Why is C# more prfferred than VB.NET.

=?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=

On Jul 24, 8:43 am, "Russell Mangel" <russ...@tymer.netwrote:

<snip>

Did you know that the most of the .NET framework is nothing but
C# wrappers around the "C" based methods of the Win API?

I disagree heartily with that statement. It's true for a *few* areas
of the framework, but far from most. What's your basis for this claim?

Jon

Jul 24 '07 #4

Anthony Jones

"Russell Mangel" <ru*****@tymer.netwrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>
Why?
Because Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual Basic .NET have nothing in common with
one another. VB 6.0 never had *true* "Object Oriented progamming" (not
Object like) and Interface based programming technologies like today's

..NET

languages. Meaning it would be just as hard for a VB 6.0 programmer to

learn

VB.NET as it would be to learn C# or C++/CLI. If he were going to use the
more powerful features that .NET offers. I think Microsoft should have

spent

all the VB.NET development time on C#/C++ .NET.

I think that is the key point.

VB6 was great at producing polymorphic code through the use of interfaces
but the lack of implementation inheritance was very frustrating. VB
therefore carries a little bit of stigma because "Real programmers" doing
"true" objected oriented code didn't use VB.

Along comes C# and VB.NET. Both of which have almost the same learning
curve attached to them for a VBer to learn. However C# has a more
"prestigeous" heritage being based on C/C++ syntax and having a perception
of being a "from the ground up" .NET language. At least emotionally C# is a
prefered choice.

MS tried to soften the transistion for VBers by duplicating a considerable
amount of the language features of VB6 despite the fact that the framework
has it's own ".NET" way of performing those functions (e.g., the Format
function). Whilst you can choose not go down that path this, IMO, also
diminishes VBs preceived credentials as a ".NET" language.

None of the above is particularly rational so you might think hard-nose
business decision making wouldn't be swayed by it. However, if you're
looking for job which between C# or VB.NET would you prefer to quote on the
CV. When recruiting, which language is more attractive to the talent pool.
When promoting your product and services to clients which language is more
impressive.

As an ASP.NET developer though I have to say that one rational reason for
using C# is that clientside I need to use Javascript. Switching between C#
and Javascript coding is far less painful than VB.NET and Javascript.

--
Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET

Jul 24 '07 #5

Microsoft developed the C# language specifically to target the .NET platform,
from the very beginning. In that sense, one could say that VB.NET is
essentially an "unnecessary" language. Of course, Microsoft was not about to
jettison 4 million (allegedly) classic VB developers, so they created VB.NET.

The above might sound kind of simplistic, but I believe I've caught the
essence of it.
-- Peter
Recursion: see Recursion
site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
unBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
bogMetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com

"Snehal" wrote:

Why do software industries go for C# than VB.Net ?
Wats the exact difference...
Which can be the best option..

Jul 24 '07 #6

clintonG

Ditto.
As a web developer JavaScript, C#, and Java share the exact same syntax.
Adopting C# becomes a pragmatic decision.

<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
"Anthony Jones" <An*@yadayadayada.comwrote in message
news:Oh**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

"Russell Mangel" <ru*****@tymer.netwrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
Why?
Because Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual Basic .NET have nothing in common
with
one another. VB 6.0 never had *true* "Object Oriented progamming" (not
Object like) and Interface based programming technologies like today's
.NET
>languages. Meaning it would be just as hard for a VB 6.0 programmer to
learn
>VB.NET as it would be to learn C# or C++/CLI. If he were going to use the
more powerful features that .NET offers. I think Microsoft should have
spent
>all the VB.NET development time on C#/C++ .NET.

I think that is the key point.

VB6 was great at producing polymorphic code through the use of interfaces
but the lack of implementation inheritance was very frustrating. VB
therefore carries a little bit of stigma because "Real programmers" doing
"true" objected oriented code didn't use VB.

Along comes C# and VB.NET. Both of which have almost the same learning
curve attached to them for a VBer to learn. However C# has a more
"prestigeous" heritage being based on C/C++ syntax and having a perception
of being a "from the ground up" .NET language. At least emotionally C# is
a
prefered choice.

MS tried to soften the transistion for VBers by duplicating a considerable
amount of the language features of VB6 despite the fact that the framework
has it's own ".NET" way of performing those functions (e.g., the Format
function). Whilst you can choose not go down that path this, IMO, also
diminishes VBs preceived credentials as a ".NET" language.

