By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,836 Members | 1,983 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,836 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Microsoft: Get rid of VB.NET -- now !

P: n/a
This is a recommendation to Microsoft.

VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.

I know why Microsoft invented VB.net -- to wean old style VB6 scripters into
a true OO world: .Net.

But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information about coding,
and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the vb to c#
( my chosen language ).

I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google, when I
search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much excludes vb
examples that sometimes exist.

I say to Microsoft: start obsolescing vb.net and folding the community into
c# -- it will be a stronger, tighter, more powerful community. One which
can merge with the growing Linux mono c# community.
Jul 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
43 Replies


P: n/a
Man this sounds almost the same as how a dictator gets started. If your not
doing it how i want then your not doing it right.

Go away troll

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
This is a recommendation to Microsoft.

VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.

I know why Microsoft invented VB.net -- to wean old style VB6 scripters into a true OO world: .Net.

But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information about coding, and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the vb to c#
( my chosen language ).

I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google, when I
search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much excludes vb
examples that sometimes exist.

I say to Microsoft: start obsolescing vb.net and folding the community into c# -- it will be a stronger, tighter, more powerful community. One which
can merge with the growing Linux mono c# community.

Jul 21 '05 #2

P: n/a

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
This is a recommendation to Microsoft.

VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.
They are similar but they are growing apart. I consider both languages
different, would approach problems differently in each, and you should as
well.

But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information about
coding,
and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the vb to c#
( my chosen language ).
Its really a minor issue, and if you are having real problems you can
probably get help here, most posters are atleast able to expose basic ideas
in both languages. You don't *need* coding examples to see how to do things,
just explinations of what to do, what classes\methods to use, etc.

There is no harm in asking, really, just don't go nuts.


I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google, when I
search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much excludes vb
examples that sometimes exist.


Then type .NET instead...

Anyway, this is the weakest anti-VB reasoning I've seen yet...could you
atleast declare that its a horrible langauge and should be destroyed to keep
it from corrupting minds or something? Dropping a language because its
inconvient to search is not a very good reason and, until pretty recently,
would have been just as good for C#(You'd be surprised how often the #
messed things up).
Jul 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
> They are similar but they are growing apart.

Really ?

In what way, specifically...
"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:OJ****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
This is a recommendation to Microsoft.

VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.

I consider both languages different, would approach problems differently in each, and you should as
well.

But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information about
coding,
and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the vb to c# ( my chosen language ).
Its really a minor issue, and if you are having real problems you can
probably get help here, most posters are atleast able to expose basic

ideas in both languages. You don't *need* coding examples to see how to do things, just explinations of what to do, what classes\methods to use, etc.

There is no harm in asking, really, just don't go nuts.


I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google, when I
search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much excludes vb
examples that sometimes exist.

Then type .NET instead...

Anyway, this is the weakest anti-VB reasoning I've seen yet...could you
atleast declare that its a horrible langauge and should be destroyed to

keep it from corrupting minds or something? Dropping a language because its
inconvient to search is not a very good reason and, until pretty recently,
would have been just as good for C#(You'd be surprised how often the #
messed things up).

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004
Jul 21 '05 #4

P: n/a

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:YH***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
They are similar but they are growing apart.
Really ?

In what way, specifically...


Umm, well, lets see. Outside of the fundamental differences(Statement based
vs expression based, case senstivity, heritage, etc), C# is moving slightly
towards the functional language end of the spectrum with the addition of
anonymous methods and iterators(both rather nice features of languages like
python, for example) while VB is focusing on a more RAD target with its My
namespace and additional IDE improvements. VB probably has a few other bits
as well, but I am not well versed in the new VB features we should expect
next year. Maybe a VB MVP or someone could provide more information on that.

Its still a minor bit, and proven features will trade back and forth quite a
lot, but VB and C# are certainly not the only langauges that this is a
factor for, just look at java1.5(if you don't learn from the other side, you
are pretty much doomed to failure after all), however it is a sign of
seperation. The differences will *not* be as pronounced as vb6 vs java, for
example, for quite a while yet. These two languages started with teh same
trunk and are only now beginning to take full lives of their own. It may be
a few years, but I do think they will become unique and individually suited
to individuals for reasons beyond the most basic syntatical features.

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:OJ****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> This is a recommendation to Microsoft.
>
> VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.

I consider both languages
different, would approach problems differently in each, and you should as
well.

> But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information about
> coding,
> and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the vb to c# > ( my chosen language ).


Its really a minor issue, and if you are having real problems you can
probably get help here, most posters are atleast able to expose basic

ideas
in both languages. You don't *need* coding examples to see how to do

things,
just explinations of what to do, what classes\methods to use, etc.

There is no harm in asking, really, just don't go nuts.

>
> I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google, when I
> search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much excludes
> vb
> examples that sometimes exist.
>


Then type .NET instead...

Anyway, this is the weakest anti-VB reasoning I've seen yet...could you
atleast declare that its a horrible langauge and should be destroyed to

keep
it from corrupting minds or something? Dropping a language because its
inconvient to search is not a very good reason and, until pretty
recently,
would have been just as good for C#(You'd be surprised how often the #
messed things up).

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004

Jul 21 '05 #5

P: n/a

Ok.

Scratch that idea.

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:YH***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
They are similar but they are growing apart.
Really ?

In what way, specifically...


Umm, well, lets see. Outside of the fundamental differences(Statement

based vs expression based, case senstivity, heritage, etc), C# is moving slightly towards the functional language end of the spectrum with the addition of
anonymous methods and iterators(both rather nice features of languages like python, for example) while VB is focusing on a more RAD target with its My
namespace and additional IDE improvements. VB probably has a few other bits as well, but I am not well versed in the new VB features we should expect
next year. Maybe a VB MVP or someone could provide more information on that.
Its still a minor bit, and proven features will trade back and forth quite a lot, but VB and C# are certainly not the only langauges that this is a
factor for, just look at java1.5(if you don't learn from the other side, you are pretty much doomed to failure after all), however it is a sign of
seperation. The differences will *not* be as pronounced as vb6 vs java, for example, for quite a while yet. These two languages started with teh same
trunk and are only now beginning to take full livesoftheirown.Itmaybe a few years, but I do think they will become unique and individually suited to individuals for reasons beyond the most basic syntatical features.


"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:OJ****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> This is a recommendation to Microsoft.
>
> VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.

I consider both languages
different, would approach problems differently in each, and you should as well.
> But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information about
> coding,
> and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the vb to
c#
> ( my chosen language ).

Its really a minor issue, and if you are having real problems you can
probably get help here, most posters are atleast able to expose basic

ideas
in both languages. You don't *need* coding examples to see how to do

things,
just explinations of what to do, what classes\methods to use, etc.

There is no harm in asking, really, just don't go nuts.
>
> I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google, when

I > search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much excludes
> vb
> examples that sometimes exist.
>

Then type .NET instead...

Anyway, this is the weakest anti-VB reasoning I've seen yet...could you
atleast declare that its a horrible langauge and should be destroyed to

keep
it from corrupting minds or something? Dropping a language because its
inconvient to search is not a very good reason and, until pretty
recently,
would have been just as good for C#(You'd be surprised how often the #
messed things up).

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004
Jul 21 '05 #6

P: n/a

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:zc*****************@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

Ok.

Scratch that idea.

Come again?

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:YH***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> They are similar but they are growing apart.
>
> Really ?
>
> In what way, specifically...


Umm, well, lets see. Outside of the fundamental differences(Statement

based
vs expression based, case senstivity, heritage, etc), C# is moving

slightly
towards the functional language end of the spectrum with the addition of
anonymous methods and iterators(both rather nice features of languages

like
python, for example) while VB is focusing on a more RAD target with its
My
namespace and additional IDE improvements. VB probably has a few other

bits
as well, but I am not well versed in the new VB features we should expect
next year. Maybe a VB MVP or someone could provide more information on

that.

Its still a minor bit, and proven features will trade back and forth
quite

a
lot, but VB and C# are certainly not the only langauges that this is a
factor for, just look at java1.5(if you don't learn from the other side,

you
are pretty much doomed to failure after all), however it is a sign of
seperation. The differences will *not* be as pronounced as vb6 vs java,

for
example, for quite a while yet. These two languages started with teh same
trunk and are only now beginning to take full

livesoftheirown.Itmaybe
a few years, but I do think they will become unique and individually

suited
to individuals for reasons beyond the most basic syntatical features.
>
>
> "Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
> message news:OJ****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
>> news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> > This is a recommendation to Microsoft.
>> >
>> > VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.
>>
> I consider both languages
>> different, would approach problems differently in each, and you should as >> well.
>>
>>
>> > But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information about
>> > coding,
>> > and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the vb to > c#
>> > ( my chosen language ).
>>
>> Its really a minor issue, and if you are having real problems you can
>> probably get help here, most posters are atleast able to expose basic
> ideas
>> in both languages. You don't *need* coding examples to see how to do
> things,
>> just explinations of what to do, what classes\methods to use, etc.
>>
>> There is no harm in asking, really, just don't go nuts.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google,
>> > when I >> > search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much
>> > excludes
>> > vb
>> > examples that sometimes exist.
>> >
>>
>> Then type .NET instead...
>>
>> Anyway, this is the weakest anti-VB reasoning I've seen yet...could
>> you
>> atleast declare that its a horrible langauge and should be destroyed
>> to
> keep
>> it from corrupting minds or something? Dropping a language because its
>> inconvient to search is not a very good reason and, until pretty
>> recently,
>> would have been just as good for C#(You'd be surprised how often the #
>> messed things up).
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004

Jul 21 '05 #7

P: n/a
"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote:
No Microsoft, don't. I hate the squiggly brackets and stupid
semi-colons. ;-)

Jul 21 '05 #8

P: n/a
IMO the nacent trend towards VB.NET RAD will within a year or
two after the release of ASP.NET 2.0 inspire a surge in development
using VB.NET as was the case when Microsoft released Visual Basic
itself.

