SecretSoftware wrote:

But I mean SQL as a language should  not be used alot. I mean with LINQ you can do alot more, by writing few words. That is real value. Because now your program will spend less time in loops and just more time idle waiting for the next instructions from the user. It really is breath taking and will revolutionize the way source code looks. Most of it will not have loops except in few places. Which is great!

thumbtacks wrote:

The loops are still there...but they are abstracted away. In reality, I'm surprised nobody has come up with this concept before. But like I said before, that's the difference between actually innovating something and just copying what others do. That's the difference Anders is making here.

thumbtacks wrote:

The loops are still there...but they are abstracted away. 

SecretSoftware wrote:



thumbtacks wrote: The loops are still there...but they are abstracted away.

How?

PS: I am not fully aware of the details of the implementations MS did in Linq, but I am happy with the results of such implementations because I see instant results and instant power in performance, which is what I really care about as a developer.

Having experianced what LINQ is all about after hearing about it for some long period of time, I can say I never want to go back without LINQ, infact I wish I could use it in my everyday development work. As I said, I want the future now!.

thumbtacks wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  thumbtacks wrote: The loops are still there...but they are abstracted away.  How?

Well, although I have not ever sat down at looked at how a database operates on the backend (as far as how the actually data is sorted through in response to a SQL query) I would surmise that there is some type of looping going on. Some day I'll do that. I suppose I could look at some open source implementation of a database and pore over the code on my own. But I would guess that in order to move through a massive collection of data (thousands of entries let's say), you have to do some type of looping...although it is an intelligent, guided type of looping based on the SQL syntax. Although it's not hard to write sloppy SQL and watch a query stall out for several minutes and return thousands of records when it should only return a few.

JohnAskew wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  thumbtacks wrote: The loops are still there...but they are abstracted away.  How? PS: I am not fully aware of the details of the implementations MS did in Linq, but I am happy with the results of such implementations because I see instant results and instant power in performance, which is what I really care about as a developer. Having experianced what LINQ is all about after hearing about it for some long period of time, I can say I never want to go back without LINQ, infact I wish I could use it in my everyday development work. As I said, I want the future now!.

Me neither. It could be loops that are buried within LINQ, or indexes, I don't know.

The one thing I agree with Thumbtacks about (and it may be the first ;D) is that Anders is a freaking GENIUS. Why? Well Thumb had his chance at discovering and implementing LINQ, but didn't...

thumbtacks wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: Having someone describe the power of LINQ to you , and actually experiancing it in development environment are two different things. I am actually not sure why there is not much fuss or buzz about LINQ. People should be excited about it and talking about it all over the programming places. Its a freakingly scary , jaw-dropping experiance. I mean this will literally change the way we implement ideas and designs of new software. I mean literally!!!!

So you are saying I should quick learn about it, write up a book and cash in on the upcoming market?

Hmmm.

Nope, I've got other things to finish first.

thumbtacks wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: I am excited about it because I feel as if i just landed from a rollercoaster ride. Its a feeling of happiness to plan in your head how LINQ will reduce 5000 lines of code significantly. Did you ever feel like when someone removes a noise that you always hear, and then you say that makes me feel better , why did I not remove it along time ago? That Is how I feel. No Kidding. This stuff is gold. Its value to me is much more than Gold, because now I can do alot with few words, and cross many boundries at the same time. I feel like I have the power of God! Hence , Its scary.

Abstraction != performance gains.

Productivity gains, maybe. How does LINQ work on huge collections of data? Like giant XML documents or large databases. Does it play nice with Oracle databases when you are pulling data from a dozen tables in an effort to retrieve hundreds or thousands of records?

SecretSoftware wrote:

I beleive Andres and the teams he collaborates with is the best thing that happened to MS Developer division in recent years. Because the clarity is just there, and the simplicity also. So he does have good taste and invents new techies that people need, not just want. More power to you Andres and the teams that  are bringing this gold to many developers around the globe!

JohnAskew wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: I beleive Andres and the teams he collaborates with is the best thing that happened to MS Developer division in recent years. Because the clarity is just there, and the simplicity also. So he does have good taste and invents new techies that people need, not just want. More power to you Andres and the teams that  are bringing this gold to many developers around the globe!

Ditto, from an old Delphi dev. (who still can't stand VB/VB.NET whatsoever).

thumbtacks wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:I am excited about it because I feel as if i just landed from a rollercoaster ride. Its a feeling of happiness to plan in your head how LINQ will reduce 5000 lines of code significantly. Did you ever feel like when someone removes a noise that you always hear, and then you say that makes me feel better , why did I not remove it along time ago? That Is how I feel. No Kidding. This stuff is gold. Its value to me is much more than Gold, because now I can do alot with few words, and cross many boundries at the same time. I feel like I have the power of God! Hence , Its scary.

