Short LINQ syntax
-
Anyone know this new short syntax method of LINQ queries ? http://bwqs.codeplex.com
The bloke who wrote the article probably does. Me? I think there is enough confusion available in LINQ without needing extra compact stuff that looks like a regex - i.e. unreadable without a good long look.
You looking for sympathy? You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric (Page 1788, if it helps)
-
Anyone know this new short syntax method of LINQ queries ? http://bwqs.codeplex.com
That sort of post comes across all spammy-like -- I wouldn't be surprised to find that you are the one who wrote whatever it is at that link. I'm not going to look.
-
Anyone know this new short syntax method of LINQ queries ? http://bwqs.codeplex.com
-
This approach refers to a Bitwise combinations syntax, precisely the opposite way of Natural Language. Regards
-
Anyone know this new short syntax method of LINQ queries ? http://bwqs.codeplex.com
-
That sort of post comes across all spammy-like -- I wouldn't be surprised to find that you are the one who wrote whatever it is at that link. I'm not going to look.
Yes, your first ideia is correct ! I created myself and try to disseminate and get feedback from the community on this new concept. Your guess is that is not correct. I never would post spam in such a prestigious community like CodeProject. Regards.
-
Anyone know this new short syntax method of LINQ queries ? http://bwqs.codeplex.com
-
Yes, your first ideia is correct ! I created myself and try to disseminate and get feedback from the community on this new concept. Your guess is that is not correct. I never would post spam in such a prestigious community like CodeProject. Regards.
-
The bloke who wrote the article probably does. Me? I think there is enough confusion available in LINQ without needing extra compact stuff that looks like a regex - i.e. unreadable without a good long look.
You looking for sympathy? You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric (Page 1788, if it helps)
Hi, First thank you for the comment. But, you read the summary of the entire project ? Download the console for training and testing the new concept ? See it in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLdIS809wBA Do this! Then comment again. Regards
-
Anyone know this new short syntax method of LINQ queries ? http://bwqs.codeplex.com
My eyes. They burn. That looks like the coding equivalent of the Bieber-beast Seriously, why? The whole point about LINQ is that it's a natural looking syntax. This takes terse to the nth degree. While it might be clever, I have to ask what problem domain you're attempting to solve here. Why should I invest my time learning this?
-
I suspect if something like that will get approved as article here at CP. I did not even felt like reading it considering how difficult it was to read unformatted code. Yes, I am that lazy.
Hi, A version with a more detailed content more examples was posted and is awaiting approval for publication of the article. Meanwhile you can get an idea of the concept in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLdIS809wBA http://youtu.be/BeFFYMJL9e4 Tks for reading ! Regards ;-)
-
-
OK. BTW there is an error in your code, a semi-colon is missing on line 35, so the copy&paste does not compile.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.
Hi Rage, Tks for your reply. The Project Portal on CodePlex contains an Test Package functional, check-it : http://bwqs.codeplex.com/releases/view/127212 Regards ;-)
-
Yes, your first ideia is correct ! I created myself and try to disseminate and get feedback from the community on this new concept. Your guess is that is not correct. I never would post spam in such a prestigious community like CodeProject. Regards.
Member 10277067 wrote:
I never would post spam in such a prestigious community like CodeProject.
And yet you did. QED.
-
My eyes. They burn. That looks like the coding equivalent of the Bieber-beast Seriously, why? The whole point about LINQ is that it's a natural looking syntax. This takes terse to the nth degree. While it might be clever, I have to ask what problem domain you're attempting to solve here. Why should I invest my time learning this?
Hi, Tks for your reply. Why community currently uses JQuery in large scale ? THINK MORE. WRITE LESS ! ;-) Regards
-
Member 10277067 wrote:
I never would post spam in such a prestigious community like CodeProject.
And yet you did. QED.
It's a discussion in The Lounge, not SPAM. Regards
-
Member 10277067 wrote:
I never would post spam in such a prestigious community like CodeProject.
And yet you did. QED.
-
It's a discussion in The Lounge, not SPAM. Regards
Spam is in the eye of the beholder. Otherwise there would be no such term.
-
Hi, Tks for your reply. Why community currently uses JQuery in large scale ? THINK MORE. WRITE LESS ! ;-) Regards
No; a developer must write as clearly as possible so that the next developer can think less. Effort "saved" up front often leads to greater effort later.
-
The bloke who wrote the article probably does. Me? I think there is enough confusion available in LINQ without needing extra compact stuff that looks like a regex - i.e. unreadable without a good long look.
You looking for sympathy? You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric (Page 1788, if it helps)
OriginalGriff wrote:
Me? I think there is enough confusion available in LINQ without needing extra compact stuff that looks like a regex - i.e. unreadable without a good long look.
It's like the rule 34 of coding: Within two years of its creation, a programming language that is easily usable will have been turned into a writhing mess of ridiculous complications. [edit] I typoed "writhing", fer cryin' out loud!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
