take any example, turn it into code. which is more expressive?

I argue the code is.

-1

dnk needs downmod.

-1

dnk needs downmod

most of these are defaults and the rest are dumb programmer 101, and the sproc sp_ prefix is just wrong.

a cool program for sure, but its not .NET

-1

DNK needs downmod

-1

DNK needs downmod

this is a useless puff piece and provides no value to CIOs or Developers.

-1

DNK needs downmodding

-1

DNK needs downmod

oh how I wish I could down mod.

i propose a new DNK convention. Just leave a comment with a -1 in it.

-1

The title alone shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what is going on.

I wish DNK had a downmod so I could downmod this.

using is not on a method or a class, it happens on an instance of an object which implements idisposable.

I would down mod if I could because the premise isn't "are managed applications slow" but "is the code slower". I read "code" as the codes, or IL v. native machine language. Applications, what they do, network or disk do not come into play with speed test of "codes" it comes into play with speed tests of applications.

I really wish DNK had a downmod system so I could down mod this.

1. It has nothing to do with .net 3.0, and if you MUST tie it to a product release revision it is 3.5 because that is when C# 3.0 shipped.
2. This is miscategorized since this features is implemented ENTIRELY in the C# 3.0 language, it has NO ties to the CLR.
3. There is really no such thing as ".NET 3.0 Partial Methods" You can call it C# 3.0 Partial Methods if you wish.