C# 2012 Joes 2 Pros®: Common Object Oriented Programming Tutorial in .NET using the C# Language

Books Programming Object Oriented Turing

---

My guess is that yes, it will. Net Core is a library, while C 7 is well, the language itself.

Сведения о продавце

Languages are independent of frameworks or platform libs as they are from the beginning of the Computer Age. Our general goal for language features is to make sure they work across all our.

Top Authors

However, there are language features that have dependencies on APIs provided by the underlying platform. In many cases, such as tuples, we can get away with providing the functionality out-of-band so you can use new language features on existing platforms without having to wait for all platforms to catch up provide the functionality in the core.

We use named properties rather than an indexer because we want to enable strong typing. Indexers imply a universal type for all elements of a tuple, which would generally mean its would be object. That being said, there will also be a way to get to the elements in an indexer like way that is untyped. Having tuples return type may make the code look more complex but it can help reduce the amount of effort in making out variables which was equally hectic, What is the performance measure using the tuples in the code rather can having multiple out variables? The performance characteristic is probably quite specific to the size of the argument and the number of operands.

Out parameters essentially require an indirection to write to specific address, so all out variables end up being pointer sized. Tuples are value types that are returned by copying. You cannot build house without bricks and cement as such cover the necessities and fundamental features first. So if you specify a wildcard, the compiler will simply emit an unnamed local. Wildcards are a convenience, not a performance enhancement. It is not only shorter, but a clearer expression of intent. No, this syntax is not supported.

So these three lines all mean the same:. But one of these is invalid? Tuple elements are counted from 1.

Arrays, listis and other collections are counted from 0. It's convenient that for the first element that's 0 and it cancels out all the terms yadda yadda math geek. There's nothing comparable in the tuple space because each element can be of a different size. All you can say is that it's the first or second or third element. That tells you nothing about where it is in memory, really. That is a fair point, but our hands are tied by historical decisions.

Tuple types were introduced in. Net framework 4, which you can use in any.

Net language and are used ref tuples in F , and their first element is called Item1. C tuples are a convenience syntax on System. It is a strong requirement to keep ValueTuple and Tuple be consistent and as close as possible, so they also must have Item1 as their first element.

Will this mean that IAsyncEnumerable and IObservable could potentially be used as async return types? We would have to provide builders for them. The only thing those builders could currently do is return single-value implementations, since there is not yet! However, if you want, you can make classes that implement those interfaces, and you can make your own builders for those.

Stay tuned for more details and a working implementation of the generalized async return types. You should be a part of a contest for one of the best blogs online. How do the new tuple types work in a dictionary? Will the types gain an IEquatable implementation? Default detect a type which inherits from TupleValueType and do something special to use all the fields? If so, I hope it does this without resorting to reflection, which arguably ruins the performance of otherwise handy Enum operations like TEnum.

The implementation is available here: Any type can be deconstructed, as long as it has an instance or extension deconstructor method of the form …. What are reasons behind that? Deconstruction does not yet work in patterns. We hope to get to that soon, but not in C 7. In general, think of patterns as a new concept that has taken root in the language and can evolve over time. This falls out naturally from definite assignment analysis which is a wonderful tool in the language that has helped us at every turn with patterns!

At least its a compiler error! For details of why we changed our minds, see here: So you made a tradeoff between: In this case, I value consistent behavior more. In one example one exception is traded for another:. And I know session should just be disposable. And there are use cases you want to use variables in you finally and catch, that are declared in you try block. Now you need to: Why are tuples mutable? This seems wrong to me. Tuple classes are immutable. And now this new ValueTuple type is mutable?

If you write a mutable struct in the usual encapsulated way, with private state and public, mutator properties and methods, then you are in for some bad surprises.