None of the above is particularly rational so you might think hard-nose
business decision making wouldn't be swayed by it. However, if you're
looking for job which between C# or VB.NET would you prefer to quote on
the
CV. When recruiting, which language is more attractive to the talent
pool.
When promoting your product and services to clients which language is more
impressive.

As an ASP.NET developer though I have to say that one rational reason for
using C# is that clientside I need to use Javascript. Switching between
C#
and Javascript coding is far less painful than VB.NET and Javascript.

--
Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET

Jul 24 '07 #7

"Snehal" <Sn****@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:17**********************************@microsof t.com...

Why do software industries go for C# than VB.Net ?
Wats the exact difference...
Which can be the best option..

That's because C#.Net is a standard controlled by the ISO and ECMA as a
standard and is not owned by MS, while VB.NET is proprietary to MS and is
not a standard.

Jul 24 '07 #8

schneider

C# is preferred mostly for ignorance. One of the main points is multiple
languages for .NET
Microsoft has Framework code written in VB.NET I am told in 2.0/3.0.

The only good reasons I can think of to prefer C# are:
C# is a standard now
Syntax; Previous experience is Java/C++

IDE Support was better in VB.NET than C# in 2003. It's still better for
VB.NET IMO for 2005. I use C# all day at work, and VB.NET all night at home.
The main difference is syntax, I feel some thing are over complicated in C#.

I have no desire to use C/C++ anymore.

Schneider

"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <pb*******@yahoo.yohohhoandabottleofrum.comwrote
in message news:9D**********************************@microsof t.com...

Microsoft developed the C# language specifically to target the .NET
platform,
from the very beginning. In that sense, one could say that VB.NET is
essentially an "unnecessary" language. Of course, Microsoft was not about
to
jettison 4 million (allegedly) classic VB developers, so they created
VB.NET.

The above might sound kind of simplistic, but I believe I've caught the
essence of it.
-- Peter
Recursion: see Recursion
site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
unBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
bogMetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com

"Snehal" wrote:

>Why do software industries go for C# than VB.Net ?
Wats the exact difference...
Which can be the best option..

Jul 24 '07 #9

clintonG <no****@nowhere.comwrote:

As a web developer JavaScript, C#, and Java share the exact same syntax.
Adopting C# becomes a pragmatic decision.

They have *similar* syntax in many ways - but claiming it's "the exact
same" syntax is blatantly inaccurate, IMO.

How do you derive from another class in C#? Now how do you do it in
Java?

How do you call the base type's constructor in C#? Now how do you do it
in Java?

How do you synchronize access to a block of code in C#? And in Java?

How do you specify constraints on a generic type parameter in C#? And
in Java?
That's leaving JavaScript (with its closures etc) aside...

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

Jul 24 '07 #10

schneider <es****************@starkinvestments.comwrote:

C# is preferred mostly for ignorance. One of the main points is multiple
languages for .NET
Microsoft has Framework code written in VB.NET I am told in 2.0/3.0.

The only good reasons I can think of to prefer C# are:
C# is a standard now
Syntax; Previous experience is Java/C++

IDE Support was better in VB.NET than C# in 2003. It's still better for
VB.NET IMO for 2005. I use C# all day at work, and VB.NET all night at home.
The main difference is syntax, I feel some thing are over complicated in C#.

Whereas I feel that VB is too big a *language* compared with C#. Look
at the number of functions/keywords which are defined by the *lanugage*
rather than being part of the *library*. I'm one of those who prefers a
small language with a big library behind it.

There are lots of idiosyncrasies in VB for historical reasons - the
oddities regarding strings and Nothing, for instance. C# still has a
few problems it's inherited from Java/C/C++ (such as a relatively poor
swich statement) but it's got less baggage.

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

Jul 24 '07 #11

<"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Ar****@Arnold.com>wrote:

"Snehal" <Sn****@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:17**********************************@microsof t.com...
Why do software industries go for C# than VB.Net ?
Wats the exact difference...
Which can be the best option..

That's because C#.Net is a standard controlled by the ISO and ECMA as a
standard and is not owned by MS, while VB.NET is proprietary to MS and is
not a standard.

I don't think that makes much difference to most people, to be honest.

