Which to use VB.NET or C#?

In your case, I would recommend VB.Net.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

"Jon S via DotNetMonster.com" <u2272@uwe> wrote in message
news:55d2bb6dd24e4@uwe...

Hi all,

I'm planning on developing an ASP.NET web site. I know both VB.NET and C#
but am unsure on which would be more useful to develop an ASP.NET site
with?
Also I maybe looking to become a web developer in the future so it would
help
if I use the langauge that most companies use to develop their ASP.NET
site?

Many thanks,
Jon.
--
Message posted via DotNetMonster.com
http://www.dotnetmonster.com/Uwe/For...p-net/200510/1

Nov 19 '05 #6

Jon S via DotNetMonster.com wrote:

Also I maybe looking to become a web developer in
the future so it would help if I use the langauge that most companies
use to develop their ASP.NET site?

I have worked with a ton of developers for big companies during the history
of ASP.NET and the majority of them are using C#.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

FrontPage add-ins for FrontPage 2000 - 2003

Nov 19 '05 #7

Jon Paal

if you are capable, and know hown to code by hand, then VB.net .

If you are still dependent on Visual Studio, then use C#
--------------------------------------------------------------
"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
Erward R. Morrow

Nov 19 '05 #8

"Jon Paal" <Jon nospam Paal @ everywhere dot com> wrote in message
news:uZ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

if you are capable, and know hown to code by hand, then VB.net .

If you are still dependent on Visual Studio, then use C#

C# can be written using Windows.NotePad and or Unix/Linux.vi editors. You do
not need to use VS.Net to code c# programs. These text editors train your
brain to be a very c-sharper !

John

Nov 19 '05 #9

Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]

If you plan to stick primarily with ASP.NET development then I'd have to
give the edge to VB.NET.
But keep your skills up to date with C# as much as you can just to hedge
your bets.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP
http://SteveOrr.net
"Jon S via DotNetMonster.com" <u2272@uwe> wrote in message
news:55d2bb6dd24e4@uwe...

Hi all,

I'm planning on developing an ASP.NET web site. I know both VB.NET and C#
but am unsure on which would be more useful to develop an ASP.NET site
with?
Also I maybe looking to become a web developer in the future so it would
help
if I use the langauge that most companies use to develop their ASP.NET
site?

Many thanks,
Jon.
--
Message posted via DotNetMonster.com
http://www.dotnetmonster.com/Uwe/For...p-net/200510/1

Nov 19 '05 #10

Normally I side-step the language wars as I have books on both C# and
VB.NET/VB2005, but your message does provoke a certain response.

1. I'm not convinced at all that the "capable" programmer is better off with
VB rather than C# (or the other way round, for that matter)

2. I personally believe that coding by hand (rather than using Visual
Studio) is an enormous waste of developer time with little or no benefit,
and lots of drawbacks.

After 5 years of non-stop .NET programming I'm pleased to say that I'm
hopelessly "dependent" on VStudio for its integrated IDE, its excellent
debugger, its terribly useful and programmer efficiency enhancing
Intellisense, its general ability to help manage projects and its incredibly
useful suite of tools. Now that nearly all the tool-generated code is
"hidden" in partial classes, it is even more useful.

I program in notepad (or whatever) every once in a while: to demonstrate to
a class that it can be done and why it is (in my humble opinoin) a terrible
idea to do so.

The reality is that C# and VB.NET produce equally good and equally
maintainable code and the difference between them is syntactic sugar.

--
Jesse Liberty
Author of .NET books for O'Reilly Media
Microsoft MVP (.NET)
"Jon Paal" <Jon nospam Paal @ everywhere dot com> wrote in message
news:uZ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

if you are capable, and know hown to code by hand, then VB.net .

If you are still dependent on Visual Studio, then use C#
--------------------------------------------------------------
"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
Erward R. Morrow

Nov 19 '05 #11

"Jesse Liberty" <jl******@libertyassociates.com> wrote in message
news:sP********************@speakeasy.net...

2. I personally believe that coding by hand (rather than using Visual
Studio) is an enormous waste of developer time with little or no benefit,
and lots of drawbacks.

Well, if you develope a rich UI either in Web or Win form in a hurry, then
yes, you would need an IDE such as VS.Net. But if you just develope a class
library, then notepad/vi are good enough since there is no graphical
interface needed for most class library. And you can compile the entire
library using dos command (.net command).

John

Nov 19 '05 #12

Jesse Liberty wrote:

The reality is that C# and VB.NET produce equally good and equally
maintainable code and the difference between them is syntactic sugar.

There are capabilities in C# that don't exist in VB.NET. For example, you
cannot use VB.NET to write unsafe code blocks. You can in C#. If you have
the need to use pointers, you can in C#. You cannot in VB.NET.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

FrontPage add-ins for FrontPage 2000 - 2003

Nov 19 '05 #13

WJ wrote:

But if you just
develope a class library, then notepad/vi are good enough since there
is no graphical interface needed for most class library. And you can
compile the entire library using dos command (.net command).

