Last month Greg Young, a Microsoft MVP and fellow InfoQ editor, initiated a grass roots effort asking for Microsoft to release Spec# as a whole or piece-wise in .NET. In large font and asking for those with similar interests to leave a note, Greg declared his passion:
I want verifiable Software…
Spec# is an extension of the C# language and actually extends the C# type system to include non-null types and checked exceptions. It also provides method contracts and object invariants.
Greg posted a video he recorded of the actual altdotnet Spec# session presented by Mike Barnett and Rustan Leino. If you listen closely you can hear the presenter ask for the community to let their voices be heard, around the 20 minute mark, if they would like Spec# to be folded into Visual Studio proper.
Scott Hanselman also asked for community response when he released a Hanselminutes audio podcast of an interview he did with Mike Barnett and Rustan Leino.
Which would developers prefer:
Spec# added to C# as a language extension?
or
Spec# added to .NET for multiple languages?
/filters:no_upscale()/sponsorship/topic/25afca57-6bcb-4c42-9a70-fbea10ce4fc7/MicrosoftLogoRSB-1678874949003.png)
/articles/dotnet-spa-templates-proxy/en/smallimage/ASP-NET-SPA-templates-proxy-changes-small-1683016303172.jpg)
/presentations/net-apps-cloud/en/smallimage/infoq-live-logo-small-1683100880551.jpg){kind=logo}
/articles/asp-dotnet-minimal-apis/en/smallimage/logo-1678972581766.jpg){kind=logo}
/articles/functional-dotnet-development/en/smallimage/Fsharp-vs-Csharp-is-one-more-functional-than-the-other-small-1676023056578.jpg)
/articles/dotnet-grpc-json-transcoding/en/smallimage/logo-1674822319367.jpg){kind=logo}
/articles/Dotnet-Seven-MSMQ-Alternatives/en/smallimage/logo-1670585778128.jpg){kind=logo}
/articles/kafka-clusters-cloudflare/en/smallimage/tales-of-Kafka-at-Cloudflare-small-1684768928637.jpg)
/presentations/refactoring-cleaning-code/en/smallimage/kent-beck-small-1684908700538.jpg)
/presentations/devsusops/en/smallimage/adrian-cockcroft-small-1684908390875.jpg)
/articles/gdpr-with-spring-and-aop/en/smallimage/easy-implementation-of-GDPR-with-aspect-oriented-programming-small-1684505109873.jpg)
/articles/software-delivery-performance-indicators/en/smallimage/software-delivery-performance-indicators-at-different-granularities-small-1684312207072.jpg)
/articles/api-design-review/en/smallimage/API-design-reviews-are-dead-long-live-API-design-reviews-small-1684310900854.jpg)
/presentations/dark-energy-matter-microservices/en/smallimage/chris-richardson-small-1684240727275.jpg)
/presentations/techno-solutionism-ethics/en/smallimage/katharine-jarmul-small-1684239823523.jpg)
Community comments
More resources needed
by 陆 超,
Re: More resources needed
by John DeHope,
More resources needed
by 陆 超,
Your message is awaiting moderation. Thank you for participating in the discussion.
I'd like it intergrated into C# so that it has more attention, but considering the complicity of C# itself increasing every year, I think maybe it's better to make it a standalone product, But the most important thing is that microsoft should give it enough resource to evole anyway.
Re: More resources needed
by John DeHope,
Your message is awaiting moderation. Thank you for participating in the discussion.
I'd like them to normalize how the "?" syntax works. I want everything to be non-nullable by default. That means value types as well as reference types. If I want something, anything, to be nullable, I'll put a "?" on the type.