Bestselling Series

The reason is that whenever those structs are held in a readonly variable, the mutators will silently work on a copy of the struct! Tuples, however, simply have public, mutable fields. By design there are no mutators, and hence no risk of the above phenomenon. Also, again because they are structs, they are copied whenever they are passed around. This is in contrast to the System. Tuple family of types, which are classes and therefore need to be immutable to be thread safe. The hold-up is primarily making sure that we build a source generator API that is a pit of success from an efficiency standpoint.

This needs some bake time. The syntax for local functions is less than ideal. When I see an unconditional return in a method, I expect anything below it to be unreachable. But with the introduction of local functions, this preconception now vanishes. I suppose one could argue that the local function is not really reachable—and in some strict sense that is true—but it certainly makes the code more difficult to read in my opinion.

Can the local function also be declared at the start of a method? Not that that would make the code any easier to read, but at least it does not directly after the method return statement. There seem to be different preferences around where local functions should be declared. We will allow both. The current prototype only allows them to be declared before they are used, but we are fixing that. Getting this right was one of the reasons for the current restrictions in the preview.

This has to do with when the local function uses variables and parameters from the enclosing method:. It is an error to call it before those variables are definitely assigned. That way you can use local functions to initialize your variables, for instance. Everything can be awaited which implements certain methods or interfaces. While you can await anything, to mark a method signature with the async keyword so you can await in it , it must return void, Task, or Task.

You can write an async method without awaits though you get a warning. More importantly, it is a lot easier to see if a method is async when you have to declare it rather than search for the use of a given keyword somewhere in the body. My thoughts are a bit different. It looks like that C is becoming polluted with all kinds of tricks. Most of this stuff is great and I use a lot of C 6 features as well and am going to use these too, but the pollution scares me.

Too many unecessary features that are obsolete and no one uses them, but cannot be removed due to historical reasons. The learning curve for a beginner to the language could rise dramatically. Also do you have a longterm plan for the language, i. Or is your goal to switch C from OO to functional language or a mix of both or a new bread: Which language features do you think are obsolete?

The only one I can think of is anonymous method using the delegate keyword, which is a bit redundant with the advent of lambda expressions. You hit on something very central to language evolution. We can add, but we can never take away. This weighs heavily on our minds as we evolve C. For every feature we try to think about whether people will appreciate it not only now, but ten years from now. As you know, the future is one of the hardest things to predict.

We need to not be stymied by our responsibility to a distant future. So we do add things pretty aggressively. We try to add the most valuable features to developers. It is hopefully well-integrated with our past. At the same time, it introduces patterns in a way that leaves lots of room for them to grow as a concept, without that generality introducing a tax today.

It is well-integrated with our plausible future. Have you considered taking away? This would obviously brake old code but I think that is not as bad as it might seem. It is possible to develop tools which would migrate old code to new code and those tools could be integrated into VS. And even without tools, migration to new code by hand is done once and everything is fine. The amount of work that accumulates from less readability and learning in code that contains legacy code is hardly measurable but i think it exeeds the work of migration.

Python3 is around for many and it is still a source of confusion, irritation, and debate. Regarding switch and patterns as well as other enhancements …. Last time I checked it, string switchs were using a hidden dictionary mapping strings to integers, and then using the integer values in an integer switch statement. The compiler devs on this feature are very focused on optimal code generation. There are many things you can do to optimize, such as factor out shared tests, reorder, etc. Switches with just constants will continue to be as efficient as they are now, and then as the patterns get more complex, obviously that is going to have a perf impact.

That is worth considering. But it does sometimes make code more readable. And there is the issue of proliferation of features making the language too bloated — which I think is already happening, even without support for immutability. One problem is that when you write in a certain style, ALL parameters and locals should really be readonly. And now you end up with this attractive nuisance of nine extra characters bloating every declaration. That would at least take care of locals that are initialized. Is that a good enough fix to make this worthwhile? What do you think?

For me immutable methods are really important in the design of your APIs, it should be also supported in the interface declaration. Is it possible to add sepecial keyword to return this class type. We need if we use inherited class. My own view is that they are somewhat useful but. You actually make it seem really easy along with your presentation however I find this matter to be really something which I believe I might never understand.

