Yep, one more VS 2008 post - an overview link..
-
Judah Himango wrote:
It would be ugly (e.g. LinqExtensions.Where(data, predicate)),
That's nitpicky:)
Co-Author ASP.NET AJAX in Action CP Quote of the Day: It is the same Friday that blooms as a new enriching day with novelty and innovation for us every week. - Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Yep, but it's true. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: The Lord Is So Good The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
such as using a "for" loop.
Funny that, I find myself rarely ever using a for loop anymore and using foreach instead with almost the only exception being cases where I need to modify the collection being iterated inside the loop.
More people died from worry than ever bled to death. - RAH
John Cardinal wrote:
for loop anymore and using foreach instead
Yeah, I was going to say "foreach" but did not want to sound too VBish ;)
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ Scores a Yahtzee! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
Yep, but it's true. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: The Lord Is So Good The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Yes the other day I accidentally launched VS 2005 instead of VS 2008. I added System.Xml manually and spent about 5 minutes to understand why extension methods where not working. :)
Co-Author ASP.NET AJAX in Action CP Quote of the Day: It is the same Friday that blooms as a new enriching day with novelty and innovation for us every week. - Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
-
For those checking into VS 2008, Scott Guthrie has a new blog post of a good overview of 2008 and a warning for those developing Silverlight 1.1 to wait a couple of weeks before upgrading: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/11/19/visual-studio-2008-and-net-3-5-released.aspx[^]
Rocky <>< Blog Post: LINQ Scores a Yahtzee! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
I can't wait to start developing applications with plug-in functionality. They all them "addins" in the class library. I believe there are a couple of namespaces and numerous classes (I found a lot using a .NET reflector) devoted to it. It also appears that two of the assemblies are executables with a .exe extention. The one of them had a "32" appended to the name, so I assume there is a different assembly for 32-bit and 64-bit systems. How does it work? I'll find out when I get my hands on a copy of Visual Studio 2008 (not that I need to use it).
ROFLOLMFAO
-
Thank you for that, I'm surprised there is so much in .net 3.5 that was apparently never discussed here. After reading through some of those changes like automatic properties, extension methods, anonymous types etc I'm starting to see that .net 3.5 is a pretty major change for people used to .net 2. There are a *lot* of implications in there for a business software developer such as myself. There's way more to .net 3.5 than LINQ.
More people died from worry than ever bled to death. - RAH
John Cardinal wrote:
automatic properties, extension methods, anonymous types
Those are in .NET 3.0, right??
Thanks and Regards, Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net) "Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
-
John Cardinal wrote:
automatic properties, extension methods, anonymous types
Those are in .NET 3.0, right??
Thanks and Regards, Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net) "Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
-
No idea, I'm working only in .net 2 right now.
More people died from worry than ever bled to death. - RAH
me too.. :) Microsoft is the only one who wanna move one version after another.. The most of software companies are still enjoying with .NET 1.1 or 2.0.
Thanks and Regards, Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net) "Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
-
John Cardinal wrote:
automatic properties, extension methods, anonymous types
Those are in .NET 3.0, right??
Thanks and Regards, Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net) "Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
Michael Sync wrote:
Those are in .NET 3.0, right??
No, .NET 3 is just .NET 2 + WPF. .NET 3 is the new one being released right now, which includes a new .NET framework, new C# features (e.g. C# LINQ syntax, automatic properties, anonymous types, lambda expressions, ...), and new Visual Basic syntax for similar things, plus special VB syntax for dealing with XML. Note that .NET 3.5 does *not* require a new CLR. Everything in .NET 3.5, and indeed in .NET 3, are either new libraries added to the .NET framework and new language syntax candy. The CLR hasn't changed since 2.0 with generics. That means one can theoretically use these new features of C# 3.5 and still run on .NET 2.0.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: No, Not I - A poem by Holocaust escapee, chief rabbi, and Messiah-follower Daniel Zion (audio) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Michael Sync wrote:
Those are in .NET 3.0, right??
No, .NET 3 is just .NET 2 + WPF. .NET 3 is the new one being released right now, which includes a new .NET framework, new C# features (e.g. C# LINQ syntax, automatic properties, anonymous types, lambda expressions, ...), and new Visual Basic syntax for similar things, plus special VB syntax for dealing with XML. Note that .NET 3.5 does *not* require a new CLR. Everything in .NET 3.5, and indeed in .NET 3, are either new libraries added to the .NET framework and new language syntax candy. The CLR hasn't changed since 2.0 with generics. That means one can theoretically use these new features of C# 3.5 and still run on .NET 2.0.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: No, Not I - A poem by Holocaust escapee, chief rabbi, and Messiah-follower Daniel Zion (audio) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
C# LINQ syntax, automatic properties, anonymous types, lambda expressions
I saw those things in C# 3.0 specification.. So, C# 3.0 is for .NET 3.5? I'm very confused with those versions.. Can you please clarify this? .NET 1.1 = C# 1.0 , VB.NET 8.0 .NET 2.0 = C# 2.0 , VB.NET 9.0 .NET 3.0 = C# 3.0 ?, ?? .NET 3.5 = C# 3.0 ?, ??
