VB Compiler Warnings & other woes ...

[rawCoder]

Hi All,

In Visual Basic .NET , your function definition might requirre you to return
a value but (accidently/intentionally) you dont put any 'return value' in
the function.

In this case VB Compiler does not generate any warning.

Is there any way to make the compiler generate this and other obvious
warnings, is there any switch, or still VB.NET development team assumes that
the VB developers use the language as a toy language.

And doesnt one think that the Warning and Error generated by VB Compiler
should match that of C#.

And when are we gonna get rid of 'Option Strict Off' and make 'Option Strict
On' a necessity rather than an option - shouldnt this be default.

Will VB.NET , despite its powers matching to that of C# , will always remain
as a toy language ??????

Thank you,
rawCoder

[guy]

Totally agree:-)
I just posted virtually the same thing to the DotNet.General group, I got 2 posts supporting and one against. Also cross-posted to the Studio 2005 VB newsgroup no replies yet.
personally i would much rather type
BitBucket=MyFunction(....
if I didnt want the return value and have errors trapped at compile time than mess about at run time trying to find them.

guy

"rawCoder" wrote:

Hi All,

In Visual Basic .NET , your function definition might requirre you to return
a value but (accidently/intentionally) you dont put any 'return value' in
the function.

In this case VB Compiler does not generate any warning.

Is there any way to make the compiler generate this and other obvious
warnings, is there any switch, or still VB.NET development team assumes that
the VB developers use the language as a toy language.

And doesnt one think that the Warning and Error generated by VB Compiler
should match that of C#.

And when are we gonna get rid of 'Option Strict Off' and make 'Option Strict
On' a necessity rather than an option - shouldnt this be default.

Will VB.NET , despite its powers matching to that of C# , will always remain
as a toy language ??????

Thank you,
rawCoder

[Richard Myers]

> > In Visual Basic .NET , your function definition might requirre you to
return

a value but (accidently/intentionally) you dont put any 'return value' in the function.

In this case VB Compiler does not generate any warning.

Is there any way to make the compiler generate this and other obvious
warnings, is there any switch, or still VB.NET development team assumes that the VB developers use the language as a toy language.

Surely it becomes very obvious when your function returns "Nothing". You do
"test" your code after you write it... right?
And doesnt one think that the Warning and Error generated by VB Compiler
should match that of C#.
Why?

And when are we gonna get rid of 'Option Strict Off' and make 'Option Strict On' a necessity rather than an option - shouldnt this be default.
Microsoft haven't made it a neccessity so that all of those applications
written in non OOP VB will have an easy upgrade path. Microsoft believe the
developer is the best person to decide what does and doesn't work for them
and their individual.... just because you dont like it, doesn;t mean it's
not for everybody. Your essentially asking "Why is the langauge so
flexible?" which is a weird complaint.

Will VB.NET , despite its powers matching to that of C# , will always remain as a toy language ??????

Well now that depends on whose is using it?
The language and toolset that accompanies it are incredibly powerful. If all
you've managed to build with it are "toys" then i would suggest you
undertake some further training.

hth
Richard

[rawCoder]

Dear Richard,

I think I was unable to make myself clear.

What I meant was that " By Default " the language should be as rigid as C# -
atleast at compiler level.
And you might be allowed to write as crappy code as possible to make it
flexible and to support VB6 code which I suppose is what you prefer under
the flag of FLEXIBILITY.

Have you seen the writing on the wall, it clearly says that Microsoft is
trying to promote VB as an inferior language as compared to C# despite the
reality.

Why is it so that the recent Data Structures Articles on MSDN are made using
C# ONLY ???
Why most of the Controls and Class Libraries are written in C# ???
Why in the casestudies section of Microsoft site, its hard to find a
solution in VB.NET ???

Thats what i was referring to - VB is made to look like a language that
makes toys.

Everyone knows that the only diefference between VB and C# is that of syntax
and unsafe code.
Even then this biased promotion is both frustating and uncomprehendable.
I am really sorry in advance but I beleive your first and last comments are
a direct attack on my credibility
and competence ....

Well I am not aware if you have ever worked on any large project comprising
of large number of developers and modules.
In such scenarios, you need a little help from the compiler - which is
priceless when you are debugging.
What are compiler warnings - they are clues that there might be something
wrong.
Every one can make a mistake. That mistake can result in frustation and time
spent debugging the code.
Some of these mistakes can easily be tackled by compiler warnings.
In C++ , its is a recommended practice that you write your code to promote
compile time errors rather than runtime.
And I hope you wont deny the fact that Runtime Errors are far more difficult
to catch and fix rather than simple Compile Time Errors.

And I hope you understand that my idea of TOY was by no means based on what
I develop with VB.NET , rather what is promoted.

Thank You for your comments anyways.
rawCoder.
"Richard Myers" <ri*********************@basd.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ec**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

In Visual Basic .NET , your function definition might requirre you to return a value but (accidently/intentionally) you dont put any 'return value' in the function.