That will cast VB developers into a new light once again however, a
role which will push wages down for VB developers who rightly or not
will soon be perceived by managers and customers alike who have heard
that VB.NET applications can be 'developed' with as little as 2-3 lines
of code.

Soon, VB.NET developers will be perceived as push-button monkey
code generators the equivalent of FrontPage and Dreamweaver
'developers' who will then need to spend most of their time trying to
resolve themselves to the fact that they have achieved compensation
parity with the garbage man.
--
<%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software Development
NET cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com
URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/


"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:YH***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
They are similar but they are growing apart.
Really ?

In what way, specifically...


Umm, well, lets see. Outside of the fundamental differences(Statement

based vs expression based, case senstivity, heritage, etc), C# is moving slightly towards the functional language end of the spectrum with the addition of
anonymous methods and iterators(both rather nice features of languages like python, for example) while VB is focusing on a more RAD target with its My
namespace and additional IDE improvements. VB probably has a few other bits as well, but I am not well versed in the new VB features we should expect
next year. Maybe a VB MVP or someone could provide more information on that.
Its still a minor bit, and proven features will trade back and forth quite a lot, but VB and C# are certainly not the only langauges that this is a
factor for, just look at java1.5(if you don't learn from the other side, you are pretty much doomed to failure after all), however it is a sign of
seperation. The differences will *not* be as pronounced as vb6 vs java, for example, for quite a while yet. These two languages started with teh same
trunk and are only now beginning to take full lives of their own. It may be a few years, but I do think they will become unique and individually suited to individuals for reasons beyond the most basic syntatical features.


"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:OJ****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> This is a recommendation to Microsoft.
>
> VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.

I consider both languages
different, would approach problems differently in each, and you should as well.
> But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information about
> coding,
> and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the vb to
c#
> ( my chosen language ).

Its really a minor issue, and if you are having real problems you can
probably get help here, most posters are atleast able to expose basic

ideas
in both languages. You don't *need* coding examples to see how to do

things,
just explinations of what to do, what classes\methods to use, etc.

There is no harm in asking, really, just don't go nuts.
>
> I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google, when

I > search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much excludes
> vb
> examples that sometimes exist.
>

Then type .NET instead...

Anyway, this is the weakest anti-VB reasoning I've seen yet...could you
atleast declare that its a horrible langauge and should be destroyed to

keep
it from corrupting minds or something? Dropping a language because its
inconvient to search is not a very good reason and, until pretty
recently,
would have been just as good for C#(You'd be surprised how often the #
messed things up).

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004


Jul 21 '05 #9

P: n/a
Why are all those C# people telling to get rid of VB.Net?
Jul 21 '05 #10

P: n/a
Because those "Real Programmers" have trouble converting VB source to C#. Us
"Toy Programmers" that use VB have no such trouble converting C# source to
VB and so we don't tell anyone how rubbish it is.

80)

--
Mick Doherty
http://dotnetrix.co.uk/nothing.html
"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Why are all those C# people telling to get rid of VB.Net?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19/08/2004
Jul 21 '05 #11

P: n/a

"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Why are all those C# people telling to get rid of VB.Net?


Pretty much for the same reason so many VB people want C# to be exactly like
VB, just with {'s.

They are lazy, ;).
Jul 21 '05 #12

P: n/a

"clintonG" <cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message
news:Op*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
IMO the nacent trend towards VB.NET RAD will within a year or
two after the release of ASP.NET 2.0 inspire a surge in development
using VB.NET as was the case when Microsoft released Visual Basic
itself.

That will cast VB developers into a new light once again however, a
role which will push wages down for VB developers who rightly or not
will soon be perceived by managers and customers alike who have heard
that VB.NET applications can be 'developed' with as little as 2-3 lines
of code.

Soon, VB.NET developers will be perceived as push-button monkey
code generators the equivalent of FrontPage and Dreamweaver
'developers' who will then need to spend most of their time trying to
resolve themselves to the fact that they have achieved compensation
parity with the garbage man.

That may be, but is that an argument for stifling language evolution?

This is the effect of marketing, *not* the language itself. Unfortunatly,
the RAD "less than 10 lines of code" thing is a marketers wetdream...and a
devs nightmare. But what can ya do, most people don't understand whats
invovled no matter of it is a VB application or one written in some arcane
langauge, its still complex.

Convincing anyone of that, however, can take more time than jsut writting
the damn thing and getting drunk.
--
<%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software Development
NET cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com
URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/


"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:YH***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> They are similar but they are growing apart.
>
> Really ?
>
> In what way, specifically...


Umm, well, lets see. Outside of the fundamental differences(Statement

based
vs expression based, case senstivity, heritage, etc), C# is moving

slightly
towards the functional language end of the spectrum with the addition of
anonymous methods and iterators(both rather nice features of languages

like
python, for example) while VB is focusing on a more RAD target with its
My
namespace and additional IDE improvements. VB probably has a few other

bits
as well, but I am not well versed in the new VB features we should expect
next year. Maybe a VB MVP or someone could provide more information on

that.

Its still a minor bit, and proven features will trade back and forth
quite

a
lot, but VB and C# are certainly not the only langauges that this is a
factor for, just look at java1.5(if you don't learn from the other side,

you
are pretty much doomed to failure after all), however it is a sign of
seperation. The differences will *not* be as pronounced as vb6 vs java,

for
example, for quite a while yet. These two languages started with teh same
trunk and are only now beginning to take full lives of their own. It may

be
a few years, but I do think they will become unique and individually

suited
to individuals for reasons beyond the most basic syntatical features.
>
>
> "Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
> message news:OJ****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
>> news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> > This is a recommendation to Microsoft.
>> >
>> > VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.
>>
> I consider both languages
>> different, would approach problems differently in each, and you should as >> well.
>>
>>
>> > But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information about
>> > coding,
>> > and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the vb to > c#
>> > ( my chosen language ).
>>
>> Its really a minor issue, and if you are having real problems you can
>> probably get help here, most posters are atleast able to expose basic
> ideas
>> in both languages. You don't *need* coding examples to see how to do
> things,
>> just explinations of what to do, what classes\methods to use, etc.
>>
>> There is no harm in asking, really, just don't go nuts.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google,
>> > when I >> > search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much
>> > excludes
>> > vb
>> > examples that sometimes exist.
>> >
>>
>> Then type .NET instead...
>>
>> Anyway, this is the weakest anti-VB reasoning I've seen yet...could
>> you
>> atleast declare that its a horrible langauge and should be destroyed
>> to
> keep
>> it from corrupting minds or something? Dropping a language because its
>> inconvient to search is not a very good reason and, until pretty
>> recently,
>> would have been just as good for C#(You'd be surprised how often the #
>> messed things up).
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #13

P: n/a
Please remind this:
How many programs have you start writing?
How many of those got finished ?
How many of those got properly installed on someone else's PC ?
How many hours did you spend solving bugs ?

Answering this question remains the same, whatever language you use. Doesn't it?

If anyone can give me a bug free program,
I'll switch to that language immediatly.
Jul 21 '05 #14

P: n/a
jela <je***********@hotmail.com> wrote:
Please remind this:
How many programs have you start writing?
How many of those got finished ?
How many of those got properly installed on someone else's PC ?
How many hours did you spend solving bugs ?

Answering this question remains the same, whatever language you use.
Doesn't it?
No, I don't believe it does. Some languages make it easier to have bugs
than others - I know I spend a lot less time finding bugs writing in C#
(or Java) than I did in C, for example.
If anyone can give me a bug free program,
I'll switch to that language immediatly.


Sure, and that's not going to happen - but just because perfection
isn't unattainable doesn't mean that all languages/platforms are equal.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #15

P: n/a
> Please remind this:
How many programs have you start writing?
How many of those got finished ?
How many of those got properly installed on someone else's PC ?
How many hours did you spend solving bugs ?

Answering this question remains the same, whatever language you use. Doesn't it?
If anyone can give me a bug free program,
I'll switch to that language immediatly.


Remind this:

What did you expect your first program would do and what every time for the
next one.

When that is still the same than you are or a complete newbie or somebody
who never visits a newsgroup to improve his skills.

