OT: on IDEs and code writing on steroids

[Christopher Wright]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Christopher Wright" <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gv29vn$7a0$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Christopher Wright" <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:gv0p4e$uvv$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>> I can see certain potential benefits to the general way C# does 
>>>>> generics, but until the old (and I do mean old) issue of "There's an 
>>>>> IComparable, so why the hell won't MS give us an IArithmetic so we can 
>>>>> actually use arithmetic operators on generic code?" gets fixed (and at 
>>>>> this point I'm convinced they've never had any intent of ever fixing 
>>>>> that), I don't care how valid the reasoning behind C#'s general 
>>>>> approach to generics is, the actual state of C#'s generics still falls 
>>>>> squarely into the categories of "crap" and "almost useless".
>>>> IArithmetic is impossible in C# because operator overloads are static 
>>>> methods, and interfaces cannot specify static methods.
>>> Then how does IComparable work?
>> It uses a member function instead.
> 
> And they can't do the same for arithmetic? 

I believe the rationale for using static functions is so that you can 
add null to something. (The indexing operator, mind you, is a member 
property, so this doesn't always hold.) Additionally, this gets rid of 
opX_r.

In practice, I doubt anyone uses that. But it's too late to make that 
change.