C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

[Robin Tucker]

I need to find some documents/research for my manager about VB.NET v C# use.
I've noticed that there are many more people using C# than VB.NET, that
there seem to be more job vacancies specifying C# and projects written with
it.

I would basically like any links you might have to articles with
non-anecdotal evidence for usage patterns, if there are any.

Thanks,
Robin

[jeremiah johnson]

i realize this isn't what you asked for, but i have some anecdotal
evidence for VB.

Everywhere I've worked that did MS development work, VB was used *far*
more than C#. Personally, I despise VB and do all .net work in C#, but
i'm clearly in the minority with that attitude.

in the VB world that I've seen, C# is something you graduate to after
long years doing VB work. C# pays more (usually) and is a bit more of a
respected language from what I've seen.

sorry to inject something you didn't ask for, but i felt it was
something you should read, given your thoughts on C# vs VB usage.

Robin Tucker wrote:

I need to find some documents/research for my manager about VB.NET v C# use.
I've noticed that there are many more people using C# than VB.NET, that
there seem to be more job vacancies specifying C# and projects written with
it.

I would basically like any links you might have to articles with
non-anecdotal evidence for usage patterns, if there are any.

Thanks,
Robin

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Robin,

Your question is probably very regional (country/state) if you say I
see.............., here (Holland) I see it more and more asked like this

..Net Developer (VB, C#, AdoNet etc.)

I hope this helps,

Cor

[Robin Tucker]

sorry to inject something you didn't ask for, but i felt it was
something you should read, given your thoughts on C# vs VB usage.

No thats fine. I don't mind anecdotal evidence, it's just not too useful
when discussing which language to use for which project with a line manager.
I'm using VB.NET myself at the moment but whenever I need to incorperate
code from the outside world, the chances are it will be written using C#.
So, actually, my project consists of my main application and associated
libraries, with a few other libraries in C#. I'm not sure the mixture is
too aesthetically pleasing - at least it won't be for the maintenance guy
who comes after me.

[Ian]

jeremiah johnson wrote:

i realize this isn't what you asked for, but i have some anecdotal
evidence for VB.

Everywhere I've worked that did MS development work, VB was used *far*
more than C#. Personally, I despise VB and do all .net work in C#, but
i'm clearly in the minority with that attitude.
I disagree and don't think you are alone. There are thousands of
programmers
who evolved from the 'c++' syntax of programming who favour c#. Whilst
programmers who liked c and c++ put back software engineering decades,
we're thankfully over it now. Most of the features implemented in Ada
are now
standard in modern languages, despite your c++ crowd mentality, and the
only
thing left to get rid of, is the stupid symbolic ambiguous style that
breeds
programming errors.

Fortunately, the days when in a programming language you could have
a line which could semantically and syntactically be valid by changing
a single character are coming to an end.

When (i += j) and (i -= j) and (i == j) and (i != j) and (i == -j) etc
all compiled
there was no chance of reliability, and or productivity, because people
find
it hard to see these errors.

in the VB world that I've seen, C# is something you graduate to after
long years doing VB work. C# pays more (usually) and is a bit more of a
respected language from what I've seen.
Yes it does, but this isn't because of anything inherent in the
language,
a 100 IQ programmer who is an expert in vb.net is more productive
than a 100 IQ c# programmer.

It's a side effect of history. VB was easier to learn but not as
powerful.
c++ was harder to learn but more powerful. Thus the typical c++ becomes
c# guy is more experienced on average.

This may mean that advantage is self fulfilling, but there's no
language
reason for it.

sorry to inject something you didn't ask for, but i felt it was
something you should read, given your thoughts on C# vs VB usage.

Robin Tucker wrote:

I need to find some documents/research for my manager about VB.NET v C# use.
I've noticed that there are many more people using C# than VB.NET, that
there seem to be more job vacancies specifying C# and projects written with
it.

I would basically like any links you might have to articles with
non-anecdotal evidence for usage patterns, if there are any.

Thanks,
Robin

[m.posseth]

Hello robin

http://www.advisor.com/Articles.nsf/aid/SHERP42

I've noticed that there are many more people using C# than VB.NET, that
there seem to be more job vacancies specifying C# and projects written
with it.
There seems to be a shift in MCSD certification to C# that is a fact ,
however in usage i believe that it is still 60/40 ( in favor of VB )
probably for the fact that VB is a more forgiving language as others

I would say learn both languages they have both there strong and weakpoints
, i prefer VB only because i have a Basic background however i can also
read and write C# code , but i noticed that i am far more productive in
VB.Net

there is no serious advantage to either language. It is purely down to
which syntax you are happiest with using
regards

Michel Posseth [MCP]



"Robin Tucker" <no****@nomeansno.com> schreef in bericht
news:dk*******************@news.demon.co.uk...I need to find some documents/research for my manager about VB.NET v C#
use. I've noticed that there are many more people using C# than VB.NET,
that there seem to be more job vacancies specifying C# and projects written
with it.

I would basically like any links you might have to articles with
non-anecdotal evidence for usage patterns, if there are any.

Thanks,
Robin

[m.posseth]

well i do not see anything bad in this at all , a current project i am
working on has some parts written in C# and some parts written in VB.Net

just for the fact that example code and documentation for some parts of
programming are more common to be delivered in C# as VB.Net ( cryptography ,
Compression etc etc ) in other parts VB is more to be found out there
Remoting , COM interop for instance

so why don`t mix those in a project ( both tasks can also be done in both
languages ) as you would become more productive

regards

I prefer to call myself a VS6 and a VS.net programmer

who just favors VB

Michel Posseth [MCP]

"Robin Tucker" <no****@nomeansno.com> schreef in bericht
news:dk*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

sorry to inject something you didn't ask for, but i felt it was
something you should read, given your thoughts on C# vs VB usage.

No thats fine. I don't mind anecdotal evidence, it's just not too useful
when discussing which language to use for which project with a line
manager. I'm using VB.NET myself at the moment but whenever I need to
incorperate code from the outside world, the chances are it will be
written using C#. So, actually, my project consists of my main application
and associated libraries, with a few other libraries in C#. I'm not sure
the mixture is too aesthetically pleasing - at least it won't be for the
maintenance guy who comes after me.

[Andrew Morton]

Robin Tucker wrote:

... that there seem to be more job vacancies specifying C#

That could also happen if there was a high turnover of C# programmers.

Andrew

[Denis Dougall]

I disagree with some of the points Ian made but from an industry standpoint
I think there are more VB coders because it is an easy language to learn and
tends to develop design methodologies required for using / abusing APIs .
As you travel through C, C++ and end up at whichever .NET language the
knowledge of assemblies and DLLs can only help in your advancement. On a
personal note, my preferred scripting language is jscript, most web facing
containers/apps are Java but I don't know a stitch about J#.. Odd!

