Sticking with VB.NET

[Ian Lowe]

Playing with the Beta, I realized that I had a choice. Stick with VB and
learn the new VB.NET, or migrate now to C# while to world was young. Never
having used a C-syntax language before, I poked around and realized I could
probably learn it relatively easily, especially compared to learning C++ (I
have two books on learning C++...I don't have the time to figure it out).

I've decided to stick with VB.NET for one main reason: syntax. C# continues
to use non-intuitive syntax. Concidering that C# is a high-level language,
this is a complete arbitrary (or rather, marketing) decision. I believe that
languages should be moving towards more commonsensical, or English-like
syntax to promote wider adoption of programming and more time spent solving
problems rather than learning syntax.

I believe that using C# would support an elitist and narrow vision of
language evolution. I will continue to use VB.NET in the hopes of
encouraging future development of more "natural-language" programming
languages.

How do others feel about this?

Ian.

[Jason Kaczor]

"Ian Lowe" <idlowe@home.com> wrote:
>Never having used a C-syntax language before, I poked around and realized

>I could probably learn it relatively easily, especially compared to
>learning C++ (I have two books on learning C++...I don't have the time to

>figure it out).

Likewise, though I have used Java, I hate the C-style-syntax.

>I've decided to stick with VB.NET for one main reason: syntax. C#
>continues to use non-intuitive syntax.

<shrug />, so does Java, so does JavaScript.

>I believe that languages should be moving towards more commonsensical, or

>English-like syntax to promote wider adoption of programming and more
>time spent solving problems rather than learning syntax.

Couldn't agree more (Go, go, go Kylix & Object Pascal... ra ra ra!)

>I believe that using C# would support an elitist and narrow vision of
>language evolution.

Well, couldn't be any worse than many C++ MFC/ATL guys wrinkling their noses
at us "vb-slime"...

>I will continue to use VB.NET in the hopes of encouraging future
>development of more "natural-language" programming languages.

Sigh, still have some optimism left. I myself am going to start in on C#...
It is, and will continue to be the premier language for .NET.

The latest code samples from Microsoft? I'll betchya their in C# first...
The latest language features? C# (See thread about XML doc, XML persistence)...

Personally I feel that it is in my best interest to learn this C-syntax that
is remarkably similar to other syntaxes and technologies. I hate it now,
but frankly I would hate being a "2nd class" citizen under VB.NET even more.

>How do others feel about this?

At first I was in complete love with VB.NET. Over time I'm finding that
C# seems to be the area for me to focus on.

>Ian.

Regards
Jason Kaczor

[Manohar Kamath]

Ian,

I think your decision is way too easy. I have worked with Assembler (I used
to love it), C, C++, a bit of Java and then VB. For me, choosing C# is like
going back to my roots, while VB.NET would provide a simpler transition. I
think I might learn both languages - always helps to know more

Although I agree a programming language should be simple (not necessarily
English-like), I respectfully disagree that it should be the only reason one
should pick the language. Doing that would be like learning to fly without
knowing about bernoulli's principle or weather or wind patterns. Yes, one
could fly, but with a good foundation one could not only fly, but could also
manage in troubled times.

My perspective is this - C like languages provide a great insight into
programming principles - pointers and stuff. Once equipped with these
principles, one can choose any other language that he/she is comfortable
with.

--
Manohar Kamath
www.dotnet101.com - .NET Tutorials
www.dotnetwire.com - .NET News
www.dotnetbooks.com - .NET Books


"Ian Lowe" <idlowe@home.com> wrote in message
news:3aa7fa35$1@news.devx.com...
> Playing with the Beta, I realized that I had a choice. Stick with VB and
> learn the new VB.NET, or migrate now to C# while to world was young. Never
> having used a C-syntax language before, I poked around and realized I
could
> probably learn it relatively easily, especially compared to learning C++
(I
> have two books on learning C++...I don't have the time to figure it out).
>
> I've decided to stick with VB.NET for one main reason: syntax. C#
continues
> to use non-intuitive syntax. Concidering that C# is a high-level language,
> this is a complete arbitrary (or rather, marketing) decision. I believe
that
> languages should be moving towards more commonsensical, or English-like
> syntax to promote wider adoption of programming and more time spent
solving
> problems rather than learning syntax.
>
> I believe that using C# would support an elitist and narrow vision of
> language evolution. I will continue to use VB.NET in the hopes of
> encouraging future development of more "natural-language" programming
> languages.
>
> How do others feel about this?
>
> Ian.
>
>

[Larry Serflaten]

"Ian Lowe" <idlowe@home.com> wrote
> How do others feel about this?

I am reserving judgment until after the products are released.
Although I have mostly played with VB.Net, as others pointed
out, C# may be better supported....