Just my thought,

Cor


Jul 21 '05 #16

P: n/a
Well, even though you introduced some quibble (with which I
can agree) it seems the outcome will be the same and there will
be lots of VB developers trying to drink their regrets away when
the rest of us enlightened ones are busy getting paid the big bucks
because we adopted C# which will allow us to stay off the gallows
a bit longer than the other chumps :-)

--
<%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software Development
NET cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com
URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:O$*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"clintonG" <cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message
news:Op*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
IMO the nacent trend towards VB.NET RAD will within a year or
two after the release of ASP.NET 2.0 inspire a surge in development
using VB.NET as was the case when Microsoft released Visual Basic
itself.

That will cast VB developers into a new light once again however, a
role which will push wages down for VB developers who rightly or not
will soon be perceived by managers and customers alike who have heard
that VB.NET applications can be 'developed' with as little as 2-3 lines
of code.

Soon, VB.NET developers will be perceived as push-button monkey
code generators the equivalent of FrontPage and Dreamweaver
'developers' who will then need to spend most of their time trying to
resolve themselves to the fact that they have achieved compensation
parity with the garbage man.


That may be, but is that an argument for stifling language evolution?

This is the effect of marketing, *not* the language itself. Unfortunatly,
the RAD "less than 10 lines of code" thing is a marketers wetdream...and a
devs nightmare. But what can ya do, most people don't understand whats
invovled no matter of it is a VB application or one written in some arcane
langauge, its still complex.

Convincing anyone of that, however, can take more time than jsut writting
the damn thing and getting drunk.

--
<%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software Development
NET cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com
URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/


"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:YH***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> They are similar but they are growing apart.
>
> Really ?
>
> In what way, specifically...

Umm, well, lets see. Outside of the fundamental differences(Statement

based
vs expression based, case senstivity, heritage, etc), C# is moving

slightly
towards the functional language end of the spectrum with the addition of anonymous methods and iterators(both rather nice features of languages

like
python, for example) while VB is focusing on a more RAD target with its
My
namespace and additional IDE improvements. VB probably has a few other

bits
as well, but I am not well versed in the new VB features we should expect next year. Maybe a VB MVP or someone could provide more information on

that.

Its still a minor bit, and proven features will trade back and forth
quite

a
lot, but VB and C# are certainly not the only langauges that this is a
factor for, just look at java1.5(if you don't learn from the other side,
you
are pretty much doomed to failure after all), however it is a sign of
seperation. The differences will *not* be as pronounced as vb6 vs java,

for
example, for quite a while yet. These two languages started with teh
same trunk and are only now beginning to take full lives of their own. It may be
a few years, but I do think they will become unique and individually

suited
to individuals for reasons beyond the most basic syntatical features.
>
>
> "Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
> message news:OJ****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
>> news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> > This is a recommendation to Microsoft.
>> >
>> > VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.
>>
> I consider both languages
>> different, would approach problems differently in each, and you
should as
>> well.
>>
>>
>> > But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information
about >> > coding,
>> > and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the vb to
> c#
>> > ( my chosen language ).
>>
>> Its really a minor issue, and if you are having real problems you

can >> probably get help here, most posters are atleast able to expose basic > ideas
>> in both languages. You don't *need* coding examples to see how to do
> things,
>> just explinations of what to do, what classes\methods to use, etc.
>>
>> There is no harm in asking, really, just don't go nuts.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google,
>> > when

I
>> > search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much
>> > excludes
>> > vb
>> > examples that sometimes exist.
>> >
>>
>> Then type .NET instead...
>>
>> Anyway, this is the weakest anti-VB reasoning I've seen yet...could
>> you
>> atleast declare that its a horrible langauge and should be destroyed
>> to
> keep
>> it from corrupting minds or something? Dropping a language because its >> inconvient to search is not a very good reason and, until pretty
>> recently,
>> would have been just as good for C#(You'd be surprised how often the # >> messed things up).
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #17

P: n/a
Can you elaborate on how the release of ASP.NET 2.0 will turn VB developers
into "push-button monkeys"? Everything I've seen or heard about ASP.NET 2.0
works exactly the same in VB or C#.

I hate to generalize but I see this all the time, C# advocates making
unfounded and unsupported statements about things that VB can't do or how C#
is a superior tool. The tools are virtually the same now and the slight
divergence we see in 2005 is in Visual Studio tools like the code editor and
debugger (e.g. expansions and refactoring vs. snippets and
edit-and-continue) not in the capabilities of the languages.

--
Rob Windsor [MVP-VB]
G6 Consulting
Toronto, Canada

"clintonG" <cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message
news:Op*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
IMO the nacent trend towards VB.NET RAD will within a year or
two after the release of ASP.NET 2.0 inspire a surge in development
using VB.NET as was the case when Microsoft released Visual Basic
itself.

That will cast VB developers into a new light once again however, a
role which will push wages down for VB developers who rightly or not
will soon be perceived by managers and customers alike who have heard
that VB.NET applications can be 'developed' with as little as 2-3 lines
of code.

Soon, VB.NET developers will be perceived as push-button monkey
code generators the equivalent of FrontPage and Dreamweaver
'developers' who will then need to spend most of their time trying to
resolve themselves to the fact that they have achieved compensation
parity with the garbage man.
--
<%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software Development
NET cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com
URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/


"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:YH***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> They are similar but they are growing apart.

Really ?

In what way, specifically...
Umm, well, lets see. Outside of the fundamental differences(Statement

based
vs expression based, case senstivity, heritage, etc), C# is moving

slightly
towards the functional language end of the spectrum with the addition of
anonymous methods and iterators(both rather nice features of languages

like
python, for example) while VB is focusing on a more RAD target with its My
namespace and additional IDE improvements. VB probably has a few other

bits
as well, but I am not well versed in the new VB features we should expect next year. Maybe a VB MVP or someone could provide more information on

that.

Its still a minor bit, and proven features will trade back and forth quite a
lot, but VB and C# are certainly not the only langauges that this is a
factor for, just look at java1.5(if you don't learn from the other side, you
are pretty much doomed to failure after all), however it is a sign of
seperation. The differences will *not* be as pronounced as vb6 vs java,

for
example, for quite a while yet. These two languages started with teh

same trunk and are only now beginning to take full lives of their own. It may

be
a few years, but I do think they will become unique and individually

suited
to individuals for reasons beyond the most basic syntatical features.


"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:OJ****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> "Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
> news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> > This is a recommendation to Microsoft.
> >
> > VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.
>
I consider both languages
> different, would approach problems differently in each, and you should as> well.
>
>
> > But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information about
> > coding,
> > and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the
vb
to c#
> > ( my chosen language ).
>
> Its really a minor issue, and if you are having real problems you can
> probably get help here, most posters are atleast able to expose basic
ideas
> in both languages. You don't *need* coding examples to see how to do
things,
> just explinations of what to do, what classes\methods to use, etc.
>
> There is no harm in asking, really, just don't go nuts.
>
>
> >
> > I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google,
when
I> > search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much

excludes> > vb
> > examples that sometimes exist.
> >
>
> Then type .NET instead...
>
> Anyway, this is the weakest anti-VB reasoning I've seen yet...could you> atleast declare that its a horrible langauge and should be destroyed to keep
> it from corrupting minds or something? Dropping a language because its> inconvient to search is not a very good reason and, until pretty
> recently,
> would have been just as good for C#(You'd be surprised how often the #> messed things up).
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004



Jul 21 '05 #18

P: n/a
Clinton,

Why are you thinking that the ones who find VBNet in the current version
very productive, cannot write C# ?

You see still a lot of ancient programs be used (not including C# that),
however seldom you see stopping the evolution where the winner is the
strongest. (And in programming that is always the one which gives the
highest productivity at the lowest price, it is not a religion do you know)

Cor

"clintonG"
Well, even though you introduced some quibble (with which I
can agree) it seems the outcome will be the same and there will
be lots of VB developers trying to drink their regrets away when
the rest of us enlightened ones are busy getting paid the big bucks
because we adopted C# which will allow us to stay off the gallows
a bit longer than the other chumps :-)

--
<%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software Development
NET cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com
URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:O$*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"clintonG" <cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message
news:Op*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
IMO the nacent trend towards VB.NET RAD will within a year or
two after the release of ASP.NET 2.0 inspire a surge in development
using VB.NET as was the case when Microsoft released Visual Basic
itself.

That will cast VB developers into a new light once again however, a
role which will push wages down for VB developers who rightly or not
will soon be perceived by managers and customers alike who have heard
that VB.NET applications can be 'developed' with as little as 2-3 lines of code.

Soon, VB.NET developers will be perceived as push-button monkey
code generators the equivalent of FrontPage and Dreamweaver
'developers' who will then need to spend most of their time trying to
resolve themselves to the fact that they have achieved compensation
parity with the garbage man.

That may be, but is that an argument for stifling language evolution?

This is the effect of marketing, *not* the language itself. Unfortunatly, the RAD "less than 10 lines of code" thing is a marketers wetdream...and a devs nightmare. But what can ya do, most people don't understand whats
invovled no matter of it is a VB application or one written in some arcane langauge, its still complex.

Convincing anyone of that, however, can take more time than jsut writting the damn thing and getting drunk.

