Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language? - Page 2


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 165

Thread: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

  1. #16
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

    "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote in message <news:3aa2b736@news.devx.com>...

    > Jon,
    > <inline>


    > > Time and again studies on how humans learn show that they do it by moving
    > > from a simplistic and limited model to ones that are gradually less and
    > > less so. A true beginner, required to meet very high standards from day

    > one
    > > is likely to have less interest in learning and be more likely to drop out
    > > either actually or in spirit than one who receives positive reinforcement
    > > for hisher successes, limited and ill-gotten as they might seem to us.

    > Other
    > > theories of learning simply do not hold up when applied to the real world.

    >
    > This is the crux of my argument. Thank You for putting it so eloquently and
    > succinctly.


    So VB.NOT slaps us right back to Smalltalk, in which it seems you must
    first eat, drink, and breathe the entire class library before you can
    put up so much as a "hello world" window? VB6 doesn't force anything
    on anyone that VB1 didn't, allowing newbies to start with dipping a toe
    into the shallow end and gradually wade in over their heads. =) VB.NOT
    does NOT have a "shallow end" of the pool?

    --
    Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Greed = God? <http://www.xenu.net/>
    WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
    because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!



  2. #17
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message <news:3aa2339c.4042769@news.devx.com>...

    > But only by planning this as a military manoevre will there be any
    > possibility of excluding the noisy, empty-headed responses so rife in
    > this ng.


    Ask any military officer what usually happens when a plan meets reality.

    --
    Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Greed = God? <http://www.xenu.net/>
    WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
    because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!



  3. #18
    David Bayley Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

    Jon,

    > However, the proposition that if VB6 is suitable for beginners, then

    VB.NET
    > would be even better suited to them seems to go against the common wisdom,
    > and the experience of many of the people posting in the newsgroup.


    I think it is difficult for everybody here (me included, and VB *is* my
    primary tool), to put themselves back in the position of learning VB from
    scratch. Certainly there are lots of people who think VB.NET is more
    difficult, but I don't agree that it is common wisdom. And even if it was,
    then common wisdom would be wrong IMO <g>.

    > Although your step-by-step defense of VB.NET's design choices was cogent
    > and well-written, it did not address the issue that many of the concepts

    you
    > cite as being not-wierd must be learned before an application can be

    written
    > in VB.NET. Their counterparts in VB6 can, in most cases be ignored.
    >
    > Arguing that they _should_ be learned does not lessen the requirement that
    > they _must_ be. The many things that _must_ be learned before one can fly

    an
    > airplane is what makes it hard to learn to fly.


    If you look at the points I raised, they consisted of concepts that _don't_
    have to be learnt. Sure there are lots of things that need to be learnt in
    *both* VB and VB.NET. My argument is that by using one consistant OO model,
    it is _easier_ to learn them.

    > Slightly? I would be willing to bet that someone with 8 hours of

    experience
    > with VB6 could get a simple application compiled and running more quickly
    > that most or all of us could get the same application functional in

    VB.NET,
    > and I mean no disrespect to anyone frequenting this ng.


    Why? I need some concrete examples. The newbie creates a new project with
    a blank form, drag-&-drops a button and textbox on to it, double-clicks the
    button and writes some event handling code. This is what makes VB so easy,
    and VB.NET is just as easy in this respect. The only thing that is
    "slightly" harder, is the template form code includes some other "stuff".

    The Form Generated code however is a useful learning tool, and actually
    _improves_ the learning curve. I imagine that the newbie will find it
    extremely helpful to use the designer to create a form and set some
    properties, then examine the auto-generated code to see how it should be
    done at run-time.

    > As to your use of the word, 'test," isn't that what someone new to VB is
    > supposed to be writing? I certainly do not think that my division would

    ever
    > allow someone to write production code of any sort until they could write
    > test applications of gradually increasing complexity.


    I'm still not convinced that the test app is significantly harder. The key
    metric however, is how difficult it is to get to a production app. The
    point at which a test app is possible is merely a psychological feel good
    factor.

    > Time and again studies on how humans learn show that they do it by moving
    > from a simplistic and limited model to ones that are gradually less and
    > less so. A true beginner, required to meet very high standards from day

    one
    > is likely to have less interest in learning and be more likely to drop out
    > either actually or in spirit than one who receives positive reinforcement
    > for hisher successes, limited and ill-gotten as they might seem to us.

