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

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Michael S <[e-mail]> wrote:

<snip>

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.

I don't understand why passing a huge array to a method would be a bad
thing either though. Arrays are reference types - you're not passing a
load of data. What kind of problem are you thinking of?

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

[Michael S]

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

"Michael S" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP12.phx.gbl. ..

<ph************ **@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ z14g2000cwz.goo glegroups.com.. .

I have developed in every version of Microsoft BASIC from the original
ROM chip that shipped with the IBM PC, under every version of DOS and
Windows. Every single one. I finally made the jump to C# and I must
tell you I am so happy. It is true that the OO syntax of C# is true to
the principals of OO so that it will change the way you think when you
program. When I was trying to do OO in VB, I carried with me all my
experience as dead weight and did not do real OO programming. Your
programmers will be better programmers in the long run if they learn
C#. Your code will be more maintainable and you will have a better
product.

I so totally agree with you.

I remember when I learned how VB.NET handles their weird AND/OR handling
by introducing AndAlso/OrElse. Didn't know if to cry or laugh. What a
stupid thing to do.

My good lord that's awful, the amount of patchwork being applied to the
already confusing language is just going to make it ten times worse.

I'll give you some more 'ammo' for your meeting:

1. Strict Option Off
You are allowed to turn explicit casting off. This was done to make porting
of VB6 code easier. Also why they gave the language AndAlso and OrElse. The
whole syntax is created for easy-porting-purposes. The problem is that
porting Object-Based code into Object-Oriented code is a dumb idea from the
start. Who would 'port' JavaScript into C++? You don't port stuff like that.
You re-write the code and only port (re-use) the idea and feature, not the
design.

C# was not designed for porting, but to be a clever language. I think it is.

2. No-mans land.
At my work we mostly do Java, C#, C++ and Delphi (which is not really a
no-mans land, as most Delphites knows C++ ).

I say mostly - as sometimes our customers wants and insists on VB.NET. And,
like the dirty whores we are, we are happy to supply such a perverted
service. We hide behind the old - The Customer Is Always Right, as not to
offend whores. =)

However, for projects written in C#, we can always call on a Java or C++
developer to help us out if we are out of girl-power. While having a Javait
in your code, not coding a property Count, but insists on writing a
getCount() method, things are not that bad. Atleast the code is dandy and
written in a good pace. And while it may take her some time before she
fathoms that why she can't seem to find a StringBuffer anywhere, not even in
System.Text, is that it is called StringBuilder in .NET. She might grunt a
bit and may need some help, but she gets the job done.

If the same girl was to venture into a VB.NET project she would be doomed.
How would she know that she can't use And but must use AndAlso to get her
if-statements to work. How would you tell her that there are no braces and
that 'for' meets 'next', 'if' meets a 'end if', while 'while' meets a
'wend'.

Actually, I've seen this happen. But it was a guy and not a girl. And he got
so mad he almost screamed at me in frustration - Get me out of this NOW, or
I'll RESIGN!

3. Visual Basic Sucks So Hard It Bends Light.
This is my E=mc^2 argument. I think VB.NET is a gravity-well. Not really a
black-hole as time doesn't really stop, but it slows down a bit, and as time
== money, it earns you less money. While I don't care so much about money, I
rather see it as doing more work for less result.

While a VBers (or Delphites, like myself) may always claim, - 'I write so
fast in my favourite language, you won't know the difference'; both basic
and pascal are verbose languages and you could go faster. Once you talk
Algol-style languages like C#, C++ and Java fluently, you are quite fast in
doing JavaScript for a browser also.

4. Cognition
Our brains are wired to grasp the world in the following order; type,
identity and value.
For the science of this, please use google. I've written several posts on
this here, so you could always google groups for my long (and quite funny)
example.

Anyways, here is a short example;

int i = 5; //type first, identity second and value last.

Dim i as Long 'Dim is useless, identity comes before type. What is it's
value?
i = 5 'Value is not in context with type or identity.

While few studies have been done and nothing proven (how do you prove this?)
our brains tend to work harder when we code basic and pascal, and spend less
energy when doing the algol-style coding our brains like. Wirth did it wrong
when he designed pascal, while Ritchie just happened to get it right. I
don't think any of them even gave it a thought.

Well, there you have another four reasons for staying away from VB.NET.

Happy Coding
- Michael S

[Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]]

Mantorok,
VB.NET is really a first-class member of the .Net family, although I do not
use it myself if I can possibly avoid doing so. I just don't like it anymore
now that I have C#.

The main issue I have with VB.NET is that it brings with it a lot of the
"culture" of the previous Classic VB mentality - and with that, the
sloppiness and potential runtime errors that can come with not setting Option
Strict and Option Explicit to "On" and extensive use of the
Microsoft.Visua lBasic namespace - when the .NET Framework BCL proper already
has everything you need. In addition, you might want to mention to your boss
that unfortunately, the Microsoft.Visua lBasic assembly is not marked
CLS-Compliant and this can cause problems down the road. I understand,
however, that this has been fixed in .NET 2.0.
--Peter

--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com


"Mantorok" wrote:

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]

"M. Genuini" <mg******@hotma il.com> wrote in message
news:11******** *************@o 13g2000cwo.goog legroups.com...

10 INPUT "WHAT IS YOUR NAME "; X$
20 PRINT "HELLO "; X$

30 INPUT "CONTINUE ? <Y/N>"; Y$
40 IF Y$ = "Y" THEN GOTO 1O
50 PRINT "BYE BYE"

^_________^

LOL!

