The Demise of C#

[Kevin Spencer]

About 2 years ago, and as recently as perhaps 1 year ago, I can recall
seeing many posts about what language to use with ASP.Net. The consensus was
that employers paid more for C# programmers, and it seems that C# became the
darling of the ASP.Net crowd.

In the meantime, I have observed an interesting phenomenon. Originally,
employers hired programmers who used C# because it was based on C, and the
prevailing opinion was (and may still be) that C# developers were better
because they must have known and/or practiced C or C++ at some time, which
would make them better programmers overall. C and C++ are hard-core
programming languages compared to VB.

However, now that nearly everyone has jumped on the C# bandwagon, it seems
to me that the distinction between the languages has nearly disappeared, at
least in terms of evaluating programmers for hire. There seem to be almost
as many clueless C# developers out there as VB.Net developers. Many C#
developers today are basically VB.Net developers using a different syntax. I
wonder if the employers have become aware of this trend?

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.

[moemeka]

Anyone who thinks c# programmers are 'better' than VB programmers is an
idiot. Has it ever occured to people like you that the core competence of a
VB developer might be in the business rules they are trying to fulfill, and
that the vision of such a language might be to remove all the uneccessary
complexity from programming so as to allow such an individual to do just
that? By your reasoning, the habbits of an assembler programmer would be
welcome as a sign of intelligence towards OOPs related tasks! I am really
sorry guy but the time for knowing that the bios looks in the first boot
sector at address 0800 to start running the operating system is OVER. VB has
evolved into a powerfull programming language for fulfilling business rules.
C and C++ are low level languages that, becuase of their features, can be
used for system development and the like. Saying a C developer is 'smarter'
or 'better' at what they do is like saying a builder is smarter than an
engineer, or an engineer smarter than an architect!

"move to c#" wrote:

"Kevin Spencer" wrote:

About 2 years ago, and as recently as perhaps 1 year ago, I can recall
seeing many posts about what language to use with ASP.Net. The consensus was
that employers paid more for C# programmers, and it seems that C# became the
darling of the ASP.Net crowd.

In the meantime, I have observed an interesting phenomenon. Originally,
employers hired programmers who used C# because it was based on C, and the
prevailing opinion was (and may still be) that C# developers were better
because they must have known and/or practiced C or C++ at some time, which
would make them better programmers overall. C and C++ are hard-core
programming languages compared to VB.

However, now that nearly everyone has jumped on the C# bandwagon, it seems
to me that the distinction between the languages has nearly disappeared, at
least in terms of evaluating programmers for hire. There seem to be almost
as many clueless C# developers out there as VB.Net developers. Many C#
developers today are basically VB.Net developers using a different syntax. I
wonder if the employers have become aware of this trend?

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.

I'm a VB programmer who decided to go to C#. I saw in books how there
seemed to be almost a one-to-one correspondence between C# and VB.Net.
Certainly there's a line-to-line correspondence. I feel that Microsoft will
attempt to do away with VB.NET, they will attempt to slide people into C#.
Also, whether fair or not, it sounds more impress to know "C#", than to know
"VB", even if it's "VB.NET". As you can see in this discussion group, VB has
the reputation of being for, how can I put it, well, people who are a step
below the "pros". I'm not saying this is true, but this seems to be the word
out there.

For all the above rambling reasons, I learned C# at home, even though
I'm still doing VB6 at work (when will they EVER migrate????)

[Kevin Spencer]

> Anyone who thinks c# programmers are 'better' than VB programmers is an

idiot.
I wouldn't put it that way, but in essence I agree with you there.
Has it ever occured to people like you that the core competence of a
VB developer might be in the business rules they are trying to fulfill,
and
that the vision of such a language might be to remove all the uneccessary
complexity from programming so as to allow such an individual to do just
that?
Are you responding to my post? I will assume that "people like you" is a
reference to people like myself. Please point out where I made the statement
that C# programmers are better than VB programmers. A careful reading of my
message will prove the opposite. There is a big difference between the
reality of things, and the way things are perceived by many people. I was
talking about perceptions, not reality.
By your reasoning, the habbits of an assembler programmer would be
welcome as a sign of intelligence towards OOPs related tasks!
I'm afraid not. By my reasoning, there is a perception out there that has
nearly nothing to do with reality. It is your perception of my reasoning
that is in error.
I am really
sorry guy but the time for knowing that the bios looks in the first boot
sector at address 0800 to start running the operating system is OVER.
Maybe for you, but not for everyone. In any case, I didn't imply any such
thing.
VB has
evolved into a powerfull programming language for fulfilling business
rules.
C and C++ are low level languages that, becuase of their features, can be
used for system development and the like.
I don't develop systems. I develop applications. Some of those applications
require low-level programming. So, while you seem familiar with VB, you
don't seem to understand much of anything about the use of C and its
derivatives.

This is an odd post. It seems to be in reply to "move to c#" but all of its
arguments seem to be against my own. If this is the case, the writer didn't
read my post carefully, and misunderstood it almost entirely. Pretty sloppy
work for a programmer.

BTW, will someone remove the "Kick Me" sign from my back?

