Slashdot Mirror


Programming .NET 3.5

lamaditx writes "The world of the .NET framework is taken to the next level by the release of .NET 3.5. The intended audience of this book are experienced .NET programmers. There are no sections that tell you details about C#, SQL servers or anything like that. I don't recommend this book if you never worked on a .NET project and don't know how to set up a SQL database. You should be aware that the code is written in C#. You might use one of the software code converters if you prefer Visual Basic instead. I think the code is still readable even if you do not know C#. I appreciate the fact that the authors decided to use one language only because it keeps the book smaller. The authors assume you are using Visual Studio 2008. You don't necessarily need to update to 2008 if you are working with an older edition because you can use the free Express Edition to get started." Keep reading for the rest of Adrian's review. Programming .NET 3.5 author Jesse Liberty & Alex Horovitz pages 476 publisher O'Reilly Media rating 7/10 reviewer Adrian Lambeck ISBN ISBN 978-0-596-52756-3 summary Covers all main .NET technologies found in .NET 3.5 The table of contents is available from O'Reilly — together with a chapter preview — here. The book does not come with any extras but includes the usual free 45 days access to the book on Safari.

This book covers the key technologies in .NET. There are books on each of these technologies: Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), XAML, AJAX,C# and Silverlight already, but this book shows you how everything is connected with each other. As the authors note: "Our goal is to show you the 25% that you will use 85% of the time.". From my point of view this is good because I have a .NET 2.0 background and wanted to know what is new in .NET 3.5 and how things are connected.

The book is divided in 3 main parts. The first is presentation, which covers XAML, WPF and AJAX. The second describes how to take advantage of the design pattern support in .NET. The last part covers the business layer which includes LINQ, WCF, WF and CardSpace.

The first part starts with XAML. This is the eXtensible A The next main topic is using WPF which is the successor of Windows Forms. The authors explain how to connect data structures to the user interface which I consider to be one of the most important parts of using WPF. You will also find a lot of code and XAML layout descriptions.

The chapter on Silverlight was not very helpful to me. Silverlight is the competitor of Adobe Flash. Giving samples how to layout a Silverlight application is essentially the same as a WPF application thus it dives into more details of XAML. I am missing the real Silverlight message so this part did not meet my expectations.

The third technology you will learn about is AJAX which leads us away from the desktop client to a web client. The explanation how AJAX works is pretty good. The authors show you step by step how to create a todo list web-application with a database backend using ASP.NET and AJAX. Again, this does not cover all AJAX controls or ASP.NET but it shows you how the parts are interconnected and assumes that if you know how to handle one control, then you can also figure out how to handle all the others. Most web applications need some kind of access control. At this point the authors argue that it is faster to implement your own security tables instead of using the ASP.NET forms-based controls.My opinion is that you should never do something that is not correct to teach something else. There are always people who get it wrong in a way you did not anticipate. My recommendation: use the ASP.NET components and do not implement them by yourself.

The second part about the design patterns was surprising to me because I expected the common introduction to standard design pattern. The Model-View-Controller project implements the pattern for ASP.NET and allows developers to incorporate it easily. The advantage is that you get a comprehensive and easy to understand introduction how .NET supports design pattern implementation. I guess this will lead some developers from theory of design patterns to actually implementing them.

I consider the third part to be the real interesting content. It starts with LINQ which bridges object-oriented code to relational databases. You get to know the differences to SQL and also the advantages it provides by explaining new concepts. The examples are easy to understand and successfully make their point.

Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) covers the hot Service-Oriented-Architecture (SOA) topic. The authors explain what it is all about but you will need some knowledge about Web Services and XML to really get it. The introduction is rather short but more details are explained in the corresponding example.

The chapter about Windows Workflow Foundation (WF) starts with a short example how you implement a workflow without WF. After that you get to see how you do the same with WF. This way the necessity for WF become clear and you understand how to take advantage of this technology.

Card Space is the successor of Microsoft passport which was not successful as an authentication service with respect to user acceptance. This is also the key issue that decides on the success of Card Space. Maybe the improved interoperability will help. The chapter provides you with a short authenticate-yourself test and shows you how to offer Card Space authentication in your ASP.NET application.