Why would anyone want compile at the command line? In VS.NET, I can build a
class in 2 seconds. In command line, it would take many times longer.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

FrontPage add-ins for FrontPage 2000 - 2003

Nov 19 '05 #14

> Why would anyone want compile at the command line? In VS.NET, I can build

a class in 2 seconds. In command line, it would take many times longer.
I can remember when I first started teaching myself to program in C, and by
reason of my (extreme lack of) finances, I used freeware command-line
compilers written for K&R C. I can see how someone of no financial means
might want to do so, therefore. Been there. Done that. Fortunately today,
the .Net Framework is free, and comes with command-line compilers for
hobbyists, the less financially "fortunate," and the misguided "purists."

However, as a professional, and the programming biz being highly competitive
as well as high-pressure, I don't see how anyone could compete in the
marketplace without tools like Visual Studio. It's all about productivity.

When I was a carpenter, back in Skokie Indiana, I learned a valuable lesson
from my boss. He told me that, to succeed in the carpentry biz, I should
pick up new tools as often as possible. Now that I build software instead of
houses for a living, I have found that advice even more appropriate.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

"JIMCO Software" <co*******@jimcosoftware.com> wrote in message
news:eG*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... WJ wrote:
But if you just
develope a class library, then notepad/vi are good enough since there
is no graphical interface needed for most class library. And you can
compile the entire library using dos command (.net command).

Why would anyone want compile at the command line? In VS.NET, I can build
a class in 2 seconds. In command line, it would take many times longer.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

FrontPage add-ins for FrontPage 2000 - 2003

Nov 19 '05 #15

re:

Why would anyone want compile at the command line?
Until VS.NET 2005, there was no way to compile
a class library *except* from the command line.

Even now, if using VS.NET 2005, I'd want to compile any classes
I write -from the command line- and not place my text-based
source code in the App_Code directory, where prying fingers
can easily pick up my coding secrets.

Whoever dreamed up the App_Code directory
abomination should be gunh by his you-know-whats.

The App_Code directory is a security risk.

Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"JIMCO Software" <co*******@jimcosoftware.com> wrote in message
news:eG*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... WJ wrote:
But if you just
develope a class library, then notepad/vi are good enough since there
is no graphical interface needed for most class library. And you can
compile the entire library using dos command (.net command).

Why would anyone want compile at the command line? In VS.NET, I can build a class in 2
seconds. In command line, it would take many times longer.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

FrontPage add-ins for FrontPage 2000 - 2003

Nov 19 '05 #16

re:

Until VS.NET 2005, there was no way to compile
a class library *except* from the command line.
It would have to be compiled as a separate project, I mean.

Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... re:
Why would anyone want compile at the command line?

Until VS.NET 2005, there was no way to compile
a class library *except* from the command line.

Even now, if using VS.NET 2005, I'd want to compile any classes
I write -from the command line- and not place my text-based
source code in the App_Code directory, where prying fingers
can easily pick up my coding secrets.

Whoever dreamed up the App_Code directory
abomination should be gunh by his you-know-whats.

The App_Code directory is a security risk.

Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"JIMCO Software" <co*******@jimcosoftware.com> wrote in message
news:eG*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
WJ wrote:
But if you just
develope a class library, then notepad/vi are good enough since there
is no graphical interface needed for most class library. And you can
compile the entire library using dos command (.net command).

Why would anyone want compile at the command line? In VS.NET, I can build a class in 2
seconds. In command line, it would take many times longer.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

FrontPage add-ins for FrontPage 2000 - 2003

Nov 19 '05 #17

Juan T. Llibre wrote:

re:
Until VS.NET 2005, there was no way to compile
a class library *except* from the command line.

It would have to be compiled as a separate project, I mean.

Okay, NOW I agree. :)

I'm not really following your "App_Code is a security risk" comment.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

FrontPage add-ins for FrontPage 2000 - 2003

Nov 19 '05 #18

re:

Okay, NOW I agree. :)
Good ! ;-)

re: I'm not really following your "App_Code is a security risk" comment.
Anything you place in App_Code is plain source code.

If you run your own server, maybe it's not too much of a security risk,
but if you're running your application at an ISP's server, there's no
telling into how many hands your source code could fall into.

Placing source code in the App_Code is, definitely, a source code security risk.

Instead of placing *source code* in somebody else's server, I'd rather compile
whatever it is I was going to place in the App_Code directory, and place
the assemblies in the /bin directory of my application at the ISP's server.

The risk is much diminished that way.

You still have to deal with the risk of someone using a decompiler on
your assemblies, but a good obfuscator will take care of most of *that* risk.

Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"JIMCO Software" <co*******@jimcosoftware.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Juan T. Llibre wrote:
re:
Until VS.NET 2005, there was no way to compile
a class library *except* from the command line.

It would have to be compiled as a separate project, I mean.

Okay, NOW I agree. :)

I'm not really following your "App_Code is a security risk" comment.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

FrontPage add-ins for FrontPage 2000 - 2003

Nov 19 '05 #19

Juan T. Llibre wrote:

Placing source code in the App_Code is, definitely, a source code
security risk.
Instead of placing *source code* in somebody else's server, I'd
rather compile whatever it is I was going to place in the App_Code
directory, and place the assemblies in the /bin directory of my
application at the ISP's
server.

Now I disagree. This situation has not changed from 2003. There are just
now more options available to you.

If you are moving your site to a location where you don't want source code
available, you should be precompiling the site. This creates an
app_code.dll for the classes in App_Code and the App_Code folder is not
deployed.

