we can say just “get ‘r done” is really working for us.

  • Dan

    @Whatever (fitting name)

    I’m sure it depends on what you mean by “just getting the job done”. I hope, I hope, I hope it’s not the ‘copy/paste’ mentality (as your comment implies) ’cause that’s definatley not what this blog or discussion is about.

  • Whatever

    Have you tried just getting the job done, instead of constantly looking for the the coolest and latest toys? Just a thought….

  • http://www.e-Crescendo.com jdn

    Have you ever tried this:


    Any value in it?

  • http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeremy.miller Jeremy D. Miller


    False dichotomy there a little bit. You can have “duck” typing and compile time checking simultaneously, and some of the functional languages do this. It’s C#/Java style type systems that are giving me heartburn here.

    Readability, Readability, and Readability. It makes a bigger difference when you try to make internal DSL’s and language oriented API’s.

    Let’s see, what else:

    * Easier code reuse
    * Easier mocking in unit testing
    * Less code to write

    If you want to see the pro-duck typing arguments, you just need to go outside of the .Net mainstream and find Ruby or Python or Smalltalk blogs.

  • Edward Ellis

    I haven’t seen any posts on why Duck Typing is better than compile time type checking. Have you written any?