re: moving from VB to C# -- more reasons

[Jeff Johnson]

Here's some more of my reasoning (which I do not assume is 100%)--

1) I don't like C/C++.

2) I am intrigued by the .Net framework (as opposed to the win32 API.)

3) I write database apps... probably mostly for SQL server over the next
while (not Oracle.) I like the ability to put Access front ends on the thing--
yes, out of a fondness for VBA. This makes also makes me lean toward a .Net
language.

4) I don't like Linux, but I wouldn't mind if my .Net code could run on
it.


C# offers the "The power of C" with the "ease of VB." (That's the pitch,
anyway.) The RAD stuff matters to me. Raw C/C++ does not excite me. I
hope that C# encapsulates away enough of the obnoxious stuff.

If I support Microsoft products because I like them and I have experience
with them... it seems I pretty well HAVE to learn a .Net language. If Microsoft
languages are volatile, C# is less volitile than VB.

As far as the ability of the various companies to implement a "vision" for
a great platform... for some reason I have faith that Microsoft will have
made the right decisions for what I will need to be doing 5 years from now.
Every langauge choice seems to be a major gamble at this point.... and
though I want stability, I don't want it bad enough to code in C!!!

>So, I believe it is better to have skills to apply to all systems rather
>than Windows alone.

I've always felt that way-- that's why I'm majoring in Accounting instead
of ComSci!!!



"Don" <donaldg@varysoft.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Jeff,
>
>You have made some excellent points. Find some consolation in the fact that
>DLLs and EXEs written in VB6 will most likely run on WindowsXP. They currently
>run on Win2K and Windows NT without hitches. Consequently, you have at least
>3 years before your skills become completely obsolete.
>
>But take a warning from the fate of the dedicated 3 million VB coders. They,
>like the FoxPro and J++ programmers depended upon Microsoft to maintain
a
>stable, reliable code base from which to build programs. Microsoft rewrote
>FoxPro, abandoned J++ and has re-written VB. Consider the possibility that
>C# is another transitory MS attempt to remain competitive. Granted, it has
>the 'future' emphasis from MS and VB will almost certainly die, so it MIGHT
>be here in 3 years to pick up the slack left by the death of VB but there
>are no guarantees with a new language.
>
>The world is getting a lot bigger than the MS vision allows for what with
>Linux and PalmOS and other potential soft technologies on the horizon. The
>one and only language that will always work on Unix, Linux, Windows, PalmOS
>and in the little robot that crawled around on Mars is C.
>
>Second to that is C++. Since you have 3 years to learn it, why waste your
>time on C# when it is entirely possible that MS will decide it doesn't need
>to support it after all? Believe it or not, there are armies of coders that
>use C and C++ and these are vastly superior to C# or Java.
>
>I have been a VB coder since version 3.0 and before that I was a basic programmer.
>I have loved the language as useful and profitable tool. However, I began
>my focus on C and C++ some time ago and redoubled my efforts when it became
>apparent that MS was tanking VB. I can't believe it is wise to depend upon
>one company to define the technical vision of my or any one else's future.
>So, I believe it is better to have skills to apply to all systems rather
>than Windows alone. Hope this informs your decision.
>
>Happy coding!
>
>Don - just one more former Microsoft employee and current "Techno-Retro-Grouch"

[Jonathan Allen]

> If Microsoft
> languages are volatile, C# is less volitile than VB.

I think the volatility of VB is one thing we can all agree on. No other
language has changed so much in so little time.