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"moemeka" <mo*****@discus sions.microsoft .com> wrote in message
news:63******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com... Anyone who thinks c# programmers are 'better' than VB programmers is an
idiot. Has it ever occured to people like you that the core competence of
a
VB developer might be in the business rules they are trying to fulfill,
and
that the vision of such a language might be to remove all the uneccessary
complexity from programming so as to allow such an individual to do just
that? By your reasoning, the habbits of an assembler programmer would be
welcome as a sign of intelligence towards OOPs related tasks! I am really
sorry guy but the time for knowing that the bios looks in the first boot
sector at address 0800 to start running the operating system is OVER. VB
has
evolved into a powerfull programming language for fulfilling business
rules.
C and C++ are low level languages that, becuase of their features, can be
used for system development and the like. Saying a C developer is
'smarter'
or 'better' at what they do is like saying a builder is smarter than an
engineer, or an engineer smarter than an architect!

"move to c#" wrote:

"Kevin Spencer" wrote:

> About 2 years ago, and as recently as perhaps 1 year ago, I can recall
> seeing many posts about what language to use with ASP.Net. The
> consensus was
> that employers paid more for C# programmers, and it seems that C#
> became the
> darling of the ASP.Net crowd.
>
> In the meantime, I have observed an interesting phenomenon. Originally,
> employers hired programmers who used C# because it was based on C, and
> the
> prevailing opinion was (and may still be) that C# developers were
> better
> because they must have known and/or practiced C or C++ at some time,
> which
> would make them better programmers overall. C and C++ are hard-core
> programming languages compared to VB.
>
> However, now that nearly everyone has jumped on the C# bandwagon, it
> seems
> to me that the distinction between the languages has nearly
> disappeared, at
> least in terms of evaluating programmers for hire. There seem to be
> almost
> as many clueless C# developers out there as VB.Net developers. Many C#
> developers today are basically VB.Net developers using a different
> syntax. I
> wonder if the employers have become aware of this trend?
>
> --
>
> Kevin Spencer
> Microsoft MVP
> ..Net Developer
> Neither a follower nor a lender be.
>
>
>

I'm a VB programmer who decided to go to C#. I saw in books how there
seemed to be almost a one-to-one correspondence between C# and VB.Net.
Certainly there's a line-to-line correspondence. I feel that Microsoft
will
attempt to do away with VB.NET, they will attempt to slide people into
C#.
Also, whether fair or not, it sounds more impress to know "C#", than to
know
"VB", even if it's "VB.NET". As you can see in this discussion group, VB
has
the reputation of being for, how can I put it, well, people who are a
step
below the "pros". I'm not saying this is true, but this seems to be the
word
out there.

For all the above rambling reasons, I learned C# at home, even though
I'm still doing VB6 at work (when will they EVER migrate????)

[Jim Granger]

"Smithers" wrote:

IMHO, the incompetence you are seeing more of is people jumping to Web
development from desktop/thick client application development. Take any
"hard core" C++ developer awash in all his/her OOP glory: If this person has
never developed for the Web and has instead spent a career doing low-level
programming (device drivers, etc), and throw them into a Web Application,
they'll probably be asking a lot of dumb questions - of the same sort you
are currently attributing to the VB6 crowd. IMHO, it's the application type
(Web vs desktop), not the prior language.

An interesting point. I myself started in web and have moved over to
winapps. Maybe because Perl and PHP are C-esque languages I had an easier
transition.

[cmay]

Let me preface this with: If you do a quick scan up this thread, you
can see that I like vb.net, so this isn't coming from a vb hater.

However, regarding the "C# developers are better" thing, I'm sorry to
say that, even though I prefer vb.net, I would tend to agree with that
statement as a generality.

Now... having said that. I know lots of people who ONLY program in C#,
and my skills are FAR more than theirs in C#, VB, systems and on and
on. I'm not tooting my horn here, just stating the obvious "just cause
you use C# doesn't mean you are better than someone who users VB".

But, I have to say. If I were interviewing someone who was very good
at vb.net, but had no idea when it comes to C# I would think a lot less
of them than someone who programs in C# who knows nothing about VB.

Why is this?

It is obvious to me that new programmers (less experienced) would pick
VB over C#. So a larger portion of VB.Net developers are "newer" to
programming. What about the argument "A new programmer would look at
both languages and see that people value C# more and pick it as their
starting language" ? I would suggest that people who take that
approach are of a different mindset than the people who are thinking
"how can I get response.write to work with these crazy code behind page
things?". In other words, people who research the languages and make
an informed decision about picking one language over the other, not
matter which one they pick, are probably destined to be very good at
their job.

Also, as Kevin Spencer points out, C# isn't new (C -> C++ -> C#). C#
has many links with ECMA script which in is related to many other
languages. So in other words, imagine you took 2 people who had never
programmed a day in their life. One of them got 6 months to learn and
work with VB.Net, and the other got 6 months to learn and work with C#.
Then after 6 months you asked them to write a java app, or a client
side javascript program. The C# guy would have such an advantage b/c
the syntax is so similar.