As with most such issues, the developer has a choice. If you choose to
deploy your source code, that's your option. However, in that case, it's
the developer who is the risk, not VS.NET!

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

FrontPage add-ins for FrontPage 2000 - 2003

Nov 19 '05 #20

re:

This situation has not changed from 2003.
But it has...

The App_Code directory didn't exist in 2003.

You couldn't upload source code in 2003, and have it compiled,
unless you used "src" in the Page directive, which is bonkers, anyway.

re:you should be precompiling the site.
That depends on what "should" means.

If you pre-compile the site, every time you update the smallest
portion of the site, the whole site has to be re-compiled.

Sometimes that's not the desired behavior.

re: As with most such issues, the developer has a choice.
We've agreed on this before... ;-)

re: If you choose to deploy your source code, that's your option.
If you need to have the most effective option, if your site needs
to be updated frequently, pre-compiling is not the best option, imho.

Re-compiling only the parts which have changed seems more effective.

But, YMMV... ;-)

Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"JIMCO Software" <co*******@jimcosoftware.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Juan T. Llibre wrote:

Placing source code in the App_Code is, definitely, a source code
security risk.
Instead of placing *source code* in somebody else's server, I'd
rather compile whatever it is I was going to place in the App_Code
directory, and place the assemblies in the /bin directory of my application at the
ISP's
server.

Now I disagree. This situation has not changed from 2003. There are just now more
options available to you.

If you are moving your site to a location where you don't want source code available,
you should be precompiling the site. This creates an app_code.dll for the classes in
App_Code and the App_Code folder is not deployed.

As with most such issues, the developer has a choice. If you choose to deploy your
source code, that's your option. However, in that case, it's the developer who is the
risk, not VS.NET!

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

FrontPage add-ins for FrontPage 2000 - 2003

Nov 19 '05 #21

Juan T. Llibre wrote:

re:
This situation has not changed from 2003.
But it has...

The App_Code directory didn't exist in 2003.

You couldn't upload source code in 2003, and have it compiled,
unless you used "src" in the Page directive, which is bonkers, anyway.

Or if you used inline code. Either one of these options is a bad idea
because you lose the benefit of batch compilation.

By "this situation", I was referring to the fact that you have the option to
copy source to the server or not copy source. That's your choice.

If you need to have the most effective option, if your site needs
to be updated frequently, pre-compiling is not the best option, imho.

Re-compiling only the parts which have changed seems more effective.

I agree. Once again, this hasn't changed from 2003. You just have more
options now. You can simply create your class libraries in a separate
project and reference them. You can then just recompile them if you wish.
As long as you don't break the binding, you'll be fine.

The point I'm making is that it is entirely inaccurate to say that the
App_Code folder is a security risk.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

Nov 19 '05 #22

Yes, there are special cases where you need C#, and I suppose one could
argue that the "my" object in VB is a more natural fit than calling it from
C#, but in fact, the differences between the two languages (unless you are
working with unsafe code) are negligible.

--
Jesse Liberty
Author of .NET books for O'Reilly Media
Microsoft MVP (.NET)
"JIMCO Software" <co*******@jimcosoftware.com> wrote in message
news:e2*************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Jesse Liberty wrote:

The reality is that C# and VB.NET produce equally good and equally
maintainable code and the difference between them is syntactic sugar.

There are capabilities in C# that don't exist in VB.NET. For example, you
cannot use VB.NET to write unsafe code blocks. You can in C#. If you
have the need to use pointers, you can in C#. You cannot in VB.NET.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

FrontPage add-ins for FrontPage 2000 - 2003

Nov 19 '05 #23

re:

You can simply create your class libraries in a separate project and reference them.
You can then just recompile them if you wish.
Are you saying that the App_Code directory is superfluous ?

;-)

re: The point I'm making is that it is entirely inaccurate to say that the App_Code folder
is a security risk.
I don't know about "entirely".

In the scenarrio I describe, which is the currently recommended
scenario in the VS.NET docs, it's not "entirely inaccurate" at all.

Also, precompiling a Web site compiles only that site, not any child sites.

If a Web site contains a child folder that is marked as an application in IIS,
the child application is not compiled when you precompile the parent folder.

Just a few things to keep in mid... :o)

Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================
"JIMCO Software" <co*******@jimcosoftware.com> wrote in message
news:eZ****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Juan T. Llibre wrote:
re:
This situation has not changed from 2003.
But it has...

The App_Code directory didn't exist in 2003.

You couldn't upload source code in 2003, and have it compiled,
unless you used "src" in the Page directive, which is bonkers, anyway. Or if you used inline code. Either one of these options is a bad idea because you lose
the benefit of batch compilation.

By "this situation", I was referring to the fact that you have the option to copy source
to the server or not copy source. That's your choice. If you need to have the most effective option, if your site needs
to be updated frequently, pre-compiling is not the best option, imho.

Re-compiling only the parts which have changed seems more effective.

I agree. Once again, this hasn't changed from 2003. You just have more options now.
You can simply create your class libraries in a separate project and reference them.
You can then just recompile them if you wish. As long as you don't break the binding,
you'll be fine.