--
Jonathan Allen


"Jeff Johnson" <johnsonjs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b4da36e$1@news.devx.com...
>
>
> Here's some more of my reasoning (which I do not assume is 100%)--
>
> 1) I don't like C/C++.
>
> 2) I am intrigued by the .Net framework (as opposed to the win32 API.)
>
> 3) I write database apps... probably mostly for SQL server over the next
> while (not Oracle.) I like the ability to put Access front ends on the
thing--
> yes, out of a fondness for VBA. This makes also makes me lean toward a
..Net
> language.
>
> 4) I don't like Linux, but I wouldn't mind if my .Net code could run on
> it.
>
>
> C# offers the "The power of C" with the "ease of VB." (That's the pitch,
> anyway.) The RAD stuff matters to me. Raw C/C++ does not excite me. I
> hope that C# encapsulates away enough of the obnoxious stuff.
>
> If I support Microsoft products because I like them and I have experience
> with them... it seems I pretty well HAVE to learn a .Net language. If
Microsoft
> languages are volatile, C# is less volitile than VB.
>
> As far as the ability of the various companies to implement a "vision" for
> a great platform... for some reason I have faith that Microsoft will have
> made the right decisions for what I will need to be doing 5 years from
now.
> Every langauge choice seems to be a major gamble at this point.... and
> though I want stability, I don't want it bad enough to code in C!!!
>
> >So, I believe it is better to have skills to apply to all systems rather
> >than Windows alone.
>
> I've always felt that way-- that's why I'm majoring in Accounting instead
> of ComSci!!!
>
>
>
> "Don" <donaldg@varysoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >Hi Jeff,
> >
> >You have made some excellent points. Find some consolation in the fact
that
> >DLLs and EXEs written in VB6 will most likely run on WindowsXP. They
currently
> >run on Win2K and Windows NT without hitches. Consequently, you have at
least
> >3 years before your skills become completely obsolete.
> >
> >But take a warning from the fate of the dedicated 3 million VB coders.
They,
> >like the FoxPro and J++ programmers depended upon Microsoft to maintain
> a
> >stable, reliable code base from which to build programs. Microsoft
rewrote
> >FoxPro, abandoned J++ and has re-written VB. Consider the possibility
that
> >C# is another transitory MS attempt to remain competitive. Granted, it
has
> >the 'future' emphasis from MS and VB will almost certainly die, so it
MIGHT
> >be here in 3 years to pick up the slack left by the death of VB but there
> >are no guarantees with a new language.
> >
> >The world is getting a lot bigger than the MS vision allows for what with
> >Linux and PalmOS and other potential soft technologies on the horizon.
The
> >one and only language that will always work on Unix, Linux, Windows,
PalmOS
> >and in the little robot that crawled around on Mars is C.
> >
> >Second to that is C++. Since you have 3 years to learn it, why waste your
> >time on C# when it is entirely possible that MS will decide it doesn't
need
> >to support it after all? Believe it or not, there are armies of coders
that
> >use C and C++ and these are vastly superior to C# or Java.
> >
> >I have been a VB coder since version 3.0 and before that I was a basic
programmer.
> >I have loved the language as useful and profitable tool. However, I began
> >my focus on C and C++ some time ago and redoubled my efforts when it
became
> >apparent that MS was tanking VB. I can't believe it is wise to depend
upon
> >one company to define the technical vision of my or any one else's
future.
> >So, I believe it is better to have skills to apply to all systems rather
> >than Windows alone. Hope this informs your decision.
> >
> >Happy coding!
> >
> >Don - just one more former Microsoft employee and current
"Techno-Retro-Grouch"
>

[Patrick Troughton]

Actually, this might not be as big of a problem as you fear. Microsoft has
been very willing to break compatibility in VB (see my other posts), however,
MS treats C a bit differently. Now that VB.NET and C# are very much tied
together by the same architecture, .NET, radical alterations to VB.NET would
probably mean radical alterations to C#. I don't think MS would treats it
C programmers the same as their VB programmers. To my knowledge, MS bends
over backwards to protect its C investments, which is why MS is continuing
to support VC++.

Note to Dan Barclay - It's hard to predict the future, but .NET may actually
be the language stability you've been looking for.

