Re: Will VB hurt .NET? Instead of .NET helping VB?

[Jonathan Allen]

> Certainly all past efforts to "rehabilitate" the language have failed in
the
> reputation sense, perhaps this next move will fail, and hurt .NET with it?

I hope your wrong, but I this does have me shaken.

Even if .Net is successful, C# will get all the credit. We need to get the
word out that VB is powerful enough for business use. When it comes right
down to it VB.Net is still easier than C#, which makes us more productive.
But if we can't get the companies to recognize that, we are still out of a
job.

--
Jonathan Allen


"Michael (michka) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com> wrote
in message news:3a71cfdc@news.devx.com...
> Many people here have been discussing the issues surrounding the need for
> change, to move VB forward, to help fix up the reputation problems that VB
> has had.... and either stating or at least hoping that VB.NET will do
this.
>
> But what if they are wrong? What is the reputation VB has where VB
> developers feel like they must defend themselves no matter where they go
> (even Microsoft!) actually follows VB.NET? This is a very strng
possibility.
>
> And what if this hurts the CLR overall, by association? Somewhat less
> likely, but still possible, I think.
>
> Certainly all past efforts to "rehabilitate" the language have failed in
the
> reputation sense, perhaps this next move will fail, and hurt .NET with it?
>
> Thoughts, anyone?
>
> --
> MichKa
>
> a new book on internationalization in VB at
> http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
>
>
>

[Zane Thomas]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:40:20 -0800, "Jonathan Allen"
<greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>When it comes right down to it VB.Net is still easier than C#

Really? I don't ask as a way of disputing what you say, I haven't used
vb.net very heavily so I'm seriously curious to know what it is about
vb.net which makes it significantly easier.



---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Jason Bock]

"Jonathan Allen" <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3a71d6a0@news.devx.com...
> > Certainly all past efforts to "rehabilitate" the language have failed in
> the
> > reputation sense, perhaps this next move will fail, and hurt .NET with
it?
>
> I hope your wrong, but I this does have me shaken.
>
> Even if .Net is successful, C# will get all the credit. We need to get the
> word out that VB is powerful enough for business use. When it comes right
> down to it VB.Net is still easier than C#, which makes us more productive.

I disagree, but that's a personal preference. I love C# - I find it to be
very easy to use, but then again, I programmed in Java for over a year.

> But if we can't get the companies to recognize that, we are still out of a
> job.

Ummmmmm...

You're kidding, right? I mean, if VB.NET-based development gigs dried up or
never even came about, I'm sure all the VB developers would move to C# or
some other .NET-based language. Crying, kicking, screaming, voicing
rational dissent - if that happened I'm sure it wouldn't be pleasant to see.
But ultimately, people would adjust.

One of the best line in "Heartbreak Ridge": You improvise, you adapt, you
overcome. For me, that's better than: You criticize, you refuse to budge,
you're out of a job.

Or maybe I misunderstood your last sentence?

Regards,

Jason

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> >When it comes right down to it VB.Net is still easier than C#
> Really? I don't ask as a way of disputing what you say, I haven't used
> vb.net very heavily so I'm seriously curious to know what it is about
> vb.net which makes it significantly easier.

Readability and some syntactic sugar (WithEvents -- which I personally don't
even use anymore). It's not that big of a difference, really.

[Zane Thomas]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:46:07 -0800, "Sjoerd Verweij"
<nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote:

>Readability

I think that's more a matter of habit than anything else, I find c# much
easier to read - after nearly 20 years of c/c++ that should be no
surprise. :-)

Hey, here's the most common mistake I make in c#:

#if 0

Doh!


---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Mike Mitchell]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:40:20 -0800, "Jonathan Allen"
<greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>> Certainly all past efforts to "rehabilitate" the language have failed in
>the
>> reputation sense, perhaps this next move will fail, and hurt .NET with it?
>
>I hope your wrong, but I this does have me shaken.
>
>Even if .Net is successful, C# will get all the credit. We need to get the
>word out that VB is powerful enough for business use. When it comes right
>down to it VB.Net is still easier than C#, which makes us more productive.
>But if we can't get the companies to recognize that, we are still out of a
>job.
>

Ah, at last you seem to be recognising the potential problems you
could be facing. Look, of those 6 million-odd VB programmers out
there, only a very small minority will ever move to a full-blown OOP
model in VB.NET. You know it yourself. Up to 60% of VB programmers
have never used a single class, for heck's sake, and you're expecting
'em to suddenly get the message from Microsoft and become OOP zealots?
It just a-i-n-'-t gonna happen. They will spend a quarter-of-an-hour
or so, just long enough with VB.NET to realise it's almost completely
different, and they will simply STOP USING IT! Classic VB is an easy
language to learn. That is what brought it so many supporters -
individuals and corporations. By making it more difficult, more
obscure, and worst of all *not* backward compatible, Microsoft have
achieved something their deadliest enemies could never have dreamed up
if they worked from now until eternity or **** freezes over, whichever
comes last.