The turn over (if defacto) in C# programmers I find interesting but there
will always be a larger pot of VB coders than C# programmers.

Denis

"Andrew Morton" <ak*@in-press.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Robin Tucker wrote:

... that there seem to be more job vacancies specifying C#

That could also happen if there was a high turnover of C# programmers.

Andrew

[Jim Underwood]

There is a problem with using both languages in a project, or even in a
company.

Certain programmers know certain languages and if everyone writes code in
their personal favorite langauge you end up with 4 programmers each writing
code that only they understand. Maintenance becomes a nightmare as no one
can work on more than one piece of the application.

If everyone in your environment knows C#, Java, VB, etc. then it doesnt
matter which languages you mix and match, but this is seldom the case. It
is important to have standards regarding which langauge should be used in
your environment in order to maintain consistency and maintainability.

Personally, I have no problem switching from VB to C# as it adds to my skill
set, but I would never write code that the rest of the organization does not
know unless there was no choice.
"m.posseth" <po*****@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:et*************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

well i do not see anything bad in this at all , a current project i am
working on has some parts written in C# and some parts written in VB.Net

just for the fact that example code and documentation for some parts of
programming are more common to be delivered in C# as VB.Net ( cryptography , Compression etc etc ) in other parts VB is more to be found out there
Remoting , COM interop for instance

so why don`t mix those in a project ( both tasks can also be done in both
languages ) as you would become more productive

regards

I prefer to call myself a VS6 and a VS.net programmer

who just favors VB

Michel Posseth [MCP]

"Robin Tucker" <no****@nomeansno.com> schreef in bericht
news:dk*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

sorry to inject something you didn't ask for, but i felt it was
something you should read, given your thoughts on C# vs VB usage.

No thats fine. I don't mind anecdotal evidence, it's just not too useful when discussing which language to use for which project with a line
manager. I'm using VB.NET myself at the moment but whenever I need to
incorperate code from the outside world, the chances are it will be
written using C#. So, actually, my project consists of my main application and associated libraries, with a few other libraries in C#. I'm not sure the mixture is too aesthetically pleasing - at least it won't be for the
maintenance guy who comes after me.

[James Curran]

I have absolutely no evidence to back this up, but I was once told that
VB (all versions combined, not just .Net), is the most popular computer
language in the world, to the point the all others are just statistical
noise (ie, by more that 99:1)

From my own experience, I noticed that VB is most popular with
consultant who are doing one-off projects for small clients who have no
development staff of thier own. C/C++/C# is more popular with large
companies doing in-house development.

--
Truth,
James Curran
[erstwhile VC++ MVP]

Home: www.noveltheory.com Work: www.njtheater.com
Blog: www.honestillusion.com Day Job: www.partsearch.com
"Robin Tucker" <no****@nomeansno.com> wrote in message
news:dk*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

I need to find some documents/research for my manager about VB.NET v C# use. I've noticed that there are many more people using C# than VB.NET, that
there seem to be more job vacancies specifying C# and projects written with it.

I would basically like any links you might have to articles with
non-anecdotal evidence for usage patterns, if there are any.

Thanks,
Robin

[rgreene]

Some reasons our shop is using C#:

1. All our software engineers (except me) come from a VC++ background,
and even though most agree VC++ is unproductive in many regards, they
never would and still won't touch VB with an 11ft pole! Why try to
fight other's bias when you have a good way (C#) to work with it...

2. C#.NET is just as easy for a VB6 developer like me to learn as
VB.NET. The challenge in either case is in learning the Framework, IDE
and OO, and in the exposure of much more low-level stuff (such as
hashtbls, static classes and members, and a host of other computer
science concepts).

3. There seems to be a Microsoft bias toward C#:
- Some learning books have C# in the text and VB on the CD only.
- According to numerous threads, C# code in the Visual Studio 2005
release candidate is much more stable than VB code.
- C# was designed with the set of features it needed to take full
advantage of the .NET Framework and CLR, without other historical
baggage!

Good luck...

[Kevin Spencer]

You mean your line manager makes decisions based upon the popularity of a
programming language?!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Robin Tucker" <no****@nomeansno.com> wrote in message
news:dk*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

sorry to inject something you didn't ask for, but i felt it was
something you should read, given your thoughts on C# vs VB usage.

No thats fine. I don't mind anecdotal evidence, it's just not too useful
when discussing which language to use for which project with a line
manager. I'm using VB.NET myself at the moment but whenever I need to
incorperate code from the outside world, the chances are it will be
written using C#. So, actually, my project consists of my main application
and associated libraries, with a few other libraries in C#. I'm not sure
the mixture is too aesthetically pleasing - at least it won't be for the
maintenance guy who comes after me.

[Jim Underwood]

I think his manager is looking for studies showing trends is use, in order
to determine the availability of the skillsets, and therefore the ease of
finding someone who can maintain the code. No matter how well your
application works there will always be some maintenance needed and the app
is worthless if you can't readily find someone to maintain it.

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

You mean your line manager makes decisions based upon the popularity of a
programming language?!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Robin Tucker" <no****@nomeansno.com> wrote in message
news:dk*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

sorry to inject something you didn't ask for, but i felt it was
something you should read, given your thoughts on C# vs VB usage.

No thats fine. I don't mind anecdotal evidence, it's just not too useful when discussing which language to use for which project with a line
manager. I'm using VB.NET myself at the moment but whenever I need to
incorperate code from the outside world, the chances are it will be
written using C#. So, actually, my project consists of my main application and associated libraries, with a few other libraries in C#. I'm not sure the mixture is too aesthetically pleasing - at least it won't be for the
maintenance guy who comes after me.

[Kevin Spencer]

Well, Jim, I can tell you without any statistics, that there are plenty of
both.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Jim Underwood" <ja*************@fallonclinic.com> wrote in message
news:eB*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

I think his manager is looking for studies showing trends is use, in order
to determine the availability of the skillsets, and therefore the ease of
finding someone who can maintain the code. No matter how well your
application works there will always be some maintenance needed and the app
is worthless if you can't readily find someone to maintain it.

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

You mean your line manager makes decisions based upon the popularity of a
programming language?!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Robin Tucker" <no****@nomeansno.com> wrote in message
news:dk*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

>
>> sorry to inject something you didn't ask for, but i felt it was
>> something you should read, given your thoughts on C# vs VB usage.
>
>
> No thats fine. I don't mind anecdotal evidence, it's just not too useful > when discussing which language to use for which project with a line
> manager. I'm using VB.NET myself at the moment but whenever I need to
> incorperate code from the outside world, the chances are it will be
> written using C#. So, actually, my project consists of my main application > and associated libraries, with a few other libraries in C#. I'm not sure > the mixture is too aesthetically pleasing - at least it won't be for
> the
> maintenance guy who comes after me.
>
>

[Robin Tucker]

Not really no. But when you are set to give a piece of software a 10 year
life span, you tend to take some of these things into consideration. As an
example, I have a Windows 95 system with some of our software on, written
with 16 bit Visual C++. It is still in widespread use in industry and so I
have to continue to maintain it, even though we have had a 32 bit product
out for some years now.

