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

[Jonathan Allen]

There is more to a language than raw power over memory.

TI-Basic has very little power, but it is far better than C or Java for
doing mathematical problems. Fortran, which inspired QBasic's syntax, is the
language of choice at the San Diego Supercomputing Center. Pretty good for a
language that doesn't even have raw pointers.

BTW, have they ever gotten around to adding simple exponents to C?

--
Jonathan Allen


"rakim" <rakim@rakim.com> wrote in message news:3a7d0d1c$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Well, the day i buy a supercomputer or a calculator running a VB app is
the
> day i will accept this argument that Basic's heritage has anything to do
> with it's power. Apartment threading anyone?
>
>
> "Jonathan Allen" <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >He's just jealous. Everyone knows that Basic has a proud heritage that
dates
> >back much further that C, and yet it continues to evolve as the
> >circumstances dictate. As long as Basic and it's sister language Fortran
> can
> >be found on everything from calculators to super computers, the brace
> >huggers will be depressed and angry. Poor masochistic freaks.
> >
> >--
> >Jonathan Allen
> >
> >
> >"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b5767a9.1498894062@news.devx.com...
> >> On 1 Feb 2001 23:02:55 -0800, "Ralph Freeze" <rfreeze@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >VB is not a programmers language and that's how it will always be.
> >>
> >> Go away silly troll.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond
> >
> >
>

[rakim]

Andy- thanks for posting that response. I was beging to think no one was
going to say something about theis 3 year deal. It sounds like most people
posting here have a really shitty job working with some really old technology.
Maybe, and i say this earnestly, they should take some time to adopt .NET
so they can improve their skill base.

"Andy Chevin" <yoshimura.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> If some kid who barely knows VB can build a fully functional enterprise
>> system in 3 years, while a dozen Unix experts can't keep a less-functional
>> system running, there is only two possible conclusions. Either that kid
>was
>> a genius, or MS has done a **** good job with their tools so far.
>
>Only two conclusions?
>
>First we can discount the genius stuff - it took the kid *3 years* after
>all.
>Second, if it took the kid *3 years*, then it's hardly a good ad for the
>tools.
>Third, the Unix experts weren't.
>Fourth, they were laughing so hard at the amount of time it was taking the
>kid to
>get his system off the ground, they didn't have time to maintain their
>system.
>
>Andy.
>
>Oh yeah - there should be a coupla <g>s in there - I think.
>
>
>
>

[rakim]

No, obviously you don't understand what scaling means if you wrote that an
mdb could "scale" more than *any* SQL box. wow.

"Alessandro Coppo" <a.coppo@iol.it> wrote:
>
>Jonathan Allen wrote in message <3a762072@news.devx.com>...
>>You seem to not understand the term "scales".
>
>
>I understand the term "scales"; as a demonstration, the tasks of becoming
>proficient with PostgreSQL and Oracle are already in my agenda.
>
>Alessandro Coppo
>a.coppo@iol.it
>
>
>
>
>

[Jonathan Allen]

Thank you.

--
Jonathan Allen


"rakim" <rakim@rakim.org> wrote in message news:3a7d139d$1@news.devx.com...
>
> No, obviously you don't understand what scaling means if you wrote that an
> mdb could "scale" more than *any* SQL box. wow.
>
> "Alessandro Coppo" <a.coppo@iol.it> wrote:
> >
> >Jonathan Allen wrote in message <3a762072@news.devx.com>...
> >>You seem to not understand the term "scales".
> >
> >
> >I understand the term "scales"; as a demonstration, the tasks of
becoming
> >proficient with PostgreSQL and Oracle are already in my agenda.
> >
> >Alessandro Coppo
> >a.coppo@iol.it
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[William Cleveland]

Zane Thomas wrote:
>
> On 2 Feb 2001 00:13:35 -0800, "John Hilliar" <jmh1@clicks.co.za> wrote:
>
> >To VB or not to VB
> >That is what JA VAnt to know
> >do you C
>
> Pretty sharp.
>
> LOL!!!
>
If we're being silly about C#, I've thought since it was announced that
C# from Visual Studio 7, Enterprise Edition, should be referred to as
C#Maj7.

Bill

[William Cleveland]

Jonathan Allen wrote:
>
> > Everything uses Pares ??!!?? And that's supposed to be what? Better? There
> > is a reason for using a paren versus square brackets. Ever stop to think
> > why that is the case?
> >
>
> Oh really? So what is the reason for the distinction in C#?
>
The same reason that true should be 1, not -1. That's how it is in
everything else in the world, and you just confuse people for no good
reason if you don't do it that way.

