Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Programming .NET 3.5

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago

Programming 224

lamaditx writes "The world of the .NET framework is taken to the next level by the release of .NET 3.5. The intended audience of this book are experienced .NET programmers. There are no sections that tell you details about C#, SQL servers or anything like that. I don't recommend this book if you never worked on a .NET project and don't know how to set up a SQL database. You should be aware that the code is written in C#. You might use one of the software code converters if you prefer Visual Basic instead. I think the code is still readable even if you do not know C#. I appreciate the fact that the authors decided to use one language only because it keeps the book smaller. The authors assume you are using Visual Studio 2008. You don't necessarily need to update to 2008 if you are working with an older edition because you can use the free Express Edition to get started." Keep reading for the rest of Adrian's review.The table of contents is available from O'Reilly — together with a chapter preview — here. The book does not come with any extras but includes the usual free 45 days access to the book on Safari.

This book covers the key technologies in .NET. There are books on each of these technologies: Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), XAML, AJAX,C# and Silverlight already, but this book shows you how everything is connected with each other. As the authors note: "Our goal is to show you the 25% that you will use 85% of the time.". From my point of view this is good because I have a .NET 2.0 background and wanted to know what is new in .NET 3.5 and how things are connected.

The book is divided in 3 main parts. The first is presentation, which covers XAML, WPF and AJAX. The second describes how to take advantage of the design pattern support in .NET. The last part covers the business layer which includes LINQ, WCF, WF and CardSpace.

The first part starts with XAML. This is the eXtensible A The next main topic is using WPF which is the successor of Windows Forms. The authors explain how to connect data structures to the user interface which I consider to be one of the most important parts of using WPF. You will also find a lot of code and XAML layout descriptions.

The chapter on Silverlight was not very helpful to me. Silverlight is the competitor of Adobe Flash. Giving samples how to layout a Silverlight application is essentially the same as a WPF application thus it dives into more details of XAML. I am missing the real Silverlight message so this part did not meet my expectations.

The third technology you will learn about is AJAX which leads us away from the desktop client to a web client. The explanation how AJAX works is pretty good. The authors show you step by step how to create a todo list web-application with a database backend using ASP.NET and AJAX. Again, this does not cover all AJAX controls or ASP.NET but it shows you how the parts are interconnected and assumes that if you know how to handle one control, then you can also figure out how to handle all the others. Most web applications need some kind of access control. At this point the authors argue that it is faster to implement your own security tables instead of using the ASP.NET forms-based controls.My opinion is that you should never do something that is not correct to teach something else. There are always people who get it wrong in a way you did not anticipate. My recommendation: use the ASP.NET components and do not implement them by yourself.

The second part about the design patterns was surprising to me because I expected the common introduction to standard design pattern. The Model-View-Controller project implements the pattern for ASP.NET and allows developers to incorporate it easily. The advantage is that you get a comprehensive and easy to understand introduction how .NET supports design pattern implementation. I guess this will lead some developers from theory of design patterns to actually implementing them.

I consider the third part to be the real interesting content. It starts with LINQ which bridges object-oriented code to relational databases. You get to know the differences to SQL and also the advantages it provides by explaining new concepts. The examples are easy to understand and successfully make their point.

Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) covers the hot Service-Oriented-Architecture (SOA) topic. The authors explain what it is all about but you will need some knowledge about Web Services and XML to really get it. The introduction is rather short but more details are explained in the corresponding example.

The chapter about Windows Workflow Foundation (WF) starts with a short example how you implement a workflow without WF. After that you get to see how you do the same with WF. This way the necessity for WF become clear and you understand how to take advantage of this technology.

Card Space is the successor of Microsoft passport which was not successful as an authentication service with respect to user acceptance. This is also the key issue that decides on the success of Card Space. Maybe the improved interoperability will help. The chapter provides you with a short authenticate-yourself test and shows you how to offer Card Space authentication in your ASP.NET application.