Thanks and Regards, Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net) "Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
such as using a "for" loop.
Funny that, I find myself rarely ever using a for loop anymore and using foreach instead with almost the only exception being cases where I need to modify the collection being iterated inside the loop.
More people died from worry than ever bled to death. - RAH
I found myself almost being reacquainted with for in a recent project. I did a lot of work with correspondences between collections, for it was either foreach and an extra index variable, or a for loop and just use one index variable. Yes, I know lots of people would tell me that 'smells funny', and it is a prime target for refactoring, but it was more important to have it working than smelling like roses.
My head asplode!
Calling all South African developers! Your participation in this local dev community will be mutually beneficial, to you and us.
-
John Cardinal wrote:
automatic properties, extension methods, anonymous types
Those are in .NET 3.0, right??
Thanks and Regards, Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net) "Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
Michael Sync wrote:
[R
No, they are in .NET 3.5, but C# 3.0.
My head asplode!
Calling all South African developers! Your participation in this local dev community will be mutually beneficial, to you and us.
-
me too.. :) Microsoft is the only one who wanna move one version after another.. The most of software companies are still enjoying with .NET 1.1 or 2.0.
Thanks and Regards, Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net) "Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
We are waiting with baited breath for VS2008, to continue working on our 2.0 project, but with the promised IDE enhancements.
My head asplode!
Calling all South African developers! Your participation in this local dev community will be mutually beneficial, to you and us.
-
Michael Sync wrote:
[R
No, they are in .NET 3.5, but C# 3.0.
My head asplode!
Calling all South African developers! Your participation in this local dev community will be mutually beneficial, to you and us.
Okay. I see.. Thanks..
Thanks and Regards, Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net) "Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
-
Technically yes you could do that and we all do I'm sure with static helper methods. It does seem cleaner in a way to use an extension method but as I was reading it I was thinking about the case where you're coming in cold to look at some source code someone else wrote and you see something like this: string s=arg1; if(s.ValidURL()) { //blah blah; } Which can be all kinds of confusing versus: string s=arg1; if(UrlChecker.ValidURL(s)) { // blah blah; } Or what happens if you add an extension method to object and it conflicts with something you've written in a class derived from object?
More people died from worry than ever bled to death. - RAH
John Cardinal wrote:
Or what happens if you add an extension method to object and it conflicts with something you've written in a class derived from object?
In that case, class methods have precedence over extension methods. Extension methods require you to put the cursor on the call and look at the tooltip to see what's really being called, so I agree, they should only be used when they really help simplify the calling code - for operations that are likely to be chained (e.g. LINQ). Most extension methods examples I've seen so far tend to focus on extending the built-in types with unrelated methods, so I thought I should mention that the main benefit of extension methods is the infix syntax. Avoid extension methods if you don't need infix notation.
-
Judah Himango wrote:
C# LINQ syntax, automatic properties, anonymous types, lambda expressions
I saw those things in C# 3.0 specification.. So, C# 3.0 is for .NET 3.5? I'm very confused with those versions.. Can you please clarify this? .NET 1.1 = C# 1.0 , VB.NET 8.0 .NET 2.0 = C# 2.0 , VB.NET 9.0 .NET 3.0 = C# 3.0 ?, ?? .NET 3.5 = C# 3.0 ?, ??
Thanks and Regards, Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net) "Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
Yes, the C# language is at version 3. The .NET framework library is at version 3.5. .NET 3 had library changes (WPF, WCF, and others). That's it. The languages didn't change, so you still use C# 2 or VB 8 for that, just like you did for .NET 2. People get confused when they try to think of the .NET framework, the languages, and the CLR as kind of an "all-in-one" package that all get updated simultaneously. They're not. Instead, each gets updated in its own course of time. That's why we have CLR 2, .NET framework 3.5, C# 3, and VB 9.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: The Lord Is So Good The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Judah Himango wrote:
C# LINQ syntax, automatic properties, anonymous types, lambda expressions
I saw those things in C# 3.0 specification.. So, C# 3.0 is for .NET 3.5? I'm very confused with those versions.. Can you please clarify this? .NET 1.1 = C# 1.0 , VB.NET 8.0 .NET 2.0 = C# 2.0 , VB.NET 9.0 .NET 3.0 = C# 3.0 ?, ?? .NET 3.5 = C# 3.0 ?, ??
Thanks and Regards, Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net) "Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."