I love C# and in every iteration we're getting more and more features to get C-like performance in a lot of scenarios. C# does it really well because if your problem isn't performance/memory-constrained, you can ignore these features and fallback on the language's natural ease of use.
Do you think by now C# has left Java behind in features and performance?
I daylight as a .NET dev professionally. I completely agree with what you have wrote, but I do not think C# is particularly unique in that regard. I would say many common compiled languages are on the same path, e.g., Swift, Java, Kotlin, etc.. As time progresses, I am finding it harder to justify using C# for a greenfield project.
> As time progresses, I am finding it harder to justify using C# for a greenfield project.
Are you able to elaborate why? Just curious.
I've waited for union types on C# so long that I don't even care about syntax anymore. Just give us something that works. So, I appreciate the effort, I know it's taken at least a decade to get it into this shape, and much thought has gone into it. Kudos to the team.
F# leads the way and C# slowly catches up, as always. Yet for some reason, C# still gets all the mindshare.
Haskell, OCaml, Erlang lead the way and Rust, Zig and Go get all the mindshare. I feel like its a common pattern for more experimental languages to pioneer features and other languages to copy the features and bring them to a C style syntax that the majority of devs are familiar with.
Rust and Zig brought new ideas for memory management that Haskell, OCaml, Erlang sidestep having garbage control. its honestly amazing to me that they managed to get the adoption they have while being so innovative. I say this as a fulltime elixir dev.
Being first isn't necessarily good if you get it wrong, though. Laziness by default and Hindley-Milner type inference seem like mistakes that simply aren't going to get cleaned up. Other languages make their own mistakes too.
What's wrong with Hindley-Milner?
Leaving out types in public API's makes type errors hard to understand. Types should be declared in the API and bidirectional type inference used in the implementation.
Eh. This causes some problems for rust. Right now you can have a function return impl Trait instead of a concrete type. Very handy - and essentially required by async functions.
But the language also requires that types have names in lots of places. For example, you can't store an 'impl Trait' in a struct. You can't make a type alias of an impl Trait. And so on. As a result, async rust can only interact with a butchered subset of the language. (You can work around this with Box<dyn Future<...>> but performance suffers.)
There's a proposal[1] to fix this. But the proposal has been under discussion for (checks watch) 7 years now. Until this lands, async remains a second class citizen in rust.
This entire problem stems from rust's early decision to requiring concrete types at interface boundaries.
The idea that Erlang is experimental is pretty amusing- it’s one of the most stable platforms there is.
I wish I could find the reference, but there was a great blog / article by a computer science academic basically saying that OO, procedural, and functional paradigms are extremes of a design space where the “middle” of its Pareto frontier was essentially unknown until recent advances.
Moreover, many functional languages are getting pseudo-procedural features via the like of “do” syntax and monads, but that this is in some sense a double abstraction over the underlying machine that is already inherently procedural.
Starting from a language that is already procedural and sprinkling some functional abstractions on top is simpler to implement and easier for humans to use and understand.
Rust especially showed that many of the supposed advantages of functional languages are not their exclusive domain, such as sum types and a powerful type system.
Update: Hah! ChatGPT found it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21280429
Note the top comment especially, which explains succinctly why functional has rather substantial downsides.
I love F#. It's my go-to language and one that I work with every day. Personally I feel that IDE support (as in perf, QoL features, etc.) is the only area it lags behind C#, and outside of that it's a clear winner for everything that I want to do with it.
What types of problems are better solved in F# than C#?
Is having a combination of F# and C# in a single codebase possible? Is it recommended?
Easy code is much easier in f#, a lot of the time. Hard code is usually easier in f# due to the type system helping a lot. F# is also a lot more concise.
And yes, you can combine them, but afair, only in terms project boundaries. (You can include a c# project in an f# one and vice versa). There are a few cases where it's quite useful. For example, rewriting a part of a big project in f# to leverage the imperative shell - functional core architecture. Like rewriting some part that does data processing in f#, so that you can test it easier/be more confident in correctness, while not doing a complete rewrite at once.
Sort of like rust parts in the linux kernel.
It's very possible, even encouraged when you have workloads that call for it. F# is a great functional language, so it's good for parsers, compilers, etc. The support for units of measure is also really cool, making it great for scientific computing.
F# has had this for decades, C# is basically just slowly becoming F# with a C-style syntax. Not complaining though, most teams aren't switching languages so getting these features where people actually work is better than nothing.
I'm glad to finally see this making it's way into C#. Not so much because I want to use unions purely in C#. But because I want to be able to define them when interfacing with other languages.