The book is a good entry to the world of .NET 3.5 because it gives you an idea about every part and what it is good for. Maybe you do not need all of it for your job but at least you know that it exists and how it might be useful. I think it is reasonable that a comprehensive introduction to .NET 3.5 can not satisfy everybody because the range of topics is too broad. One can argue that this kind of information could also be retrieved from the net. I consider the book to be a better resource because it already summarizes the important information such that you do not drown in a flood of information.

There is also some criticism as I pointed out earlier. Maybe I am just a little picky about the details but if you print code download references into a book, they must be available. Most examples can be downloaded but the Alex Horovitz site was not reachable when I tried to access it. Another personal remark is that I do not like to see quotes from Wikipedia. Other people might think different about that so you just need to decide on your own.

I rate this book a 7. The authors scratch the surface of every topic and choose an appropriate style to explain it. You can tell that they thought about how to explain each topic on it's own and give you not just the "how" but also the "why".

Adrian Lambeck is a graduate student in "Media and Information Technologies" and worked with .NET for a few years.

You can purchase Programming .NET 3.5 from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×

224 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Typo (4, Informative)

Lacota (695046) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614445)

Pogramming? :P PROGRAMMING.

Re:Typo (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25614553)

It's slashdot, and it's a Microsoft tech. Presumably he meant to say Pogromming .NET 3.5

Re:Typo (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614807)

Dovelopers, dovelopers, dovelopers!

Re:Typo (2, Funny)

er3s (222316) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616107)

Copy and paste inheritance!!! WAHOO!

Re:Typo (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25615023)

Yeah, Pogramming: The act of ramming Pogs. POGS [wikipedia.org]

Re:Typo (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25615187)

Not to be confused with pogromming [wikipedia.org] , which should be avoided.

Re:Typo (4, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615211)

Thats ok, lint will pick that up when you compile it.

Typo. (3, Funny)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615225)

Actually it's Pooh-gramming. A child-like state all programmers try to enter into.

Pogs (2, Funny)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614459)

Behold, the Ultimate Pog!

Re:Pogs (4, Funny)

rhizome (115711) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614857)

.NET is back...in Pog form.

Re:Pogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25615425)

But .NET costs you your soul!

And your soul doppelganger can be very useful with debugging/load testing in dream programming scenarios. Programmers that have sold their souls are at a great productivity disadvantage and are picked on by the other programmers who still have their souls.

Is there a Hindi translation? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25614489)

I would like to send this to my programmers.

Re:Is there a Hindi translation? (2)

MiKM (752717) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614527)

You mean "pogrammers"

recommended for advanced programmers (3, Insightful)

prestamospersonales (1399451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614547)

this is a great book but is designed for advanced programmers only.

Re:recommended for advanced programmers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25614959)

Advanced programmers do not use C# nor .NET

Re:recommended for advanced programmers (4, Funny)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615121)

You just keep telling yourself that. If you wish hard enough and make enough "Micro$haft" jokes about how a super advanced processor "can't run Vista lolz" and how "nobody uses .NET" it will be true one day, little Johnny!

Re:recommended for advanced programmers (5, Insightful)

eigenstates (1364441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615757)

You know, after having had a go at scripting languages (Ruby, Python, PHP) etc. and trying to weed through the morass of Java libraries and excessively complicated deployment and Flex being a fscking joke- .Net/C# comes out the winner.

It's tight, it's typed and cake to deploy. LINQ has potential for low memory use(fast) queries and Sliverlight seems to be much better than AS3/Flash because you get the cheat of direct access to WPF.

eh. Not much of a zealot for any tech here- I would use Smalltalk if it would get the job done. Just a review and some thoughts.

Re:recommended for advanced programmers (1)

Massacrifice (249974) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616047)

You miss the real reason why it's all so much less complicated on .NET : There's only one platform to target, and that platform is Microsoft. You don't have to care about other platforms, because you _can't_ care about other platforms. Oh well, yeah, you can insert a Mono reference here, but as soon as you try to use it (I haven't, but I'm sure it works ok), you'll realize that you now face the same kind of complications that other cross platform languages face. I'm not saying .Net is bad or anything, just that the kind of peace of mind it provides has a price.