The book is a good entry to the world of .NET 3.5 because it gives you an idea about every part and what it is good for. Maybe you do not need all of it for your job but at least you know that it exists and how it might be useful. I think it is reasonable that a comprehensive introduction to .NET 3.5 can not satisfy everybody because the range of topics is too broad. One can argue that this kind of information could also be retrieved from the net. I consider the book to be a better resource because it already summarizes the important information such that you do not drown in a flood of information.

There is also some criticism as I pointed out earlier. Maybe I am just a little picky about the details but if you print code download references into a book, they must be available. Most examples can be downloaded but the Alex Horovitz site was not reachable when I tried to access it. Another personal remark is that I do not like to see quotes from Wikipedia. Other people might think different about that so you just need to decide on your own.

I rate this book a 7. The authors scratch the surface of every topic and choose an appropriate style to explain it. You can tell that they thought about how to explain each topic on it's own and give you not just the "how" but also the "why".

Adrian Lambeck is a graduate student in "Media and Information Technologies" and worked with .NET for a few years.

You can purchase Programming .NET 3.5 from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

44 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Typo by Lacota · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pogramming? :P PROGRAMMING.

    --
    It is not a god that would do evil biddings, but only a mortal and its limited knowledge would let such atrocities exist
    1. Re:Typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's slashdot, and it's a Microsoft tech. Presumably he meant to say Pogromming .NET 3.5

    2. Re:Typo by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dovelopers, dovelopers, dovelopers!

    3. Re:Typo by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thats ok, lint will pick that up when you compile it.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  2. Pogs by djdavetrouble · · Score: 2, Funny

    Behold, the Ultimate Pog!

    --
    music lover since 1969
    1. Re:Pogs by rhizome · · Score: 4, Funny

      .NET is back...in Pog form.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  3. Is there a Hindi translation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would like to send this to my programmers.

    1. Re:Is there a Hindi translation? by MiKM · · Score: 2

      You mean "pogrammers"

  4. recommended for advanced programmers by prestamospersonales · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this is a great book but is designed for advanced programmers only.

    1. Re:recommended for advanced programmers by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You just keep telling yourself that. If you wish hard enough and make enough "Micro$haft" jokes about how a super advanced processor "can't run Vista lolz" and how "nobody uses .NET" it will be true one day, little Johnny!

    2. Re:recommended for advanced programmers by eigenstates · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, after having had a go at scripting languages (Ruby, Python, PHP) etc. and trying to weed through the morass of Java libraries and excessively complicated deployment and Flex being a fscking joke- .Net/C# comes out the winner.

      It's tight, it's typed and cake to deploy. LINQ has potential for low memory use(fast) queries and Sliverlight seems to be much better than AS3/Flash because you get the cheat of direct access to WPF.

      eh. Not much of a zealot for any tech here- I would use Smalltalk if it would get the job done. Just a review and some thoughts.

      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    3. Re:recommended for advanced programmers by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You miss the real reason why it's all so much less complicated on .NET : There's only one platform to target, and that platform is Microsoft.

      None of the reasons the GP mentioned in this post have anything to do with "one platform". He seems to be mostly content with C#-the-language, not .NET-the-platform. Java could have its own LINQ analog and type inference already, if only Sun (or Google, or IBM, or other of the big players) wanted it - which they don't. End result - talented language designers like Neal Gafter are leaving the Java scene and joining Microsoft to work on C#. And, given that Neal was the author of the most well thought-out proposal on adding closures to Java, it means that this feature will likely not make it into the language anytime soon - not until Java 8, if it will ever happen (by which time MS will already roll out C# 5.0, etc).

      Sad...

    4. Re:recommended for advanced programmers by eigenstates · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "And I've had wonderful, painless experiences with both technologies in equal measure with the miserable, agonizing experiences."

      Agreed. Completely. Perhaps I am just at a stage of being 'over' Java after its changing so many times at really fundamental levels.

      I like that there is only VS. I like that there is only IIS and only one (fundamental) .NET config. I like easy delegates...

      If I am biased, it's toward easy as opposed to 'for' M$.

      That's where I am now. Who is to say that will not change when the Evil Empire decides that Dictionaries are being deprecated and forget to tell anyone?

