What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Frans Bouma — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 12:07:00 GMT

After playing with VS.NET C# Express 2005 abit, I find it very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very, did I mention very?, annoying that almost all dialogs of VS.NET are not RESIZEABLE.

The dialogs are often very tiny, I'm on 1600x1200, I have to click and scroll and click and scroll just to see a single row in a dialog or check some option. Very very very, ok I start to repeat myself, you get the picture. :)

IF this could be added to the final version, it would be great. Almost all developers I've spoken to about the C# Express product tell me the same.

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Cyrus Najmabadi — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 12:18:00 GMT

Frans: Please file these issues at:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/ProductFeedback

Please indicate which dialog you are referring to. A screen shot would also be helpful to show how bad it is.

Shameless plug: the dialogs that the C# team is responsible for (not many) are all resizable :-)

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Frans Bouma — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 12:47:00 GMT

Cyrus: ok, I've already filed 2 of them (options dialog and the Indexes/keys dialog of SqlExpress), I'll file more of 'em. Thanks :)

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Daniel Jin — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:27:00 GMT

"nesting other languages in C#"

would that be nesting IL in C#?

Edit

Gianluca's Blog — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:52:00 GMT

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Cyrus Najmabadi — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:08:00 GMT

Daniel: Yes. IL nesting is just another non-c# language.

Note: I would like to hear about what you would want to be doing with IL inlined in code.

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

James Hancock — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:33:00 GMT

Whohoo! E&C and I bet you didn't even count my repeated votes for it :)

Seriously, give me that and I really like the spell checker idea for strings and labels and other text elements on WinForms/WebForms.

Oh ya, and get rid of the 5 crashes of VS.net 2003 I've had this morning!

Give me all of that, and I will come and kiss the entire VS.net dev team (and C# team too!) :)

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Cyrus Najmabadi — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:41:00 GMT

James: Did you submit your crashes to watson? :-)

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

evil80 — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:00:00 GMT

optionally to enable throws clause.

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Cyrus Najmabadi — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:15:00 GMT

Evil80: Could you explain what you mean by that?

For why my tables appear like the donkey?

Cyrus' Blather — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 19:21:00 GMT

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Daniel Jin — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:30:00 GMT

> I would like to hear about what you would want to be doing with IL inlined in code.

hmm...after thinking about this for the past 10 minutes, I honest cannot find a good thing I want to do with this other than the coolness factor. I guess IL will circumvent some restrictions c# has, like using operators in generics. (granted, it's something you shouldn't do) so cyrus, what cool stuff do you do with IL?

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

James Hancock — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:40:00 GMT

I submit the crashes that actually produce an error that I can submit to Watson. But half the time (I'm running Windows XP SP1 + patches) VS.net just disappears and I get no error report window or anything (and yes, Win XP is set to prompt for the errors and send the error log)

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Cyrus Najmabadi — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:02:00 GMT

Daniel: Kind of need more than just "coolness factor" to consider this :-)

Otherwise, it's just much much easier to just write the IL in a separate file and link to it from your main program.

I try to avoid IL myself :-)

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Cyrus Najmabadi — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:04:00 GMT

james: ooooh, that sucks. My guess would be some sort of stack overflow. Le me know if 2005 is having this problem. if so, then i can work with you to try and get a repro or a crash dump to send to us so we can squash the bug.

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

James Hancock — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:20:00 GMT

I'm still waiting for my DVDs to arrive for Beta 1 (Yes, I'm one of the "official" beta testers :))

As soon as I have it, and if I can convert our project to it now (finally!) then I'll let you know if it crashes the same way!

Thanks!

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Darren Oakey — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:19:00 GMT

yeah - I'm waiting for my dvd's too!
(of course, I'm not one of the "official" testers <grin>

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Panos Theofanopoulos — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:46:00 GMT

Excellent work Cyrus. Thanks a lot

Now the next question. WHEN !

AFAIK mixins and inline IL are planned for Orcas, how about the others ?

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Cyrus Najmabadi — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 01:53:00 GMT

Panos: "AFAIK mixins and inline IL are planned for Orcas"

Fascinating :-)

Where did you hear that information?

