By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
443,309 Members | 1,452 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 443,309 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Microsoft Losing Interest in C#?

P: n/a
I don't know if you have noticed, but it seems like Microsoft is losing
interest in C#, and putting their energy into Visual Basic.NET instead.

For instance, online chats by language since July 1, 2004:

VB.NET 47
C# 6
C++ 8
J# 0

ADO with VB.NET 6
ADO with C# 0
ADO with C++ 0
ADO with J# 0

Windows Forms with VB.NET 2
Windows Forms with C# 0
Windows Forms with C++ 0
Windows Forms with J# 0

If you look at the roadmap Microsoft has laid out for Visual Studio 2005 and
the various languages, it appears almost all of the RAD improvements are for
VB.NET. The only thing I see coming for C# are a few language enhancements,
but really nothing for RAD. Yes, C# programmers want granularity, but we
don't get paid unless the projects go out, too! You have to get it out the
door. When is Microsoft going to wake up to this?

I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't put the same kind of energy into
the languages that start with a "C" as they do a "B"...and then they wonder
why people defect to Java, PHP, or even C++ on other platforms.

Maybe it's time for C# people to speak up.

Michael

Nov 16 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
86 Replies


P: n/a
"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lo********************@speakeasy.net...
I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't put the same kind of energy into
the languages that start with a "C" as they do a "B"...and then they wonder why people defect to Java, PHP, or even C++ on other platforms.


It's because there are about 10X as many VB programmers as there are
C/C++/C# programmers.

--
Truth,
James Curran
Home: www.noveltheory.com Work: www.njtheater.com
Blog: www.honestillusion.com Day Job: www.partsearch.com
(note new day job!)
Nov 16 '05 #2

P: n/a
"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lo********************@speakeasy.net...
I don't know if you have noticed, but it seems like Microsoft is losing
interest in C#, and putting their energy into Visual Basic.NET instead.


I would disagree entirely! If that were the case, why does C# even exist...?
It's always been my opinion that it was Microsoft's intention to come up
with a language like C# which had (pretty much) all of the functionality of
C++ but was (almost) as easy to programme in as VB. I think James Curran's
point about the number of people still heavily in the VB(.NET) camp is spot
on, but fully expect that to diminish as C# erodes the VB user base.
Nov 16 '05 #3

P: n/a
One reason why there seems to have been an apparent tendency for programmers from all backgrounds to move to C#, a uge number of VB programmers haven't moved to .NET yet. IMO there is a concerted effort to move much more of the VB6 community to managed code and with the changes introduced in VB.NET 2.0 a number of the things that made VB.NET unattractive to VB6 programmers (such as lack of edit and continue) have been addressed.

Regards

Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor

http://staff.develop.com/richardb/weblog

nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp/<eW**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>

"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lo********************@speakeasy.net...
I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't put the same kind of energy into
the languages that start with a "C" as they do a "B"...and then they wonder why people defect to Java, PHP, or even C++ on other platforms.


It's because there are about 10X as many VB programmers as there are
C/C++/C# programmers.

--
Truth,
James Curran
Home: www.noveltheory.com Work: www.njtheater.com
Blog: www.honestillusion.com Day Job: www.partsearch.com
(note new day job!)

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.760 / Virus Database: 509 - Release Date: 10/09/2004

[microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp]
Nov 16 '05 #4

P: n/a
Mark,

I said they seem to be *losing* interest, not that they didn't have any
interest before. I think C# exists because it was Microsoft's answer to
Java. They accomplished that, and now their focus seems to be on VB. C# is
floundering. My feeling is that every RAD tool they come out with on VB
(except ones which just won't work due to language differences), should be
included with, what was their flagship language, C#.

This is problem when you get marketing types running the show. They want to
pigeon hole every product. This language is for this, that language is for
that. Nonsense. C# could do all of it (other than some performance apps
that need native C++), if they put some effort into it.

Michael

"Mark Rae" <ma**@mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Oq**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lo********************@speakeasy.net...
I don't know if you have noticed, but it seems like Microsoft is losing
interest in C#, and putting their energy into Visual Basic.NET instead.
I would disagree entirely! If that were the case, why does C# even

exist...? It's always been my opinion that it was Microsoft's intention to come up
with a language like C# which had (pretty much) all of the functionality of C++ but was (almost) as easy to programme in as VB. I think James Curran's
point about the number of people still heavily in the VB(.NET) camp is spot on, but fully expect that to diminish as C# erodes the VB user base.

Nov 16 '05 #5

P: n/a
That's fine, but why don't they migrate the new features to C#, too?

Michael
"Richard Blewett [DevelopMentor]" <ri******@develop.com> wrote in message
news:#N*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
One reason why there seems to have been an apparent tendency for programmers from all backgrounds to move to C#, a uge number of VB
programmers haven't moved to .NET yet. IMO there is a concerted effort to
move much more of the VB6 community to managed code and with the changes
introduced in VB.NET 2.0 a number of the things that made VB.NET
unattractive to VB6 programmers (such as lack of edit and continue) have
been addressed.
Regards

Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor

http://staff.develop.com/richardb/weblog

nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp/<eWDRSfPn
EH******@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>
"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lo********************@speakeasy.net...
> I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't put the same kind of energy into > the languages that start with a "C" as they do a "B"...and then they

wonder
> why people defect to Java, PHP, or even C++ on other platforms.


It's because there are about 10X as many VB programmers as there are
C/C++/C# programmers.

--
Truth,
James Curran
Home: www.noveltheory.com Work: www.njtheater.com
Blog: www.honestillusion.com Day Job: www.partsearch.com
(note new day job!)

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.760 / Virus Database: 509 - Release Date: 10/09/2004

[microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp]

Nov 16 '05 #6

P: n/a
And here I thought C# was originally a knee-jerk reaction to go head-to-head
with Java. Not that I'm not enjoying the heck out of learning C#... Now
that I've written in C#, VB seems clunky and obfuscated -- I can barely
force myself to write any VB code these days...

Thanks,
Michael C., MCDBA

"Mark Rae" <ma**@mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Oq**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lo********************@speakeasy.net...
I don't know if you have noticed, but it seems like Microsoft is losing
interest in C#, and putting their energy into Visual Basic.NET instead.
I would disagree entirely! If that were the case, why does C# even

exist...? It's always been my opinion that it was Microsoft's intention to come up
with a language like C# which had (pretty much) all of the functionality of C++ but was (almost) as easy to programme in as VB. I think James Curran's
point about the number of people still heavily in the VB(.NET) camp is spot on, but fully expect that to diminish as C# erodes the VB user base.

Nov 16 '05 #7

P: n/a

"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Ue********************@speakeasy.net...
That's fine, but why don't they migrate the new features to C#, too?


What features do you mean?
E&C? The team has commited to it, just not in whidbey.
My? Not C# worthy, IMHO.
Silly IDE features? Not really important, honestly.

What is it you feel isn't there?
Nov 16 '05 #8

P: n/a
I think MSFT is just on a big push to move VB6 developers to VB.NET. That's
a big audience they don't want to lose.

--Bob

"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lo********************@speakeasy.net...
I don't know if you have noticed, but it seems like Microsoft is losing
interest in C#, and putting their energy into Visual Basic.NET instead.

For instance, online chats by language since July 1, 2004:

VB.NET 47
C# 6
C++ 8
J# 0

ADO with VB.NET 6
ADO with C# 0
ADO with C++ 0
ADO with J# 0

Windows Forms with VB.NET 2
Windows Forms with C# 0
Windows Forms with C++ 0
Windows Forms with J# 0

If you look at the roadmap Microsoft has laid out for Visual Studio 2005 and the various languages, it appears almost all of the RAD improvements are for VB.NET. The only thing I see coming for C# are a few language enhancements, but really nothing for RAD. Yes, C# programmers want granularity, but we
don't get paid unless the projects go out, too! You have to get it out the door. When is Microsoft going to wake up to this?

I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't put the same kind of energy into
the languages that start with a "C" as they do a "B"...and then they wonder why people defect to Java, PHP, or even C++ on other platforms.

Maybe it's time for C# people to speak up.

Michael

Nov 16 '05 #9

P: n/a
I'm afraid to say one word, because I get all amped up over this, but what
people call "features" of VB.NET (especially 2005) - I call a bad mistake
and a concept that "ruins" .NET in my mind. It's one thing to have
language-specific timesavers (like a tertiary expression vs. full-blown
if/then/else) - but did you know they retrofitted "line input"? and this
"My" namespace, which has functionality that is NOT in C# - not cool.
Language features that save time, sure - but actually Framework
functionality that isn't supported in another language? Not cool brother.

