From VB.net to C# - Page 5


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 196

Thread: From VB.net to C#

  1. #61
    Constance J. Petersen Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Hi Mark,

    "Mark Jerde" <mark.jerde@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
    news:VA.000000d9.0688d546@nospamverizon.net...
    > Nice to see you posting again. Beware of making TOO much sense in THIS
    > newgroup... <VBG>


    Thanks. Good to see you too.

    I don't have the stomach to spend much time in this newsgroup, but I appreciate
    those who are willing to set the record straight repeatedly when MM and the like
    spew their garbage.

    --
    Constance Petersen, DevX newsgroup section leader
    SoftMedia Artisans, Inc.
    http://www.smartisans.com
    For useful, usable software and Web sites
    Featured Web design: http://www.keweenawnow.com/
    --
    Please reply in the newsgroup so everyone can benefit




  2. #62
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    "Constance J. Petersen" <constance@smartisans.com> wrote:
    >Hi Jay,
    >
    >"Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3cacbf9b@10.1.10.29...
    >> But several of the conclusions he reached were opinion.

    >
    >Sure. And not just any opinion--Dan Appleman's opinions. People pay far

    more
    >than $9.95 for his opinions. I bought the e-book _because_ I wanted his
    >opinions, and it would have been less valuable to me without them. In fact,

    with
    >a title like "Visual Basic .NET or C#...Which to Choose?", it would be pretty
    >surprising not to include the author's opinions.


    My point is he spent to much time on opinion. This goes back to the number
    of pages issue. Now instead of 61 pages, we went to 40 some pages. Now we
    are looking at what, 20-30 pages of facts. Ended up that he didn't tell me
    anything that I didn't already know with just a cursory review of the documentation.

    >
    >I don't follow your logic. You're free to discount his opinions and ignore

    the
    >ratings, surely? The rest of the material is equally useful in either case,

    no?

    See above.



  3. #63
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Constance,

    > I don't have the stomach to spend much time in this newsgroup, but I appreciate
    > those who are willing to set the record straight repeatedly when MM and the like
    > spew their garbage.


    I agree with some of his points.

    One thing I'm waiting to see for myself is whether "people whose completed
    software does not include error handling" (*) can be as _easily_ _productive_ in
    .NET as they were in VBc / VBA.

    Mark Jerde
    Biometrics - www.idtechpartners.com

    (*) To call these people "nonprogrammers" is to invite napalm... ;-)



  4. #64
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On 4 Apr 2002 16:30:17 -0800, "Ed" <ed_raffin@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > Their Wunderprodukt may indeed be the
    >programming language of the millennium, the one that transcends all
    >others and becomes the new universal logic engine. That still wouldn't
    >mean that I could find any enthusiasm for it whatsoever, though.
    >
    >MM


    Then what are you still doing here?
    Isn't there a Kylix newsgroup just dying for your input?

    -Rob

  5. #65
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    Mark Jerde <mark.jerde@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
    >
    ><smarty-pants mode>
    >In this day and age, I'd hate to have to use a product that required mastery


    >of more than 10% of its features in order to be successful.
    ></smarty-pants mode>
    >


    <smartier-pants mode>
    But wouldn't it help if you could do *something-anything* in the product?
    </smartier-pants mode>



    -Rob

  6. #66
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:15:13 -0500, "stever" <dontsend@memail.com>
    wrote:

    >HAW HAW HAW!


    "Germany calling....!"

    >The most direct and proper response to MM ever!
    >None of this stuff should be a big mystery to any self-respecting VBite who
    >has been doing any type of work with classes or COM.


    Oh, dear! Yesterday I was Kylixboy, and now I am supposed to aspire to
    a VBite - sounds like a quick snack with a Big Mac. So when you wrote:
    "None of this stuff..." you believe that constructs like "Protected
    Overridable Sub Dispose(ByVal disposing As Boolean)" are absolutely
    intuitive? But there is so much in there that a VB progammer needs to
    know! First, the question, what is Dispose and why didn't VBc
    programmers need it? Well, when you open that Pandora's Box, you'll
    find that it's all part of the great deterministic/non-deterministic
    finalizer controversy! Stuff that VBc programmers naturally talk about
    in their sleep. Not! Also, they'll learn how Dispose has something to
    do with the IDisposable interface (***?), with much hand-waving and
    doffing of caps to System.ComponentModel.Component. It's fascinating
    stuff all right, but whether self-respecting "VBites" are really
    supposed to intuit this knowledge just from what they've been doing
    writing the occasional class in VBc, beats me, though you appear to
    know that they ought to.

