C#•6mo ago

I can't understand

I'll share code in one minute, please wait.

71 Replies

VarriableStorage.cs

c#
internal class VarriableStorage<T>
{
    private T _value;

    public VarriableStorage(T value)
        => _value = value;

    public void Set(T value) 
    => _value = value;

    public T Get()
        => _value;
}

c#
internal class VarriableStorage<T>
{
    private T _value;

    public VarriableStorage(T value)
        => _value = value;

    public void Set(T value) 
    => _value = value;

    public T Get()
        => _value;
}

Hooks.cs

c#
public static class Hooks
{
    public static (Func<T>, Action<T>) useState<T>(T value)
    {
        var storage = new VarriableStorage<T>(value);
        var set = new Action<T>(val => storage.Set(val));
        var get = new Func<T>(() => storage.Get());

        return (get, set);
    }
}

c#
public static class Hooks
{
    public static (Func<T>, Action<T>) useState<T>(T value)
    {
        var storage = new VarriableStorage<T>(value);
        var set = new Action<T>(val => storage.Set(val));
        var get = new Func<T>(() => storage.Get());

        return (get, set);
    }
}

Homepage.cs

c#
internal class Homepage : Page
{
    private (count, setCount) = Hooks.useState<int>(5); // ERRORS IN HERE

    public override string Response()
    {
        return "";
    }
}

c#
internal class Homepage : Page
{
    private (count, setCount) = Hooks.useState<int>(5); // ERRORS IN HERE

    public override string Response()
    {
        return "";
    }
}

Groophy•6mo ago

In code highlight as

Groophy•6mo ago

I can't understand why And yeah I'm trying to steal react

Angius•6mo ago

I don't think you can do tuple deconstruction in a field

Groophy•6mo ago

do you have a suggestion?

Angius•6mo ago

Not really

Thinker•6mo ago

Set them in a constructor

Angius•6mo ago

As a side note,

        var set = new Action<T>(val => storage.Set(val));
        var get = new Func<T>(() => storage.Get());

        var set = new Action<T>(val => storage.Set(val));
        var get = new Func<T>(() => storage.Get());

can just be

        var set = val => storage.Set(val);
        var get = () => storage.Get();

        var set = val => storage.Set(val);
        var get = () => storage.Get();

Thinker•6mo ago

private int count;
private Action<int> setCount;

public HomePage()
{
    (count, setCount) = Hooks.useState<int>(5);
}

private int count;
private Action<int> setCount;

public HomePage()
{
    (count, setCount) = Hooks.useState<int>(5);
}

Groophy•6mo ago

I tried and seems worked

Angius•6mo ago

Ah, or that Right... there's no var in fields, but if you type those explicitly, sure I can see why it works Nice

Groophy•6mo ago

var set = val => storage.Set(val); cause error but second works as I remember

Thinker•6mo ago

yeah you'd have to specify the type of val

Groophy•6mo ago

It's really bad developer experience for what I want

Angius•6mo ago

Well, it will be

Thinker•6mo ago

var set = (int val) => storage.Set(val);

Angius•6mo ago

You're trying to bring mechanisms from an untyped language to a typed one lol There will be friction

Groophy•6mo ago

I think I made a mistake before and now it works. I love C# I hate asp.net I like JS I love React Architecture Why I'm not making my own csx? 😄

Angius•6mo ago

Or you could use React frontend with an ASP API backend ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But sure, I guess this is a nice exercise as well Just... use naming convention propert for C# please lol

Groophy•6mo ago

Yeah I have my own library for that, which not require asp.net APIs

Groophy•6mo ago

https://github.com/GroophyLifefor/ExpressNET

GitHub

GitHub - GroophyLifefor/ExpressNET

Contribute to GroophyLifefor/ExpressNET development by creating an account on GitHub.

