Even with MSBuild 4. From the days when .NET Framework was an OS component and also the build tools (until Roslyn) were part of the Framework.

I've tried the same approach in Turbo Pascal with BGI in the hopes of having a faster language and higher resolution available. It turned out to be quite a bit slower, likely because drawing and querying pixels was a bit more involved when using an adapter layer like BGI.

A few weeks ago I tried rewriting all that in TypeScript for fun and also trying to integrate it as an easter-egg with our graph drawing library (which renders with SVG) and first had to figure out how to efficiently support arbitrary obstacles that are initially SVG as well as a potentially changing viewport of the whole scene. I got sidetracked and didn't finish it, but proper collision handling was so easy back then (just look at the pixel color), but now with vector graphics and reading pixels being a very slow operation in many cases, it was surprisingly complicated.

Sure, long distances (I had to travel from Rostock to Tübingen last weekend) are typically not taken with regional trains (although you technically can; I did that as a poor student a few times, it just takes 16 hours instead of 10), but over medium distances (around 2–3 hours) you often have both options.

Proper fonts do exist, but no font is usable in all circumstances.

It does irk me a bit (though not as much as the translated VBA back in the day). But that's probably because I know English, I often look for solutions to my problems in English, not in my native language, and then would have to mentally translate that back. But that's perhaps a burden for programmers more than for typical users.

A few thoughts:

• it's been that way for decades, at this point. So changing it would annoy a lot of users

• the problem with comma and semicolon would remain unless you want entering numbers normally and within a formula to be different. I'm not sure that's good in a product built around numbers (and often numbers that should be written and formatted like any other number in that country).

• making it configurable might work, but that then requires more testing, although sometimes it's not clear how much testing Microsoft is still doing, so that might not be much of a point. But adding options also has UX limits and not just in the length of the settings screen.

There has been work ongoing in this direction since .NET 9 at least, but the effect is very limited currently. The following code however, has no allocations at runtime, despite having an object creation in the code:

https://sharplab.io/#v2:C4LghgzgtgPgAgJgIwFgBQcDMACR2DC2A3ut...

This isn't the case, though, is it? A normal member access (or indexer) expression may point to a mutable location (field, property). However, with conditional access expressions you get either a member access _or nothing_. And that nothing is not a mutable place.

When you use any of the conditional operators, you split the following code into two paths, and dropping the assignment (since there's nothing to assign to) seems pretty consistent to me, since you'd also drop an invocation, or a property evaluation in similar expressions.

If you require P to point to something that actually exists because you want the assignment to succeed, then write code to ensure that P exists because the assignment has no way of knowing what the intention was on the left side.

Property reads were fine before (returning null if a part of the chain was null), method invocations were fine (either returning null or just being a no-op if a part of the chain was null). But assignments were not, despite syntactically every ?. being basically an if statement, preventing the right side from executing if the left side is null (yes, that includes side-effects from nested expressions, like arguments to invocations).

So this is not exactly a new feature, it just removes a gotcha from an old one and ensures we can use ?. in more places where it previously may have been useful, but could not be used legally due to syntax reasons.