Why I like VB.NET

[John Proffitt]

"Sean Taffin" <sean@taffin.net> wrote:
>
>"Tom Cabanski" <tcabanski@oai.cc> wrote in message
>news:3a91a738$1@news.devx.com...
>> 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.
>

Microsoft needs to loosen up. The business of selling software (like most
enterprises that involve human culture) is not a zero sum game. If they
port software to Linux, or help with the WINE project, or with Samba, or
enter a dialog with the KDE or GNOME folks about user interface issues, it
makes their bid for cross-platform interoperability look more credible.
It gives the company a chance to make some of that unix money, too. And
it makes the company look a little more tractable and sympathetic, something
that the Microsoft corporate image could sure use.

Who knows? If the Evil Empire started to look like the Nice Guys it might
get the Justice Department off their case. It might make it harder to sell
people on the benefits of an Open Source solution. It might make it easier
for people to choose Microsoft over Apple or BE. There's more than one way
to compete and more than one way to measure success.

[Steve Dee]

Patrick,
you don't need to "justify" using one over the other...that's part of
the beauty of .Net.....I prefer C#....but only because I "cut my teeth" on C
and find it's "archaic, cryptic, case sensistive syntax" more natural and
more powerful. However, VB.Net pretty much levels the playing field. I
love VB for what it is good at....mainly, creating GUI's. I love C for
giving me complete control. I can write the same program (thank's to .Net)
in C# with fewer lines than in VB....does that make it better? No....it's
just a matter or preference. I use to tell my developers "don't do that in
VB, it's not the right tool!!! (mainly API stuff)" but now, it really
doesn't matter.

"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.
>

[Steve Dee]

Bob,
> 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.

A "good" C style programmer doesn't use "case" for private/public values.
That's a "stupid pet trick" and is frowned upon by most.

[Steve Dee]

Patrick,
> say the C-style is the most cryptic I've encountered so far.

I'm truly curious.....what's so cryptic about C-style? This might help me
with training some VB (only) people.

[Patrick Troughton]

Oh, I agree with that. "Justify" was Frustrated IT Worker's word, I was just
trying to turn the question around. If you come from a C background, C# is
a logical choice. If you come from a Basic background, or from a clean slate,
I think VB.NET is the logical choice.

/Pat

"Steve Dee" <Steve_Dee@md.prestige.net> wrote:
>Patrick,
> you don't need to "justify" using one over the other...that's part of
>the beauty of .Net.....I prefer C#....but only because I "cut my teeth"
on C
>and find it's "archaic, cryptic, case sensistive syntax" more natural and
>more powerful. However, VB.Net pretty much levels the playing field. I
>love VB for what it is good at....mainly, creating GUI's. I love C for
>giving me complete control. I can write the same program (thank's to .Net)
>in C# with fewer lines than in VB....does that make it better? No....it's
>just a matter or preference. I use to tell my developers "don't do that
in
>VB, it's not the right tool!!! (mainly API stuff)" but now, it really
>doesn't matter.
>
>"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.

[Patrick Troughton]

For me, there are two primary reasons I don't care for the C-style syntax....

- Excessive use of symbols instead of English keywords
- Use of brackets to dilineate all forms of scope instead of specific keywords
for specific scopes

But other people may have different reasons.

/Pat

"Steve Dee" <Steve_Dee@md.prestige.net> wrote:
>Patrick,
>> say the C-style is the most cryptic I've encountered so far.
>
>I'm truly curious.....what's so cryptic about C-style? This might help
me
>with training some VB (only) people.

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> I'm truly curious.....what's so cryptic about C-style?

The fact that there isn't an Obfuscated BASIC contest should tell you
something.

[Frustrated IT Worker]

Okay, I guess I didn't make myself very clear with what I was trying to say.
By "justify" I meant from a business standpoint (i.e. cost factor) and not
from a developer's perspective. I was assuming a computing environment where
you had both C++ and VB applications to contend with. In this type of environment,
the "right tool" for current and future projects doesn't seem to me to be
VB or VB.NET because all things won't be equal in the .NET world. If necessary,
C++ applications can be upgraded in stages or not at all. You cannot do this
with VB. Most non-trivial VB applications will probably require a total rewrite.
Maybe Microsoft will prove me wrong, but I don't think their conversion tool
is going to work very well on most VB applications.

"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>
>Oh, I agree with that. "Justify" was Frustrated IT Worker's word, I was
just
>trying to turn the question around. If you come from a C background, C#
is
>a logical choice. If you come from a Basic background, or from a clean slate,
>I think VB.NET is the logical choice.
>
>/Pat
>
>"Steve Dee" <Steve_Dee@md.prestige.net> wrote:
>>Patrick,
>> you don't need to "justify" using one over the other...that's part
of
>>the beauty of .Net.....I prefer C#....but only because I "cut my teeth"
>on C
>>and find it's "archaic, cryptic, case sensistive syntax" more natural and
>>more powerful. However, VB.Net pretty much levels the playing field.
I
>>love VB for what it is good at....mainly, creating GUI's. I love C for
>>giving me complete control. I can write the same program (thank's to .Net)
>>in C# with fewer lines than in VB....does that make it better? No....it's
>>just a matter or preference. I use to tell my developers "don't do that
>in
>>VB, it's not the right tool!!! (mainly API stuff)" but now, it really
>>doesn't matter.
>>
>>"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.
>

[William Cleveland]

Patrick Troughton wrote:
>
> For me, there are two primary reasons I don't care for the C-style syntax....
>
> - Use of brackets to dilineate all forms of scope instead of specific keywords
> for specific scopes
>
I flip-flop about this one. On the one hand, I think a code block is a
code block is a code block. On the other hand, it seems to make it
easier to see what code block is being ended.

