They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#? - Page 12


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 291

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

  1. #166
    Jay Glynn Guest

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

    Dave,

    FWIW I agree with you whole heartedly on this issue. I think one of the most
    dangerous things in the corporate world today is someone who thinks that
    they can develop something in VB becasue it's supposed to be "easy". I have
    wasted far to many hours trying to repair and generally rewrite someone
    elses mess. If they want to learn to write software then that is what they
    should learn. I would be more then happy to teach them.

    > And again, I come to my argument about letting people who know nothing
    > about what they are doing get their hands on potentially very harmful
    > software. If you allow people who know nothing of what they are doing

    that
    > amount of power, you are very much asking for problems. But most of

    those
    > people you mention in those situations actually use VBA, which is not
    > affected by the .Net stuff.





  2. #167
    Dave Lewis Guest

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

    Jay,

    "Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3c12895e$1@147.208.176.211...
    > Dave,
    >
    > FWIW I agree with you whole heartedly on this issue. I think one of the

    most
    > dangerous things in the corporate world today is someone who thinks that
    > they can develop something in VB becasue it's supposed to be "easy". I

    have
    > wasted far to many hours trying to repair and generally rewrite someone
    > elses mess. If they want to learn to write software then that is what they
    > should learn. I would be more then happy to teach them.


    Absolutely. I look at it this way: I have spent a lot of time and effort
    learning how to do my job - a lot more than some jobs require you to. So
    why should I then have to throw all that out of the window to support
    something that somebody who knows little, or nothing, about the job has
    written. These people earn the same money as I do, so why should I not
    expect similar levels of commitment from them?

    I have actually had requests by friends who know a little about computers if
    I will teach them how to write code. Usually, I tell them to get a book on
    programming principles. I do that because it is a way to make sure that
    they've actually thought about what they want to do and secondly, a good
    book can usually teach much better methodology than I can ('cos I take it
    too much for granted, so I'm bound to forget stuff or gloss over things and
    not realize). Then when it comes time to start teaching actual language
    specifics, cutting code and finding suitable projects I can jump in and
    give the benefit of my learning. That way, I'm not restricting them to
    just learning VB. It's quite easy to point out that other languages are
    just that: different keywords and ways of arranging the code to achieve
    something. IOW, if you start from a solid foundation, you can more easily
    extend your abilities to other languages. It is very short-sighted, not to
    mention potentially harmful to your career, to not learn some basic
    principles.

    --
    Dave Lewis
    "Nothing is foolproof to a talented fool"



  3. #168
    Phil Weber Guest

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

    > ...being that VB.Net is behind all the new compiled ASP stuff
    > that has started to pop up on MS's site and quite a few others
    > I've seen recently...


    Dave: In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that ASP.NET code is
    not necessarily written in VB.NET. It may also be written in C#, or any
    other .NET language.
    ---
    Phil Weber



  4. #169
    Dave Lewis Guest

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

    Phil,

    "Phil Weber" <pweberonline@fawcette.com> wrote in message
    news:3c12aab9$1@147.208.176.211...
    > > ...being that VB.Net is behind all the new compiled ASP stuff
    > > that has started to pop up on MS's site and quite a few others
    > > I've seen recently...

    >
    > Dave: In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that ASP.NET code is
    > not necessarily written in VB.NET. It may also be written in C#, or any
    > other .NET language.


    Point conceded. I was simply trying to point out that, since VB.Net can be
    used for ASP.Net, many companies will see it as a way to re-use existing VB
    talent for web projects. If they know that they can mix 'n match languages
    they'll probably use more than one language in actuality. Apologies to all
    for the inaccuracy.

