Comments on: Implicit Vs. Explicit Interface Method Implementation http://blogs.rev-net.com/ddewinter/2007/01/05/%c2%bb-implicit-vs-explicit-interface-method-implementation/ A Developer's Melting Pot Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:01:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: david.dewinter http://blogs.rev-net.com/ddewinter/2007/01/05/%c2%bb-implicit-vs-explicit-interface-method-implementation/#comment-186 david.dewinter Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:52:26 +0000 http://dev.rev-net.com/blog/ddewinter/?p=9#comment-186 No, unfortunately. Other things have been taking a priority recently, but one comment of his made sense in context--that VB programmers are likely to use explicit implementation whereas those who came from C and C++ are likely to use implicit. I think the reason stems from the fact that VB (even VB.NET) requires that when you write a method that implements an interface, you must explicitly write what interface method it implements (e.g. Implements IDisposable.Dispose). But I'll track him down sooner or later... No, unfortunately. Other things have been taking a priority recently, but one comment of his made sense in context–that VB programmers are likely to use explicit implementation whereas those who came from C and C++ are likely to use implicit.

I think the reason stems from the fact that VB (even VB.NET) requires that when you write a method that implements an interface, you must explicitly write what interface method it implements (e.g. Implements IDisposable.Dispose).

But I’ll track him down sooner or later…

]]> By: Josh http://blogs.rev-net.com/ddewinter/2007/01/05/%c2%bb-implicit-vs-explicit-interface-method-implementation/#comment-185 Josh Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:04:51 +0000 http://dev.rev-net.com/blog/ddewinter/?p=9#comment-185 Have you gotten these reasons out of him yet? Have you gotten these reasons out of him yet?

]]> By: david.dewinter http://blogs.rev-net.com/ddewinter/2007/01/05/%c2%bb-implicit-vs-explicit-interface-method-implementation/#comment-184 david.dewinter Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:28:42 +0000 http://dev.rev-net.com/blog/ddewinter/?p=9#comment-184 I think it's always an issue of contention, regardless of whether performance is an issue. I would think, though, that we should always write code with performance in mind. Although since this blog I have learned that Matt Curland has some other reasons for using EIMI...which I hope to get out of him before I leave. I think it’s always an issue of contention, regardless of whether performance is an issue. I would think, though, that we should always write code with performance in mind.

Although since this blog I have learned that Matt Curland has some other reasons for using EIMI…which I hope to get out of him before I leave.

]]> By: Roland http://blogs.rev-net.com/ddewinter/2007/01/05/%c2%bb-implicit-vs-explicit-interface-method-implementation/#comment-183 Roland Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:12:04 +0000 http://dev.rev-net.com/blog/ddewinter/?p=9#comment-183 I find 1 & 3 of your reasons for not using explicit interfaces somewhat minor; although, your 2nd point of having to box value types has its merit. But doesn't that only really come into the equation when performance is an issue? I find 1 & 3 of your reasons for not using explicit interfaces somewhat minor; although, your 2nd point of having to box value types has its merit. But doesn’t that only really come into the equation when performance is an issue?

]]>