C#6: Support for .NET Framework 2.0 to 4.5

A colleague of mine, Eric Charnesky, asked me if C#6 language features would work in .NET Framework versions other than 4.6. I was pretty confident that the features were almost all1 just syntactical seasoning, I thought I would find out.

The TL;DR is yes, C#6 features will work when compiled against .NET 2.0 and above, with a few caveats.

  1. Async/await requires additional classes to be defined since the Task Parallel Library, IAwaitable and other types were not part of .NET 2.0.
  2. The magic parts of string interpolation need some types to be defined (thanks to Thomas Levesque for catching this oversight).
  3. Extension methods need the declaration of System.Runtime.CompilerServices.ExtensionAttribute so that the compiler can mark static methods as extension methods.

Rather than just try .NET 4.5, I decided to go all the way back to .NET 2.0 and see if I could write and execute a console application that used all the following C#6 features:

The code I used is not really important, though I have included it at the end of this post if you want to see what I did. The only mild stumbling block was the lack of obvious extension method support in .NET 2.0. However, extension methods are a language-only feature; all that is needed to make it work is an attribute that the compiler can use to mark methods as extension methods. Since .NET 2.0 doesn't have this attribute, I added it myself.

Exclusions

You might have noticed that I did not verify a couple of things. First, I left out the use of await in try/catch blocks. This is because .NET 2.0 does not include the BCL classes that the compiler expects when generating the state machines that drive async code. You might be able to find a third-party implementation that would add support, but my brief3 search was fruitless. That said, this feature will definitely work in .NET 4.5 as it is an update to how the compiler builds the code.

Second, I did not intentionally test the improved overload resolution. The improvements mostly seem to relate to resolution involving overloads that take method groups and nullable types. Unfortunately, in .NET 2.0 there was were no Func delegate types nor nullable value types (UPDATE: Nullable types totally existed in .NET 2.0 and C#2; thanks to Thomas Levesque for pointing out my strange oversight here – I blame the water), making it difficult to craft an example that would demonstrate this improvement. However, overload resolution affects how the compiler selects which method to use for a particular call site. Once the compiler has made the selection, it is fixed within the compiled output and as such, the version of the .NET framework has no bearing on whether the resolution is correct4.

Did it work?

With the test code written, I compiled and ran it. A console window flickered and Visual Studio returned. The code had run but I had forgotten to put anything in there that would give me chance to read the output. So, I dropped a breakpoint in at the end, and then ran it under the debugger. As I had suspected it might, everything worked.

Testing under .NET 2.0 runtime on Windows XP
Testing under .NET 2.0 runtime on Windows XP

Then I realised I was still executing it on a machine that had .NET 4.6 and therefore the .NET 4 runtime; would it still work under the .NET 2 runtime? So, I cracked open5 a Windows XP virtual machine from modern.ie and ran it again. It didn't work, because Windows XP did not come with .NET 2.0 installed (it wasn't even included in any of the service packs), so I installed it and tried once more. As I had suspected it might, everything worked.

In conclusion

If you find yourself still working with old versions of the .NET framework or the .NET runtime, you can still use and benefit from most features of C#6. I hope my small effort here is helpful. If you have anything to add, please comment.

Here Lies The Example Code6

 


  1. Async/await requires the TPL classes in the BCL, extension methods need the ExtensionAttribute, and exception filters require some runtime support 

  2. The Elvis's 

  3. very brief 

  4. I realise many of the C#6 features could be left untested for similar reasons since almost all are compiler changes that do not need framework support, but testing it rather than assuming it is kind of the point 

  5. Waited an hour for the IE XP virtual machine to download and then get it running 

  6. Demonstrable purposes only; if you take this into production, on your head be it 

C#6: Null-conditional operators

With the release of Visual Studio 2015 in July came C# 6. Each iteration of C# has tended to have a theme and if there were a theme for this one, it would be developer productivity; all the new features in C# 6 appear to be either improvements to existing features, or syntactical shortcuts to simplify common operations. One of those syntactical shortcuts is the ?. operator1, which is accompanied by the similar ?[] operator2.

These new operators are collectively known as null-conditional operators. Most, if not all C# developers have used the null-coalescing operator, ?? and found it to be brilliant…until the next step was to call a method or property on the result. Though (something ?? somethingelse).Property seems like it might be a good idea, there is rarely a suitable somethingelse that doesn't just feel like hack, so invariably, we resort to an if or the conditional operator, ?:3.

Or, if using an indexer:

In C# 6, the ?. and ?[] operators step up to help. These new null-conditional operators check the value on the left of the operator and, if it is null, return null, short-circuiting the remainder of the expression; if the value on the left of the operator is non-null, the expression continues according to precedence rules.

Using these operators, we can express our earlier code much more succinctly and without resorting to convoluted, hacky ?? chains.

There isn't much else to write about these simple operators except to draw attention to how ?. works with Nullable<T> types such as int?4. Consider the ?? operator. When the ?? operator is applied to a nullable type like int?, it either returns the value wrapped in that int? or the value evaluated from the right of the operator. That is to say that instead of needing to reference the Value property of the nullable directly, the operator does that for you. The following assignment works because x.Value is returned from the ?? operator, not x.

The ?. operator works the same way, which means the following does not make sense and won't compile; Value is not a property of int:

Whereas this will work just fine:

In Conclusion…

The null-conditional operators, ?. and ?[] provide some shortcuts that will no doubt lead to clearer code, and I welcome their addition to the C# language. I hope that you do to.

 


  1. aka, the one-eyed Elvis operator 

  2. the robot Elvis, or Howard The Duck 

  3. The two-eyed Elvis 

  4. also expressible as Nullable<int>