467,174 Members | 1,388 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
Ask Question

Home New Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 467,174 developers. It's quick & easy.

VB or C?

Fact Poll

I made the transition from (Borland) C++ to VB.NET around 2004. I have been
happy with the choice. I find I can focus more on the problem and less on
being "tidy" with VB.

But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.

I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back towards C
- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.

What are the facts? What are the advantages of C in terms of stability,
flexibility, and overall power? What about the long term trend? What is the
apparent emerging language today.

I kinow everyone is busy. I don't mean to waste anyone's time. I ask because
I am at a crossroads, embarking on a huge task. I want to be using the most
vital language. What better place to ask?
mark b

Apr 7 '07 #1
  • viewed: 4125
Share:
111 Replies
Well, first off, I think you mean C#, rather than C, right? Because if you
do, in fact, mean C, then there are tremeandous differences. VB .NET is a
..NET language (obviously) and so all the advantages of .NET vs. COM come
into play (versioning/DLL Hell issues, deployment issues, the whole web
development/web services issue, caching, etc.).

If you do mean C# instead, then the differences between it and VB .NET are
minimal. You can do a Google search on VB.NET vs. C# and come up with all
kinds of articles (even from Microsoft) stating this. When comparing one
..NET language against another, the choice comes down to preference. In a
corporate environment, it comes down to the existing in-house skill set and
the amount of re-training the staff would need to become
productive/efficient in a new language. The differences between C# and VB
..NET are, largely, minor and don't come into play in huge ways for most
applications.

Lastly, anyone who would end a conversation about development languages
after you tell them you use VB .NET, should be ignored since they obviously
are not educated as to what a powerfull langugage VB .NET is. It's not your
father's VB 6.0 - it is leaps and bounds better, on par with any other OOP
language.

"mark" <ma**@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:68**********************************@microsof t.com...
Fact Poll

I made the transition from (Borland) C++ to VB.NET around 2004. I have
been
happy with the choice. I find I can focus more on the problem and less on
being "tidy" with VB.

But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.

I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back towards
C
- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.

What are the facts? What are the advantages of C in terms of stability,
flexibility, and overall power? What about the long term trend? What is
the
apparent emerging language today.

I kinow everyone is busy. I don't mean to waste anyone's time. I ask
because
I am at a crossroads, embarking on a huge task. I want to be using the
most
vital language. What better place to ask?
mark b

Apr 7 '07 #2
Hi Mark,

This is a Common Question that i heared between alot of deveolpers.

In Fact, After .Net Technology has see the light. it Gathered all
programming languages ( Like C, VB ) in one Base; which is the .Net
Framework. All the programming languages now using the same Basis.

So, it reffers to the developer background; if it is C, or VB, or .... what
are you familiar with!?

This will simplify the developer job, instead of forcing him/her to use the
same programming language.

This is my own openion!

Regards,
Husam Al-A'araj

"mark" wrote:
Fact Poll

I made the transition from (Borland) C++ to VB.NET around 2004. I have been
happy with the choice. I find I can focus more on the problem and less on
being "tidy" with VB.

But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.

I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back towards C
- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.

What are the facts? What are the advantages of C in terms of stability,
flexibility, and overall power? What about the long term trend? What is the
apparent emerging language today.

I kinow everyone is busy. I don't mean to waste anyone's time. I ask because
I am at a crossroads, embarking on a huge task. I want to be using the most
vital language. What better place to ask?
mark b
Apr 7 '07 #3
mark wrote:
I made the transition from (Borland) C++ to VB.NET around 2004. I have been
happy with the choice. I find I can focus more on the problem and less on
being "tidy" with VB.

But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.

I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back towards C
- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.

What are the facts? What are the advantages of C in terms of stability,
flexibility, and overall power? What about the long term trend? What is the
apparent emerging language today.

I kinow everyone is busy. I don't mean to waste anyone's time. I ask because
I am at a crossroads, embarking on a huge task. I want to be using the most
vital language. What better place to ask?
(I assume you mean C# not C)

If job adds is a good indicator of language usage then
C# usage outnumber VB.NET usage 3:1.

It is also my impression that it is much more common to
teach C# than VB.NET at very educations.

But there are still a lot of VB.NET code out
there now and will be too in the future.

I would not consider using VB.NET a risk for the project
long term.

Arne
Apr 7 '07 #4
In Fact, After .Net Technology has see the light. it Gathered all
programming languages ( Like C, VB ) in one Base; which is the .Net
Framework. All the programming languages now using the same Basis.
Well, there's a bit more to it than this. The .NET Framework consits of a
Common Language Runtime that only understands how to process native machine
code (not VB.NET, C#, J# or C++). There are language-specific comilers that
are part of the Framework and these compilers translate the original
language used into Intermediate Language (IL). The first user to use an
application will cause the Framework to translate the IL to native machine
code for the CLR to execute. The Framework also consists of a huge set of
base classes (not languages) that can be used, regardless of the particular
language the developer is using.

The Framework (and more specifically) the Common Language Runtime (CLR) is
built on something called the Common Language Specification, which sets some
ground rules that all .NET languages must follow. This CLS includes, yet
another component called the Common Type System (which says that all .NET
languages must have equivelant data types).

So, I would not say that the Framework is just a base language for all other
..NET language. That's a bit of an over simplification (and I have also left
out several other aspects of the Framework for brevity).

But, hopefully, this will shed light on why all .NET languages are more/less
on equal footing.
Apr 7 '07 #5
If job adds is a good indicator of language usage then
C# usage outnumber VB.NET usage 3:1.
So, you've seen *all* the .NET programming job ads and made this 3:1 based
on that? I think this value is highly speculative and can't be determined
unequivacly.
It is also my impression that it is much more common to
teach C# than VB.NET at very educations.
See my first comment.
But there are still a lot of VB.NET code out
there now and will be too in the future.
Very true. In fact, since VB (6 and lower) as well as VBA have been around
for so long that VB .NET will have a very safe future for these two reasons.

Many folks are hesitant to re-write something from scratch, rather than
upgrade it to a newer version.
There are so many VB 6 developers out there already that may not be willing
or able (or it just may not be practicle) to start all over with a new
language.
I would not consider using VB.NET a risk for the project
long term.
Your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Apr 7 '07 #6
Scott M. wrote:
>If job adds is a good indicator of language usage then
C# usage outnumber VB.NET usage 3:1.

So, you've seen *all* the .NET programming job ads and made this 3:1 based
on that? I think this value is highly speculative and can't be determined
unequivacly.
No.

But I know how to use the search field in a job database and
see the hit count in the result.

Today dice.com gives:

C# - 6867
VB.NET - 2512

(that is 2.73:1)
>It is also my impression that it is much more common to
teach C# than VB.NET at very educations.

See my first comment.
That is a more qualitative assessment.

But I think it is valid.
>I would not consider using VB.NET a risk for the project
long term.

Your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Apparently also your opinion.

Or did you no read what I actually wrote ?

Arne
Apr 7 '07 #7
Inline....

"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
Scott M. wrote:
>>If job adds is a good indicator of language usage then
C# usage outnumber VB.NET usage 3:1.

So, you've seen *all* the .NET programming job ads and made this 3:1
based on that? I think this value is highly speculative and can't be
determined unequivacly.

No.

But I know how to use the search field in a job database and
see the hit count in the result.

Today dice.com gives:

C# - 6867
VB.NET - 2512

(that is 2.73:1)
Ok, one jobs search engine down, 435,000 to go.
>>It is also my impression that it is much more common to
teach C# than VB.NET at very educations.

See my first comment.

That is a more qualitative assessment.

But I think it is valid.
Why? I own & operate an IT training firm (http://TechTrainSolutions.com)
and I get far more request for VB .NET training than I do for C# with
customers just moving to .NET. Now, I'm not going to say that it is or it
isn't true that C# is taught more than VB .NET or vice versa (even though I
think I might be more qualified to say this) because I am but one training
provider. What's your impression based on?
>>I would not consider using VB.NET a risk for the project
long term.

Your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Apparently also your opinion.

Or did you no read what I actually wrote ?
Of course I did. Did you? There's nothing wrong with passing along an
opinion, but don't dress it up as a fact. I disputed your 3:1 statistic
because looking at one job site out of thousands does not a reliable
statistic make.

I also just pressed you on your impression that C# is taught more readily
than VB .NET - I didn't say you were wrong (did you read what I wrote?), I
just asked for why you had this impression.

Your third point, I agreed with.

As for your last comment (your opinion), I did not object at all. I merely
point out that it is an opinion.

So what, exactly, is wrong with my comments?

Apr 7 '07 #8
"mark" <ma**@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:68**********************************@microsof t.com...
But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.
Someone posted a link a while back to an article claiming that there are no
true VB.NET "developers" because the entire Basic collection of languages
allows for so much sloppiness and lack of structure - something like that,
anyway...

Can't find it at the moment - does anyone remember the post I'm talking
about...?
Apr 7 '07 #9
Can't find it at the moment - does anyone remember the post I'm talking
about...?
Kind of glad you can't find it.

That attitude is complete nonsense.

Tom Dacon
Dacon Software Consulting
(C#, VB.Net, ex-C++, ex-C developer)
Apr 7 '07 #10
I agree, you can write sloppy code in any language. Plus, I'm quite sure
that what you are reffing to was about VB 6.0, not VB .NET.
"Tom Dacon" <td****@community.nospamwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>Can't find it at the moment - does anyone remember the post I'm talking
about...?