      And the price thing- it is much easier to write hideous Java code and put it on a poorly config-ed Tomcat than that is to do with .NET. That turns in to a price the user has to pay. And sometimes, especially with free(beer) software, the tools can be a bit busted. Tomcat/Apache is definitely a welcome exception to that.

      But in the end, realistically, yes, both can lead to bad stuff. Again, I agree with you.

      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    5. Re:recommended for advanced programmers by fireboy1919 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Java could have its own LINQ analog and type inference already, if only Sun (or Google, or IBM, or other of the big players) wanted it - which they don't. End result - talented language designers like Neal Gafter are leaving the Java scene and joining Microsoft [artima.com] to work on C#.

      Well...Linq is sort of a hybrid thing, but it's mostly Microsoft finally adding an ORM language to .Net.

      Quite frankly, as a developer who uses both Java and .Net in my job (and am currently using .Net 3.5 sp1), Linq is an embarrassment.
      I have found the following problems:
      1) I cannot easily be sure which parts will run in the database and which in the VM.
      2) I have little control over how caching works.
      3) Does an extremely poor job of modeling relationships other than "Has A" and "Belongs To" (the very common "Has and Belongs to Many", for example, is missing).
      4) Some functions that work in BOTH the database and the VM don't work with Linq, or don't work reliably (examples I've found: shift operator, bitwise and when used with ulong).
      5) Almost all of the database functionality in Linq will not work with anything besides SQL Server.

      All of these reasons are why I'm sticking with Hibernate for Java, and NHibernate for .Net for as long as I can. Hibernate behaves predictably and reliably, and you can figure out what its doing when you have to and optimize queries that are taking too long, and you seldom have to worry about it failing in unpredictable ways.

      The only complaint I have with Hibernate is that you can't do subselects containing aggregate functions in Hibernate Query Language.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    6. Re:recommended for advanced programmers by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As many others, you're confusing LINQ to SQL, LINQ to Entities / Entity Framework, and LINQ in general. LINQ to SQL is not a proper ORM, and is restricted to MSSQL. Entity Framework is a LINQ to SQL replacement that is a proper ORM, and is database-agnostic (there was an Entity Framework provider for PostgreSQL released recently, and more are in the works).

      LINQ in general is not an ORM. It can be used as a query language for an ORM, which is what LINQ to SQL is about (another example is NHibernate - the recent versions also support LINQ queries). But LINQ is also used in scenarios which do not have anything to do with ORM, or databases in general - LINQ to Objects/XML, to DataSet, and so on. LINQ itself is just a set of standard operators on lazy sequences, established years ago in the functional land - map, filter, fold, take etc - lifted as syntactic sugar into the language itself, with an extensibility API.

    7. Re:recommended for advanced programmers by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is true of nearly every operator in each language variant. The important thing isn't recognizing all the operators/functions and how they work; it's recognizing the difference between a function/operator and a table and field. If the ORM can do that, it has all it needs to convert queries from its language into pure SQL.

      I'm not quite sure what you mean, but my point was that there is no such thing as a "pure generic SQL". SQL generated for Oracle will not work for Postgres or MSSQL. You can probably have a very basic ORM that only uses a common subset of SQL for the stuff that it generates, and loads the rest of it onto the programmer; but that would mean that anything written using such an ORM is not really backend-agnostic. Entity Framework, in contrast, chooses to hide those SQL differences, which is why it needs backend providers that know what they are. Similarly, Hibernate also chooses to hide those SQL differences, which is why it needs backend drivers as well.

    8. Re:recommended for advanced programmers by @madeus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm using and deploying C# .NET on Linux in a production environment right now, and I'm absolutely not a Microsoft fan and wouldn't have wanted to anywhere near Windows or Visual Studio prior to .NET and C#.

      Mono is absolutely amazing for cross platform development. I develop on Mac OS X, deploy on Linux (and other Unix platforms) and on Windows it it Just Works (TM). I'll admit the first time I ran an app on Windows (with .NET) that I'd developed on Mac OS with IIS I was taken aback with how flawlessly it worked. I've found the only target platform specific code I have is that which I knowingly and deliberately call (for example, to inspect the registry on Windows).

