Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st May 2012 21:59 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 516693
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: I'm disappointed
by moondevil on Wed 2nd May 2012 12:34
in reply to "RE[3]: I'm disappointed"
RE[5]: I'm disappointed
by henderson101 on Wed 2nd May 2012 13:05
in reply to "RE[4]: I'm disappointed"





Member since:
2006-05-30
Hello alleged expert, let us see how you fare....
- Generics
Section 8.16.1 of the 2006 EMCA 4th edition of the standard seems to contradict you here.
- Nullable types
Again, this is covered in the 4th edition - see section 8.19.
- Dynamic types
These are covered in the current draft spec I believe.
- LINQ
- CLR libraries for parallel programming
LINQ is a class library extension and it not necessary to write software. What is important is Lambda, but even then that is just syntactic sugar.
All of the parallel requirements are in the latest draft spec.
Microsoft stopped updating the standard in 2006.
Strange how there are docs dated 2009 onwards on the Microsoft EMCA site. Specs take time to ratify, so it is not helpful to assume anything till Microsoft make a public statement saying "we no longer support the EMCA and ISO and we withdraw from the CLR/C# standards committee."
EDIT: The EMCA CLR spec is now on the 5th edition and is dated 2010, so you are even more further from the truth than previously assumed.
Just check the ECMA web site for the standard documents.
Please do. You might also want to check Microsoft's own EMCA pages:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa569283
These completely contradicts a lot of you "absolute truths" above. Sorry - you are so misinformed.
Really? And this makes you an expert because....?
Edited 2012-05-02 11:32 UTC