What ONE feature would you want in C# and VS?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Johann Blake
  • Start date Start date
J

Johann Blake

If you had your wish and could have one (but only one) feature added to
C#, what would you ask for?

Second question. Same as the first question, but if the feature was for
Visual Studio .NET.
 
Why do you feel multiple inheritance is something important? What could
you give as a real-world example where some object inherits from 2
totally unrelated entities? Actually I just thought of one. The
tasmanian wolf! It is neither a wolf (or even from a dog family) nor is
it a cat, yet it is a masuipial and can behave like a kangaroo (no
kidding, it can hop on its hind legs). So there you go, a tasmanian wolf
object that inherits from a cat, a dog and kangaroo.

Best Regards
Johann Blake
 
Why do you feel multiple inheritance is something important? What could
you give as a real-world example where some object inherits from 2
totally unrelated entities? Actually I just thought of one. The
tasmanian wolf! It is neither a wolf (or even from a dog family) nor is
it a cat, yet it is a masuipial and can behave like a kangaroo (no
kidding, it can hop on its hind legs). So there you go, a tasmanian wolf
object that inherits from a cat, a dog and kangaroo.


Best Regards
Johann Blake
 
Johann,

there was a signifcant thread about this recently - here's a quick cut/paste
job from my posts:

I had MI in a previous world (Gupta/Centura 4GL)
and I miss it dearly. Mind you I think that all in all, c# is pretty damn
good, but I can make several real cases where MI is the correct design/model
and would save a fair amount of duplication. I have pretty much given up
hope on ever seeing it in the CLR tho.

In my architecture, I keep 100% separation of business functionality from
presentation layer (Web Services connect a rich,thin client to functional
server objects). So I have two separate cases. Server-side, I have more
control over, as I do not use Datasets or such - my objects are built from
the ground up.
However, on the client, I must provide all controls that are capable of
talking my specific Web Service schema to the server, but I must inherit
from the standard WinForms controls. I have no choice but to replicate code
in a checkbox, textbox, radio button class etc. If I had MI, I would have
an abstract class that understood my schema, and all the window classes
would inherit from that as well as the .NET supplied standard Windows
classes. For now, I can only implement an interface, but there is much code
that is identical across controls.
Server-side, I would still like MI, but learned to live without it.
Philosophically, I can not understand those who do not appreciate MI; used
correctly, you can normalise your code base like you would normalise your
database.

Radek
 
Thanks, but been there, done that. I grew up having MI, and so I design
using MI. Unfortunately, I can not implement MI in .NET - the CLR will
probably never support it. I can deal with that - the OP was granting me a
wish.
 
Radek,
Have you looked at Eiffel.NET?

It supports multiple inheritance on .NET.

http://www.eiffel.com/

Hope this helps
Jay

| Thanks, but been there, done that. I grew up having MI, and so I design
| using MI. Unfortunately, I can not implement MI in .NET - the CLR will
| probably never support it. I can deal with that - the OP was granting me
a
| wish.
|
| | > | >
| >> c# - multiple inheritance
| >
| > You might find some of these interesting...
| > http://www.dotnetspider.com/Question324.aspx
| > http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/smip.asp
| >
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/interinher.asp
| > http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=641343&messageID=3776224
| >
|
|
 
Please do not start this again. Those that never need/ never use/ have never
used MI tend not to be for MI. Those that have used it a lot in C++ and
other languages tend to want to have that language flexibility. Personally
although I have never used MI, I think it is crazy that we are not given
that flexibility (and yes I do know the potential pitfalls of MI).

I am almost 100% certain that MI will eventually make it into a future
release of C# spec, partly due to the continuing discussions on this missing
concept. This is just my wild speculation, but you wait and see if I'm right
(2-3 years time) -I'd almost lay money on it :)
 
Back
Top