As for it being "controlled" by ECMA/ISO - as I understand it, they
take the specification that MS produces and tweak some of the wording
etc. It's worth noting that Visual Studio 2005 came out long before
ECMA ratified the C# 2.0 specification, for example. If ECMA had wanted
to make significant, breaking changes, do you think they'd really have
been able to in a useful way? If not, in what way can they really be
said to be "controlling" the standard?

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

Jul 24 '07 #12

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

<"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Ar****@Arnold.com>wrote:
>"Snehal" <Sn****@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message
news:17**********************************@microso ft.com...
Why do software industries go for C# than VB.Net ?
Wats the exact difference...
Which can be the best option..

That's because C#.Net is a standard controlled by the ISO and ECMA as a
standard and is not owned by MS, while VB.NET is proprietary to MS and is
not a standard.

I don't think that makes much difference to most people, to be honest.

As for it being "controlled" by ECMA/ISO - as I understand it, they
take the specification that MS produces and tweak some of the wording
etc. It's worth noting that Visual Studio 2005 came out long before
ECMA ratified the C# 2.0 specification, for example. If ECMA had wanted
to make significant, breaking changes, do you think they'd really have
been able to in a useful way? If not, in what way can they really be
said to be "controlling" the standard?

MS doesn't own .Net they gave it all away. MS is on the ISO and ECMA
standard committee like IBM, HP, Sun Micro System, Novell and several
others, and MS is just one vote on the committee as to what happens to
..NET, not saying that MS doesn't have influence, no doubt.

And most people and most businesses are two different things. Many, many and
many various businesses work under the ISO and ECMA standards in controlling
the day to day operations of their business, and they look for ISO/ECMA
solutions.

C#.NET and .NET CLI are under that ISO/ECMA umbrella. This was made aware
to me by companies that are heavily regulated and must stay within the
ISO/ECMA guide lines to run their day to day operations. Third party vendors
that write ISO/ECMA compliant software look to ISO/ECMA solutions as well.

Jul 24 '07 #13

<"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Ar****@Arnold.com>wrote:

As for it being "controlled" by ECMA/ISO - as I understand it, they
take the specification that MS produces and tweak some of the wording
etc. It's worth noting that Visual Studio 2005 came out long before
ECMA ratified the C# 2.0 specification, for example. If ECMA had wanted
to make significant, breaking changes, do you think they'd really have
been able to in a useful way? If not, in what way can they really be
said to be "controlling" the standard?

MS doesn't own .Net they gave it all away.

There's a big difference between the CLI (which is standardised) and
..NET (which is one implementation of the CLI spec plus a load of other
stuff).

MS is on the ISO and ECMA standard committee like IBM, HP, Sun Micro
System, Novell and several others, and MS is just one vote on the
committee as to what happens to .NET, not saying that MS doesn't have
influence, no doubt.

It may be just one vote on the committee, but given that MS released
VS2005 before ECMA voted, how likely do you think it is that ECMA would
have voted for a breaking change?

And most people and most businesses are two different things. Many, many and
many various businesses work under the ISO and ECMA standards in controlling
the day to day operations of their business, and they look for ISO/ECMA
solutions.

Perhaps they should be aware of just how little influence it's likely
to have if MS want to go one way and ECMA later decides it wants to go
another.

C#.NET and .NET CLI are under that ISO/ECMA umbrella. This was made aware
to me by companies that are heavily regulated and must stay within the
ISO/ECMA guide lines to run their day to day operations. Third party vendors
that write ISO/ECMA compliant software look to ISO/ECMA solutions as well.

Well, Java seems to be doing pretty well in all kinds of regulated
shops without an ISO/ECMA standard to back it...

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

Jul 24 '07 #14

http://www.codeproject.com/dotnet/vb...difference.asp

Go away man and disappear out of my sight, because I am NOT here to debate
anything with you.

Jul 24 '07 #15

William Stacey [C# MVP]

| <snip>
|
| Did you know that the most of the .NET framework is nothing but
| C# wrappers around the "C" based methods of the Win API?
|
| I disagree heartily with that statement. It's true for a *few* areas
| of the framework, but far from most. What's your basis for this claim?
|
| Jon

I agree Jon. Framework itself is layered and leverages itself. Probably a
lot more of core methods call into interop, then less and less as higher
level classes leverage existing BCL layer so on (DLR, WCF, WPF leverages fx,
etc),. Not that is matters anyway, an analysis is probably a waste of time
side from talking points for someone on one side or another.