What you are calling "silly features" are the BEDROCK that VB6 developers
are counting on.. I can see it clearly right now.. an Excel -> Access ->
VB -> VB.NET developer (you know the kind - a "point and click duh-veloper")
can now use .NET because the language conformed to their laziness.. so now,
you take over their crappy code and it uses these "silly features" that
aren't supported in C#!!

And it wasn't until I had a long discussion with one these types of
developers about "line input".. and I gave him a couple alternatives
(basically wrapping various System.IO classes and wrapping functionality) -
but he was COMPLETELY turned off by .NET because "I have to write 50 extra
lines of code now, and it still does do what I want - it's not 'line
input'!" (although he does have a point!).

Since the very first tidbit I heard about .NET - I've always said that VB
will be the contamination in an otherwise FANTASTIC idea!! VB is the cancer
that will ruin .NET. It's not "just another language" - it's already
becoming non-standard and niche, which is what VB's problem has always been.
It's so messed up that it can get a "fresh start" where they didn't need to
be backwards compatible, but yet within 2 releases, they are falling into
old habits. This is like when you keep accidentally hooking up with an old
girlfriend, you know you shouldn't, but you rationalize it. The steering
group for VB need to just make a clean break and stop going back to what's
comfortable for once!

Ugh. I knew I shouldn't have started talking about this!
"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Ue********************@speakeasy.net...
That's fine, but why don't they migrate the new features to C#, too?


What features do you mean?
E&C? The team has commited to it, just not in whidbey.
My? Not C# worthy, IMHO.
Silly IDE features? Not really important, honestly.

What is it you feel isn't there?

Nov 16 '05 #10

P: n/a

"Drebin" <th*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qj*****************@newssvr15.news.prodigy.co m...
I'm afraid to say one word, because I get all amped up over this, but what
people call "features" of VB.NET (especially 2005) - I call a bad mistake
and a concept that "ruins" .NET in my mind. It's one thing to have
language-specific timesavers (like a tertiary expression vs. full-blown
if/then/else) - but did you know they retrofitted "line input"? and this
"My" namespace, which has functionality that is NOT in C# - not cool.
Language features that save time, sure - but actually Framework
functionality that isn't supported in another language? Not cool brother.
I don't think My exposes anything the framework doesn't support, it just may
do so in a different way or with some boilerplate code written into a method
call. The VB runtime dll already does that and it is included with the
framework anyway, its just an extra reference to make.

There are a few classes My exposes that are generated by the compiler, but a
couple of those, atleast, are generated by VC# as well.

What you are calling "silly features" are the BEDROCK that VB6 developers
are counting on.. I can see it clearly right now.. an Excel -> Access ->
VB -> VB.NET developer (you know the kind - a "point and click
duh-veloper") can now use .NET because the language conformed to their
laziness.. so now, you take over their crappy code and it uses these
"silly features" that aren't supported in C#!!
Thats a good thing, over all. More people using the platform isn't going to
hurt.

However, VB doesn't expose *much* that matters insomuch as bothering a C#
dev. Sure the langauge may work differently, and the underlying library
calls may be different, but the types are the same and thats, in my mind,
all that matters.

Default form instances may be one issue that will irk us all, but beyodn
that I don't really think the language feature matters. Even if I don't
particularly care for them myself.
And it wasn't until I had a long discussion with one these types of
developers about "line input".. and I gave him a couple alternatives
(basically wrapping various System.IO classes and wrapping
functionality) - but he was COMPLETELY turned off by .NET because "I have
to write 50 extra lines of code now, and it still does do what I want -
it's not 'line input'!" (although he does have a point!).
I can see people wanting that, and to my mind it simply isn't a big deal. I
don't want it in C#, granted, but as long as it doesn't ruin the exposed
edge of a VB assembly, I don't care if they add

Do Voodoo That Makes My App Work

To the langauge. It just *has* to work on the outside, no matter how it
hapepns to work on the inside.
Since the very first tidbit I heard about .NET - I've always said that VB
will be the contamination in an otherwise FANTASTIC idea!! VB is the
cancer that will ruin .NET. It's not "just another language" - it's
already becoming non-standard and niche, which is what VB's problem has
always been. It's so messed up that it can get a "fresh start" where they
didn't need to be backwards compatible, but yet within 2 releases, they
are falling into old habits. This is like when you keep accidentally
hooking up with an old girlfriend, you know you shouldn't, but you
rationalize it. The steering group for VB need to just make a clean break
and stop going back to what's comfortable for once!

Ugh. I knew I shouldn't have started talking about this!
"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Ue********************@speakeasy.net...
That's fine, but why don't they migrate the new features to C#, too?


What features do you mean?
E&C? The team has commited to it, just not in whidbey.
My? Not C# worthy, IMHO.
Silly IDE features? Not really important, honestly.

What is it you feel isn't there?


Nov 16 '05 #11

P: n/a
I don't know where your numbers come from.

However, if MS is losing interest in C#, how do you explain C# 2.0 and the
insertion of generics. This isn't a minor change. It's huge. And the
competition with Java isn't over. Sun is releasing a new version of Java as
we speak and guess what... it has generics! What a Coincidence! (right.)

Also, TTBOMK, the My object is just another object. If you put the using
statement at the top of your .cs module, you will be able to use it just as
well as the VB guys.

Inside MS, C# has already won. There were a large number of VB developers
in the IT group, and they are moving to C# in droves. There's hardly any VB
developers left. Perhaps that's why you are seeing such a focus on VB on
the outside... It is truly painful to be using .NET, and enjoying it, and
then to see otherwise intelligent developers who are afraid to switch
because they're afraid of a few objects.

MS has always made it easy for developers who didn't major in computer
science to write functional applications. Millions of IT applications exist
in VB, in production, in corporations worldwide. That's no accident.
That's because VB is, and always will be, targeted toward people who don't
learn "technology for the sake of technology." These are some of the most
practical people you will ever meet.

The ones left behind are a problem. They could switch over to another
language or another platform if MS doesn't show them that they care. MS put
out an excellent OO tool, and all the folks clamboring for OO jumped
aboard... and mostly converted to C#. But the ones who weren't clamboring
for a change, what about them?

MS is going back and addressing a need that they missed the first time:
making .NET so easy that even a "duh-veloper" (your term, not mine) can use
it.

It's about time.
--- Nick

"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lo********************@speakeasy.net...
I don't know if you have noticed, but it seems like Microsoft is losing
interest in C#, and putting their energy into Visual Basic.NET instead.

For instance, online chats by language since July 1, 2004:

VB.NET 47
C# 6
C++ 8
J# 0

ADO with VB.NET 6
ADO with C# 0
ADO with C++ 0
ADO with J# 0

Windows Forms with VB.NET 2
Windows Forms with C# 0
Windows Forms with C++ 0
Windows Forms with J# 0

If you look at the roadmap Microsoft has laid out for Visual Studio 2005 and the various languages, it appears almost all of the RAD improvements are for VB.NET. The only thing I see coming for C# are a few language enhancements, but really nothing for RAD. Yes, C# programmers want granularity, but we
don't get paid unless the projects go out, too! You have to get it out the door. When is Microsoft going to wake up to this?

I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't put the same kind of energy into
the languages that start with a "C" as they do a "B"...and then they wonder why people defect to Java, PHP, or even C++ on other platforms.

Maybe it's time for C# people to speak up.

Michael

Nov 16 '05 #12

P: n/a

"Nick Malik" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BAP2d.210840$Fg5.63626@attbi_s53...
I don't know where your numbers come from.

However, if MS is losing interest in C#, how do you explain C# 2.0 and the
insertion of generics. This isn't a minor change. It's huge. And the
competition with Java isn't over. Sun is releasing a new version of Java
as
we speak and guess what... it has generics! What a Coincidence! (right.)


You are aware that the JSR for generics in Java has been worked on since
1999 (see http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=14) . When, exactly, did
Microsoft begin putting them into C#?
Nov 16 '05 #13

P: n/a
Hi,

I think Microsoft is working towards C# 3.0. If not mistaken, i saw a video
from channel9.

Yeah, i agree that there are more vb.net programmers than C#. I attended a
local community in Malaysia, MIND, and there are 90% (60++) of them are from
vb.net or vb6, 3 from C# and 3 from C++ backgrounds.

