Speaker 1: Imagine you spend like two solid years writing this highly
Speaker 1: proprietary algorithmic trading engine. I mean it's your company's absolute
Speaker 1: secret sauce.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, the crown jewels of.
Speaker 1: The business exactly. So you compile the application you deployed
Speaker 1: to a server, and you think your intellectual property is
Speaker 1: completely secure.
Speaker 2: Right because it's compiled.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but here's the crazy part. Anyone with a free
Speaker 1: open source tool can just take your compiled executable file
Speaker 1: and decompile it back into perfectly readable C sharp source
Speaker 1: code in seconds.
Speaker 2: Which is wild to think about.
Speaker 1: It really is. I mean, in almost any other programming ecosystem,
Speaker 1: that kind of transparency is a catastrophic security flaw, but
Speaker 1: in c sharp it is this deliberate, genius architectural choice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it all comes down to the intermediate language or IL.
Speaker 2: It leaves all the rich metadata completely intact.
Speaker 3: So it's basically an open book pretty much.
Speaker 2: And I mean that level of exposure feels terrifying initially,
Speaker 2: but when you really look under the hood, that exact
Speaker 2: transparency is the engine powering the entire dot net ecosystem.
Speaker 2: It's the fundamental mechanism that enables cross platform capabilities. Dynamic
Speaker 2: memory safety and cross language interoperability.
Speaker 1: Well, welcome to this custom tailor deep dive. Today we
Speaker 1: are cracking open the blueprint of this architecture. We're using
Speaker 1: the book c sharp seven point zero in a nutshell,
Speaker 1: the Definitive Reference by Joseph and Ben Albahari.
Speaker 2: It's a massive book, but there is so much good
Speaker 2: stuff in there.
Speaker 1: Oh completely, Yeah, So okay, let's unpack this. Our mission
Speaker 1: today is to explore how c sharp balance is incredibly
Speaker 1: strict bunker level compile time rules with the run time
Speaker 1: flexibility of a pop up tent.
Speaker 2: That's a great way to put it.
Speaker 1: We are going to extract the underlying mechanics of how
Speaker 1: this language evolve from this rigid Windows only desktop tool
Speaker 1: into a framework powering everything from Linux servers to iOS
Speaker 1: mobile games.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and to truly appreciate the advanced optimizations in the
Speaker 2: seven point zero release, we first have to examine the
Speaker 2: foundational DNA.
Speaker 3: Right right where it all started exactly.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 2: C sharp is historically rooted as a statically typed language,
Speaker 2: but it actively subverts its own strict identity by pulling
Speaker 2: in heavy functional programming concepts.
Speaker 1: I definitely notice that tension while reviewing the sources. You
Speaker 1: have this rigid type enforcement where you simply cannot implicitly
Speaker 1: coerce a string into an integer.
Speaker 2: No, the compiler will just yell at you.
Speaker 1: Right. But simultaneously you have these functional constructs like delegates,
Speaker 1: where functions themselves are treated as first class citizens.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can pass methods around as arguments.
Speaker 1: Exactly and use Lamba expressions to spin up anonymous functions
Speaker 1: on the fly. Plus, there is this aggressive push toward
Speaker 1: immutability in the language design.
Speaker 2: And that functional borrowing. I mean, it's an incredibly pragmatic
Speaker 2: choice by the language designers. When you treat functions as
Speaker 2: values and favor read only immutable types, you drastically reduce
Speaker 2: unintended side.
Speaker 3: Effects, which is huge for debugging.
Speaker 2: Oh massive. It becomes critical when you start dealing with
Speaker 2: concurrent execution across multiple threats because immutable states simply cannot
Speaker 2: be corrupted by race conditions.
Speaker 1: That makes total sense.
Speaker 2: But the strictness you mentioned the static typing is equally important. Now.
Speaker 2: Some developers feel that static typing creates friction, you know.
Speaker 1: Oh for sure.
Speaker 2: They argue they lose agility when forced to rigidly define
Speaker 2: every interface and type boundary up front.
Speaker 1: I will admit I have felt that friction myself. If
Speaker 1: I compare it to a dynamic language like Python or JavaScript,
Speaker 1: where I can just start writing logic and assigning variables
Speaker 1: without declaring their shapes, right, you just go yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: c sharp can feel like it requires a lot of
Speaker 1: bureaucratic overhead before you even get to run the code.
