i need a simple English POS tagging program to be implemented in c# only.
Your problem goes to the domain of Natural Language Processing. Look at this library : SharpNLP, you can process a good range of english language here.
and here is a tutorial on how to do things in NLP, its python example but sure you can convert it to C#
Also check this for .net, basically you need a dictionary for a particular language, and call the NLP classes to match against it.
I have a script in MATLAB that writes a CSV, the CSV is read by a c# script which writes a few more CSVs that I go back and read in MATLAB.
Is there any way to automate this so I don't have to call the c# code by hand each time?
It's very easy to call into .net from Matlab. The official documentation is at http://www.mathworks.co.uk/help/matlab/matlab_external/load-a-global-net-assembly.html You should be aware that Matlab is case-sensitive (even when it comes to specifying the assembly path) and that it is also limited in the kinds of objects it can pass back and forth across the boundary.
If you pass an array into your C# dll from Matlab, it will appear to be an array of bare objects rather than an array of numbers. In Matlab, you may need to use the char and cell methods to convert strings and arrays back into the form you are expecting.
To answer the title question, e.g. "Is it possible to call C# functions from MATLAB": yes, it is. Mathworks provides decent documentation on calling .NET assemblies from MATLAB on their website. Of course, there are limitations and some awkward quirks to take into account but basically you can create instances of .NET classes and interact with .NET applications from MATLAB.
To advise on automating this process, you could perhaps dive into the MATLAB COM Automation Service?
In the extension of this: it's also possible to call MATLAB functions in a .NET application. The other way around, sort of speak. This will be no problem with basic data types, but when it gets a bit more advances it can put you through some gnarly COM challenges, though.
I have a DLL which takes care of custom drawing for some special glass effects. I'm putting it in a DLL for three reasons: 1) So it can be easily re-used and distributed of course without weighing its host app down, 2) So I can distribute it to developers without them knowing how it works, and 3) So it can be used from C#. It currently works in Delphi, but I know I will need to do many changes to make it support C#. For example, the main DLL function includes 1 parameter (a Record) which contains a number of types I know won't work in C# (like String, and maybe TColor). Project isn't quite 100% done yet, but is working.
I need someone to point out the easiest approach to accomplishing this. The code is too large to post it all here, so here it is at Pastebin.
Here's what I need to know:
Should I keep using Records as I am, or use something else like Packed Record?
Any tricks to use something other than String or PChar in these Records?
How would I wrap this DLL in C#? (I know very little C# by the way)
How to define equivalent records to pass to DLL function?
How to define equivalent constants in C#? (C# version of JDGlassCommon.pas)
How to get canvas handle (HDC) and parent handle (HWND) to send to DLL?
What would be equivalent to TColor?
Is it safe to pass types such as TColor in the Records?
Do you foresee any other issues in my code?
File List:
Library: JDGlassLib.dll *
Unit: JDGlassCommon.pas *
Package: JDLib.bpl
Unit: JDGlassCommon.pas *
Unit: JDGlass.pas *
Program: JDLibTestApplicationD7.exe
Form: JDLibTestAppD7.dfm *
Unit: JDLibTestAppD7.pas *
(* = code is included in above link)
(JDGlassCommon.pas is shared in both DLL and Component)
Should look something like this:
NOTE: I'm not asking for a re-write, although you're more than welcome to. I just need some tips on how to approach this.
PS: Original glass drawing code credited to "NGLN" of StackOverflow answering a prior question of mine: Delphi custom drawing - glowing glass
Should I keep using Records as I am, or use something else
like Packed Record?
Records are good for interop. Don't pack them, that just makes interop harder.
Any tricks to use something other than String or PChar in
these Records?
Don't use string. That's Delphi only and even specific to Delphi versions. PChar is fine for interop. Sometimes it can be simplest to use fixed length inline char arrays in records. It depends on the use.
How would I wrap this DLL in C#?
Call it from C# using p/invoke.
Is it safe to pass types such as TColor in the Records?
Yes that's easy to work with. Make sure it's a true RGB color rather than a special color like clWindow.
Do you foresee any other issues in my code?
The glass rendering may well be incompatible with the rendering used by the C# libraries. It could very well depend on whether or not your C# code uses WinForms or WPF. In fact you may well find that the C# developers would find it easier to use native C# code. I expect glass rendering is well supported in the common C# GUI frameworks.