--
<%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software Development
NET cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com
URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/


"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
> "Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
> news:YH***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> >> They are similar but they are growing apart.
> >
> > Really ?
> >
> > In what way, specifically...
>
> Umm, well, lets see. Outside of the fundamental differences(Statement
based
> vs expression based, case senstivity, heritage, etc), C# is moving
slightly
> towards the functional language end of the spectrum with the addition

of> anonymous methods and iterators(both rather nice features of languages like
> python, for example) while VB is focusing on a more RAD target with its> My
> namespace and additional IDE improvements. VB probably has a few other bits
> as well, but I am not well versed in the new VB features we should expect> next year. Maybe a VB MVP or someone could provide more information on that.
>
> Its still a minor bit, and proven features will trade back and forth
> quite
a
> lot, but VB and C# are certainly not the only langauges that this is a> factor for, just look at java1.5(if you don't learn from the other side, you
> are pretty much doomed to failure after all), however it is a sign of
> seperation. The differences will *not* be as pronounced as vb6 vs java, for
> example, for quite a while yet. These two languages started with teh same> trunk and are only now beginning to take full lives of their own. It may be
> a few years, but I do think they will become unique and individually
suited
> to individuals for reasons beyond the most basic syntatical features.
> >
> >
> > "Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in> > message news:OJ****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >>
> >> "Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
> >> news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> >> > This is a recommendation to Microsoft.
> >> >
> >> > VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.
> >>
> > I consider both languages
> >> different, would approach problems differently in each, and you should as
> >> well.
> >>
> >>
> >> > But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information about> >> > coding,
> >> > and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the vb
to
> > c#
> >> > ( my chosen language ).
> >>
> >> Its really a minor issue, and if you are having real problems you can> >> probably get help here, most posters are atleast able to expose basic> > ideas
> >> in both languages. You don't *need* coding examples to see how to
do> > things,
> >> just explinations of what to do, what classes\methods to use, etc.
> >>
> >> There is no harm in asking, really, just don't go nuts.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google,
> >> > when
I
> >> > search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much
> >> > excludes
> >> > vb
> >> > examples that sometimes exist.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Then type .NET instead...
> >>
> >> Anyway, this is the weakest anti-VB reasoning I've seen yet...could> >> you
> >> atleast declare that its a horrible langauge and should be destroyed> >> to
> > keep
> >> it from corrupting minds or something? Dropping a language because
its> >> inconvient to search is not a very good reason and, until pretty
> >> recently,
> >> would have been just as good for C#(You'd be surprised how often
the #> >> messed things up).
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004
> >
> >
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #19

P: n/a
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:36:53 +0200, Cor Ligthert wrote:
Why are all those C# people telling to get rid of VB.Net?


John Bailo ("Space Change" here) is not a "C# person".

Some call him a troll. Others call him a wacko. I think he's somewhere in
between.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22john+bailo%22
Jul 21 '05 #20

P: n/a

"Rob Windsor [MVP]" <rw******@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:uJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Can you elaborate on how the release of ASP.NET 2.0 will turn VB
developers
into "push-button monkeys"? Everything I've seen or heard about ASP.NET
2.0
works exactly the same in VB or C#.

I hate to generalize but I see this all the time, C# advocates making
unfounded and unsupported statements about things that VB can't do or how
C#
is a superior tool. The tools are virtually the same now and the slight
divergence we see in 2005 is in Visual Studio tools like the code editor
and
debugger (e.g. expansions and refactoring vs. snippets and
edit-and-continue) not in the capabilities of the languages.


Not in the overall capabilities, no, but most of the major changes to C#
*are* language changes. While there is refactoring support, I consider
expansions, in any language, to be the work of the devil and do not call
them a feature in any sense. Most of the other IDE improvements aren't that
important(and some just suck), however anonymous methods and iterators can
drastically change the way I work, much lik e&c and some of the VB IDE
features can change a VB'ers working habits.

Now, what is annoying about your generalization is that you don't bother to
mention that there are plenty of VB advocates doing the same thing. An
advocate with a supported statement(with complete intent) is about as rare
as a troll with something meaninful to say. It just doesn't happen that
often. *Every* language, OS, platform, and formatting style has its own
advocates who believe in things, express those beliefs, and never provide
any proof. However, since most of the differences are entirly subjective,
they look like rantings and putdowns by those outside of the group.
Jul 21 '05 #21

P: n/a

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:%2***************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"Rob Windsor [MVP]" <rw******@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:uJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Can you elaborate on how the release of ASP.NET 2.0 will turn VB
developers
into "push-button monkeys"? Everything I've seen or heard about ASP.NET
2.0
works exactly the same in VB or C#.

I hate to generalize but I see this all the time, C# advocates making
unfounded and unsupported statements about things that VB can't do or how C#
is a superior tool. The tools are virtually the same now and the slight
divergence we see in 2005 is in Visual Studio tools like the code editor
and
debugger (e.g. expansions and refactoring vs. snippets and
edit-and-continue) not in the capabilities of the languages.

Not in the overall capabilities, no, but most of the major changes to C#
*are* language changes. While there is refactoring support, I consider
expansions, in any language, to be the work of the devil and do not call
them a feature in any sense. Most of the other IDE improvements aren't

that important(and some just suck), however anonymous methods and iterators can
drastically change the way I work, much lik e&c and some of the VB IDE
features can change a VB'ers working habits.

Now, what is annoying about your generalization is that you don't bother to mention that there are plenty of VB advocates doing the same thing. An
advocate with a supported statement(with complete intent) is about as rare
as a troll with something meaninful to say. It just doesn't happen that
often. *Every* language, OS, platform, and formatting style has its own
advocates who believe in things, express those beliefs, and never provide
any proof. However, since most of the differences are entirly subjective,
they look like rantings and putdowns by those outside of the group.


I have to disagree, I rarely see VB developers making comments about C# that
are just plain wrong but I see the reverse far too often. To sight a
specific example, Jeff Richter recently stated on .NET Rocks! that C# was
inherently faster than VB and that future versions of VB will sacrifice
performance for RAD features. Now Jeff is a smart guy, well respected, and
author of one of the best .NET books I own (Applied .NET Framework
Programming) but these two statements have no foundation in truth. I've also
heard other "luminaries" (MVPs, RDs, authors) speak of the impending death
of VB or even how C# has feature X where feature X has been part of VB since
the early Betas. I recently taught a four day C# programming course that was
designed for C++ and Java developers but more than half of the 22 attendees
where VB Classic developers who were there because they had been told by
consultants or management to move to C# because it was faster than VB, had
features that VB didn't, because Microsoft was going to kill VB and so on.

One thing I want to state clearly is that I am a fan of both languages, I
use both, I teach both, I think they both kick ass. What upsets me is that I
see far too many VB Classic developers struggling to not only learn .NET but
learn a new syntax just because someone in their organization made a
decision based on a sound byte, blog post, article or newsgroup posting that
contained bad information.
Jul 21 '05 #22

P: n/a
My 2 cents..

I agree that with the next version of VB.NET, there will be many more RAD
features. However, what annoys the piss out of me is that Microsoft is not
adding those all of those features to C#. Microsoft people seem to be
oblivious to the fact that when .NET first came out, advanced VB6 developers
mostly chose C#. The reason is that C# was far less limiting and provided
the added career bonus that if .NET fell on its face, they could make the
switch to Java easier.

VB.NET, in 1.x is incredibly annoying and limiting to those people building
n-tier components using business objects. This is because Microsoft was
stupid in the way that supported C# operator and conversion overloads in VB.
VB.NET 2.x will make that far nicer, but then we have to deal with VBonics.
I cannot for the life of me fathom why Microsoft chose different words for
the same concept for two new languages. For example, why use "MustInherit"?
VB never had the term before. Since they decided to use "abstract" for C#,
why not use it for VB as well? That way they can converse more easily with
C#, Java, and C++ people?

To be honest, I question Microsoft's stragedy with regards to the two
languages. Using VB for RAD and C# for everything else ignores development
shop situations where you have many developers that have work *with* each
other's code. It makes it harder to have overlap when the developers are
constantly having to switch languages. I think Microsoft would better served
by stating that VB was designed for simple, hello-world apps and that if you
want real RAD functionality (and everything else) you should switch to C#.
However, that said, Microsoft could make the languages and developers play
nicely if they provided the ability to have multiple language projects in
the same solution. If I can step through my GUI developer's VB code and into
my C# code, then I'll live with multiple languages.
Thomas
Jul 21 '05 #23

P: n/a

Not in the overall capabilities, no, but most of the major changes to C#
*are* language changes. While there is refactoring support, I consider
expansions, in any language, to be the work of the devil and do not call
them a feature in any sense. Most of the other IDE improvements aren't that
important(and some just suck), however anonymous methods and iterators
can
drastically change the way I work, much lik e&c and some of the VB IDE
features can change a VB'ers working habits.

Now, what is annoying about your generalization is that you don't bother

to
mention that there are plenty of VB advocates doing the same thing. An
advocate with a supported statement(with complete intent) is about as
rare
as a troll with something meaninful to say. It just doesn't happen that
often. *Every* language, OS, platform, and formatting style has its own
advocates who believe in things, express those beliefs, and never provide
any proof. However, since most of the differences are entirly subjective,
they look like rantings and putdowns by those outside of the group.