      I'm really loopy over the syntax of C#. It's very, very tight and both development and deployment for things like SOAP web service is ridiculously easy - and even more impressive with Mono than with using ISS to server the same content (which generates a lot of automatic documentation and examples for service).

      The only major issue I have with Mono right now is that it's not ready for widespread end user application deployment on Mac OS X for GUI applications - it's both unstable and not fully native. However it would still be absolutely fine on Mac OS X server software, code which is called from a Cocoa application (the road I think I am going to have to go down for the Mac version of the application I'm currently working on) or for bespoke / enterprise application deployment.

      Of course, I think it's important to mention to that Mono really isn't to .NET what WINE is to Win32 application compatibility - which is an understandable, if inaccurate initial conclusion to come to about it...

        While applications built with Mono in mind work great on both Mono and on .NET for Windows, .NET applications written on Windows with Visual Studio are necessarily going to work under Mono without issue, because it's easy to do platform specific code in Visual Studio, particularly when writing desktop software.

      So in that respect it's absolutely true to say .NET has issues, but when using Mono it works really well for cross platform application development (with the exception of the caveats mentioned for Mac OS X). Under Linux, I've had no such issues. I will say it takes a bit of work to deploy and package Mono applications for end user deployment, and for now shouldn't be taken too lightly (tools like mkbundle and macpack are great, but in practice can take some work to get up and running under a Windows environment in particular.)

  5. Microsoft devs by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft devs who focus on .NET are known as pogrammers. Microsoft is right and the rest of the world is wrong. Better get on the bus.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  6. Anyone else see the cover and think... by Alpha+Whisky · · Score: 5, Funny

    How appropriate, it's a picture of a lame duck.

    --
    it's = it is

    its = belonging to it

  7. Pog Ramming by sakonofie · · Score: 3, Funny

    There should be a space between pog and ramming. Back in my day, we used pog "slammers," not "rammers," but you can call 'em whatever you want samzenpus.
    Also, I am still confused as to what this has to do with Card Space. Is there a new crossover between pogs and yuugio/magic/pokemon? I hope so. I believe children nationwide will benefit from throwing large chunks of brass at the ground during school.

  8. Re:Pogramming, def: by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to be confused with Po'grammar, which describes the posting behavior of slashdotters.

  9. Re:Mono 2.5 released by fredrik70 · · Score: 4, Informative

    actually, iirc, mono is compatible with all of .NET 2.0 and quite a bit of 3.5, so they aint that far behind, see: http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_General

    --
    if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
  10. You know..... by Seakip18 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a sad day at Slashdot when more people would comment on a typo than offer criticism about a book. So let's fix this.
    It explains some of the newer things 3.5 brings but does it deal with their actual implementation with business logic or otherwise? From what I've gathered, LINQ sounds like craziness in terms of being able to keep SQL maintained.

    Roll with that.

    --
    import system.cool.Sig;
    1. Re:You know..... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what I've gathered, LINQ sounds like craziness in terms of being able to keep SQL maintained.

      LINQ to SQL is no different in concept than Hibernate's HQL, or any of the other dozen self-designed query languages. Well, except that it's "language-integrated".

      Nor is it limited to databases. A project I work on has none, but uses LINQ heavily for queries on plain object collections and XML. It really cuts down on boilerplate code (but then again, those who have been using Haskell or ML, and know what "map" or "fold" are, should not be surprised - that's what LINQ, in fact, is).

    2. Re:You know..... by BRSQUIRRL · · Score: 4, Informative

      I blame Microsoft for perpetuating this misconception, but LINQ (at its core) has nothing to do with SQL or databases.

      I too am a little skeptical about LINQ-to-SQL, the implementation of LINQ that allows querying/manipulating SQL databases. But basic LINQ -- the idea of overlaying the .NET class library with a set of generic query operations and then providing new programming language keywords to twiddle them -- is pretty cool. For example, LINQ can work over in-memory collections of objects or XML documents, which allows you to replace lines and lines of arcane search loops with a single LINQ query statement that is infinitely easier to understand and maintain.

    3. Re:You know..... by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      LINQ sounds like craziness in terms of being able to keep SQL maintained.