:)

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" wrote:

"Drebin" <th*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qj*****************@newssvr15.news.prodigy.co m...
I'm afraid to say one word, because I get all amped up over this, but what
people call "features" of VB.NET (especially 2005) - I call a bad mistake
and a concept that "ruins" .NET in my mind. It's one thing to have
language-specific timesavers (like a tertiary expression vs. full-blown
if/then/else) - but did you know they retrofitted "line input"? and this
"My" namespace, which has functionality that is NOT in C# - not cool.
Language features that save time, sure - but actually Framework
functionality that isn't supported in another language? Not cool brother.


I don't think My exposes anything the framework doesn't support, it just may
do so in a different way or with some boilerplate code written into a method
call. The VB runtime dll already does that and it is included with the
framework anyway, its just an extra reference to make.

There are a few classes My exposes that are generated by the compiler, but a
couple of those, atleast, are generated by VC# as well.

What you are calling "silly features" are the BEDROCK that VB6 developers
are counting on.. I can see it clearly right now.. an Excel -> Access ->
VB -> VB.NET developer (you know the kind - a "point and click
duh-veloper") can now use .NET because the language conformed to their
laziness.. so now, you take over their crappy code and it uses these
"silly features" that aren't supported in C#!!


Thats a good thing, over all. More people using the platform isn't going to
hurt.

However, VB doesn't expose *much* that matters insomuch as bothering a C#
dev. Sure the langauge may work differently, and the underlying library
calls may be different, but the types are the same and thats, in my mind,
all that matters.

Default form instances may be one issue that will irk us all, but beyodn
that I don't really think the language feature matters. Even if I don't
particularly care for them myself.

And it wasn't until I had a long discussion with one these types of
developers about "line input".. and I gave him a couple alternatives
(basically wrapping various System.IO classes and wrapping
functionality) - but he was COMPLETELY turned off by .NET because "I have
to write 50 extra lines of code now, and it still does do what I want -
it's not 'line input'!" (although he does have a point!).


I can see people wanting that, and to my mind it simply isn't a big deal. I
don't want it in C#, granted, but as long as it doesn't ruin the exposed
edge of a VB assembly, I don't care if they add

Do Voodoo That Makes My App Work

To the langauge. It just *has* to work on the outside, no matter how it
hapepns to work on the inside.

Since the very first tidbit I heard about .NET - I've always said that VB
will be the contamination in an otherwise FANTASTIC idea!! VB is the
cancer that will ruin .NET. It's not "just another language" - it's
already becoming non-standard and niche, which is what VB's problem has
always been. It's so messed up that it can get a "fresh start" where they
didn't need to be backwards compatible, but yet within 2 releases, they
are falling into old habits. This is like when you keep accidentally
hooking up with an old girlfriend, you know you shouldn't, but you
rationalize it. The steering group for VB need to just make a clean break
and stop going back to what's comfortable for once!

Ugh. I knew I shouldn't have started talking about this!
"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Ue********************@speakeasy.net...
That's fine, but why don't they migrate the new features to C#, too?

What features do you mean?
E&C? The team has commited to it, just not in whidbey.
My? Not C# worthy, IMHO.
Silly IDE features? Not really important, honestly.

What is it you feel isn't there?



Nov 16 '05 #14

P: n/a
"Nick Malik" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BAP2d.210840$Fg5.63626@attbi_s53...
MS has always made it easy for developers who didn't major in computer
science to write functional applications. Millions of IT applications
exist
in VB, in production, in corporations worldwide. That's no accident.
That's because VB is, and always will be, targeted toward people who don't
learn "technology for the sake of technology." These are some of the most
practical people you will ever meet.


They say that there are more lines of VB code in existence than all other
programming languages combined...
Nov 16 '05 #15

P: n/a
Michael Adams wrote:
I don't know if you have noticed, but it seems like Microsoft is
losing interest in C#, and putting their energy into Visual Basic.NET
instead. [...] If you look at the roadmap Microsoft has laid out for Visual Studio
2005 and the various languages, it appears almost all of the RAD
improvements are for VB.NET. The only thing I see coming for C# are
a few language enhancements, but really nothing for RAD.


What are these features? The only one I'm aware of is Edit and Continue, and
that seems to be a feature mostly desired by the die-hard VB6 developers.

Cheers,
--
Joerg Jooss
jo*********@gmx.net
Nov 16 '05 #16

P: n/a
Michael Adams wrote:
I don't know if you have noticed, but it seems like Microsoft is losing
interest in C#, and putting their energy into Visual Basic.NET instead.

For instance, online chats by language since July 1, 2004:

VB.NET 47
C# 6
C++ 8
J# 0

ADO with VB.NET 6
ADO with C# 0
ADO with C++ 0
ADO with J# 0

Windows Forms with VB.NET 2
Windows Forms with C# 0
Windows Forms with C++ 0
Windows Forms with J# 0

If you look at the roadmap Microsoft has laid out for Visual Studio 2005 and
the various languages, it appears almost all of the RAD improvements are for
VB.NET. The only thing I see coming for C# are a few language enhancements,
but really nothing for RAD. Yes, C# programmers want granularity, but we
don't get paid unless the projects go out, too! You have to get it out the
door. When is Microsoft going to wake up to this?

I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't put the same kind of energy into
the languages that start with a "C" as they do a "B"...and then they wonder
why people defect to Java, PHP, or even C++ on other platforms.

Maybe it's time for C# people to speak up.


Maybe Microsoft thinks the VB.NET people need more education or more media
content to make them use VB.NET.

C# is not getting more RAD than VB.NET for a reason: positioning of
languages. If C# and VB.NET have both the same RAD and other features, users
get confused what to use: C# or VB.NET? Now it gets more clear, which IMHO is
a good thing.

Oh, and about losing interest: .NET is written in C#, .NET is / will be a
cornerstone of MS' activities. I don't think C# will go away anytime soon :)

FB

--
Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft C# MVP
Nov 16 '05 #17

P: n/a
Drebin wrote:
I'm afraid to say one word, because I get all amped up over this, but what
people call "features" of VB.NET (especially 2005) - I call a bad mistake
and a concept that "ruins" .NET in my mind. It's one thing to have
language-specific timesavers (like a tertiary expression vs. full-blown
if/then/else) - but did you know they retrofitted "line input"? and this
"My" namespace, which has functionality that is NOT in C# - not cool.
Language features that save time, sure - but actually Framework
functionality that isn't supported in another language? Not cool brother.
erm... all 'My' does is grouping framework methods into a single utility
class. Oh my... :)

Tell me, which feature of My is not in the framework and thus not available
to C# developers? No I don't think calling a method in My is saving me time
over calling a method on a framework class...
What you are calling "silly features" are the BEDROCK that VB6 developers
are counting on.. I can see it clearly right now.. an Excel -> Access ->
VB -> VB.NET developer (you know the kind - a "point and click
duh-veloper") can now use .NET because the language conformed to their
laziness.. so now, you take over their crappy code and it uses these "silly
features" that aren't supported in C#!!
I don't get your point. I'm talking about professional software development.
When the words 'professional software development' enter the equation, people
who don't know what software development means should step back and get a
coffee or something.

You don't need IDE sugar to create professional software as in: if these
features aren't there, it seems impossible to write professional software. If
people can't write professional software without these features, they're IMHO
not professionals and why would a professional writing software in C# have to
deal with their code?

(for the people ready to butcher me: I think you can also write professional
software in VB.NET, the language really isn't important for professional
software development)
And it wasn't until I had a long discussion with one these types of
developers about "line input".. and I gave him a couple alternatives
(basically wrapping various System.IO classes and wrapping functionality) -
but he was COMPLETELY turned off by .NET because "I have to write 50 extra
lines of code now, and it still does do what I want - it's not 'line
input'!" (although he does have a point!).
no he doesn't have a point. Professional software development isn't about
putting 4 blocks together and a single window with one button which says "get
rich". It's about theory, design, algorithms and what have you. The people
who are turned off because they have to write a couple of lines of code are
also the ones who ruin software projecs by dragging/dropping data-adapters on
webforms, inserting raw SQL into the webform and then wonder why maintaining
the crud they created takes a lot of time and money.

