C# and VB.Net?

[Mantorok]

Hi all

We are an organisation that use C# currently and we have some members who
are not yet trained in .Net or C#, some staff have requested they use VB
instead (probably due to their background).

Given that we are already using C# I think adding VB into the mix is a bad
idea - not with regards to the language itself but the fact that the VB.Net
coders won't learn C# and possibly vice-versa.

Apart from the business reasons not to introduce a 2nd .Net language, are
there any sites with un-biased views as to why both languages are in
effect - equal?

Thanks

[Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]]

Mantorok,

You really don't need a site to tell you why they are practically equal.
Basically, all of your functionality is going to come from the framework
itself, and nothing that the language provides.

With the exception of unsafe code, there is little, if anything, that C#
offers over VB.NET.

I believe this will change with VB.NET 9.0, however. For your purposes,
though, it doesn't matter, because your people are coming from VB6, and
aren't going to be familiar with the new language features anyway.

Hope this helps.
--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mv*@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m

"Mantorok" <no**@tiscali.c o.uk> wrote in message
news:dn******** **@newsfeed.th. ifl.net...

Hi all

We are an organisation that use C# currently and we have some members who
are not yet trained in .Net or C#, some staff have requested they use VB
instead (probably due to their background).

Given that we are already using C# I think adding VB into the mix is a bad
idea - not with regards to the language itself but the fact that the
VB.Net coders won't learn C# and possibly vice-versa.

Apart from the business reasons not to introduce a 2nd .Net language, are
there any sites with un-biased views as to why both languages are in
effect - equal?

Thanks

[Mantorok]

"Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mv*@spam.guard .caspershouse.c om> wrote in
message news:uU******** *********@tk2ms ftngp13.phx.gbl ...

Mantorok,

You really don't need a site to tell you why they are practically
equal. Basically, all of your functionality is going to come from the
framework itself, and nothing that the language provides.

With the exception of unsafe code, there is little, if anything, that
C# offers over VB.NET.

Yes - it is preference at the end of the day, our boss wants us to provide
specifics about each languag - which is wrong, it doesn't take a genius to
realise that introducing another language into the mix is going to cause
problems amongst staff.

[Ignacio Machin \( .NET/ C# MVP \)]

Hi,
They are effectively equals as practically all they use are from the
framework, that is common, the only thing that change is the syntax and just
a few other things that normally you can live without.

Having two teams that knows nothing about the other's programming language
is a bad thing though.

IMO, it's lot easier going from C# to VB.NET , I checked this first hand as
I was given a VB.net app to maintain and support like 6 months ago, it was
programmed by a consultant and I'm been updating it since then.

The other way, program C# from VB should not be as trivial though.
Have them learn C# :)

--
Ignacio Machin,
ignacio.machin AT dot.state.fl.us
Florida Department Of Transportation

"Mantorok" <no**@tiscali.c o.uk> wrote in message
news:dn******** **@newsfeed.th. ifl.net...

Hi all

We are an organisation that use C# currently and we have some members who
are not yet trained in .Net or C#, some staff have requested they use VB
instead (probably due to their background).

Given that we are already using C# I think adding VB into the mix is a bad
idea - not with regards to the language itself but the fact that the
VB.Net coders won't learn C# and possibly vice-versa.

Apart from the business reasons not to introduce a 2nd .Net language, are
there any sites with un-biased views as to why both languages are in
effect - equal?

Thanks

[Michael S]

"Mantorok" <no**@tiscali.c o.uk> wrote in message
news:dn******** **@newsfeed.th. ifl.net...

Hi all

We are an organisation that use C# currently and we have some members who
are not yet trained in .Net or C#, some staff have requested they use VB
instead (probably due to their background).

Given that we are already using C# I think adding VB into the mix is a bad
idea - not with regards to the language itself but the fact that the
VB.Net coders won't learn C# and possibly vice-versa.

Apart from the business reasons not to introduce a 2nd .Net language, are
there any sites with un-biased views as to why both languages are in
effect - equal?

Thanks

Hi Mantrorok.

As part of my work I train VB6 developers becomming .NET developers. Both
in-house, but we also sell this service to our customers. Hence, I have
trained VBers in both VB.NET and C#, and I have noticed some important
issues with the two languages.

