Talk:C Sharp Programming/Archive 1

Talk page redirect
Why does the talk page of get redirected to here,  ? --DavidCary 07:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello there DavidCary...


 * In the rule book of wikibooks it says that talk pages should be kept to a minimum and due probably to fact that the creation of the C# book was done by a contributor to this book (on C++) and the generic debated topics would be the same or similar.
 * Is there a reason for a stand alone page for it ?
 * (My opinion is that would probably duplicate discussions and fragment the contributors base)...
 * --Panic


 * "the rule book of wikibooks" ? Would you mind linking to it ? Wikibooks:Talk page doesn't say anything about keeping talk pages to a minimum. --DavidCary 03:24, 24 Jun 20 05 (UTC)


 * Hum, just google for it something like:
 * http://(a9.com/wikibooks OR Wikipedia) (talk OR discussion) create page (duplication OR rules OR policy)


 * This should report the needed info, but there were generated new policies so you may not find the prev. text (I did use the link and found a new policy but could n't find the prev. text)...ЛЛЛ
 * --Panic 00:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Naming Conventions
I've noticed that many of the sections such as Language Basics are not chapters themselves but contain chapters. I think that going by "C_Sharp_Programming/Language Basics/Classes" would make more sense than simply "C_Sharp_Programming/Classes" since similar names in different chapters/sections might clash. Go ahead and keep everything the same for now, but for all future sections (such as The .NET Framework) try to use the new style that I have proposed if possible. It just makes more sense. --Nick Manley 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

.NET and Mono
Does anyone have any ideas on how this should be divided. It has been discussed before that this wikibook should remain about C# only and avoid .NET and Windows dependent items. I think the best approach is to go ahead and keep everything together in this one wikibook but have two large sections. One covering .NET specific stuff and the other Mono. This way we can add in things such as Windows Forms and other platform specific items. I think everything outside these sections though should remain independent but I see no problems including them into their own section. --Nick Manley 10:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Still active?
Is there any plans on expanding this page. I was interested in learning more about using C# with databases (SQLserver and DB2 specifically) --Nathan 22:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I really wish this would expand, as well. I wish I could help, I only know the pure basics.
 * I just merged the article with this one (note the lack of a space; they weren't the same!), which resulted in a bit more introduction content for the top abstract of the article. I intend to do some more work here though. Right now, this Wikibook also seem to assume experiences with other OOP languages, and I wonder if it should remain so. Maybe it's just because it's very sparse currently. I was thinking of expanding it with at least some introduction to namespaces, classes, objects, etc. -- Jonas Nordlund
 * OK, I've now also added a lot about types and operators. I'm aiming for completeness so especially the operator part will grow big, and this article will no doubt need to be split in subpages in the future for this reason. - Jonas Nordlund
 * Should there be some mention of Visual C# IDE from Microsoft. Perhaps some introduction to it would be nice since it makes it very easy for finding .NET methods and other helpful tools. Also, I'm guessing I think there should be a very basic introduction to Windows Forms (at a minimum). I'll try to help out some when I have time. :) Gflores 06:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey!

Welcome fellow C# enthusiasts!

I'm currently writing the 'meat' of the articles, and I await your input and editting to give the text some more juicy facts.--Eray 20:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please assume that the reader is familiar with computing concepts, including OO, patterns, etc. Those things are better taught in a separate book. I speak from fresh experience: I am a programmer with over thirty years experience of various languages but I don't know C# very well so I signed up for a course which had as its explicit prerequisites C++ or Java programming experience. However the first two weeks of the twelve week course are pitched at beginners with no such experience. This makes the course or book longer and more boring than necessary and it makes it difficult to discern what is special about this language in comparison with others. Also please keep Windows Forms and the IDE to a minimum, they have very little to do with writing C#. What I am looking for is assistance in writing good C# (reliable, fast, compact, readable code) regardless of the operating system it runs on. --kwhitefoot 11:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that there should still be a decent amount of work put into pages on Windows Forms and layout. Although C# is portable to other environments, a large majority of C# programs are deployed on Windows and much C# development is done inside Visual Studio. Something significant needs to be written when most people use that environment. -Matt 14:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Granted, but as Windows Forms is equally applicable to VB.NET, IronPython and Delphi.NET, et al., it surely belongs in a separate Windows Forms book. As for Visual Studio it is neither C# specific nor the only C# IDE available; when I did some C# development two and a half years ago I used SharpDevelop exclusively.  I'm not objecting to the content just to its being part of a book that is about programming C#.  Let's have three books instead with cross references. --kwhitefoot 20:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Navigation template
I created Template:C sharp/Navigation, based on the Ada WikiBook. I know it's not very good yet, but if we include it on each page in this book, we'll at least have consistency. Any suggestions for a better graphic? Rodasmith 23:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how such a template is useful. It makes sense on the main page of the book, but what good does it do by itself on every other page? I think there should be more in the template. I created one for another book I write in here. There are several links to help navigation to other sections of the book. Since there are many sections to the C# book, would it be a good idea to create a separate table of contents page for each of the main sections? I could see the creation of several pages such as Basics, Classes, .NET Framework, etc. that serve as link pages to the more detailed subsections. Problems? -Matt 01:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that Template:C sharp/Navigation isn't very helpful yet. I was trying to remodel the C# WikiBook based on the Ada Programming one, since that was considered good enough to be the Book of the month for September. The Ada book navigation template appears to be a way to unify all of the pages of that book. Are you saying that the C# one should have links to the major sections, as you do in your MuggleGuide? If so, that sounds great. Have at it! Rodasmith 03:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've created the table of contents pages and a basic template using similar styling from the Muggles' Guide here. There's a little more work since you have to make sure the TOC pages are up to date but it's usually not that difficult and doesn't change that often. Are there any plans to rename the book like Ada Programming did? The colon notation seems to be a thing of the past. -Matt 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on visual design (obviously, judging by my first C# navigation template attempt), but your template looks good to me. And yes, it would be nice to get rid of the extra namespace complication (i.e. the colon) in the book title, especially if it's no longer in vogue at WikiBooks. Rodasmith 20:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Naming policy agrees that we should change the name of our book from  style to   style, so unless anyone objects, I'll move this book from  to  . Rodasmith 16:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I wanted you to say regarding the colon convention. Anytime I see a book I am interested in using colon convention I want to say something. I'll get to putting the new template in place sometime soon. -Matt 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

