Csharp's version of "VB Modules"

[pod]

Here is my story,

When I wrote functions in Access using VB, I created functions in Modules where I could access them easily by just calling the name of the function. The same option exist in Windows Application using VB

The option "Modules" appear when I right-click on the project and select "Add" in VB but not in C#

Now I create Windows Application using C#.

My question is, ...
if I want to seperate my functions in different "modules" as in VB, what should I create, a new class, a new component?

thanks


Perry

[Plater]

You mean classes?
Hehe chalk another one up for vb's strange naming conventions.

Add a new class file to your project

[balabaster]

You mean classes?
Hehe chalk another one up for vb's strange naming conventions.

Add a new class file to your project

Yeah, this is one of those areas where C# doesn't distinguish the difference between modules and classes but VB does. They do have subtle differences - for instance you can invoke a method within a module without having to specify the module name, whereas you can't with a class, and to provide (virtually) the same functionality you declare a method as shared instead of just public. The way you would do this is using shared methods so that you can invoke them using the following concept (but obviously in C#)

VB

Public Class MyClass1 
  Public Shared Function MyMethod(ByVal Param1 As String) As String
    Return SomeStringValue
  End Function
End Class
 
Dim MyString As String = MyClass1.MyMethod(MyParam)

C#

public class MyClass1{ 
  public static string MyMethod(string Param1){
    return SomeStringValue;
  }
}
 
string MyString = MyClass.MyMethod1(MyParam);

Make sure your method doesn't rely on any class-wide variables etc.

[Plater]

I'm not sure I see the difference between your VB code and the C# code? Or was that the point?
I thought "module" was just VBs way of like static class or something?

[r035198x]

Classes define templates for instantiating objects while modules cannot be instantiated. In C#, every method/variable must belong to a class (encapsulation).
Module data is like global variables which everyone is free to play around with. Class fields, however, are accessible according to the access modifier specified when they were defined.

It helps to use object oriented principles when programming in C#.

[Plater]

static classes cannot be instanciated.

I also didn't think VBNET had the ability to store code outside of any sort of class. (I know old school BASIC and it's derivatives were like that, using functions and subs, but that was pretty much "everything's in ONE class")

[r035198x]

static classes cannot be instanciated.

... neither can abstract classes.
The point is that classes can be instantiated while modules cannot.

static classes cannot be instanciated.

I also didn't think VBNET had the ability to store code outside of any sort of class. (I know old school BASIC and it's derivatives were like that, using functions and subs, but that was pretty much "everything's in ONE class")

Read this comparison.

[Plater]

So you can achieve close to the same functionality with static classes, the main difference is you have to type an extra word beforehand (staticclass.staticmember)

Doesn't seem like a horrible travesty to have better organization

[r035198x]

So you can achieve close to the same functionality with static classes, the main difference is you have to type an extra word beforehand (staticclass.staticmember)

Doesn't seem like a horrible travesty to have better organization

The best approach would depend on the "functions" that the OP wants to put in there. Perhaps they could be better organized into methods inside instantiable classes and be mabe available only to objects which have a reference to those objects.

I'm just worried about the overuse of statics by .NETTers these days to avoid good program design.

[Plater]

The over-use of statics would be no different then the over-use of modules.

[r035198x]

The over-use of statics would be no different then the over-use of modules.

It wouldn't. That's why I stay as far away from VB as my keyboard allows me and curse everytime I look at a .NET program.

[Plater]

I've seen you naysay C# and VB(and vb.net), so what *DO* you program in?
Java and C# are almost interchangable (minus the crazy microsoft stuff) so I'd say java is out. C++ is just an awful mess too ("too many fingers in the pot" I'd say)
Perl is so unrestricted and doesn't get much use outside of being a backend script for web. The latter applies to PHP as well.

Python?

[r035198x]

I've seen you naysay C# and VB(and vb.net), so what *DO* you program in?
Java and C# are almost interchangable (minus the crazy microsoft stuff) so I'd say java is out. C++ is just an awful mess too ("too many fingers in the pot" I'd say)
Perl is so unrestricted and doesn't get much use outside of being a backend script for web. The latter applies to PHP as well.