Professional software development is hard work. It's not for people who
think they know the difference between a keyboard and a mouse. I hope for all
mankind that the average doctor in an average hospital is more professional
than these 'professionals' who apparently are too lazy to think for 2 seconds
straight.
Since the very first tidbit I heard about .NET - I've always said that VB
will be the contamination in an otherwise FANTASTIC idea!! VB is the cancer
that will ruin .NET.
Heh. :). No I won't go that far, it's a decent language and for what's
worth: their editor kicks C#'s editor butt bigtime. I've done a lot of C# ->
VB.NET porting (our templates are first written in C# and then backported to
VB.NET) in non-intellisense editors. Trust me, I'm not a fan of the language,
to say the least :) (every time I run into an overloads overrides construct
because an abstract method is implemented I really wonder what Vick was
thinking). However calling it the thing that will ruin .NET is way too harsh.
In fact, I think VB.NET is the savior for .NET, for the sole reason that the
vast majority of the developers targeting MS platforms work in VB or VB based
languages.
It's not "just another language" - it's already
becoming non-standard and niche, which is what VB's problem has always
been. It's so messed up that it can get a "fresh start" where they didn't
need to be backwards compatible, but yet within 2 releases, they are
falling into old habits. This is like when you keep accidentally hooking up
with an old girlfriend, you know you shouldn't, but you rationalize it. The
steering group for VB need to just make a clean break and stop going back
to what's comfortable for once!
I agree with you that they didn't do a good job designing the language.
Whoever decided that On Error Resume Next was necessary in VB.NET should get
fired right there on the spot. Or the fantastic decision of having a single
interface implementation per inheritance hierarchy. This means that in VB.NET
you can't inherit from DataTable and add your own serialization code. Erm...
Ugh. I knew I shouldn't have started talking about this!
heh :) Well, for kicks you could have crossposted it to the vb.net newsgroup
;)

FB


"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Ue********************@speakeasy.net...
That's fine, but why don't they migrate the new features to C#, too?


What features do you mean?
E&C? The team has commited to it, just not in whidbey.
My? Not C# worthy, IMHO.
Silly IDE features? Not really important, honestly.

What is it you feel isn't there?


--
Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft C# MVP
Nov 16 '05 #18

P: n/a
Mark Rae wrote:
"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lo********************@speakeasy.net...
I don't know if you have noticed, but it seems like Microsoft is losing
interest in C#, and putting their energy into Visual Basic.NET instead.


I would disagree entirely! If that were the case, why does C# even
exist...? It's always been my opinion that it was Microsoft's intention to
come up with a language like C# which had (pretty much) all of the
functionality of C++ but was (almost) as easy to programme in as VB. I
think James Curran's point about the number of people still heavily in the
VB(.NET) camp is spot on, but fully expect that to diminish as C# erodes
the VB user base.


I have to say though that with the .NET 2.0 MC++ enhancements, it begins to
look like a very appealing language.

FB

--
Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft C# MVP
Nov 16 '05 #19

P: n/a
Hi Mark,

I do not post "answers" here because I am new to C#. I am, however, a bit
of a computer history buff. I would doubt that the lines of VB code has
even passed COBOL, let alone "all other programming languages combined." I
wish I had the facts to back this assertion up, but I do not. I fully
understand that "lines" is a rubber ruler. Much of Object Orientated
Programming is done by setting properties in the IDE rather than in code.
COBOL is a very verbose language leading to lots of lines. VB and even
FORTRAN encourage programmers to use subroute (class) libraries while COBOL
programmers like to integrate earlier source code into new projects.

Now if you are talking about new lines of code written in the year 2003, you
might have a point. Even then, you need to account for the use of exotic
languages, like ADA for the American defense establishment. Keep in mind
the recent stories of the hurricane forecasting models written in, of all
things, FORTRAN! If you have some statistics, I would love to see them.

Cheers,

Bob

--
Robert Schuldenfrei
S. I. Inc.
32 Ridley Road
Dedham, MA 02026
bo*@s-i-inc.com
781/329-4828
"Mark Rae" <ma**@mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ov**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"Nick Malik" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BAP2d.210840$Fg5.63626@attbi_s53...
MS has always made it easy for developers who didn't major in computer
science to write functional applications. Millions of IT applications
exist
in VB, in production, in corporations worldwide. That's no accident.
That's because VB is, and always will be, targeted toward people who don't learn "technology for the sake of technology." These are some of the most practical people you will ever meet.


They say that there are more lines of VB code in existence than all other
programming languages combined...

Nov 16 '05 #20

P: n/a
Actually, I think My is a great idea that should be in the framework, not
just vb. It should be in the framework so all .Net langs and MSH could call
on it and leverage the same classes. In "My" mind, my is both a way to
aggregate dispurse namespaces into more natural one and aggregate multiple
apis/classes into fewer. I think there is also more function then just
namespace wrapping..

--
William Stacey, MVP

"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <pe******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:xn***************@msnews.microsoft.com...
Drebin wrote:
I'm afraid to say one word, because I get all amped up over this, but what people call "features" of VB.NET (especially 2005) - I call a bad mistake and a concept that "ruins" .NET in my mind. It's one thing to have
language-specific timesavers (like a tertiary expression vs. full-blown
if/then/else) - but did you know they retrofitted "line input"? and this
"My" namespace, which has functionality that is NOT in C# - not cool.
Language features that save time, sure - but actually Framework
functionality that isn't supported in another language? Not cool brother.

erm... all 'My' does is grouping framework methods into a single utility
class. Oh my... :)

Tell me, which feature of My is not in the framework and thus not available to C# developers? No I don't think calling a method in My is saving me time over calling a method on a framework class...
What you are calling "silly features" are the BEDROCK that VB6
developers are counting on.. I can see it clearly right now.. an Excel -> Access ->
VB -> VB.NET developer (you know the kind - a "point and click
duh-veloper") can now use .NET because the language conformed to their
laziness.. so now, you take over their crappy code and it uses these "silly features" that aren't supported in C#!!


I don't get your point. I'm talking about professional software

development. When the words 'professional software development' enter the equation, people who don't know what software development means should step back and get a
coffee or something.

You don't need IDE sugar to create professional software as in: if these
features aren't there, it seems impossible to write professional software. If people can't write professional software without these features, they're IMHO not professionals and why would a professional writing software in C# have to deal with their code?

(for the people ready to butcher me: I think you can also write professional software in VB.NET, the language really isn't important for professional
software development)
And it wasn't until I had a long discussion with one these types of
developers about "line input".. and I gave him a couple alternatives
(basically wrapping various System.IO classes and wrapping functionality) - but he was COMPLETELY turned off by .NET because "I have to write 50 extra lines of code now, and it still does do what I want - it's not 'line
input'!" (although he does have a point!).
no he doesn't have a point. Professional software development isn't about
putting 4 blocks together and a single window with one button which says

"get rich". It's about theory, design, algorithms and what have you. The people
who are turned off because they have to write a couple of lines of code are also the ones who ruin software projecs by dragging/dropping data-adapters on webforms, inserting raw SQL into the webform and then wonder why maintaining the crud they created takes a lot of time and money.

Professional software development is hard work. It's not for people who
think they know the difference between a keyboard and a mouse. I hope for all mankind that the average doctor in an average hospital is more professional than these 'professionals' who apparently are too lazy to think for 2 seconds straight.
Since the very first tidbit I heard about .NET - I've always said that VB will be the contamination in an otherwise FANTASTIC idea!! VB is the cancer that will ruin .NET.
Heh. :). No I won't go that far, it's a decent language and for what's
worth: their editor kicks C#'s editor butt bigtime. I've done a lot of

C# -> VB.NET porting (our templates are first written in C# and then backported to VB.NET) in non-intellisense editors. Trust me, I'm not a fan of the language, to say the least :) (every time I run into an overloads overrides construct because an abstract method is implemented I really wonder what Vick was
thinking). However calling it the thing that will ruin .NET is way too harsh. In fact, I think VB.NET is the savior for .NET, for the sole reason that the vast majority of the developers targeting MS platforms work in VB or VB based languages.
It's not "just another language" - it's already
becoming non-standard and niche, which is what VB's problem has always
been. It's so messed up that it can get a "fresh start" where they didn't need to be backwards compatible, but yet within 2 releases, they are
falling into old habits. This is like when you keep accidentally hooking up with an old girlfriend, you know you shouldn't, but you rationalize it. The steering group for VB need to just make a clean break and stop going back to what's comfortable for once!
I agree with you that they didn't do a good job designing the language.
Whoever decided that On Error Resume Next was necessary in VB.NET should

get fired right there on the spot. Or the fantastic decision of having a single interface implementation per inheritance hierarchy. This means that in VB.NET you can't inherit from DataTable and add your own serialization code. Erm...
Ugh. I knew I shouldn't have started talking about this!
heh :) Well, for kicks you could have crossposted it to the vb.net

newsgroup ;)

FB


"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Ue********************@speakeasy.net...
> That's fine, but why don't they migrate the new features to C#, too?

