Contrary to what a lot of people guess, boxing is actually a really good strategy most of the time. And, is indeed what many people are doing here anyways. The design supports a pattern that allows for non-boxing, and I expect that we will both supply an implementation for that with reasonable defaults, and that source generators will be a great way to augment this to get highly specialized impl strategies for non-boxing depending on the varying domain needs any specialized customer may have.
It always boxes them TODAY. Lately the team has been releasing an MVP and improving stuff (like perf) later on. I wouldn't be surprised if they do the same thing here, as noted in the article you can already work around that yourself.
But why not do it right the first time. This is an obvious performance pitfall for people that want to adopt this feature. It is bizarre to me after the last decade has been dedicated to performance improvments.
They do this often actually. They will likely watch how people use it and tailor the design to fix that.
As for performance, in lots of use cases it's not going to be a big deal. If you are super sensitive to performance issues then you can just wait, meanwhile everyone else gets to use the new feature. You have to start somewhere and waiting to satisfy everything usually ends up with doing nothing
It is a downer, but I would like to test the performance first in the practical scenario. I've been working on a project where tagged unions would literally saved us from complexity. If that to happen again later I would go for boxed implementation and swallow up the penalty.
When I cared about C# (which is no longer the case), I was lightly involved in the discussion for this and sibling features - mostly theorycrafting exactly your ask: the JIT team very succinctly expressed extreme disinterest in adding support of any kind.
The C# compiler could do it to a degree, but there would be too many caveats to make it actually useful. Unless the JIT team has a change of heart, you're probably never going to see this.
I'm part of The Rust Evangelism Strikeforce. In all seriousness, whatever suits the task well. Rust is for passion projects where I want to enjoy coding something; I find Go to be more of a direct competitor to C# - but it has the edge due to lacking exceptions (which is 15 years wasted of my life, never again). I'm always searching for something better, though.
Hi there, one of the C# lang designers here. I discuss this a bit in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48255658.
Contrary to what a lot of people guess, boxing is actually a really good strategy most of the time. And, is indeed what many people are doing here anyways. The design supports a pattern that allows for non-boxing, and I expect that we will both supply an implementation for that with reasonable defaults, and that source generators will be a great way to augment this to get highly specialized impl strategies for non-boxing depending on the varying domain needs any specialized customer may have.
It always boxes them TODAY. Lately the team has been releasing an MVP and improving stuff (like perf) later on. I wouldn't be surprised if they do the same thing here, as noted in the article you can already work around that yourself.
But why not do it right the first time. This is an obvious performance pitfall for people that want to adopt this feature. It is bizarre to me after the last decade has been dedicated to performance improvments.
They do this often actually. They will likely watch how people use it and tailor the design to fix that.
As for performance, in lots of use cases it's not going to be a big deal. If you are super sensitive to performance issues then you can just wait, meanwhile everyone else gets to use the new feature. You have to start somewhere and waiting to satisfy everything usually ends up with doing nothing
It is a downer, but I would like to test the performance first in the practical scenario. I've been working on a project where tagged unions would literally saved us from complexity. If that to happen again later I would go for boxed implementation and swallow up the penalty.
There is the non boxing option, and this is the first iteration of the work, it's not one and done.
When I cared about C# (which is no longer the case), I was lightly involved in the discussion for this and sibling features - mostly theorycrafting exactly your ask: the JIT team very succinctly expressed extreme disinterest in adding support of any kind.
The C# compiler could do it to a degree, but there would be too many caveats to make it actually useful. Unless the JIT team has a change of heart, you're probably never going to see this.
What do you use these days language-wise?
I'm part of The Rust Evangelism Strikeforce. In all seriousness, whatever suits the task well. Rust is for passion projects where I want to enjoy coding something; I find Go to be more of a direct competitor to C# - but it has the edge due to lacking exceptions (which is 15 years wasted of my life, never again). I'm always searching for something better, though.