The point I'm making is that it is entirely inaccurate to say that the App_Code folder
is a security risk.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

Nov 19 '05 #24

intrader

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:22:05 +0000, Jon S via DotNetMonster.com wrote:

Hi all,

I'm planning on developing an ASP.NET web site. I know both VB.NET and C#
but am unsure on which would be more useful to develop an ASP.NET site with?
Also I maybe looking to become a web developer in the future so it would help
if I use the langauge that most companies use to develop their ASP.NET site?

Many thanks,
Jon.

None of the answers have suggested that there are differences in that the
languages support. For example, say you need to attach a non-serializable
attribut to a field. You can't do this in VB.NET (that I know off). This
is needed when your field hold an event delegate.

Nov 19 '05 #25

riscy

If you're new on OOP, try OOP for c# book by Apress, you can get this
book from Amazon. It one of the best book to learn concept of OOP. It
cover UML as well but primary focussed in teaching OOP and C# code.

Good luck

Nov 19 '05 #26

Rote Rote

Jon just choose whats the most comfortable for you
Patrick

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

Nov 19 '05 #27

Manny G

I am using both the languages (vb.net and c#)

I use to hate vb, as I always like c, c++ and java style of languages.
Before starting with .net. I had experiance in java so c# was the
natural language for me in .net.

I had to code in vb.net for some projects and then i realised the power
of features provided by vb.net compiler. The backgroung compiling
feature is cool. vb.net is not case sensitive (which eases the
implementation of background compiler, i guess). I became a lazy
programmer after few days of coding in vb.net ;) and to my surprise, i
dint like c#, when i had to revert back to c# (though the feeling was
temp.).

C# wins hands down when it comes to redability of code. and ofcourse
some power features.

Well i wont go into tech details of both the languages.

Bottomline, choosing a language doesnt play a major role in .net. If u
have a choice then it realy depends upon personal taste. (In my case
mood).

Regards,
MannY

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

Nov 19 '05 #28

"JIMCO Software" <co*******@jimcosoftware.com> wrote in message
news:eG*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

WJ wrote:
But if you just
develope a class library, then notepad/vi are good enough since there
is no graphical interface needed for most class library. And you can
compile the entire library using dos command (.net command).

Why would anyone want compile at the command line? In VS.NET, I can build
a class in 2 seconds. In command line, it would take many times longer.

In academic environment, I did not learn Microsoft products. I took Unix and
Java. So, in front of a Unix workstation, all we got was a simple vi editor
and most of us are very very good at it. On exam time, there were two items:
a piece of blank paper and a pencil. Code it ! I know many MS/Programmers
today will flunk simple because they donot need to think, IDE does the most
work for them! It trains you to be a very good thinker without an IDE. I
have no problem with today IDE, yes, to produce a quick and elegant
prototype program to win a contract, one must need an IDE such as VS.Net.
But I bet you, students like us can write a class lib. using any text
editors 100 times faster than you guys can with your vs.net. Futher more, in
vi or notepad, we do not need intellisense feature. And very fast, no
waitting time at all !

John

Nov 19 '05 #29

WJ wrote:

it ! I know many MS/Programmers today will flunk simple because they
donot need to think, IDE does the most work for them! It trains you
to be a very good thinker without an IDE. I have no problem with

I've heard this argument before and I just don't buy it. An IDE does not
write code for you. It does not think for you. IntelliSense, color-coding,
auto-formatting, a nice debugger... these are all productivity tools, not
substitutes for thought.

In fact, your argument strikes me as being a bit ironic! :)

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

Nov 19 '05 #30

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

the .Net Framework is free, and comes with command-line compilers for
hobbyists, the less financially "fortunate," and the misguided "purists."

Yours is a very bad assumption here. I never denied the usefulness of an IDE
such as VS.Net. I was anwering to the OP that text editiors can be used to
write very good codes in any languages.
However, as a professional, and the programming biz being highly
competitive as well as high-pressure, I don't see how anyone could compete
in the marketplace without tools like Visual Studio. It's all about
productivity.

I know this. And my company knows this !
In my opinion, IDE gets you into a habit of too dependent on its automation
features.
Remember mother used to point at the TV set and said: "This is a very stupid
box !" . Remember that ?
When I was a carpenter, back in Skokie Indiana, I learned a valuable
lesson from my boss. He told me that, to succeed in the carpentry biz, I
should pick up new tools as often as possible. Now that I build software
instead of houses for a living, I have found that advice even more
appropriate.

This reminds me that our ancestors had a very simple set of chisels and
hammer and some of their arts are still very tough to be duplicated by today
modern tools !

John

Nov 19 '05 #31

> I know this. And my company knows this !

In my opinion, IDE gets you into a habit of too dependent on its
automation features.
Remember mother used to point at the TV set and said: "This is a very
stupid box !" . Remember that ?
There is a big diffference between the concept of "can" and the concept of
"will." An IDE CAN get you into a habit of being too dependent upon it, if
you're a lazy-assed couch potato. Personally, my mother taught me to work
hard. When you combine hard work with productivity tools, you get
Competition++. Conversely, hard work with lousy tools doesn't produce at the
same capacity. Laziness, with or without tools, adds up to "don't quit your
day job."

