Comments by Albin Abel (Top 200 by date)

"By assigning it to a double you are deliberately saying "get rid of all the non-number parts of sub1". I just don't want to allow this option anyway in my code. I know the consequences later. Your solution is still there, It is their choice they use it or not, but they should be aware of this potential problem i.e how to use this manual. That is all about I say. Thanks

Let us say this is the class.
public class ScorableSubject
{
public double MarksScored { get; set; }
public string Name{get;set;}
public static implicit operator double(ScorableSubject from)
{
return from.MarksScored;
}
public static implicit operator ScorableSubject(double from)
{
return new ScorableSubject { MarksScored = from };
}
}
}

And then I use it like this...

ScorableSubject sub1 = new ScorableSubject();
sub1.MarksScored = 50;
sub1.Name = "Maths";

double dummy = sub1;

ScorableSubject sub2 = (ScorableSubject)dummy;
MessageBox.Show(sub2.Name);

What will be sub2.Name?

Hi Sandeep this solution has a problem which is not advisable unless otherwise fixed. Look at my comment.

Hi RaviRnjankr this solution has a problem which is not advisable unless otherwise fixed. Look at my comment.

Hi MacMaverick this solution has a problem which is not advisable unless otherwise fixed. Look at my comment.

Hi I was trying to use this solution but then found a very potential problem. As you said "I'm too long in the tooth of strongly typed languages ", where your solution 100% violate this. As you implemented your object is no more typed. For example

ScorableSubject subject1 = new ScorableSubject();
subject1.MarksScored = 50;

double dummy = subject1;
Here a great risk that the object degraded to a value type and not typed any more. Where as the above solution CommonArithmatic object is not convertible in such a way unless the conversion logic defined inside it. So I am still stick to the dynamic object in this case.

I think I already answered your question. Yours is an alternate solution, but does your question sounds like one should not use asp.net's string builder?, then I completely disagree. It is just a usability choice to get a plum cake though you point to a chocolate cake. The main idea of Asp.net ajax framework is bring the server side controls accessible at client side as well and use the same syntax style. If one knows c# then they can follow the same style at javascript. Such a novel idea is expressed in string builder class. My tip already having the header saying it is for asp.net users so string builder syntax is more familiar than native javascripts.

As you said "If OOP purity is your requirement, then create a stringBuilder class based on the above". sys,StringBuilder doing the same plus in a c#/ .Net friendly way. Did you read the last line of my tip? Sometimes I can eat whatever available ready than I myself become the baker man.

What is the problem you think depend on asp.net in a asp.net page? At client side everything rendered as html and native javascript (specifically oops oriented). Somebody tell you asp.net independent solution, but all their aspx pages has 100s of server controls. Is that means only javascript should be independent?!. In contrast it is friendly than do native javascript for a .Net developer.

Let us take a few examples...
var sb = new Sys.StringBuilder();
sb.append("Hello World ");
sb.append(String.format("You are now {0} years old", 5));
sb.append(String.format("I got {0:c} ", 50));
sb.append(String.format("I got dollors {0:n} ", 1200));
This style is not unfamiliar to a .Net programmer. But how you cook it in native javascript? May be you know elegant ways. But not a .Net developer.

So consider your tip as alternative. Ofcourse your tip has advantages. But don't keep on knocking "Why not simply". Simply not means something what the computer easily understand, but what people easily understand. Ajax library is one of the novel approach for .Net developers to do things in the .Net way.

Why somebody create a jQuery framework when everything possible by a native javascript. Same way stringbuilder is a framework class. My idea is just expose it to the beginner .Net developers. What is wrong in it. Why they must use native javascript?

The question "Why not" is not relevant. Your method has advantage, little faster and cross browser compatible. So it is an alternative. The basic difference is object oriented programing and classical coding. StringBuilder class is object oriented and extensible. So you could expect add on methods in feature. So your question like is simply "why jQuery why not simply javascript"