Kind of glad you can't find it.

That attitude is complete nonsense.

Tom Dacon
Dacon Software Consulting
(C#, VB.Net, ex-C++, ex-C developer)

Apr 7 '07 #11
"Tom Dacon" <td****@community.nospamwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>Can't find it at the moment - does anyone remember the post I'm talking
about...?

Kind of glad you can't find it.

That attitude is complete nonsense.
Found it: http://www.codeproject.com/dotnet/CSharpVersusVB.asp

Superb!
Apr 7 '07 #12
This article is solely based on the veiwpoint that the VB .NET *culture* is
sub-standard to C#. It makes many assumptions and many statements, which
are entirely subjective. In short, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Now, if the article was talking about VB 6.0, I'd more inclined to agree
(more, but not completely) with *some* of it's presumptions, but it does
not.

As I said earlier, you can write poor code in any language.
"Mark Rae" <ma**@markNOSPAMrae.comwrote in message
news:%2*****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
"Tom Dacon" <td****@community.nospamwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>Can't find it at the moment - does anyone remember the post I'm talking
about...?

Kind of glad you can't find it.

That attitude is complete nonsense.

Found it: http://www.codeproject.com/dotnet/CSharpVersusVB.asp

Superb!

Apr 7 '07 #13
Scott M. wrote:
"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
>Scott M. wrote:
>>>If job adds is a good indicator of language usage then
C# usage outnumber VB.NET usage 3:1.
So, you've seen *all* the .NET programming job ads and made this 3:1
based on that? I think this value is highly speculative and can't be
determined unequivacly.
No.

But I know how to use the search field in a job database and
see the hit count in the result.

Today dice.com gives:

C# - 6867
VB.NET - 2512

(that is 2.73:1)

Ok, one jobs search engine down, 435,000 to go.
That was the US.

UK (ItJobWatch):

C# 26956
VB.NET 8012

ratio 3.36:1

Germany (Monster):

C# 511
VB.NET 91

ratio 5.62:1

See the trend ?
>>>It is also my impression that it is much more common to
teach C# than VB.NET at very educations.
See my first comment.
That is a more qualitative assessment.

But I think it is valid.

Why? I own & operate an IT training firm (http://TechTrainSolutions.com)
and I get far more request for VB .NET training than I do for C# with
customers just moving to .NET. Now, I'm not going to say that it is or it
isn't true that C# is taught more than VB .NET or vice versa (even though I
think I might be more qualified to say this) because I am but one training
provider. What's your impression based on?
Based on hearing from students at various levels (when they ask
for help in various fora).

After spending 2 seconds reading your home page then it
appears to me that you are not teaching IT students but
teaching IT professionals. Different market.
>>>I would not consider using VB.NET a risk for the project
long term.
Your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Apparently also your opinion.

Or did you no read what I actually wrote ?

Of course I did. Did you? There's nothing wrong with passing along an
opinion, but don't dress it up as a fact. I disputed your 3:1 statistic
because looking at one job site out of thousands does not a reliable
statistic make.
Who said that it was based at looking at one job site ????

I have made the test at some of them frequently over some years.
I also just pressed you on your impression that C# is taught more readily
than VB .NET - I didn't say you were wrong (did you read what I wrote?), I
just asked for why you had this impression.
Answered above.
So what, exactly, is wrong with my comments?
I don't think it is common to ask for evidence for this type
of statements unless you think the posted summaries were false.

Arne
Apr 7 '07 #14
"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...

UK (JobServe)

C# - 2,599
http://www.jobserve.com/results.aspx...s=20&x=34&y=16

VB.NET - 779
http://www.jobserve.com/results.aspx...1=1&dt=1&ps=20
Apr 7 '07 #15
3 sites out of thousands make a trend?
"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
Scott M. wrote:
>"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk. ..
>>Scott M. wrote:
If job adds is a good indicator of language usage then
C# usage outnumber VB.NET usage 3:1.
So, you've seen *all* the .NET programming job ads and made this 3:1
based on that? I think this value is highly speculative and can't be
determined unequivacly.
No.

But I know how to use the search field in a job database and
see the hit count in the result.

Today dice.com gives:

C# - 6867
VB.NET - 2512

(that is 2.73:1)

Ok, one jobs search engine down, 435,000 to go.

That was the US.

UK (ItJobWatch):

C# 26956
VB.NET 8012

ratio 3.36:1

Germany (Monster):

C# 511
VB.NET 91

ratio 5.62:1

See the trend ?
>>>>It is also my impression that it is much more common to
teach C# than VB.NET at very educations.
See my first comment.
That is a more qualitative assessment.

But I think it is valid.

Why? I own & operate an IT training firm (http://TechTrainSolutions.com)
and I get far more request for VB .NET training than I do for C# with
customers just moving to .NET. Now, I'm not going to say that it is or
it isn't true that C# is taught more than VB .NET or vice versa (even
though I think I might be more qualified to say this) because I am but
one training provider. What's your impression based on?

Based on hearing from students at various levels (when they ask
for help in various fora).

After spending 2 seconds reading your home page then it
appears to me that you are not teaching IT students but
teaching IT professionals. Different market.
>>>>I would not consider using VB.NET a risk for the project
long term.
Your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Apparently also your opinion.

Or did you no read what I actually wrote ?

Of course I did. Did you? There's nothing wrong with passing along an
opinion, but don't dress it up as a fact. I disputed your 3:1 statistic
because looking at one job site out of thousands does not a reliable
statistic make.

Who said that it was based at looking at one job site ????

I have made the test at some of them frequently over some years.
>I also just pressed you on your impression that C# is taught more readily
than VB .NET - I didn't say you were wrong (did you read what I wrote?),
I just asked for why you had this impression.

Answered above.
>So what, exactly, is wrong with my comments?

I don't think it is common to ask for evidence for this type
of statements unless you think the posted summaries were false.

Arne

Apr 7 '07 #16
Scott M. wrote:
3 sites out of thousands make a trend?
Yes.

Because the jobs at the thousand job sites are not
distinct.

Those 3 cover a pretty big chunk of the UK, US and
German job market.

But if you continue to be skeptical then lookup
at some of the other job sites yourself.

Arne
Apr 8 '07 #17
This has been asked a gazillion times. Try searching this group and
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb. Do we have to rehash this over and
over again?

Robin S.
------------------------------------------------------
"mark" <ma**@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:68**********************************@microsof t.com...
Fact Poll

I made the transition from (Borland) C++ to VB.NET around 2004. I have
been
happy with the choice. I find I can focus more on the problem and less on
being "tidy" with VB.

But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.

I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back
towards C
- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.

What are the facts? What are the advantages of C in terms of stability,
flexibility, and overall power? What about the long term trend? What is
the
apparent emerging language today.

I kinow everyone is busy. I don't mean to waste anyone's time. I ask
because
I am at a crossroads, embarking on a huge task. I want to be using the
most
vital language. What better place to ask?
mark b

Apr 8 '07 #18
Yes Robin, this forum is for the interchange of ideas and knowledge. I need
the current trend in thought here and that is why I asked today.

It may not be important to you and if it isn't then selectively ignore it
and lighten up a bit.
--
mark b
"RobinS" wrote:
This has been asked a gazillion times. Try searching this group and
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb. Do we have to rehash this over and
over again?

Robin S.
------------------------------------------------------
"mark" <ma**@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:68**********************************@microsof t.com...
Fact Poll

I made the transition from (Borland) C++ to VB.NET around 2004. I have
been
happy with the choice. I find I can focus more on the problem and less on
being "tidy" with VB.

But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.

I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back
towards C
- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.

What are the facts? What are the advantages of C in terms of stability,
flexibility, and overall power? What about the long term trend? What is
the
apparent emerging language today.

I kinow everyone is busy. I don't mean to waste anyone's time. I ask
because
I am at a crossroads, embarking on a huge task. I want to be using the
most
vital language. What better place to ask?
mark b


Apr 8 '07 #19

"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
Scott M. wrote:
>3 sites out of thousands make a trend?

Yes.
???? Not a chance.
>
Because the jobs at the thousand job sites are not
distinct.
How so?
>
Those 3 cover a pretty big chunk of the UK, US and
German job market.
Well, I would say they cover the jobs that have been submitted to that
particular site, not nearly all jobs in any one market.
>
But if you continue to be skeptical then lookup
at some of the other job sites yourself.
Why should I? You are the one making this claim and I am simply pointing
out that based on your "evidence", your claim is useless.
>
Arne


Apr 8 '07 #20
As a developer that started with Basic back in the 7th grade on my
trusty TSR-80, played around with Turbo Pascal, but did most of my
coding in MS Basic 4..6 and finally to VB.NET. This was up until two
years ago when I made my new years resolution to drop VB cold turkey
and dive into c#.

Since then I've never looked back, and I have to tell you.. I find c#
a "more logical" language with regards to syntax. The fact that it
makes you write better code (unless you change default setting in VB
IE strict options etc.) helped greatly.

I also found that VB was making assumptions for me, and not always the
way I intended the code to work. I don't think I would have caught
this if not moving to c# and c# forcing me to explicitly code what I
wanted pointed this out to me.

