VB or C?

[=?Utf-8?B?bWFyaw==?=]

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

[Tom Leylan]

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote...

Bottom line (and if you are going to reply, it would be nice if you
replied about the whole point of this, rather than something that does not
go to the point), The sample frame provided and the outcome decried as a
statistical analysis and therefore credible are just not correct. I think
the link YOU posted proves that quite nicely when coupled with the Brown
University .pdf link I provided. I really would like to hear you try to
dispute this, simple (and relevant) set of facts.

You seem to be taking things a bit too seriously... before it becomes a
problem... you win.

[Bill Butler]

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:ei*************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

The paper was written by an expert in the field from a pretty
prestigous university. If you can't tell when I'm being sarcastic and
when I'm not with such a simple thing like how qualified a professor
at Brown is, you have my sympathy about how hard it must be for you in
daily conversations you have with others.

The paper was fine.

BUT, more importantly, what in the paper agrees with my assertion that
the sample Arne used is flawed and his *probability problem* is just
that a problem for his case and what supports Arne's supposition that
his case is, in fact, based on a good sample frame and his math is
viable?

Would you care to show how that follows from the paper?
How does the paper AGREE that the sample is flawed?

Just curious

Bill

[Rad [Visual C# MVP]]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:55:55 -0700, RobinS wrote:

Bummer for you. It wasn't my intention. Asking you to search the newsgroup
for past history instead of reposting the same question is hardly an
attack. If you want to see an attack, search this group or the VB.Net one
for "aaron.kempf". Now *there's* a guy who attacks people. You haven't been
attacked until someone mentions Hitler or Nazi Germany in response to one
of your posts. ;-)

For what it's worth, I work in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I have seen
that attitude you talk about in regards to VB.Net. Some people act like
it's a toy language or something. C# is generally regarded as more serious,
but it's not true. It really boils down to the developer using the
language. Some shops let their developers use either language, and some are
particular.

Part of this impression is reinforced by Microsoft itself. There are a more
examples available in C# than VB. Some examples are *only* available in C#.
It has been this way for a while. And with the new .Net 3.0 extensions
(WPF, WCF, and WF), just *try* to find a book about them that is in VB.

What was disconcerting to me is I found a bug in the VB compiler (really;
MSFT confirmed it) when doing some pretty basic WPF stuff. I figured out a
workaround for it. But then I found another one, and couldn't figure out a
workaround, and that's when I gave up and learned C#. It seems to kind of
indicate a lack of interest on MSFT's part, or not enough interest.

And frankly, it greatly increased my employment opportunities.

The whole thread cracks me up, because IIRC, the last time someone asked
about this, some people in this group went on about how stupid it would be
to use VB.Net instead of C#. You get the opposite opinion if you post over
in the VB group. (As you would see if you searched the archives ;-)

The bottom line is that Microsoft is not going to get rid of VB.Net any
time soon. In fact, I have heard rumors that they are going to do a better
job supporting it, and add more examples on MSDN where they are missing. If
you see my other post to this thread, there are a lot of companies out
there using VB.Net.

If you write your application in VB.Net, and you write it well, I doubt
anybody will care if it's in VB instead of C#.

Just my two cents' worth. Good luck, whichever direction you choose.

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

>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**********************************@micros oft.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**********************************@micros oft.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

If i had two cents every time I ran into this argument!!!

Heads up -- the next religious war will be between 'dynamic' languages
(ruby, python, etc) and the rest (C#, VB.NET, C++, etc).
--
Bits.Bytes
http://bytes.thinkersroom.com

[Tom Leylan]

Permit to me to point out this example as a great argument against bottom
posting as one must scroll 156 lines to get to the reply. It also violates
the suggested rule about the percentage of new content to quoted content.

The point that should be made (if it matters anymore to try to make a point)
is that this was not a religious war argument. There was no mention of
language syntax at all and it was posted by somebody who wrote that he is "a
VB.Net developer". Nobody wrote C# is better, nobody wrote VB.NET is dumb
(or vice versa.)