New TOC is live. -Matt 18:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
C Sharp Programming/NET assembly violates the copyright of an O'Reilly book: Thuan Thai & Hoang Q. Lam, .NET Framework Esentials.

Because of the way the page was moved there is no history to say how long ago this happened. I suspect that the page it was obtained from is also in breach of copyright. The page originates from O'Reilly's website as a sample chapter. Shouldn't it be deleted? --kwhitefoot 11:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Be bold and wipe it out then. It may be best for it to be cleared and redone anyway. When I moved the page I didn't move its history but I suspect that there was only a single dump of the information currently there. -Matt 14:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Before the move, I added the template on  to reflect that fact. I was under the (mistaken?) assumption that admins monitor pages with and delete them after a week or so. (From the template: If there was no permission to use this material then please leave this page to be deleted. Deletion will occur about one week from the time this template was added to the page. Once this page has been deleted, do not resubmit the material that was here before. We still welcome any original contributions by you.) If that's not the case, what is the protocol? Are we supposed to list the pages on "requests for deletion"? Rodasmith 17:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As this is so clear and it has been waiting so long I think we can just delete it. It is just an extract from the O'Reilly sample chapter so it won't be a loss to humanity.  And the deletion can be undone anyway.  --kwhitefoot 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks is still evolving and admins are not as available as they are in a place like Wikipedia. Anyway, I also cleared since it was also copyvio. -Matt 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, I know that we admins don't always clean up everything, but we do try. Please don't just blank the page... especially with copyright violations.  For legal reasons, copyright violations in particular need to be out right deleted so it doesn't appear in the history of the module/article.  After a somewhat short time, even the deletions get purged by MediaWiki developers, so the content is completely removed even from admins.  --Rob Horning 19:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * News to me. Sorry about that. I didn't want the page deleted since its presence was still important (as in the content still needs to be developed and the page should still exist). I guess someone can just recreate the page. While you're at it,, , and also need a deletion then since it also had copyright issues (I wasn't paying attention and manually added a redirect instead of moving the page so the copyvio history is still there). -Matt 02:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Massive printable version
Can someone create/link to a massive printable version, i would like to print this out.


 * Such a thing must first be assembled. User:Hagindaz has a lot of work with printable version creation, but he will most likely not create the print version and will only convert to PDF afterwards. A printable version is a little bit early for this book, so it's not ready. -within focus 20:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

C# book for n00bs
Are there any plans for making a C# textbook for beginners? This book is obviously meant for professionals. I am making such a book on the Icelandic Wikibooks; a book which actually teaches C#, instead of enumerating all the features, like this one does. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing this book really teaches is that he author of it knows C Sharp. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 15:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to add something about escape sequences too. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 19:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Also, it assumes the reader knows C or C++ (for example, in the explanation of switch). Please, remove that prerrequisite.


 * I think this book is quite good for a reader with prior knowledge of any object oriented programming language (C++, Java etc.). It might not be that helpful to a total beginner, but instead of changing this one, I would rather see a new book or a new index to this book. The pages as they are were very helpful to me. Nevertheless, there are some things that still require more information. Otus (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Navigation
The problem with the navigation code of this book is that to modify chapters, we have to add/modify/remove them in two places (in the navigation template and in the TOC). Does anyone object if I create templates for the sections and move the links there? --Wj32 (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Page to merge
Moved abandoned page from when the book was Programming:C sharp to C Sharp Programming/Encapsulation2 because there is a page at C Sharp Programming/Encapsulation. Perhaps the two could be merged? -- Adrignola talk contribs 02:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ASP.NET
i think that there should be a chapter on Active Server Pages Using C#. Because they are heavily dependant on Visual Basic or C#. it should have a title like ASP.NET, Creating web applications with C# orWEB programming. Wolframalpha (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)