i don't like object oriented programming

[Super Lloyd]

This has always worked. You can't do that with static and/or non virtual method though, maybe that's what mislead you?!

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!

[Dannyyx]

You shouldn't look at object oriented programming as if you're working with objects. You should look at it objectively.

[Fueled By Decaff]

There are two ways that I can think of to avoid this code duplication. (Whether these are suitable is up to you.) 1. Implement your byte specific class as a subclass of your generic class? 2. Use dependency injection for the byte specific code. Good luck

[Bob1000]

Functional programing even worse..... But it all started going wrong when we moved away from the abacus! No one ever hacked my abacus! Actually not quite true, think someone removed a bead....

[Lost User]

honey the monster, codewitch wrote:

Now I wonder what you'd consider procedural.

AMOS, among others.

honey the monster, codewitch wrote:

Spoken like someone that's never used it.

OO is the most logical step forward from the messy and hard-to-maintain pages of procedures, sprinkled with arguments and global variables.

honey the monster, codewitch wrote:

I wish it was more available in places other than C++.

It is still available; you can abuse any OO language as if it is merely capable of procedures.

Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

[honey the codewitch]

generic programming, not procedures.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[honey the codewitch]

the latter isn't practical. the former i already did, and it's sloppy as hell

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[honey the codewitch]

doesn't compile for me.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[honey the codewitch]

oh i see what you did. that's not template specialization. that's method overloading

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[honey the codewitch]

i know how to code OO. i just don't like OO because it requires a lot of code to do a little bit.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[honey the codewitch]

i looked at your code wrong, didn't notice until i tried writing one myself. that's not template specialization, but simply method overloading - and i'm doing it already class CharFA : FA { .. }

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[Super Lloyd]

yeah but... it behave quite similarly...

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!

[honey the codewitch]

not really. only in the specific scenario where all you need is method overloading. and even then it's not the same, because you have two separate classes in your code now instead of one.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[honey the codewitch]

here let me give you an example of where it's not the same ... FooBase DerivedMethod() { return BaseMethod() } ... FooBase BaseMethod() { return new FooBase(); } ... in a specialization there are no base methods, so above would always return the fully derived class

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[Super Lloyd]

Yeah, I was wondering, isn't that good enough?! But then I realised one could accidentally instantiate new FA() instead of the desired new CharFA() But then what of this other syntax? While it's slightly more wordy, I bet the end compiled result is just as you desired

class A
{
    public void Do(T value)
    {
        if (value is int intV) Do(intV);
        else DoDefault(value);
    }
    void DoDefault(T value)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Value: " + value);
    }
    void Do(int value)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Int: " + value);
    }
}
class Program
{
    static void Main(string\[\] args)
    {
        A a = new A();
        a.Do(1);
    }
}

I mean personally I am happy to solve that using subclasses or interfaces, but since you really didn't want to....

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!

[honey the codewitch]

Yeah I can't do that in this code because this code is inner loop critical and the "is" comparison is just a dog. I think "as" is faster, but still, it should be resolved at compile time. I know it seems a minor quibble but this code may be used as part of a lexer. The lexing itself needs to be balls quick to be feasible. also i'd be concerned about bugs this could introduce since i have to repeat a lot of code, but that's not a showstopper. it's just irritating

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[honey the codewitch]

adding, my solution to the object creation was to have a method in the base class called CreateFA() that could be overloaded in order to force the base class to create the derived class. Unfortunately to get it to work I had to remove every static method that created objects from the base class =(

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[Super Lloyd]

I think you probably underestimate the compiler here generic code are some sort of IL that is used to generate code on demand (when a concrete type is used) when, say A type is created the compiler will see that

void Do(int value) {
if (value is double d) { // dead end code prune by the compiler
}
if (value is int ii) Do (ii);
}

some path will never happen and it will removed them from the concrete implementation created when the concrete type is created. and the compiled code will become

void Do(int value) {
Do (value);
}

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!

[honey the codewitch]

The reason I underestimate the compiler maybe is the last the time I really examined IL was in the .NET 2.0-3.0 days and the compiler didn't do hardly anything for program optimization. Microsoft's rationale seemed to be that JIT would take care of it, but JIT doesn't do whole program optimization. It can only do peephole optimization, so I don't know what they were thinking. My guess is it was an excuse due to deadlines. So I don't trust the compiler that much. Maybe my information is old. The compiler certainly has been revamped since then.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[Super Lloyd]

I mean it's such an obvious static type check optimisation.. I haven't explicitly checked for it, but I would wage $5 on it! ;P

void Do(int value) {
// I would wage $5 the compiler remove the if statement and execute the nested statement always
if (value is int ii) {
}
// I would wage 5 dollar this is removed by the compiler
if (value is double dd) {
}
}

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!