/Pat

"Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote:
>> If Microsoft
>> languages are volatile, C# is less volitile than VB.
>
>I think the volatility of VB is one thing we can all agree on. No other
>language has changed so much in so little time.
>
>--
>Jonathan Allen
>
>
>"Jeff Johnson" <johnsonjs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b4da36e$1@news.devx.com...
>>
>>
>> Here's some more of my reasoning (which I do not assume is 100%)--
>>
>> 1) I don't like C/C++.
>>
>> 2) I am intrigued by the .Net framework (as opposed to the win32 API.)
>>
>> 3) I write database apps... probably mostly for SQL server over the next
>> while (not Oracle.) I like the ability to put Access front ends on the
>thing--
>> yes, out of a fondness for VBA. This makes also makes me lean toward
a
>..Net
>> language.
>>
>> 4) I don't like Linux, but I wouldn't mind if my .Net code could run
on
>> it.
>>
>>
>> C# offers the "The power of C" with the "ease of VB." (That's the pitch,
>> anyway.) The RAD stuff matters to me. Raw C/C++ does not excite me.
I
>> hope that C# encapsulates away enough of the obnoxious stuff.
>>
>> If I support Microsoft products because I like them and I have experience
>> with them... it seems I pretty well HAVE to learn a .Net language. If
>Microsoft
>> languages are volatile, C# is less volitile than VB.
>>
>> As far as the ability of the various companies to implement a "vision"
for
>> a great platform... for some reason I have faith that Microsoft will have
>> made the right decisions for what I will need to be doing 5 years from
>now.
>> Every langauge choice seems to be a major gamble at this point.... and
>> though I want stability, I don't want it bad enough to code in C!!!
>>
>> >So, I believe it is better to have skills to apply to all systems rather
>> >than Windows alone.
>>
>> I've always felt that way-- that's why I'm majoring in Accounting instead
>> of ComSci!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> "Don" <donaldg@varysoft.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Hi Jeff,
>> >
>> >You have made some excellent points. Find some consolation in the fact
>that
>> >DLLs and EXEs written in VB6 will most likely run on WindowsXP. They
>currently
>> >run on Win2K and Windows NT without hitches. Consequently, you have at
>least
>> >3 years before your skills become completely obsolete.
>> >
>> >But take a warning from the fate of the dedicated 3 million VB coders.
>They,
>> >like the FoxPro and J++ programmers depended upon Microsoft to maintain
>> a
>> >stable, reliable code base from which to build programs. Microsoft
>rewrote
>> >FoxPro, abandoned J++ and has re-written VB. Consider the possibility
>that
>> >C# is another transitory MS attempt to remain competitive. Granted, it
>has
>> >the 'future' emphasis from MS and VB will almost certainly die, so it
>MIGHT
>> >be here in 3 years to pick up the slack left by the death of VB but there
>> >are no guarantees with a new language.
>> >
>> >The world is getting a lot bigger than the MS vision allows for what
with
>> >Linux and PalmOS and other potential soft technologies on the horizon.
>The
>> >one and only language that will always work on Unix, Linux, Windows,
>PalmOS
>> >and in the little robot that crawled around on Mars is C.
>> >
>> >Second to that is C++. Since you have 3 years to learn it, why waste
your
>> >time on C# when it is entirely possible that MS will decide it doesn't
>need
>> >to support it after all? Believe it or not, there are armies of coders
>that
>> >use C and C++ and these are vastly superior to C# or Java.
>> >
>> >I have been a VB coder since version 3.0 and before that I was a basic
>programmer.
>> >I have loved the language as useful and profitable tool. However, I began
>> >my focus on C and C++ some time ago and redoubled my efforts when it
>became
>> >apparent that MS was tanking VB. I can't believe it is wise to depend
>upon
>> >one company to define the technical vision of my or any one else's
>future.
>> >So, I believe it is better to have skills to apply to all systems rather
>> >than Windows alone. Hope this informs your decision.
>> >
>> >Happy coding!
>> >
>> >Don - just one more former Microsoft employee and current
>"Techno-Retro-Grouch"
>>
>
>

[Jonathan Allen]

> Actually, this might not be as big of a problem as you fear.

Fear, no. Enjoy, yes. What I like about VB is that it takes the opportunity
to grow, something languages like C rarely do. That does make the language
somewhat unstable, but I see no harm in keeping older versions of VB around
for older projects.

> Now that VB.NET and C# are very much tied
> together by the same architecture, .NET, radical alterations to VB.NET
would
> probably mean radical alterations to C#.

Still, there is a lot of room for growth in VB without affecting C#. Inline
documenting, Operator Overloads, matrix operations, etc. We may even see
templates before C#, as they have to go through committee.