In my opinion I would drop VB for C# again, any time, any day, and
would recommend all others doing the same. Again, this is JUST my
opinion. I don't need any replies arguing my opinion. Just my two
pennies.

Apr 8 '07 #21
I guess everyone needs someone else that they can feel superior to. Kind of
pathetic.

Tom Dacon
Dacon Software Consulting

"Mark Rae" <ma**@markNOSPAMrae.comwrote in message
news:%2*****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
"Tom Dacon" <td****@community.nospamwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>Can't find it at the moment - does anyone remember the post I'm talking
about...?

Kind of glad you can't find it.

That attitude is complete nonsense.

Found it: http://www.codeproject.com/dotnet/CSharpVersusVB.asp

Superb!

Apr 8 '07 #22
Since then I've never looked back, and I have to tell you.. I find c#
a "more logical" language with regards to syntax. The fact that it
makes you write better code (unless you change default setting in VB
IE strict options etc.) helped greatly.
True enough, but the first thing to learn about VB .NET (in VS .NET) is that
"Option Strict" should be turned on. If so, VB .NET becomes a type safe
language, just as C# is. Late binding is not allowed (which leads to poor
performance and run time errors), so they no longer are an issue.

By the way, I also "grew up" with BASIC and the Visual Basic and first
learned VB .NET, but I also code in C# quite a bit and, while I do like that
C# is syntaxually very similar to many other languages, as I just pointed
out there isn't much that C# *forces* you to do that VB .NET doesn't (as
long as Option Strict is on).
Apr 8 '07 #23
True enough, but the first thing to learn about VB .NET (in VS .NET) is
that "Option Strict" should be turned on. If so, VB .NET becomes a type
safe language, just as C# is. Late binding is not allowed (which leads to
poor performance and run time errors), so they no longer are an issue.
Right. Some people call Option Strict the "good programmer" switch :-)

Tom
Apr 8 '07 #24
Sorry, but it gets asked about once every couple of months, and is hashed
to death repeatedly. It just seems to me that this is what Google is for.
:-)

Robin S.
--------------------------
"mark" <ma**@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:CD**********************************@microsof t.com...
Yes Robin, this forum is for the interchange of ideas and knowledge. I
need
the current trend in thought here and that is why I asked today.

It may not be important to you and if it isn't then selectively ignore it
and lighten up a bit.
--
mark b
"RobinS" wrote:
>This has been asked a gazillion times. Try searching this group and
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb. Do we have to rehash this over and
over again?

Robin S.
------------------------------------------------------
"mark" <ma**@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:68**********************************@microso ft.com...
Fact Poll

I made the transition from (Borland) C++ to VB.NET around 2004. I have
been
happy with the choice. I find I can focus more on the problem and less
on
being "tidy" with VB.

But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.

I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back
towards C
- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.

What are the facts? What are the advantages of C in terms of
stability,
flexibility, and overall power? What about the long term trend? What
is
the
apparent emerging language today.

I kinow everyone is busy. I don't mean to waste anyone's time. I ask
because
I am at a crossroads, embarking on a huge task. I want to be using the
most
vital language. What better place to ask?
mark b



Apr 9 '07 #25
Scott M. wrote:
"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
>Scott M. wrote:
>>3 sites out of thousands make a trend?
Yes.

???? Not a chance.
Since you admit that you do not understand what I write, then ...
>Because the jobs at the thousand job sites are not
distinct.

How so?
How so what ?

Should I explain what "distinct" mean ?
>Those 3 cover a pretty big chunk of the UK, US and
German job market.

Well, I would say they cover the jobs that have been submitted to that
particular site,
Obviously.

Except for the UK sites which is an aggregation over
multiple sites.
not nearly all jobs in any one market.
As I said "a pretty big chunk".
>But if you continue to be skeptical then lookup
at some of the other job sites yourself.

Why should I? You are the one making this claim and I am simply pointing
out that based on your "evidence", your claim is useless.
So far we have sites saying that I am right and none
the other way around.

Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
got my point.

Arne

Apr 9 '07 #26
Scott,

I think that it is true as Arne writes, therefore I am so interested to the
true job markest in China and India. In my idea there counts more the result
than the magic around a letter C, which they don't even know as character.

Cor

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamschreef in bericht
news:Ok**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>Since then I've never looked back, and I have to tell you.. I find c#
a "more logical" language with regards to syntax. The fact that it
makes you write better code (unless you change default setting in VB
IE strict options etc.) helped greatly.

True enough, but the first thing to learn about VB .NET (in VS .NET) is
that "Option Strict" should be turned on. If so, VB .NET becomes a type
safe language, just as C# is. Late binding is not allowed (which leads to
poor performance and run time errors), so they no longer are an issue.

By the way, I also "grew up" with BASIC and the Visual Basic and first
learned VB .NET, but I also code in C# quite a bit and, while I do like
that C# is syntaxually very similar to many other languages, as I just
pointed out there isn't much that C# *forces* you to do that VB .NET
doesn't (as long as Option Strict is on).

Apr 9 '07 #27

"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
Scott M. wrote:
>"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk. ..
>>Scott M. wrote:
3 sites out of thousands make a trend?
Yes.

???? Not a chance.

Since you admit that you do not understand what I write, then ...
When did I say I didn't understand your meaning? The ???? is because I
don't see your logic.
>
>>Because the jobs at the thousand job sites are not
distinct.

How so?

How so what ?
Now, it's clear you don't understand me. Nor, apparently your own point.
Should I explain what "distinct" mean ?
No, but I disagree with your assesment of the many thousands of job sites.
>
>>Those 3 cover a pretty big chunk of the UK, US and
German job market.

Well, I would say they cover the jobs that have been submitted to that
particular site,

Obviously.

Except for the UK sites which is an aggregation over
multiple sites.
Which sites?
>
> not nearly all jobs in any one market.

As I said "a pretty big chunk".
How big? And what is the ratio for the listed jobs to all jobs actually out
there?

>
>>But if you continue to be skeptical then lookup
at some of the other job sites yourself.

Why should I? You are the one making this claim and I am simply pointing
out that based on your "evidence", your claim is useless.

So far we have sites saying that I am right and none
the other way around.
Yes, all 3 of them.
>
Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
got my point.
Wow, gee thanks. I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is stupid? You
must be a joy to be around yourself. But this mere statement is my point,
you seem pretty big on making blanket statements with no actual proof of
what you are talking about.

>
Arne

Apr 9 '07 #28
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is stupid?
Pots and kettles, mate...
Apr 9 '07 #29
On Apr 7, 2:38 pm, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospamwrote:
Many folks are hesitant to re-write something from scratch, rather than
upgrade it to a newer version.
There are so many VB 6 developers out there already that may not be willing
or able (or it just may not be practicle) to start all over with a new
language.
But the difference between VB6 and Vb.Net is not the language at all;
your entire way of thinking about how to build applications changes
from 6 to .Net. I've seen quite a few vb6 programmers end up
programming exactly the same way in vb.net that they have in vb6, and
that's not a good thing.

In those cases it may be better to learn a whole new language, so that
you DO completely throw out what you've done before.

Of course if you know VB and can't learn a new language... that just
doesn't seem like a good programmer. It should be easy to learn new
languages. You're never truely starting over when learning a new
language; it should be just the opposite. You should be 75% there,
only needing to learn the new syntax, but not much else.

Apr 9 '07 #30
On Apr 9, 6:52 am, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospamwrote:
So far we have sites saying that I am right and none
the other way around.

Yes, all 3 of them.
I have to say, you're missing the point. When selling colas, if you
sell only coke AND pepsi you're pretty much guaranteed to satisfy 95%
of people. In other words, those thousands of other job sites are
pretty irrelevant, because they have far fewer employers and job
candidates using them.

Apr 9 '07 #31
I read this article a while back and my impression is the same now as it was
then - this guy was trying to justify his salary relative to someone who was
using VB (any version) and outperforming him.

Mike Ober.

"Mark Rae" <ma**@markNOSPAMrae.comwrote in message
news:%2*****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
"Tom Dacon" <td****@community.nospamwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>Can't find it at the moment - does anyone remember the post I'm talking
about...?

Kind of glad you can't find it.

That attitude is complete nonsense.

Found it: http://www.codeproject.com/dotnet/CSharpVersusVB.asp

Superb!

Apr 9 '07 #32

"Tom Dacon" <td****@community.nospamwrote in message
news:uB**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>True enough, but the first thing to learn about VB .NET (in VS .NET) is
that "Option Strict" should be turned on. If so, VB .NET becomes a type
safe language, just as C# is. Late binding is not allowed (which leads
to poor performance and run time errors), so they no longer are an issue.

Right. Some people call Option Strict the "good programmer" switch :-)

Tom
I only wish MS had turned it on by default. Option Strict On combined with
Option Explicit On catches all sorts of errors that VB 6 and earlier simply
allowed through. Combined with true project background compilation (C# only
syntax checks the current module) can actually make VB 2005 a more effective
development environment.

Mike Ober.
Apr 9 '07 #33
Michael,

I don't want to interfear about the subject C# and VB.Net. You are talking
about a complete VN.Net subject so maybe better in that newsgroup.