I have to disagree, I rarely see VB developers making comments about C#
that
are just plain wrong but I see the reverse far too often. To sight a
specific example, Jeff Richter recently stated on .NET Rocks! that C# was
inherently faster than VB and that future versions of VB will sacrifice
performance for RAD features. Now Jeff is a smart guy, well respected, and
author of one of the best .NET books I own (Applied .NET Framework
Programming) but these two statements have no foundation in truth. I've
also
heard other "luminaries" (MVPs, RDs, authors) speak of the impending death
of VB or even how C# has feature X where feature X has been part of VB
since
the early Betas. I recently taught a four day C# programming course that
was
designed for C++ and Java developers but more than half of the 22
attendees
where VB Classic developers who were there because they had been told by
consultants or management to move to C# because it was faster than VB, had
features that VB didn't, because Microsoft was going to kill VB and so on.


You may see more unpleasnet posts due to the tendency of C# devs to dislike
VB on a fundamental level(I *really* dislike it, half of its philosophies
are completely at odds with me, personally, but I don't have a problem with
its use and existance. I just don't want to use it personally when I can
avoid it). However it may well be a case of seeing what you want to see. I
see *alot* of VB is easier for... and you can do X in vb but not C#, or X
about C# is just a bad idea, or whatever, none of which are always true. But
then thats about all the VB related messages I read.
Technically, Richter is right. A few features of VB which help with RAD does
reduce performance(I think withevents is the biggest one)...however, I
personally don't think the speed drop is enough to make any decision based
upon it. Infact, I would imagine its quite undetectable.
One thing I want to state clearly is that I am a fan of both languages, I
use both, I teach both, I think they both kick ass. What upsets me is that
I
see far too many VB Classic developers struggling to not only learn .NET
but
learn a new syntax just because someone in their organization made a
decision based on a sound byte, blog post, article or newsgroup posting
that
contained bad information.


Of course, the changes in VB.NET are just as bad, lol. However, false
statements are never a good basis for a language choice.
Jul 21 '05 #24

P: n/a
Daniel,

Can you prove what you write about the performance facts and not showing
that as Daniel nicely described on one or the other Blog page. Proving it
showing a Microsoft page is as well a good prove in my opinion.

However, in my and a lot others opinion is the big advantage from VBNet the
IDE.

It helps you to take the right words and the right spelling of those. To
show you that with one however not the only example.

Although VBNet is based on the English language are that some few very
simple basic words or created words as "OrElse".

The IDE helps people to show the simple mistakes especially when option
Strict is ON.

Do not forget that only 8% of the world is using English and .Net is
completely based on English. I always have the idea that a lot of people
forget that.

When that IDE from C# was the same as it is in VBNet and did as well adding
forgotten however needed ; and () and things like that, than the choose for
me would probably go to C#, because it would than even be more natural
language independent and less characters to type.

(Although I would like to have those strong convert functions from VBNet as
well)

Just my thought,

Cor

"Daniel O'Connell
Not in the overall capabilities, no, but most of the major changes to C# *are* language changes. While there is refactoring support, I consider
expansions, in any language, to be the work of the devil and do not call them a feature in any sense. Most of the other IDE improvements aren't that
important(and some just suck), however anonymous methods and iterators
can
drastically change the way I work, much lik e&c and some of the VB IDE
features can change a VB'ers working habits.

Now, what is annoying about your generalization is that you don't bother
to
mention that there are plenty of VB advocates doing the same thing. An
advocate with a supported statement(with complete intent) is about as
rare
as a troll with something meaninful to say. It just doesn't happen that
often. *Every* language, OS, platform, and formatting style has its own
advocates who believe in things, express those beliefs, and never
provide any proof. However, since most of the differences are entirly subjective, they look like rantings and putdowns by those outside of the group.


I have to disagree, I rarely see VB developers making comments about C#
that
are just plain wrong but I see the reverse far too often. To sight a
specific example, Jeff Richter recently stated on .NET Rocks! that C#

was inherently faster than VB and that future versions of VB will sacrifice
performance for RAD features. Now Jeff is a smart guy, well respected, and author of one of the best .NET books I own (Applied .NET Framework
Programming) but these two statements have no foundation in truth. I've
also
heard other "luminaries" (MVPs, RDs, authors) speak of the impending death of VB or even how C# has feature X where feature X has been part of VB
since
the early Betas. I recently taught a four day C# programming course that
was
designed for C++ and Java developers but more than half of the 22
attendees
where VB Classic developers who were there because they had been told by
consultants or management to move to C# because it was faster than VB, had features that VB didn't, because Microsoft was going to kill VB and so on.
You may see more unpleasnet posts due to the tendency of C# devs to dislike VB on a fundamental level(I *really* dislike it, half of its philosophies
are completely at odds with me, personally, but I don't have a problem with its use and existance. I just don't want to use it personally when I can
avoid it). However it may well be a case of seeing what you want to see. I
see *alot* of VB is easier for... and you can do X in vb but not C#, or X
about C# is just a bad idea, or whatever, none of which are always true. But then thats about all the VB related messages I read.
Technically, Richter is right. A few features of VB which help with RAD does reduce performance(I think withevents is the biggest one)...however, I
personally don't think the speed drop is enough to make any decision based
upon it. Infact, I would imagine its quite undetectable.
One thing I want to state clearly is that I am a fan of both languages,

I use both, I teach both, I think they both kick ass. What upsets me is that I
see far too many VB Classic developers struggling to not only learn .NET
but
learn a new syntax just because someone in their organization made a
decision based on a sound byte, blog post, article or newsgroup posting
that
contained bad information.


Of course, the changes in VB.NET are just as bad, lol. However, false
statements are never a good basis for a language choice.

Jul 21 '05 #25

P: n/a
Rob Windsor [MVP] <rw******@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
I have to disagree, I rarely see VB developers making comments about
C# that are just plain wrong but I see the reverse far too often.


I often see VB developers making comments about C# developers that are
just plain wrong. Far too often I see people implying that all C#
developers are stuck up and patronising, and that they all look down on
VB programmers. I can understand why the VB community is defensive, but
it doesn't help to tar everyone with the same brush. (Of course, this
does not apply to all VB programmers by any stretch of the imagination,
but I still think it's a significant problem.)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #26

P: n/a

"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:OL*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Daniel,

Can you prove what you write about the performance facts and not showing
that as Daniel nicely described on one or the other Blog page. Proving it
showing a Microsoft page is as well a good prove in my opinion.
Well, here is the set method for a WithEvents variable which handles (It
transforms the variable into a property). This is unoptimized because I
don't care enough to do too much.

..method private specialname static void set_c(class
[System.Windows.Forms]System.Windows.Forms.Control WithEventsValue) cil
managed synchronized
{
.custom instance void
[mscorlib]System.Diagnostics.DebuggerNonUserCodeAttribute::. ctor() = ( 01 00
00 00 )
// Code size 72 (0x48)
.maxstack 3
IL_0000: ldsfld class
[System.Windows.Forms]System.Windows.Forms.Control
WithEventsTest.Module1::_c
IL_0005: nop
IL_0006: brfalse.s IL_001f
IL_0008: ldsfld class
[System.Windows.Forms]System.Windows.Forms.Control
WithEventsTest.Module1::_c
IL_000d: ldnull
IL_000e: ldftn void WithEventsTest.Module1::Test(object,
class
[mscorlib]System.EventArgs)
IL_0014: newobj instance void
[mscorlib]System.EventHandler::.ctor(object,
native
int)
IL_0019: callvirt instance void
[System.Windows.Forms]System.Windows.Forms.Control::remove_Click(class
[mscorlib]System.EventHandler)
IL_001e: nop
IL_001f: nop
IL_0020: ldarg.0
IL_0021: stsfld class
[System.Windows.Forms]System.Windows.Forms.Control
WithEventsTest.Module1::_c
IL_0026: ldsfld class
[System.Windows.Forms]System.Windows.Forms.Control
WithEventsTest.Module1::_c
IL_002b: nop
IL_002c: brfalse.s IL_0045
IL_002e: ldsfld class
[System.Windows.Forms]System.Windows.Forms.Control
WithEventsTest.Module1::_c
IL_0033: ldnull
IL_0034: ldftn void WithEventsTest.Module1::Test(object,
class
[mscorlib]System.EventArgs)
IL_003a: newobj instance void
[mscorlib]System.EventHandler::.ctor(object,
native
int)
IL_003f: callvirt instance void
[System.Windows.Forms]System.Windows.Forms.Control::add_Click(class
[mscorlib]System.EventHandler)
IL_0044: nop
IL_0045: nop
IL_0046: nop
IL_0047: ret

}

It makes life easier for VB devs, it allows for better RAD features(the
handles clause), but it transforms simple field assignment into a property
with a fairly large set method. That *will* affect performance negativly. It
is, however, unlikely to matter much.

However, in my and a lot others opinion is the big advantage from VBNet
the
IDE.