Re:recommended for advanced programmers (1)

eigenstates (1364441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616767)

I don't think I missed that at all. I'd say if I had to choose an aspect of .NET that was it's weakest it would not be that. If I do a web app all of the worry about platform disappears- for the consumer.

My consumer should not pay the price of having to consume Java, my coders should not have to pay the price of having to write for it and my sysadmins should not have to pay the price of having to maintain it. I would make the argument that the 'peace of mind' is specifically for me- the developer.

And yes, Mono (works nicely, yes) is going to be a big nullifier in the development platform argument. So now(sooner) you have a strongly typed, modern language that can do what is needed very well, and yes, one way.

Re:recommended for advanced programmers (1)

TheCybernator (996224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615297)

this is a great book but is designed for advanced programmers only.

u mean Pogrammers !!

Pogramming, def: (1)

CompMD (522020) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614557)

The act of doing a really bad job of gramming.

Re:Pogramming, def: (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614781)

Not to be confused with Po'grammar, which describes the posting behavior of slashdotters.

Re:Pogramming, def: (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615155)

Nor confused with Pogrammer ... awesome programmers like myself who just can't get a job.

Re:Pogramming, def: (1)

nickruiz (1185947) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615969)

I was thinking more along the lines of the state of our industry after this economic crisis. We'll all be reduced to po'grammers.

Excuse me, sir, but do you have a coin for this po'grammer? All I've got is these rags and 255 lines of bytecode [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Pogramming, def: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25615449)

Does this have something to do with the grammar one might expect from a certain lovable teletubby?

Re:Pogramming, def: (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616931)

Or Prog Farr, the ancient Vulcan programming language.

Spellink (1)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614565)

Pogrammers need to spell korekktly - just konsistenetely.

Microsoft devs (3, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614573)

Microsoft devs who focus on .NET are known as pogrammers. Microsoft is right and the rest of the world is wrong. Better get on the bus.

Re:Microsoft devs (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614855)

Surely that should be pogrommers? The reference [wikipedia.org] here being specifically directed at any non-MS user.

Re:Microsoft devs (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615061)

Apparently moderators can't detect sarcasm.

Anyone else see the cover and think... (5, Funny)

Alpha Whisky (1264174) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614595)

How appropriate, it's a picture of a lame duck.

Re:Anyone else see the cover and think... (0, Redundant)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615199)

It's not a lame duck, it's a cute duck.

Oh...I get it! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25615417)

You're saying .NET is lame because there's a lame duck on the cover! Very good, did you think of that yourself?

Re:Anyone else see the cover and think... (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615613)

"What's the difference between you and a mallard with a cold?
One's a sick duck and I can't remember how it ends, but your mother's a whore."
HA HA HA HA!

Re:Anyone else see the cover and think... (1)

R3d Jack (1107235) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616139)

The first 5 for funny I've seen in a couple days! Good catch...

Drat, you beat me to this joke (1)

TravisO (979545) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616405)

When I first saw the article I thought ".Net finally has it's Llama book" but then I saw it was a duck and that was the first thing I thought... "lame duck".

Lame duck? (1)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614597)

Is the picture on the book supposed to be a limping/lame duck?

Pog Ramming (3, Funny)

sakonofie (979872) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614671)

There should be a space between pog and ramming. Back in my day, we used pog "slammers," not "rammers," but you can call 'em whatever you want samzenpus.
Also, I am still confused as to what this has to do with Card Space. Is there a new crossover between pogs and yuugio/magic/pokemon? I hope so. I believe children nationwide will benefit from throwing large chunks of brass at the ground during school.

Good Review (1)

wrfelts (950027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614695)

Thanks for the review Adrian! I'm also a .Net 2.0 programmer. Being employed doing 2.0 full time makes it hard to bounce around the net trying to find cohesive 3.5 examples and explanations (that aren't just hacks.) This looks like a good place to do the concentrated study that I need.

Baby (0, Troll)

nawcom (941663) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614703)

I think Pog Ramming is a new sex position that Balmer invented with his wife. He makes her bend over a chair and makes sum luvin' doggy-style; shortly thereafter he tosses her across the room. There is a story that goes around that says that Balmer is quite loud when he finishes, to quote exactly what he screams out like a pig: "I LOVE THIS COMPANY!"