      You have to look beyond SQL and see the real value of having an abstract in-language query facility which can be remapped, using any number of methods from XML configuration to dependency injection, to any data source which supports LINQ. This is no more complicated than the previous state of affairs in many high level languages with generic data table and grid objects or strings built up as queries. The genius of LINQ is that it compliments the better solutions while replacing the inferior ones and providing some additional goodies, lambda expressions for example. LINQ stands for Language Integrated Query and is NOT just LINQ to SQL (although Microsoft has promoted the hell out of that implementation). Sometimes it pays to look beyond the hype and see what a new technology really does (or does not) bring to the table and if LINQ is just another way to write SQL to you then perhaps you should take another look, because LINQ has much more to offer than just LINQ to SQL.

  11. So I'm a jerk, but by jguevin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sorry, this is a really poorly written review. It's choppy, uninsightful, and just painful to read. And then there are "sentences" like:

    The first part starts with XAML. This is the eXtensible A The next main topic is using WPF which is the successor of Windows Forms.

    Good lord.

  12. Re:LINQ = Doomed by Shados · · Score: 3, Informative

    People implement it left and right because its easy: its just one interface to implement (its not trivial, but its not hard either). Also, having something exposed as IQueryable (what you need to "implement LINQ") also allows you to expose it to ADO.NET Data Services, which is a huge time saver.

    I don't see why you get "less maintainability for designers" though. Functional programming (which LINQ somewhat is) is a heck of a lot easier to maintain than the alternative.

  13. Re:Mono 2.5 released by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    mono is compatible with all of .NET 2.0 and quite a bit of 3.5, so they aint that far behind

    I hear that they're ahead in some areas, patent infringement for example.

  14. Typo. by Ostracus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Actually it's Pooh-gramming. A child-like state all programmers try to enter into.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  15. Re:Just one question... by Shados · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes they do. Various versions depending on when the products were released (keep in mind .NET 3.5 is .NET 2.0 with a lot of extensions, its still .NET 2.0), so you have Windows Workflow in Biztalk and Sharepoint, Expression Blend is in WPF, of course, many of their own sites use Silverlight 2.0, etc etc etc. .NET 3.5 is fairly recent, especially 3.5 SP1, so we don't see that -as much-, but .NET in general is fairly pervasive at MS.

  16. I still don't change it... by Ostracus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Perhaps a language which changes so drastically and so quickly should be avoided. Especially when that company is Microsoft, and especially when that stands a major chance of ruining all of your previous hard work."

    You know I just had to reply to such a curious complaint. FOSS is not only subject to change, but more so due to it's open nature and "defacto" leadership. And no one complains about all the changes required when some code you're depending on changes, or your existing assumptions don't work as well as you thought.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  17. Re:Is the cover of the book a subtle joke? by fortyonejb · · Score: 2, Funny

    Which is not quite as lame as being the third person to make this joke.

  18. O/S bigotry right in the tags by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is a book review flamebait? Why tag a book review with "microsoftsucks" and "vssucks" and even "eclipsesucks"?

    There is only one reason, and that is zealotry and bigotry.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  19. LINQ does not sound like craziness by melted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I use LINQ almost exclusively in two ways:

    1. To access stored procedures
    2. To do SQL-like queries on in-memory collections

    It works GREAT for both.

    1. Re:LINQ does not sound like craziness by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I use LINQ almost exclusively in two ways...

      Sorry to tell you this, but LINQ has run almost to the end of its short life. Turns out the ADO.NET folks are going to kill it off. They like EntityFramework better.

      LINQ was good at a few things, and a LINQ to Objects/SharePoint/etc. that was fully matured would have been nice. But, it won't get there now.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    2. Re:LINQ does not sound like craziness by dctoastman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Linq TO SQL is dead. Not Linq.
      Now people will be using Linq to Entities instead of Linq to SQL.
      http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/products/cc533447.aspx

      The ability to use Linq on other random collections will not be affected.

  20. Re:I still don't get it... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 3, Informative

    Perhaps a language which changes so drastically and so quickly should be avoided.

    Eh, not really. New editions of .NET, for the most part, only add options and functionality; they don't break existing code. If you don't want to use generics, WCF, LINQ, etc. as they're introduced, don't -- they just present what amount to easier/cleaner options to achieve the same goals, in some cases. Instead of iterating through a collection and picking out the objects that match your chosen criteria, maybe you write a LINQ query to do it instead. The latter is less code and probably a lot easier on whoever has to maintain your code down the line (it's easier to read/understand/modify), but the former still works.

