monogame is pretty much the continuation of XNA although they have added more stuff.
There is another framework called FNA that I've not used personally but I've heard it tries to match XNA exactly while monogame is a bit more forward looking. So FNA is good for porting forward your older XNA games.
C# is really an awesome language, it’s come such a long way. I know it used to be a pain and not very cross-platform friendly, but nowadays it’s a dream. Shoutout to Rider as the best IDE for it lol
I've done C# for a while and I really love what can be done with DI & reflection for cool cross cutting abilities.
I want to branch out to native stuff like C++ & Rust for memory management stuff, but they don't seem to come close in terms of the reflection abilities or probably the function is there, but just a nightmare to work with.
Is very verbose. There are probably worse offenders. C# devs also love to add access modifiers even when its not needed. For example, private for anything that is meant to be private or the suffix `Async` even though you don't have a sync version of a method.
The private keyword is needed because the default access is public to the same assembly. Usually that's very different from private.
As for the implicit cast, two extra tokens in an uncommon case doesn't seem so bad when you consider all the nice common things like var, the lambda syntax, initializers, pattern matching, LINQ, delegates, etc. etc.
Default visibility for type members is private, default visibility for not-nested types is internal.
Defining implicit cast operators frequently (especially ClassA -> ClassB) might be a sign that a better implementation is required. In practice, it's not done often.
Agree on unncessary Async suffix. It is a common mistake (it is one) to add it for methods that cannot or will not offer non-async variants.
In a sense, internal is just another way of viewing it as “private to the assembly”. If i don’t need something to be reached by another assembly, then typing `internal` when not necessary is just too much.
Yeah, I don't know, the argument here I think is just dated if I'm interpreting it correctly. There's nothing there in Java that forces you to make classes that are actions or verbs. You could do the same in any language that has classes. Java has long since supported lambdas and functions that can be passed around.
My concerns are mostly in the space between files and whole projects so I can't be super precise but one micro-scale thing that really worrys me is the lack of any discriminated unions in the language.
There a time when class hierarchies are ugly but fine, completely fine, and genuinely a bit dangerous: C# doesn't seem to have an option for the latter
It's a really nice language to use, I'm quite surprised.