    Other
    > theories of learning simply do not hold up when applied to the real world.


    I agree. But the end goal is to be able to write production apps (I'm not
    talking about a high standard or complicated app, just real-world working
    apps). There is no point making it easy to write a test app, if it means
    adopting bad habits that need to be scrapped and re-learnt to reach the end
    goal and pass the final exam. Small steps can still be taken... i.e. Step
    1: open a new project, drag-&-drop a few controls, and write some simple
    event handling code.

    --
    David.




  4. #19
    David Bayley Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

    Mark,

    > Does have to learn about an object framweork and OOA/OOD rules _really_

    help
    > us solve our problems the most effectivly as often as we think it does?


    OOA/OOD no... that is only useful when you have a complex problem domain.
    But an object framework most definitely helps! The object frameworks
    introduced in MS Office are a clear example. I for one, found those a huge
    boost in productivity and ease-of-learning, and I know a number of
    non-programmers (who wouldn't have touched the old macros) that have
    benefited from them too. Again, it is the simple and consistant model that
    is the key enabler here.

    > In
    > your development excperience, how many times have you solved real

    problems -
    > and saves hours of effort in the process - by doing something quick &

    dirty?
    > <talking past you to David Bayley et. al, here Jon>


    You can still do the quick & dirty. I need concrete examples of why that
    isn't possible in VB.NET.

    > > Time and again studies on how humans learn show that they do it by

    moving
    > > from a simplistic and limited model to ones that are gradually less and
    > > less so...

    >
    > This is the crux of my argument. Thank You for putting it so eloquently

    and
    > succinctly.


    I'll raise the same point that I made to Jon. What is it exactly that is so
    hard in VB.NET, to make those first tentative steps compared to VB
    (analagies are not allowed <g>)? i.e. open a project, drag-&-drop some
    controls, and double-click them to write some simple event handling code.

    --
    David.





  5. #20
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

    On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 20:07:24 +0100, "Gregor R. Peisker"
    <gregor@peisker.de> wrote:

    >So VB6, while it wasn't a bad tool all in all, was a poor learning tool.
    >VB.Net has a more consistent programming model, and the learning process is
    >more steady.


    All you need to do is show a beginner a small-ish app written in VB6,
    and then the equivalent code written in VB.NET. I think you'll find
    that most, if not all, beginners will choose the "classic" VB method.

    However, many have been saying that VB.NET is really a "BASIC" version
    of C#, and who would claim C# is less difficult than VB6? So, if VB6
    is, say, 10 points on the "easy" scale and C# is 5 points, then VB.NET
    must be somewhere between C# and VB6, say, around 7. Ergo, even on the
    simplest of scales VB6 *is* an easier language for beginners to pick
    up and run with.

    Here's an example using arrays: In VB6, you tell the beginner, (s)he
    can create a list of items in memory, i.e. an array. You explain that
    the list can start anywhere, even a negative number, and finish
    anywhere. If you have temperatures that go from 32 to 212, you can
    create a corresponding array.

    Now you tell the beginner about VB.NET arrays and that they must
    always start from zero. If the beginner is a true beginner, you'll
    have to get over the stumbling block we all had once about the magic
    of counting from zero, which none of us does naturally. To the
    beginner, starting from zero simply will not appear to be as simple as
    starting from 32. To the beginner, his array will, in his head,
    continue to start from 32, as conceptually that is his first value.
    So, in his head, and later in code, he will have to continually
    translate between 32 and zero.

    Therefore, for most, if not all, beginners, classic VB arrays will be
    simpler to grasp and use, hence VB.NET will not be seen as easier to
    learn. Also observe that a language, to be easier, has to be easier in
    every aspect. If only one facet of a language is easier, but all other
    facets are more difficult, then that language must overall be harder.
    For example, compare a cycle ride over flat terrain with a similar
    cycle ride that has a dip in the middle. Most riders will initially
    look forward to the freewheeling down into the dip, but not relish the
    thought of pedalling up the other side. But on reflection, the flat
    path is always the easiest overall, as it is the shortest to reach the
    destination, plus on the flat path you can always see what lies ahead
    and anticipate where you're going next, whereas you never know what
    may be awaiting you in the dip, though by the time you reach it, it's
    too late to do anything about it - you're committed anyway.

