Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

[Mike Mitchell]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 23:05:45 -0000, "David Bayley"
<davidb@aebacus.another.spam.filter.com> wrote:

>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>)?............
[snip]

Okay, here's VB6:

Me.cboLookup.AddItem rst!CustomerID & " - " & rst!CompanyName

And here's VB.NET:

Me.cboLookup.Items.Add(rst("CustomerID").value.ToString & " - " &
rst("CompanyName").value.ToString)

Now, which version do you suppose any beginner would prefer to learn
if you told him the above snippets do exactly the same job of filling
a combo box?

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 22:49:22 -0000, "David Bayley"
<davidb@aebacus.another.spam.filter.com> wrote:

>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".

Hang about, how can VB.NET on the one hand be "just as easy", while
some part of it is "slightly" harder? This is illogical.

"No, officer, I was not breaking the speed limit, I was just driving
faster than the law allows."

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 22:49:22 -0000, "David Bayley"
<davidb@aebacus.another.spam.filter.com> wrote:

>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.

What bad habits? VB6 allows a competent programmer to write most kinds
of business critical apps which are absolutely reliable, maintainable,
extendable, and user-friendly. That is why so many millions of lines
of VB code have been written. Bad habits have nothing to do with the
language, but with the competence of the programmer. Sloppy code is
still sloppy, even if it is written in VB.NET. You're not going to
suggest that VB.NET *protects* a GUI gadfly from writing sloppy code,
now are you?

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On 5 Mar 2001 07:22:21 -0800, "Frustrated IT Worker"
<frustrated@nospam.com> wrote:

>.............. With
>classic VB the resources available to this type of programmer are vast.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And database programming is what classic VB excels at. Knocking up a
front end for almost any mainstream database is very straightforward.
There are numerous grids and similar data display and reporting
widgets from third-party vendors you can buy for just a few hundred
dollars.

The possibilities are vast.

So why take them away?

MM

[Jonathan Allen]

> 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?

What are you talking about? VB.Net can be a lot easier for beginners that
VB6. Take a simple console application.

Module Module1
Sub Main()
Console.WriteLine("Hello World")
End Sub
End Module

Next add some user interaction...

Module Module1
Sub Main()
Console.Write("Who are you? ")
s = Console.ReadLine
Console.WriteLine("Hello " & s)
End Sub
End Module

Then maybe some math...

Module Module1
Sub Main()
X = 10
Y = 15
Console.WriteLine(X + Y)
End Sub
End Module


By lesson 10 I think I will introduce declared variables, with types comming
into play 5 lessons or so later.

--
Jonathan Allen

My Bigfoot email account was rejecting messages for no apparent reason.
Therefore I am now using greywolf@cts.com as my email address.



"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>...
>
> > 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!
>
>

[rmeklo]

>Which VB walls have you not yet broken?

I prefer to climb them, maybe that's my problem!

I've scaled them all (we'll ran around a few with the API or third-party
controls), it's the long clawing up time involved (relative to running at
the wall) that occasionally irks me.
VB(6) was not built with the most open architecture (insert dogfood blurb
here)

I believe I'll like .Net but I'll be losing some friends from the VB(A/Classic)
ilk.

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> 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?

In the end, never. In the long run, dirty never turns out to be quick.

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> Okay, here's VB6:
> Me.cboLookup.AddItem rst!CustomerID & " - " & rst!CompanyName
> And here's VB.NET:
> Me.cboLookup.Items.Add(rst("CustomerID").value.ToString & " - " &
> rst("CompanyName").value.ToString)

Really, this is your entire point?

[Sjoerd Verweij]

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

I really don't see that.

[Sjoerd Verweij]

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

Sure, but it would stray off-topic, for I'd dare say we are not typical VB6
developers around here.

Anyhoo, an example from the trenches.

Right now, I'm writing a toolbar/menu bar replacement. In VB6, this would
require some horrendous subclassing and reams and reams of GDI declares. In
the end, I would probably end up with some modules, thirty flat classes and
five interfaces. It would quite probably be done quite quickly, be
non-extensible and something only a real masochist would want to maintain.
Not to mention that pressing Stop during debugging would probably kill the
entire IDE (what's that hook? wha... *poof* -- you know, we've all been
there).

But no, I'm doing this in VB.NET. So I have a CommandControl, from which
BarItems and MenuItems inherit. Windows 2000-like auto-hiding menu items,
and customizability would be implemented there (as opposed to some
interfaces and oodles of plumbing). There's a Renderer that does all the
measuring and drawing, so style can be switched on the fly. Want a new look?
Write a new renderer. And not a Declare in sight. In the end, I'll probably
have a nice class tree with about 20 classes, and maybe one or two
interfaces.

In the end, the code will be better. Why? Because VB has grown up.

However, you might argue that VB6 is easier. Sure, young people are easier
to get along with. But VB6 is easy because it *looks* easy. It's not. Some
here seem to forget the enormous amount of time figuring out what that magic
timesaver actually does, because it's not doing it the way you like it. DF
is a wonderful thing, but when you spend a few weeks debugging race
conditions it starts to lose its luster. Etcetera.

For me, VB.NET is a breath of fresh air. The IDE is better (no, not the
debugger, but I'll trade that for on-the fly syntax checking and real
auto-indent anytime, personally), the language is more powerful, the inner
workings are more obvious and accessible -- though they can be hidden if you
want to, you have real type safety -- if you want to, you have real error
handling -- if you want to.

For developing large applications, there's just no comparison. When building
Fort Knox, I'd rather have some bricks than two-by-fours.