Thank you everyone, I'll be here all night.

MIT (1, Flamebait)

tck44 (1399467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614721)

Lol, MIT. We have that at my university as well. It's entirely comprised of students who can't hack CS or CE.

Mono 2.5 released (0, Offtopic)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614771)

Meanwhile Mono struggles on a few versions behind pushing interoperability to the limits of 2006.

Never got that project, never will.

Re:Mono 2.5 released (4, Informative)

fredrik70 (161208) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614897)

actually, iirc, mono is compatible with all of .NET 2.0 and quite a bit of 3.5, so they aint that far behind, see: http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_General [mono-project.com]

Re:Mono 2.5 released (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25615219)

mono is compatible with all of .NET 2.0 and quite a bit of 3.5, so they aint that far behind

I hear that they're ahead in some areas, patent infringement for example.

Re:Mono 2.5 released (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25615239)

"Aint that far behind" come on, Mono has put a lot of effort on making the Windows Forms work while they do not even have the intention to implement WPF which is so much nicer it's not even funny. WinForms are lame and no one ever tried to build a serious client app in it while WPF is all the rage and has proved itself with stuff like the new Yahoo Messenger.

Re:Mono 2.5 released (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615725)

The problem is that "quite a bit" of 3.5 (+SP1) is, in fact, a very big bit: they're missing WPF, WCF, and WWF, as well as LINQ to SQL and LINQ to Entities.

The only bits of 3.5 they seem to have are C# 3.0 language features in the compiler, and basic LINQ to Objects/XML/DataSet.

Given that MS has just announced .NET and C# 4.0, yes, Mono guys are clearly falling behind.

Re:Mono 2.5 released (0, Flamebait)

OneSmartFellow (716217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25617251)

WPF, WCF, and WWF are mostly shit anyway.

If you're stupid enough to try to use them in anger I feel pity for your customers.

Believe me, I have tried to use them all. OK, so perhaps WPF is almost usable, but WWF is atrocious, and should never have been released. Get anything more complicated than a simple three activity workflow and all of a sudden the designer slows to a crawl. And I have a top spec machine. Dual core 3Ghz with fast SATAII disks and 4G RAM. The designer runs like a pig. When it does decide to display my statemachine workflows I can crash it by selecting *any* activity and double-clicking it. Absolute garbage.

I still don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25614823)

A book with a duck on the cover for pogs

"Being employed doing 2.0 full time makes it hard to bounce around the net trying to find cohesive 3.5 examples and explanations"

Perhaps a language which changes so drastically and so quickly should be avoided. Especially when that company is Microsoft, and especially when that stands a major chance of ruining all of your previous hard work.

"Our goal is to show you the 25% that you will use 85% of the time." - exactly...

I still don't change it... (3, Insightful)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615325)

"Perhaps a language which changes so drastically and so quickly should be avoided. Especially when that company is Microsoft, and especially when that stands a major chance of ruining all of your previous hard work."

You know I just had to reply to such a curious complaint. FOSS is not only subject to change, but more so due to it's open nature and "defacto" leadership. And no one complains about all the changes required when some code you're depending on changes, or your existing assumptions don't work as well as you thought.

Re:I still don't get it... (3, Informative)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616191)

Perhaps a language which changes so drastically and so quickly should be avoided.

Eh, not really. New editions of .NET, for the most part, only add options and functionality; they don't break existing code. If you don't want to use generics, WCF, LINQ, etc. as they're introduced, don't -- they just present what amount to easier/cleaner options to achieve the same goals, in some cases. Instead of iterating through a collection and picking out the objects that match your chosen criteria, maybe you write a LINQ query to do it instead. The latter is less code and probably a lot easier on whoever has to maintain your code down the line (it's easier to read/understand/modify), but the former still works.

I've spent a lot more time dealing with fallout from PHP 4 code that isn't valid PHP 5 code (for example) than I ever have with old-version .NET code -- and I spend a lot more time working with .NET code.