About time. TypeScript and Rust proved how much cleaner code gets when you can model "this OR that" at the type level. The real test will be whether library authors start using them in public APIs or if they stay a curiosity.
Standard ML proved this 50 years ago.
C# is my strongest and favorite language. That said, it's frustrating that the C# framework ecosystem lacks solid options. MAUI is especially half-baked, and I'm really starting to doubt whether I should continue using XAML
C# used to be my favorite language, but having spent a lot of time in Rust using its algebraic data types + match statements + Option & Result types, then returning to C# to build a few moderately involved libraries, I'm horrified by the enums and null & error handling that I used to deal with all the time.
I knew that enums were really just named integer values and nothing more, but I had forgotten than you can build a perfectly legal enum from an integer out of the bounds of the enum's range. And a switch statement is non-exhaustive. (As I said, it had been a while since I used C# extensively.) What would have been a few lines of code in Rust turned into dozens to try to exhaustively protect against invalid input.
I know C# is a mature language that has been around for decades, but how janky everything feels comparatively really shocked me. I only very briefly played with F# about a decade ago, but my guess is that I could try to pick that up and call F# from C#, getting much better ergonomics with a combination of the two.
> I had forgotten than you can build a perfectly legal enum from an integer out of the bounds of the enum's range. And a switch statement is non-exhaustive
These are solved by the new feature described in the article that we're commenting on right now. They're giving us unions and exhaustive switch. Ctrl+F "canonical way to work with unions" in the article to see an example. One of the best parts about C# is they never stop bringing useful features from other languages back home to us in C#. It makes for a large language with a lot of features, but if we really want something, we'll eventually get it in C#.
Winforms is better than ever. You can use it with .NET10 and WebView2 is a thing now.
Winforms, wpf, blazor, maui, avalonia, what are you talking about
What I don't get is why Java doesn't get dogged for desktop UI like C# does.
Because Microsoft pushes C#/dotnet as the preferred way to write UI on Windows.
Alright. I'm actually fine with WinForms and WPF since my factory floor codes depend on them. But the reality is they aren't expressive enough for modern UIs. XAML is an issue, and WPF is boilerplate hell. But then Blazor is too heavy, MAUI is broken and buggy, Avalonia is underwhelming, and WinUI 3 is an absolute nightmare.
> Avalonia is underwhelming
How? Can you elaborate?
Not OP, but I've found Avalonia to be pretty much a direct replacement for WinForms. I mean that both as a compliment and a deserved insult. It's not the WinForms we wanted, but it is the one we deserve.
More seriously, it has all the strengths and weaknesses of WinForms and feels about exactly as unfinished and rough as WinForms. I still have to implement custom widgets that i would have expected to be included out of the box. It's nice that it's cross-platform, though with all the rough edges that cross-platform .net still has. It really, truly feels exactly like every C# UI framework I've ever used in the last 20 years: almost good, not quite finished, and takes an amount of effort that is just unreasonable compared to any other language/framework of any age.
I've been a C# dev for most of my career. I have more fun writing UIs from scratch by drawing individual pixels in C++ than any C# UI.
I'm truly surprised that it feels that underdeveloped. They market Avalonia as a direct replacement for WPF too. So, I'd expect it at least match WPF to be fair.
I would argue quite fervently that WinForms is more than a match for WPF. The only thing worse than WPF is UWP. We don't talk about UWP.
AFAICT, this means you won’t be able to define Either<string, string>, which is definitely a thing you sometimes want to do.
It seems like if you wrap both in a record then it should be possible:
public record Left<T>(T Value);
public record Right<T>(T Value);
public union Either<L, R>(Left<L>, Right<R>);C# is strongly-typed, not stringly-typed. The point of the union is to list possible outcomes as defined through their respective types.
The idiomatic way to do this would be to parse, don't validate [1] each string into a relevant type with a record or record struct. If you just wanted to return two results of the same type, you'd wrap them in a named tuple or a record that represented the actual meaning.
[1] https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-va...
I guess C# is more strongly-typed than Haskell then... /s
String literal typing appears to be a common feature of type systems bolted onto dynamic languages:
# Python
MyStringBool = Literal("Yes") | Literal("No")
// TypeScript
type MyStringBool = "Yes" | "No"
It would seem pretty unnecessary in Haskell, where you can just define whatever types you want without involving strings at all:
data MyBool = Yes | No
parseMyBool :: String -> MyBool
parseMyBool "Yes" = Yes
parseMyBool "No" = No
parseMyBool _ = error "..."