However forgive me, don't forget with Option Strict Off however on the
millions of Peope for which VB.Net with that off seems to be a good tool to
thaught,

Cor

"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
news:OI**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
"Tom Dacon" <td****@community.nospamwrote in message
news:uB**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>True enough, but the first thing to learn about VB .NET (in VS .NET) is
that "Option Strict" should be turned on. If so, VB .NET becomes a type
safe language, just as C# is. Late binding is not allowed (which leads
to poor performance and run time errors), so they no longer are an
issue.

Right. Some people call Option Strict the "good programmer" switch :-)

Tom
I only wish MS had turned it on by default. Option Strict On combined
with Option Explicit On catches all sorts of errors that VB 6 and earlier
simply allowed through. Combined with true project background compilation
(C# only syntax checks the current module) can actually make VB 2005 a
more effective development environment.

Mike Ober.


Apr 9 '07 #34
True enough, but the first thing to learn about VB .NET (in VS .NET) is that
"Option Strict" should be turned on. If so, VB .NET becomes a type safe
language, just as C# is. Late binding is not allowed (which leads to poor
performance and run time errors), so they no longer are an issue.

By the way, I also "grew up" with BASIC and the Visual Basic and first
learned VB .NET, but I also code in C# quite a bit and, while I do like that
C# is syntaxually very similar to many other languages, as I just pointed
out there isn't much that C# *forces* you to do that VB .NET doesn't (as
long as Option Strict is on).
True, but Basic also makes a lot of assumptions for you, like with
casting. Basic will guess what it thinks you mean, yet c# you have to
tell it. I first noticed this with trying to calculate a percent. In
basic is was simple integer division. In c#, integer division gave
different results. It wasn't until I cast them as doubles did I get
the result I was looking for. That's more what I meant by forcing you
to be explicit with your coding.

Apr 9 '07 #35
OK, I am not going to say that your opinion is not valid. I had an opinion
also and it was that the most reliable place to find relevant, up-to-date
information on this topic was in this group. Part of the mission of these
discussions is to exchange expertise about Microsoft products. There was
considerable response to my question from a host of helpful people who have
evidently given considerable thought to the issue. They also felt I deserved
an answer.

I believe in general that group questions should be more technical but, the
argument can be made that technical issues dictate the decision tree in
choosing C or VB. Just one look at the answers to my question should validate
that fact. I think I was alright here - this time anyway.

I'm sorry but, "Please avoid personal attacks, slurs, and profanity in your
interactions". is part of our rules of conduct. Perhaps my skin is too thin,
but I feel like I've been attacked here Robin.
--
mark b
"RobinS" wrote:
Sorry, but it gets asked about once every couple of months, and is hashed
to death repeatedly. It just seems to me that this is what Google is for.
:-)

Robin S.
--------------------------
"mark" <ma**@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:CD**********************************@microsof t.com...
Yes Robin, this forum is for the interchange of ideas and knowledge. I
need
the current trend in thought here and that is why I asked today.

It may not be important to you and if it isn't then selectively ignore it
and lighten up a bit.
--
mark b
"RobinS" wrote:
This has been asked a gazillion times. Try searching this group and
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb. Do we have to rehash this over and
over again?

Robin S.
------------------------------------------------------
"mark" <ma**@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:68**********************************@microsof t.com...
Fact Poll

I made the transition from (Borland) C++ to VB.NET around 2004. I have
been
happy with the choice. I find I can focus more on the problem and less
on
being "tidy" with VB.

But, I fear that many don't take VB.NET seriously, particularly in
scientific programming. They ask; "What do you code in?" and you say;
"VB.NET." Conversation over.

I also fear that the technological tide may turn away from VB back
towards C
- sending VB the way of the Sony betamax, Mac, and Dodo.

What are the facts? What are the advantages of C in terms of
stability,
flexibility, and overall power? What about the long term trend? What
is
the
apparent emerging language today.

I kinow everyone is busy. I don't mean to waste anyone's time. I ask
because
I am at a crossroads, embarking on a huge task. I want to be using the
most
vital language. What better place to ask?
mark b



Apr 9 '07 #36
Can you be more specific about how VB.NET makes casting decisions for you?
With Option Strict On, I don't think it does, due to "widening conversion"
and "narrowing conversion".
"Sir C4" <Va*******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@o5g2000hsb.googlegrou ps.com...
>True enough, but the first thing to learn about VB .NET (in VS .NET) is
that
"Option Strict" should be turned on. If so, VB .NET becomes a type safe
language, just as C# is. Late binding is not allowed (which leads to
poor
performance and run time errors), so they no longer are an issue.

By the way, I also "grew up" with BASIC and the Visual Basic and first
learned VB .NET, but I also code in C# quite a bit and, while I do like
that
C# is syntaxually very similar to many other languages, as I just pointed
out there isn't much that C# *forces* you to do that VB .NET doesn't (as
long as Option Strict is on).

True, but Basic also makes a lot of assumptions for you, like with
casting. Basic will guess what it thinks you mean, yet c# you have to
tell it. I first noticed this with trying to calculate a percent. In
basic is was simple integer division. In c#, integer division gave
different results. It wasn't until I cast them as doubles did I get
the result I was looking for. That's more what I meant by forcing you
to be explicit with your coding.

Apr 9 '07 #37
And what is your basis for substantiating this analogy?

You do know that *most* people like Ginger Ale, right? I have no facts or
definitive statistics, but I asked 3 people and they all said it. All the
other people are irrelevant.

What about all the people that don't drink cola at all (ie. the people that
don't post all their jobs online or on these particular sites)?

Listen, I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying give me some credible proof of
your statment(s).

Get it?

"Andy" <an***@med-associates.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
On Apr 9, 6:52 am, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospamwrote:
So far we have sites saying that I am right and none
the other way around.

Yes, all 3 of them.

I have to say, you're missing the point. When selling colas, if you
sell only coke AND pepsi you're pretty much guaranteed to satisfy 95%
of people. In other words, those thousands of other job sites are
pretty irrelevant, because they have far fewer employers and job
candidates using them.

Apr 9 '07 #38
Inline...

"Andy" <an***@med-associates.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...
On Apr 7, 2:38 pm, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospamwrote:
>Many folks are hesitant to re-write something from scratch, rather than
upgrade it to a newer version.
There are so many VB 6 developers out there already that may not be
willing
or able (or it just may not be practicle) to start all over with a new
language.

But the difference between VB6 and Vb.Net is not the language at all;
your entire way of thinking about how to build applications changes
from 6 to .Net. I've seen quite a few vb6 programmers end up
programming exactly the same way in vb.net that they have in vb6, and
that's not a good thing.
What's your point here? I've also seen bad C# code. VB.NET does not have a
corner on the market of poor developers. And with Option Strict On, VB.NET
is as type-safe as C#.

That last statement has nothing to do with my comments that because of the
sheer volume of VB 6.0 applications out there, re-writing to a whole new
language (the training costs, the lost productivity of attending training
and the lost productivity until the learning curve is assimilated back on
the job, would have a definite effect upon choosing a language (I know, I
own/operate an IT Training company - http://TechTrainSolutions.com).

I see company after company (who have legacy VB 6.0 and Classic ASP
applications) decide either NOT to upgrade to .NET (if it ain't broken,
don't fix it mentality) or go to VB.NET for the reasons stated above.
In those cases it may be better to learn a whole new language, so that
you DO completely throw out what you've done before.
Remember, in corporate America, dollars come before anyting else. In the
end, you can write an app. in VB .NET or C# and get the same result.

But, there is a reason why there is even a VB.NET (rather than MS just
dumping it and going with C#) and why it, unlike C#, icludes legacy
functions like msgbox, CStr(), LCase(), et al, even though new .NET class
methods also do the trick (MessageBox.Show, CType(x, Integer) or
..ToString(), someString.ToLower. The reason is that with VB.NET, while it
may process completely differently and while you really should understand
the idea of true OOP, IL, the CLR, GC and more, you can still use much of
the "old" VB 6.0 syntax. The learning curve from VB 6.0 to VB .NET is not
as daunting as it is from VB 6.0 to C#. This is why there will continue to
be a strong market for VB .NET for years to come.
Of course if you know VB and can't learn a new language... that just
doesn't seem like a good programmer. It should be easy to learn new
languages. You're never truely starting over when learning a new
language; it should be just the opposite. You should be 75% there,
only needing to learn the new syntax, but not much else.
That's great philosopy, but as I pointed out, in corporate America (the
reality is amount COM (cost of migration) and ROI (return on investment).
In the real world (unless you are a consultant), you are at the mercy of
what the CIO decides. For migration scenarios, it very often makes sense
(from a functional and cost standpoint) to take the path of least
resistance. In the end, it rarely has to do with what capacity a developer
has to learn a language - - those folks just seem to find the door
eventually.
Apr 9 '07 #39
Scott my friend... if I might offer a bit of advice, relax :-)

If you're willing to buy a fast-food franchise, drop all colas and replace
them with ginger ale I think we might buy into your argument. The fact is
you "know" that Coke and Pepsi account for a substantial percentage of cola
sales. You also know that failing to sell these two brands is "likely" to
reduce your sales. It may not but don't ask somebody earning money selling
Coke and Pepsi to prove it. Rather invest your money and win or lose based
upon your gamble.