    >And about the "Beginner's" stuff, I bet if you took a complete programming
    >newbie it would take him/her far longer to learn VB.old than VB.NET, simply
    >because VB.old has so much weird baggage that it carries (like your example
    >of inheriting an interface).


    If absolute computer virgins can learn VBc with little effort,
    provided they attended primary education, I don't think bombarding
    them with all the extras in VB.Net is going to make their learning
    curve shallower. On the contrary, I think it will be a steep learning
    curve, far more difficult than VBc. For example, instead of a little
    simple thing like a Sub or a Function and Private/Public/Friend/
    Static, they will need to also learn about Protected, Overrideable,
    Overloads, Overrides, NotOverridable, MustOverride, Shadows, Shared,
    Protected, and Protected Friend. I expect all of these are useful
    sometimes, but it's not what I'd expect to find in a B.A.S.I.C. They
    just look like weird baggage to me.

    Next, the newbie would need to learn the concepts of OOP. Otherwise
    the whole consensus for working with VB.Net is diluted. It's stupid
    for the evangelists to crow all the time how they got all these
    marvellous changes, plus the oopification, because, allegedly, so many
    VBc programmers continually cried out for them, but then say to
    doubters like me, ah, well you can continue to use the language
    procedurally! What's the point of that? It's like buying a new digital
    TV and only ever watching BBC. Yeah, I get the picture.

    So I think that the newbie of whom you speak will need to put *more*,
    not less, effort into learning VB.Net than he or she would need for
    learning VBc. And bear in mind all the while what VB has traditionally
    been used for: It has *not* been used for writing system services,
    though a few may have endeavoured to do so. It has *not* been used to
    produce multithreaded, asynchronous apps, though no doubt some would
    have liked to do them. It has largely figured in small to medium sized
    business applications, in many cases involving a large corporate
    database and finding quicker ways into the data than would be feasible
    with C++, COBOL, or RPG. In that aim VBc has excelled. Many thousands
    of programmers have found various other uses for the language. Many
    millions learned how to use it without knowing a single iota about
    OOP, let alone deterministic finalization!

    MM

  7. #67
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Mike,

    > It has largely figured in small to medium sized
    > business applications, in many cases involving a large corporate
    > database and finding quicker ways into the data than would be feasible
    > with C++, COBOL, or RPG. In that aim VBc has excelled. Many thousands
    > of programmers have found various other uses for the language. Many
    > millions learned how to use it without knowing a single iota about
    > OOP, let alone deterministic finalization!


    These people were obviously wrong. Fortunately there is now a path to
    enlightenment.

    Mark Jerde
    Biometrics - www.idtechpartners.com



  8. #68
    Tim Overbay Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    You certainly find enough enthusiasm to deride VB.NET, it's makers, and it's
    proponents at every opportunity.

    I have a theory about MM. He's not, nor never has been a programmer. He
    really doesn't give a **** about VB either way. He's nothing more than a
    newsgroupie that thrives on textual conflict. A non-confrontational
    non-entity in real life who lives vicarously through his monitor and
    internet connection.

    What do you think, Mikey? Am I close?

    Tim
    I'll show you my code if you show me yours.

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3cada617.1615586@news.devx.com...
    > On 4 Apr 2002 16:30:17 -0800, "Ed" <ed_raffin@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >I gotta give you credit. You're getting more abuse than Bin Laden and

    you're
    > >still hanging in. I say keep it coming because it is always valuable to
    > >hear a different perspective because sometime the one lone dissenter is

    actually
    > >right and the majority is wrong.

    >
    > Don't worry! They think they hurt me with their withering glances and
    > their ruined sticks! I can only report as I find. And what I find,
    > since this is the vb.dotnet.discussion group, that the more I observe
    > VB.Net and its adherents the less likely I am to get involved in it. I
    > just cannot understand how ordinary VB programmers are going to warm
    > to it after the simplicity, flexibility and accessibility of classic
    > VB. New developers I could understand, because they don't know any
    > different, so they'll just assume all programming is hard.
    >
    > Call it a gut feeling, call it mood music, call it good old-fashioned
    > intuition, but I can't help but wonder in amazement over the sheer
    > gung-ho triumphalism of the .Net evangelists for a product that has
    > hardly been on the market for more than five minutes compared with
    > classic VB. Time will tell. Their Wunderprodukt may indeed be the
    > programming language of the millennium, the one that transcends all
    > others and becomes the new universal logic engine. That still wouldn't
    > mean that I could find any enthusiasm for it whatsoever, though.
    >
    > MM




  9. #69
    dont_eat_the_salmon Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    I think I finally understand Mike now.

