Why I like VB.NET

[Tom Cabanski]

I really knew Delphi and C++ builder were dead (niche tools) when Anders Hejlsberg
left Borland for Microsoft. For those that don't know, he was the key guy
on Turbo Pascal and Delphi. After he arrived at Microsoft, he did some work
on Java. Then came the lawsuit with Sun and he sort of dissapeared. When
I first heard the rumors of COOL, I knew he had something to do with it.

Sure enough here comes .NET and it has his fingerprints all over it. VB
gets a full rework to fit in. VB.NET has objects that really work like objects;
VB.NET is a first-class citizen that can do everything any other .NET language
can do without annoying hacks; VB.NET even does threads; And, unfortunatly,
Microsoft had to change things quite a bit to make it all work properly.

VB.NET is more of a professional programming tool than VB ever was. It is
harder to get started but it will be easier to get substantial things done.
I'm not trying to say VB cannot be used for large systems. I've used it
for large systems. I am saying that it lacks many of the language features,
mostly OO, that make big systems easier to put together and maintain. When
you add in the elegance of the CLR and the much-improved web programming
model, I think you would be somewhat silly to pine for VB6. I agree with
McKinney when he says VB is dead and VB.NET is nothing more than C# with
VB-like syntax. However, I say that if you like VB you should go ahead and
use VB.NET.

Old code is important. Don't worry, the porting tools will get better.
After all, this is only beta 1.

The bigger question, I think, is whether or not .NET will live up to the
promise of cross-platform portability. If someone, maybe even Microsoft,
ports .NET to Linux, I think Java will be just another .NET language. If
not, I think .NET might be a flop.

I will wait and see. I will use VB.NET. I will use C#. I doubt I will
miss VB very much.

[Frustrated IT Worker]

Tom, I like VB.NET too, however, Microsoft's marketing people are throwing
the wool over the consumer's eyes by including the letters VB in this programming
language's name.

You mentioned that Delphi and C++ builder have become niche tools. Seems
to me that this may well be the fate of VB.NET as well. I think this is what
more people in this forum should be talking about. Does VB.NET have a viable
long-term future in the marketplace?

If a client were to ask my opinion today regarding VB.NET, I would probably
tell them to stay away from this language. In the past, a manager could make
a good case for using VB rather than C++ on a new development project. How
can anyone justify using VB.NET rather than C#?

Because the cost of maintaining existing applications and systems takes up
a large percentage of most IT budgets, how can I tell management that they
are making a relatively safe and smart investment by using VB.NET? Seems
to me that the wiser move is tell them (if needed) to rewrite their exiting
VB applications in C# and be done with it.

Classic VB may not have had all the neat features that developers have been
asking for but at least it served a purpose in the marketplace. What purpose
does VB.NET serve?


"Tom Cabanski" <tcabanski@oai.cc> wrote:

[Jon Ogden]

"Tom Cabanski" <tcabanski@oai.cc> wrote in message
news:3a91a738$1@news.devx.com...
>
> I really knew Delphi and C++ builder were dead (niche tools) when Anders
Hejlsberg
> left Borland for Microsoft. For those that don't know, he was the key guy
> on Turbo Pascal and Delphi. After he arrived at Microsoft, he did some
work
> on Java.

And after compiling a track record like that, MSFT asked him to do just as
good a job with VB? <grin>

Good Luck
Jon

[Patrick Troughton]

"Frustrated IT Worker" <frustrated@nospam.com> wrote:
>How
>can anyone justify using VB.NET rather than C#?

How can anyone justify using C# rather than VB.NET? C# is based on an archaic,
cryptic, case sensitive syntax.

[Bob Butler]

"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
news:3a927e16$1@news.devx.com...
>
> "Frustrated IT Worker" <frustrated@nospam.com> wrote:
> >How
> >can anyone justify using VB.NET rather than C#?
>
> How can anyone justify using C# rather than VB.NET? C# is based on an
archaic,
> cryptic, case sensitive syntax.
>

If C# were not case sensitive I'd never look at VB.Net again. That is the
single obstacle I face in moving to it since I REALLY despise
case-sensitivity in a language. I have yet to see any value to it and using
it to have different private/public values that differ only in the case
makes the code very difficult to work with.

On the other hand I think that C# may actually have a reasonable lifetime
ahead of it. It looks to me like it has been poistioned where VB used to
be -- a simpler language than C++ but one that lets you do just about
everything you need to quickly and easily. VB.Net appears to me to be
positioned to be killed off as a supported language.

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> If C# were not case sensitive I'd never look at VB.Net again.

Amen.

[Sean Taffin]

"Tom Cabanski" <tcabanski@oai.cc> wrote in message
news:3a91a738$1@news.devx.com...
>
> I really knew Delphi and C++ builder were dead (niche tools) when Anders
Hejlsberg
> left Borland for Microsoft.

It depends where you live.
I'm working in Germany and the "niche" is quite big here and getting bigger.

> For those that don't know, he was the key guy
> on Turbo Pascal and Delphi. After he arrived at Microsoft, he did some
work

He was one of the key guys.

> on Java. Then came the lawsuit with Sun and he sort of dissapeared. When
> I first heard the rumors of COOL, I knew he had something to do with it.

I guess Microsoft needed him more desperately than Borland did.

> Old code is important. Don't worry, the porting tools will get better.
> After all, this is only beta 1.

Yes, it's beta 1, but OTOH I don't believe in Santa Clause anymore and so I
still have doubts if the porting tools get significantly better. But we will
see.

> The bigger question, I think, is whether or not .NET will live up to the
> promise of cross-platform portability. If someone, maybe even Microsoft,
> ports .NET to Linux, I think Java will be just another .NET language. If
> not, I think .NET might be a flop.

