C# query... async-everything

[d000hg]

IMO adding Async at the end of a method name is a hangover from when it was implemented and you had to use a different method name to get the dam thing to compile. Dropping Async if their is no none async alternative is acceptable.

I hadn't seen that but it would make sense as the compiler gets smarter and smarter. Currently doing all this C#10 NRTs stuff and it's quite impressive, the compiler knows at any point in code if a given variable can be null or not based on if you checked, etc.

[BlueSharp]

IMO adding Async at the end of a method name is a hangover from when it was implemented and you had to use a different method name to get the dam thing to compile. Dropping Async if their is no none async alternative is acceptable.

[woohoo]

You don't have to name them xxxxAsync - if you do im buggered

[d000hg]

Having to name your methods xxxAsync seems particularly kludgy to me (I'm not sure if this is required or just encouraged).
It just seems like a keyword modifier could be used to imply you are returning Task<whatever>.
It IS a paradigm shift in the whole language.

[woohoo]

I wouldn't say I was on the bleeding edge, but I did read this

Implicit async/await · Discussion #5469 · dotnet/csharplang · GitHub

I know what you mean about the extra typing and almost everything ends up being async anyway.

[d000hg]

The modern async stuff in C# is pretty cool, but async 'infects' code a bit like GPL - anything calling an async method is typically async too unless it needs to 'collapse' using await.
So every method ends up returning Task<whatever you want to return> and being called MethodNameAsync.

I was wondering if C# will move to make that implicit at some point because it leads to pretty ugly code and more typing. Anyone on the bleeding edge of C# to know? I noticed today that you can have a console app without a main() method so it seemed plausible.