Is C# more capable than VB.NET?

kris p

I have to implement a project in .NET which might entail some lower level technical
programming, and have to decide whether to use C# or VB.NET, is C# more capable
than .NET or they just synctatically different?

Thanks,
kristoff plasun

Jul 21 '05 #1

William Ryan eMVP

For 99% of tasks, they are functionally identical. However, C# allows the
use of unsafe code, so there is definitely some low level stuff that VB.NET
can't handle. I'm hesitant to say that one is more capable than the other
b/c that usually gets someone mad at me. Keep in mind that VB.NET does
support quite a bit, and you can still perform many many API calls with it,
but if the crux of your application will involve low level api calls, I
think C# is the more appropriate (and possibly only viable) solution.
"kris p" <kplasun@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:db13b49.0402101712.19141631@posting.google.co m...[color=blue]
> I have to implement a project in .NET which might entail some lower level[/color]
technical[color=blue]
> programming, and have to decide whether to use C# or VB.NET, is C# more[/color]
capable[color=blue]
> than .NET or they just synctatically different?
>
> Thanks,
> kristoff plasun[/color]

Jul 21 '05 #2

Cor

Hi Kris,

I totally disagree with Bill, if you still have to choise and you do not
know what to take, than in your situation I think that the only choise can
be in this situation C# and if that does not fit C++.

The reason Bill has already told.

Not because C# is more cabable than VB.net, but just because what you told
is in my opinion one of the things where C# is better occupied for than
VB.net. (If you would ask by instance to implement an interop from Excel I
would give a totally different answer)

My 2 eurocents.

(Hi Kris, this to Bill, "This you did not expect")

:-))

Cor

Jul 21 '05 #3

Paul Guides

Hi,

search for Q308470:

"Differences Between Visual Basic .NET and Visual C# .NET"

Paul


"William Ryan eMVP" <bill@NoSp4m.devbuzz.com> wrote in message
news:u$dFxRE8DHA.3348@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> For 99% of tasks, they are functionally identical. However, C# allows the
> use of unsafe code, so there is definitely some low level stuff that[/color]
VB.NET[color=blue]
> can't handle. I'm hesitant to say that one is more capable than the other
> b/c that usually gets someone mad at me. Keep in mind that VB.NET does
> support quite a bit, and you can still perform many many API calls with[/color]
it,[color=blue]
> but if the crux of your application will involve low level api calls, I
> think C# is the more appropriate (and possibly only viable) solution.
> "kris p" <kplasun@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:db13b49.0402101712.19141631@posting.google.co m...[color=green]
> > I have to implement a project in .NET which might entail some lower[/color][/color]
level[color=blue]
> technical[color=green]
> > programming, and have to decide whether to use C# or VB.NET, is C# more[/color]
> capable[color=green]
> > than .NET or they just synctatically different?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > kristoff plasun[/color]
>
>[/color]

Jul 21 '05 #4

> I have to implement a project in .NET which might entail some lower level
technical[color=blue]
> programming, and have to decide whether to use C# or VB.NET, is C# more[/color]
capable[color=blue]
> than .NET or they just synctatically different?
>[/color]
Go for C# since it .NET DLL's might not be as compatible as they advertise
in their advertising.
The problem is case sensitivity and types. I think that C# could handle 3rd
party .NET dll's better if they do not conform to the standards.

Use FxCop to check your .NET code if it is compatible to other programs.

Jul 21 '05 #5

> Not because C# is more cabable than VB.net, but just because what you told[color=blue]
> is in my opinion one of the things where C# is better occupied for than
> VB.net. (If you would ask by instance to implement an interop from Excel I
> would give a totally different answer)
>[/color]
Totally agree, C# is built for .NET, all other languages have some very
strange constructs to make it compatible with .NET but reduces readability
dramatically.
Look at the C++ macro's for managed code.

Jul 21 '05 #6

Cor

Hi Olaf,
[color=blue]
> Totally agree, C# is built for .NET, all other languages have some very
> strange constructs to make it compatible with .NET but reduces readability
> dramatically.[/color]

That I did not say and do absolutly not agree, but I do not want to start a
thread but answer on the question from kris.

There have so often been a discussion in the C# and the VB.net languages
groups. Regulars from those newsgroup says that the use of those languages
is mostly only a matter of taste. Not faster, not more readable, not more
efficient, not better code, just a matter of taste and only in some parts of
the borders of the language one is more efficient than the other. But there
is not better one.

And the question from kris looks for me in that part of the border where C#
is more efficient.

Cor

Jul 21 '05 #7

Doknjas

I think that if you ever have more than 1 developer working with code,
that C# is much better - and I'm saying this as a former VB bigot.
Take arrays for instance - VB.NET has many different styles of array
declaration and initialization - apprarently to suit many kinds of
people and what they happen to be used to. C# hasn't been designed
to conform to everyone's idiosyncrasies, and therefore doesn't have
irritatingly many ways of doing one simple thing.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Jul 21 '05 #8

Cor

Hi Kris,

I said I did disagree with Bill that is only because he did not say it real
explicitly that C# was more capable in this case.

Cor

Jul 21 '05 #9