.NET (Core and Framework)

Automatic Properties on .NET 2.0

28-Mar-08 5:43

turailakshmanan wrote:
i am a beginer of dotnet flatform,current do a attendens project in a small compahy

Beginners should be studying (student) Computer Science not doing projects in companies. You start with a general foundation in Computer Science and then more specific studies of Computer Programming. Once you have obtained minimal understanding you become an intern in a company where you study again under the supervision of experienced programmers. They would answer these types of questions for you.

Who ever told you that you don't need to study Computer Science to be a programmer was wrong.

Good luck.

led mike

Re: dotnet

Pete O'Hanlon28-Mar-08 9:29

Pete O'Hanlon

28-Mar-08 9:29

led mike wrote:
Beginners should be studying (student) Computer Science not doing projects in companies. You start with a general foundation in Computer Science and then more specific studies of Computer Programming. Once you have obtained minimal understanding you become an intern in a company where you study again under the supervision of experienced programmers. They would answer these types of questions for you.

Who ever told you that you don't need to study Computer Science to be a programmer was wrong.

Well I didn't study CS. I studied pottery and comparative literature in the Kotohoshi Indians.

And yes - my previous sentences are complete crap. Wink | ;)

If you want a career as a programmer, you need to start studying and then never stop - for the rest of your life.

Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.

My blog | My articles

Re: dotnet

Himanshu Joshi28-Mar-08 6:32

Himanshu Joshi

28-Mar-08 6:32

turailakshmanan wrote:
flatform

turailakshmanan wrote:
urrent do a attendens project in a small compahy

Please Please do a favor to us, attend some evening classes that teaches basic English to kindergarten students.

turailakshmanan wrote:
how to create employeelist in windows application..

There is something called a search engine[^].

"Sometimes the greatest journey is the distance between two people" - Nice quote from a Nice Indian Movie

Brady Kelly28-Mar-08 2:18

28-Mar-08 2:18

I thought these were merely syntactical sugar offered by the 3.5 compiler, but would compile down to normal getters and setters that would work on the 2.0 framework. Yes, when I try and ‘down-grade’ a 3.5 project to 2.0, I get compiler errors for automatic properties. Is this just something I have to live with, or is there another way?<o:p>

led mike28-Mar-08 5:18

28-Mar-08 5:18

Brady Kelly wrote:
I thought these were merely syntactical sugar offered by the 3.5 compiler, but would compile down to normal getters and setters that would work on the 2.0 framework.

Interesting. Do you have an URL to something that says that?

led mike

Brady Kelly28-Mar-08 6:00

28-Mar-08 6:00

Yes,

C# 3.0 Automatic Properties explained[^]
Automatic properties in C#3[^]
C# Automatic Properties[^]

Pits fall into Chuck Norris.

led mike28-Mar-08 6:14

28-Mar-08 6:14

Well first none of those URLs is "Documentation". Second I can't find any form of the phrase "down grade" in any of them so they don't seem to say what you are saying you think should happen. So what documentation did you read that made you believe that it would work that way?

Brady Kelly wrote:
when I try and ‘down-grade’ a 3.5 project to 2.0

led mike

Brady Kelly28-Mar-08 6:25

28-Mar-08 6:25

I thought you meant links to support my statement that automatic properties are syntactic sugar. Bert Smal, the first link, is a well regarded blogger and has quite a good explanation.

My downgrade issue is not that I thought everything would work when I downgraded, it's just something I tried, and I knew it would fail initially because of all the 'using Linq' statements, but I didn't think would fail on automatic properties because I didn't know changing the target changed the compiler. A replier on the DOTNET-CLR list tells me this can actually be done, but not in my scenario:

"I've used automatic properties happily from the 3.0 compiler to generate a 2.0 assembly and see no issue with that. Same goes with extension methods (provided you add a fake attribute in your class).

<o:p> Of course you need to *target* 2.0 using the msbuild and compiler shipping in 3.5, otherwise it won't work."

- Sebastien Lambla [seb@SERIALSEB.COM]

Pits fall into Chuck Norris.

led mike28-Mar-08 7:24

28-Mar-08 7:24

Brady Kelly wrote:
Of course you need to *target* 2.0 using the msbuild and compiler shipping in 3.5, otherwise it won't work."

Thanks Brady, I'm still using 2.0 and VS2005 so this is all very helpful to me when I move to 3.5 and VS2008 which I believe will be soon. Smile | :)

led mike

Brady Kelly30-Mar-08 0:24

30-Mar-08 0:24

You'll love it! There are many new and fun ways to avoid writing code. Poke tongue | ;-P

Pits fall into Chuck Norris.

led mike31-Mar-08 5:13

31-Mar-08 5:13

Brady Kelly wrote:
There are many new and fun ways to avoid writing code.

You could always go work at McDonalds to avoid writing code. Laugh | :laugh:

led mike

Brady Kelly31-Mar-08 5:41

31-Mar-08 5:41

Actually I'm studying Law.

Pits fall into Chuck Norris.

Brady Kelly28-Mar-08 6:34

28-Mar-08 6:34

I now actually have code that says that. The following code compiles and runs targeting 2.0:

    class Program
    {
        static string MyName { get; set; }
        static DateTime MyDob { get; set; }

        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            MyName = "Brady Kelly";
            MyDob = new DateTime(1969, 12, 13);

            Console.WriteLine(MyName);
            Console.WriteLine(MyDob.ToString());
        }
    }

Pits fall into Chuck Norris.

Mike Dimmick28-Mar-08 7:36

Mike Dimmick

28-Mar-08 7:36

They are syntactic sugar. When you downgrade a 3.5 project to 2.0, you get the C# 2.0 compiler which doesn't understand them.

Calling it ".NET 3.5" made people expect that there was a new runtime. There isn't. The CLR is still version 2.0.50727 (although SP1 is required). Windows Forms is unchanged. .NET 3.0 was pure extensions, "3.5" ships with service packs for .NET 2.0 and ~~WinFX~~.NET 3.0 to add a few new features to the assemblies which shipped in those versions.

As long as you don't use any of the new ".NET 3.5" libraries, or compiler features which require runtime support in the new libraries (e.g. LINQ), your code will still run against .NET 2.0, even if you're 'targeting' .NET 3.5.

Visual Studio 2008's "multi-targeting" is a sham. It's really targetting the same runtime throughout. It doesn't offer the ability to target .NET 1.1, which would have been really useful.

DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991

Brady Kelly30-Mar-08 0:23

30-Mar-08 0:23

Mike Dimmick wrote:
It doesn't offer the ability to target .NET 1.1, which would have been really useful.

Why? Is there any compelling reason to not upgrade to 2.0?

Pits fall into Chuck Norris.

Thomas Stockwell6-Apr-08 3:43

Thomas Stockwell

6-Apr-08 3:43

The reason why Microsoft didn't add .NET 1.1 targeting is because Microsoft wants more money. .NET 1.1 is still needed for older systems (school computers) that may not be as up-to-date as they should be.