    But to make my position somewhat clearer also: What I was actually aiming
    to point out here is that the future of windows development as well as web
    projects will be tied to the .Net framework when using *any* .Net language.
    So it's rather unlikely that MS will introduce such sweeping changes to VB
    again in the very near future because those changes will also affect the
    other languages. With other companies developing .Net compatible versions
    of their tools, this would not just alienate a percentage of developers of
    *one* language but would likely alienate all developers using *any* .Net
    language. As strong as MS are in the market place, I don't think even they
    could afford to do that..... <g>

    --
    Dave Lewis
    "Nothing is foolproof to a talented fool"



  5. #170
    Zane Thomas Guest

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

    On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 02:48:41 -0000, "Dave Lewis"
    <spammenot@nospam.antispam> wrote:

    >So it's rather unlikely that MS will introduce such sweeping changes to VB
    >again in the very near future


    Ah, but there you run into people like MM who don't want to see sweeping
    changes to VB *ever* - a bit unrealistic, but that's Mike for you.


    --
    When freedom is outlawed
    only outlaws will be free.

  6. #171
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 03:07:12 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

    >Ah, but there you run into people like MM who don't want to see sweeping
    >changes to VB *ever* - a bit unrealistic, but that's Mike for you.


    This has never been my position. You are now inventing propaganda to
    prop up your overwhelming denigration of classic VB. I have said on
    many occasions that I could not care less about whatever languages
    Microsoft chooses to introduce into .NET. But what I find totally
    abhorent from them, and from all the zealous gospel singers in your
    .NET camp, is that classic VB users/programmers/developers should
    meekly accept their "punishment" for deigning to use such an excellent
    product for ten years, a product which, for example, Dave Lewis, finds
    its very shallow learning curve to be one of its biggest weaknesses,
    or that using it could signify "a disaster leading to nightmare
    code-bases and almost un-maintainable apps".

    No mention, then, of the thousands of excellent classic VB
    programmers? No discussion or recognition of the thousands of classic
    VB applications that have been 100% successful? To blame a language
    for being easy to learn is so short-sighted, I find it hard not to
    stop laughing. But not content with your take-no-prisoners
    evangelising for .NET and all its works, you want also to REMOVE from
    millions of programmers the wherewithal to provide an income for
    themselves and their companies and clients. Just suppose for one
    moment that Microsoft's Java negotiations with Sun had turned out
    differently and Microsoft had simply removed C and C++ and replaced
    them with pure Java for .NET? How would you feel then? It would make
    much more sense for Microsoft to have been able to do such a thing,
    because then they would have had all the Java programmers on board
    from the outset, and, as you know, there are many more programmers
    writing code in Java than in C or C++. You can see how desperate they
    are to get Java programmers on board with schemes like JUMP and J#.
    So, imagine for a moment a .NET world in which C and/or C++ played a
    very minor role and Mabry would have to revamp all its tools in Java
    in order to stay in business? That would put a somewhat different
    gloss on it, then, wouldn't it?

    Microsoft can introduce all the programming languages it wants, but it
    should never, ever have contemplated replacing languages it already
    has and which are used (VB, VBA, VBScript etc) by many millions of
    users, most of whom are going to be completely stuffed if and when
    .NET takes off and they are expected to relearn something vaguely akin
    to BASIC with a much steeper learning curve, namely VB.NET.

    MM

  7. #172
    Zane Thomas Guest

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

    On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 12:00:46 GMT, kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell)
    wrote:

    >>Ah, but there you run into people like MM who don't want to see sweeping
    >>changes to VB *ever* - a bit unrealistic, but that's Mike for you.

    >
    >This has never been my position.


    Oh? So how about just once - you have been ranting about .net for about a
    year now - don't you just make a clear statement about what your position
    really is eh?

    >You are now inventing propaganda to prop up your overwhelming denigration
    >of classic VB.


    Gee Mike, I guess you don't know that I wrote half of one of the best
    selling VB books ever. Altogether I've written about 1200 pages about VB
    and related topics - mostly in books about VB. Denigration? Nah,
    education.

    >I have said on
    >many occasions that I could not care less about whatever languages
    >Microsoft chooses to introduce into .NET.


    So then why are you here?


