Re: Boxing and Unboxing ??

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

Peter Olcott <NoSpam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You wish to switch to a dotnet based solution to reduce the development time,
but you don't want to put the time in to learning the language(C#). Sounds to
me like you are doomed to failure anyway.

I can only put in a little time to learn the language now. I am focusing this
time on assessing the feasibility of using C# and .NET for my future needs. It
looks like C# does have the performance that I need. In order to get this
performance, I must use relatively obscure nuances of C# that are barely
mentioned in even the most comprehensive textbooks. Specifically because of this
newsgroup thread, I was able to learn these relatively obscure nuances. It
definitely looks like C# and .NET will be the future of essentially ALL MS
Windows development.

No, in order to get good performance you need to accept things like
"don't make huge value types". That's a much better solution than
creating a large value type and passing it by reference.

Please, just try to work *with* the platform instead of fighting
against it.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@xxxxxxxxx>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Boxing and Unboxing ??
    ... but you don't want to put the time in to learning the language. ... me like you are doomed to failure anyway. ... time on assessing the feasibility of using C# and .NET for my future needs. ... I was able to learn these relatively obscure nuances. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Boxing and Unboxing ??
    ... You realise this means you are doomed to failure? ... time on assessing the feasibility of using C# and .NET for my future needs. ... I was able to learn these relatively obscure nuances. ... Without putting in the time to learn C# and the dotnet framework, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)