So, basically what I am saying is, that if someone suggest that a
person is less able or competent because they work in vb.net I would
strongly disagree. However, if you want to say that the avg C#
programmer is a "better" programmer than the avg VB.Net programmer,
then I would have to agree.

I wouldn't just apply this to C# and VB though. I think the same could
be said of PHP, VFP, VBscript (vs Javascript) etc.

If someone thinks that there aren't PHP developers out there that are
fricking smart as hell, then they are wrong cause some of those guys
(dedicated PHP programmers) are brilliant! But, I would bet that if
show me a great PHP programmer (or any of the other languages listed
above) I will show you a person who can understand and read (and
probably write) most other languages, and has a very strong knowledge
over all the non-language related skills involved in programming.

[70Bang!]

"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) - MVP" wrote:

There are plenty of clueless C++, VB, et al, developer.
There's a reason for this:

"You don't have to be good, just good enough."
-me, ca. late 80s

You can also consider things such as "bad coders can write bad code faster
than good coders can write good code" (or good coders can fix bad code).
People like to code and like to get paid for something they like to do. This
is without regard to the quality of the work they produce. Generally, the
only measurement of the quality is "does it work?".

Code reviews are a rarity. Documents are a thing of even farther in the
past. Besides, most technical people can't write their way out of a paper bag
so why should they write docs which are worthless? Granted, there are people
who write them professionally, but do smaller shops which only have one, two,
or three technical people on staff have to have a technical writer who only
writes docs? Ever look at the code someone has written for a group they
belong to? Service group? Church? Charity? There are plenty of good people
who write for such groups but there are plenty who have members who willingly
hop into the pool (and pee in the water) and deliver, at best, something
someone who took a first year VB course could improve upon.

Priority #1 is get to the keyboard and bang away at code. Forget specs.
Forget everything. Keyboard is #1.

In one of the blogs where everyone is whining about VB6, "Dougie" is
throwing a fit because the 200'000 lines of code he's written over the
previous twenty years are going to have to be rewritten because VB6 is going
away. His credentials are he not only knows VB but, "and for your
information, I can code in C, pascal, delphi as well as vb". I'm guessing
most of his code is a clusterf%ck and most of it hasn't been partitioned into
various DLLs, out-of-process EXEs, classes, etc. Things which not only would
be easier to manage but migrate as well. I think he'd fit real well with a
co-worker at a contracting firm I worked for who claimed, "There's nothing
you can do with OOP which you can't do with modules." And said his MBA gave
him the divine wisdom to know such things. The funny thing is we were billed
out at $125 for VB work and he wrote & debugged code by trial-and-error (I'm
not joking about any of this). The boss|owner loved him because he raked in
the dough but anyone who had to follow in his footsteps and either fix or add
to his code either kept a wastebasket handy (to barf) or rewrote the apps on
their own time, lest they have to work with it again. It was about as tasty
as one of the Star Trek animated series when an ESP-capable member of a
feline race begins to get nauseated because one of the Enterprise crew
focuses so heavily upon eating vegetation. That's what it felt like to work
with Brent's code.

I know others are upset but I think Dougie represents a vocal group who
couldn't buy a clue if you handed them the money; and he's pretty
representative of the industry as a whole.

You can find Dougie here to look for yourself:

http://tinyurl.com/6szrc

http://blogs.msdn.com/brad_mccabe/ar...10/393704.aspx

*************** ************
Think Outside the Box!
*************** ************
(This is trite and a poor interpretation of deMarco's "Lateral Thinking" - I
suggest you get one of his books...)
"Kevin Spencer" wrote:

About 2 years ago, and as recently as perhaps 1 year ago, I can recall
seeing many posts about what language to use with ASP.Net. The consensus was
that employers paid more for C# programmers, and it seems that C# became the
darling of the ASP.Net crowd.
And before ASP.Net, it was ASP. Employers paid a lot more (and still do)
for ASP. The problem is a sizeable percentage of the ASP crowd were rats
jumping off of a sinking ship - all of the static HTMLers realizing their
pond was shrinking and they'd better jump...fast. Think about non-programmers
writing ASP + client-side JScript. Fortunately, a measure of competency
became a requirement and started to turn the tide.
In the meantime, I have observed an interesting phenomenon. Originally,
employers hired programmers who used C# because it was based on C, and the
prevailing opinion was (and may still be) that C# developers were better
because they must have known and/or practiced C or C++ at some time, which
would make them better programmers overall. C and C++ are hard-core
programming languages compared to VB. However, now that nearly everyone has jumped on the C# bandwagon, it seems
to me that the distinction between the languages has nearly disappeared, at
least in terms of evaluating programmers for hire. There seem to be almost
as many clueless C# developers out there as VB.Net developers. Many C#
developers today are basically VB.Net developers using a different syntax. I
wonder if the employers have become aware of this trend?

At the risk of sounding rude, how is this the demise of c#?

[Kevin Spencer]

> "You don't have to be good, just good enough."