Abstraction != performance gains.

Productivity gains, maybe. How does LINQ work on huge collections of data? Like giant XML documents or large databases. Does it play nice with Oracle databases when you are pulling data from a dozen tables in an effort to retrieve hundreds or thousands of records?

SecretSoftware wrote:

Hi,
   I think LINQ is really scary. This LINQ project is really very powerful in the sense that it will revolutionize the way we write code for the future. I mean we will be writing less for loops and less loops in general to iterate through objects and arrays and that is really significant in terms of performance. To select based on criteria and have the results in your face in a matter of microseconds is really scary.

I mean wow. Just instant gratification! How does the SQL team feal about LINQ? Is LINQ their Boggart?

I think I will never write another T-SQL again.

What do you guys think? Have you played with the CTPs?

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

Whats revolutionary is a system where you develop applications without having to write any code at all.

http://www.limnor.com/[/quote">http://www.limnor.com/ 

thumbtacks wrote:



PaoloM wrote:  Xaero_Vincent wrote: Whats revolutionary is a system where you develop applications without having to write any code at all. http://www.limnor.com/[/quote">http://www.limnor.com/  Yeah, that looks interesting. Another fine application built on .NET

Funny, I can't build the revolutionary tools I truly want to build in .NET. At least not without a whole lot of fuss and unsafe keywords. Huh.

PaoloM wrote:

Yeah, that looks interesting.
Another fine application built on .NET

thumbtacks wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: I am excited about it because I feel as if i just landed from a rollercoaster ride. Its a feeling of happiness to plan in your head how LINQ will reduce 5000 lines of code significantly. Did you ever feel like when someone removes a noise that you always hear, and then you say that makes me feel better , why did I not remove it along time ago? That Is how I feel. No Kidding. This stuff is gold. Its value to me is much more than Gold, because now I can do alot with few words, and cross many boundries at the same time. I feel like I have the power of God! Hence , Its scary.

Abstraction != performance gains.

Productivity gains, maybe. How does LINQ work on huge collections of data? Like giant XML documents or large databases. Does it play nice with Oracle databases when you are pulling data from a dozen tables in an effort to retrieve hundreds or thousands of records?

BryanF wrote:



thumbtacks wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: I am excited about it because I feel as if i just landed from a rollercoaster ride. Its a feeling of happiness to plan in your head how LINQ will reduce 5000 lines of code significantly. Did you ever feel like when someone removes a noise that you always hear, and then you say that makes me feel better , why did I not remove it along time ago? That Is how I feel. No Kidding. This stuff is gold. Its value to me is much more than Gold, because now I can do alot with few words, and cross many boundries at the same time. I feel like I have the power of God! Hence , Its scary. Abstraction != performance gains. Productivity gains, maybe. How does LINQ work on huge collections of data? Like giant XML documents or large databases. Does it play nice with Oracle databases when you are pulling data from a dozen tables in an effort to retrieve hundreds or thousands of records?

Actually, LINQ could lead to perf gains as it's integrated across Microsoft's product line, particularly the SQL Server family. Currently, you create a query by creating a string, which is passed to the database. Once in the database, the string is parsed into a native query tree structure. If future versions of SQL Server could be made to understand LINQ's own query tree, then you could pass that tree rather than a string, eliminating the overhead of parsing. (Why build a string only to parse it a few milliseconds later if you can avoid it?) At worst, the database would have to transform LINQ's tree into a SQL Server tree, which is still probably less complex. At least that's my understanding...

thumbtacks wrote:

Now, now...I did put up half a game in the Sandbox. I just don't have a whole lot of incentive to actually finish it...but as far as the things I'm actually building right now, they are real, but progress will be slow for a while...I'll post a demo when I'm further along.



And...like I mentioned in another thread...expect things to come out in rapid succession.

thumbtacks wrote:



littleguru wrote: There have been quite a few dudes here claiming to have build the coolest stuff... nobody ever showed something. And I mean a half finished game from 1980 isn't very exciting.

I'll post a demo when I can...probably in a month or so. I'm not exactly doing easy stuff here.

thumbtacks wrote:

I'm just about to reach the first milestone of sorts...reversing a linked list in place...without moving any data (easy). Then, the next milestone will be to turn that same list into a queue, and then a stack (in place). Then...

thumbtacks wrote:



Dr Herbie wrote: As I recall Borland BIDS did conversion of data structures without moving data when I started C++ programming in the early 90s.

