C# 4.0

[Sunny Ahuwanya]

Not every developer writing C# code targets the .NET framework. I used IEnumerable.Where as an example which everyone would understand but it could be any set of extension methods from XYZ company.

Sunny Ahuwanya "The beauty of the desert is that it hides a well somewhere" -- Antoine de Saint Exupéry

[Kevin McFarlane]

higelino wrote:

I am sure that c#4 won't include spec#

Yes, I bet it won't. Unfortunately. :(

Kevin

[User 3973690]

A couple of things I would like is better control over memory. The automatic garbage collection is nice and I understand that it's usualy better just to let it be so it can collect when needed, but in some cases I know the memory can and must be freed like when processing a large import file. Also I would like to be able to "Destroy" an object in certain situations. By that I mean to have one method that can nullify all refrences to a particualar object. Another thing would be multipule inheritance, or at least some psuedo-composite type scenario. My company seels a website management tool which runs as a smart client, so I write a lot of UI code that is shared between web and windows. We have our own MVC style system so much of the "Controller" and "Model" code is common to both web and win, but we also have several methods we have to add to both web and windows controls to support that system. Our only option now is to use interfaces, but 90% of the implementation of those interfaces for each control could be shared, but is currently copied since both our web and windows controls can't derive off of a base class.

[Sunny Ahuwanya]

James Lonero wrote:

Maybe, Microsoft, in their zeal to make it easier to write software, is turning C# into an all in one language where you can get a job done any way you want.

C++?

Sunny Ahuwanya "The beauty of the desert is that it hides a well somewhere" -- Antoine de Saint Exupéry

[PIEBALDconsult]

I certainly agree with that.

[PIEBALDconsult]

Yortw wrote:

8. Fix for the (very rare) bug caused by compiler optimisations on the String.IsNullOrEmpty function.

I thought they already fixed that in 3.0 or 3.5.

[PIEBALDconsult]

Anastasiosyal wrote:

3. Some Duck-typing

From what I've read about duck-typing, I don't think it's a good idea; it has no way of verifying the "like a duck" part. If I have an object that walks and quacks, but not like a duck you'd better not call it a duck.

[Jon Rista]

I don't think people separate them, because they are so tightly integrated. C# is a language, but it is tightly integrated with the .NET framework. Thats part of what makes it such a great platform...the C# compiler simplifies the use of the framework. Its the same with the Singularity project. Their version of C# was even more advanced than anything we have today. The C# from Singularity was a blend of C# 2.0, Cω, Spec#, with some additional features none of them had. In particular, Singularity C# made message contracts first class language citizens similar to interfaces. The C# from Singularity is far from portable in the sense your talking about...it was tightly integrated with the Singularity platform. Its also extremely powerful, and its features will probably find their way into the public C# spec at some point (woot!). When it comes to portability between different frameworks like Mono. C# is an open, standard specification, and each version can be implemented by any third party...they just tend to be a bit delayed. I know for a fact that Mono 2.0 will include a fully compliant C# 3.0 compiler, which means code you may have written over the past year (it hasn't even been a year yet) will be portable to Mono. That includes LINQ, Extension methods, anonymous types, etc. If you require cross-platform portability, I don't think the problem is that its not possible...you just can't take advantage of new language versions until the third-parties catch up.

[Jon Rista]

Glad you like the Line Counter add-in. I've been poking at it lately, trying to improve it and make it work with VS2008 too. Hopefully another version will be released soon. As for C# 3.0/.NET 3.5, there are LOTS of useful things. WPF is certainly more resource heavy than basic windows forms, but its only one of the many new things available. You also have WCF, WF, LINQ (which isn't just for querying databases...it queries any enumerable type which is GREAT, you'll love it), anonymous types, partial methods, expression trees, class initializers, HashSet, and more. The LINQ features, which is where IEnumerable.Any comes from...its a part of LINQ, are probably the most useful addition to the language.

[Sunny Ahuwanya]

Jon Rista wrote:

C# is a language, but it is tightly integrated with the .NET framework.