In this case VB Compiler does not generate any warning.

Is there any way to make the compiler generate this and other obvious
warnings, is there any switch, or still VB.NET development team assumes

that

the VB developers use the language as a toy language.

Surely it becomes very obvious when your function returns "Nothing". You do "test" your code after you write it... right?
And doesnt one think that the Warning and Error generated by VB

Compiler should match that of C#.

Why?

And when are we gonna get rid of 'Option Strict Off' and make 'Option Strict On' a necessity rather than an option - shouldnt this be default.
Microsoft haven't made it a neccessity so that all of those applications
written in non OOP VB will have an easy upgrade path. Microsoft believe

the developer is the best person to decide what does and doesn't work for them
and their individual.... just because you dont like it, doesn;t mean it's
not for everybody. Your essentially asking "Why is the langauge so
flexible?" which is a weird complaint.

Will VB.NET , despite its powers matching to that of C# , will always remain as a toy language ??????

Well now that depends on whose is using it?
The language and toolset that accompanies it are incredibly powerful. If

all you've managed to build with it are "toys" then i would suggest you
undertake some further training.

hth
Richard

[Richard Myers]

I think I was unable to make myself clear.
Yup!

What I meant was that " By Default " the language should be as rigid as C# - atleast at compiler level.
You've completely overlooked the fact the C# is a new language. It doesn;t
have a direct legacy language path of evolution to consider. VB.Net does. I
suggest you step out from behind your own monitor and look at the big
picture.... from Microsofts point of view...rather than just your own.

And you might be allowed to write as crappy code as possible to make it
flexible and to support VB6 code which I suppose is what you prefer under
the flag of FLEXIBILITY.
Well again, that would be your connotation....your the one with the problem.
If you want to rewrite the upgrade wizard for Microsoft so that it does a
perfect conversion then im sure they would be willing to pay you.
Have you seen the writing on the wall, it clearly says that Microsoft is
trying to promote VB as an inferior language as compared to C# despite the
reality.
Your contridicting yourself here. Despite what reality?
Why is it so that the recent Data Structures Articles on MSDN are made using C# ONLY ???
Why most of the Controls and Class Libraries are written in C# ???
Why in the casestudies section of Microsoft site, its hard to find a
solution in VB.NET ???
Perhaps because VB.Net has a natural audience, VB6 programmers. Whereas C#
being a new langauge does not. In order to attract Java developers to the
..Net platform Microsoft overemphasises C#. Its good business sense.
And as for controls and class libraries... who cares? Its all MSIL by the i
use it anyway?
Thats what i was referring to - VB is made to look like a language that
makes toys. Everyone knows that the only diefference between VB and C# is that of syntax and unsafe code. Even then this biased promotion is both frustating and uncomprehendable.

Well i disagree with half of that and dont understand what you've said in
the other half.

I am really sorry in advance but I beleive your first and last comments are a direct attack on my credibility and competence ....
Im sure the VB.Net could feel the same about your post.
Well I am not aware if you have ever worked on any large project comprising of large number of developers and modules.
In such scenarios, you need a little help from the compiler - which is
priceless when you are debugging.
And we get plenty. The size of the project is a misnomer. Any half wit
systems architect is going to functionally decompose his project into
managable chunks. To suggest that there is something wrong with the language
because it doesn;t spoonfeed you your code is a classic case of the poor
workman blaming his tools. If your projects are that unweildy, sack your SA.

Lets say it did force a 'Return'. What happens if the variable your
returning is nothing i.e it hasn;t been initialised. You've still got
precisely the same problem, and this can only be detected at runtime. Its
not the compilers fault the developer is sloppy. So what difference does it
make? Thats why we unit test, right?
What are compiler warnings - they are clues that there might be something
wrong.
Every one can make a mistake. That mistake can result in frustation and time spent debugging the code.
No kidding.
Some of these mistakes can easily be tackled by compiler warnings.
Well as above different error, same problem. You still have to test and i'd
sack anybody who had trouble finding such a basic error. I mean really, a
function that doesn't return a value, shouldn;t even make it to the testers,
thats just piss poor coding and no one will convince me other wise.
In C++ , its is a recommended practice that you write your code to promote
compile time errors rather than runtime.
But this is VB.Net? C++ might as well be from another planet.
And I hope you wont deny the fact that Runtime Errors are far more difficult to catch and fix rather than simple Compile Time Errors.
Generally speaking sure..... but you're talking about a very specific
runtime error and for that Ive gotta say "C'mon"?
And I hope you understand that my idea of TOY was by no means based on what I develop with VB.NET , rather what is promoted.

Well obviously i completely disagree. Your right I know nothing of you,
wouldn;t know you from a bar of soap, but im always sceptical about anyone
claiming to be pushing the boundaries of any language. Aren;t you just
contridicting yourself.... on the one hand you say "All Microsoft is
allowing us to build with such a *your beliefs* second rate language is TOYS
and then in the same breath you go onto say "but i develop so much more than
just TOYS".