It helps you to take the right words and the right spelling of those. To
show you that with one however not the only example.

I know. And the VB ide irks me to no end. I don't like IDE's that do things
that I don't want them to. Adding semicolons where it *thinks* I need one or
trying to suggest a different spelling for a word is absolutly *wrong* in an
IDE as far as I'm concerned, but I have no particular problem with people
who like that, I just don't want it myself

Although VBNet is based on the English language are that some few very
simple basic words or created words as "OrElse".

The IDE helps people to show the simple mistakes especially when option
Strict is ON.

Do not forget that only 8% of the world is using English and .Net is
completely based on English. I always have the idea that a lot of people
forget that.

I don't forget it, but you must remember that most(probably all) of the
framework authors speak english, and english is the defacto standard for
languages. I mean, look at ruby. That was written by a japanese guy(Yukihiro
Matsumoto, best I can tell he's a japanese native), but it is still
primarily in english. If you write a langauge that *isn't* in english, you
are simply not going to do well as pretty close to 100% of the developer
community atleast knows enough english to handle programming languages(if,
while, long, int, Int32, etc are not exactly unique to C# after all) while a
very small portion is likely to know whatever language you choose to design
your library in. Some English is pretty close to a requirement for
programming, I dunno if thats a good thing or not, and I'm sure it can be
debated endlessly, but a single standard langauge is certainly a good thing,
IMHO.

I've even seen it suggested that code should be written strictly in English,
no matter what your native language is, but I don't personally have any
particular opinions on that.
When that IDE from C# was the same as it is in VBNet and did as well
adding
forgotten however needed ; and () and things like that, than the choose
for
me would probably go to C#, because it would than even be more natural
language independent and less characters to type.
Again, inserting characters is bad mojo, LOL.

(Although I would like to have those strong convert functions from VBNet
as
well)
I want better conversion functions, but C#'s conversion operator is
perfectly strong(its as strong as they come really), just less pervasive and
unpleasent. They just use that utterly nasty casting syntax the designers
settled on. Casting and converting is probably the ugliest thing about C#.
Casting and conversion should *not* have used the same operator and they
should not have fallen into the C\Java casting trap.

Personally I would like to see
convert<type>(<expression>)
and
cast<type>(<expression>)
instead. Perhaps shortcuts like
MyObject x = cast(<expression>)

so that the type doesn't have to be duplicated when the type is already
apparent(I don't think I'd like it in a method call or whatnot, but in a
variable declaration its not so bad).
Just my thought,

Cor

"Daniel O'Connell
>> Not in the overall capabilities, no, but most of the major changes to C# >> *are* language changes. While there is refactoring support, I consider
>> expansions, in any language, to be the work of the devil and do not call >> them a feature in any sense. Most of the other IDE improvements aren't
> that
>> important(and some just suck), however anonymous methods and iterators
>> can
>> drastically change the way I work, much lik e&c and some of the VB IDE
>> features can change a VB'ers working habits.
>>
>> Now, what is annoying about your generalization is that you don't bother > to
>> mention that there are plenty of VB advocates doing the same thing.
>> An
>> advocate with a supported statement(with complete intent) is about as
>> rare
>> as a troll with something meaninful to say. It just doesn't happen
>> that
>> often. *Every* language, OS, platform, and formatting style has its
>> own
>> advocates who believe in things, express those beliefs, and never provide >> any proof. However, since most of the differences are entirly subjective, >> they look like rantings and putdowns by those outside of the group.
>>
>>
>
> I have to disagree, I rarely see VB developers making comments about C#
> that
> are just plain wrong but I see the reverse far too often. To sight a
> specific example, Jeff Richter recently stated on .NET Rocks! that C# was > inherently faster than VB and that future versions of VB will sacrifice
> performance for RAD features. Now Jeff is a smart guy, well respected, and > author of one of the best .NET books I own (Applied .NET Framework
> Programming) but these two statements have no foundation in truth. I've
> also
> heard other "luminaries" (MVPs, RDs, authors) speak of the impending death > of VB or even how C# has feature X where feature X has been part of VB
> since
> the early Betas. I recently taught a four day C# programming course
> that
> was
> designed for C++ and Java developers but more than half of the 22
> attendees
> where VB Classic developers who were there because they had been told
> by
> consultants or management to move to C# because it was faster than VB, had > features that VB didn't, because Microsoft was going to kill VB and so on.

You may see more unpleasnet posts due to the tendency of C# devs to

dislike
VB on a fundamental level(I *really* dislike it, half of its philosophies
are completely at odds with me, personally, but I don't have a problem

with
its use and existance. I just don't want to use it personally when I can
avoid it). However it may well be a case of seeing what you want to see.
I
see *alot* of VB is easier for... and you can do X in vb but not C#, or X
about C# is just a bad idea, or whatever, none of which are always true.

But
then thats about all the VB related messages I read.
Technically, Richter is right. A few features of VB which help with RAD

does
reduce performance(I think withevents is the biggest one)...however, I
personally don't think the speed drop is enough to make any decision
based
upon it. Infact, I would imagine its quite undetectable.
> One thing I want to state clearly is that I am a fan of both languages,

I > use both, I teach both, I think they both kick ass. What upsets me is that > I
> see far too many VB Classic developers struggling to not only learn
> .NET
> but
> learn a new syntax just because someone in their organization made a
> decision based on a sound byte, blog post, article or newsgroup posting
> that
> contained bad information.


Of course, the changes in VB.NET are just as bad, lol. However, false
statements are never a good basis for a language choice.


Jul 21 '05 #27

P: n/a
I was speaking more about technical issues but you're absolutely right that
implying that all C# developers are stuck up and patronising is wrong and
that generalizing leads down a slippery slope. I wish I had only addressed
specific comments in my original post, then maybe it would have sounded less
like "us vs them".

Anyway, I guess there's no end to this "debate" so I resign myself to that
fact and hope for the day that Imports and using can live happily togther.
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Rob Windsor [MVP] <rw******@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
I have to disagree, I rarely see VB developers making comments about
C# that are just plain wrong but I see the reverse far too often.


I often see VB developers making comments about C# developers that are
just plain wrong. Far too often I see people implying that all C#
developers are stuck up and patronising, and that they all look down on
VB programmers. I can understand why the VB community is defensive, but
it doesn't help to tar everyone with the same brush. (Of course, this
does not apply to all VB programmers by any stretch of the imagination,
but I still think it's a significant problem.)

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

Jul 21 '05 #28

P: n/a
Jon,

I often see VB developers making comments about C# developers that are
just plain wrong. Far too often I see people implying that all C#
developers are stuck up and patronising, and that they all look down on
VB programmers. I can understand why the VB community is defensive, but
it doesn't help to tar everyone with the same brush. (Of course, this
does not apply to all VB programmers by any stretch of the imagination,
but I still think it's a significant problem.)


What do you want to say with this in relation to the message from Rob, it
seems to me a complete new message?

Cor

Jul 21 '05 #29

P: n/a
Cor Ligthert <no**********@planet.nl> wrote:
I often see VB developers making comments about C# developers that are
just plain wrong. Far too often I see people implying that all C#
developers are stuck up and patronising, and that they all look down on
VB programmers. I can understand why the VB community is defensive, but
it doesn't help to tar everyone with the same brush. (Of course, this
does not apply to all VB programmers by any stretch of the imagination,
but I still think it's a significant problem.)


What do you want to say with this in relation to the message from Rob, it
seems to me a complete new message?


Not really. Rob was complaining about C# developers often making wrong
and insulting comments about VB.NET and VB.NET developers, and I was
just pointing out that some members of the VB.NET community are
needlessly defensive in return - that it's not a one-way street.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #30

P: n/a
Daniel,

I made this code,
\\\
Public Class Form1
Inherits System.Windows.Forms.Form
Public Sub New()
MyBase.New()
Me.Button1 = New Button
AddHandler Button1.Click, AddressOf Button1_Click
Me.Controls.Add(Me.Button1)
End Sub
Private components As System.ComponentModel.IContainer
Friend Button1 As System.Windows.Forms.Button
Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As _
System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs)
MessageBox.Show("Hello I am clicked")
End Sub
End Class
///
I thought that about the event beside the handling of event itself I found
only this.
IL_001b: ldvirtftn instance void
WindowsApplication15.Form1::Button1_Click(object,

class [mscorlib]System.EventArgs)
IL_0021: newobj instance void
[mscorlib]System.EventHandler::.ctor(object,

native int)
IL_0026: callvirt instance void
[System.Windows.Forms]System.Windows.Forms.Control::add_Click(class
[mscorlib]System.EventHandler)

I think that is not so much.
Some English is pretty close to a requirement for
programming, I dunno if thats a good thing or not, and I'm sure it can be
debated endlessly, but a single standard langauge is certainly a good thing, IMHO.
That is not true, English with his important French, Pictic, Gallic, Viking
influence on an original historical NorthSea language is not that good as
most English people think. I sometimes read that Latin would be much better
for that, however the rest I agree and therefore I think as well that it is
at the moment the best.
I've even seen it suggested that code should be written strictly in English, no matter what your native language is, but I don't personally have any
particular opinions on that.