@type my_bool() :: :yes | :no
@spec parse_my_bool(String.t()) :: my_bool()
def parse_my_bool("Yes"), do: :yes
def parse_my_bool("No"), do: :no
def parse_my_bool(_), do: throw("...")You cant have a `type Foo = String | Strimg` in Haskell either.
Well it is a type union. The union of string and string is just string.
but can you define T1 and T2 of string, then use Either<T1, T2>?
Could you be clearer about what you mean, since string is a sealed type in C#, so what exactly do you mean T1 and T2 of string?
A record wrapping a string, indicating what the string represents, so you can't mix it up with a different thing also represented by a string.
Yes, you can have two different record types which both wrap a string value.
As a (bad) trivial example, you could wrap reading a file in this kind of monstrosity:
var fileResult = Helpers.ReadFile(@"c:\temp\test.txt");
Console.WriteLine("Extracted:");
Console.WriteLine(Helpers.ExtractString(fileResult));
public record FileRead(string value);
public record FileError(string value);
public union FileResult(FileError, FileRead);
public static class Helpers
{
public static FileResult ReadFile(string fileName)
{
try
{
var fileResult = System.IO.File.ReadAllText(fileName);
return new FileRead(fileResult);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return new FileError(ex.Message);
}
}
public static string ExtractString(FileResult result)
{
return result switch
{
FileError err => $"An Error occured: {err.value}",
FileRead content => content.value,
_ => throw new NotImplementedException()
};
}
}
It's more useful implemented a level deeper, so that the exception is never raised and caught, because exceptions aren't particularly cheap in .NET.
As a big user and fan of c# but this is a miss, as it always boxes value types.
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?
There is the non boxing option, and this is the first iteration of the work, it's not one and done.
I wish the syntax looked more like typescript. This will confuse my eyes for a while.
It works quite differently from TypeScript, so the syntax used there wouldn't have worked.
Most people don't know that there are fundamentally two different kinds of "union" types: "tagged unions" and "untagged unions". Now .NET is introducing tagged unions, but unfortunately they stick to the popular tradition of calling them just "unions", which greatly adds to the confusion.
To clarify, these tagged unions are fundamentally different from the untagged unions that can be found in languages like Typescript or Scala 3.
Tagged unions (also called "discriminated unions" or "sum types") are algebraic data types. They act as wrappers, via special constructors, for two (or more) disjoint types and values. So a tagged union acts like a bag that has two (or more) labelled ("tagged") slots, where each slot has exactly one type and exactly one of these slot can take a value.
Untagged unions are set theoretic (rather than algebraic) data types. They don't require wrapping via a special constructor. They behave like the logical OR. They are not disjoint slots of a separate construct. A variable or function x with the type "Foo | Bar" can be of type Foo, or Bar, or both. To access a Foo method on x, one has to first perform a typecheck for Foo, otherwise the compiler will refuse the method call (since x might only have the type Bar which would produce an exception). If a variable is of type A, it is also of type A|B ("A or B"). There are also intersection types (A&B) which indicate that something has both types rather than at least one, and complement/negation types (~A indicates that something is of any type except A). Though the latter are not implemented in any major language so far.
Wow 2016 would have loved this news.
Boxed, and needs complex incantations to avoid the boxing. Meh.
Did Anders Hejlsberg die, or something?
I mean yes, but also: uh-oh. I'm looking forward to reading some code that is even more confusing than the code I'm already reading.
Not entirely convinced that I see the usecase that makes up for the potential madness.
This is a classic debate in programming, literally:
2001: "Beating the Averages" (Paul Graham) [1]
2006: "Can Your Programming Language Do This?" (Joel Spolsky) [2]
Both of these articles argue for the thesis that programmers that have been deprived of certain language features often argue that they don't need those features since they are already comfortable working around the lack of said features.
It's a fancy way of arguing: you don't know what you're missing because you've never had it. Or, don't knock it until you try it.
Consider, is your argument a) I've never used it and don't see a need for it, or b) I've used it before and didn't get any benefit?
1. https://paulgraham.com/avg.html?viewfullsite=1
2. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/08/01/can-your-programmi...
I can already do functional programming like map/reduce in C# tho. Not sure what the LISP argument is. Spolsky was saying there's a perf benefit in there somewhere but I'm not seeing how unions give me that.
You have at least two options:
1. Argue from ignorance. Never try unions in any other programming languages and completely disallow their use in C# codebases that you participate in.
