I learned everything I know about c# by looking it up on Google, copy and paste is king. Just keep working with it until you can make sense out of the code you’re copying. An llm would work similar but might feed you bs, everything you’ll want to know is on stack overflow. You’re unlikely to have an original, unasked question…I never have.
Check out this reference (not mine): https://gist.github.com/DanielKoehler/606b022ec522a67a0cf3
The first difference that I would point out is c# use of static typing, where python is dynamic. This author is using the var keyword to avoid specifying a type for variables. The type is, instead infered by the code that follows the equals sign.
The next main difference is the use of whitespace. Python is very whitespace aware, it uses indentation and line breaks to organize code. C# is whitespace agnostic in most cases and separates blocks of code using curly braces {…}, statements must end with a semicolon;
In C# collections are organized by how the data is accessed and whether elements can be added or removed. Arrays are initialized with a set of items and can’t be made longer, a List can be added to and can be removed. The key point is that all items in a collection are of the same type.
Complex objects (that have properties and methods) can be structs, classes, or records but they all basically do the same thing and interact in the samish way. You have to use the new keyword to make a new instance.
Classes and records can inherit from another where as structs cannot. Properties must have a type, methods must return a type or void. Method parameters must be typed, when calling a method the provided parameters must be of the proper type.
An interface describes requirements an implementing class, record or stuct must meet (i.e. properties and methods). You can’t make a new interface, it’s more of a qualification.
I hope this helps some
since being a person can fully be described by being a mother
Can you explain how this is?
Because he had the day off, then came in anyway presumably because they called him in?
I absolutely agree we shouldn’t give up on any political fronts. I just want people to understand that we can’t count on it, a page has turned… Anyway thanks for the chat.
There are not enough, by far. At this point (thanks to scotus) we’ll need a new constitution just to reclaim democracy.
That is all without considering what Trump is likely to cause in his second term. Scotus has ruled that a sitting president cannot, officially break the law. That is not a Republic. Scotus has ruled that money is speech, and so our positions on issues have less (/no) value. That is not democracy.
I’m not trying to be a doomer, just realistic.
I want to take away their power to exploit people.
They don’t want that. They control Congress and the courts. It can’t be done through proper channels because we already lost our Republic. They won’t give it up without a fight.
Which is why billionaires shouldn’t be a thing.
Yell “Jump!”
A racist “dipshit” who plans on declaring emergency so as to round up certain undesirables without any constitutional requirements on their internment conditions, health, or safety.
I find articles on the onion to be funny in some way. This was just naked approval of the status quo.
I think “describing it as if it were normal” only helps the people who support this arrangement because it gets normalized. That’s where the accusation of conservatism came from, that and the way they tried to shut me down with insults.
Edit: given that there are likely to be a lot of people that agree with this argument unironically, doesn’t it seem irresponsible to play some game where you pretend like you support it? Without ever coming out against it at the end?
Really, it’s just naked approval, with any disapproval left as an exercise to be performed by the reader.
Ii is the real state of the world, but I don’t see any disapproval in the text.
Who would build any sort of factory if they did not know that many people would be available to take the jobs at low-pay rates
Much of the hunger lirerarure talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive. That is nonsense
No one works harder than hungry people.
[…]well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work
For those of us at rhe high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster.
I guess the irony is lost on me. Nothing here indicates that it’s wrong or should change. Also, you’re a huge asshole.
Edit: in fact I know people (conservatives) who are totally fine with this arrangement. They are huge assholes too, huh isn’t that weird.
This is just a bad thing to say to someone. That’s all.
It’s these damn activist judges, we need to get a few.
It’s fucked that the author appears to support such an arrangement…
No, the text is pretty fucked, too
Ok, I’m in for $2 /month too, thanks for setting the standard!
I feel like if one tried to follow all of these “rules” at all times nothing would get done, at all.