LFS

[Ian Lowe]

Hi, Jason,

Stuffs been <snip>'d throughout. Comments inline

> >I've decided to stick with VB.NET for one main reason: syntax. C#
> >continues to use non-intuitive syntax.
>
> <shrug />, so does Java, so does JavaScript.

That's largely the point. Other "popular" languages are changing the
underlyng system (OO and all of that) but keeping the same old syntax. The
only reason to keep the old syntax is to make it more friendly to the
already-C'd programmers. However, I would suggest more gains in market share
and productivity could be made by coming up with a more commonsensical
syntax.

> Couldn't agree more (Go, go, go Kylix & Object Pascal... ra ra ra!)

Don't know these. Are their syntaxes (sp?) better?

> >I believe that using C# would support an elitist and narrow vision of
> >language evolution.
>
> Well, couldn't be any worse than many C++ MFC/ATL guys wrinkling their
noses
> at us "vb-slime"...

This is what I mean elitist. "Only people who can properly dereference a
static pointer to a dynamically created memory block are real programmers."
(Does that even make sense?). This gets in the way of people cooperating to
improve the overall environment. Its like someone telling you you don't
really speak English unless you can properly identify gerunds or
prepositional phrases in any given sentence.

> Personally I feel that it is in my best interest to learn this C-syntax
that
> is remarkably similar to other syntaxes and technologies. I hate it now,
> but frankly I would hate being a "2nd class" citizen under VB.NET even
more.

And this gets my goat. I don't mind being a 2nd class citizen. I don't have
time to master pointer manipulation. I've got a job to do. What does bother
me is the sense that I'm not really programming because my (non-tech) boss
can take a stab at deciphering my code. That's bad? That's good! Well, maybe
not the boss part. But language shouldn't get in the way of application of
logic to solve a problem (ie, programming).

> >How do others feel about this?
>
> At first I was in complete love with VB.NET. Over time I'm finding that
> C# seems to be the area for me to focus on.
>
> >Ian.
>
> Regards
> Jason Kaczor

Ian.

[Jason Kaczor]

"Ian Lowe" <idlowe@home.com> wrote:
>
>That's largely the point. Other "popular" languages are changing the
>underlyng system (OO and all of that) but keeping the same old syntax. The
>only reason to keep the old syntax is to make it more friendly to the
>already-C'd programmers. However, I would suggest more gains in market
>share and productivity could be made by coming up with a more
>commonsensical syntax.

And the C guys will argue that {} is far more productive than begin/end statements.
Less typing=higher productivity. I disagree, and therefore agree with you.

>> Couldn't agree more (Go, go, go Kylix & Object Pascal... ra ra ra!)
>
>Don't know these. Are their syntaxes (sp?) better?

Delphi/Kylix is Borland's implementation of Object Pascal (yes, there is
at least one other implementation that I know of: FreePascal).

Object Pascal uses "begin/end" statements to determine blocks, and is more
"english-like" than C/C++/C#/Java. It's only hold-over is ";" for end-of-line
termination.

>This is what I mean elitist. "Only people who can properly dereference a
>static pointer to a dynamically created memory block are real
>programmers." (Does that even make sense?).

Strangely enough, for me it does. But only because Delphi supports pointers
quite well.

>And this gets my goat. I don't mind being a 2nd class citizen.

I'm sick of it. .NET/CLR was supposed to provide us with a standard, common-ground.

>I don't have time to master pointer manipulation. I've got a job to do.


No pointers in C# without un-managed code. Don't write un-managed code.
No pointers in Java/JavaScript which have the same C-like syntax.

>not the boss part. But language shouldn't get in the way of application
of
>logic to solve a problem (ie, programming).

Correct. However unless you are willing to define a syntax, create a parser
and implement a .NET compiler for your language, we have to work with what
we have. 5, 10, 50, 500, 5000 voices crying for change in the VB.NET world
are going to fall on deaf ears.

>Ian.

Regards
Jason Kaczor

[Gregor R. Peisker]

Hi Jason,

> Object Pascal uses "begin/end" statements to determine blocks, and is more
> "english-like" than C/C++/C#/Java.

IMO, Pascal's "begin" and "end;" is little better than curly braces:

Pascal:

end;
end;
end;

C:

}
}
}

Basic:

Next i
End If
End Function


Regards,
Gregor

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Jason Kaczor" <jkaczor@acoupleanerds.com> wrote in message <news:3aa8e7f3$1@news.devx.com>...

> Object Pascal uses "begin/end" statements to determine blocks, and is more
> "english-like" than C/C++/C#/Java. It's only hold-over is ";" for end-of-line
> termination.

