They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 20 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 291

Thread: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Thomas Eyde Guest

    They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    J# is the Java language on the .Net engine. Why couldn't MS ship the
    rumoured VB7 as VB#, instead of offending the VB community with VB.NET?

    VB.Net is powerful, no doubt, but it lacks the greatness of VB Classic.
    VB.Net is so strikingly similar to C# that I wonder why they bothered.
    Surely VB7 would be a better commersial decition?

    /Thomas



  2. #2
    Ian R Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    Exactly what greatness is it lacking ?

    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
    news:3c01782e$1@147.208.176.211...
    > J# is the Java language on the .Net engine. Why couldn't MS ship the
    > rumoured VB7 as VB#, instead of offending the VB community with VB.NET?
    >
    > VB.Net is powerful, no doubt, but it lacks the greatness of VB Classic.
    > VB.Net is so strikingly similar to C# that I wonder why they bothered.
    > Surely VB7 would be a better commersial decition?
    >
    > /Thomas
    >
    >




  3. #3
    John Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


    "...but it lacks the greatness of VB Classic..."

    Could u please enlighten us, how VB.Net lacks greatness of VB Classic(or
    I have to call u - MM2 the FUD).

    later...
    John



  4. #4
    B. Lutz Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
    >J# is the Java language on the .Net engine. Why couldn't MS ship the
    >rumoured VB7 as VB#, instead of offending the VB community with VB.NET?
    >
    >VB.Net is powerful, no doubt, but it lacks the greatness of VB Classic.
    >VB.Net is so strikingly similar to C# that I wonder why they bothered.
    >Surely VB7 would be a better commersial decition?
    >
    >/Thomas
    >
    >

    They did. But they called it VB.NET instead.


  5. #5
    MarkN Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


    >>J# is the Java language on

    More correctly "J# is the J++ language on ...". C# is the Java language
    on .Net.

  6. #6
    Ian Drake Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


    Thomas,

    Please look into what makes a language .NET compatible, with this knowledge
    you might see that it is not as simple as making a VB#. If you map existing
    language functionality to .NET functionality then you would see that Java
    maps easily to .NET and VB doesn't. Because of this, VB needs new OO keywords
    to extend its OO abilities.

    I've been a VB coder since late 4.0, and I've always been happy to see new
    features introduced. With .NET I got so frustrated with all the complainers
    that I've moved to C#, it just seems like a better crowd. They seem to be
    knowledgeable on the subjects to which they speak. I'm not knocking you
    Thomas, but in general, the VB programmers I've had to deal with plug their
    ears when it comes to OO, god forbid they have to stop writing global functions
    in modules.

    Ian


    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
    >J# is the Java language on the .Net engine. Why couldn't MS ship the
    >rumoured VB7 as VB#, instead of offending the VB community with VB.NET?
    >
    >VB.Net is powerful, no doubt, but it lacks the greatness of VB Classic.
    >VB.Net is so strikingly similar to C# that I wonder why they bothered.
    >Surely VB7 would be a better commersial decition?
    >
    >/Thomas
    >
    >



  7. #7
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    > god forbid they have to stop writing global functions
    > in modules.


    Please pick a different example, as there is nothing wrong with global
    functions. It would suck if we had to use a class every time we wanted a
    simple math function.

    --
    Jonathan Allen



    "Ian Drake" <ian@dotnetnut.com> wrote in message
    news:3c027af7@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > Thomas,
    >
    > Please look into what makes a language .NET compatible, with this

    knowledge
    > you might see that it is not as simple as making a VB#. If you map

    existing
    > language functionality to .NET functionality then you would see that Java
    > maps easily to .NET and VB doesn't. Because of this, VB needs new OO

    keywords
    > to extend its OO abilities.
    >
    > I've been a VB coder since late 4.0, and I've always been happy to see new
    > features introduced. With .NET I got so frustrated with all the

    complainers
    > that I've moved to C#, it just seems like a better crowd. They seem to be
    > knowledgeable on the subjects to which they speak. I'm not knocking you
    > Thomas, but in general, the VB programmers I've had to deal with plug

    their
    > ears when it comes to OO, god forbid they have to stop writing global

    functions
    > in modules.
    >
    > Ian
    >
    >
    > "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
    > >J# is the Java language on the .Net engine. Why couldn't MS ship the
    > >rumoured VB7 as VB#, instead of offending the VB community with VB.NET?
    > >
    > >VB.Net is powerful, no doubt, but it lacks the greatness of VB Classic.
    > >VB.Net is so strikingly similar to C# that I wonder why they bothered.
    > >Surely VB7 would be a better commersial decition?
    > >
    > >/Thomas
    > >
    > >

    >



  8. #8
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    They are just names, they have no meaning on there own. Calling it VB#
    instead of VB.Net would not change it one bit.

