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


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 56

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

  1. #1
    Jonathan Allen Guest

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

    > 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/
    >
    >
    >




  2. #2
    Zane Thomas Guest

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

    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

  3. #3
    Jason Bock Guest

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

    "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



  4. #4
    Sjoerd Verweij Guest

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

    > >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.



  5. #5
    Zane Thomas Guest

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

    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

  6. #6
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    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

  7. #7
    Bob Butler Guest

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


    "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




  8. #8
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

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

    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



  9. #9
    Jonathan Allen Guest

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

    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




  10. #10
    Jonathan Allen Guest

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

    > 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
    >
    >




  11. #11
    Zane Thomas Guest

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

    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

  12. #12
    Sjoerd Verweij Guest

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


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



  13. #13
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

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

    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?
    >
    >



  14. #14
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    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

  15. #15
    Jason Kaczor Guest

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


    "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




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center