C# Edit & Continue vs. Refactoring
Sean asks for it, and Andy blogs some of the thinking behind no E&C for C#.
I really like using E&C when writing C++, and I know that VB users find it pretty valuable. Seems strange that we wouldn't have it for C#, yeah? When we talk about the different kind of users of VS, the VB users are typically at one end of the spectrum, C++ at the other, and C# somewhere in the middle. So if E&C is good for the ends, isn't it good for the middle?
Yeah, C# users want E&C. So why don't we have it?
E&C was on the list at the start of the Whidbey cycle.
Refactoring was, too, but treated oddly. Every time we discussed the proposed feature list, we would have to talk about what refactorings really were, and whether they were worthwhile. Sure, being able to create a function from a bit of code is neat, but it seemed like something users can already do on their own. Why do they need us?
Then we looked a little more closely at some of the other modern editors our there, and saw users talk about how valuable Refactorings were. We even saw users choosing to write in Java over C# because of Refactoring support! Ack! We also read Fowler & really began to understand the importance of Refactoring.
When we sat down to look at Refactoring and E&C seriously, we realized that both would be very large endevours, and that we couldn't fit both in the same product cycle. We talked to customers at trade shows & to our customer council, and decided on Refactoring. We've since discussed it with customers at the PDC & elsewhere. After we talk a bit, customers usually say “I want E&C, but I agree that you made the right choice with Refactoring“.
I think we made the right choice for Whidbey. I think having well factored code has more potential to improve my productivity than having E&C. Using TDD changes the balance even further.
Still, E&C is a great feature. It's pretty clear that the future of the Visual C# product includes Edit and Continue. It's just a matter of time.
Comments
- Anonymous
March 11, 2004
Clarification: They said C# E&C will be in Whidbey. - Anonymous
March 11, 2004
I was in a developer webcast with a MS team on Monday and they said that C# will have E&C. - Anonymous
March 11, 2004
I find it strange that VB.NET will have refactoring AND E&C and C# hasn't. (not that I see any useful use for E&C, but that's me).
Isn't it also true that E&C support is build into the compilers/CLR for every language to use, so the C# part of VS.NET just has to hook it up? - Anonymous
March 11, 2004
Refactoring all the way! I've used both, much more E&C (vb background) than refactoring, and I think that the ability to change the structure of your code automatically, bringing life into it, is a unique experience. It makes me feel happy and proud of my code. - Anonymous
March 11, 2004
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
March 12, 2004
Robert: can you give me details about your source? I'm certainly surprised!
Frans: C#'s refactoring support should be stronger than VB's.
E&C is built into the CLR and debugger, but not into the C# compiler or C# language service. To add it is a pretty big chunk of work. - Anonymous
March 12, 2004
Well, if it's a pretty big chunk of work, then I suggest getting started. E&C makes debugging a LOT easier and faster and certainly increases productivity of developers, which MS claims it what C# is all about. - Anonymous
March 12, 2004
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
March 12, 2004
Have faith, Rich!
You seem annoyed that E&C isn't just around the corner. Do you think that the decision to select Refactoring over E&C was the wrong choice? - Anonymous
March 12, 2004
> Well, if it's a pretty
> big chunk of work, then
> I suggest getting started.
> E&C makes debugging a LOT
> easier and faster and
> certainly increases
> productivity of developers,
> which MS claims it what C# is all about.
I agree 100%. - Anonymous
March 12, 2004
" Robert: can you give me details about your source? I'm certainly surprised! "
TOday posted in microsoft.public.vsnet.general by Ed Kaim:
Subject: Re: Whidbey - Why is refactoring not in VB.NET?
From: "Ed Kaim [MSFT]" <edkaim@online.microsoft.com>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.vsnet.general
We do appreciate the feedback, but please keep in mind that the early
releases of Whidbey aren't even Betas yet. For example, Edit & Continue will
be available to C# developers, but it just didn't make the PDC build. You'll
see other features make the Beta that weren't in the PDC build as well.
...
Must be some kind of miscommunication :) - Anonymous
April 23, 2004
Frans: I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm beginning to feel that the CLR is not so "common" anymore. Which, is totally understandable; given all these new features and the bickering between camps. - Anonymous
May 02, 2004
It is all about money: in VS 2005 VB will have E&C and C# will have refactoring... so everyone will want to buy VS 2007 when VB and C# will have both refactoring and E&C, right? - Anonymous
May 02, 2004
Rolf: how do we sell VS 2005 to C#-only users, who aren't interested in VB E&C?
Please reply soon so I can inform marketing of their new strategy. - Anonymous
May 02, 2004
Let me explain a little better:
- You are giving C# refactoring, but not E&C (so that when in 2007 C# gets E&C they will want to buy it)
- You are giving VB E&C, but not advanced refactoring (so that when in 2007 VB gets it they will want to buy it)
This is not about selling VS 2005, but about VS 2007! - Anonymous
May 15, 2004
E&C will NOT work under ASP.NET for any language for VS 2005! So for many (most?) developers, the whole discussion is pointless until they complete that task in VS 200X. - Anonymous
May 26, 2004
I'm deeply dissapointed by the lack of E&C in C#. MS were once well ahead of the curve when it came to development IDEs but with VS.NET it's been a bit of a let down (many missing features, yearly releases, no bug files, etc.) - Anonymous
May 26, 2004
Adam: I'd feel a lot better if we released every year! VS 2002 took 4 years, and VS 2005 is ~2 years.
While there are some areas that our competition outdoes us (Eclipse's extensibility, for example), I still believe that the whole VS packages is a big win over the alternatives.
If I was going to start a small software house on a new project today, I would build it on C# without a doubt. - Anonymous
June 16, 2004
Isn't it time to drop VB.Net and put it's best features into C# ??? - Anonymous
June 16, 2004
Does that mean that C# would have to support VB's 'with' and 'My'? - Anonymous
June 21, 2004
"Does that mean that C# would have to support VB's 'with' and 'My'?"
Yes. Sure. Or you could drop the features from VB.
Though Microsoft is treating it as a language feature, "My" does not appear to be one at all. It seems to be a thin wrapper on the .NET Framework, and therefore ought to be an extension to the Framework for any/every language to use. Perhaps it ought to really be an application block? I've got to admit, I'm totally puzzled how such a thing came to be a language feature.
I work a lot in BOTH languages, and it's a bit irritating to have major language and IDE features change/disappear just because I switch to the other syntax.
I'd like VB.NET and C# to be feature-identical (not syntax-identical). Why can we not have one .NET system, with the language syntaxes just being views into the same system? I would like conversion from one language to the other to involve only syntax, and not involve re-design at any level.
All this feature leap-frogging between the languages just seems to encourage language-bigotry. - Anonymous
June 22, 2004
Is it still language bigotry when you know your language is better? (<evil grin>)
Seriously, though. Cyrus was saying to me, and I agree, that the "My" feature shouldn't be a language feature. It would be wise of Microsoft to build a deep, rich, powerful, object oriented .Net Framework, and then wrap it with a simple, easy My programming model.
I still don't want 'with' in C#, though.