    MM


  6. #21
    Gregor R. Peisker Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

    Hi Mike,

    > All you need to do is show a beginner a small-ish app written in VB6,
    > and then the equivalent code written in VB.NET. I think you'll find
    > that most, if not all, beginners will choose the "classic" VB method.


    I'm not sure if the overall method (or what do they call it, the
    "paradigm"?) is all that different. God (or whoever, depending on how this
    metaphor is localized) is in the details. Also, classic VB has been arround
    for a long time, so it's more familiar.

    > However, many have been saying that VB.NET is really a "BASIC" version
    > of C#, and who would claim C# is less difficult than VB6? So, if VB6
    > is, say, 10 points on the "easy" scale and C# is 5 points, then VB.NET
    > must be somewhere between C# and VB6, say, around 7. Ergo, even on the
    > simplest of scales VB6 *is* an easier language for beginners to pick
    > up and run with.


    I'd say Basic is easier than C because of its straightforward, make-sense
    syntax, and other language features. I know many people think classic VB's
    forms designer really was the killer, but not me. As for C#, it's closer in
    terms of ease than C++, but that's not the point. Anyway, the ratings really
    depend on what you do - just show the beginner the code for using
    SHBrowseForFolder in classic VB, and compare that to the new FolderBrowser
    class.

    > Here's an example using arrays: In VB6, you tell the beginner, (s)he
    > can create a list of items in memory, i.e. an array. You explain that
    > the list can start anywhere, even a negative number, and finish
    > anywhere. If you have temperatures that go from 32 to 212, you can
    > create a corresponding array.


    Yes. I could make a fool out of myself and claim that arrays are actually an
    advanced feature. But I don't. Now, actually most people would say the new
    way is easier, and in fact, there is some value in having consistency. But I
    think user-defined bounds aren't hard to understand to begin with, and you
    get a lot of usability from them. To say that the butchering of this feature
    makes the tool easier to use is foolish, because that implies users are real
    dullards, but I wouldn't go that far in definding my claim that VB.Net is
    easy.

    You've got a point here.

    > Also observe that a language, to be easier, has to be easier in
    > every aspect. If only one facet of a language is easier, but all other
    > facets are more difficult, then that language must overall be harder.
    > For example, compare a cycle ride over flat terrain with a similar
    > cycle ride that has a dip in the middle. Most riders will initially
    > look forward to the freewheeling down into the dip, but not relish the
    > thought of pedalling up the other side. But on reflection, the flat
    > path is always the easiest overall, as it is the shortest to reach the
    > destination, plus on the flat path you can always see what lies ahead
    > and anticipate where you're going next, whereas you never know what
    > may be awaiting you in the dip, though by the time you reach it, it's
    > too late to do anything about it - you're committed anyway.


    My impression is that, with classic VB you rode over flat terrain for some
    time, and then you had to ditch the bike altogether, because it was too
    heave to carry with you on the free climb up the rock that lay before you.
    VB.Net, on the other hand, is like a slightly uphill ride, but the can stay
    on your bike.

    > MM


    Regards,
    Gregor







  7. #22
    Wally McClure Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

    yes and no is the answer.

    yes it is a beginners language because it's syntax is still realitvely
    simple when compared to C Sharp, Java, and other languages.

    no because there are many more advanced concepts in the product. While
    begineers do not need to use items, such as threading, the concepts are
    clearly beyond a beginner's skillsets.

    Wally

    "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote in message
    news:3aa1c683@news.devx.com...
    > The above is a question I have been (instinctively?) holding the answer

    out
    > to be an emphatic: NO!
    > I have even been going so far as to state that BASIC is no longer the
    > appropriate name for this new language, which Microsoft is calling Visual
    > Basic.Net, preferring instead the shortened acronym Visual ASIC.Net as

    being
    > more correct for this new language.
    >
    > However, David Bayley seems to think the opposite, and the purpose of this
    > thread is to begin an examination of that question - hopefully from a
    > reasoned, academic angle.
    > So, please, do participate, but please try to leave the emotionally-laden
    > stuff at the door, and any/all personal invectives are expressedly
    > UN-invited to this conversation.
    >
    > There, that said, I will begin this discussion with a recap of a thread

