←back to thread

Net 9.0 LINQ Performance Improvements

(blog.ndepend.com)
201 points olvy0 | 1 comments | 18 Oct 24 10:39 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
high_na_euv ◴[18 Oct 24 11:36 UTC] No.41878416[source]▶
LINQ is so fucking useful and well designed feature of .NET ecosystem that it is unreal when you gotta use lang which doesnt have such a thing.

C# design team is/was unparalleled

replies(7): >>41878459 #>>41878543 #>>41878588 #>>41878686 #>>41879163 #>>41879194 #>>41879315 #
pjmlp ◴[18 Oct 24 11:44 UTC] No.41878459[source]▶
LINQ is largely based on FP stuff, also how Smalltalk collections work.

It is relatively easy to find similar capabilities in most languages nowadays, unless one is stuck on Go, C and similar.

replies(7): >>41878547 #>>41878579 #>>41878702 #>>41878783 #>>41878792 #>>41878816 #>>41879057 #
apwell23 ◴[18 Oct 24 12:18 UTC] No.41878702[source]▶
No it isn't easy to find similar capabitites in java, go, python, ruby.

Maybe you do simulate some of this using meta programming in ruby but its certainly not 'easy to find'.

replies(2): >>41878746 #>>41879346 #
1. svieira ◴[18 Oct 24 13:37 UTC] No.41879346[source]▶
There are easy ways to do some subset of what LINQ does in Java (using annotation processors), in Go (using generators), in Python (using double-underscore methods to capture all the operations the expression is working with at runtime, see SQLAlchemy) and in Ruby.

There isn't a seamless way to do what LINQ does in any of those languages. But if the runtime supports a LISP then you can do more than what LINQ does (Clojure for the JVM, something like zygomys for Go, Hy for Python, and ... well, Ruby for Ruby).