Silverligth (1)

sskagent (1170913) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614839)

XAML, AJAX,C# and Silverligth

Silverligth?? Sounds like some creepy relation of cthulhu

Re:Silverligth (1)

uberjack (1311219) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615289)

Silverligth?? Sounds like some creepy relation of cthulhu

They just might be. They both have quite a few followers and are equally hideous.

I clicked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25614927)

I clicked just to see what Pogramming was.. boy was I disappointed..

You know..... (5, Insightful)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614943)

It's a sad day at Slashdot when more people would comment on a typo than offer criticism about a book. So let's fix this.
It explains some of the newer things 3.5 brings but does it deal with their actual implementation with business logic or otherwise? From what I've gathered, LINQ sounds like craziness in terms of being able to keep SQL maintained.

Roll with that.

Re:You know..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25615273)

Those are the only criticisms they can come up with for .NET :)

I can come up with plenty but I'm a .NET dev for the most part.

LINQ does not sound like craziness (4, Insightful)

melted (227442) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615535)

I use LINQ almost exclusively in two ways:

1. To access stored procedures
2. To do SQL-like queries on in-memory collections

It works GREAT for both.

Re:LINQ does not sound like craziness (2, Informative)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 5 years ago | (#25617227)

I use LINQ almost exclusively in two ways...

Sorry to tell you this, but LINQ has run almost to the end of its short life. Turns out the ADO.NET folks are going to kill it off. They like EntityFramework better [codebetter.com] .

LINQ was good at a few things, and a LINQ to Objects/SharePoint/etc. that was fully matured would have been nice. But, it won't get there now.

Re:You know..... (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615671)

From what I've gathered, LINQ sounds like craziness in terms of being able to keep SQL maintained.

LINQ to SQL is no different in concept than Hibernate's HQL, or any of the other dozen self-designed query languages. Well, except that it's "language-integrated".

Nor is it limited to databases. A project I work on has none, but uses LINQ heavily for queries on plain object collections and XML. It really cuts down on boilerplate code (but then again, those who have been using Haskell or ML, and know what "map" or "fold" are, should not be surprised - that's what LINQ, in fact, is).

Re:You know..... (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615859)

LINQ sounds like craziness

The beauty of features like LINQ being added to .NET is that they're case studies on FOSS double standards, because if that had been added to Java or Python, everyone and their little sister would be screaming to the four winds how totally cool it is and LOLOL, Microsoft doesn't have it.

Certainly anyone daring to utter the word "craziness" in conjunction with that fresh and exciting new feature would be considered a troll and dealt with accordingly by the unwashed masses of syntactic sugar-hungry Java developers.

Re:You know..... (4, Informative)

BRSQUIRRL (69271) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616029)

I blame Microsoft for perpetuating this misconception, but LINQ (at its core) has nothing to do with SQL or databases.

I too am a little skeptical about LINQ-to-SQL, the implementation of LINQ that allows querying/manipulating SQL databases. But basic LINQ -- the idea of overlaying the .NET class library with a set of generic query operations and then providing new programming language keywords to twiddle them -- is pretty cool. For example, LINQ can work over in-memory collections of objects or XML documents, which allows you to replace lines and lines of arcane search loops with a single LINQ query statement that is infinitely easier to understand and maintain.

Re:You know..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25616075)

LINQ sounds like craziness in terms of being able to keep SQL maintained.

If your queries are in LINQ, you won't have to "keep SQL maintained".

Re:You know..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25616477)

I agree with your first paragraph, but the review is of the book, not the .Net framework.

(BTW Linq is the opposite of craziness, it is the single most innovative and useful technology I have seen during my 10 years as a developer)

Re:You know..... (4, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616479)

LINQ sounds like craziness in terms of being able to keep SQL maintained.