So, really the success of .NET, if it relies on C#, will *not* be
down to VB in any shape or form, and if its success *is* down to
VB.NET, then only the OOP zealots can make that happen, 'cos hardly
anyone else from the Classic camp is going to be the slightest bit
interested.

MM

[Bob Butler]

"Sjoerd Verweij" <nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote in message
news:3a71ef4f@news.devx.com...

<cut>
>syntactic sugar

That gets my vote for the most over-used, meaningless phrase in the whole
dotnet release

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Bob --

> <cut>
> >syntactic sugar
>
> That gets my vote for the most over-used, meaningless phrase in the whole
> dotnet release

Oh, don't be so quick. It tells you for instance, that the user qualifies for
immediate addition to your twit filter! I'd be hard pressed to name another phrase
that meets that mark, so easily.

Later... Karl
--
http://www.mvps.org/vb

[Jonathan Allen]

Why VB.Net is easier than C#, short list.

1. We don't have to use strict casting.

2. We can use late binding without (manually) using reflection.

3. WithEvents makes wiring a lot easier.
When you use WithEvents, you are wiring your event handlers
declaratively. Right there on the sub is the list of what it handles. Quick,
clean, easy to read, and in one place.
When you use C#'s method, you are wiring your events sequentially
and manually. If you want to know what events a sub handles, you have to
search through the code. Also, it's easy to forget the AddHandler call or
put it in the wrong place. And of course the compiler can't warn you that
you screwed up.

4. Consistency.
Everything uses parens (). It C#, some things use parens and some things
use brackets []. You can waste a lot of time fixing code that uses one
instead of the other.

5. Control Structures
VB's Do/Loop is more flexible that C#'s While
Select Case is vastly more powerful than C#'s Switch
With, which not technically a control structure, is still nice

6. Intuitive keywords. VB's keywords are easier to learn.
ButAnd vs &
And vs &&
Shared vs Static
Overrideable vs Virtual

7. Intuitive syntax. Which is easer to teach to a newbie?
For i = 0 to 9 Step 2
Sum += A(i)
Next

for(i = 0; i<10; i+=2){
Sum += A[i];
}

8. Less parens needed, especially for casting.

VB: If A And B Then
C#: if (A &&B)

VB: S = CType(myNode.Value, Customer).LastName
C#: S = ((Customer)(myNode.value)).LastName;

9. No reverse notation.

VB: Dim X as New SQL.SQLDataCommand(sCommand)
C#: SQL.SQLDataCommand X = New SQL.SQLDataCommand(sCommand);

C#'s reverse notation, besides being less clear, can result in extra
typing.

10. ByRef works like it should.

Public Sub Switch (ByRef A, ByRef B)

C#: Switch(A, B);
This won't work because you forget to specify ref. Of course the
compiler won't warn you.

C#: Switch(ref A, ref B);
Correct version, maybe. (Was I suppose to use "ref" or "out" this
time?)

11. Variables are initialized automatically.

If I write "Dim X as Integer", X starts at 0 and I can start using it.
In C#, X is undefined and can result in an error.


--
Jonathan Allen


"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
news:3ad4d93c.938145531@news.devx.com...
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:40:20 -0800, "Jonathan Allen"
> <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >When it comes right down to it VB.Net is still easier than C#
>
> Really? I don't ask as a way of disputing what you say, I haven't used
> vb.net very heavily so I'm seriously curious to know what it is about
> vb.net which makes it significantly easier.
>
>
>
> ---
> Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Jonathan Allen]

> You're kidding, right? I mean, if VB.NET-based development gigs dried up
or
> never even came about, I'm sure all the VB developers would move to C# or
> some other .NET-based language. Crying, kicking, screaming, voicing
> rational dissent - if that happened I'm sure it wouldn't be pleasant to
see.
> But ultimately, people would adjust.

Eventually. Even though C# is close enough to VB.Net to pick up easily, the
HR department pre-screening resumes doesn't know that. All they know is IT
told them to find someone with X years of C#.