-me, ca. late 80s

You can also consider things such as "bad coders can write bad code faster
than good coders can write good code" (or good coders can fix bad code).
People like to code and like to get paid for something they like to do.
This
is without regard to the quality of the work they produce. Generally, the
only measurement of the quality is "does it work?".
I hope you don't really feel this way. I have certainly seen enough of this
type of mindset (lacking forethought or any appreciation of future
consequences for present decisions) in my life. However, there are
individuals, businesses, and companies that do not subscribe to such a
Dilbert-esque business philosophy. Such individuals, businesses and
companies generally seem to survive and prosper over the long haul, as that
is what they plan for.

The truth of the matter is, it takes less money and effort over the long
haul to spend the money and do it right the first time. A LOT less money.
Bad code must be constantly rewritten and hacked to adapt to changing
conditions. Unless it is completely rewritten, the legacy of bad code costs
money for a very long time.

I wouldn't work for another company like that for any salary.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"70Bang!" <70*****@discus sions.microsoft .com> wrote in message
news:4A******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com... "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) - MVP" wrote:

There are plenty of clueless C++, VB, et al, developer.

There's a reason for this:

"You don't have to be good, just good enough."
-me, ca. late 80s

You can also consider things such as "bad coders can write bad code faster
than good coders can write good code" (or good coders can fix bad code).
People like to code and like to get paid for something they like to do.
This
is without regard to the quality of the work they produce. Generally, the
only measurement of the quality is "does it work?".

Code reviews are a rarity. Documents are a thing of even farther in the
past. Besides, most technical people can't write their way out of a paper
bag
so why should they write docs which are worthless? Granted, there are
people
who write them professionally, but do smaller shops which only have one,
two,
or three technical people on staff have to have a technical writer who
only
writes docs? Ever look at the code someone has written for a group they
belong to? Service group? Church? Charity? There are plenty of good
people
who write for such groups but there are plenty who have members who
willingly
hop into the pool (and pee in the water) and deliver, at best, something
someone who took a first year VB course could improve upon.

Priority #1 is get to the keyboard and bang away at code. Forget specs.
Forget everything. Keyboard is #1.

In one of the blogs where everyone is whining about VB6, "Dougie" is
throwing a fit because the 200'000 lines of code he's written over the
previous twenty years are going to have to be rewritten because VB6 is
going
away. His credentials are he not only knows VB but, "and for your
information, I can code in C, pascal, delphi as well as vb". I'm guessing
most of his code is a clusterf%ck and most of it hasn't been partitioned
into
various DLLs, out-of-process EXEs, classes, etc. Things which not only
would
be easier to manage but migrate as well. I think he'd fit real well with
a
co-worker at a contracting firm I worked for who claimed, "There's nothing
you can do with OOP which you can't do with modules." And said his MBA
gave
him the divine wisdom to know such things. The funny thing is we were
billed
out at $125 for VB work and he wrote & debugged code by trial-and-error
(I'm
not joking about any of this). The boss|owner loved him because he raked
in
the dough but anyone who had to follow in his footsteps and either fix or
add
to his code either kept a wastebasket handy (to barf) or rewrote the apps
on
their own time, lest they have to work with it again. It was about as
tasty
as one of the Star Trek animated series when an ESP-capable member of a
feline race begins to get nauseated because one of the Enterprise crew
focuses so heavily upon eating vegetation. That's what it felt like to
work
with Brent's code.

I know others are upset but I think Dougie represents a vocal group who
couldn't buy a clue if you handed them the money; and he's pretty
representative of the industry as a whole.

You can find Dougie here to look for yourself:

http://tinyurl.com/6szrc

http://blogs.msdn.com/brad_mccabe/ar...10/393704.aspx

*************** ************
Think Outside the Box!
*************** ************

(This is trite and a poor interpretation of deMarco's "Lateral Thinking" -
I
suggest you get one of his books...)

"Kevin Spencer" wrote:

> About 2 years ago, and as recently as perhaps 1 year ago, I can recall
> seeing many posts about what language to use with ASP.Net. The
> consensus was
> that employers paid more for C# programmers, and it seems that C#
> became the
> darling of the ASP.Net crowd.
And before ASP.Net, it was ASP. Employers paid a lot more (and still do)
for ASP. The problem is a sizeable percentage of the ASP crowd were rats
jumping off of a sinking ship - all of the static HTMLers realizing their
pond was shrinking and they'd better jump...fast. Think about
non-programmers
writing ASP + client-side JScript. Fortunately, a measure of competency
became a requirement and started to turn the tide.
> In the meantime, I have observed an interesting phenomenon. Originally,
> employers hired programmers who used C# because it was based on C, and
> the
> prevailing opinion was (and may still be) that C# developers were
> better
> because they must have known and/or practiced C or C++ at some time,
> which
> would make them better programmers overall. C and C++ are hard-core
> programming languages compared to VB. > However, now that nearly everyone has jumped on the C# bandwagon, it
> seems
> to me that the distinction between the languages has nearly
> disappeared, at
> least in terms of evaluating programmers for hire. There seem to be
> almost
> as many clueless C# developers out there as VB.Net developers. Many C#
> developers today are basically VB.Net developers using a different
> syntax. I
> wonder if the employers have become aware of this trend?

At the risk of sounding rude, how is this the demise of c#?