    --
    When freedom is outlawed
    only outlaws will be free.

  8. #173
    Dave Keighan Guest

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

    Hi Mike

    > you want also to REMOVE from millions of programmers the
    > wherewithal to provide an income for themselves and their
    > companies and clients.

    Balls Mike. I've been lurking in this group since it's inception. I've read
    them all. One thing that has been perfectly clear to me is that moving to
    NET is a doable thing. The changes involved may cause you to think and
    certainly rework some code, but it certainly is doable. I'm not a
    "professional" programmer, I'm what's colloquially know as a "hobbyist",
    I've been a hobbyist for about 10 years (started with VB-DOS) and IMHO it's
    been clearly explained <over and over> that what you're touting is just not
    the case. Sure, NET is more structured than what we're used to but it is
    absolutely beyond me why anyone would consider that a bad thing. Like you, I
    have yet to try the product (for a number of reasons - none of which are
    significant) but unlike you I've got the message (specifically from this
    group) and it's been loud and clear that there just isn't the impending doom
    (end of programming by "non-professionals" and/or "non-enterprise"
    programmers) that your predicting - not at all. I've actually picked up
    Delphi - primarily (admittedly not solely) to learn the structure I'll need
    for NET while producing a couple of tools that I need to run now.

    Here's the answer to all the doomed millions:
    Learn NET, just like you did for every other VB UG: DOS/VB3 VB3/VB5
    VB5/VB6 ... VB.NET/VB.NextProduct

    --
    Dave



  9. #174
    Shiar Guest

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


    "MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >>>J# is the Java language on

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

    You must be the gatekeeper of bliss. Considering the old saying "Ignorance
    is..", well you get the picture. C# is not Java. J# is the java language
    syntax. If you want to make statements like "C# is the Java language..."
    then C++ is the pre90s C, Java is last year's C, and C# is the C language
    for the next decade. Of course this is somewhat of a ridiculous statement,
    but then again, so is yours. Your statement is a pure personal decision to
    redraw a line in the sand to allow you to make a very subjective statement,
    maybe in hopes of getting a thrill at starting a long separate thread on
    the subject. Sorry to break the news, but your statement does not enlightening
    anyone. It's not even correct.

  10. #175
    Zane Thomas Guest

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

    On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 14:07:06 -0800, "Dave Keighan" <dkeighan@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Here's the answer to all the doomed millions:
    >Learn NET, just like you did for every other VB UG: DOS/VB3 VB3/VB5
    >VB5/VB6 ... VB.NET/VB.NextProduct


    Bingo!

    Technology is evolving - that's a good thing and those who don't evolve
    with it will be left behind.


    --
    When freedom is outlawed
    only outlaws will be free.

  11. #176
    Dave Keighan Guest

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

    Hi Michka

    > but simply because the majority of the *good* things about .NET
    > will not be used by the majority of the people who buy it and
    > develop with it. It makes some incompatibilities "gratuitous" for
    > a reason unlike the one usually touted -- de facto gratuitous
    > from the point of view of the average user.


    Are you referring to the fact that the most dramatic changes are intended
    for the Enterprise audience (as it has been for the last couple of editions
    and as it has been with other environments as well) or am I "a bit too close
    to the ground" for that one If I missed it and didn't even hear the
    swwooooossh - could you take a moment and translate?

    Thanx
    --
    Dave



  12. #177
    Dave Keighan Guest

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

    Thanx for taking the time to explain that Michka!
    ....
    > everything is a class,
    > so everything can be an object?

    Is there another way ?? <vbg>

    --
    Dave Keighan



  13. #178
    MarkN Guest

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


    So if you wish to be nasty -

    If you had actually READ the previous post (grammatically AND contextually)
    and my post then you would have come to a different conclusion. But obviously
    you are not a carefully reader (hey, nobody is perfect) and just want to
    be argumentative a mean spirited.