And I trust you also know that 3 people is not a representative sampling.
What constitutes a representative sample has been defined by people who are
paid to know these things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

If 99% of the development jobs are going to VB.Net developers but they
aren't visible in the public landscape they are by definition "invisible".
It might be that Eiffel.Net or COBOL.Net has twice as many jobs as VB.Net in
that case right? Lack of public access to the data is a problem but what
are you hoping that people will do in that case, fund studies? What people
are saying in their posts is "as far as I can see" which may or may not be
very far but it is the best that they can do. It would be incumbent upon
the VB.Net developers to point out _not_ that the "flawed study" has flaws
(so does any VB.Net job study) but rather to point to results which suggest
otherwise when using any other accepted criteria.

So instead of mentioning 3 friends, do a Google search on "soft drink
popularity" for instance. Google could have it all wrong but clearly you
see the difference between citing 3 people you happen to know and citing a
statistically neutral group. Can I prove Google messages are statistically
neutral? I doubt it but if I had limited funds and had to decide whether to
only sell ginger ale I'd use it as an indicator.

To further your argument I'll offer the following: there are probably more
poor C# developers than poor VB.Net developers. The total count isn't the
only measure and certainly isn't the primary one. Consider there may be far
more bad singers in the lines at American Idol than in the neighborhood
Burger King. There are simultaneously however some great ones destined to
make some recording company millions. So does a record exec watch American
Idol or visit Burger King stores hoping to keep his "bad" count down?

Personally I don't know the answers, I'll guess that Arne doesn't either
(and that he would be willing to admit it) but we're stuck having to make
decisions. You can choose to sell ginger ale based upon "no reasonable
studies conclude it isn't the number one seller" and others will make the
mistake of thinking "we have to sell Coke and Pepsi or we'll go bust." In
either case we can visit again in say 3 years and see what's up. Arne may
have landed a management position at a firm with 100 C# developers and you
may have a 25% increase in VB.Net students. They aren't mutually exclusive
conclusions.

Hope this helps...

Tom

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...
And what is your basis for substantiating this analogy?

You do know that *most* people like Ginger Ale, right? I have no facts or
definitive statistics, but I asked 3 people and they all said it. All the
other people are irrelevant.

What about all the people that don't drink cola at all (ie. the people
that don't post all their jobs online or on these particular sites)?

Listen, I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying give me some credible proof
of your statment(s).

Get it?

"Andy" <an***@med-associates.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
>On Apr 9, 6:52 am, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospamwrote:
>So far we have sites saying that I am right and none
the other way around.

Yes, all 3 of them.

I have to say, you're missing the point. When selling colas, if you
sell only coke AND pepsi you're pretty much guaranteed to satisfy 95%
of people. In other words, those thousands of other job sites are
pretty irrelevant, because they have far fewer employers and job
candidates using them.

Apr 10 '07 #40
Scott M. wrote:
And what is your basis for substantiating this analogy?

You do know that *most* people like Ginger Ale, right? I have no facts or
definitive statistics, but I asked 3 people and they all said it. All the
other people are irrelevant.
Bogus analogy.

The right analogy is that you ask 9379 people in a town in US
and 6867 of them liked Ginger Ale and 34986 people in UK
and 26956 liked Ginger Ale and 602 people in a town in German any 511
liked Ginger Ale - and then conclude that people like Ginger Ale.

I would conclude that people like Ginger Ale.

Arne

Apr 10 '07 #41
Scott M. wrote:
"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
>Scott M. wrote:
>>"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk.. .
Scott M. wrote:
3 sites out of thousands make a trend?
Yes.
???? Not a chance.
Since you admit that you do not understand what I write, then ...

When did I say I didn't understand your meaning? The ???? is because I
don't see your logic.
A few lines below.

"How so?"

In my understanding of English that means that you do
not understand what I am writing.
>>>Because the jobs at the thousand job sites are not
distinct.
How so?
How so what ?

Now, it's clear you don't understand me. Nor, apparently your own point.
So you do not understand what I am saying, but you are sure that I do
not understand it myself ??
>Should I explain what "distinct" mean ?

No, but I disagree with your assesment of the many thousands of job sites.
Ah. Then you do understand it.

It should be very obvious from the numbers that there are a huge
overlap.
>>>Those 3 cover a pretty big chunk of the UK, US and
German job market.
Well, I would say they cover the jobs that have been submitted to that
particular site,
Obviously.

Except for the UK sites which is an aggregation over
multiple sites.

Which sites?
Go into itjobwatch.co.uk and read where they have their data from.
>> not nearly all jobs in any one market.
As I said "a pretty big chunk".

How big? And what is the ratio for the listed jobs to all jobs actually out
there?
Much bigger than what is needed to make a good sample.
>>>But if you continue to be skeptical then lookup
at some of the other job sites yourself.
Why should I? You are the one making this claim and I am simply pointing
out that based on your "evidence", your claim is useless.
So far we have sites saying that I am right and none
the other way around.

Yes, all 3 of them.
With a lot of jobs in them.

The probability of getting those results with more VB.NET jobs
than C# job in total is so close to zero that it is almost
non existing.
>Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
got my point.

Wow, gee thanks. I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is stupid? You
must be a joy to be around yourself. But this mere statement is my point,
you seem pretty big on making blanket statements with no actual proof of
what you are talking about.
Well - I have provided lots of facts.

So far you have just produced some babble "I do not believe you".

Arne
Apr 10 '07 #42
But Tom, my friend, please see inline and remember that I'm not in a
condition that I need to relax from. I'm simply making a point (to which
you seem more receptive of than earlier.

"Tom Leylan" <tl*****@nospam.netwrote in message
news:uO**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Scott my friend... if I might offer a bit of advice, relax :-)

If you're willing to buy a fast-food franchise, drop all colas and replace
them with ginger ale I think we might buy into your argument. The fact is
you "know" that Coke and Pepsi account for a substantial percentage of
cola sales. You also know that failing to sell these two brands is
"likely" to reduce your sales. It may not but don't ask somebody earning
money selling Coke and Pepsi to prove it. Rather invest your money and
win or lose based upon your gamble.
Yes, I do "know" that Coke/Pepsi are the largest non-alcoholic carbinated
beverages. But I know this because of the consitent results of the reliable
market research in "Nation's Restaurant News" (in another life I was a
full-service restaurant manager and then a restaurant consultant). As a
consultant, we would do local market research and look at the market
research of other reputable sources.

Having said that, I would not base my decision on which to carry based on a
sampling any smaller than 1000 for local demographics.
And I trust you also know that 3 people is not a representative sampling.
Yes, and this is my point. It seems we are in agreement after all.
What constitutes a representative sample has been defined by people who
are paid to know these things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)
I have two problems with your link:
1. It takes me to a page which states that no result could be found for
your search.
2. Wikipedia is hardly the definitive word on anything since no one is
paid to check accuracy unless something is challeged.
You show me ANY entry at Wiki and 10 minutes later, I'll show you
some new *facts* at the same URL. So, I would hardly use anything from Wiki
as definitive proof of anything.
>
If 99% of the development jobs are going to VB.Net developers but they
aren't visible in the public landscape they are by definition "invisible".
It might be that Eiffel.Net or COBOL.Net has twice as many jobs as VB.Net
in that case right? Lack of public access to the data is a problem but
what are you hoping that people will do in that case, fund studies?
Uh, yes? And, I would *guess* that you could ask several professionals who
are paid (by a neutral party), say Human Resource (national head-hunters)
personnel and aggregate their results to get a national statistic on the
matter. But that is hardly what we have been given for this 3:1 statistic.

As I said before, you may be entirely right about the stat., but the limited
research on this is simply, not acceptable for a reliable reference.
What people are saying in their posts is "as far as I can see" which may
or may not be very far but it is the best that they can do.
Great, but that's not what what people have said (AFAICS). They've listed a
few online job sites and actually then said that 3 sites polled is enough to
make a definitive statement about a national/international trend. They
haven't said "I only checked 3 out of thousands of sites, but here's what
I've found."
It would be incumbent upon the VB.Net developers to point out _not_ that
the "flawed study" has flaws (so does any VB.Net job study) but rather to
point to results which suggest otherwise when using any other accepted
criteria.
Why? I'm not the one making broad claims that are not believeable. I'm not
presenting any statisics or findings at all. I'm simply questioning what
has been presented here. That doesn't shif any burden of proof back to me,
because I've made no statements to have to prove.