--
William Stacey [C# MVP]
PowerLocker, PowerPad
www.powerlocker.com

Jul 24 '07 #16

=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=

Snehal wrote:

Why do software industries go for C# than VB.Net ?

Actually VB.NET are also used in the software industry.

There seems to be a division approx. C# 2/3 VB.NET 1/3
(managed C++ is insignificant).

I think the two main reasons for that are not related to
the two languages but to the context:
- the general perception and to some extent also inside MS
is that C# is new and the future while VB.NET is something
that exist for "skill compatibility" reasons
- even though C# and VB.NET are functionally equivalent, then
among developers often C# are compared with C++ and considered
more advanced than VB.NET which are compared with VB6

Wats the exact difference...

Which can be the best option..

Whatever you (or the company you work for) like best.

Arne

Jul 25 '07 #17

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

Mr. Arnold wrote:

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comwrote in message
news:MP*********************@msnews.microsoft.com. ..
><"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Ar****@Arnold.com>wrote:
>As for it being "controlled" by ECMA/ISO - as I understand it, they
take the specification that MS produces and tweak some of the wording
etc. It's worth noting that Visual Studio 2005 came out long before
ECMA ratified the C# 2.0 specification, for example. If ECMA had
wanted
to make significant, breaking changes, do you think they'd really have
been able to in a useful way? If not, in what way can they really be
said to be "controlling" the standard?

MS doesn't own .Net they gave it all away.

There's a big difference between the CLI (which is standardised) and
.NET (which is one implementation of the CLI spec plus a load of other
stuff).

Are you going to sit there and say that C#.Net is not a standard?

MS's implementation of C# follows ECMA-334 (C# standard) rather well
I think.

MS .NET implementation is ECMA-335 (CLI) compliant, but it is also
magnitudes bigger.

You can not really consider the .NET framework standardized.

ECMA-335 2nd edition defines 295 classes.

..NET 2.0 has 6675 classes (only counting System namespaces).

Meaning that the standard covers less than 5% of .NET !

I am beginning to completely dislike anyone that's showing that MVP on a
post. It seems it is pretty much rampant in these MS NG(s), like an MVP
speaks it's suppose to be the gospel.

MVP's are just like all other - some are good - some are not quite
as good.

But the particular MVP you are talking about are rather good.

Arne

Jul 25 '07 #18

But the particular MVP you are talking about are rather good.

I don't want the person posting to me about anything. I don't seek out him
or any one else for that matter in these NG(s).

I mind my own business and post to the OP. And what this particular person
has to say doesn't mean anything to me.

I am not looking to be anyone's buddy buddy, post pal or anything else. The
person needs to mind his own business and stay out of face, which I don't
think he can do.

Jul 25 '07 #19

Jon Skeet is incredibly helpful and knowledgeable. His contributions in the
particular thread offer very good insight into issues directly related to
the OP and subsequent posts in this thread.

He was not attacking you personally. He was offering perspective that you
were missing. You could learn from him if you would only listen.

RE:
<>
and
<< mind his own business >>
This is a PUBLIC forum. What you post here automatically, and even by
defintion, becomes or is everybody's business. If you have a problem with
that, then don't post here.

RE:
<>
Mission accomplished.

"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Ar****@Arnold.comwrote in message
news:Os**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

But the particular MVP you are talking about are rather good.

I don't want the person posting to me about anything. I don't seek out
him or any one else for that matter in these NG(s).

I mind my own business and post to the OP. And what this particular person
has to say doesn't mean anything to me.

I am not looking to be anyone's buddy buddy, post pal or anything else.
The person needs to mind his own business and stay out of face, which I
don't think he can do.

Jul 25 '07 #20

RE:
<>

Mission accomplished.

So be it and just stay out of my face, because I don't want to be bothered
with it.

Jul 25 '07 #21

Marc Gravell

(groan) Do we really have to go through this again? And from the same
contributor?

"Mr. Arnold": get over yourself; this is far from the first time
you've dragged a
perfectly sensible disussion into pointless comments like
"stay out of my face". Your (original) comments were perfectly
good and helpful; why ruin it just because somebody adds
some more context to the overall picture? It isn't a personal attack
when
people are simply adding additional information. And if those seem at
odds
to your view, then discuss it; the toys can remain in the pram.