Speaker 2: What's fascinating here is the counter argument presented by the
Speaker 2: Albahari brothers. They argue that this strictness is actually a
Speaker 2: massive development accelerant.
Speaker 1: Really how so well.
Speaker 2: By enforcing type safety at compile time, c sharp completely
Speaker 2: shifts the burden of discovering bugs. You aren't relying on
Speaker 2: massive suites of run time unit tests just to catch
Speaker 2: a basic type mismatch.
Speaker 1: Because the compiler just refuses to build.
Speaker 3: The application exactly.
Speaker 2: It stops you before you even start. And beyond that,
Speaker 2: because the environment knows the precise memory layout and type
Speaker 2: of every single object, that rich metadata feeds directly into
Speaker 2: your ide.
Speaker 1: Oh like IntelliSense.
Speaker 2: Yes, tools like intell a Sense aren't just guessing. They
Speaker 2: actively generate code and suggest valid methods based on the
Speaker 2: absolute certainty of the type system.
Speaker 1: Let's transition to how that memory is actually managed. Because
Speaker 1: the garbage collector within the Common language runtime handles an
Speaker 1: enormous amount of heavy lifting.
Speaker 2: It really does. It's the unsung hero, right.
Speaker 1: Instead of forcing the developer to manually allocate and free
Speaker 1: up individual bites of memory, the COLR operates as a
Speaker 1: background night watchman. I like that analogy, and it isn't
Speaker 1: just cleaning up orphaned objects. The garbage collector actually physically
Speaker 1: compacts the memory heap. It moves active objects closer together
Speaker 1: to prevent fragmentation.
Speaker 2: Which ensures much faster CPU cash access when the program
Speaker 2: is running. And that compaction process is a brilliant piece
Speaker 2: of runtime engineering. It utilizes a generational model, categorizing objects
Speaker 2: into generation zero, one, or two based on how long
Speaker 2: they have survived in memory.
Speaker 1: So it knows what to check and what to ignore. Right.
Speaker 2: It optimizes the scanning process. But doing this requires the
Speaker 2: run time to briefly pause application.
Speaker 3: Execution, the dreaded GC pause.
Speaker 2: Yeah. For the vast majority of applications, that pause is
Speaker 2: completely imperceptible. However, if a developer is writing a highly
Speaker 2: performance critical system, say a high frequency trading platform or
Speaker 2: a low level graphics engine.
Speaker 1: Where every millisecond counts.
Speaker 2: Exactly in those cases that garbage collection pause introduces unacceptable latency.
Speaker 1: And this is where c sharp offers a really fascinating
Speaker 1: escape patch. The language does not actually lock you out
Speaker 1: of direct manual memory manipulation.
Speaker 2: Now, it gives you the keys if you really want them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you can still use explicit memory pointers to bypass
Speaker 1: the garbage collector entirely catch is that you must explicitly
Speaker 1: wrap those specific code blocks in an unsafe context.
Speaker 2: The unsafe keyword, right.
Speaker 1: It is the compiler's way of letting you take the
Speaker 1: safety rails off, provided you explicitly acknowledge the risk of
Speaker 1: introducing memory leaks or buffer overflows.
Speaker 2: And the inclusion of that unsafe keyword really highlights the
Speaker 2: strict boundary between the managed environment and raw machine execution.
Speaker 2: Because c sharp code is never executed directly by.
Speaker 3: The processor, right, there's a middleman exactly.
Speaker 2: The compiler acts as a first stage translator, converting your
Speaker 2: high level syntax into intermediate language and then packaging it
Speaker 2: into an assembly.
Speaker 1: And going back to our opening hook, this assembly isn't
Speaker 1: just a basic container for instructions. It is packed with
Speaker 1: comprehensive metadata.
Speaker 2: We're talking complete type definitions, method signatures, properties, events.
Speaker 1: Everything, and tools like aslespy use that exact medidata to
Speaker 1: reverse engineer the original C sharp code. So if a
Speaker 1: developer needs to protect their intel sellectual property, they have
Speaker 1: to rely on third party obbusekaters to actively scramble that
Speaker 1: metadata before deployment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they have to intentionally break the readability. But the
Speaker 2: deliberate decision to ship assemblies with that level of introspection
Speaker 2: is what makes dynamic linking possible without complex C plus
Speaker 2: plus style header files.
Speaker 3: Oh, that makes sense.
