|
So the audition went well...
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
I don't suppose they mean lactobacillus acidophiles; but from what you've all said it's probably closer than the culture you'd find in New York, London, or Paris.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
London and Paris are steeped in culture, they are the Rome and Athens of civilisation.
The Natural History Museum, The Globe Theatre, Covent Garden Opera House, Sadlers Wells. Royal Albert Hall, Shakespear in the Park etc etc etc!
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
...and even Luton has at least one decent pub?
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
We have one near here like that, the city of Needles, CA. The only reason they called it Needles is because nobody there knew how to spell 'hypodermic.' It has everything - poverty, drugs, unemployment, welfare, crime. About the only thing it lacks is a second 's' after its name.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
At work i am working alone on the only remaining c++ project. But now new we started working on a new project in c#. So i am writing one of its projects (I pity my coworkers for working with me on the same project) and i was thinking "Oh i will make The class A private so it will be used only with the Class B and just use friend" but of course M$ had other ideas.
Today was a good day i found another reason to dislike C Sharp.
So i wonder what makes you people like or dislike C Sharp
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I for one am extremely grateful! 
|
|
|
|
|
Me too. Also, it's not VB so it has to be likable.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
Burn the heretic!! 
|
|
|
|
|
I like it. If you stop thinking "cut down C++" and consider it as a separate language in it's own right, it is very good - in some ways a lot better than C++ in that it is a lot harder to write impenetrable cr@p in C# than it is in C++.
If you want a class that is only available to Class B, then declare it as private and part of the B Class:
public class B
{
private class A
{
...
}
A a = new A();
}
|
|
|
|
|
Yes i know about that way but the bosses above said that the file is getting too large for the functions and they have to be moved to a new class and file :/ because it is getting too complicated :/
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
You can always put your internal classes into a separate source file using partial classes
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seconded. Anyway, friend? really?
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody likes friends! 
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: it is a lot harder to write impenetrable cr@p in C# than it is in C++.
maybe, as long as you don't get near LINQ or anonymous functions.
|
|
|
|
|
They can get a bit...difficult...but not as much as a carelessly written regex!
|
|
|
|
|
It's a new syntax; but as long as you resist the urge to be stupid* with it linq one liners can be as easy to understand as the 3-6 line loops they replaced while taking less actual time to read because they're much shorter.
* Or to click yes every time R#er says "I can Linqify that loop for you" because it can and does produce truly awful results in some cases. OTOH most of those WTFs can also be written as a much nicer Linq expression if you ask Google for advice.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, yes, yes. 100% yes.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Impenetrable? Humph.
Anyway - not to start a debate, but don't you find something intrinsically wrong with your example?
Class inside of class (inside of class (inside of class (inside of class (inside of class (inside of class . . .
???
I look at it this way C# is a good lure to get lifetime-rookies away from VB. But it hides what you're really doing.
There's no distinction, visibly between a namespace or a class in terms of separation, for example. (in C++, we have ::, ., and -> vs. . the C#). It makes things easier and masks understanding. I also like the possibility of multiple inheritance without a cascade of derivations - not too often, but when I want it I want it)
It's not so much cut-down as light. Per my VB->C# view, that's a good thing . . . as an intermediate step to the real thing.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
*cough*
C# has the dereferencing operator -> but it's only available in unsafe code.
I agree, something like the scope resolution operator would be useful, but it's not vital.
No I don't find anything "intrinsically wrong" - if a class is supposed to be used only within a different class, then why the heck not declare it within that class? It doesn't have to be in the same file if you use partial classes, and it does reflect the structure of the code better than C++ friend in my opinion.
BTW: I came up through C -> C++ -> C# and I occasionally do still use C and C++. C++ shows it's ancestry, while C# shows it was designed to work with .NET from day one. Linq and suchlike are obvious bolt-ons which could have been done so much better if they had been considered when C# was designed - as could many features of modern C++! 
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: in that it is a lot harder to write impenetrable cr@p in C# than it is in C++.
Pretty sure it is ridiculously easy to write impenetrable code in any language.
|
|
|
|
|
I never quite understand people who say "I hate this language because it does, or does not do, X (which is a feature of a different language)". Accept it for what it is and use its features the way they are intended. C# is a great language for developing code, but it is not the universal panacea that some would wish.
Veni, vidi, abiit domum
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