Describe...I tried looking up a link for that, but could find little...

http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/archive/2005/09/19/425534.aspx

and my favorite topic;

http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/archive/2006/05/26/Yay_2100_-A-new-Stored-Proc-vs.-Dyn.-Sql-battle_2100_.aspx


Now, I dont always agree with everything this guy says, in fact we disagree on a lot, but he always provides excellent material from which to form opinions.

thumbtacks wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:Linq to web 2.0, Linq to objects, intities, etc.. is really cool. This is truely a geneuine invention by MS, and will make managed world more attractive than other languages.

No, its a genuine invention by Anders Hejlsberg. Without him, I wonder if the LINQ project would have gone anywhere. Remember all the things he did over at Borland?

SecretSoftware wrote:



thumbtacks wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Linq to web 2.0, Linq to objects, intities, etc.. is really cool. This is truely a geneuine invention by MS, and will make managed world more attractive than other languages. No, its a genuine invention by Anders Hejlsberg. Without him, I wonder if the LINQ project would have gone anywhere. Remember all the things he did over at Borland?

Well he is still a MS employee. So, what he does is compensated for by money, so its still counted as MS.AndresHejlsberg.Invention.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I am woundering when will people use managed world execlusively.
THe only thing that is unattractive in the C# language or VB.NET is the fact that your compiled source code can be decompiled easily from MSIL. MS should make this hard, as hard as decompiling machine code.

Infact the compiler itself, when it builds a project, should apply obfuscation natively, without programmer input. Also, there should be some kind of cryptosystem between the runtime, and your compiled source.

If this happened, I see no real reason to use unmanaged code over managed code.

figuerres wrote:



it's much like the whole riaa / music  thing....

if someone wants it they will get it.

thumbtacks wrote:

Like...who?

Anders could work wherever he wants. Just like Scoble. Scoble MADE Microsoft marketing what it was.

stevo_ wrote:



figuerres wrote: it's much like the whole riaa / music  thing.... if someone wants it they will get it.

While I'm not commenting on if .net MSIL should be changed to be more 'secure'. Surely your last comment invalidates your argument, the whole DRM security thing, windows activation security and such- yes it gets broken- but that doesn't mean they stop, they keep going to make it so that less and less people are actually capable of breaking it.

SecretSoftware wrote:



stevo_ wrote:  figuerres wrote:  it's much like the whole riaa / music  thing.... if someone wants it they will get it. While I'm not commenting on if .net MSIL should be changed to be more 'secure'. Surely your last comment invalidates your argument, the whole DRM security thing, windows activation security and such- yes it gets broken- but that doesn't mean they stop, they keep going to make it so that less and less people are actually capable of breaking it.

Agreed.

I know people can break anything or know how something works. But Its about raising the bar higher each time. Now with MSIL, i see script kiddies, reverse engineering .NET applications with a click on a button. This is really bad. Now if you raise the bar higher, that only highly trained professionals would be able to if they want, then these kinds of people will not spend hours upon hours to break something that is not worth it for them. See the difference?

The amount of time you put into it will make it hard and unattractive to undertake.

With MSIL, just  1 click and there you have the code. So you spend alot of hours debugging and fixing stuff, and someone just takes it with a click of a button. Its just not right. and MS should have done a better job about this since the invention of .NET framework.

There should be native source encryption, using asymmetrical keys, with digital signatures.

This is one reason why you dont see commerisal applications written in .NET, most are written in Vb6 or C++ or C or other machine-code producing languages.

The way the .NET framework stuff works, is similar to client-server design without encryption. So your code from the time you compile it to the time its run in the client machine, is never really encrypted.

So MS really needs to step up and fix this problem.

figuerres wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: stevo_ wrote:  figuerres wrote:  it's much like the whole riaa / music  thing.... if someone wants it they will get it. While I'm not commenting on if .net MSIL should be changed to be more 'secure'. Surely your last comment invalidates your argument, the whole DRM security thing, windows activation security and such- yes it gets broken- but that doesn't mean they stop, they keep going to make it so that less and less people are actually capable of breaking it. Agreed. I know people can break anything or know how something works. But Its about raising the bar higher each time. Now with MSIL, i see script kiddies, reverse engineering .NET applications with a click on a button. This is really bad. Now if you raise the bar higher, that only highly trained professionals would be able to if they want, then these kinds of people will not spend hours upon hours to break something that is not worth it for them. See the difference? The amount of time you put into it will make it hard and unattractive to undertake. With MSIL, just  1 click and there you have the code. So you spend alot of hours debugging and fixing stuff, and someone just takes it with a click of a button. Its just not right. and MS should have done a better job about this since the invention of .NET framework. There should be native source encryption, using asymmetrical keys, with digital signatures. This is one reason why you dont see commerisal applications written in .NET, most are written in Vb6 or C++ or C or other machine-code producing languages. The way the .NET framework stuff works, is similar to client-server design without encryption. So your code from the time you compile it to the time its run in the client machine, is never really encrypted. So MS really needs to step up and fix this problem.

perhaps I am missing something....

