<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>davber does IT &#187; .NET</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.davber.com/cat/net/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.davber.com</link>
	<description>Functional functional programming - Haskell, Ruby, Erlang, Scala...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:30:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Sealed overridden methods in Mono &#8211; faster?</title>
		<link>http://blog.davber.com/2008/04/16/sealed-overridden-methods-in-mono-why/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.davber.com/2008/04/16/sealed-overridden-methods-in-mono-why/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:44:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[.NET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
<category>.NET</category><category>c# 2.0</category><category>Microsoft</category><category>mono</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.davber.com/2008/04/16/sealed-overridden-methods-in-mono-why/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I had a discussion with some friends at Lab49 about the merits of sealed overridden methods in C# (and .NET) and the discussion ended with some comments about it probably not helping with performance at least.
The problem is that I do remember having seen that the JIT for .NET creates more efficient code for sealed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.davber.com/2008/04/16/sealed-overridden-methods-in-mono-why/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Algebraic + abstract = true! (at least in the key of F#)</title>
		<link>http://blog.davber.com/2007/12/10/algebraic-abstract-true-at-least-in-the-key-of-f/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.davber.com/2007/12/10/algebraic-abstract-true-at-least-in-the-key-of-f/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:35:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[.NET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Functional Programming]]></category>
<category>.NET</category><category>abstract data type</category><category>active pattern</category><category>adt</category><category>algebraic data type</category><category>Functional Programming</category><category>ocaml</category><category>pattern</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.davber.com/2007/12/10/algebraic-abstract-true-at-least-in-the-key-of-f/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I earlier wrote about some ideas I had to combine the encapsulation of abstract data types with the swift case analysis plus decomposition of algebraic types. Why not have both worlds?
Ok, when looking more into F# &#8211; after a few years of trying to stay away from it &#8211; I realize that it does have [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.davber.com/2007/12/10/algebraic-abstract-true-at-least-in-the-key-of-f/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is your language hot or not?</title>
		<link>http://blog.davber.com/2006/08/26/is-your-language-hot-or-not/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.davber.com/2006/08/26/is-your-language-hot-or-not/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:27:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[.NET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AJAX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[C++]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Functional Programming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IT Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Java]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Language Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ruby]]></category>
<category>.NET</category><category>AJAX</category><category>c# 2.0</category><category>C++</category><category>erlang</category><category>Functional Programming</category><category>google</category><category>haxe</category><category>Java</category><category>javascript</category><category>language comparison</category><category>Language Reviews</category><category>Ruby</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.davber.com/2006/08/26/is-your-language-hot-or-not/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If one would measure popularity by number of hits on Google, these are the five most popular computer languages:

PHP
Java
C
Flash
Perl

A graph of Google hits, using the query +lang +programming, for some of the most common languages follows. NOTE 1: please inform me if your favorite language is omitted. NOTE 2: I did not include the language [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.davber.com/2006/08/26/is-your-language-hot-or-not/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>C# 3.0: introducing something almost functional</title>
		<link>http://blog.davber.com/2006/08/22/c-30-introducing-something-almost-functional/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.davber.com/2006/08/22/c-30-introducing-something-almost-functional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2006 05:21:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[.NET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Functional Programming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Language Reviews]]></category>
<category>.NET</category><category>c# 2.0</category><category>c# 3.0</category><category>Functional Programming</category><category>generics</category><category>higher order</category><category>lambda</category><category>Language</category><category>Language Reviews</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.davber.com/?p=19</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is a strong current trend among languages to become more functional. No, not as "actually doing stuff" but in the mathematical sense of the word. I.e., languages more and more treat functions as any other value, and C# is no exception. Before you know it, we might have the expressivity of Lisp anno 1965 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.davber.com/2006/08/22/c-30-introducing-something-almost-functional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Higher order C#</title>
		<link>http://blog.davber.com/2006/08/17/higher-order-functions-in-c-and-java/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.davber.com/2006/08/17/higher-order-functions-in-c-and-java/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[.NET]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Functional Programming]]></category>
<category>.NET</category><category>Functional Programming</category><category>higher order</category><category>programming</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.davber.com/?p=15</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A few weeks ago, I wrote a simple mini-framework in Java, providing the kind of higher-order functions available to C++ developers. After that, I was asked to hold a short seminar about Higher-Order Functions in a regular OO language by a company Lab49. The languages I chose were Java and C#, which are the languages [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.davber.com/2006/08/17/higher-order-functions-in-c-and-java/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
