I hate technical books that try to sound young...
-
Thanks again for fixing it :-) You don't want newbies who may encounter it in future to go away with wrong info. Good work! :thumbsup:
Regards, Nish
Latest article: Code Project Posts Analyzer for Windows Phone 7 My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
You don't want newbies who may encounter it in future to go away with wrong info
Good point.
The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realise it doesn't say anything it's too late to stop reading it.
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Abhinav was not 100% right. Please read the corrections to his correction too
I need a beer... :)
The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realise it doesn't say anything it's too late to stop reading it. My latest tip/trick
Abhinav S wrote:
I need a beer...
...again. It is rude to stop at one, the others may think you don't like them.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
-
I decided it was time I read up on LINQ: never really used it, time I learnt. So, I have a quick look for a book. Amazon: Sams LINQ Unleashed for C#. Lets have a quick look "Surprise me" "check out Wikipedia; Wikipedia is wicked cool at providing detailed facts" Hmmm. Wicked cool? And a code fragment to illustrate how wonderfull anonymous types are:
var request = HttpWebRequest.Create(string.Format(url, stock)); using (var response = request.GetResponse()) { using (var reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)) { return (reader.ReadToEnd()); } }I hate that. Why use an example where it is actually clearer if you don't use anonymous types?
WebRequest request = HttpWebRequest.Create(string.Format(url, stock)); using (WebResponse response = request.GetResponse()) { using (StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)) { return (reader.ReadToEnd()); } }Don't think I'll buy that one...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Digital man: "You are, in short, an idiot with the IQ of an ant and the intellectual capacity of a hose pipe."
It's not the 'wicked cool' that throws me in that statement it the 'detailed facts' Wikipedia is convenient, but not to be relied upon too heavily.
My current favourite phrase: I've seen better!
-SK Genius
-
Abhinav S wrote:
I need a beer...
...again. It is rude to stop at one, the others may think you don't like them.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
-
I decided it was time I read up on LINQ: never really used it, time I learnt. So, I have a quick look for a book. Amazon: Sams LINQ Unleashed for C#. Lets have a quick look "Surprise me" "check out Wikipedia; Wikipedia is wicked cool at providing detailed facts" Hmmm. Wicked cool? And a code fragment to illustrate how wonderfull anonymous types are:
var request = HttpWebRequest.Create(string.Format(url, stock)); using (var response = request.GetResponse()) { using (var reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)) { return (reader.ReadToEnd()); } }I hate that. Why use an example where it is actually clearer if you don't use anonymous types?
WebRequest request = HttpWebRequest.Create(string.Format(url, stock)); using (WebResponse response = request.GetResponse()) { using (StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)) { return (reader.ReadToEnd()); } }Don't think I'll buy that one...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Digital man: "You are, in short, an idiot with the IQ of an ant and the intellectual capacity of a hose pipe."
sorry, but type inference makes code clearer, I like the first version better. Why should I have to redeclare the variable's type when
newing it? It's easily inferred from the right-side.var reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)
is better than
StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)
"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams "Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this?"
-
sorry, but type inference makes code clearer, I like the first version better. Why should I have to redeclare the variable's type when
newing it? It's easily inferred from the right-side.var reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)
is better than
StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)
"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams "Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this?"
I agree with you, but it's like arguing about how your favorite color is better than someone else's.
Mike Lasseter
-
Abhinav S wrote:
It makes the varible implicity typed i.e. the variable knows nothing about what it will be until the code exectues.
That's not fully correct. The variable type is known at compile time. It just saves you some typing :-)
Regards, Nish
Latest article: Code Project Posts Analyzer for Windows Phone 7 My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
That's not fully correct. The variable type is known at compile time.