Is there any keyword in the C# language that suggests the use of a particular framework? What is to stop any one with the talent and time to write a C# compiler/framework that targets a currently unsupported platform?

Jon Rista wrote:

you just can't take advantage of new language versions until the third-parties catch up.

So what do i do if I need to port the code right now?

Sunny Ahuwanya "The beauty of the desert is that it hides a well somewhere" -- Antoine de Saint Exupéry

[Jon Rista]

"Is there any keyword in the C# language that suggests the use of a particular framework?" - Sunny Well, LINQ syntax comes to mind. The C# compiler translates LINQ into expression trees, which are a part of the .NET 3.5 framework. LINQ is syntactic sugar for a complex framework feature. Seems to be bound to a particular framework to me. Which is all good with me...I'd rather write LINQ syntax than build expression trees manually. "What is to stop any one with the talent and time to write a C# compiler/framework that targets a currently unsupported platform?" - Sunny Never said it would stop anyone...hence my discussion of Mono. :rolleyes: "So what do i do if I need to port the code right now?" - Sunny If you needed to write portable code, why did you dive in and use C# 3.0? Come on man, have some common sense. If A, then B. If you need portable code, then use a portable language version. It's a simple concept. Don't go all about being the antagonist nay-saying useful language features that, apparently, you want to use, and are just miffed that the third-party projects like Mono havn't caught up with yet. It's like your a little kid, "If I can't have it, no one will!!"

[Vikram A Punathambekar]

Yeah, that's how I thought it would be implemented, if it were.

S. Senthil Kumar wrote:

in C++, I hated the cascading effect of const

I can't see how you could make it non-cascading: if a const method were to call a non-const method (which then proceeds to modify the object), that would totally break the contract it promises its calling methods.

S. Senthil Kumar wrote:

the throws clause of every method that directly or indirectly calls it will have to modified

Only if the excception is not handled. I am a big fan of Java's checked exceptions. :)

Cheers, Vıkram.

---

"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.

[Pawel Krakowiak]

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

How is that better than: lookingFor = "%" + lookingFor ; lookingFor = lookingFor + "%" ; lookingFor = "%" + lookingFor + "%" ; The standard way is much clearer (at least in this case).

I was using the example code to filter SubSonic queries (which look much like LINQ extension methods) and it definitely looks better there. By the way, you know that C# strings are immutable and the above code you provided creates additional string objects just to discard them right after they are created and make them wait for the garbage collector to do its job? ;) Very inefficient, I'd say.

[Sunny Ahuwanya]

Jon Rista wrote:

Well, LINQ syntax comes to mind. The C# compiler translates LINQ into expression trees, which are a part of the .NET 3.5 framework. LINQ is syntactic sugar for a complex framework feature. Seems to be bound to a particular framework to me.

The foreach keyword binds to .NET's IEnumerable pattern, the lock keyword binds to .NET's Monitor.Enter/Monitor.Exit methods. There is nothing new in the C# 3 compiler translating LINQ's query expressions to .NET 3.5's expression trees. Anybody developing a compiler targeting a particular framework will decide how they want these keywords to work. Do they bind to a framework library? Do they generate their own code? etc.

Jon Rista wrote:

Come on man, have some common sense. If A, then B. If you need portable code, then use a portable language version. It's a simple concept. Don't go all about being the antagonist nay-saying useful language features that, apparently, you want to use, and are just miffed that the third-party projects like Mono havn't caught up with yet. It's like your a little kid, "If I can't have it, no one will!!"