Therefore, logic dictates that in order to be as competitive as possible,
one employ ALL means at hand to achieve one's goals. I can certainly
remember my dirt-poor early days, sitting at a command-line freeware K&R
compiler, and I benefitted from the handicap. It taught me how to make
chicken salad out of chicken s**t. But now that I have great chicken and a
fine kitchen, I can make some awesome chicken salad! And it smells better in
my kitchen these days.

Of course, it helps if you love to "cook."

--
;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

"WJ" <Jo*******@HotMail.Com> wrote in message
news:eh**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:uC**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
the .Net Framework is free, and comes with command-line compilers for
hobbyists, the less financially "fortunate," and the misguided "purists."

Yours is a very bad assumption here. I never denied the usefulness of an
IDE such as VS.Net. I was anwering to the OP that text editiors can be
used to write very good codes in any languages.
However, as a professional, and the programming biz being highly
competitive as well as high-pressure, I don't see how anyone could
compete in the marketplace without tools like Visual Studio. It's all
about productivity.

I know this. And my company knows this !
In my opinion, IDE gets you into a habit of too dependent on its
automation features.
Remember mother used to point at the TV set and said: "This is a very
stupid box !" . Remember that ?
When I was a carpenter, back in Skokie Indiana, I learned a valuable
lesson from my boss. He told me that, to succeed in the carpentry biz, I
should pick up new tools as often as possible. Now that I build software
instead of houses for a living, I have found that advice even more
appropriate.

This reminds me that our ancestors had a very simple set of chisels and
hammer and some of their arts are still very tough to be duplicated by
today modern tools !

John

Nov 19 '05 #32

Kevin Spencer wrote:

There is a big diffference between the concept of "can" and the
concept of "will." An IDE CAN get you into a habit of being too
dependent upon it, if you're a lazy-assed couch potato. Personally,
my mother taught me to work hard. When you combine hard work with
productivity tools, you get Competition++. Conversely, hard work with
lousy tools doesn't produce at the same capacity. Laziness, with or
without tools, adds up to "don't quit your day job."

Says you! I have a great response to this all typed up. As soon as I can
get it posted to usenet via command line, you'll be blown away by my
incredible thought process. Just you wait!

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

Nov 19 '05 #33

Schneider

Anyone who says it's just syntax, has not done enough development in both
languages to give a fair view.

The IDE behaves much better in VB than in C#.

Some of the new features for C# in VS2005, VB has had since the first
version of VS.NET. (Backgroud compiler)

I use VS at work all day. I use VB.NET on my spare time.

What's up with the ";"
How often do you continue a line, do a line count....

C# is helps the compiler more than the user in my opinion.

Some things I do like better in C# (comp warnings), but overall give me
VB.NET!

Nov 19 '05 #34

Schneider wrote:

Some things I do like better in C# (comp warnings), but overall give
me VB.NET!

I find that when I'm reading through other people's source, C# is much
easier to read.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com

Nov 19 '05 #35

I really have to disagree with some of this:

In my opinion, IDE gets you into a habit of too dependent on its
automation features.
Yes, so do fuel injection, thermostats, word processors, watches,
telephones.... The only interesting question is whether programmers who use
the IDE write code that is less efficient or less maintainable or otherwise
"worse" than those who write from scratch. In my experience, the opposite is
true: using the IDE not only increases productivity,it increases the quality
of the code. As the IDE gets better and adds less bloat this only increases
in validity.
...our ancestors had a very simple set of chisels and hammer and some of
their arts are still very tough to be duplicated by today modern tools !

Yes, but let's see them build a jet airplane with those tools. There are a
few things you can do with a hammer and chisel that are truly beautiful, but
that does not mean that any commercial artist is about to give up his CAD
system!

The reason this discussion is interesting is that there really is a powerful
resistance to innovation in our community. I saw it with the move from ASM
to C, from C to C++, from C++ to C#, from DOS to Windows... I see it all the
time. I can only come up with three theories that make any sense:

1. Latent Luddism-- that is, the fear that the technology will displace us
2. Cognitive dissonance - one fears inability to master the change and so
denigrates the innovation
3. Sunk costs - one has mastered an older tool and doesn't want to give up
that investment

Certainly, now that I'm 50, I do find it harder to keep up with the pace of
change (and Microsoft is trying to kill us with its pace of innovation, I'm
quite sure of it), but he who hesitates is surely lost. In any case, the
IDE is an easy call: low cost and very high gain.

--
Jesse Liberty
Author of .NET books for O'Reilly Media
Microsoft MVP (.NET)

Nov 19 '05 #36

>>Anyone who says it's just syntax, has not done enough development in both

languages to give a fair view.

Maybe, but I've been writing code and books on both for about 5 years, and I
see very little difference in my own productivity or in the quality of the
code produced. But perhaps it will take another 5 years to really see it.
The IDE behaves much better in VB than in C#.
Not my IDE. It behaves about as I'd expect in both
Some of the new features for C# in VS2005, VB has had since the first
version of VS.NET. (Backgroud compiler)

Yes, and vice versa.