It seems too complicated and extremely wide for me. Loving some of the enhancements. Also, rather than returning void and using out parameters, why not make use of the Tuple return syntax itself, which is less verbose and clear. Operators — this is a possibility, but is more verbose e. Y ; Though, what would explicit operators mean or do just disallow them? In all cases, the syntax at least tries to indicate to the developer that something special is going on….

Does that mean the next version of C after C 7? Or will it show up in a future preview release of C 7? I have nothing against them per-se. I just would rather design my code without having to start using partials just to do source generation. Source generators will not be in C 7. We hope to do them after, but any guess about when exactly would be speculation at this point: With havin so much content do you ever run into any problems of plagorism or copyright violation? Do you know any methods to help reduce content from being stolen? I see the way we design the language pivoting a little.

Or an inversion of control, so to speak. I want the community to have the right amount of bake time to use the features and help us find the sweet spot. The best way you can help us get the best features into C and VB faster is by participating in the design discussions on GitHub, downloading the prototypes and feature branches, and just throwing your most creative uses at the features. Thanks for paying attention on GitHub and continuing to ask us about this. Keep up the good work! Is the introduction of out variables meant just to simplify programming against existing code that uses out parameters?

The added convenience might encourage programmers to use out parameters more often. Yeah, that was a bit of a dilemma for us, but we ended up believing both have a place. We think that in most cases people should use tuples for multiple results. There are some cases where that is not a good idea:. You want additional results to come through out parameters instead. Those are fair points. Throwing away useful type information at runtime is a java-level mistake.

Item1 Item3 guarantees ordering misunderstandings. There are a number of approaches we could have taken to tuples, each with their own pros and cons. We do recognize that the loss of names at runtime is a downside, but the cost of keeping them would have been prohibitive. Our mental model for the tuple design was analogy with parameter lists. For example, given something like:.

This becomes a bit more relevant in applications which make heavy use of LINQ. Tuples deal with this partially, but the loss of RTTI can be a pain. But that does not apply with tuples as they are value types, so once stored in a Dictionary as a key, it is only possible to obtain a copy.

Joes 2 Pros International LLC

It would be great to have immutable record types with non-destructive mutation, perhaps similar to object initialisation. Although I like and expect to use a number of the features, my initial reaction is that no one is acting as a gate-keeper on the language. It is a little too simple but it reminded me of the cost of having so many language features.

At this point, I think it would better serve the.

Net community if they froze C language syntax and made another language C-flat? See my earlier comment on language evolution. We lean in the direction of evolving the language as the world and the developer base evolve.

Believe me, we do try to be discerning about what we put in the language, but we do tend to favor day-to-day developer productivity over linguistic purity if and when we have to choose. It does make C increasingly more difficult for beginners though. I try to imagine what it would be like learning to program C today.

The way we had them for C 6. They are still on the radar, along with the related concept of record types which we considered for C 7. Or is it already postponed to a later version? But I do share the concerns some people have expressed about language bloat.

Regarding language bloat, it does seem ironic that — at the same time as better support for out parameters is being added, the ability to return multiple values from a method is arguably going to make out parameters obsolete in any case. I wonder what the reasoning behind doing both of these was? This is not the bloat, this is useful feature. Adding another meaning creates another complication to human readability in this wonderful modern language. They lead to nightmare code. You shouldnt use them except in the most extreme of edge cases. In separate file of course?

Why add bloat to the source and the software being written?

C# 2012 Joes 2 Pros : Common Object Oriented Programming Tutorial in .Net Using the C# Language

Come on people, stop being such a OO religious fundamentalists… Think more functional for a second. Seems like C 7 is getting a lot of F constructs. But the F syntax lends itself way better to those constructs. From the comments you can easily see many devs are just too short for functional programming…. Thanks for some other informative site. Where else may I get that kind of info written in such a perfect way?