2. Try them out and adopt an informed opinion.
You may even choose to remain in ignorance until someone wastes their own time trying to convince you. But it isn't my job or desire to teach someone who won't put in the effort to learn for themselves.
Discriminated union types are a really fundamental building block of a type system. It's a sad state of matters that many mainstream languages don't have them.
ok, so what problems do they help me solve that I can't already solve? Is it just that we can make code more concise or am I missing a trick somewhere?
Simple example that I use often when writing API clients:
In current C# I usually do something like
public class ApiResponse<T> { public T? Response { get; set; } public bool IsSuccessful { get; set; } public ErrorResponse Error { get; set; } }
This means I have to check that IsSuccessful is true (and/or that Response is not null). But more importantly, it means my imbecile coworkers who never read my documentation need to do so as well otherwise they're going to have a null reference exception in prod because they never actually test their garbage before pushing it to prod. And I get pulled into a 4 hour meeting to debug and solve the issue as a result.
With union types, I can return a union of the types T and ErrorResponse and save myself massive headaches.
I think I get it but I'm not really sure what I'm gaining over exception types. With an intelligent use of exceptions I can easily specify the happy path and all the error paths separately which seems really nice to me, because usually the behaviour between those two outcomes is rather different.
Exceptions are significantly slower than normal control flow in C# (about 10,000 times slower). It's also pretty non-idiomatic in both C# and most other languages I've worked in to use exceptions instead of a switch statement or similar to handle an HTTP error code. Also there can be multiple possible non-error responses from an endpoint you need to differentiate between, and exceptions would make zero sense in that case.
> I think I get it but I'm not really sure what I'm gaining over exception types. With an intelligent use of exceptions I can easily specify the happy path and all the error paths separately which seems really nice to me, ...
Until your coworker comes along and accidentally refactors the code to skip the exception catching and it suddenly blows up prod.
With tagged unions you can't accidentally dereference to the underlying value without checking if it's actually proper data first.
I think "what problems do they solve that I can't already solve" is the wrong way to look at it. After all, ultimately most language features are just syntactic sugar - you could implement for loops with goto, but it would be a lot less pleasant. I think that unions aren't strictly necessary, but they are a very pleasant to use way of differentiating between different, but related, types of value.
Ok. I'm just trying to understand what code I'm replacing with them. Like I wanna see the before and after in order to gain the same level of excitment as other people seem to have for them.
Often the explanations just seem rather abstract which makes it harder to appreciate the win, versus the hideous sort of code that might appear when they're misused.
They are so fundamental to the way I write code I can't imagine ever using a language that does not support them.
"Make invalid states unrepresentable."
The value is realized when you have both discriminated union types _and_ language pattern matching (not regex). Then it's not just a way to structure data but a way to think about how to process it.
> Discriminated union types are a really fundamental building block of a type system. It's a sad state of matters that many mainstream languages don't have them.
"Non-discriminated" unions (i.e. untagged unions) are even less supported. TypeScript seems to be the only really popular language that has them.
Union/sum types are generally a good thing. Even Java added them. They tend to be worth “the madness”. Now the rest of all the crazy C# features might be a different question.
What features do you see as crazy?
Maybe not crazy but the language just has a really broad surface. I find it to be like the Scala of the OO world.
All the weird cruft around nullability, for starters. Once again confirming that allowing null references is usually a mistake.
Do you mean the implicit nullable types? Now that you can make nullable explicit instead I really don’t have much issues with it. It is part of the type system, as it should, and you have null coalescing operators. Is it still problematic or are you dealing with older codebases where you cannot set the nullable pragma?
Unions are simpler than subclasses and more powerful than enums, so the use cases are plentiful. This should reduce the proliferation of verbose class hierarchies in C#. Algebraic data types (i.e. records and unions) can usually express domain models much more succinctly than traditional OO.
> so the use cases are plentiful
such as?
> This should reduce the proliferation of verbose class hierarchies in C#
So just as an alternative for class hierarchies? I mean good people already balance that by having a preference for composition.
Simple example:
type Expr =
| Primitive of int
| Addition of (Expr * Expr)
| Subtraction of (Expr * Expr)
| Negation of ExprIsn't that just Func<int> ?
Really not. You can, of course, having instead a delegate to evaluate the expression. But then that's all you can do. You can't pretty-print it, for example, or optimize it, or whatever.
“Compoision”. A typo I know but it would be a word describing what goes wrong with class hierarchies.
You don’t see the use case for… unions? I’ve got to stop reading the comments. It’s bad for my health.
I love discriminated unions.
The problem with C# is that it’s so overloaded with features.