I am looking for an open source library to parse and execute formula/functions in C#.
I would like to create a bunch of objects that derive from an interface (i.e. IFormulaEntity) which would have properties/methods/values and the allow a user to specify formulas for those objects.
For example, I might have
public class Employee : IForumulaEntity
{
public double Salary { get; set; }
public void SendMessage(string message)
}
Then allow an application user to write something like;
Employee person = <get from datasource>
if (person.Salary > 1000)
person.Salary += 1000;
person.SendMessage("Hello");
This "looks like C#" but it would be a simplified programming language. I know it's alot to ask. I would expect my users to be reasonably capable (i.e. can write their own Excel formulas).
Look into the Rules Engine functionality that is part of Windows Workflow Foundation.
This is not a place one would think to look. However, as part of the work they did to produce a UI that allows a Workflow developer to use configurable rules and expressions, they've come up with a way to do the same thing in your own application, even if you are not using Workflow at all. Their documentation includes examples of hosting this functionality in a Windows Forms application.
I've used ANTLR, FSLEX/FSYACC and Managed Babel. All do what you are asking, and while all are free, only the first is open source.
Antlr: http://antlr.org/
FSLEX: http://www.strangelights.com/fsharp/wiki/default.aspx/FSharpWiki/fslex.html
Managed Babel: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb165963.aspx
You could use cs-script. This allows you to execute c# code, that is maybe more then you want, but why not just stick to c# instead of creating your own c#-like syntax. It is possible to integrate cs-script into your application as DLL and you can allow it to execute c# code that is not part of a class so that users can just write the few statements they need.
Spring expressions are very powerful, and less of an all or nothing than e.g. WF
(The engine is ANTLR based, and the expressions bit, while it pulls in a decent sized lib, doesnt yank in all of Spring.NET)
While I'm beating this to death, Dynamic LINQ plays in this space (specifically the C# like syntax). Obviously be careful that it's requirements (emission/compilation of code) are supported in your context.
Listening to a podcast, I heard that C# is not dynamic language while Ruby is.
What is a "dynamic language"? Does the existence of dynamic languages imply that there are static languages?
Why is C# a dynamic language and what other languages are dynamic? If C# is not dynamic, why is Microsoft pushing it strongly to the market?
As well why most of .NET programmers are going crazy over it and leaving other languages and moving to C#?
Why is Ruby "the language of the future"?
What is a dynamic language?
Whether or not a language is dynamic typically refers to the type of binding the compiler does: static or late binding.
Static binding simply means that the method (or method hierarchy for virtual methods) is bound at compile time. There may be a virtual dispatch involved at runtime but the method token is bound at compile time. If a suitable method does not exist at compile time you will receive an error.
Dynamic languages are the opposite. They do their work at runtime. They do little or no checking for the existence of methods at compile time but instead do it all at runtime.
Why is C# not a dynamic language?
C#, prior to 4.0, is a statically bound language and hence is not a dynamic language.
Why is Ruby the language of the future?
This question is based on a false premise, namely that there does exist one language that is the future of programming. There isn't such a language today because no single language is the best at doing all the different types of programming that need to be done.
For instance Ruby is a great language for a lot of different applications: web development is a popular one. I would not however write an operating system in it.
In a dynamic language, you can do this:
var something = 1;
something = "Foo";
something = {"Something", 5.5};
In other words, the type is not static. In a statically typed language, this would result in a compiler error.
Languages such as C, C++, C#, and Java are statically typed.
Languages such as Ruby, Python, and Javascript are dynamically typed.
Also, this is not the same as "strongly or weakly" typed. That is something different all together.
I'm stunning at the way c# it's embracing a fundamental set
of programming paradigms.
We can say that c# alows a rich object oriented programming,
a rich component oriented programming,
a well integrated functional programing,
a complet set of query operations over differents types of data sources (linq),
a elegant aproach of cocurrent programming through pLinq and parallel extensions,
in the next release (c# 4.0) will have powerfull dynamic capabilities,
and it's almost sure that in c# 5.0 will have a solid set of meta-programming
features.
With just can say that c# it's doing a great job of integrating all this powerfull
stuff in just one tool box. That's in my opinion it's the way it must be,
because skipping from one programming language to another it's almost always very painfull.