--
Jonathan Allen


"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
news:3b4ef693@news.devx.com...
>
> Actually, this might not be as big of a problem as you fear. Microsoft has
> been very willing to break compatibility in VB (see my other posts),
however,
> MS treats C a bit differently. Now that VB.NET and C# are very much tied
> together by the same architecture, .NET, radical alterations to VB.NET
would
> probably mean radical alterations to C#. I don't think MS would treats it
> C programmers the same as their VB programmers. To my knowledge, MS bends
> over backwards to protect its C investments, which is why MS is continuing
> to support VC++.
>
> Note to Dan Barclay - It's hard to predict the future, but .NET may
actually
> be the language stability you've been looking for.
>
> /Pat
>
> "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote:
> >> If Microsoft
> >> languages are volatile, C# is less volitile than VB.
> >
> >I think the volatility of VB is one thing we can all agree on. No other
> >language has changed so much in so little time.
> >
> >--
> >Jonathan Allen
> >
> >
> >"Jeff Johnson" <johnsonjs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b4da36e$1@news.devx.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Here's some more of my reasoning (which I do not assume is 100%)--
> >>
> >> 1) I don't like C/C++.
> >>
> >> 2) I am intrigued by the .Net framework (as opposed to the win32 API.)
> >>
> >> 3) I write database apps... probably mostly for SQL server over the
next
> >> while (not Oracle.) I like the ability to put Access front ends on the
> >thing--
> >> yes, out of a fondness for VBA. This makes also makes me lean toward
> a
> >..Net
> >> language.
> >>
> >> 4) I don't like Linux, but I wouldn't mind if my .Net code could run
> on
> >> it.
> >>
> >>
> >> C# offers the "The power of C" with the "ease of VB." (That's the
pitch,
> >> anyway.) The RAD stuff matters to me. Raw C/C++ does not excite me.
> I
> >> hope that C# encapsulates away enough of the obnoxious stuff.
> >>
> >> If I support Microsoft products because I like them and I have
experience
> >> with them... it seems I pretty well HAVE to learn a .Net language. If
> >Microsoft
> >> languages are volatile, C# is less volitile than VB.
> >>
> >> As far as the ability of the various companies to implement a "vision"
> for
> >> a great platform... for some reason I have faith that Microsoft will
have
> >> made the right decisions for what I will need to be doing 5 years from
> >now.
> >> Every langauge choice seems to be a major gamble at this point....
and
> >> though I want stability, I don't want it bad enough to code in C!!!
> >>
> >> >So, I believe it is better to have skills to apply to all systems
rather
> >> >than Windows alone.
> >>
> >> I've always felt that way-- that's why I'm majoring in Accounting
instead
> >> of ComSci!!!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Don" <donaldg@varysoft.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Hi Jeff,
> >> >
> >> >You have made some excellent points. Find some consolation in the fact
> >that
> >> >DLLs and EXEs written in VB6 will most likely run on WindowsXP. They
> >currently
> >> >run on Win2K and Windows NT without hitches. Consequently, you have at
> >least
> >> >3 years before your skills become completely obsolete.
> >> >
> >> >But take a warning from the fate of the dedicated 3 million VB coders.
> >They,
> >> >like the FoxPro and J++ programmers depended upon Microsoft to
maintain
> >> a
> >> >stable, reliable code base from which to build programs. Microsoft
> >rewrote
> >> >FoxPro, abandoned J++ and has re-written VB. Consider the possibility
> >that
> >> >C# is another transitory MS attempt to remain competitive. Granted, it
> >has
> >> >the 'future' emphasis from MS and VB will almost certainly die, so it
> >MIGHT
> >> >be here in 3 years to pick up the slack left by the death of VB but
there
> >> >are no guarantees with a new language.
> >> >
> >> >The world is getting a lot bigger than the MS vision allows for what
> with
> >> >Linux and PalmOS and other potential soft technologies on the horizon.
> >The
> >> >one and only language that will always work on Unix, Linux, Windows,
> >PalmOS
> >> >and in the little robot that crawled around on Mars is C.
> >> >
> >> >Second to that is C++. Since you have 3 years to learn it, why waste
> your
> >> >time on C# when it is entirely possible that MS will decide it doesn't
> >need
> >> >to support it after all? Believe it or not, there are armies of coders
> >that
> >> >use C and C++ and these are vastly superior to C# or Java.
> >> >
> >> >I have been a VB coder since version 3.0 and before that I was a basic
> >programmer.
> >> >I have loved the language as useful and profitable tool. However, I
began
> >> >my focus on C and C++ some time ago and redoubled my efforts when it
> >became
> >> >apparent that MS was tanking VB. I can't believe it is wise to depend
> >upon
> >> >one company to define the technical vision of my or any one else's
> >future.
> >> >So, I believe it is better to have skills to apply to all systems
rather
> >> >than Windows alone. Hope this informs your decision.
> >> >
> >> >Happy coding!
> >> >
> >> >Don - just one more former Microsoft employee and current
> >"Techno-Retro-Grouch"
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Ted]

"Jeff Johnson" <johnsonjs@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Here's some more of my reasoning (which I do not assume is 100%)--
>
>1) I don't like C/C++.

Why?

>C# offers the "The power of C" with the "ease of VB." (That's the pitch,
>anyway.) The RAD stuff matters to me. Raw C/C++ does not excite me. I
>hope that C# encapsulates away enough of the obnoxious stuff.
>though I want stability, I don't want it bad enough to code in C!!!

Again, why?

[Richard Curzon]

It's a thing that you can see if you
a) are new to languages or
b) are conversant with more than just the C world of languages

Bjarne Stroustrup designed C++, but concluded that C syntax is "ugly and
illogical".

See, if you disagree with the likes of Jeff, you are also disagreeing with
the likes of Bjarne. Need that reference again <g>?

regards
Richard

--
-----
Live without dead time - Raoul Vaneigem
May I borrow your towel, my car just hit a water buffalo - Chevy Chase

[Ivan**]

I'm using both C++ (Borland C++ Builder) and C# to create applications. In my opinion C# is easier to use for creating web based applications. For other things (including desktop and database applications) C++ is usually a better solution. For applications that require ultimate performance such as sound processing C++ is much , much better.