Hmm. I remember Steve Balmer claiming that Linux is the threat #1 for
Windows. I still have doubts if they will port .NET to Linux and if they or
someone else ports .NET to Linux, if Linux user will welcome a MS
technology.

> I will wait and see. I will use VB.NET. I will use C#. I doubt I will
> miss VB very much.

Dito.
In case that .NET doesn't flop, I will do as Microsoft does and concentrate
on C#.

[Nollen]

C# syntax is not cryptic. To a VB developer, may be. Java, C, C++, JavaScript
and C# share similar syntax elements, strongly typed languages and are very
much elegant. In my opinion case-sensitivity allows for a more diverse language
environment and more infinite possibilities, which may be needed on large
scale, complex projects.

Nolly.

"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>
>"Frustrated IT Worker" <frustrated@nospam.com> wrote:
>>How
>>can anyone justify using VB.NET rather than C#?
>
>How can anyone justify using C# rather than VB.NET? C# is based on an archaic,
>cryptic, case sensitive syntax.
>

[Jacob Grass]

"Nollen" <Nollen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a92a7bc$2@news.devx.com...
>
> C# syntax is not cryptic. To a VB developer, may be. Java, C, C++,
JavaScript
> and C# share similar syntax elements, strongly typed languages and are
very
> much elegant.

I think that the cryptic comment is regarding how verbose each language is.
A non-programmer will likely have better luck understanding VB code over any
C-style code. I also think the term 'elegant' is not quite appropriate.
Perhaps 'cool' (or some derivate) would be better. For example, PERL is not
elegant, but the fact that one line of code can do so much coupled with
unintuitive syntax makes it awe-inspiring (at least to me).

>In my opinion case-sensitivity allows for a more diverse language
> environment and more infinite possibilities, which may be needed on large
> scale, complex projects.
>

I don't see how it would be feasible to run out of 'possibilities' with a
case-insensitive language.

Jacob

[Patrick Troughton]

No offense, but most people who think otherwise probably haven't had enough
experience with other languages. In my years, I've written programs in about
10 different languages ranging from Cobol to VB to Java to RPG, I can honestly
say the C-style is the most cryptic I've encountered so far.

/Pat

"Nollen" <Nollen@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>C# syntax is not cryptic. To a VB developer, may be. Java, C, C++, JavaScript
>and C# share similar syntax elements, strongly typed languages and are very
>much elegant. In my opinion case-sensitivity allows for a more diverse language
>environment and more infinite possibilities, which may be needed on large
>scale, complex projects.
>
>Nolly.
>
>"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Frustrated IT Worker" <frustrated@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>How
>>>can anyone justify using VB.NET rather than C#?
>>
>>How can anyone justify using C# rather than VB.NET? C# is based on an archaic,
>>cryptic, case sensitive syntax.

[rmeklo]

"Sean Taffin" <sean@taffin.net> wrote:
>
>"Santa Clause"
>
>You mispelled "Sanity Clause" (or "Santa Claus")
HTH

[Nollen]

Perhaps some think that certain syntax is cryptic. But my personal preference
IS the c-style syntax that is shared amongst many programming languages.
Again, a matter of personal preference.

Nolly.


"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>
>No offense, but most people who think otherwise probably haven't had enough
>experience with other languages. In my years, I've written programs in about
>10 different languages ranging from Cobol to VB to Java to RPG, I can honestly
>say the C-style is the most cryptic I've encountered so far.
>
>/Pat
>
>"Nollen" <Nollen@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>C# syntax is not cryptic. To a VB developer, may be. Java, C, C++, JavaScript
>>and C# share similar syntax elements, strongly typed languages and are
very
>>much elegant. In my opinion case-sensitivity allows for a more diverse
language
>>environment and more infinite possibilities, which may be needed on large
>>scale, complex projects.
>>
>>Nolly.
>>
>>"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Frustrated IT Worker" <frustrated@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>How
>>>>can anyone justify using VB.NET rather than C#?
>>>
>>>How can anyone justify using C# rather than VB.NET? C# is based on an
archaic,
>>>cryptic, case sensitive syntax.
>

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> but the fact that one line of code can do so much coupled with
> unintuitive syntax makes it awe-inspiring (at least to me).

OT, awe-inspiring:
http://www.ioccc.org/

http://www.ioccc.org/1991/dds.c
http://www.ioccc.org/1991/dds.hint

http://www.ioccc.org/1991/westley.c
http://www.ioccc.org/1991/westley.hint

[Jacob Grass]

Agreed. . . As are the Obfuscated PERL contests. . . But, I feel that way
with all of PERL, and only some of C. . .

Jacob

"Sjoerd Verweij" <nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote in message
news:3a92cf45$1@news.devx.com...
> > but the fact that one line of code can do so much coupled with
> > unintuitive syntax makes it awe-inspiring (at least to me).
>
> OT, awe-inspiring:
> http://www.ioccc.org/
>
> http://www.ioccc.org/1991/dds.c
> http://www.ioccc.org/1991/dds.hint
>
> http://www.ioccc.org/1991/westley.c
> http://www.ioccc.org/1991/westley.hint
>
>
>
>

[Jon Ogden]

"Bob Butler" <butlerbob@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3a9284c9@news.devx.com...
> If C# were not case sensitive I'd never look at VB.Net again. That is the
> single obstacle I face in moving to it since I REALLY despise
> case-sensitivity in a language. I have yet to see any value to it and
using
> it to have different private/public values that differ only in the case
> makes the code very difficult to work with.


Frankly I'm surprised that the IDE (at the least) for C# doesn't provide an
option for coercing the case to whatever it is when declared. That wouldn't
be a perfect solution in that the case could be altered in another editor,
but it would be a very useful tool.