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

You mean your line manager makes decisions based upon the popularity of a
programming language?!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Robin Tucker" <no****@nomeansno.com> wrote in message
news:dk*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

sorry to inject something you didn't ask for, but i felt it was
something you should read, given your thoughts on C# vs VB usage.

No thats fine. I don't mind anecdotal evidence, it's just not too useful
when discussing which language to use for which project with a line
manager. I'm using VB.NET myself at the moment but whenever I need to
incorperate code from the outside world, the chances are it will be
written using C#. So, actually, my project consists of my main
application and associated libraries, with a few other libraries in C#.
I'm not sure the mixture is too aesthetically pleasing - at least it
won't be for the maintenance guy who comes after me.

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Robin,

You do let me think about somebody who told that we should keep our
deployment procedures for 8" floppies. (it is a while ago).

After a little bit further investigation I found out that this cost
consuming procedures was used by one customer. Giving that customer a new
computer was less expensive.

Probably not a complete analogy, however sometimes it is good to think in
this way in this kind of situations.

I have seen those linemanager who would keep their old procedures because
those seemed less expensive. However that was mainly because their lack of
knowledge (it is mostly with those who will not admit that)..

In long terms those decisions cost often 100 times more as when it was done
in one time right.

The great term in that is, "don't repair what not is broken". However often
used where people can better say, "Don't lock the stable door before the
seed is stolen".

Just my thought,

Cor

[Kevin Spencer]

Hi Robn,

That's helpful information. While both languages are quite likely to stick
around for the foreseeable future, if I had to bet on which one would
outlast the other, I would pick C#. C# has often been termed the "native"
language of .Net, and is definitely preferred at Microsoft over VB.Net.

Now forgive me for going so soon,. but I must get a running start, as I'm
quite likely to be attacked by religious zealots!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Robin Tucker" <no****@nomeansno.com> wrote in message
news:dk*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

Not really no. But when you are set to give a piece of software a 10 year
life span, you tend to take some of these things into consideration. As
an example, I have a Windows 95 system with some of our software on,
written with 16 bit Visual C++. It is still in widespread use in industry
and so I have to continue to maintain it, even though we have had a 32 bit
product out for some years now.

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

You mean your line manager makes decisions based upon the popularity of a
programming language?!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Robin Tucker" <no****@nomeansno.com> wrote in message
news:dk*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

sorry to inject something you didn't ask for, but i felt it was
something you should read, given your thoughts on C# vs VB usage.
No thats fine. I don't mind anecdotal evidence, it's just not too
useful when discussing which language to use for which project with a
line manager. I'm using VB.NET myself at the moment but whenever I need
to incorperate code from the outside world, the chances are it will be
written using C#. So, actually, my project consists of my main
application and associated libraries, with a few other libraries in C#.
I'm not sure the mixture is too aesthetically pleasing - at least it
won't be for the maintenance guy who comes after me.

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

James Curran <ja*********@mvps.org> wrote:

I have absolutely no evidence to back this up, but I was once told that
VB (all versions combined, not just .Net), is the most popular computer
language in the world, to the point the all others are just statistical
noise (ie, by more that 99:1)

I'm sure that depends on how much it's measured. If you're counting
"people who've used VB" that may well be true, as it's often used by
people who *aren't* professional developers, who just need to scratch
an itch.

If you looked at how much time was spent per language, or how much code
was written per language, I think things would be very different.

(I suspect it also depends on whether you include HTML as a "computer
language :)

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

[James Curran]

> I'm sure that depends on how much it's measured. If you're counting

"people who've used VB" that may well be true, as it's often used by
people who *aren't* professional developers, who just need to scratch
an itch.

Absolutely, as I fairly sure that number counts everyone written a macro
in MSWord or Excel.

--
Truth,
James Curran
[erstwhile VC++ MVP]

Home: www.noveltheory.com Work: www.njtheater.com
Blog: www.honestillusion.com Day Job: www.partsearch.com

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Jon,

snip I'm sure that depends on how much it's measured. If you're counting
"people who've used VB" that may well be true, as it's often used by
people who *aren't* professional developers, who just need to scratch
an itch.
How do you count the enormous amount of people who make only Cxx snippets as
additions to games?
snip

(I suspect it also depends on whether you include HTML as a "computer
language :)

If you call SQL a program language, than HTML is it in my opinion as well.
It both are expressions or descripting languages. That probably you and for
sure me have another feeling about that, does not mean that they are not.

Cor

[Kaveh Shahbazian]

I am a C# developer since 2001 (Beta 1).
I think C# is more "dotnetized" than VB.NET. Having done project in
different areas - from daily data gathering applications, databases to
something like using serial-port for an assynchronous communication with an
industerial device - proves me that C# fits dot net better than all of other
ones.
I do not have real usful experiences with VB.NET. Only some little projects
and some migrations to C# (and so for J#).

[jeremiah johnson]

Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:

If you call SQL a program language, than HTML is it in my opinion as well.

If you think that SQL isn't a structured language, then I'm betting that
you've never seen an SQL query that was over 1k in size. I've seen SQL
queries that have been optimized down to 15 kilobytes in size.

SQL a language.

HTML is a markup language, not a programming language.
SQL is a query language, not a programming language.

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

"jeremiah johnson" <na*******@gmail.com> schrieb:

If you call SQL a program language, than HTML is it in my opinion as
well.

If you think that SQL isn't a structured language, then I'm betting that
you've never seen an SQL query that was over 1k in size. I've seen SQL
queries that have been optimized down to 15 kilobytes in size.

SQL a language.

HTML is a markup language, not a programming language.
SQL is a query language, not a programming language.

This depends on how you define programming language. SQL has a control
flow, instructions, etc., and thus is often considered a programming
language. HTML is very declarative and there is no control flow. Some
people might argue that a HTML document is still a set of instructions.
However, when doing so, the question arises if the BMP format is a
programming language too, because Bitmaps can be interpreted as both, a set
of data, and a set of instructions which tell the computer how to draw the
picture onto the screen.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

"Kaveh Shahbazian" <Kaveh Sh********@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb:

I am a C# developer since 2001 (Beta 1).
I think C# is more "dotnetized" than VB.NET. Having done project in
different areas - from daily data gathering applications, databases to
something like using serial-port for an assynchronous communication with
an
industerial device - proves me that C# fits dot net better than all of
other
ones.
Well, I have to disagree. VB.NET is at least as .NETized as C#. Many
samples can be found for both, VB.NET and C#, which demonstrate that one
language is more .NETized than the other. VB.NET makes it easier to write
code which complies to the CLS than C# does. However, does it make VB.NET
more .NETized than C#? I think the whole discussion about .NETizedness
doesn't make much sense at all.
I do not have real usful experiences with VB.NET. Only some little
projects
and some migrations to C# (and so for J#).