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Panos Theofanopoulos — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 10:11:00 GMT

1) Hejlsberg about generic-mixins

http://wesnerm.blogs.com/net_undocumented/2004/01/multiple_inheri.html
<quote>
Anders Hejlsberg indicated during a PDC panel that, while MI support is not planned for a future version of .NET, the CLR team is looking at supporting mix-ins, which is a type of MI based on generics. Mix-ins provide a kind of implementation inheritance that interfaces currently lack
</quote>

Just to add to the above, if mixins allowed operators, then maybe, it could be the perfect constraint for a generic type, with the current implementation of generics, simple operations (+.-,/,*) are problematic and inefficient

2) I was remembering wrong things, what its planned is not exactly "inline" and its not in Orcas, but in Whidbey

Hejlsberg about inline IL
http://msdn.microsoft.com/chats/vstudio/vstudio_032103.asp
<quote>
Can’t say that I’ve ever found much use for it [inline IL]-perhaps cause we don’t support it J Seriously, I think ILASM covers that just fine, and in Whidbey we’ll allow you to link C# and ILASM into a single assembly.
</quote>

How is that different, than using modules its beyond me

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Cyrus Najmabadi — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 10:13:00 GMT

Panos: Linking into the same assembly is far far off from supporting inline IL :-)

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Dr Pizza — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:26:00 GMT

_Exactly_ identical featuresets across all the languages that ship with the IDE. It annoys me that though one has a /roughly/ consistent front-end to C++/VB.NET/C#/etc., there are different featuresets for all those languages. If C# has a given refactoring, VB and C++ should do so too. I know it's hard to do for C++, but it's not impossible.

I want to be able to nest projects within folders within solutions.

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Panos Theofanopoulos — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:30:00 GMT

Cyrus : It's still inlining, but at a higher level ;-)

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Darren Oakey — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 21:28:00 GMT

you mention that you were surprised no-one wants a global exception handler?
Well - I for one don't particularly care about that, because I can replace the default error handler, and really don't want to interact with any exception that was successfully caught - it feels a little weird...

However, what I would like (although maybe it's possible? - dunno?) - I'm still using VS2003 officially at work, and so are using "using" to in a way simulate anonymous methods.

For instance
using (Transaction.Called("Create Cheque"))
{
...
Commit();
}

and of course, I rollback a current transaction if it is NOT committed when it is disposed. That works well, and a hashtable against threadid and stackframe accessed by CurrentTransaction allows me to nest these things and still remain threadsafe/eventsafe... but one thing I couldn't figure out how to do at all was to tell whether my object was being disposed because the block had finished nicely, or because an exception had occurred. I tried searching the stackFrame, but the caller is the same regardless. If I could do that, I could get rid of the need for Commit!

(Of course, with anon methods this desire goes away, I then just say InTransaction( "Create Cheque", {blah} ); )

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Kavan — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 23:04:00 GMT

Is it possible to link IL and C# into the same assembly? Would that be possible with code from any language?

TraxBax!!

TrackBack — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:39:00 GMT

TraxBax!!

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Keith Hill — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 20:15:00 GMT

Actually most of what was listed there I don't want. I don't want C# to become VB. If you want VB then just use VB. I wouldn't mind EnC but I have certainly gotten by without it for many years. I would like to have Covariant return types (you are inching there with delegate covariance). I am baffled by the "want to embed other languages inside C#"? Is this the crowd that wants to write IL inside of their C# programs? Look, I'd be much happier with a VS supported solution where projects allowed a mixture of language files. Or a VS supported way to take two projects built as netmodules and then link them into a logical assembly. That would be a more robust solution IMO. And please, I never, ever want to see a WITH statement in C#.

A global exception handler, specifically with the ability to generate managed minidumps would be AWESOME. We really want to get error reports from our deployed code, do the post-mortem debugging thing and improve the quality of our products.

I would also be in favor of a property keyword that acted just like the event keyword. You place event keyword on a delegate field and it handles creating a backing delegate and the add/remove handlers. The property keyword would do the same thing with a field, creating a backing store field and the appropriate get/set methods unless readonly is specified and then only gen a getter method.

