Why seal a class

[Ignacio Machin \( .NET/ C# MVP \)]

Hi,

Not at all, it has LINQ as well as a bunch of other new features (like the
extenders methods).

In the same vein it's still in alpha state so you will have to wait around a
year at least for that.

 

[Dave Sexton]

Hi Ignacio,

I was referring only to using extension methods to 'extend' sealed classes for future use and not an immediate resolution. I'm
sorry if I didn't make that clear enough in my post.

Should have said, at least, ".NET 3.0 will be the answer?"

 

[Chris Nahr]

Should have said, at least, ".NET 3.0 will be the answer?"

Since you appear to have missed my first post in this thread, I'll
repeat myself:

..NET 3.0 will certainly not be the answer because it won't include
LINQ. That technology will be included in .NET 3.5 which will be
released separately, way after Vista and .NET 3.0.

 

[Dave Sexton]

Apparently everyone failed to read/acknowledge your post who posted in this thread after you, in your line of reasoning. I read
your post.

I cannot find any public information on .NET 3.5. As of the documentation released in the May 2006 LINQ preview the C# compiler is
referred to as 3.0. Articles all over the page at the following link only refer to the next generation compiler as 3.0:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/ref/linq/

A search on MSDN for ".NET 3.0" yields several results but a search for ".NET 3.5" yields no results that backup your statement.

I appreciate any feedback but please forgive me if I don't just go on the word of one person that has no apparent affiliation with
Microsoft and is making a statement that cannot be verified anywhere that I looked on the web. What is your source of information?
How accurate is your statement?

 

[Dave Sexton]

I must admit that I'm a bit discouraged after reading some of your responses. The topic at hand was not, "How does Microsoft plan
on releasing there next compiler? What will the code-name be? Version number? Is it really just 2.0 with compiler features?" but
instead was, ".NET 3.0 is the answer?". I renamed the title to make it clear that I was trying to bridge the gap from existing
tools to possible uses for next generation tools in the future. I chose the title because it was simple and to inspire people to
think about new applications for the next generation of tools, especially 'Extensions' as they might solve the op's problem with
sealed classes from a different perspective. If you read my first post you'll see that I was really asking, "Could C# extensions be
used to extend a sealed class in a different way than the op had requested?'. I was too vague and will definitely be more precise
with my thread titles in the future.



Aren't we scientists? I tested the tools before making this suggestion. I even posted a code snippet that compiles and does
exactly what I implied. Did anybody try it? Not many people seem to care about the real question at hand. This is frustrating to
me. I can get to the "Interpretation" phase of the scientific process by myself but when it's time for "Verification" I need
community input. I think we should start acting like scientists and share opinions on the technology as it may apply to solve
real-world problems instead of posting tidbits of, IMO, useless information.



I sadly feel like I might be standing alone with this opinion. On this I would like feedback.

 

[Chris Nahr]

Apparently everyone failed to read/acknowledge your post who posted in this thread after you, in your line of reasoning. I read
your post.

I cannot find any public information on .NET 3.5. As of the documentation released in the May 2006 LINQ preview the C# compiler is
referred to as 3.0. Articles all over the page at the following link only refer to the next generation compiler as 3.0:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/ref/linq/

That LINQ compiler version was from before the Great Renaming of WinFX
to .NET 3.0. You can find details on various Microsoft weblogs, for
example these entries by Jason Zander:

http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonz/archive/2006/06/09/624629.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonz/archive/2006/06/13/630066.aspx

Here Jason links to a video where he explains the various versions:

http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonz/archive/2006/07/19/672052.aspx

And yet more information on Brad Abrams' weblog:

http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2006/06/10/625717.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2006/06/11/627128.aspx

That's the original announcement by Somasegar, but I'd rather read the
other entries for more detailed information (also, this one appears to
be down right now):

http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx

A search on MSDN for ".NET 3.0" yields several results but a search for ".NET 3.5" yields no results that backup your statement.

You apparently got unlucky with your search. For one thing, using
Google to search Microsoft's website is probably a better idea than
Microsoft's own search function; but even so you wouldn't have much
luck with ".NET 3.5". On the other hand, googling for ".NET 3.0 LINQ"
brings up MS weblogs about the rebranding as the 3rd and 4th hits.

I appreciate any feedback but please forgive me if I don't just go on the word of one person that has no apparent affiliation with
Microsoft and is making a statement that cannot be verified anywhere that I looked on the web. What is your source of information?
How accurate is your statement?

It's cool that you don't immediately believe someone's say-so but it
would be even better if you asked for a source right away, rather than
acting as if you had not read the post.

The other people perhaps didn't reply to my post because they were
already aware of this widely publicized change of version numbers...

 

[Chris Nahr]

Well, and I wasn't trying to pedantically correct some irrelevant
version number but your expectation that this new C# functionality
would ship with Vista, and thus be available as a production release
early next year. That's definitely not going to happen, and that
means not only a delay as such, but also that this C# version won't be
ubiquitous on Vista machines as you might have expected.