    from
    > the vb.dotnet.technical newsgroup entitled: "Resource Management in

    VB.NOT?"
    >
    > >>>Begin Recap<<<

    > Kathleen Dollard-Joeris, Bob Butler, Jeff Piel & David Bayley had a
    > sub-thread on the C# "Using" syntax...
    > <Bob Butler>
    > If you are saying that using the proposed construct is only valid if you
    > have a reference to an object that can safely have the Dispose method

    called
    > at the end then it's probably a bad idea. It only handles a subset of the
    > DF issues but makes it look like DF has been restored and I think that'd

    be
    > confusing for a lot of people and lead to a great deal of misuse. If DF

    can
    > not be provided in a fully consistent manner then I don't think the

    language
    > should attempt it at all.
    > </Bob Butler>
    > <Me>
    > BINGO!!
    > That is precisely why I despise the dispose() pattern. It is half-assed

    and
    > half-baked.
    > In classic VB we USED to be able to rely on the refcounting semantics

    under
    > the hood to do a 100% good job - up to the point where we got fancy enough
    > in our code to bring circular reference problems into the mix.
    >
    > This is simply no longer the case, and therefore the enitre resource
    > management topic/problem are much more important and significant to
    > lower-level VB coders than ever before. This represents a loss to the VB
    > world, not a gain.
    > </Me>
    > <Patrick Steele>
    > It's all relative.
    > One man's garbage (sorry for the pun!) is another man's treasure...
    > </Patrick Steele>
    > <Me>
    > ...Not for the newbies it isn't!
    > Let me ask you this: Which language, VB6 or VB.Net (I'm artificially
    > limiting your choices to just those for discussion purposes, and for these
    > discussion purposes, assume that this question occurs 2 weeks after FCS of
    > the VS.Net - and all the "It's Beta" objections are gone), would you

    rather
    > put a newbie programmer in front of with an initial small-scale DB
    > application assignment on his/her first week of the job? You and they both
    > will be graded on speed of completion and the performance/stability of the
    > application produced, but THEY will have to do all the work, not you....?
    >
    > </Me>
    > <David Bayley>
    > VB.NET of course. It is *SOOOOO* much more consistent and easier to learn
    > for the newbie.
    > That's what people are complaining about!!! They cleaned VB out and made

    it
    > superb for the newbie, but backwards-compatibility was thrown out the
    > window. Honestly, I started listing all the benefits but just snipped it
    > all, since the list just went on, and on, and on, and on.
    > </David Bayley>
    > <snipped Me>
    > <David Bayley again>
    > ...the arguments for VB.NET were lots of small things that
    > individually didn't amount to much, but put it all together...
    > Essentially I felt myself having to justify every little change that has
    > been made in VB.NET (putting backwards-compatibility aside of course). I
    > think it will make a refreshing discussion, and the instinctive reaction

    of
    > a well tuned VB'er is to view VB.NET as "more complicated"...
    > </David Bayley>
    > >>>End Recap<<<

    >
    > ...which pretty much brings us current, save for a parting "Visual ASIC it
    > ain't!" shot David fired at me.<g>
    >
    > Ok, David, Here's the floor, let's see that list of what makes VB.Net
    > "*SOOOOO* much more consistent and easier to learn for the newbie." than

    VB6
    > is...
    >
    >




  8. #23
    Frustrated IT Worker Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?


    Maybe, some of the developers who are actually writing tests applications
    in VB.NET would like to chime in on this discussion?

    I think it all depends on how you are using the programming language. What
    I mean is that after reading a 1997 article by Scott Ambler (and a more recent
    one as well from the author's web site) on the difficulties of mapping objects
    to relational databases, I question whether a newbie would have sufficient
    knowledge to create a relatively simple database application in VB.NET. With
    classic VB the resources available to this type of programmer are vast.

    I doubt that most CS graduates have even written a business application in
    Java or C++ while in school. Over the last two years, I have browsed through
    numerous Java books and only a handful discussed business application development
    issues.



  9. #24
    Jon Ogden Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

    David, thanks for the careful and thought provoking reply. I've edited some
    of what you said, only for bandwidth.
    "David Bayley"

    > I think it is difficult for everybody here (me included, and VB *is* my
    > primary tool), to put themselves back in the position of learning VB from
    > scratch. Certainly there are lots of people who think VB.NET is more
    > difficult, but I don't agree that it is common wisdom. And even if it

    was,
    > then common wisdom would be wrong IMO <g>.