I suggest to collect some experience with VB.NET.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Jeremiah,

??

If you call SQL a program language, than HTML is it in my opinion as
well. It both are expressions or descripting languages.

HTML is a markup language, not a programming language.
SQL is a query language, not a programming language.

(Although SQL is original made as a Query language, does in my opinion now
more than alone queries, therefore I used expression).

Cor

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Cor Ligthert [MVP] <no************@planet.nl> wrote:

I'm sure that depends on how much it's measured. If you're counting
"people who've used VB" that may well be true, as it's often used by
people who *aren't* professional developers, who just need to scratch
an itch.

How do you count the enormous amount of people who make only Cxx
snippets as additions to games?

I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean patches/cracks? If so, I don't
think there are *that* many people

(I suspect it also depends on whether you include HTML as a "computer
language :)

If you call SQL a program language, than HTML is it in my opinion as well.

I wouldn't call HTML a programming language (although I would say that
SQL is - or rather, T-SQL, PL/SQL etc), but HTML *is* a computer
language IMO. They're not the same thing.

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

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote:

I think C# is more "dotnetized" than VB.NET.

Well, I have to disagree. VB.NET is at least as .NETized as C#.

I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
is more "dotnetized" as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.

VB.NET, however, has several "features" which I suspect wouldn't be
there if they weren't there for backward compatibility - in other
words, it has a large legacy to support. Hence all the functions...

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

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Jon,

How do you count the enormous amount of people who make only Cxx
snippets as additions to games?

I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean patches/cracks? If so, I don't
think there are *that* many people

Did you ever play online games as Unreal, Quake or seen somebody busy with
Sims or whatever.

You probably would change your opinion than, the come with complete packs to
build 3D parts. This started by Duke Nukem 3D as far as I remember me.

There is an endless amount of these maps, build with languages very close or
complete the same as Cxx languages.

To give you one examle
http://www.unrealtournament.com/ut2003/maps.php

> (I suspect it also depends on whether you include HTML as a "computer
> language :)

If you call SQL a program language, than HTML is it in my opinion as
well.

I wouldn't call HTML a programming language (although I would say that
SQL is - or rather, T-SQL, PL/SQL etc), but HTML *is* a computer
language IMO. They're not the same thing.

For me a programming language builds a DLL an EXE or whatever, but is not
direct processed. However that can be a personal idea about that.

For myself I don't call HTML a language, however it needs a very good
knowledge in what sequence the document tags have to be placed and what are
the attributes (properties) of those and where/how those can be used.

However, I think that this is very subjective.

Cor

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Jon,

I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
is more "dotnetized" as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.

If that was true than they could have done it better and would not have used
that enormous bunch of legacy C code that is now in C#.

In my opinion are the Net program languages designed with developers (users)
in mind.

Just my opinion.

Cor

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> schrieb:

> I think C# is more "dotnetized" than VB.NET.

Well, I have to disagree. VB.NET is at least as .NETized as C#.

I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
is more "dotnetized" as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.

VB.NET has been designed *specifically* for .NET too. Remember the huge
discussion about VB.NET vs. a real VB7? Compatibility to VB6 obviously had
not been one of the goals of VB.NET's language designers.
VB.NET, however, has several "features" which I suspect wouldn't be
there if they weren't there for backward compatibility - in other
words, it has a large legacy to support. Hence all the functions...

Nobody is forced to use these functions. C# suffers from legacy syntax like
'switch', which has been taken from C and then "fixed" with ugly hacks,
distinction of identifiers' names only by their case, which stands against
the rules of the CLS and can be considered a feature copied over from C for
reasons of legacy support too, ...

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Kevin Spencer]

SQL, any flavor of it, is indeed a programming language. There are 3
specific features that all programming languages share in common:

1. Sequence
2. Selection
3.Iteration

SQL has all of these, and in fact, is compiled. SQL is a set of instruction
code that is specifically tailored for databases.

HTML, on the other hand, contains no instruction code whatsoever. Neither is
it compiled. It is a *markup* language that contains text *specifications*
(daata) used *by* applications for the purpose of displaying the HTML. There
is no sequence, selection, *or* iteration in HTML. It requires a programming
language such as JavaScript to manipulate HTML elements. And in fact,
neither JavaScript nor CSS actually manipulate HTML elements. They
manipulate objects in the logical Document Object Model which is created by
the application that reads the HTML. The HTML itself remains unchanged.

It might better be argued that XML *can be* a programming language, in the
form of XSLT, XAML, and other extensions of XML that contain processing
instructions, sequence, selection, and iteration. On the other hand, XSD is
not a programming language, as it is simply a set of definitions in a
schema. The difference between a programming language and a markup language
is that a programming language contains *process and data*, while a markup
language contains *only* data.

In other words, words mean things. Words are what distinguishes one idea
from another. They identify ideas. Once the meaning of a word is twisted
beyond definition, there is no meaning left. Black becomes White; One
becomes Zero; Right becomes Wrong. And none of these words mean anything at
all.

Pretzel Logic is not logic at all. It is simply rhetoric. It is truly sad
when the rhetorician falls for his own rhetoric, particularly when that
person makes a living as a programmer. Such a person would be better suited
as a politician or a salesperson. A computer will never be convinced that 1
== 0.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...

Cor Ligthert [MVP] <no************@planet.nl> wrote:

> I'm sure that depends on how much it's measured. If you're counting
> "people who've used VB" that may well be true, as it's often used by
> people who *aren't* professional developers, who just need to scratch
> an itch.

How do you count the enormous amount of people who make only Cxx
snippets as additions to games?

I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean patches/cracks? If so, I don't
think there are *that* many people

> (I suspect it also depends on whether you include HTML as a "computer
> language :)

If you call SQL a program language, than HTML is it in my opinion as
well.

I wouldn't call HTML a programming language (although I would say that
SQL is - or rather, T-SQL, PL/SQL etc), but HTML *is* a computer
language IMO. They're not the same thing.

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

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Cor Ligthert [MVP] <no************@planet.nl> wrote:

I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
is more "dotnetized" as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.

If that was true than they could have done it better and would not have used
that enormous bunch of legacy C code that is now in C#.
There are no legacy C functions in C#. It uses C syntax, but I don't
see that as a legacy issue aside from a couple of specific places (in
particular, the switch statement). The rest is there because people
like it, not because they're trying to use C code as C# code.
In my opinion are the Net program languages designed with developers (users)
in mind.

Absolutely - we just disagree about what exactly that means, I suspect.

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

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote:

Well, I have to disagree. VB.NET is at least as .NETized as C#.
I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
is more "dotnetized" as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.