Really, this becomes a matter of taste (or religion if you get really
excited about it). Everytime I write a program in one and translate it into
the other (which I do all the time because of my books) I find that the
change is 99.9999% mechanical.
--
Jesse Liberty
Author of .NET books for O'Reilly Media
Microsoft MVP (.NET)

Nov 19 '05 #37

> time. I can only come up with three theories that make any sense:

1. Latent Luddism-- that is, the fear that the technology will displace us
2. Cognitive dissonance - one fears inability to master the change and so
denigrates the innovation
3. Sunk costs - one has mastered an older tool and doesn't want to give up
that investment
I can add one to the list: Future Shock. As you are my age, I'm sure you
remember Alvin Toffler!
Certainly, now that I'm 50, I do find it harder to keep up with the pace
of change (and Microsoft is trying to kill us with its pace of innovation,
I'm quite sure of it
Hey, it isn't Microsoft's fault! It's endemic. It exists everywhere, and is
a by-product of good old-fashioned competition, combined with the
exponentially-increasing technological capability that characterizes the
information age, brought about chiefly by the invention of the microchip.
Microsoft is just one of many major players in this field who are
contributing to the blinding pace of technological advancement we are
"enjoying." ;-)

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

"Jesse Liberty" <jl******@libertyassociates.com> wrote in message
news:fI******************************@speakeasy.ne t...I really have to disagree with some of this:
In my opinion, IDE gets you into a habit of too dependent on its
automation features.

Yes, so do fuel injection, thermostats, word processors, watches,
telephones.... The only interesting question is whether programmers who
use the IDE write code that is less efficient or less maintainable or
otherwise "worse" than those who write from scratch. In my experience, the
opposite is true: using the IDE not only increases productivity,it
increases the quality of the code. As the IDE gets better and adds less
bloat this only increases in validity.
...our ancestors had a very simple set of chisels and hammer and some of
their arts are still very tough to be duplicated by today modern tools !

Yes, but let's see them build a jet airplane with those tools. There are
a few things you can do with a hammer and chisel that are truly beautiful,
but that does not mean that any commercial artist is about to give up his
CAD system!

The reason this discussion is interesting is that there really is a
powerful resistance to innovation in our community. I saw it with the move
from ASM to C, from C to C++, from C++ to C#, from DOS to Windows... I see
it all the time. I can only come up with three theories that make any
sense:

1. Latent Luddism-- that is, the fear that the technology will displace us
2. Cognitive dissonance - one fears inability to master the change and so
denigrates the innovation
3. Sunk costs - one has mastered an older tool and doesn't want to give up
that investment

Certainly, now that I'm 50, I do find it harder to keep up with the pace
of change (and Microsoft is trying to kill us with its pace of innovation,
I'm quite sure of it), but he who hesitates is surely lost. In any case,
the IDE is an easy call: low cost and very high gain.

--
Jesse Liberty
Author of .NET books for O'Reilly Media
Microsoft MVP (.NET)

Nov 19 '05 #38

Hear hear!

Everytime I write a program in one and translate it into the other (which
I do all the time because of my books) I find that the change is 99.9999%
mechanical.

Yes, and it's a pain in the butt switching back and forth. I keep adding
semicolons when I shouldn't, or forgetting to add an "End whatever" line to
VB code, or when going back to C#, I find myself playing fast and loose with
case, etc.

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

"Jesse Liberty" <jl******@libertyassociates.com> wrote in message
news:LN********************@speakeasy.net...

Anyone who says it's just syntax, has not done enough development in both
languages to give a fair view.

Maybe, but I've been writing code and books on both for about 5 years, and
I see very little difference in my own productivity or in the quality of
the code produced. But perhaps it will take another 5 years to really see
it.
The IDE behaves much better in VB than in C#.

Not my IDE. It behaves about as I'd expect in both
Some of the new features for C# in VS2005, VB has had since the first
version of VS.NET. (Backgroud compiler)

Yes, and vice versa.

Really, this becomes a matter of taste (or religion if you get really
excited about it). Everytime I write a program in one and translate it
into the other (which I do all the time because of my books) I find that
the change is 99.9999% mechanical.
--
Jesse Liberty
Author of .NET books for O'Reilly Media
Microsoft MVP (.NET)

Nov 19 '05 #39

"Jesse Liberty" <jl******@libertyassociates.com> wrote in message
news:fI******************************@speakeasy.ne t...

I really have to disagree with some of this:
Certainly, now that I'm 50,

Uh Oh! Mr. Jesse Liberty, sorry to run into you. I always thought this is
one of many typical sites for twenty somethings, a nerdy type only, not for
daddy types. Why are you still messing around here at your age ? I projected
myself to pickup newspaper to read when I get to your age, every day... walk
to McDonald have a coffee and reading morning paper. Possibly go fishing....

yay...

John

Nov 19 '05 #40

Schneider

I also get some of the key words mixed-up between languages myself.

Most .NET books I have only have one language in them. Wish they did have
both. Seems they like having 2 different books Why? Will some by both? Just
more publishing hassles it seems to me...

I still think the IDE is better for VB. You may not notice them as much for
small book projects, you may need to play closer attention. Anyway I deal in
real-world projects mostly.

Seems C# always wants you to press the CTRL and SPACE where VB just knows
when to help, most help due to the VB syntax I think.

The Auto complete is better: look at places where you use enumerations. VB
pops them up for you. C# even makes you type the true/false when VB does not..

C# always wants the () when calling subroutines, even tells you they are
missing, but is too lazy to add them for you. But VB does it for you.