What features do you mean?
E&C? The team has commited to it, just not in whidbey.
My? Not C# worthy, IMHO.
Silly IDE features? Not really important, honestly.

What is it you feel isn't there?


--
Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft C# MVP


Nov 16 '05 #21

P: n/a
William Stacey [MVP] wrote:
Actually, I think My is a great idea that should be in the framework, not
just vb. It should be in the framework so all .Net langs and MSH could call
on it and leverage the same classes. In "My" mind, my is both a way to
aggregate dispurse namespaces into more natural one and aggregate multiple
apis/classes into fewer. I think there is also more function then just
namespace wrapping..


Isn't 'My' in the framework btw? Or is it a native VB.NET keyword? I haven't
checked, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a class which can be
referenced from C# as well...

FB
--
Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft C# MVP
Nov 16 '05 #22

P: n/a
Drebin wrote:


"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <pe******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
I don't get your point. I'm talking about professional software
development.
When the words 'professional software development' enter the equation,
people
who don't know what software development means should step back and get a
coffee or something.
hahahahahaha :-) oh man.. If only real life were this simple!! I assume
you are either still in an academic setting (university?) or went right to
a strict programming environment (like a hardcore software company?)..


I got my B.sc in 1994, so that leaves me with the second option ;)
but
80% of the "professional" software developers out there are in NO WAY
professional. I would LOVE an ideal world where everyone I work with is
competent and creative, but it just isn't so. Instead, MOST of the
"regular" developers that work at "regular" companies are lazy,
not-so-bright and/or very unmotivated - and worst of all hate change.
Imagine that? A developer who hates change? Ugh.


Yeah, I've worked among them, for several years actually :) I know they
exist but I don't call them professionals per se.
In fact, I think VB.NET is the savior for .NET, for the sole reason that
the
vast majority of the developers targeting MS platforms work in VB or VB
based languages.


Sadly, this is Microsofts point too - and what you guys are getting is, a
developer is not a developer. As a generalization, VB developers are the
ones I mentioned above. Everyone is so wrapped up in converting VB6
duh-velopers, that no one stopped to realize you're attracting the wrong
kind of people!! Quantity != Quality


But hasn't this always been the case? I'm not against lower skilled people
in the software business, and I really don't care which language they
use/prefer, it's just that not everyone should be seen as a highly
trained/skilled professional because not everyone is a highly trained/skilled
professional. Also, I don't think a platform needs solely those highly
trained professionals as it would result in a lot of people who opt for the
complex tasks but almost no-one who wants to/will do the not so complex tasks
which also have to be done. Not everyone can be a lead-developer in a
project, you need a lot of hands doing the typing too :)

Frans.

--
Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com
My .NET Blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma
Microsoft C# MVP
Nov 16 '05 #23

P: n/a

"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <pe******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:xn***************@msnews.microsoft.com...
William Stacey [MVP] wrote:
Actually, I think My is a great idea that should be in the framework, not
just vb. It should be in the framework so all .Net langs and MSH could
call
on it and leverage the same classes. In "My" mind, my is both a way to
aggregate dispurse namespaces into more natural one and aggregate
multiple
apis/classes into fewer. I think there is also more function then just
namespace wrapping..


Isn't 'My' in the framework btw? Or is it a native VB.NET keyword? I
haven't
checked, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a class which can be
referenced from C# as well...


My is a combination of a namespace within Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll and some
code generated by the vb compiler.

The vb compiler\IDE(not sure of which at this point) generates a set of
partial classes in the my namespace, MySettings, MyResources, MyForms(IIRC,
anyway), which provide convient functinoality via a standard My. interface.
There may also be some compiler based aggregation that allows My. to have
some functionality the compiler divines instead of coming from code
generated by the IDE or written by the user. I am, obviously, not a VB
master, lol. This might be something worth posting to the vb group, however.
I'm sure one of the VB MVP's knows quite precisely how My works.

Because of this, My's functionality isn't *entirely* available in other
languages, but much of it should be via Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll and the
IDE itself. For example, in whidbey, VC# generates a Settings.cs file using
the new SettingsBase functionality in the framework when you add a setting
in a projects properties. I think it does something similar for resources,
etc.

My in and of itself is not something I would personally like to see in C#.
It just isn't a feature I consider to be particularly valuable to my work,
appropriate within the C# philosophy, and I do worry that it will start to
drive the quality of developer down as he trys to fit everything into the
"My" mold, instead of the framework itself.

I hope VB doesn't have an issue with it, because I do think its a wonderful
feature insofar as the classic VB mindset goes. I suspect it will go easier
for VB devs than it would for C#\C++ ones, at that. Any VB dev who used VB6
or earlier should, by this point, be quite able to recognize the limitations
of the langauge's features and know when its time to step out into the
framework(or even other languages).
I suspect many C# devs would either shun the namespace entirely or not be as
able to stop using it as they would need to be, simply out of lack of
experiance.
Nov 16 '05 #24

P: n/a
> Oh, and about losing interest: .NET is written in C#, .NET is / will be a
cornerstone of MS' activities. I don't think C# will go away anytime soon :)


What do you mean about .NET being written in C#? Are you talking
about The Class Library? Visual studio?

I can't imagine the CLR is written in a .net language. What do you
mean exactly?

And I certainly hope MS decides to make C# the primary language going
into the future. I'm in the processes of switching over to it from C++
and I really like it and happen to really dislike VB.
Nov 16 '05 #25

P: n/a

"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <pe******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:xn***************@msnews.microsoft.com...
C# is not getting more RAD than VB.NET for a reason: positioning of
languages. If C# and VB.NET have both the same RAD and other features, users get confused what to use: C# or VB.NET? Now it gets more clear, which IMHO is a good thing.

Oh, and about losing interest: .NET is written in C#, .NET is / will be a
cornerstone of MS' activities. I don't think C# will go away anytime soon :)
FB


While I agree with you that positioning is probably the reason, I think
that is just plain STUPID. Marketing computer language tools, is not like
marketing a car, where one person wants a luxury car, another a sport car,
and they have image to worry about. Computer languages are tools. That's
it - just tools! Why shouldn't those tools have every available
productivity enhancement they can come up with?

Michael
Nov 16 '05 #26

P: n/a

"William Stacey [MVP]" <st***********@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:ey*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
is bit different for all three. A c++ programmer, for example, probably is not wishing for some fancy spinning control, but probably some other
advanced language feature, advanced debugger ability, conflict detection,
etc. The really good ideas will roll down hill in time however with help
from the customers. That said, from everything I see, they are investing big time in c#.

--
William Stacey, MVP


This Microsoft mindset on languages does not compute. When the day comes,
when the C++ programmer could use a spinner or (fill in the blank), why
shouldn't it be available, if the company already has it? Are we suppose to
change languages, if we happen to want that for some project? It has
already been developed for the IDE for another language. They have the
technology. They should just put it in there. If you need it, you can use
it. If not, don't. Just because we are programming in C++ (or any language
that starts with a C) doesn't mean we are masochists.

And why wouldn't we want "advanced language feature", "advanced debugger
ability", etc? What, because the language, be it C++ or C#, is based on C,
an old language, we also want old technology?

I'm sorry but I think a lot of people at Microsoft forget we get paid for
program output, not lines of code, or hours spent programming. We don't
care about how our language is positioned at Microsoft marketing. This is
about the same thinking that we should be wood carving with a knife, when a
CNC machine is available.

Michael
Nov 16 '05 #27

P: n/a

"Michael Adams" <no****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lr********************@speakeasy.net...

"William Stacey [MVP]" <st***********@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:ey*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
is bit different for all three. A c++ programmer, for example, probably is
not wishing for some fancy spinning control, but probably some other
advanced language feature, advanced debugger ability, conflict detection,
etc. The really good ideas will roll down hill in time however with help
from the customers. That said, from everything I see, they are investing

big
time in c#.