Marc

Jul 25 '07 #22

=?Utf-8?B?TW9kZWxCdWlsZGVy?=

I know several management type people who are convinced they need to hire C#
people only because they have the perception VB is something tought to kids
in grade school. They remember VB 6 and think VB .Net is just the next
version of that tool. Usually it seems these managers seem to somehow think
C# is the next version of C++, which their computer techie friends were
studying in college. This means (to them) it is for real work...

"Arne VajhÃ¸j" wrote:

Snehal wrote:
Why do software industries go for C# than VB.Net ?

Actually VB.NET are also used in the software industry.

There seems to be a division approx. C# 2/3 VB.NET 1/3
(managed C++ is insignificant).

I think the two main reasons for that are not related to
the two languages but to the context:
- the general perception and to some extent also inside MS
is that C# is new and the future while VB.NET is something
that exist for "skill compatibility" reasons
- even though C# and VB.NET are functionally equivalent, then
among developers often C# are compared with C++ and considered
more advanced than VB.NET which are compared with VB6

Wats the exact difference...

http://www.codeproject.com/dotnet/vb...difference.asp

Which can be the best option..

Whatever you (or the company you work for) like best.

Arne

Jul 25 '07 #23

Leon Lambert

Maybe it is because of a cultural perception and not the language
itself. Following is an article that talks about the cultural
differences between VB.net and C#.
http://www.cmswire.com/cms/featured-...cle-000591.php
Snehal wrote:

Why do software industries go for C# than VB.Net ?
Wats the exact difference...
Which can be the best option..

Jul 25 '07 #24

"Marc Gravell" <ma**********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...

(groan) Do we really have to go through this again? And from the same
contributor?

"Mr. Arnold": get over yourself; this is far from the first time
you've dragged a
perfectly sensible disussion into pointless comments like
"stay out of my face". Your (original) comments were perfectly
good and helpful; why ruin it just because somebody adds
some more context to the overall picture? It isn't a personal attack
when
people are simply adding additional information. And if those seem at
odds
to your view, then discuss it; the toys can remain in the pram.

Marc

Jul 25 '07 #25

"Marc Gravell" <ma**********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...

(groan) Do we really have to go through this again? And from the same
contributor?

"Mr. Arnold": get over yourself; this is far from the first time
you've dragged a
perfectly sensible disussion into pointless comments like
"stay out of my face". Your (original) comments were perfectly
good and helpful; why ruin it just because somebody adds
some more context to the overall picture? It isn't a personal attack
when
people are simply adding additional information. And if those seem at
odds
to your view, then discuss it; the toys can remain in the pram.

I'll discuss anything with the OP if the OP shows respect. If the OP get's
out of line, then that's another story.

I am not out here in these NG(s) to be in discussions or debates with
someone, and I just don't want to be bothered with it. The sooner it's
realized that Mr. Arnold is not one to take to a debate or discussion, then
the better things will be overall.

That's the way I am, since I have been out on the Internet starting in
2001. I am not changing for anyone out here on the Internet.

Jul 25 '07 #26

<"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Ar****@Arnold.com>wrote:

I'll discuss anything with the OP if the OP shows respect. If the OP get's
out of line, then that's another story.

I am not out here in these NG(s) to be in discussions or debates with
someone, and I just don't want to be bothered with it. The sooner it's
realized that Mr. Arnold is not one to take to a debate or discussion, then
the better things will be overall.

I post for the benefit of the group as a whole, not one particular
person. Therefore if I believe your point of view is incorrect, I'll
make a post explaining why - for the benefit of *everyone*.

You can feel free not to reply, or (as appears to be your wont) to just
post a rude reply which doesn't address the logic of my post - but I
won't leave inaccurate posts uncorrected just because you don't want to
engage in civilised discussion.

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

Jul 25 '07 #27

RE:
<>

Discussion and debate is one of the big benefits of these NGs - if not an
intended usage of the groups. Yes, they get a bit heated at times - but
that's okay as long as the debate and discussion remains focused squarely on
the technical issues (rather than becoming personal).

RE:
<>
Then you're going to be bothered a lot then because we're frequently
debating and discussing, and that's not going to stop any time soon.