Finally and this probably isn't a C# thing but more of a CLR thing, this biggest improvement to .NET that you could make to help developers create more robust code is to give us a non-enforced form of checked exceptions. That is, I want to know (without a doubt) about all checked excpetions (this excludes fatal errors like OutOfMemory/EngineExecution/StackOverflow exceptions) that any particular method throws. I don't need compiiler enforcement of catching or declaring a throws. I just want to know about all the exceptions. And don't tell me to look at the docs. The docs just plain don't document all the non-fatal exceptions that some of the framework type members throw. I trust 3rd party class library docs even less.

In the end, you need to listen to your customers with a discerning ear. If you gave us everything we all wanted then C# would quickly become a bloated P.O.S. Please choose carefully what you add to the language. As long as Anders is over-seeing the C# I feel pretty confident he'll keep changes in check. After having argued with him about certain additions to the language, it was clear the feature had to clear a pretty high bar of "additional value" before he would even consider it.

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Cyrus Najmabadi — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 20:42:00 GMT

Keith:

"I am baffled by the "want to embed other languages inside C#"? "

The previous posts went into this in much more detail. This was referring to the issues people deal with commonly when trying to embed domain specific langauges like regexps, sql, xml, with C#. Currently it's a pain and it would be quite interesting if it could be done better.

"If you gave us everything we all wanted then C# would quickly become a bloated P.O.S."

Note: this was not a question of "what do you want to see in teh C# language" but what do you want to see in C# the whole shebang. So, if we could advance the editor into making it trivially easy to manipulate regexps from withing C#, then that would solve the problem.

I'll add your votes to the entire list :-)

Oh, and I'm curious... would be enough to just say "every single method can throw these possible errors?" considering that the instant you perform any IL instruction you have the potential to OOM, Overflow, or EEE.

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Cyrus Najmabadi — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 20:44:00 GMT

Keith: " I am baffled by the "want to embed other languages inside C#"? "

I highly recommend reading the earlier posts on this topic so that you understand what all the suggestions are :-)

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Keith Hill — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 21:50:00 GMT

"Oh, and I'm curious... would be enough to just say every single method can throw these possible errors? considering that the instant you perform any IL instruction you have the potential to OOM, Overflow, or EEE."

In Java there is a distinction between checked exceptions and non-checked runtime exceptions. The same could apply in this scenario. OOM, StackOverlow, EE exceptions, etc are all unpredictable. However if I write to a registry key that I don't have permissions to write to, I'll get a SecurityException. That is 100% predictable. I think of them in the old SEH terms of hardware exceptions are like runtime non-checked exceptions whereas checked exceptions are like SEH software exceptions. So no, I only want to know about the "predictable", checked exceptions.

Sorry about jumping in this late. I just subscribed and my reader apparently didn't pick up your original post on this subject.

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Haacked — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:08:00 GMT

This is more of a VS.NET request than C#, but I want to be able to reference an exe in VS.NET. see (http://haacked.com/archive/2004/07/16/819.aspx)

re: What do you want in the next version of VS/C# (part 4)

Cyrus Najmabadi — Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:50:00 GMT

Haacked: You can now reference an exe in vs2005 :-)

Question about intellisense and operators overload resolution

Cyrus' Blather — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 06:41:00 GMT

Question about intellisense and operators overload resolution

Cyrus' Blather — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 06:44:00 GMT

Cosa Volete nella prossima versione di C# (i risultati)

Di .NET e di altre amenit — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:38:00 GMT

What you wanted in the next version of C#

Cyrus' Blather — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:54:00 GMT

What you wanted in the next version of C#

Cyrus' Blather — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:28:00 GMT

health

Barry — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 05:18:18 GMT

discount pharmacy http://www.bestrxpills.com

buy viagra

viagra online — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:10:20 GMT

http://www.viagra4u.info
Viagra, buy viagra, viagra online
Order viagra, cheap viagra

Play Casino

Joe Fuentes — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:05:36 GMT

The text was good, but i stil cant find the play ipdates. looking for it dude.

sports betting

Peter Jackson — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:54:55 GMT

A heap of wheat, says the Song of Songs
but I've never seen wheat in a pile :)
did you like it?

Paris Hilton

Richard Davis — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 05:43:12 GMT

Nice one, but what about der weg ? anywya, congrats from me.

Cyrus Blather What do you want in the next version of VS C part 4 | Toe Nail Fungus

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:02:48 GMT

PingBack from http://toenailfungusite.info/story.php?id=6046