Bill

[Steve Dee]

No......that isn't it....you can write nasty BASIC code that is illegible
also...
Anyone who actually WRITES code like the Obfuscated contests entries do
should be terminated, shot, run over by a truck, terminated again, and then
kicked in the ....... well wherever it hurts most.


"Sjoerd Verweij" <nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote in message
news:3a93eff2@news.devx.com...
> > I'm truly curious.....what's so cryptic about C-style?
>
> The fact that there isn't an Obfuscated BASIC contest should tell you
> something.
>
>
>

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> No......that isn't it....you can write nasty BASIC code that is illegible
> also...

Well, even without obfuscation a C programmer can make you work 20 minutes
at understanding a declaration like

void (*p[10]) (void (*)());

The first 5 at "what the **** is this", then 15 at "is this what we actually
need".

Nor does BASIC have stuff like (my C is rusty, just an illustration)
while (++x << y-- != (f(), 2, null != X(++y)));
x++;

(notice the first semi-colon)

Obfuscation only starts when you add stuff like
#define << !=

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:56:15 -0500, "Steve Dee"
<Steve_Dee@md.prestige.net> wrote:

>Patrick,
>> say the C-style is the most cryptic I've encountered so far.
>
>I'm truly curious.....what's so cryptic about C-style? This might help me
>with training some VB (only) people.

I have written a few functions in C. It's painful, after working in
BASIC. The curly braces, the need to put semicolons at the end of some
lines, but not others, the pointers, the pointers to pointers, the
++before and the after++, the whole sorry perplexing confused mess of
a few good ideas fighting for clarity that must have been designed by
theorists who never understood the term "user friendly". C is probably
the worst language of all time for being productive in.

But don't let me put you off if you like it!

MM

[Steve Dee]

Sjoerd,
> Well, even without obfuscation a C programmer can make you work 20 minutes
> at understanding a declaration like
>
> void (*p[10]) (void (*)());
>

still a matter of style and the language in this case. I don't think this
is an "Obfuscation" example.

> Nor does BASIC have stuff like (my C is rusty, just an illustration)
> while (++x << y-- != (f(), 2, null != X(++y)));
> x++;

Again....this is bad style....kill the C programmer before he mutates! And
yeah, saw the first semicolon

Yeah C is cryptic to those that do not know C. But VB is cryptic to some C
programmers. Granted, a lot of C programmers think that it is "cute and
cool and increases their manhood" if they can write their code in one line
versus 2 or three. But It's pretty **** easy to write easily read code in
either language. And guess what? Most C code is still going to get
optimized down to the fastest way when it is compiled. I've had to pull
assembler dumps to prove this to some of my old time C cronies. The while()
line you wrote is just arrogant stupidity. C doesn't have to be cryptic to
be efficient.

[Steve Dee]

Mike,
I'll say it again....it's a matter of where you are comming from. I
love C/C++. I also love VB! C is definately more complex, but it's more
powerful for some things. If you mess with pointers, you **** well better
know what you are doing, but some try and mess with pointers in VB (ObjPtr,
StrPtr, etc) and it generally is a mess. At least C is built for it. Most
C++ programmers don't even know what a pointer is (Oh, this is going to
hurt...I feel the flames already)....they are really just MFC programmers.
You can be VERY productive with C/C++ if you know the language. But you
have to know the language, and no, it's not as easy to pick up as VB. But,
it's Very easy to pick up VB if you know C/C++! It's a trade off. I use
the right tool for the job. Write a GUI in C/C++....that's insane! VB is
every so much nicer......but writting under the cover type support? C/C++
might be better. The debugger in VS is much, much better, and you can write
COM using ATL almost as easily as with VB.

> But don't let me put you off if you like it!

Thanks I won't....but remember, I like VB also!

[Richard Curzon]

2 nice quotes on this topic. (Guess the author, I'll tell you under the
line below)

"I don't see Java or C-sharp as being technically revolutionary or "from the
ground up". Had Java fist been designed from technical principles, it
wouldn't have the ugly and illogical C/C++ syntax."

"New languages [Java, C-sharp] always proclaim their simplicity and denounce
the needless complexities of older languages [C++]. Much of that
"simplicity" is simply immaturity. A language's complexity comes from
dealing with the rather nasty and varied complexities of the real world."

====

Okay, you read that right? Read it now... okay... the auther works at AT&T,
the home of C, the home of C++. In fact, the speaker is the creator of the
C++ language himself. Yes the man whose initials are B.S. by pure
coincidence I might add. It was found in the best Fawcette mag I've seen in
years, the "Future of Software" Winter 2000/2001.

Turns out, only the people who created the durn thing, and nobody else, can
see anything questionable about this thing!

Here're are more AT&T/Bell Lab engineers who can perceive the emperor's bare
butt is hanging out!

** Andrew Koenig, "C Traps and Pitfalls", 1985. "The dangling else clause".
Page 23, "Although this well known problem is not unique to C, it has bitten
C programmers with many years experience".

(Koenig can amend that clause now. It's "Not unique to C", nor C-sharp.
The C-sharp team intentionally ignored this flaw and most others Stroustrup
refers to.)

** Stanley Lippman, "C++ Primer" spends most a good chunk of paper carefully
describing the problem page 94 in my copy.

====

Now here's an example of a dangling else in a VB program.
<oops, can't seem to do it in VB.>

Okay, but we've all heard a VB programmer swearing about matching curly
braces just like C programmers? Haven't we???

There are people who look at floods and plagues and can only see the love
and mercy of God...

.... and there are people who look at C and don't see anything cryptic. They
BADLY need to look at some of the alternatives!

regards
Richard.