VB6 devs learning C# - pretty soon learns to forget everything they know
about what they used to do, and adopt OO-principles. C# is new and they
think in new directions.

However, the VBers that moves to VB.NET typically have a lot slower
learning-curve. As the syntax is so like the old basic, they tend to think
of VB.NET as just another complex Visual Basic alas more complex.

And the latter group typically don't adopt OO-principles. They still view a
class as some module you just put code and som Dims in, they keep on
concatinating strings, declaring their arrays, and don't get why an
ArrayList or a StringBuilder could ever be useful. The think in terms of
variables and don't get the 'reference on stack, object on heap' model and
can't undestand why passing a huge array to a method would be the bad thing.

Just this monday I visited a customer to do some simple maintainance for
them, and their VB.NET devs still prefix their types like they was variants:
strName, lngAge, objSqlConnectio n. It is so bleeding obvious why they
choosed VB.NET, not becuase they like it, but becuase they liked what they
had. They want to continue coding in same old way as they are used to. I
think most of them are also frustrated with .NET and just think it's complex
and bothersome.

Another thing about VB.NET and OO is the weird syntax, C# maps pretty well
to common concepts in the OO world, while VB.NET is harder to teach:

If I want to make this method abstract do I mark it as abstract?

C# - - Yes.

VB.NET - No Sir! You write mustinherit.

While I hate VB in any form and truly think that Visual Basic Sucks So Hard
It Bends Light -
I tried to give you some real exemples of my experience with teaching .NET
to VBers.

Hope this helped
- Michael S

[Mantorok]

Thanks very much Micael - I think you've hit the nail well and truly on the
head - this is an excellent example to take to my meeting.

"Michael S" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:e9******** *********@TK2MS FTNGP10.phx.gbl ...

"Mantorok" <no**@tiscali.c o.uk> wrote in message
news:dn******** **@newsfeed.th. ifl.net...

Hi all

We are an organisation that use C# currently and we have some members who
are not yet trained in .Net or C#, some staff have requested they use VB
instead (probably due to their background).

Given that we are already using C# I think adding VB into the mix is a
bad idea - not with regards to the language itself but the fact that the
VB.Net coders won't learn C# and possibly vice-versa.

Apart from the business reasons not to introduce a 2nd .Net language, are
there any sites with un-biased views as to why both languages are in
effect - equal?

Thanks

Hi Mantrorok.

As part of my work I train VB6 developers becomming .NET developers. Both
in-house, but we also sell this service to our customers. Hence, I have
trained VBers in both VB.NET and C#, and I have noticed some important
issues with the two languages.

VB6 devs learning C# - pretty soon learns to forget everything they know
about what they used to do, and adopt OO-principles. C# is new and they
think in new directions.

However, the VBers that moves to VB.NET typically have a lot slower
learning-curve. As the syntax is so like the old basic, they tend to think
of VB.NET as just another complex Visual Basic alas more complex.

And the latter group typically don't adopt OO-principles. They still view
a class as some module you just put code and som Dims in, they keep on
concatinating strings, declaring their arrays, and don't get why an
ArrayList or a StringBuilder could ever be useful. The think in terms of
variables and don't get the 'reference on stack, object on heap' model and
can't undestand why passing a huge array to a method would be the bad
thing.

Just this monday I visited a customer to do some simple maintainance for
them, and their VB.NET devs still prefix their types like they was
variants: strName, lngAge, objSqlConnectio n. It is so bleeding obvious why
they choosed VB.NET, not becuase they like it, but becuase they liked what
they had. They want to continue coding in same old way as they are used
to. I think most of them are also frustrated with .NET and just think it's
complex and bothersome.

Another thing about VB.NET and OO is the weird syntax, C# maps pretty well
to common concepts in the OO world, while VB.NET is harder to teach:

If I want to make this method abstract do I mark it as abstract?

C# - - Yes.

VB.NET - No Sir! You write mustinherit.

While I hate VB in any form and truly think that Visual Basic Sucks So
Hard It Bends Light -
I tried to give you some real exemples of my experience with teaching .NET
to VBers.

Hope this helped
- Michael S

[Michael S]

No problem, I'll send the invoice. =)

"Mantorok" <no**@tiscali.c o.uk> wrote in message
news:dn******** **@newsfeed.th. ifl.net...

Thanks very much Micael - I think you've hit the nail well and truly on
the head - this is an excellent example to take to my meeting.