VB.NET has been designed *specifically* for .NET too. Remember the huge
discussion about VB.NET vs. a real VB7? Compatibility to VB6 obviously had
not been one of the goals of VB.NET's language designers.

I would say it was a goal - just not one which was as high up the
agenda as might have been desirable.

Do you believe that if they'd designed the language from scratch with
*no* reference to VB6, there'd have been quite so many similarities?

VB.NET, however, has several "features" which I suspect wouldn't be
there if they weren't there for backward compatibility - in other
words, it has a large legacy to support. Hence all the functions...

Nobody is forced to use these functions.

No, but they're there. They're part of the language, and you really
need to know they're there if you want to read VB.NET code, because
even if you choose not to use it, other people will.
C# suffers from legacy syntax like
'switch', which has been taken from C and then "fixed" with ugly hacks,
Duly acknowledged in many places. The switch statement was one of the
C# design team's worst moments, IMO.
distinction of identifiers' names only by their case, which stands against
the rules of the CLS
Only for public/protected members, I believe - and if you want to be
CLS-compliant, you can always include the appropriate attribute and get
warnings or errors if you do the wrong thing. It's about as hard to do
as, say, turning option strict on...
and can be considered a feature copied over from C for
reasons of legacy support too, ...

No - because there's no legacy support. There's no C to C# conversion;
no-one (in their right mind, anyway) tries to directly convert C code
to C# code, because they're idiomatically so different. A lot of the
syntax is the same, but a lot is different too. (Heck, where exactly
are class declarations in C anyway?)

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

[m.posseth]

Hmmm
HTML

Hyper Text Markup Language

do i need to say more ???

well i guess that someone called it a language ,,,,,, however a programming
language ??? i guess this is a mather of personall taste

about SQL

Well i wrote myself Transact SQL that had so manny logic that it could
replace a externall business logic component so :-) i guess that if it is
capable of that , that you could call it a programming language
Regrds
Michel Posseth [MCP]

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> schreef in bericht
news:eP**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

SQL, any flavor of it, is indeed a programming language. There are 3
specific features that all programming languages share in common:

1. Sequence
2. Selection
3.Iteration

SQL has all of these, and in fact, is compiled. SQL is a set of
instruction code that is specifically tailored for databases.

HTML, on the other hand, contains no instruction code whatsoever. Neither
is it compiled. It is a *markup* language that contains text
*specifications* (daata) used *by* applications for the purpose of
displaying the HTML. There is no sequence, selection, *or* iteration in
HTML. It requires a programming language such as JavaScript to manipulate
HTML elements. And in fact, neither JavaScript nor CSS actually manipulate
HTML elements. They manipulate objects in the logical Document Object
Model which is created by the application that reads the HTML. The HTML
itself remains unchanged.

It might better be argued that XML *can be* a programming language, in the
form of XSLT, XAML, and other extensions of XML that contain processing
instructions, sequence, selection, and iteration. On the other hand, XSD
is not a programming language, as it is simply a set of definitions in a
schema. The difference between a programming language and a markup
language is that a programming language contains *process and data*, while
a markup language contains *only* data.

In other words, words mean things. Words are what distinguishes one idea
from another. They identify ideas. Once the meaning of a word is twisted
beyond definition, there is no meaning left. Black becomes White; One
becomes Zero; Right becomes Wrong. And none of these words mean anything
at all.

Pretzel Logic is not logic at all. It is simply rhetoric. It is truly sad
when the rhetorician falls for his own rhetoric, particularly when that
person makes a living as a programmer. Such a person would be better
suited as a politician or a salesperson. A computer will never be
convinced that 1 == 0.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...

Cor Ligthert [MVP] <no************@planet.nl> wrote:

> I'm sure that depends on how much it's measured. If you're counting
> "people who've used VB" that may well be true, as it's often used by
> people who *aren't* professional developers, who just need to scratch
> an itch.

How do you count the enormous amount of people who make only Cxx
snippets as additions to games?

I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean patches/cracks? If so, I don't
think there are *that* many people

> (I suspect it also depends on whether you include HTML as a "computer
> language :)

If you call SQL a program language, than HTML is it in my opinion as
well.

I wouldn't call HTML a programming language (although I would say that
SQL is - or rather, T-SQL, PL/SQL etc), but HTML *is* a computer
language IMO. They're not the same thing.

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

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Cor Ligthert [MVP] <no************@planet.nl> wrote:

How do you count the enormous amount of people who make only Cxx
snippets as additions to games?
I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean patches/cracks? If so, I don't
think there are *that* many people Did you ever play online games as Unreal, Quake or seen somebody busy with
Sims or whatever.

You probably would change your opinion than, the come with complete packs to
build 3D parts. This started by Duke Nukem 3D as far as I remember me.

There is an endless amount of these maps, build with languages very close or
complete the same as Cxx languages.

To give you one examle
http://www.unrealtournament.com/ut2003/maps.php
Ah, mods. I still believe there are far fewer people doing that than
have been using VBA/VB professionally just occasionally.
I wouldn't call HTML a programming language (although I would say that
SQL is - or rather, T-SQL, PL/SQL etc), but HTML *is* a computer
language IMO. They're not the same thing.

For me a programming language builds a DLL an EXE or whatever, but is not
direct processed. However that can be a personal idea about that.

That would discount things like Ruby and Perl. I think you're pretty
much on your own if you only count compiled languages as programming
languages.
For myself I don't call HTML a language

What do you think the "L" stands for?

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

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Kevin Spencer <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote:

SQL, any flavor of it, is indeed a programming language. There are 3
specific features that all programming languages share in common:

1. Sequence
2. Selection
3.Iteration
Do standardised SQL include "IF" etc? I thought the DML parts of
standardised SQL were only select/insert/delete/update. I could well be
very far off base there - I've rarely had to distinguish between
standard SQL and whatever dialect I'm using at the time.
SQL has all of these, and in fact, is compiled. SQL is a set of instruction
code that is specifically tailored for databases.

HTML, on the other hand, contains no instruction code whatsoever. Neither is
it compiled. It is a *markup* language that contains text *specifications*
(daata) used *by* applications for the purpose of displaying the HTML. There
is no sequence, selection, *or* iteration in HTML. It requires a programming
language such as JavaScript to manipulate HTML elements. And in fact,
neither JavaScript nor CSS actually manipulate HTML elements. They
manipulate objects in the logical Document Object Model which is created by
the application that reads the HTML. The HTML itself remains unchanged.
Absolutely. And that's why I didn't try to argue that it's a
programming language. It's a language which is almost solely used on
computers, however, which is why I think it's reasonable to call it a
"computer language".

<snip>
Pretzel Logic is not logic at all. It is simply rhetoric. It is truly sad
when the rhetorician falls for his own rhetoric, particularly when that
person makes a living as a programmer. Such a person would be better suited
as a politician or a salesperson. A computer will never be convinced that 1
== 0.