    True, J# is syntactically the Java language in .Net. But it is NOT Java
    in .Net. I began to learn C# and laughed at every page turn because, although
    some keys words were different and there was some additional functionality
    (less with Java 1.4), it Java - much more than J#.

    In the post previous to mine the person said that "J# is the Java language
    on the .Net engine". I wanted to make the point that it IS NOT. I said
    MORE CORRECTLY (do the bold letters help you) that J# is the J++ language
    in .Net and C# is the Java language on .Net). Did I say 100% - No! It is
    just closer to the truth.

    This is a very valid point and if you are not enlightened by it then you
    are the blissful person. J# is a bridge to .Net for J++ers. That is all
    it is. It is being sold as bridge for Java to .Net and it is not unless
    the code is written for MS's JVM. J++ is no longer Java for multiple reasons.
    This is why my point is valid. There continues to be many comparisons to
    J++ and Java IDE's. There is none. While J++ is a great IDE, Java, in
    its current version, cannot be coded in it.

    No, I don't want a long thread started. The only thread I started got little
    if no response - something value - my mistake. All I wanted to do was point
    out a slight, but important, error in statement. Would I have come out and
    just said that "C# is java" in this discussion? No. Do I believe that it
    is MS's answer to Java (and thus pretty much is MS's Java)? Yes.

    So break out your grammar, literature, speech and writing books and bone
    up.

    Mark

    "Shiar" <shiarlane@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>J# is the Java language on

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

    >You must be the gatekeeper of bliss. Considering the old saying "Ignorance
    >is..", well you get the picture. C# is not Java. J# is the java language
    >syntax. If you want to make statements like "C# is the Java language..."
    >then C++ is the pre90s C, Java is last year's C, and C# is the C language
    >for the next decade. Of course this is somewhat of a ridiculous statement,
    >but then again, so is yours. Your statement is a pure personal decision

    to
    >redraw a line in the sand to allow you to make a very subjective statement,
    >maybe in hopes of getting a thrill at starting a long separate thread on
    >the subject. Sorry to break the news, but your statement does not enlightening
    >anyone. It's not even correct.



  14. #179
    Bob Guest

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

    Dave,

    In article <3c11321d@147.208.176.211>, spammenot@nospam.antispam says...
    > Bob,
    >
    > > > Personally, I think that VB.Net should be marketed as "VB.Net version

    > 1"
    > > > and NOT "VB 7"; because it really isn't.

    > >
    > > Who is marketing VB.NET as VB7? I hear a fair number of people complaining
    > > that VB.NET is NOT VB7. Of course, judging from some of those folks
    > > criteria, Visual Basic ceased to exist when VB4 came out, but they refuse

    > to
    > > admit it.

    >
    > MS is maketing it as Visual Studio 7 and the langauges as v7. But I really
    > think that the current versioning should end with v6 and Visual Studio
    > should be "VS1 for .Net".


    I obviously don't know how to search the MS site properly because when I
    told it to search for visual+basic+7, I got 100 results and a quick look at
    the first 10 actually were VB6 and SQL7. One that referenced the MSDN
    download site said Visual Basic 6 and Visual Basic .NET.

    The same thing happened when I told it to search for visual+studio+7.

    So, I guess I'll have to take your word for it, but I'll have to admit I've
    never seen anything marketed as Visual Basic 7 or Visual Studio 7.

    Bob

  15. #180
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:35:04 -0600, Bob
    <rainsleyno@bodyspamsolutions.com> wrote:

    >I obviously don't know how to search the MS site properly....


    [snip]

    No, it's not you, it's the Microsoft "search" engine, which are the
    very worst on the planet. I've lost count of the number of times I've
    put in a simple search argument and it comes back with 200 hits,
    hardly any of which are pertinent. You have to have a great deal of
    patience and a great deal of time to use the Microsoft search engine,
    which probably isn't an "engine" at all but a random number generator.
    You're often better off just using Google, which is streets ahead of
    the MS "must try harder" lame brainer of a search engine.

    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