--
Jonathan Allen


"Jason Bock" <jrbock@nospam.execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3a71da2f$1@news.devx.com...
> "Jonathan Allen" <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:3a71d6a0@news.devx.com...
> > > Certainly all past efforts to "rehabilitate" the language have failed
in
> > the
> > > reputation sense, perhaps this next move will fail, and hurt .NET with
> it?
> >
> > I hope your wrong, but I this does have me shaken.
> >
> > Even if .Net is successful, C# will get all the credit. We need to get
the
> > word out that VB is powerful enough for business use. When it comes
right
> > down to it VB.Net is still easier than C#, which makes us more
productive.
>
> I disagree, but that's a personal preference. I love C# - I find it to be
> very easy to use, but then again, I programmed in Java for over a year.
>
> > But if we can't get the companies to recognize that, we are still out of
a
> > job.
>
> Ummmmmm...
>
> You're kidding, right? I mean, if VB.NET-based development gigs dried up
or
> never even came about, I'm sure all the VB developers would move to C# or
> some other .NET-based language. Crying, kicking, screaming, voicing
> rational dissent - if that happened I'm sure it wouldn't be pleasant to
see.
> But ultimately, people would adjust.
>
> One of the best line in "Heartbreak Ridge": You improvise, you adapt, you
> overcome. For me, that's better than: You criticize, you refuse to
budge,
> you're out of a job.
>
> Or maybe I misunderstood your last sentence?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jason
>
>

[Zane Thomas]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:09:17 -0800, "Jonathan Allen"
<greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote:


Not bad points. :-)

> ButAnd vs &
^^^^^^

But you misspelled 'ButtAnd' - hope this helps.


---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Sjoerd Verweij]

Oh, yak yak yak. I hate it as well. Do you have a better term?

[Karl E. Peterson]

Some use the acronym "RAD". Whadda I know? <g>
--
http://www.mvps.org/vb


"Sjoerd Verweij" <nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote in message
news:3a7214cf@news.devx.com...
>
> Oh, yak yak yak. I hate it as well. Do you have a better term?
>
>

[Mike Mitchell]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:32:06 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

>
>But you misspelled 'ButtAnd' - hope this helps.
>

Ah, Zane, anal-retentive, eh!

MM

[Jason Kaczor]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a71fed0.47447172@news.devx.com...
>
> model in VB.NET. You know it yourself. Up to 60% of VB programmers
> have never used a single class, for heck's sake, and you're expecting
> 'em to suddenly get the message from Microsoft and become OOP zealots?

Where did you get that figure?

Not that I disagree. Then, if you lump in the crop of "ASP/VBScript"
developers
never "creating a class" (I would rather say that than "using a class), what
does the
figure now become?

Office developers?

It is going to be big trouble for some to "grok" the changes. My wife is an
accomplished
Office automation trainer, and macro developer. Has been for many years,
made the transition
from "productx-basic" to VBA.

I showed her VB.NET last weekend, she didn't like it.

> It just a-i-n-'-t gonna happen. They will spend a quarter-of-an-hour
> or so, just long enough with VB.NET to realise it's almost completely
> different, and they will simply STOP USING IT! Classic VB is an easy
> language to learn. That is what brought it so many supporters -
> individuals and corporations.

Correct.

> By making it more difficult, more obscure, and worst of all *not* backward
compatible, Microsoft have

Unfortunately with great power comes great responsiblility.

Both my wife (via Office), and myself (via VB1,3,4,5,6) have cleaned up far
too many "messes" constructed
by those who should have been doing something else. Empowerment is a
wonderful thing, but running your
business on a handful of Office macros, and some hacked-together-VB programs
is not a recipe for reliability,
re-use (take a wild-@ss guess at how many people who have systems like that
suddenly expect them to
easily connect to the internet?), growth or maintenance.

> So, really the success of .NET, if it relies on C#, will *not* be
> down to VB in any shape or form, and if its success *is* down to

Since when has VB been the primary development tool at Microsoft?

Since when have they released their latest/greatest API samples in VB code?

Hmm, Platform SDK, still C/C++... Cryptography? I could go on, and on and
on...

VB has always been a "2nd-class" citizen. With .NET it grows up.

> VB.NET, then only the OOP zealots can make that happen, 'cos hardly
> anyone else from the Classic camp is going to be the slightest bit
> interested

Where have they been for the last decade?

OOP is not new, it is not "strange", "un-tested", "un-verified",
"non-productive", "non-reusable".

In my experience, when I have taken a "brand-spanking-newly-born" developer,
and taught them OOP up-front,
it was far easier to explain objects, encapsulation, etc.

I quote, from the 2nd edition of the "Tao of Objects", by Gary Entsminger.

This is from the introduction by Bruce Eckell (Thinking in Java, Thinking in
Patterns):

"When I explained OOP to my friend Mark (a psychologist), he replied 'I
don't understand --
how else would you do it?' How were they doing it before?' I found I was at
a loss to describe
the old way. I mean, I practiced procedural programming, the structured
techniques, and all that,
but it never really made sense to me -- it never seemed whole. In fact, I
never took programming
seriously before OOP, probably because it seemed to take too much effort to
get the job done.
Because I can now think in more powerful terms, I can solve much more
complex problems."

Regards
Jason Kaczor
> MM