Real men don't compile code; they just put it straight into production.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I decided it was time I read up on LINQ: never really used it, time I learnt. So, I have a quick look for a book. Amazon: Sams LINQ Unleashed for C#. Lets have a quick look "Surprise me" "check out Wikipedia; Wikipedia is wicked cool at providing detailed facts" Hmmm. Wicked cool? And a code fragment to illustrate how wonderfull anonymous types are:
var request = HttpWebRequest.Create(string.Format(url, stock)); using (var response = request.GetResponse()) { using (var reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)) { return (reader.ReadToEnd()); } }I hate that. Why use an example where it is actually clearer if you don't use anonymous types?
WebRequest request = HttpWebRequest.Create(string.Format(url, stock)); using (WebResponse response = request.GetResponse()) { using (StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)) { return (reader.ReadToEnd()); } }Don't think I'll buy that one...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Digital man: "You are, in short, an idiot with the IQ of an ant and the intellectual capacity of a hose pipe."
OriginalGriff wrote:
Sams LINQ Unleashed for C#.
Three out of five words are bad for your personal hygiene and will give you brain rot: Sams LINQ Unleashed X| And some studies indicate a forth word, "C#", will lead to early onset of Alzheimer's. Marc
-
I decided it was time I read up on LINQ: never really used it, time I learnt. So, I have a quick look for a book. Amazon: Sams LINQ Unleashed for C#. Lets have a quick look "Surprise me" "check out Wikipedia; Wikipedia is wicked cool at providing detailed facts" Hmmm. Wicked cool? And a code fragment to illustrate how wonderfull anonymous types are:
var request = HttpWebRequest.Create(string.Format(url, stock)); using (var response = request.GetResponse()) { using (var reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)) { return (reader.ReadToEnd()); } }I hate that. Why use an example where it is actually clearer if you don't use anonymous types?
WebRequest request = HttpWebRequest.Create(string.Format(url, stock)); using (WebResponse response = request.GetResponse()) { using (StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)) { return (reader.ReadToEnd()); } }Don't think I'll buy that one...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Digital man: "You are, in short, an idiot with the IQ of an ant and the intellectual capacity of a hose pipe."
Try this one [^] I've tried a couple and this one is the best.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally. http://www.hq4thmarinescomm.com[^] [My Site]
-
sorry, but type inference makes code clearer, I like the first version better. Why should I have to redeclare the variable's type when
newing it? It's easily inferred from the right-side.var reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)
is better than
StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)
"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams "Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this?"
I disagree. It is lazy, and it shows you don't care about what is being returned. If you explicitly type it then you know exactly what it is and what you can do with it. It's the difference between and ArrayList and a List<T> and I thought that was sorted a long time ago :laugh:
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Digital man: "You are, in short, an idiot with the IQ of an ant and the intellectual capacity of a hose pipe."
-
Try this one [^] I've tried a couple and this one is the best.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionally. http://www.hq4thmarinescomm.com[^] [My Site]
Cheers! I'll have a look...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Digital man: "You are, in short, an idiot with the IQ of an ant and the intellectual capacity of a hose pipe."
-
Uhm I am confused, there are no anonymous types used in either code snippet! :confused:
Regards, Nish
Latest article: Code Project Posts Analyzer for Windows Phone 7 My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
I guess you did not read the other responses in this thread. :rolleyes:
Regards, Nish
Latest article: Code Project Posts Analyzer for Windows Phone 7 My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
I guess you did not read the other responses in this thread. :rolleyes:
Regards, Nish
Latest article: Code Project Posts Analyzer for Windows Phone 7 My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
Quite a few of them. ;)
The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realise it doesn't say anything it's too late to stop reading it.
Yeah, the number of C# developers who don't understand the var keyword is shocking!
Regards, Nish
Latest article: Code Project Posts Analyzer for Windows Phone 7 My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
I decided it was time I read up on LINQ: never really used it, time I learnt. So, I have a quick look for a book. Amazon: Sams LINQ Unleashed for C#. Lets have a quick look "Surprise me" "check out Wikipedia; Wikipedia is wicked cool at providing detailed facts" Hmmm. Wicked cool? And a code fragment to illustrate how wonderfull anonymous types are:
var request = HttpWebRequest.Create(string.Format(url, stock)); using (var response = request.GetResponse()) { using (var reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)) { return (reader.ReadToEnd()); } }I hate that. Why use an example where it is actually clearer if you don't use anonymous types?