You have to look beyond SQL and see the real value of having an abstract in-language query facility which can be remapped, using any number of methods from XML configuration to dependency injection, to any data source which supports LINQ. This is no more complicated than the previous state of affairs in many high level languages with generic data table and grid objects or strings built up as queries. The genius of LINQ is that it compliments the better solutions while replacing the inferior ones and providing some additional goodies, lambda expressions for example. LINQ stands for Language Integrated Query and is NOT just LINQ to SQL (although Microsoft has promoted the hell out of that implementation). Sometimes it pays to look beyond the hype and see what a new technology really does (or does not) bring to the table and if LINQ is just another way to write SQL to you then perhaps you should take another look, because LINQ has much more to offer than just LINQ to SQL.

Re:You know..... (1)

Cyrcyr (1070070) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616545)

Every day is a sad day on slashdot, seen from the eyes of a Microsoft.

So I'm a jerk, but (5, Insightful)

jguevin (453329) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614969)

I'm sorry, this is a really poorly written review. It's choppy, uninsightful, and just painful to read. And then there are "sentences" like:

The first part starts with XAML. This is the eXtensible A The next main topic is using WPF which is the successor of Windows Forms.

Good lord.

Re:So I'm a jerk, but (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615545)

You are not a jerk for thinking it is a poorly written review. The jerks are the people who are tagging this article with "microsoftsucks" and "flaimbait".

Re:So I'm a jerk, but (1)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616027)

I agree; I was going to forward this to one of our devs, but after a couple of paragraphs I can't help wondering if it wasn't written by a high-schooler.

Also from the same author... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25614995)

Sellchecking Slashdot Submissions

It's a new book, you might want to take a look.

LINQ = Doomed (1)

eagee (1308589) | more than 5 years ago | (#25614999)

Is there anyone else here who is already sick of seeing greenhorns implementing LINQ left and right? I personally, am not that impressed. Hype = more money for Microsoft and less maintainability for us designers.

Re:LINQ = Doomed (3, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615063)

People implement it left and right because its easy: its just one interface to implement (its not trivial, but its not hard either). Also, having something exposed as IQueryable (what you need to "implement LINQ") also allows you to expose it to ADO.NET Data Services, which is a huge time saver.

I don't see why you get "less maintainability for designers" though. Functional programming (which LINQ somewhat is) is a heck of a lot easier to maintain than the alternative.

Re:LINQ = Doomed (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616115)

So what's different between this and templates in C++? You could template a query class and use it on tons of data structures. Everyone is making this out to be the second coming of Jesus.

Re:LINQ = Doomed (1)

jeppster (1031326) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615519)

Yeah, I get sick of those people implementing easy-to-use stuff too. Bugs the crap out of me! High fives to all the brownhorns!

Re:LINQ = Doomed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25616609)

No, actually I would say that linq is the most amazing new invention in programming for a long time. Suddenly having a good domain model really pays off. Creating a custom view, or report on the data is usually only a simple query away!

BTW, I program both Java and .Net, and I must say that Java really, really feels oldfashioned compared to .Net 3.5.

NET? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25615045)

It is truly shocking that people still use a crap language like .NET. Why not get rid of the diaper, learn java, and play with the big boys. This NET crap should have died years ago.

Just one question... (0, Troll)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615087)

Is Microsoft using .NET 3.5 for any of their own internal development? Basing the future of your application on a development environment that MS won't use in-house seems a bit short sighted to me.

Re:Just one question... (4, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615267)

Yes they do. Various versions depending on when the products were released (keep in mind .NET 3.5 is .NET 2.0 with a lot of extensions, its still .NET 2.0), so you have Windows Workflow in Biztalk and Sharepoint, Expression Blend is in WPF, of course, many of their own sites use Silverlight 2.0, etc etc etc. .NET 3.5 is fairly recent, especially 3.5 SP1, so we don't see that -as much-, but .NET in general is fairly pervasive at MS.

Re:Just one question... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615277)

Yes. Yes they are. Point nullified.

Re:Just one question... (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615411)

And using a poor fit for a language to make products you are going to sell is management genius? Even if you happen to make that poorly-fitting language internally.

Re:Just one question... (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615687)

I would think that adoption of Microsoft technologies at Microsoft tends to follow the same rates as their overall client base, mostly because Microsoft is no different from any other large company with IT requirements, budgets, staffing and legacy problems.