I'm not sure whether or not I'm the target here, but please don't think
I believe that HTML is a programming language. I haven't said that, and
I wouldn't. Maybe you were aiming at Cor instead though, in which case
this is mostly a wasted post :)

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

[Kevin Spencer]

> I'm not sure whether or not I'm the target here, but please don't think

I believe that HTML is a programming language.
Oh no, Jon. I was agreeing with you! Backing you up. Sorry if you
misunderstood.
Do standardised SQL include "IF" etc? I thought the DML parts of
standardised SQL were only select/insert/delete/update. I could well be
very far off base there - I've rarely had to distinguish between
standard SQL and whatever dialect I'm using at the time.
Yes, in fact. I co-authored a book about it several years ago, and have done
quite a bit of database application work in the past (still do, from time to
time, but am rather over it). The ISO standard includes if statements, case
statements, and looping statements. It's come a long way since all it did
was fetch cursors.
I wouldn't. Maybe you were aiming at Cor instead though, in which case
this is mostly a wasted post :)

It seemed wise to back you up rather than to argue directly with any
individual. As to what is a waste, well, this is a public newsgroup. I tend
to offer information for anyone that may be happening to read a thread. You
never know when seeds of knowledge will find purchase.

:-)

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Jon,

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> schrieb:

>> Well, I have to disagree. VB.NET is at least as .NETized as C#.
>
> I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
> is more "dotnetized" as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.
VB.NET has been designed *specifically* for .NET too. Remember the huge
discussion about VB.NET vs. a real VB7? Compatibility to VB6 obviously
had
not been one of the goals of VB.NET's language designers.

I would say it was a goal - just not one which was as high up the
agenda as might have been desirable.

VB.NET has been marketed as VB6' successor, but from a technical point of
view I don't see many similarities. Behavior of the language's syntax has
been altered in many occasions, thus I believe that it has not been one of
the main goals when designing the language. "Micrsosoft.VisualBasic.dll" is
a nice add-on which makes using VB.NET easier for VB6 programmers. However,
"Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll" is a managed library, and from a technical
standpoint there are no reasons for avoiding its use.
Do you believe that if they'd designed the language from scratch with
*no* reference to VB6, there'd have been quite so many similarities?
No, I do not believe that. But to you believe they had designed the C#
language from scratch with *no* reference to C/C++ and Java, there would
have been quite so many similarities? It's petty clear that Microsoft
didn't attempt to reinvent the wheel. It's hard to position a new
programming language on the market if nobody is familiar with its syntax.

> VB.NET, however, has several "features" which I suspect wouldn't be
> there if they weren't there for backward compatibility - in other
> words, it has a large legacy to support. Hence all the functions...

Nobody is forced to use these functions.

No, but they're there. They're part of the language

No, they are part of a library. They are not part of the language. It's
not guaranteed that all implementations of the language provide this
library. Some of the methods of the library are not avalilable on
handhelds, etc. So they are clearly an add-on.
and you really need to know they're there if you want to read
VB.NET code, because even if you choose not to use it, other people will.

The .NET Framework and .NET technology is the infrastructure programming
languages can be built on. The 'using' statement, for example, is simply a
wrapper around a method call and error handling code. Some .NET programming
languages do not provide an equivalent keyword as part of their syntax. So,
people using another .NET programming language will have problems to
understand C# or VB.NET code too.

and can be considered a feature copied over from C for
reasons of legacy support too, ...

No - because there's no legacy support. There's no C to C# conversion;
no-one (in their right mind, anyway)

Well, there is a Java to C# conversion wizard available. Maybe they didn't
copy C but copied Java instead... I don't think this argument makes much
sense.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Charlie Tame]

May I add my 2c here since I am a total newcomer but recognize talent when I
see it :)

Bearing in mind your comments and leaving them for others to read I will add
my observations below.

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:uN**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

Jon,

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> schrieb:

>> Well, I have to disagree. VB.NET is at least as .NETized as C#.
>
> I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
> is more "dotnetized" as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.

VB.NET has been designed *specifically* for .NET too. Remember the huge
discussion about VB.NET vs. a real VB7? Compatibility to VB6 obviously
had
not been one of the goals of VB.NET's language designers.

I would say it was a goal - just not one which was as high up the
agenda as might have been desirable.

VB.NET has been marketed as VB6' successor, but from a technical point of
view I don't see many similarities. Behavior of the language's syntax has
been altered in many occasions, thus I believe that it has not been one of
the main goals when designing the language. "Micrsosoft.VisualBasic.dll"
is a nice add-on which makes using VB.NET easier for VB6 programmers.
However, "Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll" is a managed library, and from a
technical standpoint there are no reasons for avoiding its use.

Do you believe that if they'd designed the language from scratch with
*no* reference to VB6, there'd have been quite so many similarities?

No, I do not believe that. But to you believe they had designed the C#
language from scratch with *no* reference to C/C++ and Java, there would
have been quite so many similarities? It's petty clear that Microsoft
didn't attempt to reinvent the wheel. It's hard to position a new
programming language on the market if nobody is familiar with its syntax.

> VB.NET, however, has several "features" which I suspect wouldn't be
> there if they weren't there for backward compatibility - in other
> words, it has a large legacy to support. Hence all the functions...

Nobody is forced to use these functions.

No, but they're there. They're part of the language

No, they are part of a library. They are not part of the language. It's
not guaranteed that all implementations of the language provide this
library. Some of the methods of the library are not avalilable on
handhelds, etc. So they are clearly an add-on.

and you really need to know they're there if you want to read
VB.NET code, because even if you choose not to use it, other people will.

The .NET Framework and .NET technology is the infrastructure programming
languages can be built on. The 'using' statement, for example, is simply
a wrapper around a method call and error handling code. Some .NET
programming languages do not provide an equivalent keyword as part of
their syntax. So, people using another .NET programming language will
have problems to understand C# or VB.NET code too.

and can be considered a feature copied over from C for
reasons of legacy support too, ...

No - because there's no legacy support. There's no C to C# conversion;
no-one (in their right mind, anyway)

Well, there is a Java to C# conversion wizard available. Maybe they
didn't copy C but copied Java instead... I don't think this argument
makes much sense.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

1. the NET framework is associated with various misconceptions ranging from
Bill Gates wanting to take over the world to problems with the MS Passport.
I don't think it is recognized as a virtual machine in the same way that
Java is yet by most of the public users, it is seen as some kind of network
related system that's not really connected with local software. Unfortunate
naming perhaps, but since programs written using it require a download I
think it will suffer delays in real widespread usage. I know quite a few who
decline the NET framework updates offered because they don't want more
invasive MS stuff. Yes I am serious, that is what I see.