That's all I was trying to say, for my part. If you don't care for
widespread public availability anyway, then never mind me.

Also, you might not get much feedback because all LINQ-related issues
have received lots and lots of discussion on this forum already, back
when the whole bag of tricks was first announced.

 

[Dave Sexton]

Thanks, I'll have a look at some of those blogs.

It's cool that you don't immediately believe someone's say-so but it
would be even better if you asked for a source right away, rather than
acting as if you had not read the post.

You didn't attempt to address my question, so I didn't respond to your post. The information you provided might be useful or not,
but was off-topic.

The other people perhaps didn't reply to my post because they were
already aware of this widely publicized change of version numbers...

Perhaps next time you should site your information with your post. As for "widely publicized", does Microsoft consider the blogs of
its employees to be there main channel of information to the community? If the main LINQ site on MSDN were to be updated to display
more content about Microsoft's stages of development, such as the current version number of the C# compiler, then I would agree.

Again, thanks for the information but what it boils down to is that the version number of the compiler or when it will actually be
released is an answer to a different question altogether.

 

[Dave Sexton]

Hi Chris,

Also, you might not get much feedback because all LINQ-related issues
have received lots and lots of discussion on this forum already, back
when the whole bag of tricks was first announced.

I highly doubt that all LINQ-related issues have been discussed. Can you point me to a thread that addresses my particular question
on extension methods related to sealed classes? I'll gladly read it as I've only discussed a single perspective on this issue with
an MVP. Nobody else has taken an interest on debating its aptness.

BTW, in my last post when I asked for feedback I was referring to the trend in this thread and others for people to chime in with
tidbits of information that are irrelevant to the question at hand, which is fine if it's only one or two people and if they have
some other information to add pertaining to the problem. And yes, I don't expect to get any feedback.

I can't help but think that this community makes people feel a bit stand-offish from posting questions that might be considered
'newb' or 'out-of-bounds' with regards to the use of certain technologies and standardized design strategies. This is why you see
so many posts from beginners apologizing for their ignorance. We should all be a bit more open to new ideas and take a more
scientific approach to answering questions and deriving answers and we'll all learn something new from time to time.

 

[Chris Nahr]

You didn't attempt to address my question, so I didn't respond to your post. The information you provided might be useful or not,
but was off-topic.

The information directly related to the content of your original post.

Perhaps next time you should site your information with your post.

Excuse me for occasionally having better things to do than doing other
people's research...

As for "widely publicized", does Microsoft consider the blogs of
its employees to be there main channel of information to the community?

To the developer community, yes. It's been that way for about two
years at least. As you read the blogs you'll also note that a lot of
discussion is happening right there, in the comments sections.

 

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

Hi Chris,


I highly doubt that all LINQ-related issues have been discussed. Can
you point me to a thread that addresses my particular question on
extension methods related to sealed classes? I'll gladly read it as
I've only discussed a single perspective on this issue with an MVP.
Nobody else has taken an interest on debating its aptness.

You said extension methods were part of .NET 3.0. Chris said that
wasn't true (and he's right). You then side-track the discussion, but
that's the whole point: what you think that's in .NET 3.0 isn't in .NET
3.0 but in the version released after that.

I also find debating a question like ".NET 3.0 is the answer?" rather
silly, because what's the question it HAS TO be the answer to? Unclear.

I can't help but think that this community makes people feel a bit
stand-offish from posting questions that might be considered 'newb'
or 'out-of-bounds' with regards to the use of certain technologies
and standardized design strategies. This is why you see so many
posts from beginners apologizing for their ignorance. We should all
be a bit more open to new ideas and take a more scientific approach
to answering questions and deriving answers and we'll all learn
something new from time to time.

I think the behavior of people who appologize for the level their
question is on is only to prevent them from getting a 'RTFM' answer,
which is normal usenet CYA basics if I might add.

I also don't see why rambling on how some people post here is relevant
to 'is .NET 3.0 the answer?', although that question isn't clear to me
as well.

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Dave Sexton]

Thanks for the feedback.

--
Dave Sexton

You said extension methods were part of .NET 3.0. Chris said that
wasn't true (and he's right). You then side-track the discussion, but
that's the whole point: what you think that's in .NET 3.0 isn't in .NET
3.0 but in the version released after that.

I also find debating a question like ".NET 3.0 is the answer?" rather
silly, because what's the question it HAS TO be the answer to? Unclear.


I think the behavior of people who appologize for the level their
question is on is only to prevent them from getting a 'RTFM' answer,
which is normal usenet CYA basics if I might add.

I also don't see why rambling on how some people post here is relevant
to 'is .NET 3.0 the answer?', although that question isn't clear to me
as well.

FB

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead developer of LLBLGen Pro, the productive O/R mapper for .NET
LLBLGen Pro website: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft MVP (C#)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Dave Sexton]

Hi Chris,

I said that I appreciate the information. I'm sorry that your sore about me ignoring your post but as I already stated I felt that
it didn't really need any response. Point was taken. Do you expect a simple thank you reply?

Thanks!