In some cases they tend to be early adopters (the core of microsoft.com was probably the first large .NET web site), but that's not always the case.

Re:Just one question... (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616079)

As others have mentioned, they are.

Beyond that... no, .NET is not the right tool for every task. It is not necessarily what you want to write your next OS in. It is a very good choice for most of the business software development I've seen in my career, however.

Re:Just one question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25616317)

Yes. We just finished building a tool to be used internally @ MS. We used SL2 and dotnet 3.5.

Re:Just one question... (1)

aaron.axvig (1238422) | more than 5 years ago | (#25617111)

SQL Server Management Studio is written in .NET.

Is the cover of the book a subtle joke? (0, Redundant)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615285)

They have a lame duck on the cover of the book.

Re:Is the cover of the book a subtle joke? (2, Funny)

fortyonejb (1116789) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615481)

Which is not quite as lame as being the third person to make this joke.

O/S bigotry right in the tags (3, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615491)

How is a book review flamebait? Why tag a book review with "microsoftsucks" and "vssucks" and even "eclipsesucks"?

There is only one reason, and that is zealotry and bigotry.

Re:O/S bigotry right in the tags (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25615579)

Point taken.

Now tagging as "DaveV1.0Sucks".

Re:O/S bigotry right in the tags (-1, Troll)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615631)

You know, it could actually be because microsoft sucks.

Re:O/S bigotry right in the tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25616551)

Right, right. Everyone hates MS. Get with the pogrom.

Re:O/S bigotry right in the tags (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616741)

Just because we are biased doesn't mean we are wrong.

Re:O/S bigotry right in the tags (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616869)

No, it couldn't, because Microsoft does not actually suck. Parts of Microsoft suck (some products, their general business practices), but the whole does not, in fact, suck.

And more to the point of what this article addresses, .NET certainly does not suck.

Re:O/S bigotry right in the tags (1)

borawjm (747876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25615667)

Since inception, tags on /. have always been pointlessly biased.

Re:O/S bigotry right in the tags (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616321)

It shows just how pointless tags here are. They're used as a faster comments section.

Can't afford Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25616187)

I don't need the book since I can't afford any for the xpensive MSoft Visual 2008
software tools. i.e. professional. If MSOFT lowered their tool price, I might have
some money leftover to buy and read the book.

Seriously, now... (1)

R3d Jack (1107235) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616217)

Does anyone out there using .NET have a comment about how it is shaping up? Has MS included MVC support for ASP.NET? What types of apps are people doing?

Re:Seriously, now... (1)

metallic (469828) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616493)

Microsoft currently has ASP.NET MVC [asp.net] in beta right now. Not sure when one can expect a stable release though.

Save 30-95% on .Net Books. (1, Insightful)

misterjava66 (1265146) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616499)

Get it online $31.98
http://www.betterworld.com/detail.aspx?ItemId=059652756X [betterworld.com]

54 .Net Books, most used and under $10
http://www.betterworld.com/list.aspx?Category_ID=764452&s=18339247 [betterworld.com]

and save the planet while you learn .net
http://www.betterworld.com/custom.aspx?f=impact [betterworld.com] :-)

The APress book is Better (4, Informative)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25616603)

The APress offering in this category, Pro C# 2008 and the .NET 3.5 Platform [amazon.com] , is almost certainly superior in both breadth of topics covered and details presented. I own the Apress book and have found it to be a useful reference on numerous occasions, but read the reviews and look at the scores before deciding what to buy. If you only have funds for one or the other then get the Apress book, you won't be disappointed.

JOhn McCain +1 War Zero (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25616907)

will draft YOU.

Just Read this book (1)

c0d3r (156687) | more than 5 years ago | (#25617015)

This book is not of o'reilly quality and reminds me of sams or wrox. They had too many personal stories and it was light on technicalities. It was akin to some large paste of some code they wrote and then a followed up chopped up description of the easy parts. The ajax part was horrific on how basic it was. The WCF part didn't help me pick it up.. anyways I'd suggest that anyone interested in this book to look through it, rather than depened on o'relly's name.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>