    Well, common wisdom is often wrong, but methinks that in here we have
    uncommon wisdom.

    For my sins I have been asked to shepherd a number of experienced cobol
    programmers through the intricacies of VB6. For me, therefore, this thread
    is not academic, nor is it as difficult for me to understand and speak to
    the process of learning the language.

    > If you look at the points I raised, they consisted of concepts that

    _don't_
    > have to be learnt. Sure there are lots of things that need to be learnt

    in
    > *both* VB and VB.NET. My argument is that by using one consistant OO

    model,
    > it is _easier_ to learn them.


    I certainly agree that there are lots of things that need be learned in
    both, but all numbers greater than 50 are not equal to each other. The
    learning curve to get to hello-world is steeper in .NET.
    On the other hand, your clarification means I now think that you are
    pointing out that since VB has been "rationalized" in .NET, there are far
    fewer gotchas waiting to be memorized. In that sense, a programmer is freed,
    once heshe climbs happy mountain to focus on the job. And I agree.

    > > Slightly? I would be willing to bet that someone with 8 hours of

    > experience
    > > with VB6 could get a simple application compiled and running more

    quickly
    > > that most or all of us could get the same application functional in

    > VB.NET,
    > > and I mean no disrespect to anyone frequenting this ng.

    >
    > Why? I need some concrete examples. The newbie creates a new project

    with
    > a blank form, drag-&-drops a button and textbox on to it, double-clicks

    the
    > button and writes some event handling code.


    Actually, I was thinking of a working app - one I use in my first class:
    blank form > dbgrid > adocontrol > set a few properties > run. _No_
    code.
    (The coballers look at me as if I have just pulled an elephant out of a
    tophat -- and so I have. I also go on to point out just how *&^%*ing
    dangerous doing that would be except on a test database on a test server in
    a test mode.)

    >This is what makes VB so easy,
    > and VB.NET is just as easy in this respect. The only thing that is
    > "slightly" harder, is the template form code includes some other "stuff".
    > <snip> I imagine that the newbie will find it
    > extremely helpful to use the designer to create a form and set some
    > properties, then examine the auto-generated code to see how it should be
    > done at run-time.


    Why do you imagine that? When you learn to drive, it is _always_ easier to
    learn on an automatic than a standard shift car.

    > > As to your use of the word, 'test," isn't that what someone new to VB is
    > > supposed to be writing? I certainly do not think that my division would

    > ever
    > > allow someone to write production code of any sort until they could

    write
    > > test applications of gradually increasing complexity.

    >
    > I'm still not convinced that the test app is significantly harder. The

    key
    > metric however, is how difficult it is to get to a production app. The
    > point at which a test app is possible is merely a psychological feel good
    > factor.


    Psychological feel-good factors are the primary tool in assisting someone to
    learn. If you think of them as "merely," you are making a mistake. ****,
    even when I was a DI in the army, we used strokes to get the trainees where
    they needed to be.

    > > Time and again studies on how humans learn show that they do it by

    moving
    > > from a simplistic and limited model to ones that are gradually less and
    > > less so. A true beginner, required to meet very high standards from day

    > one
    > > is likely to have less interest in learning and be more likely to drop

    out
    > > either actually or in spirit than one who receives positive

    reinforcement
    > > for hisher successes, limited and ill-gotten as they might seem to us.

    > Other
    > > theories of learning simply do not hold up when applied to the real

    world.
    >
    > I agree. But the end goal is to be able to write production apps (I'm not
    > talking about a high standard or complicated app, just real-world working
    > apps).


    Of course that's the ultimate goal and we are discussing the best method of
    getting to the point where one can learn to write production code. This
    thread capitalizes "Beginners" in its subject, does it not? Early learning
    is as different from late learning as early binding is from late. <grin>

    There is no point making it easy to write a test app, if it means
    > adopting bad habits that need to be scrapped and re-learnt to reach the

    end
    > goal and pass the final exam.


    Bad habits are learned and forgotten every day. To tell you the truth, I
    think this is a chimera that has been used to put down VB from the day it
    was invented. It was also applied to automatic transmissions, power steering
    and power brakes, iirc. It may have originally been applied to wagons - "If
    you cover the **** things, sonny, you gonna larn yerself all sorts of bad
    habits. You won't see the Indians coming, until it's too late!"