    --
    Jonathan Allen



    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
    news:3c01782e$1@147.208.176.211...
    > J# is the Java language on the .Net engine. Why couldn't MS ship the
    > rumoured VB7 as VB#, instead of offending the VB community with VB.NET?
    >
    > VB.Net is powerful, no doubt, but it lacks the greatness of VB Classic.
    > VB.Net is so strikingly similar to C# that I wonder why they bothered.
    > Surely VB7 would be a better commersial decition?
    >
    > /Thomas
    >
    >



  9. #9
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:00:48 -0800, "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com>
    wrote:

    >It would suck if we had to use a class every time we wanted a
    >simple math function.


    Static methods in a class work fine for that, see System.Math for example.


    --
    It's never too late to have
    a happy childhood.

  10. #10
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    > Static methods in a class work fine for that, see System.Math for example.

    A static method is a global function, just with a different name.

    --
    Jonathan Allen



    "Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3c1094b8.563823328@news.devx.com...
    > On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:00:48 -0800, "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >It would suck if we had to use a class every time we wanted a
    > >simple math function.

    >
    > Static methods in a class work fine for that, see System.Math for example.
    >
    >
    > --
    > It's never too late to have
    > a happy childhood.



  11. #11
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:28:27 -0800, "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com>
    wrote:

    >> Static methods in a class work fine for that, see System.Math for example.

    >
    >A static method is a global function, just with a different name.


    I don't recall saying otherwise. Writable static properties, however, are
    a whole different topic.


    --
    It's never too late to have
    a happy childhood.

  12. #12
    Ian Drake Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


    Jonathan

    >> god forbid they have to stop writing global functions
    >> in modules.

    >
    >Please pick a different example, as there is nothing wrong with global
    >functions. It would suck if we had to use a class every time we wanted a
    >simple math function.
    >

    As Zane pointed out, one could use static functions as a replacement, while
    also gaining the benifit of clasification of the fnction. Such as a Math
    class containing math functions, etc...

    But what I was really refering to was that many VB programmers I've worked
    with want EVERYTHING global. They refuse to use classes, and instead use
    a module that includes a struct and all the functions that act on that struct.
    I'm not a big fan of this.

    Ian

  13. #13
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:10:24 -0800, "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan"
    <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com> wrote:

    >They didn't, and now there are release candidates out there, they ain't
    >gonna. Only time will tell if they were right or wrong here.


    No. No time is necessary. The very second they decided to dump classic
    VB, it was the wrong decision.

    MM

  14. #14
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On 26 Nov 2001 17:25:11 GMT, "Ian Drake" <ian@dotnetnut.com> wrote:

    >....., but in general, the VB programmers I've had to deal with plug their
    >ears when it comes to OO, god forbid they have to stop writing global functions
    >in modules.


    Too darn right we plug 'em! Who do you think you are to demand that we
    do not write global functions?!! You've got a **** nerve, if you ask
    me. Just accept it for once that over three million computer users
    make use of classic Visual Basic in all its myriad ways if there are
    some who don't want to use OOP, why the heck should they? This
    implicit denigration of classic VB users has all the hysterical
    overtones of Joe McCarthy's witch-hunt for Communists in the 1950s.

    MM

  15. #15
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:00:48 -0800, "Jonathan Allen"
    <greywolf@cts.com> wrote:

    >Please pick a different example, as there is nothing wrong with global
    >functions. It would suck if we had to use a class every time we wanted a
    >simple math function.


    Isn't that what OOP purists strive for, though? How could that 'simple
    math function' serve as a base class for inheriting some extra
    functionality to serve the software reuse God if all it was was a
    function?

    MM

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