-"Bob"

"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Ar****@Arnold.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>
"Marc Gravell" <ma**********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>(groan) Do we really have to go through this again? And from the same
contributor?

"Mr. Arnold": get over yourself; this is far from the first time
you've dragged a
perfectly sensible disussion into pointless comments like
"stay out of my face". Your (original) comments were perfectly
good and helpful; why ruin it just because somebody adds
some more context to the overall picture? It isn't a personal attack
when
people are simply adding additional information. And if those seem at
odds
to your view, then discuss it; the toys can remain in the pram.

I'll discuss anything with the OP if the OP shows respect. If the OP get's
out of line, then that's another story.

I am not out here in these NG(s) to be in discussions or debates with
someone, and I just don't want to be bothered with it. The sooner it's
realized that Mr. Arnold is not one to take to a debate or discussion,
then the better things will be overall.

That's the way I am, since I have been out on the Internet starting in
2001. I am not changing for anyone out here on the Internet.

Jul 25 '07 #28

I am going to say one other thing here, and then I am going on about my
business.

You are one of these people out here on the Internet that post just a little
too much, you're out here just a little too much, you got too much of an
opinion just a little too much, and it seems that you don't have too much of
a life without the Internet, because you're out here just a little too much.

You need to get a life, other than, being out here on the Internet, just a
little too much.

<bye>

Jul 25 '07 #29

Peter Duniho

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:20:44 -0700, Mr. Arnold <MR. <Ar****@Arnold.com>>
wrote:

I am going to say one other thing here, and then I am going on about my
business.

No, you're not. You can't help yourself.

You are one of these people out here on the Internet that post just a
little too much, you're out here just a little too much, you got too
much of an opinion just a little too much, and it seems that you don't
have too much of a life without the Internet, because you're out here
just a little too much.

Actually, you only think that because you keep posting things that aren't
correct, which requires _someone_ to post a follow up explaining to others
who may come across the thread (either now or later) what's incorrect
about what you posted, AND on top of that you cannot handle any suggestion
whatsoever that what you posted is incorrect.

Note: it is not so much the fact that you post something that's incorrect,
but rather that last part -- that you cannot tolerate any suggestion that
what you posted is incorrect -- that is the issue here.

There's not a single person here who never makes a mistake. There are,
however, some people who cannot accept that they sometimes make mistakes.
And then among those people, there are some people who upon being pushed
into a corner where it's obvious they've made a mistake, abandon the
actual discussion and turn it into personal insults rather than admitting
their mistake.

You are this newsgroup's most visible example of that last group of people.

Pete

Jul 25 '07 #30

I am just going to killfile you as you are someone I don't want to see
anymore. It's as simple as that.

Jul 25 '07 #31

DArnold

You're nothing but someone's lapdog. And I don't hold conversations with
NG lapdogs. So I am getting to kill you in this one too. Let's see of
you shape shift out of the killfiles.

Jul 25 '07 #32

"Bob Johnson" <A@B.comwrote in message
news:OO**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

RE:
<>

Discussion and debate is one of the big benefits of these NGs - if not an
intended usage of the groups. Yes, they get a bit heated at times - but
that's okay as long as the debate and discussion remains focused squarely
on the technical issues (rather than becoming personal).

It's not my cup of tea and you see the reasons why, because there are
lunatics running loose out here on the Internet, too many of them.

So, I just as soon will avoid the situation all together. I post to the OP
and that's it. I have no need to be any discussions or debates with anyone
out here on the Internet.

And what I am going to do from this point forward in this particular NG is
killfile Jon Skeet, because he is nothing but trouble and also killfile
anyone like him.

Jul 25 '07 #33

RE:
<< there are lunatics running loose out here on the Internet, too many of
them>>

I disagree. I think the number of lunatics running loose on the Internet is
just right: It's kind of like Goldilocks and the Three Bears... not too
many... not too few.... but just the right number [of lunatics].

-"Bob"

"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Ar****@Arnold.comwrote in message
news:e7**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>
"Bob Johnson" <A@B.comwrote in message
news:OO**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>RE:
<>

Discussion and debate is one of the big benefits of these NGs - if not an
intended usage of the groups. Yes, they get a bit heated at times - but
that's okay as long as the debate and discussion remains focused squarely
on the technical issues (rather than becoming personal).