--
William Stacey, MVP


This Microsoft mindset on languages does not compute. When the day comes,
when the C++ programmer could use a spinner or (fill in the blank), why
shouldn't it be available, if the company already has it? Are we suppose
to
change languages, if we happen to want that for some project? It has
already been developed for the IDE for another language. They have the
technology. They should just put it in there. If you need it, you can
use
it. If not, don't. Just because we are programming in C++ (or any
language
that starts with a C) doesn't mean we are masochists.


A control is a bad example, within the .NET sphere, a control is just a
class which any language can use.
And why wouldn't we want "advanced language feature", "advanced debugger
ability", etc? What, because the language, be it C++ or C#, is based on
C,
an old language, we also want old technology?

I'm sorry but I think a lot of people at Microsoft forget we get paid for
program output, not lines of code, or hours spent programming. We don't
care about how our language is positioned at Microsoft marketing. This is
about the same thinking that we should be wood carving with a knife, when
a
CNC machine is available.

And your stance is that your lawnmower should have a chain saw attachment
just in case you need to cut down a tree some day? Stuffing *EVERYTHING*
into one language is usually a horrible idea. It turns a langauge that is
easy to use and learn into a pile of crap which about 6 people on earth
fully understand(sorta like C++).

Now, currently, MS tools have about a limited dev cycle(and limited
resouces, its not like VB and C# are the sole things MS is working on).
Between 2003 and 2005 the languages gain a good number of common
features(partial classes, generics, framework additions, etc) and each gains
some differentiaing features that the company feels fits the customer base
better.

You also have to consider the target and the language before adding
features. For example, are anonymous methods a good thing for VB? For that
matter, are they something that syntactically fits within VB? Does C# need
declarative event handlers? What would it cost in clarity? Do either need
the ability to write unmanaged code?

You can't simply just say "Everything has to be everywehre". Doing so
suggests you don't really understand either language.
Michael

Nov 16 '05 #28

P: n/a
> You can't simply just say "Everything has to be everywehre". Doing so
suggests you don't really understand either language.


I agree with that Daniel. One also has to be realistic. Even MS can not
just make everything just appear on ever language. There is always limited
resources for unlimited customer needs. In all, having everything common
around .net is a huge step forward - I still am amazed they pulled this off
and the result is fantastic imho. Cheers!

--
William Stacey, MVP
Nov 16 '05 #29

P: n/a
> I can't imagine the CLR is written in a .net language. What do you
mean exactly?
I think the clr and csc compiler are in c and assem. The framework classes
are written in c# (or most of them.)
And I certainly hope MS decides to make C# the primary language going
into the future.


Me too.

--
William Stacey, MVP
Nov 16 '05 #30

P: n/a
Why shouldn't those tools have every available
productivity enhancement they can come up with?


Nobody is saying they should not I don't think. However you can't just snap
your fingers and make it so. Things have to be created and tested - that
takes time. Do you think they stand around thinking of ways to slow the
process down? Give them a break, c# 2.0 is still in beta. I think it is
pretty darn good for 1.0 so far. Cheers.

--
William Stacey, MVP
Nov 16 '05 #31

P: n/a

"William Stacey [MVP]" <st***********@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:u5**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I can't imagine the CLR is written in a .net language. What do you
mean exactly?


I think the clr and csc compiler are in c and assem. The framework
classes
are written in c# (or most of them.)


The compiler is not in C#? Odd; it's actually quite common for a compiler
to be written in the language it compiles; javac, for instance, is in Java,
most C compilers are in C, etc. There's obviously some bootstrapping
involved, but once that's done, there are many advantages, e.g. when trying
to improve the generated code, you have an instant test case: the compiler
itself.
Nov 16 '05 #32

P: n/a

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"William Stacey [MVP]" <st***********@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:u5**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I can't imagine the CLR is written in a .net language. What do you
mean exactly?


I think the clr and csc compiler are in c and assem. The framework
classes
are written in c# (or most of them.)


The compiler is not in C#? Odd; it's actually quite common for a compiler
to be written in the language it compiles; javac, for instance, is in
Java, most C compilers are in C, etc. There's obviously some
bootstrapping involved, but once that's done, there are many advantages,
e.g. when trying to improve the generated code, you have an instant test
case: the compiler itself.


The C# compiler is, currently, basically the first generation compiler.
While bootstrapping does come in handy, its a bit difficult to do while
writing a whole new compiler, I would expect.
Also, don't forget that the C# compiler probably shares a decent amount of
base code with the rest of the companies compilers, making C# itself a less
attractie option.

I do hope that eventually the C# compiler will be written in C#, but one can
live without it for the moment.
Nov 16 '05 #33

P: n/a
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:45:55 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote:
"Nick Malik" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BAP2d.210840$Fg5.63626@attbi_s53...
I don't know where your numbers come from.

However, if MS is losing interest in C#, how do you explain C# 2.0 and the
insertion of generics. This isn't a minor change. It's huge. And the
competition with Java isn't over. Sun is releasing a new version of Java
as
we speak and guess what... it has generics! What a Coincidence! (right.)


You are aware that the JSR for generics in Java has been worked on since
1999 (see http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=14) . When, exactly, did
Microsoft begin putting them into C#?


MS planned generics from the begining... You can look at this research
paper from May 02, 2001:

http://research.microsoft.com/projec...n/generics.pdf

And yes, it does mention the proposed generics implementation for Java.
But, my questions to you is - why has it taken Sun almost 6 years to
implement that JSR? Was it the fact that MS was planning to implement
generics in 2.0?

I won't even go into all the other stuff that have been added to Java 1.5 -
i.e. extended for syntax (basically foreach), boxing, and enums.

There is no doubt in my mind that 1.5 is getting many of it's features as a
direct result of competition from .NET.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
Nov 16 '05 #34

P: n/a

"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message
news:nb******************************@40tude.net.. .
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:45:55 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote:
"Nick Malik" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BAP2d.210840$Fg5.63626@attbi_s53...
I don't know where your numbers come from.

However, if MS is losing interest in C#, how do you explain C# 2.0 and
the
insertion of generics. This isn't a minor change. It's huge. And the
competition with Java isn't over. Sun is releasing a new version of
Java
as
we speak and guess what... it has generics! What a Coincidence!
(right.)


You are aware that the JSR for generics in Java has been worked on since
1999 (see http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=14) . When, exactly, did
Microsoft begin putting them into C#?


MS planned generics from the begining... You can look at this research
paper from May 02, 2001:

http://research.microsoft.com/projec...n/generics.pdf

And yes, it does mention the proposed generics implementation for Java.


Let's be precise here. It mentions *actual* implementations of generics
in Java extensions and Java-like languages, and their uses as starting
points for the design of .NET generics. That is, the Java-ish generics came
first. Likewise, the official Java support for generics has come out before
the official .NET support.
Nov 16 '05 #35

P: n/a

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"William Stacey [MVP]" <st***********@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:u5**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I can't imagine the CLR is written in a .net language. What do you
mean exactly?

I think the clr and csc compiler are in c and assem. The framework
classes
are written in c# (or most of them.)


The compiler is not in C#? Odd; it's actually quite common for a
compiler to be written in the language it compiles; javac, for instance,
is in Java, most C compilers are in C, etc. There's obviously some
bootstrapping involved, but once that's done, there are many advantages,
e.g. when trying to improve the generated code, you have an instant test
case: the compiler itself.


The C# compiler is, currently, basically the first generation compiler.
While bootstrapping does come in handy, its a bit difficult to do while
writing a whole new compiler, I would expect.
Also, don't forget that the C# compiler probably shares a decent amount of
base code with the rest of the companies compilers, making C# itself a
less attractie option.


One would hope they share a lot of code, but the differing command-line
options, defaulrs, behavior, etc. at least of ILASM and CSC makes you
wonder.
Nov 16 '05 #36

P: n/a
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:52:28 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote:
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message
news:nb******************************@40tude.net.. .
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:45:55 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote:
"Nick Malik" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BAP2d.210840$Fg5.63626@attbi_s53...
I don't know where your numbers come from.

However, if MS is losing interest in C#, how do you explain C# 2.0 and
the
insertion of generics. This isn't a minor change. It's huge. And the
competition with Java isn't over. Sun is releasing a new version of
Java
as
we speak and guess what... it has generics! What a Coincidence!
(right.)

You are aware that the JSR for generics in Java has been worked on since
1999 (see http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=14) . When, exactly, did
Microsoft begin putting them into C#?


