With - End with block in C#

[Shawn B.]

Re: With - End with block in C#

I program windows apps as a hobby in x86 asm. On another note, I program
SNES (16-bit 65c02) in assembly and the original 8-bit NES in asm. But I
enjoy (as a hobby) win32 programming in asm. Nothing I do requires it. But
I do it because I enjoy making large business applications that consume
about 30MB in C++/or VB, but 300k in asm.


Thanks,
Shawn



"Alvin Bruney" <vapordan_spam_ me_not@hotmail_ no_spamhotmail. com> wrote in
message news:uRO52G1nDH A.2628@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Out of curiousity. What do you do that requires assembler?
>
> I have a mental block to that language. It reminds me of D's and E's in
> compsci. Forced to learn it to master the debugger, but still hate its[/color]
guts.[color=blue]
>
> --
>
>
> -----------
> Got TidBits?
> Get it here: www.networkip.net/tidbits
> "Shawn B." <leabre@html.co m> wrote in message
> news:uPtwFN0nDH A.2964@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Why? I"ve never had a problem doing so. It's a great conveniece and[/color][/color]
have[color=blue][color=green]
> > never in 7 years working with VB suffered a single lost second of
> > productivity as a result of its presence. I never "rely" on it, but I[/color][/color]
do[color=blue][color=green]
> > take advantage of the features a tool offers as they are there for a[/color]
> reason.[color=green]
> > I've never once in my memory suffered from not being able to read code[/color]
> that[color=green]
> > used a "with".
> >
> > I hear no end to the arguments of C# developers saying how difficult it[/color][/color]
is[color=blue][color=green]
> > to read. In my experience, I agree, I have worked with many C# and Java
> > developers who struggle to no end. My take? Adapt and move on. Most[/color][/color]
VB[color=blue][color=green]
> > programmers don't struggle as much as I've personally witnessed non VB
> > programmers struggle with it. I'm not making a blanket statement. This[/color]
> is[color=green]
> > just an observation based on experience, is all.
> >
> > Me? I'm primarily an Assembly and C++ programmer, who gets paid well to[/color]
> do[color=green]
> > VB and C#. I enjoy all the features of all the languages and often pick[/color]
> the[color=green]
> > best tool for the job when given the choice. When not given the choice,[/color][/color]
I[color=blue][color=green]
> > use the features available.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shawn
> >
> >
> >
> > "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld @comcast.netNoS pamM> wrote[/color][/color]
in[color=blue][color=green]
> > message news:%23KFIH9Wn DHA.392@TK2MSFT NGP11.phx.gbl.. .[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co m> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.1a08a0 66b1cca0cc98997 6@msnews.micros oft.com...
> > > >
> > > > As Steve said - if you're doing a whole load of operations with a
> > > > single object, chances are that functionality should be encapsulated
> > > > within the object itself.
> > >
> > >
> > > And, if these are properties you are setting, you should consider[/color][/color]
> creating[color=green]
> > a[color=darkred]
> > > constructor that allows you to set the properties at instantiation[/color][/color]
> rather[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > than relying on a "with" construct.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gregory A. Beamer
> > > MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
> > >
> > > *************** *************** *************** *************** **********
> > > Think Outside the Box!
> > > *************** *************** *************** *************** **********
> > >
> > >[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: With - End with block in C#

Shawn B. <leabre@html.co m> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > 2. Which methodology is easier to maintain? I find most people that[/color]
> heavily[color=green]
> > use "with" in Visual Basic are pretty much being lazy.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> And if they are, so? Work smarter, not harder. It helps get the project
> done faster. I find that most people who use it use it because it's there
> and because it requires less typing. That's certainly why I use it. But
> overall, I'm more productive compared to many of my peers (not because of
> the with statement) but the with statement helps. I don't over use it, I
> use it when it makes sense.[/color]

While I agree with laziness being generally a good thing in programmers
(look at Larry Wall's suggestions for a good Perl programmer), I don't
think that "it requires less typing" is *ever* a good enough reason in
itself for doing anything with code. Readability has to come absolutely
first, IMO.

Admittedly I'm not *quite* hard-working enough to always write braces
after if blocks:

if (x)
{
doSomething();
}

but I think in general it's a good idea.

On the other hand, I *do* include white space for the sake of
readability even though it means more typing. I *do* format my code for
readability even though it means more work. I *do* comment my code even
though it means more work. I *do* use Convert.ToStrin g(...) instead of
""+... even though it's slightly longer.

Eventually, the time it takes to type the code is likely to be nearly
insignificant in the course of the lifetime of the code - I'll usually
spend more time thinking about it, debugging it to get it working in
the first place, and maintaining it later on. Anything that helps with
*those* tasks is worth much more than something that gives a short term
typing benefit at the cost of readability - and the nature of "with"
just reduces readability, IMO. It wouldn't be quite so bad if you could
only have one level of "with"-ness (i.e. no nested "with"s) but I still
don't like it in general. I'd still rather give a variable a meaningful
name in one line and use that name in subsequent lines to make it
explicit what's going on.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>

http://www.pobox.com/~skeet

If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[mikeb]

Re: With - End with block in C#

Shawn B. wrote:[color=blue]
> Its amazing how most C# programmers (in their humble opinion) view the
> "with" as degrading or at least, not adding to, the readibility of code but
> most VB programmers think it does. Therefore it doesn't technically work
> either way, it's all in the perception of those who want/like/accept the
> feature and those who don't want/like/accept the feature, but not a
> technical one. It's a philisophical one.
>[/color]

However, as the "Ask a Language Designer" article
(http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/csharp.../ask.aspx#with)
points out, this snippet of VB code:

With MyDataStructure .GetButton(44)
.Text = "Hello"
.BackColor = Color.Blue
End With

is equivalent to:

Dim b as Button = MyDataStructure .GetButton(44)
b.Text = "Hello"
b.BackColor = Color.Blue

which you can do in C# like so:

Button b = MyDataStructure .GetButton(44);
b.Text = "Hello"
b.BackColor = Color.Blue


So C# does really have the basic functionality of a "With" construct, it
just has a different syntax. I agree with you that it's a philosophical
(or probably more likely a religious) difference. I don't miss the
"With" construct, which is easy for me, since I've never really been a
VB programmer. But, if MS added it to C#, I wouldn't think the world
had ended.

For me, I think it boils down to:

if you really, really need With/End With, use VB.NET

if you want With/End With functionality in C#, create a
short-lived, short-named object and deal with that.


.... snipped old thread ...

--
mikeb