Will tuples work well with serialization? It would be nice if more statements worked like an expression. Expressions compose better than statements. Did an expression based form not make the schedule or is there a design issue? Is there still interest in it? Very convenient to cache values that are used multiple times in the same expression.

So we may still want to do that some day. I welcome this improvement. I was expecting to also read that the Switch statement in c will no more have implicit fallthrough, finally removing the break keyword. If Out variable can be so refreshed and enhanced, the Switch statement should equally get a refresh. We decided not to take that on this time around, but it remains a common request. Looking forward to using local functions, returning tuple, deconstructing a tuple directly and expression bodied members.

Can we get these for properties: Does that not do what you want? This is all pretty spectacular. Every weekend i used to go to see this site, as i want enjoyment, for the reason that this this site conations genuinely good funny information too. So now that we are getting wildcards for returns is there a possible chance to get them implemented for generics?

Cool, next time type this: They should really have a more markdown friendly system or at least a quick reference guide to what you can do in a comment. I also have a performance concern about the C 7 switch statement. Currently switch-cases are very very fast and a socially accepted way to use gotos — but after reading the section about the C 7 switch statement I doubt the new one will be as fast as the current one. What about algebraic data types? Because pattern-matching without them looks incomplete and awkward from my point of view.

But the first order of business was to get a form of pattern matching in that works with the types you already have. Then we can see how far that gets us, and whether more is warranted. Thank you for your reply. I like them all, but to turn the trow sentence into an expression is dangerous if unexperienced programmers misuse it, and the same could be said about the ref variables, but they are not enough explained to really understand the impact in the languaje; Will you be able to change a class property using a ref variable instead of a setter?

I also wait for generic types with enum type generic parameters, something like T where T enum, and the complete implementation of the class Enum using generic functions, or may be the introduction of Enum. The other chalenge is CodeContracts; I think many people are waiting for a finished, high quality product, and it is a pity, as now it works quite well, but some problems and weak integration limit their usage.

This is still missing in C. Lets say we have hundreds of methods taking a customer id of type Int Later you need to change the type to Guid which is still not an easy refactoring task. By declaring a type alias it would become easy:. The other option today is wrapper structs. This does come up as a frequent request, thanks for raising it. Of all the things to choose, why encourage usage of the out parameter?

Pit of success and all, that keyword is so easy to misuse especially by developers coming into. Both can now introduce variables in expressions, so going over that hump for patterns, meant we could now more easily also do the out variable feature we had wanted for a while. So the two features complement each other well. Hey guys, wildcards seem completely unnecessary as a language feature.

How would you ignore two parameters? Double underscores are unweildly. Having a built in language feature for this makes sense to me. Looking at the ValueTuple source code, https: Free Shipping All orders of Don't have an account? Update your profile Let us wish you a happy birthday! Make sure to buy your groceries and daily needs Buy Now. Let us wish you a happy birthday!

Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Year Please fill in a complete birthday Enter a valid birthday. Skin care Face Body. Low to High Price: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software A Cyber-Physical Approach Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a product review. Most helpful customer reviews on Amazon. I have been using C for several years now and have been asked help a 17 year learn to program. I needed a book that I could use as a guide for my one on one with the student.

My student understands the concepts and is able to apply them much easier than a large technical book. There is a great flow to the book and we are able to build on what we have learned quickly. At the rate we are going we will finish this book in no time and I feel good that we can look at some of the more technical books in the future since we have built a solid foundation using this book.

This book is highly recogmended for the classroom or individual study. I come from a background of biology and many a times felt that I could use a software to make various aspects of my work easier. Having had no background in programming I ended up struggling a lot all this while till I decided to learn a bit of programming myself.

This book proved to be a great help as it gave me a really good start. All the concepts are explained very nicely with ample examples.

• Relative Danger
• The Wounded Dove
• The Briefing: Your church is too small
• Die besten Anmachsprüche für Männer: Anmache nach Maß (German Edition)
• The IRA on Film and Television: A History