MS planned generics from the begining... You can look at this research
paper from May 02, 2001:

http://research.microsoft.com/projec...n/generics.pdf

And yes, it does mention the proposed generics implementation for Java.


Let's be precise here. It mentions *actual* implementations of generics
in Java extensions and Java-like languages, and their uses as starting
points for the design of .NET generics. That is, the Java-ish generics came
first. Likewise, the official Java support for generics has come out before
the official .NET support.


That is not relevant to the point, afict. Yes, they mention various
implementations of Java generics (all of them in 3rd party projects) - but,
Why did it take so long to implement them in the official Java language?
I'll tell you why, because until very recently Sun had no reason improve
Java as a language. The Java language has been realtively stagnate for
many year now (not talking the libraries, just the language) - and
suddenly, in 1.5 it is getting a whole host of new language features that
either exist in C# or are part of the 2.0 spec - Genrics, boxing, extended
for, static imports (actually, this is from VB.NET), enums, etc. It seems
to me that the obvious conclusion is that Sun is reacting to a bit of
competiton - which, IMHO, is a good thing.

--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
Nov 16 '05 #37

P: n/a
Joerg Jooss wrote:
But isn't that true mostly because the usual turn-around times for
compiling and linking native code are much higher than compiling CIL?


The compile time is nothing. The real saving is the time it takes to
get the program back into the situation where the error occurs

--
Truth,
James Curran [MVP]
www.NJTheater.com (Professional)
www.NovelTheory.com (Personal)

Nov 16 '05 #38

P: n/a
Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] wrote:
The C# compiler is, currently, basically the first generation
compiler. While bootstrapping does come in handy, its a bit difficult
to do while writing a whole new compiler, I would expect.


Slogan in the Visual C++ team t-shirts: "My compiler compiled your
compiler"

--
Truth,
James Curran [MVP]
www.NJTheater.com (Professional)
www.NovelTheory.com (Personal)


Nov 16 '05 #39

P: n/a

"James Curran" <Ja*********@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] wrote:
The C# compiler is, currently, basically the first generation
compiler. While bootstrapping does come in handy, its a bit difficult
to do while writing a whole new compiler, I would expect.
Slogan in the Visual C++ team t-shirts: "My compiler compiled your
compiler"

LOL.

Guess you weren't kidding about making more of an appearance in the C#
group, either, ;). --
Truth,
James Curran [MVP]
www.NJTheater.com (Professional)
www.NovelTheory.com (Personal)

Nov 16 '05 #40

P: n/a

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"William Stacey [MVP]" <st***********@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:u5**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I can't imagine the CLR is written in a .net language. What do you
> mean exactly?

I think the clr and csc compiler are in c and assem. The framework
classes
are written in c# (or most of them.)

The compiler is not in C#? Odd; it's actually quite common for a
compiler to be written in the language it compiles; javac, for instance,
is in Java, most C compilers are in C, etc. There's obviously some
bootstrapping involved, but once that's done, there are many advantages,
e.g. when trying to improve the generated code, you have an instant test
case: the compiler itself.


The C# compiler is, currently, basically the first generation compiler.
While bootstrapping does come in handy, its a bit difficult to do while
writing a whole new compiler, I would expect.
Also, don't forget that the C# compiler probably shares a decent amount
of base code with the rest of the companies compilers, making C# itself a
less attractie option.


One would hope they share a lot of code, but the differing command-line
options, defaulrs, behavior, etc. at least of ILASM and CSC makes you
wonder.


I was thinking more along the lines of the VB compiler and perhaps the
portions of the C++ compiler that work with managed code, instead of ILASM.
However I would imagine the C#, C++, and VB compilers atleast share their PE
file writer code and unmanaged metadata lookup code with ILASM.

The external driver code may well be implemented by each compiler to suit
their purposes(C# doesn't want to be bogged down by the extensive, and
slightly strange, options C++ uses, for example).

I do know that MS Research was working on a project that may become the
backend for MS's entire compiler suite(I think its called phoenix or
somesuch), which might suggest that they aren't looking to implement the C#
compiler in C# for a long time.
Nov 16 '05 #41

P: n/a
"Drebin" <th*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qj*****************@newssvr15.news.prodigy.co m...
if/then/else) - but did you know they retrofitted "line input"? and this
"My" namespace, which has functionality that is NOT in C# - not cool.

If and when they do decide to port the "My" namespace over to C#, they'll
definitely have to change the name. Apart from the capitalization, "My" is
just not a good solid C# name. So I've been thinking it over, and I came up
with "thy". This does sound a little close to the current "try" keyword
though. I don't suppose we could convince MS to change "try" to "attempt".
So my second option is "thine". It's short. It's sweet. It's to the
point. It's all lowercase. It sounds very academic. It should confuse the
heck out of non-C# programmers everywhere. As we all know, all of this is
very important in C-style languages.

Thanks,
Michael C., MCDBA

Nov 16 '05 #42

P: n/a
That's cool.

Maybe c# could get a feature like the "With" keyword in VB. I vote for
"henceforth".

henceforth thy.Computer
{
Console.WriteLine(.Info.TotalMemory);
}

--
Scott
http://www.OdeToCode.com

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:24:21 GMT, "Michael C" <mi******@nospam.org>
wrote:
"Drebin" <th*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qj*****************@newssvr15.news.prodigy.c om...
if/then/else) - but did you know they retrofitted "line input"? and this
"My" namespace, which has functionality that is NOT in C# - not cool.

If and when they do decide to port the "My" namespace over to C#, they'll
definitely have to change the name. Apart from the capitalization, "My" is
just not a good solid C# name. So I've been thinking it over, and I came up
with "thy". This does sound a little close to the current "try" keyword
though. I don't suppose we could convince MS to change "try" to "attempt".
So my second option is "thine". It's short. It's sweet. It's to the
point. It's all lowercase. It sounds very academic. It should confuse the
heck out of non-C# programmers everywhere. As we all know, all of this is
very important in C-style languages.

Thanks,
Michael C., MCDBA


Nov 16 '05 #43

P: n/a
> That's cool.

Maybe c# could get a feature like the "With" keyword in VB. I vote for
"henceforth".

henceforth thy.Computer
{
Console.WriteLine(.Info.TotalMemory);
}

LOL :)
--
Scott
http://www.OdeToCode.com

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:24:21 GMT, "Michael C" <mi******@nospam.org>
wrote:

"Drebin" <th*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qj*****************@newssvr15.news.prodigy. com...
if/then/else) - but did you know they retrofitted "line input"? and this
"My" namespace, which has functionality that is NOT in C# - not cool.

If and when they do decide to port the "My" namespace over to C#, they'll
definitely have to change the name. Apart from the capitalization, "My" is
just not a good solid C# name. So I've been thinking it over, and I came up
with "thy". This does sound a little close to the current "try" keyword
though. I don't suppose we could convince MS to change "try" to "attempt".
So my second option is "thine". It's short. It's sweet. It's to the
point. It's all lowercase. It sounds very academic. It should confuse the
heck out of non-C# programmers everywhere. As we all know, all of this is
very important in C-style languages.

Thanks,
Michael C., MCDBA


Nov 16 '05 #44

P: n/a
James Curran wrote:
Joerg Jooss wrote:
But isn't that true mostly because the usual turn-around times for
compiling and linking native code are much higher than compiling CIL?

The compile time is nothing. The real saving is the time it takes to
get the program back into the situation where the error occurs


Well, compiling time is nothing now, not a few years ago.
A few years ago when i was programing on Borland C++ Builder/VS C++ 6.0 and had only a Pentium 166
(!!!) laptop, just single compiling of a midsize app was taking up to 10 min of my time. So
obviously i tried to perform most of it + debugging on VS, where this Edit-Cotinue feature was enabled.

BUT!!! There were so many times when tis feature just worked wrong, messed with data and gave wrong
results that at some point it became not worth it.
I am not sure if the feature in VB working correctly, but if it is same 'reliable' as it was in VS
C++ 6.0 you will lose much more time to understand why after 'Edit' you still get wrong in
'Continue' than just repeat the situation or re-look your code...

My thumb down to 'Edit' -> 'Continue' in C#.

Andrey
Nov 16 '05 #45

P: n/a
Mike Schilling wrote:
"William Stacey [MVP]" <st***********@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:u5**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I can't imagine the CLR is written in a .net language. What do you
mean exactly?