The question was about perception (and reality) in the marketplace, aka
"job/career opportunities". It started out by some postings addressing that
which by no means "scientific" demonstrated (in lieu of any contrary
information) that there seemed to be more C# jobs posted at the major job
sites. One could have consulted scientific surveys (which have been done)
on salaries as well. It may for instance turn out there are just as many VB
positions as C# positions, if the salaries vary "on average" by $12K per
year however then that too may influence one's decision. No language war
just marketplace facts.

Interestingly RobinS (who's message is quoted below) did offer this
observation about his switch from VB.Net to C#. "And frankly, it greatly
increased my employment opportunities." Which is all anybody was looking
for.

For all the brains software developers claim they have I often wonder if
they can read.

"Rad [Visual C# MVP]" <no****@nospam.comwrote in message
news:se***************@thinkersroom.com...

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:55:55 -0700, RobinS wrote:

>Bummer for you. It wasn't my intention. Asking you to search the
newsgroup
for past history instead of reposting the same question is hardly an
attack. If you want to see an attack, search this group or the VB.Net one
for "aaron.kempf". Now *there's* a guy who attacks people. You haven't
been
attacked until someone mentions Hitler or Nazi Germany in response to one
of your posts. ;-)

For what it's worth, I work in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I have
seen
that attitude you talk about in regards to VB.Net. Some people act like
it's a toy language or something. C# is generally regarded as more
serious,
but it's not true. It really boils down to the developer using the
language. Some shops let their developers use either language, and some
are
particular.

Part of this impression is reinforced by Microsoft itself. There are a
more
examples available in C# than VB. Some examples are *only* available in
C#.
It has been this way for a while. And with the new .Net 3.0 extensions
(WPF, WCF, and WF), just *try* to find a book about them that is in VB.

What was disconcerting to me is I found a bug in the VB compiler (really;
MSFT confirmed it) when doing some pretty basic WPF stuff. I figured out
a
workaround for it. But then I found another one, and couldn't figure out
a
workaround, and that's when I gave up and learned C#. It seems to kind of
indicate a lack of interest on MSFT's part, or not enough interest.

And frankly, it greatly increased my employment opportunities.

The whole thread cracks me up, because IIRC, the last time someone asked
about this, some people in this group went on about how stupid it would
be
to use VB.Net instead of C#. You get the opposite opinion if you post
over
in the VB group. (As you would see if you searched the archives ;-)

The bottom line is that Microsoft is not going to get rid of VB.Net any
time soon. In fact, I have heard rumors that they are going to do a
better
job supporting it, and add more examples on MSDN where they are missing.
If
you see my other post to this thread, there are a lot of companies out
there using VB.Net.

If you write your application in VB.Net, and you write it well, I doubt
anybody will care if it's in VB instead of C#.

Just my two cents' worth. Good luck, whichever direction you choose.

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

>>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**********************************@micro soft.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**********************************@micro soft.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

If i had two cents every time I ran into this argument!!!

Heads up -- the next religious war will be between 'dynamic' languages
(ruby, python, etc) and the rest (C#, VB.NET, C++, etc).
--
Bits.Bytes
http://bytes.thinkersroom.com

[Rad [Visual C# MVP]]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:49:13 -0400, Tom Leylan wrote:

Permit to me to point out this example as a great argument against bottom
posting as one must scroll 156 lines to get to the reply. It also violates
the suggested rule about the percentage of new content to quoted content.

But then again the length of the content may have been part of the point
being made?

The point that should be made (if it matters anymore to try to make a point)
is that this was not a religious war argument. There was no mention of
language syntax at all and it was posted by somebody who wrote that he is "a
VB.Net developer". Nobody wrote C# is better, nobody wrote VB.NET is dumb
(or vice versa.)

Clearly we've been reading different responses

The question was about perception (and reality) in the marketplace, aka
"job/career opportunities". It started out by some postings addressing that
which by no means "scientific" demonstrated (in lieu of any contrary
information) that there seemed to be more C# jobs posted at the major job
sites. One could have consulted scientific surveys (which have been done)
on salaries as well. It may for instance turn out there are just as many VB
positions as C# positions, if the salaries vary "on average" by $12K per
year however then that too may influence one's decision. No language war
just marketplace facts.