I think it is incumbant upon *anyone*, regardless of what language they use
or like to provide credible proofs when presenting a supposed fact.
So instead of mentioning 3 friends, do a Google search on "soft drink
popularity" for instance. Google could have it all wrong but clearly you
see the difference between citing 3 people you happen to know and citing a
statistically neutral group. Can I prove Google messages are
statistically neutral? I doubt it but if I had limited funds and had to
decide whether to only sell ginger ale I'd use it as an indicator.
Again, this is not the point. Let me clarify (again) what I take issue
with: It's not the source, per se, it's the way the "results" are
presented. If all you had time to do was an un-scientific Google search,
fine, no problem. But don't tell me that it was a comprehensive search and
represents a true, relaible statistic. As I said before, you may be right,
but don't claim you are right and prove it with flimsy observations. Say "I
only had time to do an un-scientific Google search, but here's what it
showed.", then let the reader make any conclusions they want.
To further your argument I'll offer the following: there are probably more
poor C# developers than poor VB.Net developers. The total count isn't the
only measure and certainly isn't the primary one. Consider there may be
far more bad singers in the lines at American Idol than in the
neighborhood Burger King. There are simultaneously however some great
ones destined to make some recording company millions. So does a record
exec watch American Idol or visit Burger King stores hoping to keep his
"bad" count down?
But that is not what I'm debating. I'm talking about the way the conclusion
is "packaged".
Personally I don't know the answers,
I don't either, so I can't agree or disagree with you because I'm not
informed enough about the scenario.
I'll guess that Arne doesn't either (and that he would be willing to admit
it)
You don't have to guess. Arne has not admit it when pressed on it.
but we're stuck having to make decisions. You can choose to sell ginger
ale based upon "no reasonable studies conclude it isn't the number one
seller" and others will make the mistake of thinking "we have to sell Coke
and Pepsi or we'll go bust." In either case we can visit again in say 3
years and see what's up. Arne may have landed a management position at a
firm with 100 C# developers and you may have a 25% increase in VB.Net
students. They aren't mutually exclusive conclusions.
Yep, but I would not make the mistake of characterizing such a small pool of
information as a good source to determine a trend. Arne has pretty much
done exactly that.

Scott (relaxing) :)
>
Hope this helps...

Tom

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...
>And what is your basis for substantiating this analogy?

You do know that *most* people like Ginger Ale, right? I have no facts
or definitive statistics, but I asked 3 people and they all said it. All
the other people are irrelevant.

What about all the people that don't drink cola at all (ie. the people
that don't post all their jobs online or on these particular sites)?

Listen, I'm not saying your wrong, I'm saying give me some credible proof
of your statment(s).

Get it?

"Andy" <an***@med-associates.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@e65g2000hsc.googleg roups.com...
>>On Apr 9, 6:52 am, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospamwrote:
So far we have sites saying that I am right and none
the other way around.

Yes, all 3 of them.

I have to say, you're missing the point. When selling colas, if you
sell only coke AND pepsi you're pretty much guaranteed to satisfy 95%
of people. In other words, those thousands of other job sites are
pretty irrelevant, because they have far fewer employers and job
candidates using them.


Apr 10 '07 #43

"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
Scott M. wrote:
>And what is your basis for substantiating this analogy?

You do know that *most* people like Ginger Ale, right? I have no facts
or definitive statistics, but I asked 3 people and they all said it. All
the other people are irrelevant.

Bogus analogy.

The right analogy is that you ask 9379 people in a town in US
and 6867 of them liked Ginger Ale and 34986 people in UK
and 26956 liked Ginger Ale and 602 people in a town in German any 511
liked Ginger Ale - and then conclude that people like Ginger Ale.
Fair enough. Obvously I'm exaggerating a bit here. But, I do agree with
you that you could conclude that "people like Ginger Ale". But, I don't
think you can take such a small sampling (again 3 samples) and extrapolate
that into "all people prefer Ginger Ale by a 3:1 margin". A pollster could,
because they conduct scientifc polls targeting specific demographics that do
allow them to extrapolate out to accurate results for the given area they
are polling (with a small margin of error). AFAIK, you aren't a pollster or
statistician, so I don't believe you (or I for that matter), could take such
a small sampling and extrapolate anything reliable as a result.
I would conclude that people like Ginger Ale.
But, exactly (or reliably) how many?
>
Arne

Apr 10 '07 #44
Scott M. wrote:
>And I trust you also know that 3 people is not a representative sampling.

Yes, and this is my point. It seems we are in agreement after all.
But we are discussing whether over 40000 is a good sample.
>What constitutes a representative sample has been defined by people who
are paid to know these things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

I have two problems with your link:
1. It takes me to a page which states that no result could be found for
your search.
If you look at the URL then it should be rather obvious that your
browser dropped the trailing ')'. And if you insert that manually the
link works.
2. Wikipedia is hardly the definitive word on anything since no one is
paid to check accuracy unless something is challeged.
You show me ANY entry at Wiki and 10 minutes later, I'll show you
some new *facts* at the same URL. So, I would hardly use anything from Wiki
as definitive proof of anything.
All tests shows that Wikipedia is about as reliable as other
lexica.

Not perfect but not bad.
As I said before, you may be entirely right about the stat., but the limited
research on this is simply, not acceptable for a reliable reference.
Hello.

This is a news group not a scientific paper.
Why? I'm not the one making broad claims that are not believeable. I'm not
presenting any statisics or findings at all. I'm simply questioning what
has been presented here. That doesn't shif any burden of proof back to me,
because I've made no statements to have to prove.
Why not ?

I told what my experience was.

You asked where I had it from.

I told you.

You did not believe it.

I picked a few samples.

They matched almost perfectly with what I said.

You still did not believe it.

Someone else picked another sample. That also matched.

You still did not believe it.

I do not want to check every job site in the world to satisfy
some moron that either does not understand statistics or think
that I fixed the selection of samples.

You should pick a few site yourself and check.
I think it is incumbant upon *anyone*, regardless of what language they use
or like to provide credible proofs when presenting a supposed fact.
Again this is a news groups - you should not expect people to be willing
to spend many hours documenting everything they post.
Yep, but I would not make the mistake of characterizing such a small pool of
information as a good source to determine a trend. Arne has pretty much
done exactly that.
How many people do they interview to make a political poll ?

How many jobs did my samples include ?

Arne
Apr 10 '07 #45
"How so?"
>
In my understanding of English that means that you do
not understand what I am writing.
No, you are mistaken here. It means what is your proof? Explain your
reasoning for making such a statement (I understood what you were saying,
just not why you said it).
>
>>>>Because the jobs at the thousand job sites are not
distinct.
How so?
How so what ?

Now, it's clear you don't understand me. Nor, apparently your own point.

So you do not understand what I am saying, but you are sure that I do not
understand it myself ??
Again, I uderstood what you said, just not why you said it.
>
>>Should I explain what "distinct" mean ?

No, but I disagree with your assesment of the many thousands of job
sites.

Ah. Then you do understand it.
Yes. Thanks.
It should be very obvious from the numbers that there are a huge
overlap.
Yes, I agree. So, this helps make my point. What if 100,000 of the C# jobs
are multiply listed on all 3 sites you visited, but only 30,000 of the
VB.NET jobs are multi-listed. You said it yourself the job list is *not*
distinctive. This only helps my point that you'll have to look at a lot
more sites to thin out this margin for overlapped listings.
>>>>Those 3 cover a pretty big chunk of the UK, US and
German job market.
Well, I would say they cover the jobs that have been submitted to that
particular site,
Obviously.

Except for the UK sites which is an aggregation over
multiple sites.

Which sites?

Go into itjobwatch.co.uk and read where they have their data from.
>>> not nearly all jobs in any one market.
As I said "a pretty big chunk".

How big? And what is the ratio for the listed jobs to all jobs actually
out there?

Much bigger than what is needed to make a good sample.
So, how much? You mean you are able to determine what the non-online posted
jobs are and how many of them there are? How did you do that?
>
>>>>But if you continue to be skeptical then lookup
at some of the other job sites yourself.
Why should I? You are the one making this claim and I am simply
pointing out that based on your "evidence", your claim is useless.
So far we have sites saying that I am right and none
the other way around.

Yes, all 3 of them.

With a lot of jobs in them.
a lot = 3:1 definitively when a single job is probably cross-posted but not
necessarially to all of these 3 particular sites and other jobs may not be
posted at these sites and yet other jobs may not be posted online and yet
other jobs are only available to in-house employees?
>
The probability of getting those results with more VB.NET jobs
than C# job in total is so close to zero that it is almost
non existing.
Ooh! A new *fact*, and your source for this statement is?
>
>>Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
got my point.

Wow, gee thanks. I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is stupid?
You must be a joy to be around yourself. But this mere statement is my
point, you seem pretty big on making blanket statements with no actual
proof of what you are talking about.

Well - I have provided lots of facts.
Could you summarize your *facts* in a simple list for me since I'm too
stupid to find them among all the big words you smart people use? Because
all I've seen from you is an extremely small sample of potentially flawed,
but grossly incomplete at a minimum suppositions.
>
So far you have just produced some babble "I do not believe you".
It's true, I don't. But, I've gone a bit further than this by providing
reasonable questions asking for substantiating the claims you made. You
reply was "You're stupid and you babble". Why don't you just say "I know
you are, but what am I?" Oh, wait, you would only say that to the person
who insulted you and I didn't do that. Now, let's see...who did? Yes, that
sounds like a reasonable argument to support your *facts*.

You know, I've said a few times here that you may be entirely correct. It's
not like I just don't want to say that C# is sought after more than VB.NET.
I'm simply asking for some credible proof of your *facts*. I haven't
insulted you and I've tried to explain my side. But you continuously
provide weak data, unsubstantiated statements and insults.

-Scott
Apr 10 '07 #46
Scott M. wrote:
No, you are mistaken here. It means what is your proof? Explain your
reasoning for making such a statement (I understood what you were saying,
just not why you said it).
Experience that the same jobs get posted at multiple sites.

The fact that the numbers say that if there are thousands of such
job sites most of the jobs has to be duplicates.
>It should be very obvious from the numbers that there are a huge
overlap.