2. I have written a couple of apps in C#, more educational then useful
although one I'm quite pleased with, but having taken these apps to work to
try on various machines and combinations I am finding various "Can't
install" problems that would discourage me from asking others to test them.
Of course this was done using a beta but I hope MS can bring things together
so that when real live applications hit the streets they will not cause the
less knowledgeable user to have too much trouble, this is bad for the
reputation.

3. I'm finding the C# language a bit easier than C++ but as a complete
novice I am not sure how much is due to the IDE and how much is actually
easier. I do wonder how it will get used though if it proves to be
problematic for users since people tend to err on the side of unfavorable
comparisons against something they are used to.

Anyway, my 2c, the original question was interesting.

Charlie

[Kevin Spencer]

Hi Herfried,

Good arguments, and well-stated.

I prefer C#, but I'm not religious about it. It does more than VB.Net, and
I've always liked the syntax. The second reason, however, is purely personal
preference.

It is heartening, though to see the improvements in VB.Net that are in the
..Net 2.0 Framework, and in the Visual Studio.Net 2005 IDE. For example, I
have complained for years about Option Strict being OFF by default, and that
is fixed in the new Visual Studio. I can see why it was done originally, but
the argument just didn't hold water. As you've pointed out, VB.Net is .Net,
*not* VB6. It has all the power of .Net, and that means all of the
opportunity to screw up. That implies that it should be more strict than its
predecessor, which it is.

Other constraints in the new version are also encouraging. Microsoft has had
quite a tightrope to raverse with VB.Net, and has made some adjustments in
the right direction. They had enough trouble selling it to VB6 developers in
the first place, but the problems their accomdations caused certainly
outweighed the complaints of those who were not used to a strongly-typed,
fully object-oriented programming technology. I believe Microsoft has
finally struck the right balance in the latest version. VB6 developers will
simply have to adapt and grow, like everybody else. And that will be good
for everyone.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:uN**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

Jon,

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> schrieb:

>> Well, I have to disagree. VB.NET is at least as .NETized as C#.
>
> I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
> is more "dotnetized" as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.

VB.NET has been designed *specifically* for .NET too. Remember the huge
discussion about VB.NET vs. a real VB7? Compatibility to VB6 obviously
had
not been one of the goals of VB.NET's language designers.

I would say it was a goal - just not one which was as high up the
agenda as might have been desirable.

VB.NET has been marketed as VB6' successor, but from a technical point of
view I don't see many similarities. Behavior of the language's syntax has
been altered in many occasions, thus I believe that it has not been one of
the main goals when designing the language. "Micrsosoft.VisualBasic.dll"
is a nice add-on which makes using VB.NET easier for VB6 programmers.
However, "Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll" is a managed library, and from a
technical standpoint there are no reasons for avoiding its use.

Do you believe that if they'd designed the language from scratch with
*no* reference to VB6, there'd have been quite so many similarities?

No, I do not believe that. But to you believe they had designed the C#
language from scratch with *no* reference to C/C++ and Java, there would
have been quite so many similarities? It's petty clear that Microsoft
didn't attempt to reinvent the wheel. It's hard to position a new
programming language on the market if nobody is familiar with its syntax.

> VB.NET, however, has several "features" which I suspect wouldn't be
> there if they weren't there for backward compatibility - in other
> words, it has a large legacy to support. Hence all the functions...

Nobody is forced to use these functions.

No, but they're there. They're part of the language

No, they are part of a library. They are not part of the language. It's
not guaranteed that all implementations of the language provide this
library. Some of the methods of the library are not avalilable on
handhelds, etc. So they are clearly an add-on.

and you really need to know they're there if you want to read
VB.NET code, because even if you choose not to use it, other people will.

The .NET Framework and .NET technology is the infrastructure programming
languages can be built on. The 'using' statement, for example, is simply
a wrapper around a method call and error handling code. Some .NET
programming languages do not provide an equivalent keyword as part of
their syntax. So, people using another .NET programming language will
have problems to understand C# or VB.NET code too.

and can be considered a feature copied over from C for
reasons of legacy support too, ...

No - because there's no legacy support. There's no C to C# conversion;
no-one (in their right mind, anyway)

Well, there is a Java to C# conversion wizard available. Maybe they
didn't copy C but copied Java instead... I don't think this argument
makes much sense.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Michel,

See as well my replies to Jon to that, you can call something a language (or
whatever) than it is therefore not a language.

In computing is more often the word "language" used for things that had
nothing to do with a language.

It can be that it is my interpretation from a language, a language is for me
a tool to communicatie between two media if it is a natural language or a
program language. A description is that not. There have be more developments
tools been (4th generation) that where no language however got that name.

Just my opinion,

Cor

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Jon,

Ah, mods. I still believe there are far fewer people doing that than
have been using VBA/VB professionally just occasionally.

Of course those people use VBA/VB professonally
LOL
(I know therefore it are not professional developpers)

For myself I don't call HTML a language

What do you think the "L" stands for?

I have written in this thread that it is a "description language", however I
kept always some doubt about that.

I cannot come on that phrase for that at the moment.

Cor

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Jon,

This what I write bellow I can never proof.

I have strongly the idea that the Microsoft Visual Basic namespace is only
created, to keep it apart from the framework so that C++ and Java
developpers whould not have the idea that the languages C# and J# are a kind
of changed VB (what I do not say or think).

That does not mean as I have often written that I am lucky with the
behaviour from all classes in that Visual Basic namespace (by instance the
strange use of the indexers). However there are many, which would have
enrichen the basic Net namespase, if they where as well direct available to
the other Net languages.

Let us not start talking in detail about this, which would and which should
not.

Cor

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Charlie,

May I have the conclusion from your statements that Microsoft has problems
to sell C# and J# to the Java and C++ developers. I see that more and more
classic VB developers are successful adapting VB Net.

:-)

Cor

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Jon,

Do standardised SQL include "IF" etc?

That is what I would have wanted to say, and could not get it what it was.
That If is for "me" essential in a program language. Maybe better to
descript as every "branch" statement.

:-)

Cor

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

"Charlie Tame" <ch*****@tames.net> schrieb:

1. the NET framework is associated with various misconceptions ranging
from Bill Gates wanting to take over the world to problems with the MS
Passport.
I don't think that it was the purpose of the .NET Framework to encourage
adoption of .NET Passport, although marketing appended the ".NET" to many
product names.
I don't think it is recognized as a virtual machine in the same way that
Java is yet by most of the public users, it is seen as some kind of
network related system that's not really connected with local software.
I agree with you that the name ".NET" was not the best choice.
Unfortunate naming perhaps, but since programs written using it require a
download I think it will suffer delays in real widespread usage.

Windows Server 2003 comes with the .NET Framework, as Vista will do.
Windows XP SP1/SP2 CD-ROMs included the .NET Framework as an optional
component too. So, hoplefully this won't be such a big problem in future.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

[Kevin Spencer]

Jon's issue is not with your use of the word "language," but with your use
of the adjective in the phrase "programming language." In the acronym "HTML"
the 'L' stands for "language," and it most certainly *is* a language. But
the 'M' stands for "markup," which means that it is a markup language, not
necessarily a programming language.

