C# 11: The Highlights | .NET Conf: Focus on MAUI

[@williambell4591]

I absolutely love the C# language - I interviewed for my current job of 18-years writing C# 1.0 code back when it was first released, and I haven't looked back since! My favs here are the Required parameters, and the 'triple-quote' strings! PROPS to EVERYONE on the C# language development team - I owe my wonderful career, and livelyhood thanks to all of you!

[@volodymyrlytvynchyk271]

Thank you for adding raw string literal to the language. With the indentations feature the perfectionist inside me won't get annoyed when I will work with the strings.

[@anm3037]

So excited for the number Interface. I will consume it from the very first day of release

[@alexxUKR]

Required keyword looks very promising, I guess it will work with record types as well? INumber also looks very nice, as well as static abstract declarations for interfaces. Thanks for great additions there.

[@dgkimpton]

Features to make a busy dev happy - nice!

[@obinnaokafor6252]

Nice presentation. We are still waiting for Discriminated Union and Primary Constructor.

[@sps014]

I am waiting for * Discriminated Unions * Move semantics in Structs * Finalizers in Structs

[@petrusion2827]

@@sps014 Why do you want struct move semantics? What kind of use case are you hoping for with that feature?

[@r1pfake521]

Since I started C# a few years ago I always hoped that C# would have some kind of way to tell the generic system about operators to use generic math and that properties have a way to be required without the constructor. It looks like my wish was heard, this looks awesome. A other big wish was to have named tuples, but they where already implemented ;) I have one more "wish" but it's very niche and I don't even know how it could be implemented. But I wish there was a way to somehow alias a property name inside a generic class, so generic methods can use it with the "original'" name and the class itself can use the alternative name, similar like named tuple can be used with Item1, Item2 etc or with the given Element name. The use case for this would be to have a generic base class which has a generic property of type T SomeGenericName like BindingContext and then have the derived class give it an alias for example a MyEditorView could "alias" the "BindingContext" to "EditorViewModel". Then both, "BindingContext" and "EditorViewModel" would refere to the same thing, but using the name "EditorViewModel" would make more sense inside the MyEditorView class instead of just a generic name like "BindingContext" where you have to remember / lookup what "BindingContext" actually is. This is just one example, I have more cases where I wished that something like that was possible. But I don't know how it could be implemented, because it should only be possible for generic classes. It wouldn't make sense for a "Student" to "rename" the Name property. But it also wouldn't make sense to make a MyGenericDerivedEditorView : MyEditorView to rename the already defined als "EditorViewModel" again

[@winstonm9764]

Looking forward to this. It’ll be fun to try # 11 and write a computer algebra system with it.cC

[@codeslashir]

Awesome as Always

[@madsravn4550]

Looks cool. Any way of doing additional validation of properties without introducing backing fields? Say, for instance, that names should be non-empty?

[@Joe4evr]

Yes: One other feature coming up in the next version is "Semi-auto properties" which makes use of 'field' as a contextual keyword inside of a property accessor body to refer to the compiler-generated backing field. EDIT: Correction, apparently this has been pushed to C# 12. Big sad.

[@williambell4591]

As a WPF developer, I would absolutely LOVE this for the members that I need to bind to my user interfaces!

[@petrusion2827]

@@Joe4evr Big sad indeed, I was looking forward to using the field keyword for implementing INotifyPropertyChanged

[@alfusinigo]

string literals indent and multiline with """ and required are the highlights, great job!

[@jongeduard]

Oh sure! Very well copied from Java's equivalent (text blocks)! But also done a lot better though! With more features and problems solved with respect to the equivalent from Java (which still needs a lot of extra escaping in several cases). ... And of course we never forget how amazingly well Java copies a lot from C# of course. It's fine though. But just good to know about these things.

[@user-mr-m12312]

@@jongeduard well... how cares about feature-copying?

[@anthonysteinerv]

Now we need BigDecimal, and tbh a way to use other conversion when using string format like binary would be nice.

[@nanvlad]

What if I need to write a string which starts and ends with " sign? Should it be like "" \" some content with "attributes" \" ""?

[@明凯-n8v]

start a new line to write " like the end of the video. And there are no other thing after " in the end.

[@drgothmania]

C# is really cool, it's friendly and simple, unlike C++ which is omnipotent but very complex. Having more support for the generic type brings it closer to weakly-typed languages like Python. Raw string literal is also cool stuff to have.

[@PapLabros]

Can someone please explain why they didn't replace the init keyword with the required keyword for the required properties? Thanks!

[@warrenbuckley3267]

What if I wanted a property that is required to be set during construction but can also be changed to something else after the object has been instantiated? The init keyword only allows me to set the value once (during construction). The required keyword means the property requires a value when the encapsulating object is being constructed but allows the value to be changed to something else after construction. And of course combining both the required and init keywords means I require a value for this property during construction and that value cannot be changed again after construction.

[@obinnaokafor6252]

@@warrenbuckley3267 But can be copied and modified using "with" keyword.

[@warrenbuckley3267]

@@obinnaokafor6252 The object it's self is not modified. The 'with' keyword allows the creation of a new object. So, my original answer still stands. The 'with' keyword is just syntactic sugar for creating a new object via its constructor using the original objects state. The original object in this case is unmodified.

[@obinnaokafor6252]

@@warrenbuckley3267 It is just cloning the object and modifying the property in a Non-destructive way. There is a clone method that is called when 'with' keyword is used.

[@FStDrummer]

I like the „Everything Beagle“ 😃

[@VoroninPavel]

I want required be a feature of CLR instead of just a compile-time check.

[@obinnaokafor6252]

Why? Is there any limitation if it is a compiled time feature?

[@VoroninPavel]

@@obinnaokafor6252 what about F# or dynamically generated code?

[@obinnaokafor6252]

@@VoroninPavel F# is known for doing a lot of compiler complicated tricks.

[@NathanHedglin]

Great thanks !

[@pchandu1995]

i love this.

[@nelsonazolukwamprojects]

the triple quote, don't we have that functionality already. with the @ I guess

[@pauloperbone]

#Javafeelings

[@clashclan4739]

Multiple quotes as for escaping doesn't looks good

[@halivudestevez2]

so chaos is coming....

[@coderider3022]

Looking more like python with every version.

[@mubarekabdi]

required properties