Hi Hank,

>the [DefaultValue] tag is something created by MS, not part of standard OOP, I believe. If so, then I think that's what Pertti means: that because of the .Net implementation of OOP, what would be a standard OOP practice, just setting the property on the parent, requires an idiosyncratic (to .Net) workaround.

Well, that may be so ... but the only reason it's actually needed (the [DefaultValue] tag) is because of the IDE and how it generates the designer code.

I don't know the other languages you've mentioned (except VFP, and it's been awhile <g>), so I can't compare them all ... but if one wants to call that "tribal knowledge", go right ahead ... I see it more as knowing the .NET platform. I'm sure there are IDE idiosyncracies in some of those other languages as well.

~~Bonnie



>Hi Bonnie,
>
>the [DefaultValue] tag is something created by MS, not part of standard OOP, I believe. If so, then I think that's what Pertti means: that because of the .Net implementation of OOP, what would be a standard OOP practice, just setting the property on the parent, requires an idiosyncratic (to .Net) workaround. I don't know if there are a lot of these, or just a few, or just this one (well, I actually do know it's now just this one). But I do know that each of these deviations from OOP that require idiosyncratic workarounds (you don't see this tag in VFP, Python, Ruby, nor Java, because in those languages OOP works the way OOP theory says it should) requires a special effort to learn. These little efforts can add up.
>
>Now, this doesn't mean that the .Net implementation isn't superior for some good reason. .Net is a well-designed language, architected by a person (Anders) described as the only person to bring 4 new ideas into computing (Turbo Pascal; Delphi; WFC; CLR/.Net) (lots of people have had one; how many have had 4?). So maybe it's all good. It is, however, idiosyncratic to .Net programming, and thus qualifies as tribal knowledge. Now _that_ would be a useful book: Tribal Knowledge Needed to Survive in .Net Programming.
>
>Hank
>
>>Nick, Pertti --
>>
>>>>So, the short answer is: visual inheritance in .Net *kind of* works, but pretty much useless. :)
>>>
>>>well, yeah... seems like a lot of typing & reliance on "tribal knowledge" instead of just changing the damn font properties in the parent class and being done with it.
>>
>>"Tribal Knowledge"? Jeez, that's a bit over the top.
>>
>>There's a perfectly acceptable and correct way of doing this and, as Kevin mentioned, if it's done right when you are first designing your controls, it is not an issue. The visual inheritance works just fine.
>>
>>So, you have to know the right way to design your controls before you begin designing your controls ... I don't think that constitutes "tribal knowledge" any more than knowing the right way to do things in VFP does. A little research goes a long way. <g>
>>
>>~~Bonnie
>>