In fact, it is *not* a programming language, as I pointed out in my earlier
message, and for the reasons I gave.

I am not interested in whatever emotional zeal anyone may have, or how
anyone may subjectively characterize the expressions of ideas. I am only
interested in the ideas themselves, as part of the betterment of the
community, via the distribution of knowledge, which is factual by nature.

One may certainly prefer one language over another, and have perfectly
valid, albeit subjective reasons for having that preference. For example,
one may be more comfortable with one syntax over another, and that certainly
lends itself to productivity. Productivity is a profitabl goal, and
therefore makes the preference perfectly logical.

It is not necessary to provide arguments which are *not* logical to promote
the use of one language over another. In fact, such arguments confuse the
issue.

The decision regarding what programming language(s) one chooses to use is a
matter of weighing the benefits of one against the benefits of another. This
decision includes both objective fact, and subjective fact (such as I
described above). Some benefits are global in scope, such as the available
functionality which the language presents to all users of it. Other benefits
are local in scope, such as the comfort-level of the user with one syntax
over another.

In the decision-making process, it is best to have factual evidence, at all
possible levels of scope, to work with. Anything else tends to lead to
erroneous conclusions.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:OY*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

Michel,

See as well my replies to Jon to that, you can call something a language
(or whatever) than it is therefore not a language.

In computing is more often the word "language" used for things that had
nothing to do with a language.

It can be that it is my interpretation from a language, a language is for
me a tool to communicatie between two media if it is a natural language or
a program language. A description is that not. There have be more
developments tools been (4th generation) that where no language however
got that name.

Just my opinion,

Cor

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote:

I would say it was a goal - just not one which was as high up the
agenda as might have been desirable.
VB.NET has been marketed as VB6' successor, but from a technical point of
view I don't see many similarities. Behavior of the language's syntax has
been altered in many occasions, thus I believe that it has not been one of
the main goals when designing the language. "Micrsosoft.VisualBasic.dll" is
a nice add-on which makes using VB.NET easier for VB6 programmers. However,
"Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll" is a managed library, and from a technical
standpoint there are no reasons for avoiding its use.

It's a less object-oriented way of doing things. If you want to do
something to a string, surely it makes more sense to call a method on
that string than to call a static method in a class in a totally
different assembly.

Do you believe that if they'd designed the language from scratch with
*no* reference to VB6, there'd have been quite so many similarities?

No, I do not believe that. But to you believe they had designed the C#
language from scratch with *no* reference to C/C++ and Java, there would
have been quite so many similarities? It's petty clear that Microsoft
didn't attempt to reinvent the wheel. It's hard to position a new
programming language on the market if nobody is familiar with its syntax.

But they could easily have kept the VB syntax without keeping a lot of
the extra functions. Most of the functions have *similar* equivalents
in the .NET framework, as far as I've seen - the differences aren't
usually why someone would use the function rather than the more OO
method call. The reason for using the function would normally be
because that's what their old code did, IMO.

> VB.NET, however, has several "features" which I suspect wouldn't be
> there if they weren't there for backward compatibility - in other
> words, it has a large legacy to support. Hence all the functions...

Nobody is forced to use these functions.

No, but they're there. They're part of the language

No, they are part of a library. They are not part of the language. It's
not guaranteed that all implementations of the language provide this
library.

Hmm. It's unfortunate that with VB, the line between language and
library is somewhat hazy IMO. Is VB6 the language or the language plus
the libraries? Does "CDate" fall into the category of a language
element or a library call?

They're things that the compiler itself needs to be aware of (as far as
I know), whereas a compiler doesn't usually need to worry about what
libraries are available, so long as it can find out in a standard way
when you try to call them.

Either way, I hope you *do* take the point that saying that "nobody is
forced to use these functions" doesn't help you if you're trying to
understand someone else's VB.NET code when they *have* used them. It's
extra stuff to learn, and I don't believe most of it would be there if
it weren't for earlier versions of VB.
Some of the methods of the library are not avalilable on
handhelds, etc. So they are clearly an add-on.
I don't think that makes them an add-on, any more than it makes those
classes/methods which aren't in the Compact Framework less "part of the
..NET framework".

and you really need to know they're there if you want to read
VB.NET code, because even if you choose not to use it, other people will.

The .NET Framework and .NET technology is the infrastructure programming
languages can be built on. The 'using' statement, for example, is simply a
wrapper around a method call and error handling code. Some .NET programming
languages do not provide an equivalent keyword as part of their syntax. So,
people using another .NET programming language will have problems to
understand C# or VB.NET code too.

There are very few of those in C# compared with the number of VB
functions, however - and they're part of C# that all C# developers (and
anyone reading C#) really *should* know.

and can be considered a feature copied over from C for
reasons of legacy support too, ...

No - because there's no legacy support. There's no C to C# conversion;
no-one (in their right mind, anyway)

Well, there is a Java to C# conversion wizard available.

I don't think that's really the same as the VB situation though. (It
was also a really bad idea IMO, but that's another matter.)
Maybe they didn't copy C but copied Java instead... I don't think this
argument makes much sense.

They certainly copied the syntax of Java to a large extent. I don't
think anyone outside Microsoft would argue against that. I don't see
why that's a legacy issue though. They fixed some of the issues at the
same time though, because they weren't trying to let people run their
Java code in C#.

A good example is calling static methods. I really like the fact that
C# doesn't let you call a static method via an instance variable. For
instance, this won't compile:

Thread t = new Thread (...);
t.Sleep (1000);

The equivalent in VB.NET *does* compile though - and I believe they
chose to keep it that way because it would have worked in VB classic.

There are various quirks in VB like that - the handling of null strings
being another example. Do you really think they would have made the
string handling that way if they didn't care about backward
compatibility to some extent?

The switch statement is one of the very, very few places where a bad
idea has been kept (admittedly slightly improved) in C# rather than
fixed.

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

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Cor Ligthert [MVP] <no************@planet.nl> wrote:

This what I write bellow I can never proof.

I have strongly the idea that the Microsoft Visual Basic namespace is only
created, to keep it apart from the framework so that C++ and Java
developpers whould not have the idea that the languages C# and J# are a kind
of changed VB (what I do not say or think).
What's your reasoning for that? I can't imagine anyone either thinking
that C# is a changed VB or believing that other people would. It's
*much* more likely that they'll think C# is a derivative of Java, which
it basically is...
That does not mean as I have often written that I am lucky with the
behaviour from all classes in that Visual Basic namespace (by instance the
strange use of the indexers). However there are many, which would have
enrichen the basic Net namespase, if they where as well direct available to
the other Net languages.

Let us not start talking in detail about this, which would and which should
not.

That would quite possibly be a bad idea, yes.

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