I don't think it's far out to suggest these sorts of advantages, and I am 100% not interested in rehashing a flame war that's been had a thousand times over. Please allow that these are my judgements, and I hope you don't need to share them to see that many people feel that way.

2. That's nice? I found C# projects to have a poor sense of design. I'm not sure how you expect me to defend an aesthetic decision.

3. I'm glad you like Resharper? I didn't. I'm a vim guy.

4. I'm glad you like Windows? I don't. I see what you mean, as long as you stay in the MS womb, it's a cozy development environment. I tend to like open source software, and it lags behind very seriously in that department.

5. As I said, I last developed C# in 2009, and I thankfully haven't had to touch Windows since. I'm sure git is nice now, but I suspect that Windows is still a second class citizen for many software projects. Git is just the one that annoyed me most back then.

It seems to me that we simply have different aesthetic criteria.

You don't need to debase an otherwise great conversation with incendiary language like that.

I'm not going to go back and edit it, but I'll ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt that I meant it to be as as far from incendiary as possible.

I'm guessing you like to debug using print and the command prompt as well?

For most the world keeps on spinning, for some it stops in their youth. Sad.

Not a C# user, but few languages of the strength and intelligence of types in ML. Covariant arrays (which C# presumably adopted for the sake of Java programmers) moves an easy, and obvious, compile time type check to runtime. The type inferencing in C# is very weak relative to ML/Haskell. The type syntax is generally more lighweight in ML/Haskell as well. For example a function that takes a list of some type ('a) and returns the head of the list if it exists or None if it doesn't looks like:

val hd : 'a list -> 'a option

Of course, all if this works in unison with other type functionality that is far more lightweight in ML than C#. The function above is only really so succinct because I have powerful variant types and pattern matching on them. I think they go hand in hand because using an option-type is somewhat useless if I don't have something like pattern matching to access its state.

    var firstNumber = numbers.FirstOrDefault();

Here's an implementation in C# that is a function on types T implementing the IList interface (rather than IEnumerable like LINQ does):

    public static T Head<T>(this IList<T> list) {
      return (list == null || list.Count == 0) ? null : list[0];
    }

1. the 'option' function you have in your example. In reality, your 'option' is doing all the work I did above, which means that comparing the verbosity of your sample code to the C# equivalent of FirstOrDefault() is perfectly valid in my opinion :)

2. the explicit return type. This serves a valuable purpose in my opinion.

With your code, it's easy to break the hd function by changing the implementation to return a different type. You might not even notice the bug if the different type's implementation is close enough to the right one. I once had a bug like this in VB6 years ago: I changed a method to use an integer instead of a string, and VB's automatic type casting happily allowed the rest of my code to function... until in the middle of a demo I ran a function I hadn't tested and default value of 0 broke something expecting an empty string! My lesson: type inference can be dangerous.

It also makes refactoring a large project much more difficult in my opinion because there is no way to distinguish between specification and implementation. Consequently, changing your implementation runs the risk of breaking your specification without being informed.

There is a school of thought that says your unit tests should cover this aspect of the specification... but then all I'm doing is implementing explicit types in a roundabout way - let the compiler do that I say! That being said I don't know if ML/Haskell have 'interface specification' types to ward against this, where you need it (and everywhere else you get to save on verbosity)? That would be a nice improvement to C#: private methods can use extended type inference, anything public (including implementing an interface) need to be more explicit.

3. syntax: visibility (public), static modifier and return statement. This is a matter of personal preference. With Resharper in Visual Studio each of these words costs me 2 or 3 keystrokes, and if I like I can use templated code snippets to reduce that for any situation, so I'm not too bothered :)

> return (list.Count == 0) ? null : list[0];

Would the C# compiler catch it or would you not find out until runtime? An ML compiler would tell you that function is wrong.

What about using Head? If you have a list of integers, will the compiler let you do:

> Head(integer_list) + 2

An ML compiler won't, because it's not safe.

> This isn't strictly the same as what you described if "None" is different from "null".

It is, but the important thing to note is I had to specify that the function, 'hd', can return 'null', by wrapping it in the option type. 'null' is only a valid value for option types. If I write:

> val hd : 'a list -> 'a

I could not return 'null'/None, it simply isn't valid. And the compiler wouldn't let me.

> the 'option' function you have in your example

'option' is a type, not a function (I suppose you can make some high level argument that all types are functions over values or something, but not relevant here). And 'option' itself isn't really even a type, it requires a type variable, so "'a option" is a type where "'a" is replaced by a concrete type at some point. It's not doing the work you described above, it's actually defining a contract between me and users of hd and the compiler.

> With your code, it's easy to break the hd function by changing the implementation to return a different type. You might not even notice the bug if the different type's implementation is close enough to the right one.

No, it isn't actually. If I change the return type the compiler will not compile my code.

> I changed a method to use an integer instead of a string

This cannot happen in ML, the compiler won't compile it because an integer isn't a string. What you described is not type inference, it's dynamic typing. The only danger of type inferencing in ML is annoying type errors during compilation. I'm not sure you actually grok what type inferencing is.

> It also makes refactoring a large project much more difficult in my opinion because there is no way to distinguish between specification and implementation. Consequently, changing your implementation runs the risk of breaking your specification without being informed.

Actually, refactoring code in ML tends to be pretty easy. If you change the type of something the compiler won't compile your code, so you know instantly where you messed up and can fix it. You can construct code to make this not work, but in general that isn't the case. See https://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/101

> let the compiler do that I say!

Exactly, and an ML compiler definitely does more of this than the C# compiler. At a cost, of course.

Your post has several statements which suggest you are ignorant of ML and type theory. If you're interested in learning more, check out Benjamin Pierce's book "Types and Programming Languages". Or just spend a weekend with Ocaml or Haskell and prepare for the compiler to frustrate you with it's strictness :)

(Overall though, I agree that Linux and Mac give a better developer experience.)

Also, the homogeneity of the unix interface (pipes and utilities that uses them) means that you also have very powerful primitives to work with.

Proving the utility of the command line could benefit from a few full featured examples, but this would need a longer post that i'm in the mood of writing right now :)

With that said, you have a powerful administration programming language on windows called powershell. It's much better than bash by a lot of metrics. The way it's integrated into the system is not very good though. For example, the terminal client sucks, and the security system is way too complicated for casual use.