Aside from that, it looks like it's saying that an array index is a
function call.

Bill

[William Cleveland]

Jonathan Allen wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I'd call that less consistent. Sometimes "<label>()" means arguments,
sometimes it means array indexes.

> 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
>

I don't know about all control structures, but you'rw certainly right
about Do/Loop. There are just some places where it seems like a
language has done something exactly right, and VB's Do/Loop syntax is
very close (only missing a Continue statement). On the other hand,
it's more than offset by C/C++/Java/C#'s variable declaration syntax,
which is just marvelous.

> 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];
> }
>

If the top index is a variable or constant, rather than a magic
number, the second is easier. That's obscured by using K&R
indenting, though. I hate that that gigantic turd has come back
into style; it's like code bell-bottoms (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! IT
JUST WON'T DIE!!!).

Bill

[Jonathan Allen]

> The same reason that true should be 1, not -1. That's how it is in
> everything else in the world, and you just confuse people for no good
> reason if you don't do it that way.
>

As shown below, indexers are just function calls. Since C# uses parens for
all other function calls, that argument doesn't hold up even when you
consider C# to be the world.

> Aside from that, it looks like it's saying that an array index is a
> function call.

According to C++, it is function call. Thank you for proving my point.

[C++]
public: __property virtual Object* get_Item(
int index
);
public: __property virtual void set_Item(
int index,
Object*
);

BTW: VB.Net calls it a parameterized property, and C# calls it a Default
Indexer.

[Visual Basic]
Overridable Public Default Property Item( _
ByVal index As Integer _
) As Object

[C#]
public object this[
int index
] {virtual get; virtual set;}

--
Jonathan Allen

"When considering performance, one must rate accuracy over speed. No one
cares how fast you can give the wrong answer." - Anonymous

[rakim]

point taken.

"Jonathan Allen" <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>There is more to a language than raw power over memory.
>
>TI-Basic has very little power, but it is far better than C or Java for
>doing mathematical problems. Fortran, which inspired QBasic's syntax, is
the
>language of choice at the San Diego Supercomputing Center. Pretty good for
a
>language that doesn't even have raw pointers.
>
>BTW, have they ever gotten around to adding simple exponents to C?
>
>--
>Jonathan Allen
>
>
>"rakim" <rakim@rakim.com> wrote in message news:3a7d0d1c$1@news.devx.com...
>>
>> Well, the day i buy a supercomputer or a calculator running a VB app is
>the
>> day i will accept this argument that Basic's heritage has anything to
do
>> with it's power. Apartment threading anyone?
>>
>>
>> "Jonathan Allen" <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >He's just jealous. Everyone knows that Basic has a proud heritage that
>dates
>> >back much further that C, and yet it continues to evolve as the
>> >circumstances dictate. As long as Basic and it's sister language Fortran
>> can
>> >be found on everything from calculators to super computers, the brace
>> >huggers will be depressed and angry. Poor masochistic freaks.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Jonathan Allen
>> >
>> >
>> >"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3b5767a9.1498894062@news.devx.com...
>> >> On 1 Feb 2001 23:02:55 -0800, "Ralph Freeze" <rfreeze@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >VB is not a programmers language and that's how it will always be.
>> >>
>> >> Go away silly troll.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

[bob]

if your method names begin with a verb like proper methods do, there is no
question of what is a method and what is a property.

(and intellisense does a pretty good job of letting you know as well)



"Jonathan Allen" <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>12. C# has additional inconsistencies because functions require parens.
>
>C#: if (stringVar.Trim().Length == 0)
>VB.Net: If stringVar.Trim.Length = 0 Then
>
>As you can see, C# needs an extra set of parens, even though the method
has
>no arguments. This annoyance is more evident when it is harder to tell if
>something is a method or property.
>
>x = oCustomer.LastName.Length;
>y = oCustomer.FullName().Length;
>
>As you can see, this introduces a needless inconsistency between fields,
>properties, and functions.
>
>--
>Jonathan Allen
>
>
>"Jonathan Allen" <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:137_3a720704@news.devx.com...
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>

[Dave Haskell]

Bob,

(Yes, I know this is an old thread...)

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

Don't have it with me (so I can't attribute it), but in "The Structure and
Interpretation of Computer Programs" (thanks Zane), there is this:

<Quote>
Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon
</Quote>