"Michael S" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:e9******** *********@TK2MS FTNGP10.phx.gbl ...

"Mantorok" <no**@tiscali.c o.uk> wrote in message
news:dn******** **@newsfeed.th. ifl.net...

Hi all

We are an organisation that use C# currently and we have some members
who are not yet trained in .Net or C#, some staff have requested they
use VB instead (probably due to their background).

Given that we are already using C# I think adding VB into the mix is a
bad idea - not with regards to the language itself but the fact that the
VB.Net coders won't learn C# and possibly vice-versa.

Apart from the business reasons not to introduce a 2nd .Net language,
are there any sites with un-biased views as to why both languages are in
effect - equal?

Thanks

Hi Mantrorok.

As part of my work I train VB6 developers becomming .NET developers. Both
in-house, but we also sell this service to our customers. Hence, I have
trained VBers in both VB.NET and C#, and I have noticed some important
issues with the two languages.

VB6 devs learning C# - pretty soon learns to forget everything they know
about what they used to do, and adopt OO-principles. C# is new and they
think in new directions.

However, the VBers that moves to VB.NET typically have a lot slower
learning-curve. As the syntax is so like the old basic, they tend to
think of VB.NET as just another complex Visual Basic alas more complex.

And the latter group typically don't adopt OO-principles. They still view
a class as some module you just put code and som Dims in, they keep on
concatinating strings, declaring their arrays, and don't get why an
ArrayList or a StringBuilder could ever be useful. The think in terms of
variables and don't get the 'reference on stack, object on heap' model
and can't undestand why passing a huge array to a method would be the bad
thing.

Just this monday I visited a customer to do some simple maintainance for
them, and their VB.NET devs still prefix their types like they was
variants: strName, lngAge, objSqlConnectio n. It is so bleeding obvious
why they choosed VB.NET, not becuase they like it, but becuase they liked
what they had. They want to continue coding in same old way as they are
used to. I think most of them are also frustrated with .NET and just
think it's complex and bothersome.

Another thing about VB.NET and OO is the weird syntax, C# maps pretty
well to common concepts in the OO world, while VB.NET is harder to teach:

If I want to make this method abstract do I mark it as abstract?

C# - - Yes.

VB.NET - No Sir! You write mustinherit.

While I hate VB in any form and truly think that Visual Basic Sucks So
Hard It Bends Light -
I tried to give you some real exemples of my experience with teaching
.NET to VBers.

Hope this helped
- Michael S

[Mantorok]

LOL

"Michael S" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:um******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...

No problem, I'll send the invoice. =)

"Mantorok" <no**@tiscali.c o.uk> wrote in message
news:dn******** **@newsfeed.th. ifl.net...

Thanks very much Micael - I think you've hit the nail well and truly on
the head - this is an excellent example to take to my meeting.

"Michael S" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:e9******** *********@TK2MS FTNGP10.phx.gbl ...

"Mantorok" <no**@tiscali.c o.uk> wrote in message
news:dn******** **@newsfeed.th. ifl.net...
Hi all

We are an organisation that use C# currently and we have some members
who are not yet trained in .Net or C#, some staff have requested they
use VB instead (probably due to their background).

Given that we are already using C# I think adding VB into the mix is a
bad idea - not with regards to the language itself but the fact that
the VB.Net coders won't learn C# and possibly vice-versa.

Apart from the business reasons not to introduce a 2nd .Net language,
are there any sites with un-biased views as to why both languages are
in effect - equal?

Thanks

Hi Mantrorok.

As part of my work I train VB6 developers becomming .NET developers.
Both in-house, but we also sell this service to our customers. Hence, I
have trained VBers in both VB.NET and C#, and I have noticed some
important issues with the two languages.

VB6 devs learning C# - pretty soon learns to forget everything they know
about what they used to do, and adopt OO-principles. C# is new and they
think in new directions.

However, the VBers that moves to VB.NET typically have a lot slower
learning-curve. As the syntax is so like the old basic, they tend to
think of VB.NET as just another complex Visual Basic alas more complex.

And the latter group typically don't adopt OO-principles. They still
view a class as some module you just put code and som Dims in, they keep
on concatinating strings, declaring their arrays, and don't get why an
ArrayList or a StringBuilder could ever be useful. The think in terms of
variables and don't get the 'reference on stack, object on heap' model
and can't undestand why passing a huge array to a method would be the
bad thing.