C# is a statically typed language, because the type of every object you're working with needs to be known at compile time. In a dynamic language you don't need to know what type an object is at compile time. Maybe you import some classes that you don't know before hand, like you import all classes in a folder, like plugins or something. Or maybe even the type of an object depends on user-interaction.
You can achieve a similar effect by using interfaces or base classes, but it's not completely the same because you are limited to using classes that explicitly inherit from or implement that interface.
In dynamically typed languages it doesn't care what the type is when you compile it, it'll try to call the method you specified by name, if that method doesn't exist on the object it'll throw a run-time exception, so it's up to the programmer to ensure that that doesn't happen or handle it appropriately. You gain flexibility, but lose out a little on compile-time error checking.
Looking at the Wikipedia entry, we see that a dynamic language is one that does things are runtime that most do at compile time. Typically, in a dynamic language, a variable could change types quickly and easily, and there typically is no separate compile step (but rather either interpreted execution or really fast compiling). C# is a more conventional language, using variable declarations and being compiled.
The Wikipedia entry lists numerous dynamic languages.
"X is the Y of the future", on the other hand, means that somebody's trying to sell you something. (Not necessarily literally, but trying to influence your beliefs in a way convenient to the speaker.)
Did you know that VB6 is both static and dynamic?
If you declare variables with a given type, then you get static behaviour:
Dim name as Label
You can now only access members of name that are Labels and intellisense knows that.
If you have a class and add the implements keyword, then your class can implement methods of another class. This is inheritance of interface that VB6 allows. You can get some runtime polymorphism.
You can also declare variables like this:
Dim proxy As Object
Now intellisense doesn't give you any help and VB6 will allow you to do anything you like with proxy:
proxy.foo()
This line can sit inside a compiled and running program and cause no offence, especially if its not run itself. Its only when the line is run does the lookup take place.
You can also perform:
set proxy = <any instance>
and this will run. It doesn't matter whether <any instance> has a foo method or not.
And then any instance of any class that does implement foo can be assigned and the method called and VB6 will be happy.
Note that there are run-time performance penalties as you become increasingly dynamic.
In C# 3.0, the types of everything needs to be known at compile-time. It's a static language. A dynamic language uses dynamic dispatch at runtime to decide the type of things and what methods to call on those things. Both types of languages have their advantages and disadvantages. C# 4.0 will add dynamic capability. Anders Hejlsberg gave a great talk on static v.s. dynamic languages and C# 4.0 at PDC.
A dynamic language is generally considered to be one that can dynamically interpret & generate code at runtime. C# can't do that.
There are also dynamically typed & statically typed languages. Dynamically typed means that the type of a variable is not set and can change throughout the program execution.
The words static and dynamic are not cleary defined.
However, what is most often meant is two issues:
1) In static languages, the type of a variable (that is, the type of value the variable can contain or point to) cannot change during the course of a program. For example in C#, you declare the type of a variable when you define it, like:
int a;
Now a can only ever hold an int value - if you try to assign a string to it, or call a method on it, you will get a compile type error.
2) In static language the type of an object cannot change. In dynamic languages, an object can change in that you can attach or remove methods and properties, thereby basically turning it into a completely different object.
c# is statically typed, ie int i =0; try setting i to be a string. the compiler will complain,
where as python a variable that used to hold an integer can then be set to hold a string,
Static: Types are final,
Dynamic: Types can be changed,
c# is trying to add more dynamic like features, var for instance
There is no true "language of the future".
Different languages have different purposes.
At most, you could say Ruby is a language of the future.
According to Wikipedia:
Dynamic programming language is a term
used broadly in computer science to
describe a class of high-level
programming languages that execute at
runtime many common behaviors that
other languages might perform during
compilation, if at all. These
behaviors could include extension of
the program, by adding new code, by
extending objects and definitions, or
by modifying the type system, all
during program execution. These
behaviors can be emulated in nearly
any language of sufficient complexity,
but dynamic languages provide direct
tools to make use of them.
Most dynamic languages are dynamically typed, but not all.
Ruby is a dynamic language and C# is not, since Ruby is interpreted and C# is compiled. However, C# does include some features that make it appear dynamic.
A language is dynamically typed, that means a variable in that can be used for anything.
Variables are not typed, values are. A variable can have the value of any primitive type, or it can reference to any object.