Yes, I agree. So, this helps make my point. What if 100,000 of the C# jobs
are multiply listed on all 3 sites you visited, but only 30,000 of the
VB.NET jobs are multi-listed. You said it yourself the job list is *not*
distinctive. This only helps my point that you'll have to look at a lot
more sites to thin out this margin for overlapped listings.
You are being absurd.

I deliberately choose one site per country. How many dupliactes
do you think there between for US, UK and Germany ? Not many I can
tell you !

Furthermore there are no reason to believe that the rate of
duplication depends on the language.
>>How big? And what is the ratio for the listed jobs to all jobs actually
out there?
Much bigger than what is needed to make a good sample.

So, how much? You mean you are able to determine what the non-online posted
jobs are and how many of them there are? How did you do that?
Again.

I see no reason why jobs adds in paper should have a different
distribution between C# and VB.NET than online.
>The probability of getting those results with more VB.NET jobs
than C# job in total is so close to zero that it is almost
non existing.

Ooh! A new *fact*, and your source for this statement is?
Do the math yourself.

If P(C#)=0.49 and P(VB.NET)=0.51 what is the probability of
getting >=6867 C# out of a sample of 9379 (dice numbers).
>>>Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
got my point.
Wow, gee thanks. I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is stupid?
You must be a joy to be around yourself. But this mere statement is my
point, you seem pretty big on making blanket statements with no actual
proof of what you are talking about.
Well - I have provided lots of facts.

Could you summarize your *facts* in a simple list for me since I'm too
stupid to find them among all the big words you smart people use?
No.

I assume that you know how to read old posts.
You know, I've said a few times here that you may be entirely correct. It's
not like I just don't want to say that C# is sought after more than VB.NET.
I'm simply asking for some credible proof of your *facts*.
This is a news group.

I am not here to provide you proof.

I provide some info.

You can decide to believe it.

You can decide to not believe it.

You can make your own check.

There was this other guy that apparently is somewhat smarter
than you that instead of writing post after post just checked
at a job site he knew. And saw that it matched pretty good.

You could do the same, if you were interested in knowing.

But you are an idiot if you expect anyone to check all
job sites in the world (and not to forget: all the non-online
jobs as well).

Arne

Apr 10 '07 #47
But we are discussing whether over 40000 is a good sample.

But Arne, it's not 40,000 since we are not talking about distinct jobs and
we are not talking about the many jobs (I don't know how many) that are
available, but not on the 3 of thousands of sites, nor are we talking about
jobs not posted online at all, not are we talking about jobs available only
to in-house employees. So clearly, we are not talking about a sampling that
is anywhere near a true representaion of jobs out there.
>
>>What constitutes a representative sample has been defined by people who
are paid to know these things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

I have two problems with your link:
1. It takes me to a page which states that no result could be found
for your search.

If you look at the URL then it should be rather obvious that your
browser dropped the trailing ')'. And if you insert that manually the
link works.
> 2. Wikipedia is hardly the definitive word on anything since no one
is paid to check accuracy unless something is challeged.
You show me ANY entry at Wiki and 10 minutes later, I'll show
you some new *facts* at the same URL. So, I would hardly use anything
from Wiki as definitive proof of anything.

All tests shows that Wikipedia is about as reliable as other
lexica.
Ooh, another *fact*! Dare I ask what your source is for that statment? Did
you know that 2 weeks ago, Wikipedia's entry for the American comedian
"Sinbad" indicated he recently died (not kidding, was on the news with an
interview with the "dead" comedian). I don't remember seeing /hearing
anything in the real media, incicating his death. Why, because anyone can
change Wiki, but reputable news sources have to stake their reputation on
their reporting. Wiki's reputation relies on its accuracy, which is less
than stellar. That's not to say the main stream media always gets it right
(election night 2000), but they certainly do make more of an effort to
*fact-check* what they report.

Oh, by the way, here's some more Wiki-Facts:

Stephen Colbert (American comedian) challenged his viewers recently to go to
Wiki and change the definition of "truth" within 5 minutes of his challenge
to a particular phrase. I can't remember the exact phrase but guess what? 5
minutes later, the definition of "truth" had been changed.

Or, how about that Microsoft paid an "indepenent" consultant to alter Wiki
posted data with new *facts* disputing a recent report of the overall
benefits of .NET vs. Java?

>
Not perfect but not bad.
>As I said before, you may be entirely right about the stat., but the
limited research on this is simply, not acceptable for a reliable
reference.

Hello.

This is a news group not a scientific paper.
Hello? You haven't gotten what I'm saying at all. Because it is a
newsgroup, don't present data as if it were from a white-paper when it's
just your own, non-scientific research. Simply say "Here's what I found at
a few sites.", don't pass 3 sites (with all the deficiencies I've previously
pointed out) as the basis for a "credible trend".
>
>Why? I'm not the one making broad claims that are not believeable. I'm
not presenting any statisics or findings at all. I'm simply questioning
what has been presented here. That doesn't shif any burden of proof back
to me, because I've made no statements to have to prove.

Why not ?
(See 4 lines up)
I told what my experience was.

You asked where I had it from.

I told you.

You did not believe it.

I picked a few samples.

They matched almost perfectly with what I said.

You still did not believe it.

Someone else picked another sample. That also matched.

You still did not believe it.

I do not want to check every job site in the world to satisfy
some moron that either does not understand statistics or think
that I fixed the selection of samples.
Hey, thanks for the continued insults. I never asked you to check every
site or look in any place. Nor, did I suggest you fixed any result.
Suggesting that I did, just diverts us from the topic and away from the
truth. I asked you to substantiate your *facts*, you responded with insults
and more unreliable sources.
You should pick a few site yourself and check.
Why? I'm the one saying that you can't get a reliable statistic from job
sites in the first place.
>
>I think it is incumbant upon *anyone*, regardless of what language they
use or like to provide credible proofs when presenting a supposed fact.

Again this is a news groups - you should not expect people to be willing
to spend many hours documenting everything they post.
I sure do when they post something as a definitive fact that is in dispute.
I'm sorry you have a lower standard for accepting information that is
unsubstantiated.
>Yep, but I would not make the mistake of characterizing such a small pool
of information as a good source to determine a trend. Arne has pretty
much done exactly that.

How many people do they interview to make a political poll ?
You accused my earlier of not understanding statistics. I am not a
statistician, but I do know a few things, like: It depends on what is being
polled geographically and demographically.

If you are trying to find out which candidate is in the lead for a state
senate seat, you need a sample of as little as 5% of registered voters in
specific areas that are chosen to get a accurate idea of realistic results.
You also would look at previous voter turn out in these areas as well as
median income for these areas, demographics on mean level of education,
gender, etc.

If you poll too many (an amount over 25%) believe it or not, the accuracy of
the poll decreases. But the key here is to know what to look at, you can't
just poll *any* 5% - 25% of any of the people. It must be 5% - 25% of the
geographically and demographically chosen pool.

By asking your question, in such a simple way (as to make it seem that it is
only the number of people polled), it tells me that I know a lot more about
statistics than you. Perhaps, that is why you don't/can't/won't understand
my point.
>
How many jobs did my samples include ?
As I've just said, and have been saying, it's not the amount that matters,
it's the source(s) that matter.3 randomly selected sites with overlapping
results that doesn't include all the other sources (non-online) of data on
this, does not come close to getting an accurate sample.

But, that's fine, just simply say "Here's what I found.", don't say "This is
enough for a credible trend to be surmized."

That's all I'm saying. And, I'm doing it without insulting you and using
real facts (like how a poll is really conducted) and sticking to my point
(instead of diverting attention from the topic at hand to the purpose of a
newsgroup).
>
Arne

Apr 10 '07 #48

"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
Scott M. wrote:
>No, you are mistaken here. It means what is your proof? Explain your
reasoning for making such a statement (I understood what you were saying,
just not why you said it).

Experience that the same jobs get posted at multiple sites.
I agree. Now, how does this help you make your point? Because it really
seems to bolster my point that you are seeing the same jobs more than once.
Which, to use a very good analogy, is like voting more than once and trying
to get an accurate count of how many people voted. It's also like believing
a web site hit counter that uses Page_Load to determine when to increase the
count, rather than Session_Start.
>
The fact that the numbers say that if there are thousands of such
job sites most of the jobs has to be duplicates.
Again thanks for making my point. How does this improve the accuracy of
your *resulting facts* then?
>>It should be very obvious from the numbers that there are a huge
overlap.

Yes, I agree. So, this helps make my point. What if 100,000 of the C#
jobs are multiply listed on all 3 sites you visited, but only 30,000 of
the VB.NET jobs are multi-listed. You said it yourself the job list is
*not* distinctive. This only helps my point that you'll have to look at
a lot more sites to thin out this margin for overlapped listings.

You are being absurd.
What?! How so? Do you know anyting about polling and statistical sampling.
What you call absurd is the basis for statistical analysis used by
professional statisticians. Your well thought proof to disprove me is: "You
are being absurd"?