Case sensitive is a waste, promotes bugs, and has no real value. I like
watching VB redo my case to match my declares, confirms my memory.

Auto complete and formatting in VB is nice, I even hear C# developers say
this. In fact you can get VS Addins to improve this in C#.

Background compiler is great with multiple projects. I can change a property
and see the errors in the other projects, in C# it seems like I'm always
compiling then again if I get the order wrong.

If you are missing a {} somewhere the Syntax checker gets all screwed up in
C# and context help may no-longer work until fixed. The {} are just not as
clear a read as For Next End IF to me it really bugs me when they are close
together.

C# requires the object constructor be named the same as the class. So when I
rename a class I need to redo all my constructors. VB has New().

Select case is better and simpler.

Events in C# are a pain, if you remove the event sub, you then need to go
all the way to the top to remove the designer added code for the handler. In
VB I just remove the subroutine.

C# I must go to the property tab to auto-generate an event stub. In VB I can
do it right inside the code window dropdowns.

Navigation for Interfaces, methods sticks in C#, always goes to wrong
interface or wrong overload method.

The syntax for Inherited classes and implemented Interfaces is bad. Unless
you name them in correctly it can be confusing. Also calling base methods is
weird.

A lot of the project properties screens in the IDE have small differences
also, donâ€™t remember my issues there right now.

VB allows developer to create any overrides by using the dropdowns in the
code window, similar to the way done for events. Save the trouble knowing the
exact syntax for the method.

C# does not enforce CLS compliant code as a default. Also find it annoying
to find objects with public and privates different only by case.

Maybe there are ways to solve these little things in C#, if so someone tell
me! Anyway why canâ€™t they both do all these things? Seems a lot of the
differences a pointless.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=308470
http://www.harding.edu/USER/fmccown/...omparison.html
Eric Schneider
"Jesse Liberty" wrote:

Anyone who says it's just syntax, has not done enough development in both
languages to give a fair view.

Maybe, but I've been writing code and books on both for about 5 years, and I
see very little difference in my own productivity or in the quality of the
code produced. But perhaps it will take another 5 years to really see it.
The IDE behaves much better in VB than in C#.

Not my IDE. It behaves about as I'd expect in both
Some of the new features for C# in VS2005, VB has had since the first
version of VS.NET. (Backgroud compiler)

Yes, and vice versa.

Really, this becomes a matter of taste (or religion if you get really
excited about it). Everytime I write a program in one and translate it into
the other (which I do all the time because of my books) I find that the
change is 99.9999% mechanical.
--
Jesse Liberty
Author of .NET books for O'Reilly Media
Microsoft MVP (.NET)

Nov 19 '05 #41

> I always thought this is one of many typical sites for twenty somethings,

a nerdy type only, not for daddy types. Why are you still messing around
here at your age ? I projected myself to pickup newspaper to read when I
get to your age, every day... walk to McDonald have a coffee and reading
morning paper. Possibly go fishing....
At the age of 20, you have had 20 years of life experience, and have no
ability to predict with any accuracy what to expect at age 25 (which will be
1/4 of your current life span), much less age 50. 50 years old seems ancient
to you, as you see life from a current perspective of an entire lifetime
less than half that span of years. Therefore, while a 50-year-old can
certainly make predictions regarding probablities for a person of your age,
and with some 50 years worth of life experience and knowledge to add to the
precision of such predicions. In other words, your "always" didn't even
exist when Jesse was 29 years old, and your "always" represents less than
half of Jesse's life time and experience.

I will be 50 in 5 months, and still have a lot to learn, even though I've
always been ravenous for knowledge, and fed myself as much as I could
throughout my lifetime. But I have learned a few things. The average human
lifetime is a very long time, and the average human goes through an
incredible number of changes internally and externally in that span of time.
Nothing is certain, and trying to imagine what one's life will be like in
just 5 or ten years is an exercise in futility.

At the age of 20, a 50-year-old seems like a codger to many young people,
perhaps. But most humans don't really come into their personal place of real
power until around that age. The first 30 or so years of one's life is
merely preparation. Garaduating from high school is the beginning of one's
formal education. Graduating from college is merely the end of one's formal
education. The real school starts when one begins to participlate in the
world. And anyone in their 20s is basically a freshman in that school.

The average age of a Sentor, or President is in the 50's. The average age of
a CEO or CTO is in the 50's. The average age of anyone successful is in the
50's. Bill Gates is 50. Steve Balmer is somewhere around 50. In other words,
the people that run the world you've just started to play in are in their
50s. It is something to look forward to, and work towards, that is, if you
don't want to end up sitting in a McDonalds somewhere and drinking a cup of
coffee. Or fishing.

And remember that fruit is always at its sweetest and ripest shortly before
it falls.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

"WJ" <Jo*******@HotMail.Com> wrote in message
news:e3**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"Jesse Liberty" <jl******@libertyassociates.com> wrote in message
news:fI******************************@speakeasy.ne t...
I really have to disagree with some of this:

Certainly, now that I'm 50,

Uh Oh! Mr. Jesse Liberty, sorry to run into you. I always thought this is
one of many typical sites for twenty somethings, a nerdy type only, not
for daddy types. Why are you still messing around here at your age ? I
projected myself to pickup newspaper to read when I get to your age, every
day... walk to McDonald have a coffee and reading morning paper. Possibly
go fishing....

yay...

