|
Very cool! 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, they are. My Psych class is using one. That's how I learned about the site.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
---
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
---
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
I went to the site, and tried searching C#: no results. I tried selecting the subject-area "Science and Technology" from the subject-area selector drop-down: a minute later still no results presented.
I tried entering "programming" in the search field: about a minute later a variety of results presented including "Independence for Texas" and other clearly non-science/technology related entries which, of course, just means they are doing a word-usage search.
I'd say the site has a ways to go.
But, why don't you list this in the "Free Tools" forum here ?
«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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Ranjan,
I think that site is making pirated copies available, suggest you re-consider posting link.
«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
|
|
|
|
|
Hi BillWoodruff,
Yes I believe so. Based on the below quote, I thought it's fine for personal use. These days it's so difficult to say what is legal and illegal. Not sure how this site is running? Sounds crazy and I don't understand their intent in hosting ebooks.
IT Books Quote: Reproduction of site books is authorized only for informative purposes and strictly for personal, private use.
Ranjan.D
|
|
|
|
|
Coolness maximus!  +5
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I am reading C# In Depth right now.
It is fantastic. If you read just the first part of the first chapter you will be hooked.
Read the exceprt at amazon and you'll be amazed.
C# In Depth - amazon link[^]
It takes me quite a while to read it to really absorb it and I've read but it is so amazing how Skeet (author) takes you back to C# 1.x and builds from there.
It is the first time the lambda syntax has ever made sense and this is just the first chapter.
Have any of you read the book? I'm about half way through the 2nd chapter and he's explaining delegates and events like no one else too and it's all building. Really great stuff and so clearly written.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm also about half way. Agree it's a very good book
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
