HN

Need help?
<- Back
G# – A modern .NET language with Go, Kotlin, and Swift ergonomics

G# – A modern .NET language with Go, Kotlin, and Swift ergonomics

serial_dev

Comments (45)

  • borland
    Yuck. I like both Go and C# a lot, and use them both professionally.In my experience the strengths of Go are mostly - Deployability via single-file static binaries - Simple syntax that anyone can learn (no exceptions, no classes or inheritance) - Wicked fast compile timesAnd the strengths of C# are - Powerful language with null-safety and lots of syntax sugar - Runtime-level coroutines so you don't need `async/await` everywhereG# seems like it has the _worst_ of both worlds, not the best. It's fun to write compilers, and good on them for doing it, but no thank you for real use
  • peter_retief
    I love Go but am not a fan of .NETHave to ask what is the point of .NET is it even needed being the navel gazing MS fraternity?
  • gwbas1c
    How is this different than C#? What new concepts does this bring that C# doesn't?20 years ago there was some momentum behind Visual Basic .Net; but the language was so similar to C# that it just wasn't worth using. There was a joke that .Net was a "skinnable language."BTW, there's a whole nitpicky/semantic argument that C# isn't null safe because of the null forgiving operator. That will probably come into play with G# if the null forgiving operator can be used from C# to pass null into G# code that doesn't expect it.
  • truncate
    I wish README is clear whether they are using AI or not, and if so what the guidelines are. Not that anything wrong with using it, but given anyone with $$$ for tokens can do it, its nice to know what their process is etc etc. Gives me more confidence that its worth checking out.
  • achr2
    What is it bringing from those languages? The FAQ reads like it is just altered syntax for C#, no difference in semantics or function.
  • vivzkestrel
    - stupid question: how do you make a programming language like this from scratch?- what is the thought process that goes into making a programming language- what is this field of study or discipline called?- why do we have so many programming languages? what purpose do they intend to solve and how do we know what purpose a programming language was made for?- for example, why was swift made if objective c exists and why was objective c made if c++ exists?
  • hbcdbff
    “Width-bearing”, wow, Claude really loves that “bearing” suffix doesn’t he
  • seabrookmx
    Here I am wanting the opposite. I want C# compiled into a static binary like with the GoLang toolchain!Maybe .NET AOT will get there one day..
  • onlyrealcuzzo
    Just trying to offer some help here, not an attack:``` G# brings Go-, Kotlin-, and Swift-style ergonomics — packages, func, data class, nullable handling with if let, structured concurrency with scope — to the .NET runtime. Source compiles directly to managed assemblies. ```This is a decent description - but as someone also building a language in a similar space - who isn't super familiar with the .NET runtime... My first question is... Why not C#?I'm by no means a C# expert, but I thought most of this was supposed to be in C#. C# is not terribly un-ergonomic, and Go is simple, but not really ergonomic except for Goroutines...`packages` and `func` being the first two selling points is alarming. Sure, people probably prefer `fn foo() -> Dog` over `Dog foo()`. No one's picking a language for that. C# has namespaces... C# has `record` and `record struct`. C# has not-ideal nil handling, but it still has it. I'm not convinced `if let` is better enough to be a selling point - a lot of people don't like that!Your main selling point seems like `scope` and your concurrency model vs C#, but C#'s is not exactly terrible...Rich Hickey has a joke about semi-colons in language design, and your main pitch seems to sell yourself short.Btw, I think your GitHub page does your language a lot better justice.
  • raphinou
    Is the familiar syntax so important? I learnt f# being used to algol syntax, and the syntax was not a hurdle.
  • Kuyawa
    I like it. I consider myself picky with regards to weird syntax in new languages and this is terse and very readable. Approved!
  • andyferris
    I was hoping from the tagline it would have sum types (rust-like payloads on enums, like Swift).
  • Kitajima
    I lived long enough to see a programming language called G#.What a great era.
  • HeavyStorm
    Looks nice, congratulations.I feel like we've done full circle. Languages are back to being (mostly) procedural. I'm not sure I like it, but it seems that this is what people prefer.Personally, I'd rather see something like dependant types on a dotnet language. An addition, not just a simplification.
  • captainbland
    I'm less familiar with Swift but from a design point of view Go and Kotlin have really different ergonomics. Kotlin leans in really hard to creating DSLs etc. whereas Go avoids all that stuff like the plague. To me this makes the tag line a little confusing, like what does this imply for the design of this language?
  • jdw64
    Looks pretty good to me.
  • aryehof
    Does this support new programming abstractions, or just another remix of existing ones?
  • chews
  • Areading314
    New programming languages? Doesn't seem needed anymore