BS. That is an advantage for non English programmers, they can much easier
distinct variables from keywords by writting the first in there native
language, by your name I assume you are an native English speaker and does
not know what easy that is to use, maybe you can try it once and when you
are Irish write in by instance Gallic your non keywords.
-----
For the rest we agree as well I think in the context of the message.

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #31

P: n/a
Jon,
Not really. Rob was complaining about C# developers often making wrong
and insulting comments about VB.NET and VB.NET developers, and I was
just pointing out that some members of the VB.NET community are
needlessly defensive in return - that it's not a one-way street.


Robs started his message with telling that he sees rarely VB people making
comments, with that telling that there are people who do that.

In this thread you see not one person from the VBNet communitiy saying.
Microsoft: Get rid of C# Now. I even have not seen that ever, with exception
once in an obvious kind of practical joke, while the last time I see more
and more this kind of messages from the C# side about VBNet.

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #32

P: n/a
Cor Ligthert <no**********@planet.nl> wrote:
Not really. Rob was complaining about C# developers often making wrong
and insulting comments about VB.NET and VB.NET developers, and I was
just pointing out that some members of the VB.NET community are
needlessly defensive in return - that it's not a one-way street.


Robs started his message with telling that he sees rarely VB people making
comments, with that telling that there are people who do that.

In this thread you see not one person from the VBNet communitiy saying.
Microsoft: Get rid of C# Now. I even have not seen that ever, with exception
once in an obvious kind of practical joke, while the last time I see more
and more this kind of messages from the C# side about VBNet.


Well, that's your experience - mine is that there are a lot of VB.NET
developers who assume that C# programmers are looking down at them.
They don't tend to insult C# as a language in itself (other than
complaining about "silly" operators etc) so much as the developers.

Again, I stress that this is far from all VB.NET developers, just as
it's far from all C# developers who disrespect VB.NET.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #33

P: n/a

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@msnews.microsoft.c om...
Cor Ligthert <no**********@planet.nl> wrote:
I often see VB developers making comments about C# developers that are
just plain wrong. Far too often I see people implying that all C#
developers are stuck up and patronising, and that they all look down on VB programmers. I can understand why the VB community is defensive, but it doesn't help to tar everyone with the same brush. (Of course, this
does not apply to all VB programmers by any stretch of the imagination, but I still think it's a significant problem.)


What do you want to say with this in relation to the message from Rob, it seems to me a complete new message?


Not really. Rob was complaining about C# developers often making wrong
and insulting comments about VB.NET and VB.NET developers, and I was
just pointing out that some members of the VB.NET community are
needlessly defensive in return - that it's not a one-way street.

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


Just to clarify, I was only speaking of developers/authors in general making
statements about the capabilities of VB that are false or misleading (e.g.
VB doesn't support delegates, VB is less powerful than C#). I didn't say
anything about comments towards VB developers.

--
Rob Windsor [MVP-VB]
G6 Consulting
Toronto, Canada
Jul 21 '05 #34

P: n/a
Rob Windsor [MVP] <rw******@NO.MORE.SPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
Just to clarify, I was only speaking of developers/authors in general making
statements about the capabilities of VB that are false or misleading (e.g.
VB doesn't support delegates, VB is less powerful than C#). I didn't say
anything about comments towards VB developers.


Sure. I got that - I was just going on from what you said as a starting
point.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Jul 21 '05 #35

P: n/a

"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:eY**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Daniel,

I made this code,
\\\
Public Class Form1
Inherits System.Windows.Forms.Form
Public Sub New()
MyBase.New()
Me.Button1 = New Button
AddHandler Button1.Click, AddressOf Button1_Click
Me.Controls.Add(Me.Button1)
End Sub
Private components As System.ComponentModel.IContainer
Friend Button1 As System.Windows.Forms.Button
Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As _
System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs)
MessageBox.Show("Hello I am clicked")
End Sub
End Class
///
I thought that about the event beside the handling of event itself I found
only this.
IL_001b: ldvirtftn instance void
WindowsApplication15.Form1::Button1_Click(object,

class [mscorlib]System.EventArgs)
IL_0021: newobj instance void
[mscorlib]System.EventHandler::.ctor(object,

native int)
IL_0026: callvirt instance void
[System.Windows.Forms]System.Windows.Forms.Control::add_Click(class
[mscorlib]System.EventHandler)

I think that is not so much.
Some English is pretty close to a requirement for
programming, I dunno if thats a good thing or not, and I'm sure it can be
debated endlessly, but a single standard langauge is certainly a good thing,
IMHO.


That is not true, English with his important French, Pictic, Gallic,
Viking
influence on an original historical NorthSea language is not that good as
most English people think. I sometimes read that Latin would be much
better
for that, however the rest I agree and therefore I think as well that it
is
at the moment the best.


Which is off the point. Any *single* language would be as good as any
other(well, Chinese or other east asian languages may not be terribly good
ideas as they aren't easy for most people to learn.) But English is the
standard and changing that is unlikely, even if opinions on its suitability
vary.

Possibly something like Esperanto or other invented languages could be used,
but that means everyone needs to learn a new language. It just doesn't seem
that practical.

I've even seen it suggested that code should be written strictly in

English,
no matter what your native language is, but I don't personally have any
particular opinions on that.

BS. That is an advantage for non English programmers, they can much easier
distinct variables from keywords by writting the first in there native
language, by your name I assume you are an native English speaker and does
not know what easy that is to use, maybe you can try it once and when you
are Irish write in by instance Gallic your non keywords.


I think the argument I read was by an Israeli, but anyway, the point is more
that the language and framework are in one langauge, so you *have* to know
the language to some extent. Writing in your own language is simply a nasty
choice, especially if your application may be shipped to another company for
maitainence in the future. Imagine if you write your app using Italian
application names and then sometime later its outsourced to an Indian
company for maintainence. Chances are only *your* company know's
Italian(sorry, I dunno what your native language is, -_-), while the Indian
company was probably trained in English because English is pretty much
standard.

And, for that matter, I have tried using Japanese in C#. It certainly makes
variables stand out, but they are difficult to read and certainly not
anything that can be shown to other users.
-----
For the rest we agree as well I think in the context of the message.

Cor

Jul 21 '05 #36

P: n/a

"mscertified" <ru****@tigerlily.com> wrote in message
news:41**********************************@microsof t.com...
I'm learning .NET all the examples in the book I am currently learning
from
are in both VB.NET and C#. The book is thus almost twice as thick (and
expensive) as it need be. Granted the examples are fairly trivial, but the
code is almost exactly the same. If you substitute the curly braces for
THEN.. END IF and one or two other minor changes like i++ instead of
i=i+1,
they are almost identical.
They are pretty similar in the simple case. The 2.0 versions will be
different enough in the easy case, but the 1.0 are similar.
The My namespace in VB 2.0, for example, will probably change all but the
most basic examples of framework usage to code that will *not* transform
into C#. The same thing can be said about anonymous methods in C#.

That said, after you've learned more, you'll find other fundamental
differences. Expression based behavior is a big one. There is a reason VB
doesn't support the ++ operators. Unsafe code is a minor one, there are a
few other specific issues. It eventually comes down to what you are
comfortable with.
"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" wrote:

"Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> This is a recommendation to Microsoft.
>
> VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.


They are similar but they are growing apart. I consider both languages
different, would approach problems differently in each, and you should as
well.

> But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information about
> coding,
> and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the vb to
> c#
> ( my chosen language ).


Its really a minor issue, and if you are having real problems you can
probably get help here, most posters are atleast able to expose basic
ideas
in both languages. You don't *need* coding examples to see how to do
things,
just explinations of what to do, what classes\methods to use, etc.

There is no harm in asking, really, just don't go nuts.

>
> I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google, when I
> search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much excludes
> vb
> examples that sometimes exist.
>


Then type .NET instead...

Anyway, this is the weakest anti-VB reasoning I've seen yet...could you
atleast declare that its a horrible langauge and should be destroyed to
keep
it from corrupting minds or something? Dropping a language because its
inconvient to search is not a very good reason and, until pretty
recently,
would have been just as good for C#(You'd be surprised how often the #
messed things up).

Jul 21 '05 #37

P: n/a
Daniel,

The only comment, I should have written "can be an advantage", because we
have for the rest the same idea.

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #38

P: n/a
I'm learning .NET all the examples in the book I am currently learning from are in both VB.NET and C#. The book is thus almost twice as thick (and
expensive) as it need be. Granted the examples are fairly trivial, but the
code is almost exactly the same. If you substitute the curly braces for
THEN.. END IF and one or two other minor changes like i++ instead of i=i+1, they are almost identical.


And it makes those books for me unreadable because of the pages I have to
use, in any of the two languages. Although there are much more differences
than you now probably think by instance when it comes to casting and things
like that. (I take this one because that is in this thread)

For the I++ not the ++I, I agree with you, however it is a minor while there
is now I +=1 wich is only one character more.

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #39

P: n/a
> I totally agree, its wasteful and inefficient to support multiple
languages.
There should have been only ONE .NET programming language. I don't care which one. Having C# and VB.NET books and examples is a total waste. Why cant we
all speak the same language? It also reduces the job market for everyone
since C# programmers wont be wanted for VB.NET jobs and vice versa. Because Microsoft tried to please everyone, now it will be impossible to ever go back to a single unified language.