[Mark W. Squires II]

It seems to me after reading some of these posts that this is just an
argument over personal preferences. I think its great that .NET offers both
VB.NET and C# and I feel that everyone has their own personal reasons for
picking their language. I have done programming in C++, Java, ASP, VbSCript,
JavaScript, Python, TCL, and others... however when I moved to use .NET i
chose C# simply because it was closer to C++ and Java. I found the syntax of
VB.NET to be too much of a blur of different languages, and I would start to
confuse syntax when working in different environments, as I still support old
VB6 and asp apps.

The idea of writing a line of code that looks like
Dim var as Object = new Object

My syntax may be off there, as you know I use C#.... but you get my point.
To me it just made me thing I would start to confuse my syntax for different
languages, so I chose C#.

However I just got a new job, where they only want me to use VB.NET because
the talent pool at the company are all peopole from vb6 with no c++/java
experience.

So I think for every company that requests a c# person, there is a company
that wants a vb.net person.... for whatever reason it may be. There are a
lot of companies with talent consisting only of vb.

"cmay" wrote:

Funny... I don't really see a need for C# :)

There are a few things that C# can do that VB.NET can't, and there are
things that VB.Net does that C# can't do without added in a bunch of VB.NET
references. But the reason for the very few things that VB.NET can't do
isn't any limitation of the language. What I mean by that is, MS could, if
they wanted to, add all the extra stuff C# does to vb.net if they cared to do
so. There isn't anything really holding them back from doing that. In fact!
C# is starting to get a lot of the nice features of VB.NET, such as "With"
blocks.

Now, I'll be clear that I use both VB.NET and C#, but I clearly prefer
VB.NET, save a few things that bug me.

My 2 major annoyances with VB.net, as compared to C# are:
1) XML Comments -- I have the XML comments add-in, but it doesn't tie into
the intellisense. It would be nice if my comments showed up in my own
intellisense function calls in vb.net just like they do in C#.
2) The "Dumbifying " of terms. "MustInheri t", "Shared" etc. A standard
question for all interviewers who program in vb.net should be "what is an
abstract class?" If you have to explain that "abstract" means "MustInheri t"
then you know what kind of programmer you are dealing with.

Now, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that you can develop as fast
in C# as you can in VB.Net. The intellisense and error catching is so much
better in VB.NET (Im referring to the VS ide).

Either way, I agree the 2 will be moving closer to one another, but you have
to wonder: with the technical reasons for using C# all but gone, why would
new programmers choose C# (new, meaning they aren't coming from years of C++
of java development)?

Better question: Is there any (quality) vb.net programmer out there who
can't read/write C#? Maybe not as fast, but everything is so similar...

"Alvin Bruney" wrote:

I believe they did. (can of worms here)

I really don't see a reason for VB.NET given the fact that it certainly
isn't VB with .NET classes. Eventually, VB.NET will have to morph into
something else. Programmers who need to learn VB.NET coming from VB classic
are better off learning C#.

--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc
--------------------------------------------------
"Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]" <St***@Orr.ne t> wrote in message
news:OT******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...

The main reasons they went with C# is because they were experienced with
C++ (becuase C++ was more powerful than VB6) so it was more of a natural
progression for them, and the other reason was because C# was the "new"
language and they wanted to eat their own dog food to ensure C# would
become capable of all that they'd envisioned and all they needed.

It wasn't because they saw C# as superior to VB.NET in any way.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP
http://SteveOrr.net
"Robbe Morris [C# MVP]" <in**@turnkeyto ols.com> wrote in message
news:Oy******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...
> When I saw that when deciding whether to continue on with VB.NET
> (I was an old VB 6 and a C# coder), I went with C#.
>
> I figured if the Microsoft guys saw fit to use C#, maybe I should too.
> There must be a reason they picked it.
>
> --
> 2005 Microsoft MVP C#
> Robbe Morris
> http://www.robbemorris.com
> http://www.mastervb.net/home/ng/foru...t10017013.aspx
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/..._generator.asp
>
>
>
> "Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMM ERSDIEtakempis. com> wrote in message
> news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP12.phx.gbl. ..
>> About 2 years ago, and as recently as perhaps 1 year ago, I can recall
>> seeing many posts about what language to use with ASP.Net. The consensus
>> was that employers paid more for C# programmers, and it seems that C#
>> became the darling of the ASP.Net crowd.
>>
>> In the meantime, I have observed an interesting phenomenon. Originally,
>> employers hired programmers who used C# because it was based on C, and
>> the prevailing opinion was (and may still be) that C# developers were
>> better because they must have known and/or practiced C or C++ at some
>> time, which would make them better programmers overall. C and C++ are
>> hard-core programming languages compared to VB.
>>
>> However, now that nearly everyone has jumped on the C# bandwagon, it
>> seems to me that the distinction between the languages has nearly
>> disappeared, at least in terms of evaluating programmers for hire. There
>> seem to be almost as many clueless C# developers out there as VB.Net
>> developers. Many C# developers today are basically VB.Net developers
>> using a different syntax. I wonder if the employers have become aware of
>> this trend?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kevin Spencer
>> Microsoft MVP
>> .Net Developer
>> Neither a follower nor a lender be.
>>
>>
>
>

[coz]

I have to agree with Steve here, though he probably wouldn't go as far as
me... I have hired many web developers, and have experienced much more
difficulty with 20 year C/C++ programmers who have been doing Internet
development for a few years, than relatively new programmers that just have a
few years experience with ASP/VBscript/VB/COM (and now with .net).