Angius•6mo ago

Ah So you reinvented Minimal APIs I see

Groophy•6mo ago

I don't understand as well

Angius•6mo ago

Method names are PascalCase, for example Not camelCase

Groophy•6mo ago

Of course, at the time I didn't know there was such a thing, but it was a good experience and it works really well. 🥲

Thinker•6mo ago

You can do this in ASP.NET

var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);
var app = builder.Build();
app.MapGet("/", () => "Hello World");
app.Run();

var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);
var app = builder.Build();
app.MapGet("/", () => "Hello World");
app.Run();

this is a working API

Groophy•6mo ago

as In my experience camelCase really good in C# too I don't reject it 😄

Thinker•6mo ago

don't 👏 use 👏 camelCase 👏 for 👏 methods 👏 in 👏 c# 👏

Angius•6mo ago

As in the standard, camelCase no good in C#

Groophy•6mo ago

I don't understand why C# community hates camelCase

Thinker•6mo ago

because C# uses PascalCase for methods

Angius•6mo ago

It's the standard. Every codebase follows it

Thinker•6mo ago

(besides Unity)

Angius•6mo ago

It's not about loving or hating, it's about standardization

Thinker•6mo ago

Just stop arguing and accept that this is how C# is

Groophy•6mo ago

In js some devs use PascalCase and I don't care but if I use camelCase in c#

Angius•6mo ago

Because JS has fuck all for standards lmao

Groophy•6mo ago

people get angry to me

Angius•6mo ago

JS is the definition of a free-for-all No types, no standards, no core library

Groophy•6mo ago

It's absurd This should be developer preference if you don't work in a company

Thinker•6mo ago

If you want your code to be inconsistent with the rest of C#, then be my guest Everything else in C# uses PascalCase, it's your choice to be the outlier in that case

Angius•6mo ago

Again, it ensures consistency

Groophy•6mo ago

Will I really be ostracized for this choice?

Angius•6mo ago

Yes

Thinker•6mo ago

Yes

Groophy•6mo ago

Please don't go crazy, it's not that important

Angius•6mo ago

Standards are important. Otherwise we would see

var thing = some_lib_thing();
thing.do_stuff();
var foo = foo.Parse(thing);
foo.performAction().some-property;

var thing = some_lib_thing();
thing.do_stuff();
var foo = foo.Parse(thing);
foo.performAction().some-property;

PHP was struggling with it — still is — for the longest time

Thinker•6mo ago

Also what's almost even worse is that you're inconsistent with naming in your own codebase. Some methods are PascalCase, some are camelCase.

Angius•6mo ago

Where some functions were pascalCase() while some were snake_case()

Groophy•6mo ago

The reason for this was that I wanted to keep the ones in the user base in PascalCase, while the ones from the core in camelCase. where I use snake_case?

Angius•6mo ago

Nowhere I'm just talking about standards Without them, you would have one codebase using snake_case, another camelCase, another one kebab-case

Groophy•6mo ago

uhm

Angius•6mo ago

And every project would just look like a mishmash of all sorts of styles With standards, I know that thing.Foo is a property Because it's PascalCased And I know, that this.foo is a field Because it's camelCase

Groophy•6mo ago

I know why and what the standards are, it just doesn't make sense.

Angius•6mo ago

With standards, every method is named the same No matter whether it's my codebase or someone else's

Groophy•6mo ago

Angius•6mo ago

It could be Microsoft's huge framework, it could be a 50-loc project with 0 GH stars It's all consistent and standardized It should be manufacturer's preference which charging port they use in their devices That's how we had a different charger for every phone Not just phone manufacturer, phone model

Thinker•6mo ago

What about it doesn't make sense exactly?

Angius•6mo ago

Now it's standardized — in the EU at least — USB-C That way you can be certain that no matter whose device you buy, the charging port is the same Again, standardization

Groophy•6mo ago

Having such a standard As I said, a lot of things can be standard, but I think this is something that should be a developer choice.

Angius•6mo ago

But isn't

mg•6mo ago

You do have a choice to contradict the standard Your code will compile just fine

Angius•6mo ago

So either deal with it or be an outlier Your choice

mg•6mo ago

But people will criticize you for it

Groophy•6mo ago

as now 😄

Thinker•6mo ago

Also (idk what this thread is even about at this point), I'm looking through your code and am seeing you're using async void in a couple places. Don't do this, everything which is async should return a Task or Task<T>.

-public async void Listen(string path, Action<int>? action)
+public async Task Listen(string path, Action<int>? action)

-public async void Listen(string path, Action<int>? action)
+public async Task Listen(string path, Action<int>? action)

mg•6mo ago

Exactly lol

Groophy•6mo ago

Thanks you I'll Done Maybe you are right, I will think about switching to PascalCase

Angius•6mo ago

You refactor your code quickly, if you managed to fix all occurences of async void this quickly, complete with awaiting all calls to those methods and all KEKW

Groophy•6mo ago

it's not hard It's just my bad which 'Result<Thinker>' said and I gonna fixed

Gaming

Programming

I can't understand