Speaker 2: When one assembly references another the common language, run time
Speaker 2: uses that embedded metadata to verify type safety and memory
Speaker 2: layouts instantaneously.
Speaker 1: So they could just talk to each other naturally.
Speaker 2: Exactly. It allows completely different languages to interact seamlessly. A
Speaker 2: library written in F sharp can be natively consumed by
Speaker 2: a C sharp application because both compilers output the exact
Speaker 2: same self describing intermediate language, and.
Speaker 1: The final translation step happens at the absolute last possible millisecond.
Speaker 1: The just in time compiler or JIT takes that intermediate
Speaker 1: language and converts it into native machine.
Speaker 2: Code right at the finish line.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it analyzes the specific hardware it is currently
Speaker 1: executeting on. If the server has in x sixty four
Speaker 1: processor with advanced vector extensions, the JIT optimizes the machine
Speaker 1: code specifically to leverage that hardware.
Speaker 2: Architecture, which is something a standard ahead of time compiler
Speaker 2: can only guess at during the build process.
Speaker 1: Exactly, it's building the plane while flying it, but in
Speaker 1: the best way possible.
Speaker 2: The JT compiler optimizes for the execution environment rather than
Speaker 2: the build environment. It continuously profiles the running application, identifying
Speaker 2: which methods are called frequently, and aggressively optimizes those hot paths.
Speaker 1: While largely ignoring dead code exactly.
Speaker 2: And this architecture, the IL, the rich metadata, and the
Speaker 2: GIT compiler forms the absolute bedrock of c sharp's platform independence,
Speaker 2: and that.
Speaker 1: Intermediate state is the exact mechanism that allowed the ecosystem
Speaker 1: to break out of its Windows only origins. Because you
Speaker 1: aren't compiling to operating system specific machine code.
Speaker 2: You merely need a run time environment on the target device.
Speaker 1: Right, So what does this all mean for you as
Speaker 1: a developer? This architectural pivot led to dot net core
Speaker 1: for Linux and macOS and zamorin for iOS and Android.
Speaker 2: It opened the floodgates.
Speaker 1: It really did. You can write an enterprise back end
Speaker 1: running on a Headlessubuntu server and a mobile client app
Speaker 1: on an iPhone utilizing the exact same language and logic.
Speaker 2: But to remain highly performant across all those disparate platforms,
Speaker 2: the language itself had to undergo rapid, massive mutations over
Speaker 2: the years.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, the history of c sharp really serves as a
Speaker 2: master class in solving structural developer bottlenecks without breaking backward compatibility.
Speaker 2: We see this super clearly in how Microsoft addressed the
Speaker 2: performance overhead of early collection types.
Speaker 1: Oh I was reading the breakdown on how early sea
Speaker 1: sharp handled data collections. It sounded painful. If you wanted
Speaker 1: a simple list of integers, you had to use a
Speaker 1: collection that treated everything as a generic base object.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the old array list right.
Speaker 1: And an integer is a value type, meaning it's stored
Speaker 1: efficiently on the memory stack, but objects live on the heap,
Speaker 1: So the runtime had to constantly box the integer by
Speaker 1: allocating memory on the heap and wrapping it in an object.
Speaker 2: And then unbox it later by extracting the value back out.
Speaker 1: Yes, the CPU cycles wasted on allocating and garbage collecting
Speaker 1: those tiny objects were massive.
Speaker 2: Huge bottleneck, but the introduction of generics and c sharp
Speaker 2: two point zero fundamentally solve that memory overhead. Instead of
Speaker 2: boxing everything into base objects, developers could define strongly typed
Speaker 2: collections using a placeholder type parameter, and.
Speaker 1: That required a totally new CLR. Didn't it.
Speaker 2: It did because c sharp utilizes reheffied generics, meaning the
Speaker 2: runtime generates specific, highly optimized implementations for each type used.
Speaker 2: It eliminated the performance penalty of boxing entirely while preserving
Speaker 2: absolute compile time type safety.
Speaker 1: Another massive bottleneck they had to fix was data query.
Speaker 1: When developers needed to filter a data set or query
Speaker 1: a database, they wrote deeply nested loops. Worse, embedded raw
Speaker 1: sequel strings directly into their c sharp code.
Speaker 2: Oh the magic strings. They were a nightmare.