It's not my cup of tea and you see the reasons why, because there are
lunatics running loose out here on the Internet, too many of them.

So, I just as soon will avoid the situation all together. I post to the OP
and that's it. I have no need to be any discussions or debates with anyone
out here on the Internet.

And what I am going to do from this point forward in this particular NG is
killfile Jon Skeet, because he is nothing but trouble and also killfile
anyone like him.

Jul 25 '07 #34

Peter Duniho

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:13:20 -0700, Mr. Arnold <MR. <Ar****@Arnold.com>>
wrote:

It's not my cup of tea and you see the reasons why, because there are
lunatics running loose out here on the Internet, too many of them.

Crazy people! They're everywhere! We've even got one here in this
newsgroup! I wonder who that might be.

So, I just as soon will avoid the situation all together. I post to the
OP and that's it. I have no need to be any discussions or debates with
anyone out here on the Internet.

Then why do you reply to posts other than from the OP? Your actions belie
your claims.

And what I am going to do from this point forward in this particular NG
is killfile Jon Skeet, because he is nothing but trouble and also
killfile anyone like him.

Yeah, Jon Skeet. He's a real trouble-maker. Always rocking the boat,
shaking things up. You never know when he's gonna drop one of those
infamous Skeet-bombs and blow the newsgroup apart again.

Right.

The thing I can't figure out is...if you'd actually kill-filed all the
people you keep claiming you're going to kill-file, we wouldn't have this
problem. You'd never see the posts when people point out your mistakes,
and you'd never find yourself fighting an unwinnable fight, trying to
defend statements that are factually untrue.

Here's a suggestion: use a newsreader that actually supports kill-files,
and _use_ the kill-file when you say you're going to.

That way, we can go ahead and post messages to correct the mistakes in
your own, without you getting all hot and bothered about having been wrong.

Pete

Jul 25 '07 #35

"Bob Johnson" <A@B.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

RE:
<< there are lunatics running loose out here on the Internet, too many of
them>>

I disagree. I think the number of lunatics running loose on the Internet
is just right: It's kind of like Goldilocks and the Three Bears... not too
many... not too few.... but just the right number [of lunatics].

You know the old saying. Opinions are a dime a dozen and everyone has got
one.

It is what it is, and what it is in this NG has been two lunatics that have
been on my a** in this NG from day one, and I am tired of looking at them.
So I am going to take care of this situation and not see them anymore.

Jul 25 '07 #36

I like tomato soup.

-"Bob"

"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Ar****@Arnold.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>
"Bob Johnson" <A@B.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>RE:
<< there are lunatics running loose out here on the Internet, too many
of them>>

I disagree. I think the number of lunatics running loose on the Internet
is just right: It's kind of like Goldilocks and the Three Bears... not
too many... not too few.... but just the right number [of lunatics].

You know the old saying. Opinions are a dime a dozen and everyone has got
one.

It is what it is, and what it is in this NG has been two lunatics that
have been on my a** in this NG from day one, and I am tired of looking at
them. So I am going to take care of this situation and not see them
anymore.

Jul 26 '07 #37

Russell Mangel

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...

On Jul 24, 8:43 am, "Russell Mangel" <russ...@tymer.netwrote:

<snip>

>Did you know that the most of the .NET framework is nothing but
C# wrappers around the "C" based methods of the Win API?

I disagree heartily with that statement. It's true for a *few* areas
of the framework, but far from most. What's your basis for this claim?

Jon

When I said .NET framework, I should have said BCL (Base Class Library).
Saying *most* might be an exageration, but saying a *few* areas is a gross
understatement. But then I spend alot of time doing C# Interop and C++/CLI
Interop.

Okay I'll re-word, if you write a program that needs data from Windows in
some form. i.e. A file, a directory, a permission, a handle, a value from
the registry, some data from the network, or some data from Active
Directory. There will be a call to an un-managed windows .dll file.

Why is there such great support for calling Un-Managed code via pinvoke?
Because Microsoft needed it to build the BCL.

Russ.

Jul 26 '07 #38

"Bob Johnson" <A@B.comwrote in message
news:eS**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>I like tomato soup.

-"Bob"

I like it when I am sick with a bad cold or flu. Technically, it's easy on
the stomach.

But in my *opinion*, the best is Clam Chowder -- none better.

Jul 26 '07 #39