Python?

Actually I don't like writting programs in any language at all.
Programs never do what you tell them to do.
I feel better writting Java programs though (because I get paid for it).
Python is not very interesting (to me). I never liked interpreted (and non free form) languages anyway.

[balabaster]

Actually I don't like writting programs in any language at all.
Programs never do what you tell them to do.
I feel better writting Java programs though (because I get paid for it).
Python is not very interesting (to me). I never liked interpreted (and non free form) languages anyway.

Au contraire mon ami - programs do exactly what you tell them to. They're just not smart enough to interpret things in the way that maybe we would as humans. Treat it like a 3 year old that doesn't understand sarcasm or deadpan humour and you'll do just fine ;)

[Plater]

I always considered java interpreted. Since it pretty much has a CLR (java runtime anyone) and to run java programs you have to start a java instance with your program as an argument.

[balabaster]

I always considered java interpreted. Since it pretty much has a CLR (java runtime anyone) and to run java programs you have to start a java instance with your program as an argument.

I think it was the Java model that Microsoft mimicked when designing the CLR...I've noticed since I started programming in C# that Java makes a lot more sense than it used to...of course, it's like a micky mouse language. All real programmers use .NET :oP

[pod]

well ... thank you all for this enlighting exchange, I hope one day I'll be able to understand it all :)

seriously it confirmed what I was already doing.

I created a bunch of custom functions that I use in multiple apps, and now instead of calling a function by its name, I now use the long name

customFunctions.stringFunctionsClass.myfunction(.. .)

which is fine, not terse but OK.

Merci

[balabaster]

I'm not sure I see the difference between your VB code and the C# code? Or was that the point?
I thought "module" was just VBs way of like static class or something?

Yeah, it wasn't to highlight the differences, I just tend to post code in both languages (unless I'm in a rush). Not so much to distinguish any difference between the languages conceptually, but to make it easier for people that don't program in both languages.

...and I guess that a VB module is very similar to a static class, the only slight difference is that with a module you can reference the method without referencing the module name whereas with a static class you can't...so you have to write it out longhand.

[r035198x]

Au contraire mon ami - programs do exactly what you tell them to. They're just not smart enough to interpret things in the way that maybe we would as humans. Treat it like a 3 year old that doesn't understand sarcasm or deadpan humour and you'll do just fine ;)

You haven't seen them slow down for no apparent reason and develop memory leaks just to spite you?

I always considered java interpreted. Since it pretty much has a CLR (java runtime anyone) and to run java programs you have to start a java instance with your program as an argument.

Of course technically all languages are interpreted but I meant languages which don't have to be compiled to an intermediate language ... and in which programs are able to modify themselves while they are running ...

[balabaster]

You haven't seen them slow down for no apparent reason and develop memory leaks just to spite you?

3 year olds? ... lol

[Plater]

You haven't seen them slow down for no apparent reason and develop memory leaks just to spite you?

If by memory leaks you mean urination, yes 3year olds slow down just enough to do that somwhere

Of course technically all languages are interpreted but I meant languages which don't have to be compiled to an intermediate language ... and in which programs are able to modify themselves while they are running ...

Well that's what I meant. Java programs are compiled to a special java language. Then the java runtime interprets that language. Just like a .NET, only difference is that .net's get a .exe extension and call the runtime withen themselves, where as with java you have to tell the OS which program to run your java files (geez it's been so long I don't even remember java extensions... jar?)


(And yes I fully believe C# is a direct rip from java)

[r035198x]

If by memory leaks you mean urination, yes 3year olds slow down just enough to do that somwhere


Well that's what I meant. Java programs are compiled to a special java language. Then the java runtime interprets that language. Just like a .NET, only difference is that .net's get a .exe extension and call the runtime withen themselves, where as with java you have to tell the OS which program to run your java files (geez it's been so long I don't even remember java extensions... jar?)


(And yes I fully believe C# is a direct rip from java)

We compile the .java files into .class files which run on a mini OS called the JVM. When we have many class files we bundle them into one .jar file, but we digress ...