It's worse than that. Pascal uses ";" for statement separation. It's a
subtle difference, but it's the cause of premature balding in quite a
few students. Nicklaus Wirth apparently feels Pascal should be quietly
put out of his misery. Component Pascal.Net or Oberon-2.Net might be
interesting, however.

Component Pascal: http://www.oberon.ch/docu/language_report.html

--
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!

[Jonathan Allen]

> IMO, Pascal's "begin" and "end;" is little better than curly braces:

I agree. A good end construct should remind you what you are ending. Not
only does this make code easier to read, it allows the IDE and compiler to
be smarter.


--
Jonathan Allen

[Ian Lowe]

> > IMO, Pascal's "begin" and "end;" is little better than curly braces:
>
> I agree. A good end construct should remind you what you are ending. Not
> only does this make code easier to read, it allows the IDE and compiler to
> be smarter.

Yeah! Repetitive "end"s are English replacement's for "}"s. Might as well
finish each block with "cheese". (Sorry, overstated I know.) VB's For...Next
blocks are much clearer (and I would argue could be improved to something
like "As x Goes From y To z...Repeat"). The power and complexity of
computers is being ignored by continuing to use syntax whose primary
objective is the jargonification (is that a word?) of logic. When I execute
a For...Next block, I'm saying "Do the following steps a X number of times".
Why doesn't the syntax say that?

In this perspective, VB's Do...Loop and If...End If syntax is very clear,
IMHO. I plan to continue to support VB to encourage more commonsensical
syntax. That is, syntax that reflects the actual logic, not some jargon
derivitive.

Ian.

[Larry Serflaten]

"Ian Lowe" <idlowe@home.com> wrote in message news:3aa9a969$1@news.devx.com...
> > > IMO, Pascal's "begin" and "end;" is little better than curly braces:
> >
> > I agree. A good end construct should remind you what you are ending. Not
> > only does this make code easier to read, it allows the IDE and compiler to
> > be smarter.
>
> Yeah! Repetitive "end"s are English replacement's for "}"s. Might as well
> finish each block with "cheese". (Sorry, overstated I know.) VB's For...Next
> blocks are much clearer (and I would argue could be improved to something
> like "As x Goes From y To z...Repeat"). The power and complexity of
> computers is being ignored by continuing to use syntax whose primary
> objective is the jargonification (is that a word?) of logic. When I execute
> a For...Next block, I'm saying "Do the following steps a X number of times".
> Why doesn't the syntax say that?

You have heard of "For Each Item In Collection", there the syntax reads OK.
The earlier syntax is only missing one word to make it 'readable':

For X = 1 to 20 > For when X equals 1 to 20

The word When might have been suggested before For, I guess we would have
to ask the authors. It may have been that When was discarded due to ambiguity,
and memory constraints. Thats just a guess, but it reads OK in English....

When X = 1 To 20
'...
Next X

LFS

[Jonathan Allen]

I suspect For came from Fortran. As for When, I kinda like it.

--
Jonathan Allen


"Larry Serflaten" <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3aa9da9f$1@news.devx.com...
>
>
> You have heard of "For Each Item In Collection", there the syntax reads
OK.
> The earlier syntax is only missing one word to make it 'readable':
>
> For X = 1 to 20 > For when X equals 1 to 20
>
> The word When might have been suggested before For, I guess we would have
> to ask the authors. It may have been that When was discarded due to
ambiguity,
> and memory constraints. Thats just a guess, but it reads OK in
English....
>
> When X = 1 To 20
> '...
> Next X
>
> LFS
>
>
>
>
>
>

[William Cleveland]

Jason Kaczor wrote:
>
> Object Pascal uses "begin/end" statements to determine blocks, and is more
> "english-like" than C/C++/C#/Java. It's only hold-over is ";" for end-of-line
> termination.
>
Pascal doesn't get that from C. I'm not sure which of the two
languages are older, but both get their general organization from
Algol. AFAIK, Algol was a lot more like Pascal than like C.

Bill

[Mark Burns]

"Ian Lowe" <idlowe@home.com> wrote in message
news:3aa9a969$1@news.devx.com...
> The power and complexity of computers is being ignored by continuing
> to use syntax whose primary objective is the jargonification (is that a
word?) of logic.

Ian! I love that! I don't know if you've truely coined that word, but I'm
penciling in you for credit - at least until further information is made
available on that question.
Ok all, new entry for your Dictionaries!

Jargonification <v>: The act of obfuscating logic and/or meaning by the
(excessive) use of Jargon words.

:-)

[rmeklo]

jargonification (is that a word?)

Yes.

(http://news.devx.com/cgi-bin/dnewswe...em=19517&utag=)

The "anthropomorphization" section may be of special interest.