First one language in the world I always write as answer on this kind of
messages, and than Chinese because that is the most important one.

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #40

P: n/a
I think everyone is overlooking the core problem with multiple languages or
at least multiple language features. VB and C# are *the* Microsoft primary
..NET languages. It creates havoc when those languages do not support the
same feature set. Where it creates that havoc is in large development shops
where some people want to use VB and some want to use C#.

For example, right now, in .NET 1.x, I have recommended to all my clients
(I'm an independent developer) to use C#. Why? BecauseVB.NET's support for
operator and conversion overloads is ridiculously stupid. If they
standardize on one language, the language with the most supported framework
features, they will have the widest array of features available and they
will be able to interoperate easily.Coding everything to the CLS just isn't
an option. It is far too limiting.

VB.NET 2.0 improves this situation a great deal, but it still introduces
potential features that exist in one language and not the other. Further, it
really requires developments working in large groups to know both VB and C#.
Granted, I have already recommend that very thing just because public help
and commerical documenation can be in either language. While Microsoft
provided a great boost to book writing industry, it made it more difficult
on the development community.

I could live peacefully with both languages *if* it was possible to compile
a single solution with projects written in different .NET languages and
could step through code in either. That would make the situation far more
flexible and far more tolerable.
Thomas
Jul 21 '05 #41

P: n/a
This is a recommendation to you, Spare Change.

Just refine your knowledge of English or look for some other search
engine or don't depend on others' solutions!

with regards,
J.V.Ravichandran
- http://www.geocities.com/
jvravichandran
- http://www.411asp.net/func/search?
qry=Ravichandran+J.V.&cob=aspnetpro
- http://www.southasianoutlook.com
- http://www.MSDNAA.Net
- http://www.csharphelp.com
- http://www.poetry.com/Publications/
display.asp?ID=P3966388&BN=999&PN=2
- Or, just search on "J.V.Ravichandran"
at http://www.Google.com

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
Jul 21 '05 #42

P: n/a
Thomas,

Does this message of you mean that you want to get rid of C#?

I do not know if you ever saw Jon Skeet page (and he is absolute not a VBNet
person), however your message, accoording to Jon Skeets page, tells in my
opinion that Microsoft should stop with C#.

http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/faq/#vb.or.csharp

Before anyone would understand my message wrong, I am not for one program
language. That for the same reason why there are Alpha's and Beta's on the
world, that there are more natural languages on the world and that one
program language fits sometimes better a need than the other.

Cor

I think everyone is overlooking the core problem with multiple languages or at least multiple language features. VB and C# are *the* Microsoft primary
.NET languages. It creates havoc when those languages do not support the
same feature set. Where it creates that havoc is in large development shops where some people want to use VB and some want to use C#.

For example, right now, in .NET 1.x, I have recommended to all my clients
(I'm an independent developer) to use C#. Why? BecauseVB.NET's support for
operator and conversion overloads is ridiculously stupid. If they
standardize on one language, the language with the most supported framework features, they will have the widest array of features available and they
will be able to interoperate easily.Coding everything to the CLS just isn't an option. It is far too limiting.

VB.NET 2.0 improves this situation a great deal, but it still introduces
potential features that exist in one language and not the other. Further, it really requires developments working in large groups to know both VB and C#. Granted, I have already recommend that very thing just because public help
and commerical documenation can be in either language. While Microsoft
provided a great boost to book writing industry, it made it more difficult
on the development community.

I could live peacefully with both languages *if* it was possible to compile a single solution with projects written in different .NET languages and
could step through code in either. That would make the situation far more
flexible and far more tolerable.
Thomas

Jul 21 '05 #43

P: n/a
Hello Cor,

I don't know how you assumed I said anything about VB developers
ability to write C#. My comments are about the 'perception' of VB
developers and RAD and how the perception that RAD can allow
software to be developed in as few as 3-4 lines of code as the RAD
proponents allude.

The marketplace is salivating for any opportunity to pay software
developers as low as possible and RAD gives employers and customers
every opportunity they need to lower wages on the basis of *their*
perception that RAD is some sort of magic wand.

--
<%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software Development
NET cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com
URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/

"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:eb*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Clinton,

Why are you thinking that the ones who find VBNet in the current version
very productive, cannot write C# ?

You see still a lot of ancient programs be used (not including C# that),
however seldom you see stopping the evolution where the winner is the
strongest. (And in programming that is always the one which gives the
highest productivity at the lowest price, it is not a religion do you know)
Cor

"clintonG"
Well, even though you introduced some quibble (with which I
can agree) it seems the outcome will be the same and there will
be lots of VB developers trying to drink their regrets away when
the rest of us enlightened ones are busy getting paid the big bucks
because we adopted C# which will allow us to stay off the gallows
a bit longer than the other chumps :-)

--
<%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software Development
NET cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com
URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/

"Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
message news:O$*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"clintonG" <cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message news:Op*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> IMO the nacent trend towards VB.NET RAD will within a year or
> two after the release of ASP.NET 2.0 inspire a surge in development
> using VB.NET as was the case when Microsoft released Visual Basic
> itself.
>
> That will cast VB developers into a new light once again however, a
> role which will push wages down for VB developers who rightly or not
> will soon be perceived by managers and customers alike who have heard > that VB.NET applications can be 'developed' with as little as 2-3 lines > of code.
>
> Soon, VB.NET developers will be perceived as push-button monkey
> code generators the equivalent of FrontPage and Dreamweaver
> 'developers' who will then need to spend most of their time trying to > resolve themselves to the fact that they have achieved compensation
> parity with the garbage man.
>

That may be, but is that an argument for stifling language evolution?

This is the effect of marketing, *not* the language itself. Unfortunatly, the RAD "less than 10 lines of code" thing is a marketers wetdream...and
a
devs nightmare. But what can ya do, most people don't understand whats
invovled no matter of it is a VB application or one written in some arcane langauge, its still complex.

Convincing anyone of that, however, can take more time than jsut writting the damn thing and getting drunk.
>
> --
> <%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
> Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software
Development > NET cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com
> URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in > message news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
>> news:YH***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> >> They are similar but they are growing apart.
>> >
>> > Really ?
>> >
>> > In what way, specifically...
>>
>> Umm, well, lets see. Outside of the fundamental differences(Statement > based
>> vs expression based, case senstivity, heritage, etc), C# is moving
> slightly
>> towards the functional language end of the spectrum with the addition
of
>> anonymous methods and iterators(both rather nice features of languages > like
>> python, for example) while VB is focusing on a more RAD target with its >> My
>> namespace and additional IDE improvements. VB probably has a few other > bits
>> as well, but I am not well versed in the new VB features we should expect
>> next year. Maybe a VB MVP or someone could provide more information on > that.
>>
>> Its still a minor bit, and proven features will trade back and
forth >> quite
> a
>> lot, but VB and C# are certainly not the only langauges that this is a >> factor for, just look at java1.5(if you don't learn from the other side,
> you
>> are pretty much doomed to failure after all), however it is a sign
of >> seperation. The differences will *not* be as pronounced as vb6 vs

java, > for
>> example, for quite a while yet. These two languages started with teh same
>> trunk and are only now beginning to take full lives of their own.
It
may
> be
>> a few years, but I do think they will become unique and
individually > suited
>> to individuals for reasons beyond the most basic syntatical features. >> >
>> >
>> > "Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in >> > message news:OJ****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> >>
>> >> "Spare Change" <sp*********@spam.spam> wrote in message
>> >> news:ED***************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> >> > This is a recommendation to Microsoft.
>> >> >
>> >> > VB.net and c# are almost exactly equivalent.
>> >>
>> > I consider both languages
>> >> different, would approach problems differently in each, and you should
> as
>> >> well.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > But now, what is really a pain, is trying to find information

about
>> >> > coding,
>> >> > and having to search through vb and c# examples and translate the
vb
> to
>> > c#
>> >> > ( my chosen language ).
>> >>
>> >> Its really a minor issue, and if you are having real problems

you can
>> >> probably get help here, most posters are atleast able to expose

basic
>> > ideas
>> >> in both languages. You don't *need* coding examples to see how
to do >> > things,
>> >> just explinations of what to do, what classes\methods to use,
etc. >> >>
>> >> There is no harm in asking, really, just don't go nuts.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't mind the translation, but what I mind is that in Google, >> >> > when
> I
>> >> > search, I usually add "c#' as a keyword -- which pretty much
>> >> > excludes
>> >> > vb
>> >> > examples that sometimes exist.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Then type .NET instead...
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, this is the weakest anti-VB reasoning I've seen

yet...could >> >> you
>> >> atleast declare that its a horrible langauge and should be destroyed >> >> to
>> > keep
>> >> it from corrupting minds or something? Dropping a language

because its
>> >> inconvient to search is not a very good reason and, until pretty
>> >> recently,
>> >> would have been just as good for C#(You'd be surprised how often

the
#
>> >> messed things up).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> > Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #44

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.