C# language changes coming with Yukon

[chiph]

Microsoft has posted an article covering some of the (proposed) language changes coming with "Yukon"

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...l/vbconCProgrammingLanguageFutureFeatures.asp

Chip H.

 

[Dinobrago]

Thanks. Very interesting developments.

Partial classes look to be particularly helpful to me. ---
dino

 

[RiverGuy]

Cool article. They mention IntelliSense changes too for the IDE. I was hoping it would allow easier "sloppy" coding. Sometimes it converts your lower-case to caps to access a particular property or method, etc. Sometimes it doesn't. Maybe this will be easier.

 

[palbano]

Generics with constraints and anonymous methods!

-pete

 

[chiph]

Pete -

I'm with you on the Generics. I don't need them that often, but when I do, I do.

Anonymous methods seem like a bag to me -- if you're going to call code based on a delegate being raised, the code should be in the delegate, not in the definition of the delegate.

The whole Iterators things seems like a waste, too. If you want to be able to do a foreach{} on your collection, then you should just implement the IEnumerable interface. That way your class can participate in anything that understands the interface (which is a lot of the framework).

I like the idea of partial classes. Back in the days of C/C++ you sometimes had to have multiple .h files for the same class in order to get around some code visibility issues. This will do the same. Just hope the IDE provides a way for you to jump between the source files to make it easier. Hmmmm. Or maybe you find things via the object browser, and it takes you to the source file where its defined ... which would a little cleaner. Hope they do that.

Chip H.

 

[link9]

I heard a while back that w/ Yukon, Stored Procedures were going to be able to be written with other languages besides T-SQL -- such as C#.

I find this prospect very interesting, although I have to admit that I don't exactly see how that's going to work.

Hmmm...

Anyone know any more about this idea?

The answer to getting answered -- faq855-2992

 

[rosenk]

[Stored Procedures] That seems plausible. In PostgreSQL, you can use perl (among other languages.)

 

[RiverGuy]

I believe in some DBMS's, you cannot write stored procedures with just SQL/T-SQL, i.e., DB2/400.

 

[chiph]

link9 -

Oracle (starting with 8i) has Java integrated with the database engine, and you are able to write stored procs in Java.

Microsoft is planning on doing this with the "Yukon" SQL Server, but using .NET, of course ("Java" being a bad word in Redmond).

It'll be great for procedural code - much richer development environment than T-SQL. Only drawback will be that the procedural code will have to (by necessity) be oriented around using DB cursors to loop through result sets. This will be fairly expensive when you want to perform set-based operations (a relational database strength) like joins, sub-selects, etc.

Chip H.

 

[RiverGuy]

I thought the newer, soon-to-come ANSI standard for SQL was supposed to implement programming logic such as loops w/o cursors. Maybe MS is going to go ahead with some of this before its standard. But it is hard to conceptualize with the vague documentation I've seen.

 

[wawalter]

Just wondering, will the implementation of procedural code in SP be across all of .NET or only C#?

 

[chiph]

I imagine it will be in any .NET language that can produce the correct MSIL bytecodes.

There may be some limitations as to what features of the .NET FCL you can make use of (I can see not being allowed to create separate threads, for example).

Chip H.