Just this monday I visited a customer to do some simple maintainance for
them, and their VB.NET devs still prefix their types like they was
variants: strName, lngAge, objSqlConnectio n. It is so bleeding obvious
why they choosed VB.NET, not becuase they like it, but becuase they
liked what they had. They want to continue coding in same old way as
they are used to. I think most of them are also frustrated with .NET and
just think it's complex and bothersome.

Another thing about VB.NET and OO is the weird syntax, C# maps pretty
well to common concepts in the OO world, while VB.NET is harder to
teach:

If I want to make this method abstract do I mark it as abstract?

C# - - Yes.

VB.NET - No Sir! You write mustinherit.

While I hate VB in any form and truly think that Visual Basic Sucks So
Hard It Bends Light -
I tried to give you some real exemples of my experience with teaching
.NET to VBers.

Hope this helped
- Michael S

[Ignacio Machin \( .NET/ C# MVP \)]

Hi,

Yes - it is preference at the end of the day, our boss wants us to provide
specifics about each languag - which is wrong, it doesn't take a genius to
realise that introducing another language into the mix is going to cause
problems amongst staff.

Well, in VB you can have a more relaxed type assignment. which is bad IMO .
string s = theDataTable("C olumn") is acceptable , no need to convert it
to string

Also something that I find incredible that in the 21th century is not
deprecated is the need to place a "_" if you want to write an instruction in
more than one line

[Harry Simpson]

A truly unbiased opinion from someone that can't even get the English
language subject verb agreement thing down.

"Mantorok" <no**@tiscali.c o.uk> wrote in message
news:dn******** **@newsfeed.th. ifl.net...

Thanks very much Micael - I think you've hit the nail well and truly on
the head - this is an excellent example to take to my meeting.

"Michael S" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:e9******** *********@TK2MS FTNGP10.phx.gbl ...

"Mantorok" <no**@tiscali.c o.uk> wrote in message
news:dn******** **@newsfeed.th. ifl.net...

Hi all

We are an organisation that use C# currently and we have some members
who are not yet trained in .Net or C#, some staff have requested they
use VB instead (probably due to their background).

Given that we are already using C# I think adding VB into the mix is a
bad idea - not with regards to the language itself but the fact that the
VB.Net coders won't learn C# and possibly vice-versa.

Apart from the business reasons not to introduce a 2nd .Net language,
are there any sites with un-biased views as to why both languages are in
effect - equal?

Thanks

Hi Mantrorok.

As part of my work I train VB6 developers becomming .NET developers. Both
in-house, but we also sell this service to our customers. Hence, I have
trained VBers in both VB.NET and C#, and I have noticed some important
issues with the two languages.

VB6 devs learning C# - pretty soon learns to forget everything they know
about what they used to do, and adopt OO-principles. C# is new and they
think in new directions.

However, the VBers that moves to VB.NET typically have a lot slower
learning-curve. As the syntax is so like the old basic, they tend to
think of VB.NET as just another complex Visual Basic alas more complex.

And the latter group typically don't adopt OO-principles. They still view
a class as some module you just put code and som Dims in, they keep on
concatinating strings, declaring their arrays, and don't get why an
ArrayList or a StringBuilder could ever be useful. The think in terms of
variables and don't get the 'reference on stack, object on heap' model
and can't undestand why passing a huge array to a method would be the bad
thing.

Just this monday I visited a customer to do some simple maintainance for
them, and their VB.NET devs still prefix their types like they was
variants: strName, lngAge, objSqlConnectio n. It is so bleeding obvious
why they choosed VB.NET, not becuase they like it, but becuase they liked
what they had. They want to continue coding in same old way as they are
used to. I think most of them are also frustrated with .NET and just
think it's complex and bothersome.

Another thing about VB.NET and OO is the weird syntax, C# maps pretty
well to common concepts in the OO world, while VB.NET is harder to teach:

If I want to make this method abstract do I mark it as abstract?

C# - - Yes.

VB.NET - No Sir! You write mustinherit.

While I hate VB in any form and truly think that Visual Basic Sucks So
Hard It Bends Light -
I tried to give you some real exemples of my experience with teaching
.NET to VBers.

Hope this helped
- Michael S