I think you are covering different cases with one blanket wish.

for example if a "skript kidd" hacks up some code that's one case.

someone copying code is another.

and all code encryption fails at runtime as the cpu has to execute something.

and take this point:  who wants to copy what?

not all apps are targets for theft.

for example I have serval .net apps that have to run 7x24 and do so very well, handles a lot of money and I watch for some things related to how it might be abused but... no one is copying the app.

now if I wrote a game for example then I'd worry more about copies that I was not paid for...

so part of the level of concern should be what the market is for the code.

and no compiler I know of for C / C++ encrypts the binaries it makes; you get a 3rd party tool for that....

why should .net be different in this area than C++ ?

everyone cries about how easy it is to reverse misl to c#
but what about x86 code.... I used to write x86 and C and I could follow the asm dump from a program and work out what it did....
it's not that hard really....

and we are folks who code and work on this for a living - at least I am.

most folks would not even try....

the ones that will - they will and if the code is harder to crack then the challenge goes up and they get more crackers in on the job...

and what % of the market for this app will want to copy / crack / hack it?

and how much $$$ will you spend to protect the app from that goup?

I'd rather spend the $$$ on making the app better, getting the users to love it and buy the next version -- and so on.

sure I would do some protection, and watch for cracked copies etc...

but IMHO folks worry to much about this ....

PaoloM wrote:



thumbtacks wrote:Like...who? Anders could work wherever he wants. Just like Scoble. Scoble MADE Microsoft marketing what it was.

Er... while I admire Anders and Robert, I think you severely underestimate all the other people working there.

I happen to have on hand a September 2005 paper titled "The LINQ Project - .NET Language Integrated Query". It's authored by Don Box and Andres Hejlsberg.

Andres may very well work wherever he wants, but he wants to work with Microsoft right now, and whatever he comes out during work hours is intellectual property of the company...

Dark_Halmut wrote:



Its funny how whats old is new again.... As a foxpro developer I already have native SQL-like code and iterate over the selection(cursors) with scan statements. Just an observation, it seems with .net 3.0 a lot of the advantages of foxpro are being brought into the clr as foxpro sunsets.

thumbtacks wrote:

Okay, that's true...what he does during work hours is your property.

But Don Box?

Seriously.

Don. Box.

Uh, tell me, what has Mr. Box done again? Other than put up a holiday jingle that you can stand for about ten seconds at most...

PaoloM wrote:



thumbtacks wrote: Okay, that's true...what he does during work hours is your property. But Don Box? Seriously. Don. Box. Uh, tell me, what has Mr. Box done again? Other than put up a holiday jingle that you can stand for about ten seconds at most...

Besides WCF and SOAP? Uhm... not much, I think.

thumbtacks wrote:

SOAP is an XML based protocol. First off, XML is not difficult to pick up or to create your own own protocols off of. Next you'll bring up Dave Winer!

It's easy to come up with your own homegrown file formats.

thumbtacks wrote:

Whether they receive widespread adoption is another thing.

thumbtacks wrote:

How much of WCF did Don actually code? Or was he just overseeing things?

thumbtacks wrote:



JohnAskew wrote:The one thing I agree with Thumbtacks about (and it may be the first ;D) is that Anders is a freaking GENIUS. Why? Well Thumb had his chance at discovering and implementing LINQ, but didn't...

I agree he is a GENIUS. But, like I said elsewhere, when you see what I'm working on (and I still haven't found this implemented elsewhere) someone just might say "whoa". The problem is that I'm doing foundational/low-level work right now...and then I will build rapidly on top of that. I'll post demo code if I get it working the way I want it to.

ElucidWeb wrote:



thumbtacks wrote:  JohnAskew wrote: The one thing I agree with Thumbtacks about (and it may be the first ;D) is that Anders is a freaking GENIUS. Why? Well Thumb had his chance at discovering and implementing LINQ, but didn't... I agree he is a GENIUS. But, like I said elsewhere, when you see what I'm working on (and I still haven't found this implemented elsewhere) someone just might say "whoa". The problem is that I'm doing foundational/low-level work right now...and then I will build rapidly on top of that. I'll post demo code if I get it working the way I want it to.

You really like to hear yourself talk dont you?

Dr Herbie wrote:



Thumbs:  just found this collections library which I thought you might find interesting.

Dark_Halmut wrote:



Its funny how whats old is new again.... As a foxpro developer I already have native SQL-like code and iterate over the selection(cursors) with scan statements. Just an observation, it seems with .net 3.0 a lot of the advantages of foxpro are being brought into the clr as foxpro sunsets.