Would you be willing to explain what you find absurd in the point that you
need a much larger sample than 40000 when dealing with many thousands of
cross-posted (duplicate) jobs? Because, I'd really like to hear you
rationally dispute that with any *facts* you have on it.
>
I deliberately choose one site per country. How many dupliactes
do you think there between for US, UK and Germany ? Not many I can
tell you !
You are just digging your hole deeper. If you "can tell" me, then please
do, how many? And, of course, you'll need to tell me where your answer came
from, as I'm having a hard time keeping track of all the *facts* you have
presented.
Furthermore there are no reason to believe that the rate of
duplication depends on the language.
True, but you have provided no *facts* to dispute the possibility, and
that's all I proposed, a possibility, I did not present that as a *fact*.
>>>How big? And what is the ratio for the listed jobs to all jobs
actually out there?
Much bigger than what is needed to make a good sample.

So, how much? You mean you are able to determine what the non-online
posted jobs are and how many of them there are? How did you do that?

Again.
Can you explain what "Again" is supposed to equate to in regards to my
question above?
>
I see no reason why jobs adds in paper should have a different
distribution between C# and VB.NET than online.
Why not? WHAT ARE YOUR FACTS THAT MAKE YOU FEEL THAT WAY?
>>The probability of getting those results with more VB.NET jobs
than C# job in total is so close to zero that it is almost
non existing.

Ooh! A new *fact*, and your source for this statement is?

Do the math yourself.
>
If P(C#)=0.49 and P(VB.NET)=0.51 what is the probability of
getting >=6867 C# out of a sample of 9379 (dice numbers).
I'm not sure how you prove your statement, by starting with *If* followed by
numbers that you have yet to substantiate.

If a die has nothing but one's on all six sides, then the probability of
rolling anyting other than a one is zero. A true statement based on a made
up scenario.
>
>>>>Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
got my point.
Wow, gee thanks. I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is stupid?
You must be a joy to be around yourself. But this mere statement is my
point, you seem pretty big on making blanket statements with no actual
proof of what you are talking about.
Well - I have provided lots of facts.

Could you summarize your *facts* in a simple list for me since I'm too
stupid to find them among all the big words you smart people use?

No.
Because, time and again, you haven't presented any facts, only opinions. As
you say, a newsgroup is a great forum for ideas, opinions and facts. But you
are presenting your ideas and opinions as Gospel without any credible facts
to substantiate yourself. In fact, now you have begun to present more
unsubstantiated conclusions as the *facts* that support your first
unsubstantiated *facts* (see dice scenario above).
>
I assume that you know how to read old posts.
>You know, I've said a few times here that you may be entirely correct.
It's not like I just don't want to say that C# is sought after more than
VB.NET. I'm simply asking for some credible proof of your *facts*.

This is a news group.

I am not here to provide you proof.

I provide some info.

You can decide to believe it.

You can decide to not believe it.

You can make your own check.

There was this other guy that apparently is somewhat smarter
than you that instead of writing post after post just checked
at a job site he knew. And saw that it matched pretty good.
So two studies of bad data that match make a proof?
>
You could do the same, if you were interested in knowing.

But you are an idiot if you expect anyone to check all
job sites in the world (and not to forget: all the non-online
jobs as well).
Good thing I haven't asked anyone to do that then, huh? But, thanks for the
newest insult.

Arne, all this boils down to is don't package something as a fact, when it's
not. Call a spade, a spade and don't choke on your garbage just because you
don't want to admit I have a point. It's not about which language is used
more, it's about how you came to that conclusion and just being honest about
that.

>
Arne

Apr 10 '07 #49
Think about how a scientist would provide a supposed *fact*. They tend to
like to be able to prove (using scientific methods) the suppositions they
make. They do this by doing painstaking research, followed by experiment
and then write a paper that is then peer-reviewed.

Lawyers and detective (who are supposed to deal in *facts* ) need to be able
to *prove* the suppositions they present as *facts*. They do this with
logical and rational thinking and try to find undisputable *facts* to
support thier suppositions. Oh yeah, they don't insult the jury when the
jury doesn't believe thier *facts* due to insufficient evidence.

Now, I know what we're talking about is far less important than these
professions, but my point is there is a proven method for supporting a
staement of supposed *fact* and you haven't come close to it.

By the way, statistical analysis is a scientific profession and the bar for
providing a reliable statistic and proving its reliability isn't anywhere
near what you have provided. We are talking about polling here after all.
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:uO**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
"Arne Vajh°j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...
>Scott M. wrote:
>>No, you are mistaken here. It means what is your proof? Explain your
reasoning for making such a statement (I understood what you were
saying, just not why you said it).

Experience that the same jobs get posted at multiple sites.

I agree. Now, how does this help you make your point? Because it really
seems to bolster my point that you are seeing the same jobs more than
once. Which, to use a very good analogy, is like voting more than once and
trying to get an accurate count of how many people voted. It's also like
believing a web site hit counter that uses Page_Load to determine when to
increase the count, rather than Session_Start.
>>
The fact that the numbers say that if there are thousands of such
job sites most of the jobs has to be duplicates.

Again thanks for making my point. How does this improve the accuracy of
your *resulting facts* then?
>>>It should be very obvious from the numbers that there are a huge
overlap.

Yes, I agree. So, this helps make my point. What if 100,000 of the C#
jobs are multiply listed on all 3 sites you visited, but only 30,000 of
the VB.NET jobs are multi-listed. You said it yourself the job list is
*not* distinctive. This only helps my point that you'll have to look at
a lot more sites to thin out this margin for overlapped listings.

You are being absurd.

What?! How so? Do you know anyting about polling and statistical
sampling. What you call absurd is the basis for statistical analysis used
by professional statisticians. Your well thought proof to disprove me is:
"You are being absurd"?

Would you be willing to explain what you find absurd in the point that you
need a much larger sample than 40000 when dealing with many thousands of
cross-posted (duplicate) jobs? Because, I'd really like to hear you
rationally dispute that with any *facts* you have on it.
>>
I deliberately choose one site per country. How many dupliactes
do you think there between for US, UK and Germany ? Not many I can
tell you !

You are just digging your hole deeper. If you "can tell" me, then please
do, how many? And, of course, you'll need to tell me where your answer
came from, as I'm having a hard time keeping track of all the *facts* you
have presented.
>Furthermore there are no reason to believe that the rate of
duplication depends on the language.

True, but you have provided no *facts* to dispute the possibility, and
that's all I proposed, a possibility, I did not present that as a *fact*.
>>>>How big? And what is the ratio for the listed jobs to all jobs
actually out there?
Much bigger than what is needed to make a good sample.

So, how much? You mean you are able to determine what the non-online
posted jobs are and how many of them there are? How did you do that?

Again.

Can you explain what "Again" is supposed to equate to in regards to my
question above?
>>
I see no reason why jobs adds in paper should have a different
distribution between C# and VB.NET than online.

Why not? WHAT ARE YOUR FACTS THAT MAKE YOU FEEL THAT WAY?
>>>The probability of getting those results with more VB.NET jobs
than C# job in total is so close to zero that it is almost
non existing.

Ooh! A new *fact*, and your source for this statement is?

Do the math yourself.
>>
If P(C#)=0.49 and P(VB.NET)=0.51 what is the probability of
getting >=6867 C# out of a sample of 9379 (dice numbers).

I'm not sure how you prove your statement, by starting with *If* followed
by numbers that you have yet to substantiate.

If a die has nothing but one's on all six sides, then the probability of
rolling anyting other than a one is zero. A true statement based on a
made up scenario.
>>
>>>>>Feel free to not believe me. I guess those with an IQ above 95
>got my point.
Wow, gee thanks. I guess anyone who disagrees with you then is
stupid? You must be a joy to be around yourself. But this mere
statement is my point, you seem pretty big on making blanket
statements with no actual proof of what you are talking about.
Well - I have provided lots of facts.

Could you summarize your *facts* in a simple list for me since I'm too
stupid to find them among all the big words you smart people use?

No.

Because, time and again, you haven't presented any facts, only opinions.
As you say, a newsgroup is a great forum for ideas, opinions and facts.
But you are presenting your ideas and opinions as Gospel without any
credible facts to substantiate yourself. In fact, now you have begun to
present more unsubstantiated conclusions as the *facts* that support your
first unsubstantiated *facts* (see dice scenario above).
>>
I assume that you know how to read old posts.
>>You know, I've said a few times here that you may be entirely correct.
It's not like I just don't want to say that C# is sought after more than
VB.NET. I'm simply asking for some credible proof of your *facts*.

This is a news group.

I am not here to provide you proof.

I provide some info.

You can decide to believe it.

You can decide to not believe it.

You can make your own check.

There was this other guy that apparently is somewhat smarter
than you that instead of writing post after post just checked
at a job site he knew. And saw that it matched pretty good.

So two studies of bad data that match make a proof?
>>
You could do the same, if you were interested in knowing.

But you are an idiot if you expect anyone to check all
job sites in the world (and not to forget: all the non-online
jobs as well).

Good thing I haven't asked anyone to do that then, huh? But, thanks for
the newest insult.

Arne, all this boils down to is don't package something as a fact, when
it's not. Call a spade, a spade and don't choke on your garbage just
because you don't want to admit I have a point. It's not about which
language is used more, it's about how you came to that conclusion and just
being honest about that.

>>
Arne


Apr 10 '07 #50
111 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

3 posts views Thread by William C. White | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Albert Ahtenberg | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by James | last post: by
reply views Thread by Ollivier Robert | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Richard Galli | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Albert Ahtenberg | last post: by
1 post views Thread by inderjit S Gabrie | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Jack | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Sandwick | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.