Static Members

[Mark]

Hello Friends
Please check the code below.
One in C# and other in VB .Net
In C# I am not able to access a static property by an
instance variable, but in VB I can do it easily.

The Error is

Static member 'ClassInCS.ABC. MyInt' cannot be accessed
with an instance reference; qualify it with a type name
instead

Can anybody explain why there is such a difference between
to language?
Is this advantage to VB??
Or it doesn't fit in rule of OOP?
Regards
Mark.

C# Code

class MyClass{
[STAThread]
static void Main(string[] args){
Console.WriteLi ne(ABC.MyInt);
ABC a;
Console.WriteLi ne(a.MyInt); //ERROR
a = new ABC();
Console.WriteLi ne(a.MyInt); //ERROR
}
}
class ABC{
private static int m_MyInt = 1;
public static int MyInt{
get{
return m_MyInt;
}
set{
m_MyInt = value;
}
}
}

VB Code

Sub Main()
Console.WriteLi ne(XYZ.MyInt)
Dim x As XYZ
Console.WriteLi ne(x.MyInt)
x = New XYZ()
Console.WriteLi ne(x.MyInt)
End Sub
Class XYZ
Public Const MyPConst As Integer = 2
Private Shared m_MyInt As Int32 = 1
Public Shared Property MyInt() As Int32
Get
Return m_MyInt
End Get
Set(ByVal Value As Int32)
m_MyInt = Value
End Set
End Property
End Class

[Morten Wennevik]

Probably to make it less confusing. A static variable doesn't belong to
any instance, but rather to the class.
I think VB.Net does some things differently because it needs to be like VB
whereas C# was designed for .Net Framework?
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Mark <ma**@discussio ns.microsoft.co m> wrote:

Please check the code below.
One in C# and other in VB .Net
In C# I am not able to access a static property by an
instance variable, but in VB I can do it easily.

Why do you think you *should* be able to access a static property via
an instance variable?

It makes it look like the property is an instance property, so would
possibly confuse the reader. This is one problem with Java, IMO - and
it's led a lot of people to write silly code like:

Thread.currentT hread().sleep(5 000);

when they really mean

Thread.sleep(50 00);

- but the first version makes it look like you could call sleep() on a
particular thread to send it to sleep.

Basically I view this as a flaw in VB.NET, not in C#.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[One Handed Man [ OHM# ]]

Morton, what you have written is fundementally wrong.

VB.NET and C# are *BOTH* written for the .NET Framework.

The problem here is that Static members in C# are prevented from being
called through an instance of the class they are members of. This *ought*
to be the case for VB.NET as well in my opinion.

What John Skeet said was absolutely correct. In VB.NET you can do this

Dim a As Char = '1'
a.IsDigit(a)
or
Char.IsDigit(a)
In C# you 'Must' do this
char.IsDigit( . . . )

Making it far more readable IMHO.

Regards - OHM

Morten Wennevik wrote:

Probably to make it less confusing. A static variable doesn't belong
to any instance, but rather to the class.
I think VB.Net does some things differently because it needs to be
like VB whereas C# was designed for .Net Framework?

--
Best Regards - OHM

O_H_M{at}BTInte rnet{dot}com

[One Handed Man [ OHM# ]]

The issue here is that Static members in C# are prevented from being
called through an instance of the class they are members of. This ought
to be the case for VB.NET as well in my opinion.

What John Skeet said was absolutely correct. In VB.NET you can do this

Dim a As Char = '1'
a.IsDigit(a)
or
Char.IsDigit(a)
In C# you 'Must' do this
char.IsDigit( . . . )

Making it far more readable IMHO.