Yeah, I kinda expanded my code into exactly that, and got help by the
'teacher'.

He was so very cool. He was this lost nird-hippie-wannabe-left-overs who,
never really got over the political 70ies, and got hooked on computers to
escape from the horribly happy clueless elite 80ies.

Poor dude. And a great man. Sitting on his free time, learning a 8 year old
kid what a boolean is. And types.. X is variant, X$ is text and X# is
number. I guess most coders teach their kids this at even earlier ages
nowadays, but in 1982 this was pretty rare. Where would you even find a
computer in a poor suburb to Stockholm, Sweden in 1982? Bet my mom thought
he was molesting me or something *s*.

While growing up I saw him sometimes, like across the street or in a mall or
in the subway. We would just nod to eachother, but I never spoke to him.
Probably becuase while I learned to code, he became a drunk...

But I would like to meet him again. Guess I have a lot to thank him for...

Anyways, here is the cutie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_ABC80

- Michael S

[Michael S]

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.co m> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@msnews.micros oft.com...

Michael S <[e-mail]> wrote:

<snip>

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.

I don't understand why passing a huge array to a method would be a bad
thing either though. Arrays are reference types - you're not passing a
load of data. What kind of problem are you thinking of?

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

My Bad!

I ment huge structs, in loops.

I re-wrote that part a couple of times and wanted to mention value/reference
and also boxing/unboxing. It was not any good, so I erased stuff to get rid
of complex examples, and I guess array just got there and I went along
continuing writing...

Thanks Jon, for making sure people get that passing arrays is not bad.

- Michael S

[Michael S]

> New here so be kind... :)

We will be. You are most Welcome.
We only hurt veteran posters we know.... and Flamewarriors.. . and Trolls. =)

"Difference s Between Visual Basic .NET and Visual C# .NET"
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;308470

But with NET 2.0 this article is almost obsolete. And with 3.0 there will be
hardly none.
I've worked in VB6 since 1999 but since being involved in c# projects for
the past 3 years, my first preference is c#.

And so you get in here, posting a link updated in june on a legacy topic,
and then tell us you might have lost your brain since 1999, and then brags
about you getting your rationale back?

Great post!

- Michael S

ps.
Now Nicholas will spank me again for being an a-hole.

pps.
iWeb: I'm not really a bastard. Just trying to be funny. Welcome!

[Michael S]

"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <pb*******@yaho o.nospammin.com > wrote in message
news:19******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

Mantorok,
IIn addition, you might want to mention to your boss
that unfortunately, the Microsoft.Visua lBasic assembly is not marked
CLS-Compliant and this can cause problems down the road. I understand,
however, that this has been fixed in .NET 2.0.
--Peter

Nice Peter.

This is an important thing. More 'ammo' to Mantorok.

While C# is not CLS-compliant at all, for example being case-sensitive, C#
kinda inspire you to write good clean managed code.

VB.NET devs typically reference the Microsoft.Visua lBasic namespace, which
(usually) involves COM and makes the code go out of specs by ISO and ECMA.

A C# dev may not conform to CLS; He might go high on crack, and name methods
with the same name, SoHigh(), soHigh(), SOHIGH(); but I think this never
happens.

C# devs tend to know that you shouldn't expose a public overloaded operator
in a public framework, as C++.NET devs knows they shouldn't sport
multi-inherited class as public.

CLS is not a problem!

I really don't think this CLS-thingy is a problem at all; as coders who know
their code will be used by someone else, typically takes more care in making
it good.

In the meantime, VBers are including stuff from the Microsoft namespace just
to get some VB6 feel into their coding, and by so, will never run on Mono.
While this is seldom a requirement and also seldom a problem, I still get
scared. Not for them doing it, but for not even care..

A reference to Microsoft.Visua lBasic is for me a sign (proof) that the devs
are missing VB6 and would rather do that...

Put them on maintainance where they could do some serious (and important)
work, and not on development....

Just my thought.

- Michael S

[Jason Newell]

LOL @ "Visual Basic Sucks So Hard
It Bends Light".

I'll have to remember that one.

Jason

Michael S wrote:

"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

[Mattias Sjögren]

While C# is not CLS-compliant at all
CLS compliance is not a property of a language, but of the code you
write. You can write CLS compliant and non-compliant code in both C#
and VB.NET.

VB.NET devs typically reference the Microsoft.Visua lBasic namespace, which
(usually) involves COM
Involves COM in what way?

and makes the code go out of specs by ISO and ECMA.
Are you saying that you shouldn't use any libraries that haven't been
standardized?

A reference to Microsoft.Visua lBasic is for me a sign (proof) that the devs
are missing VB6 and would rather do that...

The Microsoft.Visua lBasic assembly is implicitly referenced by the
compiler (because it implements functionality required by the
language) so you don't have a choice.
Mattias

--
Mattias Sjögren [C# MVP] mattias @ mvps.org
http://www.msjogren.net/dotnet/ | http://www.dotnetinterop.com
Please reply only to the newsgroup.

[Michael S]

"Michael S" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP11.phx.gbl. ..

But with NET 2.0 this article is almost obsolete. And with 3.0 there will
be hardly none.

As you know specs by heart, wouldn't this be something you should write
about on your website.. Just an idea...

- Michael S