Them's my pennies.

[Mark Burns]

"Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
news:3aa42309@news.devx.com...
> > 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?
>
> What are you talking about? VB.Net can be a lot easier for beginners that
> VB6. Take a simple console application.
>
> Module Module1
> Sub Main()
> Console.WriteLine("Hello World")
> End Sub
> End Module
>
> Next add some user interaction...
>
> Module Module1
> Sub Main()
> Console.Write("Who are you? ")
> s = Console.ReadLine
> Console.WriteLine("Hello " & s)
> End Sub
> End Module
>
> Then maybe some math...
>
> Module Module1
> Sub Main()
> X = 10
> Y = 15
> Console.WriteLine(X + Y)
> End Sub
> End Module
>
>
> By lesson 10 I think I will introduce declared variables, with types
comming
> into play 5 lessons or so later.
>
> --
> Jonathan Allen

You make an excellent point here.
The fact that console applications are now possible, and, in fact, simple -
does change the equation here.

However, how many of those quick & dirty get-this-one-thing-done-right-now
projects will be done as console applications? Were this Windows 3.0-era
user bases we were discussing, I might be inclined to think that a
significant %age might be done that way. However, today, with 5+years of
Win95+-generation desktops abounding, I'd wager the real-world utility % of
console applicatoins to be quite low for that class of applications. So, in
other than classroom-style education - a category to which our hypothetical
professionally-paid "newbie" more than likely does not belong (tho I'll not
discuss whether he/she _should_ belong there...), the corporate
pointy-haireds being cheap, tightwads & all, this might not be as
practically useful a feature in practice is it might in a classroom.

....but is this really a shallow end - or rather a baby pool?

[Mark Burns]

"Sjoerd Verweij" <nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote in message
news:3aa42607$1@news.devx.com...
> > 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?
>
> In the end, never. In the long run, dirty never turns out to be quick.

Heh...well, I guess it's a relative thing, then. If the systems and software
you're dealing with are all pretty clean, you're spot on. However, if the
systems, databases, and applications are already a horrid Rube-Goldberg
disaster-area and you need another fast swath of duct tape...that's another
matter.

[Mark Burns]

"Sjoerd Verweij" <nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote in message
news:3aa427f2$1@news.devx.com...
> > The learning curve to get to hello-world is steeper in .NET.
>
> I really don't see that.

No? OK climb in my handy time machine, here, ok?<*poof* - we take you back
in time to the point where you'd never heard of classes in VB, grab you, and
bring that earlier you forward to today and plop that you down in front of
the VB.Net IDE.>
....still don't see it?
earlySjoerd: "What's this inherits stuff? What's MyBase?"
....remember what % of "VB Programmers"(or was the VB Programs?) never use
classes? ...you were saying again?

[William Cleveland]

Mark Burns wrote:
>
> 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?>
>

I don't remember two letter variable names, but I remember type
suffixes and no Option Explicit. That's how I developed the habit of
never typing a variable name more than once, and from there, how I got
as fast as I am with keyboard cutting and pasting.

Bill

[Mark Burns]

"Sjoerd Verweij" <nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote in message
news:3aa42cf9$1@news.devx.com...
> > Maybe, some of the developers who are actually writing tests
applications
> > in VB.NET would like to chime in on this discussion?
>
> Sure, but it would stray off-topic, for I'd dare say we are not typical
VB6
> developers around here.
>
> Anyhoo, an example from the trenches.
>
> Right now, I'm writing a toolbar/menu bar replacement. In VB6, this would
> require some horrendous subclassing and reams and reams of GDI declares.
In
> the end, I would probably end up with some modules, thirty flat classes
and
> five interfaces. It would quite probably be done quite quickly, be
> non-extensible and something only a real masochist would want to maintain.
> Not to mention that pressing Stop during debugging would probably kill the
> entire IDE (what's that hook? wha... *poof* -- you know, we've all been
> there).
>
> But no, I'm doing this in VB.NET. So I have a CommandControl, from which
> BarItems and MenuItems inherit. Windows 2000-like auto-hiding menu items,
> and customizability would be implemented there (as opposed to some
> interfaces and oodles of plumbing). There's a Renderer that does all the
> measuring and drawing, so style can be switched on the fly. Want a new
look?
> Write a new renderer. And not a Declare in sight. In the end, I'll
probably
> have a nice class tree with about 20 classes, and maybe one or two
> interfaces.
>
> In the end, the code will be better. Why? Because VB has grown up.
>
> However, you might argue that VB6 is easier. Sure, young people are easier
> to get along with. But VB6 is easy because it *looks* easy. It's not. Some
> here seem to forget the enormous amount of time figuring out what that
magic
> timesaver actually does, because it's not doing it the way you like it. DF
> is a wonderful thing, but when you spend a few weeks debugging race
> conditions it starts to lose its luster. Etcetera.
>
> For me, VB.NET is a breath of fresh air. The IDE is better (no, not the
> debugger, but I'll trade that for on-the fly syntax checking and real
> auto-indent anytime, personally), the language is more powerful, the inner
> workings are more obvious and accessible -- though they can be hidden if
you
> want to, you have real type safety -- if you want to, you have real error
> handling -- if you want to.
>
> For developing large applications, there's just no comparison. When
building
> Fort Knox, I'd rather have some bricks than two-by-fours.
>
> Them's my pennies.

Those aren't pennies tho - them's larger denominations.
Hint: thread title: BEGINNERS. Beginners don't code new controls. Beginners
are struggling trying to figure out how to put boldface 14-point text into a
label caption, both in the IDE and then in code.