    I've spent a lot more time dealing with fallout from PHP 4 code that isn't valid PHP 5 code (for example) than I ever have with old-version .NET code -- and I spend a lot more time working with .NET code.

  21. The APress book is Better by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Informative

    The APress offering in this category, Pro C# 2008 and the .NET 3.5 Platform, is almost certainly superior in both breadth of topics covered and details presented. I own the Apress book and have found it to be a useful reference on numerous occasions, but read the reviews and look at the scores before deciding what to buy. If you only have funds for one or the other then get the Apress book, you won't be disappointed.

  22. Re:Oh...I get it! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course not, obviously O'Reilly thought of it first.

  23. Re:I still don't get it... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

    Perhaps a language which changes so drastically and so quickly should be avoided. Especially when that company is Microsoft, and especially when that stands a major chance of ruining all of your previous hard work.

    So far, MS has a pretty good track of backwards compatibility with .NET. C# in particular goes to great lengths to not break stuff. For example, one of the new features in C# 3.0 is type inference for local variables, similar to "auto" in C++0x. So, you can write:

    <b>var</b> list = new List<int>();

    And type of "list" will be inferred from the type of initializer. Now, "var", is a keyword here, but it's a special one. In theory, there might be an existing valid C# 1.x/2.0 program like this:

    struct var { }
    // ...
    var x = new var();

    In this case, "var" is just a user-defined type, and should be treated as such. And C# 3.0 compiler will do precisely that. The new meaning of "var" will only kick in if you don't have a type named "var" in scope, otherwise you'll just get the old explicit 1.x/2.0 semantics. MS calls that "context keywords". "Context" can be different in any given case - e.g. "var", as noted already, depends on types visible in scope; another context keyword, "partial", is only a keyword when it is immediately followed by another (normal) keyword "class". And so on.

    In fact, all new keywords that appeared after the very first version of C# are like that: "global", "partial", "where" and "yield" in C# 2.0; and all the new LINQ keywords ("from", "select", "let", "join" etc) in C# 3.0.

    Long story short, a CTP (that is, prerelease) C# 4.0 compiler can still compile any valid C# 1.0 program, with exact same semantics. Few other languages can boast the same level (Java cannot, for example, and neither can C++). I'd say that says a lot about commitment to backwards compatibility in this particular case.

  24. Re:Baby by jDeepbeep · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank you everyone, I'll be here all night.

    ...and don't forget, the 8 o-clock show is the same as the 7 o-clock show

    --
    Reply to That ||
  25. Re:Can't afford Microsoft by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you're a professional, then you can afford the Visual Studio Professional kits. It's $689. Extremely reasonable and in line with the cost of other professional tools like Photoshop for graphics, Ableton for audio (once you pick up their live packs, anyway), whatever. If you can't afford $689 and can't score a legal free copy (which they hand out like candy at events), you are obviously not a professional.

    If you're an enthusiast, Visual Studio Standard is $250. Still reasonable. A little pricier than, say, Ableton without its live packs, but not by much. Not a huge sum. They give this away a ton at events, too.

    If you're a newbie, you can download Visual Studio Express, which is a very full-featured IDE lacking only a few options that are primarily used in large-scale development efforts, for free.

    Or, if you're a student, you can get a free version of VS2005 Professional, VS2008 Professional, and Server 2003 through DreamSpark.

    In conclusion: you are a fucking moron.

    --
    "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  26. Re:Just Read this book by Shados · · Score: 2, Interesting

    o'reilly .NET books in general seem to be fairly awful. I have their design patterns with C# 3.0 book, which advertise itself as a book that takes the Gang of Four design patterns and show how they can be implemented better using built in C# 3.0 features (such as the observer pattern with delegates or events)

    That sounds promising, except the author clearly fails to understand what C# 3.0 has to offer, and thus most of the book uses only C# 2.0 features (and explains them in great details, as if they were new). They also heavily misunderstand some of the patterns, which could mislead someone not familiar with the design patterns to begin with.

    All around awful. So I'm not surprised about this one.