Re: [OT] .NET Rant
From: Pete Davis (pdavis68_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/12/04
- Next message: Peter Rilling: "Re: Error Deleting a File: In use"
- Previous message: Magnus Lidbom: "Re: Anders Hejlsberg comment on immutable objects"
- In reply to: C# Learner: "Re: [OT] .NET Rant"
- Next in thread: Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu: "Re: [OT] .NET Rant"
- Reply: Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu: "Re: [OT] .NET Rant"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:10:49 GMT
Regardless, my comment stands. It's a layer of abstraction. The point of a
layer of abstraction is to "HIDE" the details that, in this case, probably
covers about 95+% of peoples needs.
It's a very small issue and your initial post made it sound like the entire
framework is defective because it doesn't support your particular need.
Pete
-- http://www.petedavis.net "C# Learner" <csharp@learner.here> wrote in message news:lnfl20tjkrbhh065qe32j08c9pgovfdgk9@4ax.com... > C# Learner <csharp@learner.here> wrote: > > >C# Learner <csharp@learner.here> wrote: > > > >>I'm not asking for .NET to have everything. I'm simply ranting about > >>how in this case, .NET let me down big time where it didn't really > >>need to. I'm not asking for a whole load of functionality to added. > >>I'm simply implying that not allowing access to the raw packets was a > >>bad idea. > > > >The raw HTML message, I mean. > > The raw HTTP messages, I mean. > > I'm having one of those days.
- Next message: Peter Rilling: "Re: Error Deleting a File: In use"
- Previous message: Magnus Lidbom: "Re: Anders Hejlsberg comment on immutable objects"
- In reply to: C# Learner: "Re: [OT] .NET Rant"
- Next in thread: Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu: "Re: [OT] .NET Rant"
- Reply: Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu: "Re: [OT] .NET Rant"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|