    I've _seldom_ met a reasonably intelligent programmer who is not constantly
    looking for ways to do things better. For instance, I learned to fish using
    a bamboo pole that had fishingline tied to the end of it. Such a simple
    beginning did not preclude my learning the intricacies of fly-fishing, nor
    keep me from recognizing the benefits of doing so. (Sorry for all the
    similes. I am being snowed in as I write and it may be affecting my mind.)

    > Small steps can still be taken... i.e. Step
    > 1: open a new project, drag-&-drop a few controls, and write some simple
    > event handling code.


    I didn't say it was impossible - I just said it was harder....for instance,
    as you pointed out yesterday, if there's an error in that "simple event
    handling code" - you won't be able to edit and continue. To some extent,
    this looms so large in the early learning process, that I'm not sure that
    everything else we have talked about matters in comparison.

    Good Luck!



  10. #25
    Jon Ogden Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?


    "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster"

    > Ask any military officer what usually happens when a plan meets reality.


    I was an NCO, I'd offer my opinion, but I think DEVX wouldn't allow it to
    remain. <grin>




  11. #26
    Glen Miille Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

    Well in my experience, everytime a plan met with reality they tried to use a
    crowbar on reality to make it fit the plan!

    Glen

    "Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net> wrote in message
    news:3aa3b192$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster"
    >
    > > Ask any military officer what usually happens when a plan meets reality.

    >
    > I was an NCO, I'd offer my opinion, but I think DEVX wouldn't allow it to
    > remain. <grin>
    >
    >
    >




  12. #27
    rmeklo Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?


    with classic VB you rode over flat terrain for some
    >time

    90% was easy

    then you had to ditch the bike altogether
    the other 10% you were on your own

    >VB.Net on the other hand, is like a slightly uphill ride

    80% easy, the other 20% you can work out through extending the framework.

    I've run at the (VB) wall often, I hope your analogy holds as well for VB.Net
    as I think it does for Delphi.

  13. #28
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?


    "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
    news:3aa2c540@news.devx.com...
    > "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote in message

    <news:3aa2b736@news.devx.com>...
    >
    > So VB.NOT slaps us right back to Smalltalk, in which it seems you must
    > first eat, drink, and breathe the entire class library before you can
    > put up so much as a "hello world" window? VB6 doesn't force anything
    > on anyone that VB1 didn't, allowing newbies to start with dipping a toe
    > into the shallow end and gradually wade in over their heads. =) VB.NOT
    > does NOT have a "shallow end" of the pool?


    I think that is far closer to reality than should make any experienced VB
    Developer, or, for that matter, anyone at MS who wears a "VB.Net Development
    Team" Logo on their shirts, very comfortable at all.




  14. #29
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?


    "Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net> wrote in message
    news:3aa3af34$1@news.devx.com...
    > David, thanks for the careful and thought provoking reply. I've edited

    some
    > of what you said, only for bandwidth.
    > "David Bayley"
    >
    > For my sins<?> I have been asked to shepherd a number of experienced cobol
    > programmers through the intricacies of VB6.


    <guffaw> What'd you do? "Sleep with" three different Boss' Wives, Daughters
    & Mothers? ...in the same day? ...on their desks? ...with the
    intercom/speakerphone on?!<g>

    > For me, therefore, this thread
    > is not academic, nor is it as difficult for me to understand and speak to
    > the process of learning the language.
    >
    > > If you look at the points I raised, they consisted of concepts that

    > _don't_
    > > have to be learnt. Sure there are lots of things that need to be learnt

    > in
    > > *both* VB and VB.NET. My argument is that by using one consistant OO

    > model,
    > > it is _easier_ to learn them.

    >
    > I certainly agree that there are lots of things that need be learned in
    > both, but all numbers greater than 50 are not equal to each other.


    Word up.

    >The learning curve to get to hello-world is steeper in .NET.


    Precisely the problem, and it matters not if we're talking about BobB's A,
    B, C, or D-type programmers. That hill must be climbed _first_, and no
    matter what the GUI does do for/with you, there is just no getting around
    that point.

    > On the other hand, your clarification means I now think that you are
    > pointing out that since VB has been "rationalized" in .NET, there are far
    > fewer gotchas waiting to be memorized. In that sense, a programmer is

    freed,
    > once heshe climbs happy mountain to focus on the job. And I agree.


