do you use extension methods intensively in your projects?
-
I use them a lot to encapsulate the business meaning of a specific IEnumerable Where clause. Makes code much more readable.
My most recent ones calculate business chart trend line values from either an
IEnumerable<double>or aIEnumerable<T>using the named property.".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Like all other language features, I use them when it's appropriate. That means sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't. It depends on what the method is doing and whether it makes more sense as an extension method or as a property / standard method. If you need to add functionality to a sealed class such as
Stringthen it makes a lot of sense. If the class is your own, then it's just silly to use extension methods ... :laugh:Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
OriginalGriff wrote:
If the class is your own, then it's just silly to use extension methods
No it's not! On a few occasions I've created an interface, ISomething, and before writing any implementation I wrote a few extension methods I knew I needed. And then I wrote the implementations (and got so much functionality out of the box!) :D Kind of like collections and LINQ, all M$ "own" classes, but they still have lots of extension methods.
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
just curious. recently I start to use extension methods in my projects.
diligent hands rule....
Yes I do. I use the ones MS created, I use them to enhance built-in types and I use them to enhance my own types. Only when it makes sense, of course :D
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
just curious. recently I start to use extension methods in my projects.
diligent hands rule....
-
just curious. recently I start to use extension methods in my projects.
diligent hands rule....
public static bool Yes(this T foo) {return true;}
Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project! Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
-
just curious. recently I start to use extension methods in my projects.
diligent hands rule....
-
public static bool Yes(this T foo) {return true;}
Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project! Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Samhain (Halloween) is still fifteen days away, but you got my vote on this one, anyhow. cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
If the class is your own, then it's just silly to use extension methods
No it's not! On a few occasions I've created an interface, ISomething, and before writing any implementation I wrote a few extension methods I knew I needed. And then I wrote the implementations (and got so much functionality out of the box!) :D Kind of like collections and LINQ, all M$ "own" classes, but they still have lots of extension methods.
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Hi Sandor, I'd really appreciate seeing an example of Extension Methods for an Interface. cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
-
Hi Sandor, I'd really appreciate seeing an example of Extension Methods for an Interface. cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
The entire LINQ library depends upon it. For example the
Count()extension method on collections may look as follows:public static class Extensions
{
public static int Count(this IEnumerable collection)
{
int count = 0;
using (var enumerator = collection.GetEnumerator())
{
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
count += 1;
}
}
return count;
}
}The actual extension method checks for null and tries to cast to
ICollection<T>andICollectionfor theCountproperty first, but it's an extension on an interface. There are LOTS of them...Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
public static bool Yes(this T foo) {return true;}
Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project! Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
very inspirational
diligent hands rule....
-
My most recent ones calculate business chart trend line values from either an
IEnumerable<double>or aIEnumerable<T>using the named property.".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013this is a good one..
diligent hands rule....
-
The entire LINQ library depends upon it. For example the
Count()extension method on collections may look as follows:public static class Extensions
{
public static int Count(this IEnumerable collection)
{
int count = 0;
using (var enumerator = collection.GetEnumerator())
{
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
count += 1;
}
}
return count;
}
}The actual extension method checks for null and tries to cast to
ICollection<T>andICollectionfor theCountproperty first, but it's an extension on an interface. There are LOTS of them...Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
thanks for this example!
diligent hands rule....
-
public static bool Yes(this T foo) {return true;}
Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project! Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Marc Clifton wrote:
public static bool Yes<T>(this T foo) {return true;}
That looks suspiciously like an advert for Ty-phoo tea!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
just curious. recently I start to use extension methods in my projects.
diligent hands rule....
-
just curious. recently I start to use extension methods in my projects.
diligent hands rule....
We use them in order to have POCO's and then attach extension methods to them to give them some mojo.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
If the class is your own, then it's just silly to use extension methods
No it's not! On a few occasions I've created an interface, ISomething, and before writing any implementation I wrote a few extension methods I knew I needed. And then I wrote the implementations (and got so much functionality out of the box!) :D Kind of like collections and LINQ, all M$ "own" classes, but they still have lots of extension methods.
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Sander Rossel wrote:
On a few occasions I've created an interface, ISomething, and before writing any implementation I wrote a few extension methods I knew I needed.
Still doesn't make sense to me. If the interface is your own, you should write the method to the interface as it makes sense to be in its scope. If you need behavior without having to implement everywhere, you're looking for an abstract class. Extension methods provide a clean way to have helper methods to class you cannot modify. Otherwise you're just creating spaghetti code and killing a few principles. Although M$ does with it's own classes, it makes sense, specially to not break backwards compatibility when implementing new frameworks (like LINQ), so yes, they own the code, but they should not modify it, as LINQ is implemented in a whole different scope. If you are developing frameworks, with attachable components, that extend other standalone components, yes, it makes sense to have extension methods on your own code, otherwise I agree that's "silly".
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
just curious. recently I start to use extension methods in my projects.
diligent hands rule....
Extensively sounds funny to me. Unless you are creating a framework of extension methods for built-in or third party types, using it intensively may indicate you're doing something wrong with your code. They have a purpose, be sure you understand it before using it everywhere. It may create unorganized, hard to maintain code.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
We use them in order to have POCO's and then attach extension methods to them to give them some mojo.
cheers Chris Maunder
Why not implement in the object themselves and keep them contained and organized? Is there anything preventing the code to be where it belongs?
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
On a few occasions I've created an interface, ISomething, and before writing any implementation I wrote a few extension methods I knew I needed.
Still doesn't make sense to me. If the interface is your own, you should write the method to the interface as it makes sense to be in its scope. If you need behavior without having to implement everywhere, you're looking for an abstract class. Extension methods provide a clean way to have helper methods to class you cannot modify. Otherwise you're just creating spaghetti code and killing a few principles. Although M$ does with it's own classes, it makes sense, specially to not break backwards compatibility when implementing new frameworks (like LINQ), so yes, they own the code, but they should not modify it, as LINQ is implemented in a whole different scope. If you are developing frameworks, with attachable components, that extend other standalone components, yes, it makes sense to have extension methods on your own code, otherwise I agree that's "silly".
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
I wholeheartedly disagree :D Extension methods are nothing more than static helper methods that are treated as instance methods by the editor (and the compiler?). I don't think there is a principle against creating static helper methods and it's certainly not creating spaghetti, especially since the methods read as instance methods (editor trick or not). An abstract class is heavy weaponry, every implementor must now inherit the abstract class and since you can only inherit once this puts a serious limitation on implementors. If you can't inherit you don't get the functionality. You could create a wrapper, but that's just a lot of boilerplate code. Besides, inheritance is added complexity/spaghetti too!
public interface ISomething
{
IEnumerable Stuff { get; }
}public static class SomethingExtensions
{
public static bool HasStuff(this ISomething something)
{
return something.Stuff.Any();
}
}How is this not awesome? Every implementor now getsHasStufffor free without the need for inheritance!You agree that extension methods are clean for LINQ and when dealing with third party code, but for your own code it's suddenly spaghetti? Sounds like double standards to me ;)
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly.
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need.
Or read my articles here on CodeProject.Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.
— Edsger W. DijkstraRegards,
Sander -
just curious. recently I start to use extension methods in my projects.
diligent hands rule....
Yes, quite a bit. I love the extension method concept. Now if they could just implement "extension properties". Yes, I know you can use extension methods to pseudo-implement properties, but a full-blown extension property implementation would be sweet...
