This new "linq" stuff is pretty neat but as Wacko already mentioned the current C# implementation is kinda unintuitive, but still very cool. I hope they will come up with an easier syntax for C# before this stuff ship, that is, if it ship.

Btw, 1 is not considered a "true" prime number... Get the Dr. Math explanation here.

That looks like the new Anonymous Type Syntax which is something new in both c# and vb.net in there next versions

I hope this make some sence :) I have not gotten a chance to mess with it since I do not have the RC bits of VS 2k5 but from what I have read and how it works in c# and from what i gather from the two VB.net videos this is how it would look under old and new.

Loved the demo, and Amanda isn't too hard on the eyes, either.
 
For VB programming videos, why don't they use interviewers who
are actual VB programmers?

It is painful watching this interview, where Ken Levy, chimes in
comments and questions that are irrelevant or newbie, because
he has just heard one of them say a term that he's heard before.
Amanda and Paul look at Ken, like deer in headlights.

A good example was his rambling XML question, where Amanda
nervously smiles and says, "Sorry?"

Is he a Manager, because I'm having flashbacks.

I said the same thing about Ken in the interview with Paul and Erik Meijer.  Scoble makes interviewing look easy when it isn't so I'm cutting Ken some slack.

Amanda is quite striking though I imagine it can get irritating to have geeks fawn over her appearance instead of what she is saying.

JChung2006 wrote: Amanda is quite striking though I imagine it can get irritating to have geeks fawn over her appearance instead of what she is saying.

Karim:  You sound ....ummm.... so sincere!

I agree Alex, the syntax:
Dim cust as New Customer = { .Name="Me", .Address="123 Main" }

makes more sense than
Dim cust as Customer = { .Name="Me", .Address="123 Main" }

Because the statement is creating an instance of the customer object, and then assigning property values to it, however, in this instance, I could also say that what should happen is that the compiler should create an anonymous class that contains a .Name and .Address property (of string), but then somehow the compiler would then try and set the new customer class to the anonymous class which obviously aren't the same type.  Unless of course you are saying that any class can be set to any anonymous class and VB will iterate through all the properties as it copies them, but why stop at anonymous classes then?  And of course that will lead to the idead that you should be able to set any class to any other class so long as they share the same (or a superset) of the properties.  Very messy.

Would this work:
Dim cust as Customer
cust = { .Name="Me", .Address="123 Main" }

I doubt it.  It would be nice sometimes to be able to do a shallow copy of one class to a differing class like that though, but using the equal sign to do so would cause many more problems than it is worth.  I would expect a different syntax like:
Dim cust as new Customer With {.Name="Me",.Address="123 Main"}
and
Dim cust as Customer
cust=new Customer with { .Name="Me",.Address="123 Main"}
as shorthand to:
dim cust as Customer
cust=new Customer
with cust
   .Name="Me"
   .Address="123 Main"
end with
Or possibly the syntax:
Dim cust as new Customer With {"Me" as Name, "123 Main" as Address}
Or both. Then you could use it as a short way of passing a class prefilled with properties to subs and function like:
Call MySub(new Customer with (.Name.....))

Now, that said, I find the shortcut to setting many properties to be far the least useful thing they showed, unless there was some very significant reason for it, like speed of setting many properties or some such.

Of course my next question would be what about the new nullable types?

Would these work:
dim x = {1,2,3?,4}
dim x = {1,2,null,4}
dim x? = {1,2,3,4}
dim y as integer? = 3: dim x ={1,2,y,4}
as shorthand for
dim x() as integer? = {1,2,3,4}

Would this make an array of chars:
Dim c = {"A"c,"B"c,"C"c}

jjones252 wrote: I don't know the interviewer but he's not nearly as energetic as Robert in most other videos.   Sort of picky about details and no "Wow" or encouragement given.   Would likely be a poor manager. I love the idea of the video though and look forward to anything for making queries easier.   Amanda is right.   The latest generation is way "search centric."