    ...as do I. I think we're all basically saying the same thing here, and if
    there's to be any real argument left in this topic, I guess it is: is that
    initial learning curve an anthill, molehill, gentle rolling appalachian
    hill, or a Rockies/Everest? ...to which there can be no single, simple
    grand-unifying answer.

    > Actually, I was thinking of a working app - one I use in my first class:
    > blank form > dbgrid > adocontrol > set a few properties > run. _No_
    > code.
    > (The coballers look at me as if I have just pulled an elephant out of a
    > tophat -- and so I have. I also go on to point out just how *&^%*ing
    > dangerous doing that would be except on a test database on a test server

    in
    > a test mode.)


    Do you also point out how USEFUL that can be for those frequent/occasional
    <YMMV> one-off "fix this database now" problem resolutions?

    > >This is what makes VB so easy,
    > > and VB.NET is just as easy in this respect. The only thing that is
    > > "slightly" harder, is the template form code includes some other

    "stuff".
    > > <snip> I imagine that the newbie will find it
    > > extremely helpful to use the designer to create a form and set some
    > > properties, then examine the auto-generated code to see how it should be
    > > done at run-time.

    >
    > Why do you imagine that? When you learn to drive, it is _always_ easier

    to
    > learn on an automatic than a standard shift car.


    ....but that analogy fails because in order to drive either you need no
    understand much about internal combustion engines. Here, in VB.Net, how far
    can you get without understanding MyBase, which leads directly to
    understanding subclassing...hardly a beginner's topic in any programming
    language coursework I've ever heard of.

    > Psychological feel-good factors are the primary tool in assisting someone

    to
    > learn. If you think of them as "merely," you are making a mistake. ****,
    > even when I was a DI in the army, we used strokes to get the trainees

    where
    > they needed to be.


    You were a DI? Aww...Man, I pity those poor Cobol-ers you have at your
    mercy!
    "MOVE 3 to X?? WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS IS? COBOL or VB?? DROP AND GIVE ME
    TWENTY!!!"<g>

    > Of course that's the ultimate goal and we are discussing the best method

    of
    > getting to the point where one can learn to write production code. This
    > thread capitalizes "Beginners" in its subject, does it not? Early

    learning
    > is as different from late learning as early binding is from late. <grin>


    Good catch! ;-)

    > Bad habits are learned and forgotten every day. To tell you the truth, I
    > think this is a chimera that has been used to put down VB from the day it
    > was invented. It was also applied to automatic transmissions, power

    steering
    > and power brakes, iirc. It may have originally been applied to wagons -

    "If
    > you cover the **** things, sonny, you gonna larn yerself all sorts of bad
    > habits. You won't see the Indians coming, until it's too late!"


    Also, as the rules change over time, what was once "standard practice"
    becomes a "bad habit", so worrying overmuch about learning bad habits cal
    leave you just chasing your tails endlessly - and useful code it the goal,
    right? <anybody remember the days of coding in BASIC with two-letter
    variable names & type-suffuxes?>

    > (Sorry for all the similes. I am being snowed in as I write and it may be
    > affecting my mind.)


    heh...s'Ok...blame me for spreading the similie contageon.<g>

    > > Small steps can still be taken... i.e. Step
    > > 1: open a new project, drag-&-drop a few controls, and write some

    simple
    > > event handling code.

    >
    > I didn't say it was impossible - I just said it was harder....for

    instance,
    > as you pointed out yesterday, if there's an error in that "simple event
    > handling code" - you won't be able to edit and continue. To some extent,
    > this looms so large in the early learning process, that I'm not sure that
    > everything else we have talked about matters in comparison.


    Yup! =(




  15. #30
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

    "rmeklo" <rbmeklo@MEDIAONE.NET> wrote in message <news:3aa3cd9d$1@news.devx.com>...

    > with classic VB you rode over flat terrain for some
    > >time

    > 90% was easy
    >
    > then you had to ditch the bike altogether
    > the other 10% you were on your own


    Google to the rescue?

    > >VB.Net on the other hand, is like a slightly uphill ride

    > 80% easy, the other 20% you can work out through extending the framework.
    >
    > I've run at the (VB) wall often, I hope your analogy holds as well for VB.Net
    > as I think it does for Delphi.


    Which VB walls have you not yet broken?

    --
    Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Space Cooties! <http://www.xenu.net/>
    WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
    because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!



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