Regards - OHM

[Morten Wennevik]

I stand corrected, VB.NET is of course written for .Net Framework

My point is that VB.NET is a conversion of VB to make it "for .Net
Framework" (Like J#, which could be called "Java.Net")

C# however has no non framework counterpart and where VB.NET can't stray
too far from the original VB the designers of C# were free to make a
programming language tailored for .Net framework, while also getting rid
of many uncertainties found in C/C++ VB and Java.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

[One Handed Man [ OHM# ]]

My point is that VB.NET is a conversion of VB to make it "for .Net
Framework" (Like J#, which could be called "Java.Net") J# was never intended to be a serious tool for development in .NET in my
opinion. It was simply a way to leverage brand J into NET world after all
that nasty business with Sun. I also think it would be more correct to say
that VB.NET was re-written rather than converted.
C# however has no non framework counterpart and where VB.NET can't
stray too far from the original VB the designers of C# were free to
make a programming language tailored for .Net framework, while also
getting rid of many uncertainties found in C/C++ VB and Java.

C# does not derive from a single not net base. I think if you look at it
it looks like some of the best of Java and C++
--
Best Regards - OHM

O_H_M{at}BTInte rnet{dot}com

[Cor]

Hi OHM,

I respectfully disagree.

From the European languages has the English language something strange.

While languages as German, French and Spanish are very strict and other
languages by instance Dutch have/are adopting in the language not existing
words from all kind of languages (Chinese, French, Italian, Portuguese,
Jadish etc) is English totally different.

It is (as far as I know) a mixture between the old French language, original
Gallic and the old North Sea language.

Therefore, English has many words, which are almost the same or often the
same that even does not look at each other.

In my opinion, that does not make the English language incorrect or other
languages better.

Just my thought.

Cor

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Cor <no*@non.com> wrote:

I respectfully disagree.

From the European languages has the English language something strange.

While languages as German, French and Spanish are very strict and other
languages by instance Dutch have/are adopting in the language not existing
words from all kind of languages (Chinese, French, Italian, Portuguese,
Jadish etc) is English totally different.

It is (as far as I know) a mixture between the old French language, original
Gallic and the old North Sea language.

Therefore, English has many words, which are almost the same or often the
same that even does not look at each other.

In my opinion, that does not make the English language incorrect or other
languages better.

I don't see what relevance your analogy has. VB.NET allows you to
(perhaps unwittingly) write confusing code in a way that C# doesn't. In
C# you get told if you're trying to access something as if it were an
instance member - what's the downside of that? The only *possible*
benefit of the VB.NET way as far as I can see is that you can use

a.Method()
instead of
SomeVeryLongInd eedAndAnnoyingT oReadTypeName.M ethod()

If you really want to avoid that, you can alias the type name -
although I'd be very wary about doing that.

So, as far as I can see there's a downside to the VB.NET way of doing
things, but no upside. In what way does that *not* make C# better in
this respect? (Presumably the reasoning for VB.NET working that way is
for compatibility reasons, but if so there should at least be an option
to turn it off, just like option strict.)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[One Handed Man [ OHM# ]]

Sorry Cor, I agree with Jon on this.
Regards - OHM
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:

Cor <no*@non.com> wrote:

I respectfully disagree.

From the European languages has the English language something
strange.

While languages as German, French and Spanish are very strict and
other languages by instance Dutch have/are adopting in the language
not existing words from all kind of languages (Chinese, French,
Italian, Portuguese, Jadish etc) is English totally different.

It is (as far as I know) a mixture between the old French language,
original Gallic and the old North Sea language.

Therefore, English has many words, which are almost the same or
often the same that even does not look at each other.

In my opinion, that does not make the English language incorrect or
other languages better.

I don't see what relevance your analogy has. VB.NET allows you to
(perhaps unwittingly) write confusing code in a way that C# doesn't.
In C# you get told if you're trying to access something as if it were
an instance member - what's the downside of that? The only *possible*
benefit of the VB.NET way as far as I can see is that you can use

a.Method()
instead of
SomeVeryLongInd eedAndAnnoyingT oReadTypeName.M ethod()

If you really want to avoid that, you can alias the type name -
although I'd be very wary about doing that.

So, as far as I can see there's a downside to the VB.NET way of doing
things, but no upside. In what way does that *not* make C# better in
this respect? (Presumably the reasoning for VB.NET working that way is
for compatibility reasons, but if so there should at least be an
option to turn it off, just like option strict.)

--
Best Regards - OHM

O_H_M{at}BTInte rnet{dot}com