That's your interpretation. I'm pretty sure others are entitled to their
own

Interestingly RobinS (who's message is quoted below) did offer this
observation about his switch from VB.Net to C#. "And frankly, it greatly
increased my employment opportunities." Which is all anybody was looking
for.

For all the brains software developers claim they have I often wonder if
they can read.

We try, we try...

--
Bits.Bytes
http://bytes.thinkersroom.com

[Scott M.]

First, I don't know who you think you've been communitcating with in this
line of the thread, but it wasn't me. I've just doubled checked (to be
sure) and the post I replied to was the first time your name appears. We
have communicated twice on other VB.NET vs. C# benefits, but not on this 3:1
issue.

Second, the statement:

"Are you really that obtuse that you don't believe the biggest online job
posting sites are really the biggest online job posting sites?"

Does come across as insulting. In part because accussing someone of being
obtuse is, in itself, insulting but also because what you claim I've said is
no where close to something I said.

Third, you say you've been reading, but you couldn't have been paying much
attention, because I have stated (probably 10 or more times) what my problem
with the 3:1 *statistic* was, but you then write:

>A quick survey of the three largest online job
posting sites IS a good sample,

If you have read my posts, you'd know why I disagree with that.

but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge that.

If you read my posts, you'd know what that reason is.


"Andy" <an***@med-associates.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@o5g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...

On Apr 10, 7:17 pm, "Scott M." <[e-mail]:

>Please read, with your eyes open, what you are commenting on and I'd
offer
some friendly advice that it's not really a good way to start a
conversation
with an insult to someone you have never communicated with, who has never
said anythiing insulting about you.

I have been reading, thanks, but apperently you have not been. We've
posted back and forth a few times before my last reply.

With regards to being rude or insulting, it seems you started that
thrend in this thread (which I was following before I ever posted into
it).

At any rate, the problem you are having is with the 3:1 C# to vb.net
job availabity ratio. A quick survey of the three largest online job
posting sites IS a good sample, but for some reason you refuse to
acknowledge that.

Then when I point that out very clearly in my last post, you do
nothing to refute it, instead acting as if I have been rude in some
way. I do not feel anything in my previous post was rude, yet your
other replies to other people I do think have been. I guess if you
can't make your case, you say that the people who disagree with you
are 'bad people.'

[Scott M.]

Hi Bill,

If you check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_method,
you can see that it talks extensively about developing a problem that needs
quantification, developing a sampling method and then a sample frame. This
article discusses sample sizes as well as data sources within a given area.

My problem with the provided numbers from Arne are that, number one, he only
sample one type of source (online), and has deemed that type of data to be
the only type needed to confirm his result. He has ingnored the many
non-online data sources. Tom, then went on to change the problem to be
quantified in mid-stream from just VB.NET vs. C# jobs to Senior Developer
jobs and then dismissed non-online sources althogether.

So, for both Arne and Tom, they have limited their source data to just one
of many possible types.

I then argued that Arne's limited sample type is, in and of itself, too
small to provide an accurate sampling for all online sources (which the link
provided above backs up in the sample size section).

From the Brown paper, pages 4-10 disprove Arn'e *probability problem* and
his supposition that 3:1 is "statistical evidence", rather than
"observational" or "anecdotal" evidence at best.

Because Arne only looked at one of the many possible sources of data, page 2
in the paper agrees with my supposition that he is not working with
statistical *evidence*.

-Scott

"Bill Butler" <qw****@asdf.comwrote in message
news:OxCTh.4549$vo2.170@trnddc01...

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:ei*************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>The paper was written by an expert in the field from a pretty prestigous
university. If you can't tell when I'm being sarcastic and when I'm not
with such a simple thing like how qualified a professor at Brown is, you
have my sympathy about how hard it must be for you in daily conversations
you have with others.

The paper was fine.

>BUT, more importantly, what in the paper agrees with my assertion that
the sample Arne used is flawed and his *probability problem* is just that
a problem for his case and what supports Arne's supposition that his case
is, in fact, based on a good sample frame and his math is viable?

Would you care to show how that follows from the paper?
How does the paper AGREE that the sample is flawed?