Speaker 1: Right. The compiler couldn't verify the syntax of those sequel strings,
Speaker 1: meaning a simple typo would compile perfectly fine but cause
Speaker 1: a catastrophic crash at runtime. C sharp tackled this in
Speaker 1: version three point zero by introducing Language Integrated Query or
Speaker 1: LA and Q.
Speaker 2: The underlying mechanics of LA and Q are just brilliant.
Speaker 2: It leverages extension methods lambda expressions and deferred execution.
Speaker 1: Deferred execution, that's the key part. Yeah.
Speaker 2: When a developer writes a L and Q query, the
Speaker 2: program does not immediately fetch the data. Instead, it builds
Speaker 2: an expression tree, which is a memory representation of the
Speaker 2: query logic.
Speaker 3: It's just mapping out the plan exactly.
Speaker 2: The query is only executed at the exact moment the
Speaker 2: code actually attempts to iterate over the results. This deferred
Speaker 2: execution allows the underlying provider like entity framework to heavily
Speaker 2: optimize the query before ever sending it to the database.
Speaker 1: It's so smart, But I think my favorite architectural shift
Speaker 1: is how c SHP are five point zero addressed UI freezing.
Speaker 1: We have all used applications that lock up entirely while
Speaker 1: downloading a file or processing data.
Speaker 2: Oh the spinning wheel of death right.
Speaker 1: And this happens because the heavy operation is blocking the
Speaker 1: main user interface thread. The historical solution was manually spawning
Speaker 1: background threads and managing complex callback delegates.
Speaker 2: Which quickly devolved into unreadable spaghetti.
Speaker 1: Like code completely but the asynchronous programming model flattened that
Speaker 1: complexity entirely by introducing the ASNC and AWAKE keywords. Developers
Speaker 1: could write asynchronous operations that visually resemble synchronous linear code.
Speaker 2: It reads top to bottom just like normal code, but
Speaker 2: the compiler is doing intense gymnastics under the hood to
Speaker 2: make that syntax work.
Speaker 1: Yeah, when it hits in a way keyword, it doesn't
Speaker 1: just plause the thread. The compiler actually generates a hidden
Speaker 1: i asink state machine.
Speaker 2: It's basically rewriting your methods exactly.
Speaker 1: It effectively chops your method in half, unwinds the call stack,
Speaker 1: and immediately returns control to the main thread, so the
Speaker 1: user interface remains highly responsive. And then it just waits right,
Speaker 1: And once the background task finishes fetching the data, the
Speaker 1: state machine restores the local variables and resumes executing the
Speaker 1: remainder of the method from the exact point it left off.
Speaker 2: All of these continuous, complex language improvements required a highly
Speaker 2: adaptable compiler infrastructure, and this culminated in c sharp six
Speaker 2: point zero with Project Rosalin.
Speaker 1: Here's where it gets really interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Microsoft completely rewrote the c sharp compiler from scratch
Speaker 2: using c sharp itself. They exposed the entire compilation pipeline
Speaker 2: as a set of open source libraries.
Speaker 1: So developers can now use the compiler as a service,
Speaker 1: feeding its source code and asking it for a syntax
Speaker 1: tree or deep smantic analysis on the fly.
Speaker 2: It opened up so many doors for custom tooling.
Speaker 1: It really did, and this massive rewrite set the stage
Speaker 1: for the rapid cadence of features we see in C
Speaker 1: sharp seven point zero, where the focus shifted aggressively toward
Speaker 1: reducing visual noise and developer fiction. Let's look at some
Speaker 1: of the syntactic sugar that cleans up modern code basis.
Speaker 2: My favorite is the null conditional operator. It drastically reduces
Speaker 2: boilerplate logic.
Speaker 1: Oh the Elvis operator, Yes.
Speaker 2: The Elvis operator. Because checking for null references historically required
Speaker 2: deeply nestative statements just to safely access a property buried
Speaker 2: within an object hierarchy.
Speaker 3: If the parent, then the child, then the grandchild exactly.
Speaker 2: The null conditional operator allows developers to safely chain property accesses.
Speaker 2: If any link in the chain is null, the evaluation
Speaker 2: stops immediately and quietly returns null.
Speaker 1: It prevents a runtime null reference exception without cluttering the
Speaker 1: screen with logic. It provides an incredibly elegant syntax.
Speaker 2: Definitely.
Speaker 1: They also introduce numeric literal underscores in seven point zero.
