dami said:

wacko said:

*snip*

You mean I should override the propertys on the concrete interface?

But the MyConcreteClass inherits the name property from MyBaseClass, the same way as IMyConcreteClass does from IMyBaseClass... does interface inheritance work like this or i'm wrong? :-/

thanks for your reply!

dami said:

Here is the code. [DOWNLOAD]



Actually it works perfect if I replece the List<IMyConcreteClass> with a List<MyConcreteClass>

This is not uncommon and this is why I do not read his blog but Charles I have to ask, what is the point? You make this sound desperate and your argument sounds like something for the sake of having something to say. The argument does not even sound coherent just a bunch of rambling about how Channel 9 is not marketing, which in my opinion is total bs as an idea it’s pure marketing from the start, you do not have be pushing a physical item in order to be marketing something.  The pure idea of the site is the marketing of the information you provide in your videos and you know that. So that argument is just a lame one and furthermore why does it matter what Robert says? I mean come one when people were making comments like Channel 9 will never make it; I did not see you come out and say anything then, why now? Just because Scoble once wore a channel 9 bandanna? When people called you guys out on why your videos where lacking in content that was truly developer oriented you said nothing then.  Now I have a great respect for you Charles and for the most part enjoy the things you say and the videos you have done but Step down from the podium and go back to your desk and actually do something; come back and fight for something that matters.

In the words of F. Scott Fitzgerald,

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function”

jamie wrote:



re: wacko:  

true... but dont forget we are in a lull...
vista, office, ie etc all released.

if we new - OR WERE ASKED - to participate in the design of new version - posting/interest would go up

all we can do now - is wait - till the alpha or beta of vienna comes or ie8 - then we can make noise like before and be ignored like before - only in greater numbers 

re min: yes it does need changes

I disagree and here is why… For the longest time we saw a huge amount of videos talking about all these new technologies that Microsoft was working and we saw demo’s of the early stuff and some of the mid-road stuff and now its all done. And this mentality is well now that its done we do not need to talk about it anymore. I mean we spent two years looking at all this cool stuff and now that its done there should be no reason why they can’t show us more. I mean a demo video does not need to show me something cutting edge, it needs to show me something cool, show me something that someone is working on. We hear about all these projects that MS works on internally and we never see anything about them until they are almost done… Show us some of those, we have a new .net version in the wings 3.5 show us some of that. I mean there is a lot of stuff out there that people want to see and now we do not see it anymore.

On top of that what’s wrong with going back and revisiting old topics; a great example was WCF and WPF we saw all this new stuff and now a lot of it has changed since we last saw it and we get nothing on that. I mean we have seen a couple videos on c++ as of late and why not go back and show some tips and tricks and some cool stuff that you can do with what you guys have been working on now for years. Channel 9’s target is developers and revisiting some of these old ideas is not something we look down upon. To learn from the pro’s is a great thing and I think we need to see more videos about this sorta stuff. I think the ideas minh has mentioned are also good ones I think we should be able to show movies off on our blogs… I think we should be able to make clips and link those over to our sites in an embedded player.  I never saw C9 as a place that was only about cutting edge stuff, I saw it as a place where dev’s such as ourselves could see inside the machine and have some sort of communication with MS.

I would love to see something come out of the talent that we posses on this site but I do not see it happening until the powers to be do something to invoke the community to get involved again and I think that invocation will be in the form of better quality videos and better site interaction. I am sorry to say this but atleast when Scobble’s was making videos they had a bang to them and some of the best videos I have seen come from Charles and his constant detailed questioning and as of late these things have fallen to the wayside and thus I think there has been a lost interest in C9.

private void cacheUser(User user)
{
   if (0 == Interlocked.Exchange(ref currentlyinuse, 1))
   {
      userLock.AcquireReaderLock(Timeout.Infinite);
      try
      {
        if (!_users.TryGetValue(user.Email, out user))
        {
           userLock.UpgradeToWriterLock(Timeout.Infinite);
            _users.Add(user.Email, user);
        }
      }
      finally
      {
          userLock.ReleaseLock();
          Interlocked.Exchange(ref currentlyinuse, 0);
       }
   }
}

HumanCompiler wrote:

Why are we even discussing late binding?  I don't get it.  Infered Types != Late Binding

Infered Types does not mean we're declaring a variable as object.  It means whatever it's initial value is (i.e. the first time it's set) its type will be sort of defined and can't be changed after that.

var x = "blah";

is not really any different than...

string x = "blah";

That said, again, Infered Types isn't really for situations like that.  It's just a simple example.

AndyC wrote:

Late binding is lazy.

You can achieve the things you want to do by defining and implementing clear interfaces. It takes a little more design effort but is more than worth it in terms of what can be gained at compile time (both in terms of catching errors earlier and better optimisation).

here again one could make the argument that hey we should know if this was going to fail at compile time and just clean up from there, as other could make the argument that well we can deal with it at runtime I mean if we design the application to deal with the issue at runtime they why does it matter. I just think sometimes late binding makes things easier if you know what your doing. I this would be a great example of where VB.net looks better but in my opinion allows for a much richer and more dynamic lang

Just another example and it has been shown here in channel 9 before is the following :

In this we have no clue what’s going into the PrintName method and as long as we know it has a name prop it doesn’t matter.  I do not have to deal with knowing the type just as long as it has the method I call on the object. If you think about it, you could make the argument that it enforces good application as I am sure those opposed to late binding make the argument that it could fail and we have a giant mess etc etc but the reality is that if your use late binding you should write application that takes into account that its being used and throw these in a try/catch etc..

 I mean other places that it could be utilized are in Data driven applications where sometimes data types are always changing, I could go from an int to float or float to a double or what ever and as we get into SQL 2005 where we can have user defined types late binding seem even more useful as long as we know that a float has an add method or whatever we are not left to having to know the type and rewriting code to meets the needs of changes.

  I mean to do this in C# is to much work and really limits my scope as to what can happen at runtime. I mean as you see in the example above its far worse in my opinion to lose time over having to use reflection, then just using late binding and taking the risk of it failing. I mean if your not implementing checking on any level then you might want to rethink your job situation anyway as I am sure you would not have it for much longer.