LOL. You are right, but bear in mind that developers routinely port code someone else wrote. If I'm given a task to port C# 3 code to a C# 2 platform. I'm not going to sit around waiting for the third party platform to catch up. I should be able to do it because the .NET framework for both platforms are binary compatible. If I run into expression trees and Linq query syntax. I'll simply write a substitute class that performs the same functionality (provided the original author properly packaged those statements in classes). You have said good things about C# 3 and you have been correct (I personally love lambda expressions), however, we should call a spade a spade and that black sheep is called Extension methods. If their is something wrong with a product, the consumers have every right to voice their concerns and my concern is nobody except Microsoft knows how to properly use Extension methods. If you notice they: a) Package extension methods in exclusive namespaces. b) Extension methods usually implement an algorithm (not a function) c) Don't tell anyone else how to properly use it (I for one haven't seen a best practices paper on extension methods) The goto keyword is in every major programming language but it has been repeatedly advised not to be used unless y

[Jon Rista]

I'm still not convinced that extension methods are this evil black sheep. Were beyond issues of portability now, and into issues of coding preference, I think. a) Package extension methods in exclusive namespaces. aa) Where would you package them, and why would that place be better than an exclusive namespace? b) Extension methods usually implement an algorithm. bb) First off, implementation of the method isn't the point, its the feature itself. Second, don't all methods implement an algorithm, however simple that algorithm may be? c) Don't tell anyone else how to properly use it. cc) Who defines what proper use is? In what usage instances is one way proper, and what other instances is it improper? Again, I think a little common sense works here. Extension method best practice #1: SIDE EFFECT FREE. Follow that rule, and I think your use of extension methods will be quite enjoyable, regardless of where they are packaged or whether they implement an algorithm or....well, isn't that it...algorithms? Another interesting tidbit about C# 3.0/.NET 3.5. Since .NET 3.5 is just a bunch of new API's on top of the .NET 2.0 runtime, and C# is a translator as well as a compiler, the end result is still CLI that is compatible with .NET 2.0. So long as the appropriate assemblies are available, a .NET application written with C# 3.0/.NET 3.5 should run on a system with only .NET 2.0 installed. Sounds pretty portable to me. ;) Speaking of goto, I use it in two cases:

foreach (...)
{
foreach (...)
{
foreach (...)
{
if (exitCondition)
goto DoneWithLoops;
}
}
}

DoneWithLoops:
// Finish up

Thats a lot cleaner than having a bunch of flags that have to be checked in every loop if a complete exit from all loops is needed. C# translates complete exits from nested loops into a goto anyway in a lot of cases, so the above code is whats going to happen anyway.

switch (...)
{
case 1:
{
// Do something that augments default
goto default;
}
case 2:
{
// Do something unique
break;
}
default:
{
// Do common stuff
break;
}
}

[Jon Rista]

I think this article makes my point for me: http://blogs.msdn.com/wesdyer/archive/2007/03/01/immutability-purity-and-referential-transparency.aspx[^]

[PIEBALDconsult]

Yes, I know that, but the implementation of SqlLike (or whatever) may be no better, and adds a function call as well (which may or may not get inlined). And perhaps pre-condition checking as well. Plus that's only true of the last example. There's no way to tell which is "more efficient" from just looking at the examples, and such concerns are likely to be needless anyway.

[Sunny Ahuwanya]

aa) If I didn't notice Microsoft placed all related extension methods in an (almost) extension-method only namespace. I would be placing regular methods and etension methods in the same namespace.

Jon Rista wrote:

b) Extension methods usually implement an algorithm. bb) First off, implementation of the method isn't the point, its the feature itself. Second, don't all methods implement an algorithm, however simple that algorithm may be?

I mean most LINQ extension methods implement a generic algorithm that works with any object as opposed to a function that performs an action on one object. On most blogs i've read, developers want to extend a type with a function they want so badly instead of considering deriving from that type and adding the function. cc) Since Microsoft developed this feature and must have researched it intensively, they should have at least warned us about it.

Sunny Ahuwanya "The beauty of the desert is that it hides a well somewhere" -- Antoine de Saint Exupéry

[Ken_GHill]

no more null refs!!!!

[SlingBlade]

Yeah, I'll definately have to upgrade to VS2008 and start using the new stuff. That's cool that you have been poking at the line counter. I wouldn't mind seeing a toolbar added and the ability to calculate the contents of a folder. Calculating basedon namespaces, classes, interfaces etc. would be nice too but I imagine that would be a lot more work than folders.