Just curious

Bill

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Scott M. wrote:

>Not in any way substantiating facts of what you said.

And this relates to the point that Wiki can be changed by anyone and
therefore I don't like it?

It does not.

But it proves that the arguments you posted not only was not
substantiated - they were not true.

You have now changed your tactics away from the
point at hand, did MS pay (or attempt to pay) to have Wiki altered?

And how does my being incorrect about the topic of what was changed (but not
my main point in bringing Wiki up) relate to your *statistics*?

I think it display you as being rather hypocritic when you criticize
other for posting information without evidence in scientific meaning
and then you apparent consider it quite OK that you post information
that are false.

I've noticed that those who change the subject in mid-thread away from thier
assertions to something that is not the topic being discussed and dwell on
insignificant things that do not advance their case have done so because
they don't have anything credible to offer on their original point.

It can be hard to explain facts to an idiot ...

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Scott M. wrote:

>>Made up (your probability scenario above) or insufficient ones (flawed
sample group), yes.

I find it hard to take someone not capable of distinguishing between
no facts and insufficient facts serious.

>The numbers are the facts.

>The math is standard statistics.

>Nothing manufactured.

Well, that's very interesting, since the link I posted earlier
(http://www.stat.brown.edu/~jblume/sl...des_ucinn.pdf), written by
those uninformed folks at the little known Brown University seem to agree
with me and not with you about how to look at a sample and determine its
reliability.

They do not.

Actually they use the same calculations that I have tried
to get you to perform.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Scott M. wrote:

"Bill Butler" <qw****@asdf.comwrote in message
news:OxCTh.4549$vo2.170@trnddc01...

>"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospamwrote in message
news:ei*************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>The paper was written by an expert in the field from a pretty prestigous
university. If you can't tell when I'm being sarcastic and when I'm not
with such a simple thing like how qualified a professor at Brown is, you
have my sympathy about how hard it must be for you in daily conversations
you have with others.

The paper was fine.

>>BUT, more importantly, what in the paper agrees with my assertion that
the sample Arne used is flawed and his *probability problem* is just that
a problem for his case and what supports Arne's supposition that his case
is, in fact, based on a good sample frame and his math is viable?

Would you care to show how that follows from the paper?
How does the paper AGREE that the sample is flawed?

If you check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_method,
you can see that it talks extensively about developing a problem that needs
quantification, developing a sampling method and then a sample frame. This
article discusses sample sizes as well as data sources within a given area.

That did not reply to what Bill asked about.

I then argued that Arne's limited sample type is, in and of itself, too
small to provide an accurate sampling for all online sources (which the link
provided above backs up in the sample size section).

Actually it does not.

The sample size at dice.com is more than big enough if you put the
numbers into the formulas.

From the Brown paper, pages 4-10 disprove Arn'e *probability problem* and
his supposition that 3:1 is "statistical evidence", rather than
"observational" or "anecdotal" evidence at best.

Those pages contains an introduction to statistics and probability.

The most relevant is probably:


 Weak evidence
for HA over HB: 1<LR<8
for HB over HA: 1/8<LR<1

 Moderate evidence
for HA over HB: 8<LR<32
for HB over HA: 1/32<LR<1/8

 Strong evidence
for HA over HB: 32<LR
for HB over HA: LR<1/32

Could you give me the calculations of LR for the dice.com
numbers ?

Arne

[RobinS]

"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote in message
news:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk...

>
It can be hard to explain facts to an idiot ...

Arne

And yet, you keep trying. You're very persistent, aren't you? ;-)

Robin S.

[Scott M.]

Actually they use the same calculations that I have tried

to get you to perform.

Yes, and then they indicate that those particular calculations lead to
misleading results that are not statistical eveidence. You keep saying
these things do not prove my point, but you haven't read the paper
obviously. The pages I pointed out are NOT introductions to statistics and
probability. They are statements on different methods of gathering sample
data and looking at that data. They are also conclusions that these various
methods all can lead to misinterpreted results.

The paper goes on to show more precise calculations and better ways of
gathering sample data to produce statistical evidence. Those calculations
are nothing like your P() calculations.