|
Looks like a good read thanks
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0
There's a fine line between crazy and free spirited and it's usually a prescription.
I'm currently unsupervised, I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless.
|
|
|
|
|
We used to have a joke at work when facing a difficult issue or problem... "What would Jon Skeet do now?"
|
|
|
|
|
Pity he's active on the wrong site. 
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Pity he's active on the wrong site.
Agree 100%!
SO! argh!
|
|
|
|
|
Does he take bribes? 
|
|
|
|
|
Would you wish this lot on him? 
|
|
|
|
|
No, I can assure you that it's purely egoistic.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Newton,
Yes, I read Skeet's book over, and over, again ! I also find it valuable to go back and read from the first edition of his book (I purchased every edition).
imho, there's no other writer explaining C# in context of .NET who has the skill in organizing complex content, ability in presenting complex content in a lucid way, and the in-depth understanding of everything going on under-the-hood in .NET ... that Jon does.
I posted this review on Amazon for the 2nd. edition of the book: [^].
I'd like to suggest you look at the book by Anders Hejlsberg and others "The C# Programming Language (Covering C# 4.0) (4th Edition) (Microsoft Windows Development Series)" [^] because the book is not only an overview of C# by those who actually created it, but also because people like Jon Skeet, Eric Lippert, Andrew Troelsen, and many others, are also frequent commentators on the topics presented. Their comments are presented as call-outs (areas graphically distinct from the main body text), and the comments include actual critical analysis of implementation: no Microsoft party-line enforced here.
cheers, Bill
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this posting. I need a book like this. I just placed my order and it's on its way from Amazon as a result of what I read here! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must respectfully disagree, once again, with the Great Humbugger, himself.
Albahari's books are among the worst every published about .NET and C#. How they got published by O'Reilly, a high-quality publisher, is beyond me.
However, Albahari's LinqPad is a great tool.
Examples:
Essentials 2nd. Edition
1. page 13:
"For instance, the following two identifiers are equivalent:
Korn
@Korn"
While it is true you can start identifiers with @ in .NET, @ preceding a string in quotes is also a special syntax: advocating this is irresponsible.
2. page 13:
"class Counter { // New types are typically classes or structs"
Omits Interface, and Enum
3. page 14: definition of Value Types
"In addition, C# allows you to define enums"
Equating Enums with a standard ValueType does not do justice to what they are. cf. Skeet: [^].
Also no mention of the rather special status of 'String either here or in definition of Reference Types, although, a few paragraphs later, 'string is listed as a reference Type. However, in 2.2.5.7 string type 'string is given accurate coverage. But, fails to mention that 'string is an alias for System.String.
32 pages of this book's 169 are simply lists, and appendices, that essentially regurgitate .NET documentation.
Examples, like the one for the use of 'Indexers are absurdly useless and do not demonstrate what they are used for, typically.
No content on Action and Func delegates. No coverage of INotifyPropertyChanged.
And, it goes on ... and on ...
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
I agree Bill ( Linqpad is brilliant ) and I'm sure Albahari is a very knowledgeable chap but it is a very different skill putting it down on paper, regarding Jon Skeet he describes himself as a C# hobbyist ! His main language is Java in his daily work for Google. I too have read every edition and enjoyed them.
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest you compare the ratings of the two books at Amazon. Rarely does any book get the celestial ratings of Skeet's work. No, I made the right choice when I bought Skeet's book!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, catfish-feathers, I forgot to put the tongue between cheeks icon, also.
Let's call this one a warm-up match, then
cheers, Bill
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Truly amazing book. About up to chapter 3, reading very, very slowly. As Sir John wants us to, I suspect.
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
I feel like I'm really "getting" web development finally. Knockout is awesome (and yes, I know somewhat old tech, but it does exactly what I need without extra baggage) and I'm about to look into SignalR / WebSockets.
What I don't get is, why isn't the web experience so much smoother? With capabilities like Ajax and WebSockets, I would expect really rich, dynamic, realtime, fluid websites. Why are websites still so klunky, so "here's some static content to render"?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
1. Because you end up having to code to the lowest common denominator
2. Because every day a new framework comes out so there's a lot of indecision on which one a developer should pursue. GOTO 1.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Beside that, he doesn't like MVC
Wonde Tadesse
|
|
|
|
|
Wonde Tadesse wrote: he doesn't like MVC
Only because it reminds him that his middle name is "Veronica". 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Only because it reminds him that his middle name is "Veronica"
 And here I thought it was "Vexatious"
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Wonde Tadesse wrote: Beside that, he doesn't like MVC
It's not so much that I don't like MVC, rather than I don't like how frameworks like Razor inflict their idea of MVC on you, including things like Entity Framework  and the Razor view engine (another )
I know these can be "replaced", but if you look at the architecture of something like NancyFx, the ORM and view engine are supplied as components not half-baked-in implementation.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: 1. Because you end up having to code to the lowest common denominator
In terms of browser support, or developer capabilities? Or both?
(BTW, last time I checked, the Post Message and other red buttons don't show up in Chrome)
Chris Maunder wrote: 2. Because every day a new framework comes out so there's a lot of indecision on which one a developer should pursue.
I was in that boat and finally decided to take the approach that I would choose the most lightweight framework to get the job done that also looks like it has a decent following / recommendation.
So far, I've limited my "stack" to:
jQuery
Bootstrap
jqWidgets
knockout
Next is SignalR.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
We've been playing with knockout, ember and now angular. We'll probably stick to angular purely because of the amount of work and support being put into it.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: We'll probably stick to angular purely because of the amount of work and support being put into it.
That makes sense. Given that I was starting a completely new project, I opted out regarding Angular because the next version apparently is going to be completely different with no migration from the old one, so it seemed best to wait.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Why are websites still so klunky
Because it's still based on Swiss engineering from the 80s? :shrug:
(No facts were checked in the production of this snarky comment.)
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