John

Nov 19 '05 #42

Jon S via DotNetMonster.com

WELL SAID! and I'm in my early 20's.
--
Message posted via DotNetMonster.com
http://www.dotnetmonster.com/Uwe/For...p-net/200510/1

Nov 19 '05 #43

Jon S via DotNetMonster.com

And to add I'm glad Jesse passes his wealth of experience (via books which
I've got) to freshman like me.
--
Message posted via http://www.dotnetmonster.com

Nov 19 '05 #44

Well, d**n, Jon, I wish I had that kind of wisdom when I was in MY 20's! :-D

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.

"Jon S via DotNetMonster.com" <u2272@uwe> wrote in message
news:56204c14a68a8@uwe...

WELL SAID! and I'm in my early 20's.
--
Message posted via DotNetMonster.com
http://www.dotnetmonster.com/Uwe/For...p-net/200510/1

Nov 19 '05 #45

You too? I just thought I was getting old. Really, it would be great if the
next VS had a feature to fix that for you. :-)

--
Jesse Liberty
Author of .NET books for O'Reilly Media
Microsoft MVP (.NET)

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:eZ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Yes, and it's a pain in the butt switching back and forth. I keep adding
semicolons when I shouldn't, or forgetting to add an "End whatever" line
to VB code, or when going back to C#, I find myself playing fast and loose
with case, etc.

Nov 19 '05 #46

I have two very impolite words in response.

:-)

--

"Jesse Liberty" <jl******@libertyassociates.com> wrote in message
news:fI******************************@speakeasy.ne t...
Certainly, now that I'm 50,

Uh Oh! Mr. Jesse Liberty, sorry to run into you. I always thought this is
one of many typical sites for twenty somethings, a nerdy type only, not
for daddy types. Why are you still messing around here at your age ? I
projected myself to pickup newspaper to read when I get to your age, every
day... walk to McDonald have a coffee and reading morning paper. Possibly
go fishing....

Nov 19 '05 #47

Brendan Reynolds

It's the concatenation operator that keeps tripping me up - I'm constantly
trying to write "a string" & " of text" in C#! :-(

BTW: I'm just five years behind you! :-)

--
Brendan Reynolds

"Jesse Liberty" <jl******@libertyassociates.com> wrote in message
news:Ma********************@speakeasy.net...

You too? I just thought I was getting old. Really, it would be great if
the next VS had a feature to fix that for you. :-)

--
Jesse Liberty
Author of .NET books for O'Reilly Media
Microsoft MVP (.NET)

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:eZ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Yes, and it's a pain in the butt switching back and forth. I keep adding
semicolons when I shouldn't, or forgetting to add an "End whatever" line
to VB code, or when going back to C#, I find myself playing fast and
loose with case, etc.

Nov 19 '05 #48

I can answer some of your (rhetorical?) questions from personal experience,
though I'm worried this is turning into a religious rahter than a technical
debate.

Most .NET books I have only have one language in them. Wish they did have
both. Seems they like having 2 different books Why? Will some by both?
Just
more publishing hassles it seems to me...
Some readers really liked that we did two books in both VB and C#, many
others complained that it bloated the book, and we've moved away from doing
so.
Anyway I deal in real-world projects mostly.
Not me, I deal in virtual world projects <smile>. I spend 90% of my time in
real world projects and have just not run into your experience, but that is
why they make chocolate and vanilla.
Seems C# always wants you to press the CTRL and SPACE where VB just knows
when to help, most help due to the VB syntax I think.
Sorry, don't know what you mean? Ctrl-space?
The Auto complete is better: look at places where you use enumerations. VB
pops them up for you. C# even makes you type the true/false when VB does
not..
Not my experience; Intellisense in C# does know about enumerations (though
you must use the enumeration name and then it pops up the possible values,
and that is how it should work) and when a Boolean is possible, it offers a
menu of true/false.
C# always wants the () when calling subroutines, even tells you they are
missing, but is too lazy to add them for you. But VB does it for you.
I think we're getting into trifles here, but the advantage of not putting
them in for you is if you've overloaded the method, you could well be
introducing a bug by assuming you want the one with no arguments.

Case sensitive is a waste, promotes bugs, and has no real value. I like
watching VB redo my case to match my declares, confirms my memory.
I agree. I'd like to see an option (defaulting to off) in VS that treats
case fixing in C# the way it does in VB, but there are some advantages to
case sensitivity, specifically the construct

class foo
{
int myAge;
public int MyAge { get { return myAge; } set { myAge = value; } }
}

And note that properties are much better in C#, they look to the client like
fields, to the developer like methods which is just how it should be. (My
aren't we squabbling over trivialities).
Auto complete and formatting in VB is nice, I even hear C# developers say
this. In fact you can get VS Addins to improve this in C#.

In fact, both are in VS 2005 for C#

Some folks like braces (easier to type) some folks like the more verbose VB
style. My point is that there is no objective reason to prefer one over the
other; it is a personal, aesthetic decision.

-j
--
Jesse Liberty
Author of .NET books for O'Reilly Media
Microsoft MVP (.NET)

Nov 19 '05 #49