If so then whats your problem?

Richard

[guy]

looks like MS thinks you are wrong Richard

From vs2005 bv newsgroup post...

Subject: function return values
From: "[MS]Jo**@data.vb" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.com> Sent: 7/2/2004 12:56:27 PM


Yes, you will get this warning in vs 2005. Check this
feature out in the beta1.
Also you will get a green squiggle in the function with
nice tooltips to indicate what is going on.

Jo**@data.vb

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

..

sorry for the cross post (dotnet.general....)

It would be really nice if we could have an
Option VeryStrict (or similar)
that caused a compilation warning or error for function
calls that did not assign return values
eg
Split(MyString,",")
instead of
MyArray = Split(MyString,",")

The time overhead of having to type Bitbucket= ...
when i dont need the return value would be more than
recovered by having bugs trapped at compile time rather
than runtime.

cheers

gu

..

"Richard Myers" wrote:

I think I was unable to make myself clear.

Yup!

What I meant was that " By Default " the language should be as rigid as

C# -

atleast at compiler level.

You've completely overlooked the fact the C# is a new language. It doesn;t
have a direct legacy language path of evolution to consider. VB.Net does. I
suggest you step out from behind your own monitor and look at the big
picture.... from Microsofts point of view...rather than just your own.

And you might be allowed to write as crappy code as possible to make it
flexible and to support VB6 code which I suppose is what you prefer under
the flag of FLEXIBILITY.

Well again, that would be your connotation....your the one with the problem.
If you want to rewrite the upgrade wizard for Microsoft so that it does a
perfect conversion then im sure they would be willing to pay you.

Have you seen the writing on the wall, it clearly says that Microsoft is
trying to promote VB as an inferior language as compared to C# despite the
reality.

Your contridicting yourself here. Despite what reality?

Why is it so that the recent Data Structures Articles on MSDN are made

using

C# ONLY ???
Why most of the Controls and Class Libraries are written in C# ???
Why in the casestudies section of Microsoft site, its hard to find a
solution in VB.NET ???

Perhaps because VB.Net has a natural audience, VB6 programmers. Whereas C#
being a new langauge does not. In order to attract Java developers to the
..Net platform Microsoft overemphasises C#. Its good business sense.
And as for controls and class libraries... who cares? Its all MSIL by the i
use it anyway?

Thats what i was referring to - VB is made to look like a language that
makes toys. Everyone knows that the only diefference between VB and C# is

that of syntax

and unsafe code. Even then this biased promotion is both frustating and

uncomprehendable.

Well i disagree with half of that and dont understand what you've said in
the other half.

I am really sorry in advance but I beleive your first and last comments

are

a direct attack on my credibility and competence ....

Im sure the VB.Net could feel the same about your post.

Well I am not aware if you have ever worked on any large project

comprising

of large number of developers and modules.
In such scenarios, you need a little help from the compiler - which is
priceless when you are debugging.

And we get plenty. The size of the project is a misnomer. Any half wit
systems architect is going to functionally decompose his project into
managable chunks. To suggest that there is something wrong with the language
because it doesn;t spoonfeed you your code is a classic case of the poor
workman blaming his tools. If your projects are that unweildy, sack your SA.

Lets say it did force a 'Return'. What happens if the variable your
returning is nothing i.e it hasn;t been initialised. You've still got
precisely the same problem, and this can only be detected at runtime. Its
not the compilers fault the developer is sloppy. So what difference does it
make? Thats why we unit test, right?

What are compiler warnings - they are clues that there might be something
wrong.
Every one can make a mistake. That mistake can result in frustation and

time

spent debugging the code.

No kidding.

Some of these mistakes can easily be tackled by compiler warnings.

Well as above different error, same problem. You still have to test and i'd
sack anybody who had trouble finding such a basic error. I mean really, a
function that doesn't return a value, shouldn;t even make it to the testers,
thats just piss poor coding and no one will convince me other wise.

In C++ , its is a recommended practice that you write your code to promote
compile time errors rather than runtime.

But this is VB.Net? C++ might as well be from another planet.

And I hope you wont deny the fact that Runtime Errors are far more

difficult

to catch and fix rather than simple Compile Time Errors.

Generally speaking sure..... but you're talking about a very specific
runtime error and for that Ive gotta say "C'mon"?

And I hope you understand that my idea of TOY was by no means based on

what

I develop with VB.NET , rather what is promoted.

Well obviously i completely disagree. Your right I know nothing of you,
wouldn;t know you from a bar of soap, but im always sceptical about anyone
claiming to be pushing the boundaries of any language. Aren;t you just
contridicting yourself.... on the one hand you say "All Microsoft is
allowing us to build with such a *your beliefs* second rate language is TOYS
and then in the same breath you go onto say "but i develop so much more than
just TOYS".

If so then whats your problem?

Richard