I think the clr and csc compiler are in c and assem. The framework
classes
are written in c# (or most of them.)

The compiler is not in C#? Odd; it's actually quite common for a compiler
to be written in the language it compiles; javac, for instance, is in Java,
most C compilers are in C, etc. There's obviously some bootstrapping
involved, but once that's done, there are many advantages, e.g. when trying
to improve the generated code, you have an instant test case: the compiler
itself.


Odd? Why?
You didn't forget that Windows was writetn in c and asm, did you?
So is't it logical that the new API layer (.NET) should be writen using OS's 'native' compiler?
At least for speed and transparency?

Nov 16 '05 #46

P: n/a
Andrey <le*******@yahoo.com> wrote:
The compiler is not in C#? Odd; it's actually quite common for a compiler
to be written in the language it compiles; javac, for instance, is in Java,
most C compilers are in C, etc. There's obviously some bootstrapping
involved, but once that's done, there are many advantages, e.g. when trying
to improve the generated code, you have an instant test case: the compiler
itself.


Odd? Why?
You didn't forget that Windows was writetn in c and asm, did you?
So is't it logical that the new API layer (.NET) should be writen
using OS's 'native' compiler?
At least for speed and transparency?


The C# compiler isn't the new API layer though, is it? It was the point
that the C# compiler is not written in C# which is being considered
odd, not the CLR itself.

(I believe most of the BCL is written in C#.)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Nov 16 '05 #47

P: n/a
Ah, to curse the darkness, or to light a candle...

If you wish for the software development community to behave in a manner
that is regulated by professional standards, then promote the use of
professional organizations. Medicine and Law have them, and they work well
for them (not for us, per se, but for them :-). Engineering, Architecture,
even trades work, have requirements/certifications/licenses that must be
earned.

My hairdresser has to go through more red tape to open a salon, than I do in
order to write software.

Britain has a good start on a real professional organization for software (I
believe it is called the BCS). We have the ACM and IEEE/CS. (My apologies
if I've left out a deserving organization).

On the other hand, we need a wide array of folks in the software field.
Don't look down on VB developers. After earning my BA in Computer Science,
I wrote in C for six years on the Unix and DOS platforms. One of my systems
was embedded in the hardware of telecommunications devices. Until you've
seen your code execute in an ICE environment, you haven't lived. I then
switched to VB, and programmed in VB for many years before moving into
management, and only took back up C# in the past few years after the crash.
My VB experience ran from VB 1.0 for DOS, all the way through about VB5. I
only dabbled in VB6. By then, I was in positions that didn't let me write
much code.

I pretty much skipped C++ entirely.

Does that mean, because I wrote exclusively in VB for many years, that I
would be painted with your statements about "schlocky" VB developers? I
hope not!

There are professional, thoughful, creative, insightful, detail-oriented
professional developers, in the best sense of the word, working in the VB
space today. There always have been. Be careful not to put them down.

--- Nick Malik, proud former VB developer
"Drebin" <th*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7J****************@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com ...


"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <pe******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
I don't get your point. I'm talking about professional software
development.
When the words 'professional software development' enter the equation,
people
who don't know what software development means should step back and get a coffee or something.
hahahahahaha :-) oh man.. If only real life were this simple!! I assume

you are either still in an academic setting (university?) or went right to a
strict programming environment (like a hardcore software company?).. but 80% of the "professional" software developers out there are in NO WAY
professional. I would LOVE an ideal world where everyone I work with is
competent and creative, but it just isn't so. Instead, MOST of the "regular" developers that work at "regular" companies are lazy, not-so-bright and/or
very unmotivated - and worst of all hate change. Imagine that? A developer
who hates change? Ugh.
no he doesn't have a point. Professional software development isn't about putting 4 blocks together and a single window with one button which says
"get
rich". It's about theory, design, algorithms and what have you. The people who are turned off because they have to write a couple of lines of code
are
also the ones who ruin software projecs by dragging/dropping data-adapters on
webforms, inserting raw SQL into the webform and then wonder why
maintaining
the crud they created takes a lot of time and money.

Professional software development is hard work. It's not for people who
think they know the difference between a keyboard and a mouse. I hope for all
mankind that the average doctor in an average hospital is more
professional
than these 'professionals' who apparently are too lazy to think for 2
seconds
straight.
I COMPLETELY agree!! But that has absolutely no bearing on how it is in

the private sector for non-software companies. You would not BELIEVE how many
ASP or VB projects have nothing but select statements.. even worse "select
*" everywhere.. :-)

In fact, I think VB.NET is the savior for .NET, for the sole reason that
the
vast majority of the developers targeting MS platforms work in VB or VB
based
languages.


Sadly, this is Microsofts point too - and what you guys are getting is, a
developer is not a developer. As a generalization, VB developers are the
ones I mentioned above. Everyone is so wrapped up in converting VB6
duh-velopers, that no one stopped to realize you're attracting the wrong
kind of people!! Quantity != Quality

Nov 16 '05 #48

P: n/a
See inline..

"Nick Malik" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:K6B3d.126443$3l3.45538@attbi_s03...
If you wish for the software development community to behave in a manner
that is regulated by professional standards, then promote the use of
professional organizations. Medicine and Law have them, and they work well for them (not for us, per se, but for them :-). Engineering, Architecture, even trades work, have requirements/certifications/licenses that must be
earned.
I don't know that this is the answer though, because there are still
incompetent doctors and lawyers. I like the current system that "the
competent are well paid" - where with this system, "the certified are well
paid", which isn't right - in my book.
Does that mean, because I wrote exclusively in VB for many years, that I
would be painted with your statements about "schlocky" VB developers? I
hope not!
No, not at all!! Let me be clear. I don't have a problem with inexperienced
developers or developers that just don't know a certain technology. I'm not
saying that at all!!

I have a problem with people that have been programming longer than I've
been alive in just a couple of languages - and suck at it. They are horrible
developers. I am a big fan of "know your job". And I am surrounded by people
that CHOOSE not to better themselves and be competent at what they do. They
are paid to be "professional" software developers. These are people that do
the absolute minimum to get by in their job. Given a choice I'd rather do
more work, than have to work with shoddy code and ignorant developers. And
sadly, this is by FAR the biggest demographic for VB developers (having
worked at several companies in a few regions of the U.S.)

Maybe you haven't had experience with this type of developer? VB is by FAR
the language of choice of these type of people because it has the least
rules and enables the lazy programmer to be as lazy as they want!! The
problem I have with that, is that "assumptions lead to bugs".. and when they
embrace things like the "variant" datatype that can be coerced into any data
type, that's just ASKING for trouble.

Anyhow, my point is, there is an entire subculture of incompetent VB
developers (I've seen at MANY companies) that are able to continue being
"developers" because Microsoft keeps enabling them with this sloppy
(loosely-typed) language. I guess I'd like to see Microsoft take a stance
and "thin the herd" as it were. :-) but why would they, they are making
money of these jokers!!
There are professional, thoughful, creative, insightful, detail-oriented
professional developers, in the best sense of the word, working in the VB
space today. There always have been. Be careful not to put them down.


I agree!! I have met probably 3 in my career - and I agree, the people that
are good in VB, are VERY good.. Sadly, this is by far the exception, not the
rule. Again, I don't have a problem with the language or IDE, I have a
problem with the lazy people that take advantage of the worst parts of VB
and continue to put out shoddy code that I continue to have to maintain!!
Nov 16 '05 #49

P: n/a

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"William Stacey [MVP]" <st***********@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:u5**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I can't imagine the CLR is written in a .net language. What do you
mean exactly?

I think the clr and csc compiler are in c and assem. The framework
classes
are written in c# (or most of them.)


The compiler is not in C#? Odd; it's actually quite common for a
compiler to be written in the language it compiles; javac, for instance,
is in Java, most C compilers are in C, etc. There's obviously some
bootstrapping involved, but once that's done, there are many advantages,
e.g. when trying to improve the generated code, you have an instant test
case: the compiler itself.


The C# compiler is, currently, basically the first generation compiler.
While bootstrapping does come in handy, its a bit difficult to do while
writing a whole new compiler, I would expect.


Bootstrapping a C# compiler would be almost trivial:

Start with a Java compiler written in Java..
Use the JLCA to translate it to C#.
Make slight changes to the parser to parse C# instead of Java.
Make slight changes to the backend to generate MSIL instead of Java
bytecode.

Half a :-)
Nov 16 '05 #50

86 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.