WebRequest request = HttpWebRequest.Create(string.Format(url, stock)); using (WebResponse response = request.GetResponse()) { using (StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)) { return (reader.ReadToEnd()); } }Don't think I'll buy that one...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Digital man: "You are, in short, an idiot with the IQ of an ant and the intellectual capacity of a hose pipe."
var is used in LINQ extensively so you do not have to create a new class for each LINQ statement that returns a subset of properties from the object being queried(or a new combination from several objects) , e.g.
var result = from employee in employees
select new { employee.Id, employee.Name}This way you don't have to create a new class containing only Id and Name, but you still get the benefit of strongly-typed LINQ result, i.e. you can do
and
We can all discuss about benefit of var vs. declaring a variable type explicitly (i.e. var dataReader against SqlDataReader dataReader) till the cows come home and won't go anywhere. I think the benefit of var in this case is very small (if any), and if people don't want to use var for this I'm fine about it.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
-
var is used in LINQ extensively so you do not have to create a new class for each LINQ statement that returns a subset of properties from the object being queried(or a new combination from several objects) , e.g.
var result = from employee in employees
select new { employee.Id, employee.Name}This way you don't have to create a new class containing only Id and Name, but you still get the benefit of strongly-typed LINQ result, i.e. you can do
and
We can all discuss about benefit of var vs. declaring a variable type explicitly (i.e. var dataReader against SqlDataReader dataReader) till the cows come home and won't go anywhere. I think the benefit of var in this case is very small (if any), and if people don't want to use var for this I'm fine about it.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
This is a good answer.
-
Abhinav S wrote:
It makes the varible implicity typed i.e. the variable knows nothing about what it will be until the code exectues.
That's not fully correct. The variable type is known at compile time. It just saves you some typing :-)
Regards, Nish
Latest article: Code Project Posts Analyzer for Windows Phone 7 My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Abhinav S wrote: It makes the varible implicity typed i.e. the variable knows nothing about what it will be until the code exectues. That's not fully correct. The variable type is known at compile time
Yeah, for that in .net 4, the
dynamickeyworkd was introduced. And I have a bad feeling about it, I think this will give me a lot of headache in the future, specially when the "give me more codezzzz plzzzzz" learn about it. -
I decided it was time I read up on LINQ: never really used it, time I learnt. So, I have a quick look for a book. Amazon: Sams LINQ Unleashed for C#. Lets have a quick look "Surprise me" "check out Wikipedia; Wikipedia is wicked cool at providing detailed facts" Hmmm. Wicked cool? And a code fragment to illustrate how wonderfull anonymous types are:
var request = HttpWebRequest.Create(string.Format(url, stock)); using (var response = request.GetResponse()) { using (var reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)) { return (reader.ReadToEnd()); } }I hate that. Why use an example where it is actually clearer if you don't use anonymous types?
WebRequest request = HttpWebRequest.Create(string.Format(url, stock)); using (WebResponse response = request.GetResponse()) { using (StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.ASCII)) { return (reader.ReadToEnd()); } }Don't think I'll buy that one...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Digital man: "You are, in short, an idiot with the IQ of an ant and the intellectual capacity of a hose pipe."
I found the best book is "Linq in Action" - see here: Click[^]. You can then download LinqPad[^] and all the examples from the book are already loaded. Fast track to learning Linq imo.
It’s not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it’s because we do not dare that things are difficult. ~Seneca
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Technically the use of "var" in the first example makes it an anonymous type, albeit a simplistic one.
Well in this case the var is just an implicitly typed shortcut and the type is known at compile time. I would not call this an anonymous type at all. But I get what you mean.
Regards, Nish
Latest article: Code Project Posts Analyzer for Windows Phone 7 My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
That's just a question of how long it remains anonymous ;)