Why? I think it has to do with instinct. Some of the C/C++ developers we
have brought on board had a heck of a time becoming instinctively aware of
"where" their code was executing. ASP.NET has done a great deal to rectify
this by handling client events in the code-behind, but when you have a
programmer that has always developed applications with a single event layer,
and they suddenly have to debug a process like: request goes to the server,
server to biz layer, biz to database, biz to server, server generates
client-side html and script, server generates client-side script written to
generate more client-side script when it executes, buffer is flushed, html
rendered, dom events fire, client script executes, user triggers events,
script submits a hidden form to the server, (insert first 11 items here
again), etc.. I have had to spend an inordinate amount of time breaking down
the layers and explaining "where" different pieces of the code is generated
and where it ends up executing.

On the other hand, programmers who "grew up" on the web with ASP/VBScript
(or even Perl/PHP/etc) as their native language/platform, seem to have a much
better instinct for weaving through the web - for instance, if you have to
debug someone else's code that does something crazy like:

<% = "Hello world" %>
<script>
window.attachEv ent('onload',fu nction() {
msgbox('<% = jsEscape(sMessa ge) %>', msg_onclose);
}

function msgbox(message, closeEvent) {
document.msgWin = window.open('bl ank.htm','width =400,height=300 );
setTimeout(1000 , 'msgboxReady("' + message + '", ' + closeEvent + ')');
}
function msgReady(messag e, closeEvent) {
if (document.msgWi n) {
if (document.msgWi n.readyState) {
document.msgWin .document.opene r = document;
document.msgWin .document.open( );
document.msgWin .document.title = '<% = sTitle %>';
document.msgWin .document.write ('<p class=message>' +
unescape(messag e) + '</p><button onclick="window .close()">Close </button>');
document.msgWin .document.attac hEvent('onclose ', eval('opener.' +
closeEvent));
} else {
setTimeout(1000 , 'msgboxReady("' + unescape(messag e) + '", ' +
closeEvent + ')');
}
} else {
alert('Error! Please contact <% = Application.Set tings("AdminEma il") %>
if this problem continues');
}
}
</script>

Unfortunately, there are times you have to fix someone else's code that
looks like this (don't try and run that, I just typed it as an example of
code I have had to debug.) A web programmer has to have a good instinct to
know where each piece of that code is executing in order to decipher and
debug. Of course there are many exceptions (like, umm.. the C/C++ programmers
that built the technology probably have it down pretty good) but within MY
little corner of the web, the unfortunate reality is that we are simple
hiring more 5 year web-grown, ASP programmers than 25 year C/C++ veterans -
even if they say they have 5 years of web programming. This isn't a rule of
course - we give them all an equal chance at an interview - it just seems
like we don't hire them as much in the end.

"Kevin Spencer" wrote:

Oh, I agree, Steve. There are plenty of good VB developers out there (such
as yourself!).

I also agree that a solid understanding of HTML, HTTP, and the web are very
important to ASP.Net (critically important, actually).

> But my
experience tells me you don't need to be from C land to be a solid
developer.

I agree here as well, with one caveat: You don't need to know C to be a
solid developer, but it sure helps! I could elaborate on why, but again, I'm
really not interested in a debate about languages!

prospective employees shouldn't be evaluated based on assumptions and
stereotypes.

I've always agreed with that point!

Actually, I wasn't trying to dredge up the old argument about which language
is "better." I was actually remarking on the trend toward hiring developers
who know C#, and whether it was valid or not any more.

My point is NOT that a VB developer is necessarily not as strong as a C#
developer. However, at one point there was at least some statistical
evidence that C# developers were more likely to be skilled than VB
developers, due to their background, hence the trend. You know the old
adage: The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,
but that's how you bet. I just don't believe that the language is useful any
more as a general (statistical) measuring stick.

And I'm wondering what the hiring trend is these days, whether it has
adjusted with the times. My guess would be "not yet." Corporate types are
generally slow to catch up.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.

"Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]" <St***@Orr.ne t> wrote in message
news:e$******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...

When it comes to ASP.NET development, I'd think VB developers stand the
better chance of being more experienced, since classic ASP used VBScript.
C++ programmers, while they might be smart people, don't necessarily know
anything about web development, so C++ experience wouldn't necessarily
impress me when interviewing for a web developer. C++ experience would
probably only excite me if I was hiring a developer for creating low level
software such drivers.

Then again, I've always been more of a VB guy so perhaps I'm biased. But
my experience tells me you don't need to be from C land to be a solid
developer. That's really little more than a stereotype, and prospective
employees shouldn't be evaluated based on assumptions and stereotypes.

--
That's my two cents,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP
http://SteveOrr.net

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMM ERSDIEtakempis. com> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP12.phx.gbl. ..