Speaker 1: If you need a variable to define a memory byte limit,
Speaker 1: writing out one billion as a string of nine zeros
Speaker 1: is a recipe for an undetected typo.
Speaker 2: Because the human eye just blurs them all together.
Speaker 1: Right. So C sharp seven point zero allows you to
Speaker 1: insert underscores anywhere within the numeric literal. You write one
Speaker 1: underscore zero zero zero underscore.
Speaker 2: Just like writing commas in a normal number.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the compiler strips the underscores out entirely during the
Speaker 1: build process, leaving the machine code unaffected while significantly improving
Speaker 1: human readability.
Speaker 2: But I'd say the most profound structural change in version
Speaker 2: seven point zero involves tuples. Returning multiple distinct values from
Speaker 2: a single method has historically been a clumsy, high friction process.
Speaker 1: I was actually looking at the Albahari breakdown of the
Speaker 1: legacy workarounds for that. The old method was either using
Speaker 1: out parameters, which forced you to declare variables before calling
Speaker 1: the function, breaking the natural flow.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was always so annoying, right.
Speaker 1: Or you had to build a custom class purely to
Speaker 1: hold a return data. It's like packing for a quick
Speaker 1: weekend trip. You don't want to buy and label this massive, expensive,
Speaker 1: heavy duty suitcase. Just to carry a toothbrush and one
Speaker 1: pair of socks.
Speaker 2: No, you just need a lightweight Duffel bag exactly.
Speaker 1: Building a formal class is the heavy suitcase. You are
Speaker 1: allocating a reference type on the heap, which the garbage
Speaker 1: collector now has to track and clean up just to
Speaker 1: pass a couple of integers out of a function.
Speaker 2: And tupples bypass that overhead entirely. The c sharp seven
Speaker 2: point zero implementation introduces native language support backed by the
Speaker 2: value tupples.
Speaker 3: Struct and structs are value types right yes.
Speaker 2: Meaning they are allocated highly efficiently on the memory stack
Speaker 2: rather than the heap. When the method finishes execution, the
Speaker 2: stack frame pops and the memory is instantly reclaimed.
Speaker 1: Completely avoiding any garbage collection over.
Speaker 2: It exactly, and the syntax is incredibly clean. Now you
Speaker 2: wrap your return values in parentheses and you can name
Speaker 2: the elements directly. A method simply returns, say, parentheses string name.
Speaker 1: In age, and the calling code accesses those properties instantaneously
Speaker 1: without needing a formal class blueprint.
Speaker 2: Right And to complement the creation of tupples, seven point
Speaker 2: zero also introduced deconstructors. Now a standard constructor takes independent
Speaker 2: variables and package them into a unified object right.
Speaker 1: Right, it puts them together.
Speaker 2: A deconstructor is the exact mechanical inverse. It allows you
Speaker 2: to take an object or a tuple and unpack its
Speaker 2: internal values directly into separate, brand new local variables in
Speaker 2: a single fluid line of code.
Speaker 1: It effectively dissolves the container and leaves you with just
Speaker 1: the raw data variables you actually.
Speaker 2: Need exactly the language actively tries to get out of
Speaker 2: the developer's way.
Speaker 1: I see that same philosophy applied to local methods. Often
Speaker 1: a developer writes a highly specialized helper function that is
Speaker 1: strictly used by one specific method.
Speaker 2: Like a calculation you only need in one spot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and defining it at the class level just clutters
Speaker 1: up the object's public blueprint. Local methods allow you to
Speaker 1: define a fully functional method nested inside the body of
Speaker 1: another method.
Speaker 2: They provide stronger encapsulation than lambda expressions, and they avoid
Speaker 2: the hidden delegate allocation overhead.
Speaker 1: Plus, the local method can access the local variables of
Speaker 1: its parent function directly.
Speaker 2: Right. It keeps the logic isolated and defined exactly where
Speaker 2: it is invoked, which hugely improves maintainability.
Speaker 1: Another powerful feature drastically reducing boilerplate is the expansion of
Speaker 1: pattern matching C sharp seven point zero significantly upgraded the
Speaker 1: capabilities of the eyes operator and the switch statement.
Speaker 2: Oh this is a game changer. In earlier versions, a
Speaker 2: switchblock operated as a basic routing table strictly for specific
Speaker 2: constant values like.
Speaker 1: If it's one, do this, if it's two, do that exactly.
