Re: C# 3.0

Oh yeah? Why not add class posing, forward invocations and what not? And 
maybe name it Objective C#?
 Cheers,
Stoyan
 On 9/15/05, Mont Rothstein <mont@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> 
> On extension methods I have to disagree. They are a good thing. I've used
> this concept extensively in Objective-C (which calls them Categories and 
> are
> even more powerful).
> 
> The great thing about extension methods is that you can use them on
> instances that you have not instantiated. Obviously, if you instantiate 
> the
> instance then you can simply create a subclass and add whatever methods 
> you
> want to that subclass. However if you are handed the instance by something
> else the extension methods allow you to accomplish things that might
> otherwise be very cumbersome.
> 
> One of the biggest benefits of extension methods is that they can allow 
> you
> to write less code.
> 
> Can they be abused? Sure, but nothing will ever stop bad programmers from
> writing bad code.
> 
> -Mont
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Discussion relating to the specifics of the C# and Managed C++
> > languages [mailto:DOTNET-CX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter
> > Ritchie
> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 10:34 AM
> > To: DOTNET-CX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [DOTNET-CX] C# 3.0
> >
> > Eric Gunnerson has some ramblings at
> > http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2005/09/14/466510.aspx, on 
> implicitly
> > types variables and extension methods. I don't buy the justification of
> > these two additions.
> >
> > I don't see the need for implicitly typed variables. The note in the
> > spec. that basically suggests avoiding implicitly typed variables 
> whenever
> > possible says it all. What's wrong with "Object"? I have the same
> > opinion on extensions that require "var": Anonymous Types and Implicitly
> > Types Arrays
> >
> > Extension methods seems to be a hack to recover from lack (or removal,
> > considering C++ roots) of nonmember functions or implicit conversion
> > constructors. It also reaks of a means to circumvent Sealed classes. I
> > started a blog some months ago on extending C# classes without touching
> > the base; but never posted it. You can accomplish what extension methods
> > give you very simply.
> >
> > The additional object initializers seem to be just syntactic sugar to
> > avoid having to write constructors.
> >
> > I don't know what I think about Query Expressions yet.
> >
> > The only compelling additions, in my opinion, seem to be Collection
> > Initializers and Lambda Expressions. Lambda Expressions remind me of
> > Continuation Passing Style.
> >
> > http://www.peterRitchie.com/
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:52:36 -0500, Russell Collins
> > <RCollins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >I couldn't agree more.
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Stoyan Damov [mailto:stoyan.damov@xxxxxxxxx]
> > >Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:25 AM
> > >To: DOTNET-CX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Subject: Re: [DOTNET-CX] C# 3.0
> > >
> > > On 9/14/05, Eyvind Axelsen <eyvind.axelsen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Language specification, examples etc can be found here:
> > >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/future/default.aspx
> > >>
> > >> Very cool!
> > >>
> > >> Eyvind.
> > >
> > > I think I'm going to puke:
> > > The implictly typed local variables and arrays extension is letting 
> lazy
> > bastards write JavaScript in C#.
> > > The object initializers extension is something which I expected in C#
> > 1.0.
> > > The collection intializers extension is useless, and can only serve 
> book
> > writers write contrived examples.
> > > The anonymous types extension is a replacement of a worst practice,
> > which is returning a quick-and-dirty tupple (tripplet, whatever). We 
> used
> > to return object[] for doing that.
> > > The lamda functions extension is for lazy bastards, which also like to
> > write write-only code.
> > > The query expressions extension is, well, no comment. Really, this is
> > CSql, not C#.
> > > I would really appreciate a slightly more powerful generics to all of
> > the "extensions" above.
> > > Cheers,
> > >Stoyan
> > > P.S. Haven't had much sleep recently
> > >
> > >===================================
> > >This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com
> > >
> > >View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > http://discuss.develop.com
> > >
> > >===================================
> > >This list is hosted by DevelopMentorR http://www.develop.com
> > >
> > >View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > http://discuss.develop.com
> >
> > ===================================
> > This list is hosted by DevelopMentorR http://www.develop.com
> >
> > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > http://discuss.develop.com
> 
> ===================================
> This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com
> 
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at 
> http://discuss.develop.com
> 



-- 
Cheers,

Stoyan

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor®  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com