About 2 years ago, and as recently as perhaps 1 year ago, I can recall
seeing many posts about what language to use with ASP.Net. The consensus
was that employers paid more for C# programmers, and it seems that C#
became the darling of the ASP.Net crowd.

In the meantime, I have observed an interesting phenomenon. Originally,
employers hired programmers who used C# because it was based on C, and
the prevailing opinion was (and may still be) that C# developers were
better because they must have known and/or practiced C or C++ at some
time, which would make them better programmers overall. C and C++ are
hard-core programming languages compared to VB.

However, now that nearly everyone has jumped on the C# bandwagon, it
seems to me that the distinction between the languages has nearly
disappeared, at least in terms of evaluating programmers for hire. There
seem to be almost as many clueless C# developers out there as VB.Net
developers. Many C# developers today are basically VB.Net developers
using a different syntax. I wonder if the employers have become aware of
this trend?

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.

[Kaerber]

About productivity, I did heard from some people writing in VB.NET that
writing in VB.NET is faster, on the other hand, I've heard from people
writing in C# (and I think so myself), that writing C# code is more
error-prone and "developabl e", of course, if written right (well, only VB.NET
code which is written right, is written fast).

Another thing, I've heard about some plug-in for VS.IDE which negates the
difference in speed of development for C# coders for like 95% and allows for
almost all of that nifty features of VB.NET IDE. Though, I've not used it
myself, so I can't tell anything.

About that type written after variable, or before, I don't think that
matters, whether you write it after or before, if you do it singularily, then
synta�tic analyzer is okay with it.

Anyways, the topic is turning into "what language is better" again :)

"cmay" wrote:

I have run across a few hills that were too steep to climb. Oops.
Correction. I have run a across a few hills that I could not climb.

They

weren't too steep for everyyone to climb. How would I know that? All

I know

is, I couldn't climb them. On the other hand, I don't live near any

hills,

and climbing hills is not a good thing to do. So it really doesn't

matter.
This sounds like a good argument. So you are saying that since the
vast majority of .net developers don't use C#'s unmanaged code ability,
it doesn't really matter right?

Okay, so how do you edit and continue using the command-line

compiler? How

do you edit and continue while debugging a VB.Net file you're

composing in

Notepad? And how does Edit and Continue make your app run better? Or
perhaps, just maybe, this may be part of the "language module" that

has

nothing to do with the language, but the IDE?

Why do you get so angry when people talk about real world examples?
How many people write their C# apps in Notepad? I can understand that
you are not happy that VS.net gives VB developers some nice features
that C# developers don't have, but come on, VS.NET is the development
tool most people use. Can't I apply your earlier argument again: I
always write my code w/ VS.net, so it doesn't really matter.

ok so the ide displays the intellisense BUT it is entirely based on
information that comes from the langauge module
see last point.

See MY last point.

Okay, let's for the sake of argument assume that you have pointed up

a few

things you can do with VB.Net that you can't with C# (only for the

sake of

argument). How many of these things can you not do without? How many

of

these things affect the performance of your app? Answer: none.

Just to prove I am not mean spirted or trolling, I will absolutely
concede this point. The things I list as VB.NET "HAVES" are nothing
that are going to make a development team say "For this project we HAVE
to use VB, we can't use C#".

On the other
hand, let's say you want to write a custom image filter, to do

blurring, or

sharpness, or contrast. And you're writing with VB.Net. No pointers.

Now,

you're processing a 600X800 image. How long will it take to process

the

whole image? Well, from personal experience I can tell you that it is

an

order of magnitude slower to do without pointers. We're talking

hundreds of

times slower.

Actually, if it were an order of magnitude faster, it would be only be
10 +/- times faster. 100 times faster is 2 orders of magnitude. :)

In fact, you could not sell such an app. The competition would

kill it.

Yes, I agree. However, let me ask a few questions: If this app was so
performance intensive, why not write the whole product in unmanaged
code? Q2: How would your C# app perform against an app written in 95%
VB.NET, w/ 5% written in C# to do the unmanaged code? I'm guessing
pretty similar.

So, in terms of real value (as compared with trivial conveniences),

there is

nothing that VB offers that C# doesn't.

There is 1 difference that is not trivial, and that is productivity. I
know you argued that this was not due to VB.Net, but in fact was simply
a feature of VS. From an analitical standpoint, this may be right
(although the previous poster seemed pretty sure it was due to things
within the language module, but I don't know about that so I won't
pretend to) in practice you can develop many applications faster in
VB.net than C#. Part of the intellisense benefits of VB.NET simply
cannot be implemented in C# because of how ECMA script works. VB puts
the type after "As" so the IDE knows to provide you with intellisense.
This can't work the same in C# because you declare the type first.
Now, you are talking about real value vs trivial conveniences... How
about "this web application will take 100 days in VB.Net, or 130 days
in C#", or "to complete this project in time we need 3 VB.net
developers, or 4 C# developers". That is real value. I know you will
say that I am simply not good enough in C# and that is the only reason
why I feel vb.net is quicker to develop in, but I won't agree with that
argument.