Speaker 2: But the new pattern matching capabilities allow developers to evaluate
Speaker 2: the actual type of an object directly within the switch
Speaker 2: statement's conditions.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can pass a completely unknown object into a
Speaker 2: switch block and program logic that says, you know, if
Speaker 2: this object evaluates as a string type, execute this case block.
Speaker 2: If it evaluates as an integer array, execute this one.
Speaker 1: And the best part is that it combines the type
Speaker 1: check and the casting operation into a single efficient step.
Speaker 2: Yes, that saves so much time.
Speaker 1: If the object matches the string pattern, you instantly assign
Speaker 1: it to a new, strongly typed string variable right there
Speaker 1: in the case declaration. The CPU only performs the expensive
Speaker 1: type checking instruction once.
Speaker 2: Rather than checking the type entering the block and then
Speaker 2: executing a separate cast operation on the variable. It really
Speaker 2: reduces the amount of casting logic developers have to write.
Speaker 1: Ensuring the code remains focused on business logic rather than
Speaker 1: just type wrangling.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 1: Well, let's step back and look at the massive architectural
Speaker 1: blueprint we've traced today. We started with a language heavily
Speaker 1: bound to the Windows operating system, strictly reliant on rigid
Speaker 1: object oriented structures.
Speaker 2: It was a very different beast back then, it really was.
Speaker 1: But through the engineering ingenuity of the Common Language run time,
Speaker 1: the highly optimized JIT compilation of intermedy language, and this
Speaker 1: aggressive evolution to solve developer bottlenecks, c sharp morphed into
Speaker 1: a highly performant cross platform powerhouse.
Speaker 2: It balances everything so well.
Speaker 1: It leverages the safety of static typing while eagerly adopting
Speaker 1: function paradigms and memory efficient structs like value tuble to
Speaker 1: make the developer experience as frictionless and performant as possible.
Speaker 2: And you know, this continuous refinement of the compiler and
Speaker 2: the runtime environment really sets the stage for where software
Speaker 2: architecture is heading next Owso well, this raises an important question.
Speaker 2: If we look closely at the capabilities enabled by that
Speaker 2: rich metadata we discussed earlier, it surfaces a compelling, almost
Speaker 2: on settling concept regarding reflection.
Speaker 1: Oh, where are we going with this?
Speaker 2: We covered how a C sharp program uses reflection to
Speaker 2: inspect its own structural metadata right.
Speaker 1: Right, checking its own types.
Speaker 2: But the system dot reflection dot emit namespace takes this
Speaker 2: capability an order of magnitude. Further, a running SEA sharp
Speaker 2: application possesses the native ability to generate brand new intermediate
Speaker 2: language instructions, wrap them in a dynamic assembly, and execute
Speaker 2: them on the fly.
Speaker 1: Wait. Wait, the application can actively write and execute new
Speaker 1: code for itself while it is already running in production.
Speaker 2: Precisely, the program can analyze its environment, evaluate logic, and
Speaker 2: manufacture new executable instructions that literally did not exist when
Speaker 2: the software was originally compiled.
Speaker 1: That's incredible.
Speaker 2: Consider the implications for highly autonomous systems. If a strictly
Speaker 2: typed compiled language possesses the native architecture to introspectively look
Speaker 2: at its own structure and dynamically rewrite its own execution pathways.
Speaker 1: What is the limit for self modifying software?
Speaker 3: Exactly?
Speaker 1: That is profound. I mean, could a C sharp application,
Speaker 1: perhaps driven by an integrated AI model, evaluate a new
Speaker 1: unforeseen problem in production and literally write a bespoke method
Speaker 1: to solve it.
Speaker 2: And compile it into memory without any human intervention.
Speaker 1: The foundational mechanics for that level of autonomy have been
Speaker 1: sitting right there in the dot net runtime this whole time.
Speaker 2: It forces developers to reconsider the boundaries of what a
Speaker 2: compiled application actually is. Is it a static set of
Speaker 2: predetermined instructions or is it a living engine capable of
Speaker 2: infinite real time adaptation.
Speaker 1: That is a phenomenal thought to ponder the next time
Speaker 1: you compile. Thank you for joining us on this deep
Speaker 1: dive into the underlying architecture of c sharp. Whether you
Speaker 1: are building low level memory unsafe routines or highly abstract
Speaker 1: the syncretous web services, just remember there is always more
Speaker 1: to learn beneath the syntax until next time.