If you come from one codebase to another codebase by a different team it’s close to learning a completely new language, but worse, there is no documentation I can find that will teach me only about that language.
Throw in all the versioning issues and the fact that .Net shops aren’t great about updating to the latest versions, especially because versions, although technologically separated from Visual Studio, are still culturally tied to it, and trying to break that coupling causes all kinds of weird challenges to solve.
Then stuff like extensions means your private codebase or a 3rd party lib may have added native looking functionality that’s not part of the language but looks like it is.
Finally, keywords and operators are terribly overloaded in C# at this point, where a keyword can have completely different meanings based on what it’s surrounded by.
LLMs are a huge help here, since you can point to a line of code and ask them to figure it out, but it still makes the process of navigating a C# codebase extremely challenging.
So I can see why someone may be unhappy to see yet another feature. It’s not just this one feature. It’s the 100s of other features that are hard to even identify.
I am all for minimalism but "If you come from one codebase to another codebase by a different team it’s close to learning a completely new language" I really don't agree. It's not that big. Just sounds like a skill issue
none of that applies to my position. I have an appreciation for almost all of C# and am comfortable in the framework. I just want to know what situations would be better suited to using them than traditional approaches.
I get there's an .Either pattern when chaining function calls so you don't have to do weird typing to return errors, but I'm using exceptions for that anyway, so the return type isn't an issue.
The Result pattern can be a lot more ergonomic than exceptions.
Microsoft C# guidelines recommend try-parse (which is just the Result pattern, albeit somewhat cludgy with no unions) over exceptions.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/design-gui...
thanks for helping.
A common use case for the sum type is to define a Result (or Either) type. Now, C# not having checked exceptions is not as much in need for one as Java is, but I could still imagine it being useful for stream like constructs.
yeah this is the one I've considered as being mildly compelling. But don't we lose the fun of having exception handling as separate to the happy path?
I've never been confused by language features. Usually the architecture or extreme indirection of the code is the confusing part.
I used to see some excitement around .net core several years ago. I haven’t heard or seen much in the wild. Is anyone using .net on systems other than windows nowadays?
Yes; many (Alpine/Debian) containers in K8s on GKE for production rail ticketing infra in the UK.
There's not tons of noise being made because for the most part it all, Just Works and that's fairly boring. Perf, memory usage etc gets better every release. As an ecosystem, I'm pretty happy with it. I reach for other languages for smaller microservices.
What's preventing you from using C# for smaller microservices? And what do you reach for?
> rail ticketing infra in the UK
You mean Raileasy? Or RDG too? (Just curious about the stack of the wider rail tech infra)
It’s huge in the game dev world, with Unity and Godot. .net also had a reasonable community on mobile for a while thanks to Xamarin, but I cannot imagine that many people using it for new mobile projects in 2026 (outside of game dev I mean).
It’s a very decent language (I mean C#) and runtime, I wish it had more market share in the startup world.
An enterprise shop I co-op'd at was porting one of their apps from Xamarin to MAUI when I worked there, but certainly it doesn't have much mindshare (if any) amongst SE undergrads at my university.
Someone I know who works with .net says that there is still no replacement for full Visual Studio for development, which is Windows only.
Rider is the replacement, unless they are doing really specific (like WinUI2/UWP)
VS Code is also manageable. Or the CLI tools, if that's your thing.
Rider is definitely the most equivalent to full Visual Studio though.
Unity is still using Mono these days which is missing basically all of the C# and .NET improvements from the past... 10 years now?
Godot was using Mono too but has since switched to .NET in version 4.
Still a great language and I hope Unity can hit their target to switch to .NET soon!
Damn, I assumed they had switched to .net core, I cannot believe they are still stuck on mono. Thanks for the correction
I consulted for multiple enterprise C# projects in the last 5 years. At least two of them are 1mil+ lines of code each.
All of them run in Linux servers.
Some of them were ported from PHP and Python to C#.
Plus LLMs thrive in strongly typed languages.
Which means C# will keep being very strong in enterprise too. Not only in games where it reigns a large chunk of the market share.
Yes, lambda's and our dev's use mac's so it enables that. We deploy some apps to some unix based server as well but the company is mostly windows servers anyway.
Wwwuuuuuaaahhhhh! (making a big wild excited noise using asp.net core exclusively on Linux servers since 2017)
it was an obvious marketing campaign. back then core and blazor were shilled relentlessly, and the artificial excitement died the moment MS moved on to shill vscode and typescript.
companies spend a lot on marketing, and it's not just ads.