The amount of time that the VS.Net IDE saves a developer who chooses VB
is something to be seriously considered. Is this added productivity
due to VBs use of "Dim"? No, of course not, and if I had to use
notepad and command line compiler (which I have done), I would not
suggest that VB is still more productive. But as long as I am working
in VS.Net, my choice to write as much code in VB.net will result in
more productivity.

[Kevin Spencer]

Well, as Jimi Hendrix once said, you can't believe everything you see and
hear, can you?

--
;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

"Kaerber" <Ka*****@discus sions.microsoft .com> wrote in message
news:E9******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

About productivity, I did heard from some people writing in VB.NET that
writing in VB.NET is faster, on the other hand, I've heard from people
writing in C# (and I think so myself), that writing C# code is more
error-prone and "developabl e", of course, if written right (well, only
VB.NET
code which is written right, is written fast).

Another thing, I've heard about some plug-in for VS.IDE which negates the
difference in speed of development for C# coders for like 95% and allows
for
almost all of that nifty features of VB.NET IDE. Though, I've not used it
myself, so I can't tell anything.

About that type written after variable, or before, I don't think that
matters, whether you write it after or before, if you do it singularily,
then
synta?tic analyzer is okay with it.

Anyways, the topic is turning into "what language is better" again :)

"cmay" wrote:

> I have run across a few hills that were too steep to climb. Oops.
> Correction. I have run a across a few hills that I could not climb.

They

> weren't too steep for everyyone to climb. How would I know that? All

I know

> is, I couldn't climb them. On the other hand, I don't live near any

hills,

> and climbing hills is not a good thing to do. So it really doesn't

matter.
This sounds like a good argument. So you are saying that since the
vast majority of .net developers don't use C#'s unmanaged code ability,
it doesn't really matter right?

> Okay, so how do you edit and continue using the command-line

compiler? How

> do you edit and continue while debugging a VB.Net file you're

composing in

> Notepad? And how does Edit and Continue make your app run better? Or
> perhaps, just maybe, this may be part of the "language module" that

has

> nothing to do with the language, but the IDE?

Why do you get so angry when people talk about real world examples?
How many people write their C# apps in Notepad? I can understand that
you are not happy that VS.net gives VB developers some nice features
that C# developers don't have, but come on, VS.NET is the development
tool most people use. Can't I apply your earlier argument again: I
always write my code w/ VS.net, so it doesn't really matter.

>
> > ok so the ide displays the intellisense BUT it is entirely based on
> > information that comes from the langauge module
> > see last point.
>
> See MY last point.
>
> Okay, let's for the sake of argument assume that you have pointed up

a few

> things you can do with VB.Net that you can't with C# (only for the

sake of

> argument). How many of these things can you not do without? How many

of

> these things affect the performance of your app? Answer: none.

Just to prove I am not mean spirted or trolling, I will absolutely
concede this point. The things I list as VB.NET "HAVES" are nothing
that are going to make a development team say "For this project we HAVE
to use VB, we can't use C#".

> On the other
> hand, let's say you want to write a custom image filter, to do

blurring, or

> sharpness, or contrast. And you're writing with VB.Net. No pointers.

Now,

> you're processing a 600X800 image. How long will it take to process

the

> whole image? Well, from personal experience I can tell you that it is

an

> order of magnitude slower to do without pointers. We're talking

hundreds of

> times slower.

Actually, if it were an order of magnitude faster, it would be only be
10 +/- times faster. 100 times faster is 2 orders of magnitude. :)

In fact, you could not sell such an app. The competition would

> kill it.
>

Yes, I agree. However, let me ask a few questions: If this app was so
performance intensive, why not write the whole product in unmanaged
code? Q2: How would your C# app perform against an app written in 95%
VB.NET, w/ 5% written in C# to do the unmanaged code? I'm guessing
pretty similar.

> So, in terms of real value (as compared with trivial conveniences),

there is

> nothing that VB offers that C# doesn't.

There is 1 difference that is not trivial, and that is productivity. I
know you argued that this was not due to VB.Net, but in fact was simply
a feature of VS. From an analitical standpoint, this may be right
(although the previous poster seemed pretty sure it was due to things
within the language module, but I don't know about that so I won't
pretend to) in practice you can develop many applications faster in
VB.net than C#. Part of the intellisense benefits of VB.NET simply
cannot be implemented in C# because of how ECMA script works. VB puts
the type after "As" so the IDE knows to provide you with intellisense.
This can't work the same in C# because you declare the type first.
Now, you are talking about real value vs trivial conveniences... How
about "this web application will take 100 days in VB.Net, or 130 days
in C#", or "to complete this project in time we need 3 VB.net
developers, or 4 C# developers". That is real value. I know you will
say that I am simply not good enough in C# and that is the only reason
why I feel vb.net is quicker to develop in, but I won't agree with that
argument.

The amount of time that the VS.Net IDE saves a developer who chooses VB
is something to be seriously considered. Is this added productivity
due to VBs use of "Dim"? No, of course not, and if I had to use
notepad and command line compiler (which I have done), I would not
suggest that VB is still more productive. But as long as I am working
in VS.Net, my choice to write as much code in VB.net will result in
more productivity.