    When he is complaining that VB.NET is not for "beginners", he is actually
    talking about complete non-programmers who never intend to progress further
    beyond small or quick-and-dirty applications, ie. business or finance people
    (nothing wrong with that at all). He may have a point there.

    But the phrase "beginners" implies that a person will eventually progress
    through various stages. I think what Mike is failing to see is that at a
    certain point beyond "beginner" level, VBc is just less and less efficient
    as a tool of choice. Based on his posts so far, it appears that he simply
    has no intention of applying more than beginner-level techniques in his
    work, and he's happy with that. Maybe his customers are satisfied with
    beginner-level solutions, because they face beginner-level problems! Oh
    well, different strokes...

    What I don't understand is why Mike feels that MSFT should continue to pour
    limited resources into supporting the many non-programmers who happily use
    VBc. After all, if they are not planning to do anything fancy with it, why
    do they need MSFT to enhance it and add new features?

    This reminds me of the complaints when VBPJ started to reduce their VB6
    coverage. I mean, how many "VB6 Tips and Tricks" articles year after year
    can be expected to sustain a magazine?


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3cada617.1615586@news.devx.com...
    > On 4 Apr 2002 16:30:17 -0800, "Ed" <ed_raffin@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >I gotta give you credit. You're getting more abuse than Bin Laden and

    you're
    > >still hanging in. I say keep it coming because it is always valuable to
    > >hear a different perspective because sometime the one lone dissenter is

    actually
    > >right and the majority is wrong.

    >
    > Don't worry! They think they hurt me with their withering glances and
    > their ruined sticks! I can only report as I find. And what I find,
    > since this is the vb.dotnet.discussion group, that the more I observe
    > VB.Net and its adherents the less likely I am to get involved in it. I
    > just cannot understand how ordinary VB programmers are going to warm
    > to it after the simplicity, flexibility and accessibility of classic
    > VB. New developers I could understand, because they don't know any
    > different, so they'll just assume all programming is hard.
    >
    > Call it a gut feeling, call it mood music, call it good old-fashioned
    > intuition, but I can't help but wonder in amazement over the sheer
    > gung-ho triumphalism of the .Net evangelists for a product that has
    > hardly been on the market for more than five minutes compared with
    > classic VB. Time will tell. Their Wunderprodukt may indeed be the
    > programming language of the millennium, the one that transcends all
    > others and becomes the new universal logic engine. That still wouldn't
    > mean that I could find any enthusiasm for it whatsoever, though.
    >
    > MM




  10. #70
    Constance J. Petersen Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    "Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3cadb8f3@10.1.10.29...
    > My point is he spent to much time on opinion. This goes back to the number
    > of pages issue. Now instead of 61 pages, we went to 40 some pages. Now we
    > are looking at what, 20-30 pages of facts. Ended up that he didn't tell me
    > anything that I didn't already know with just a cursory review of the

    documentation.

    OK. So for you the e-book wasn't worth the price.

    --
    Constance Petersen, DevX newsgroup section leader
    SoftMedia Artisans, Inc.
    http://www.smartisans.com
    For useful, usable software and Web sites
    Featured Web design: http://www.keweenawnow.com/
    --
    Please reply in the newsgroup so everyone can benefit




  11. #71
    Constance J. Petersen Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    "Mark Jerde" <mark.jerde@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
    news:VA.000000db.0993ecbb@nospamverizon.net...
    > One thing I'm waiting to see for myself is whether "people whose completed
    > software does not include error handling" (*) can be as _easily_ _productive_

    in
    > NET as they were in VBc / VBA.
    > (*) To call these people "nonprogrammers" is to invite napalm... ;-)


    I doubt that was the the target audience for this upgrade.
    --
    Constance Petersen, DevX newsgroup section leader
    SoftMedia Artisans, Inc.
    http://www.smartisans.com
    For useful, usable software and Web sites
    Featured Web design: http://www.keweenawnow.com/
    --
    Please reply in the newsgroup so everyone can benefit




  12. #72
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Constance,

    > I doubt that was the the target audience for this upgrade.


    <BG> Some of the software gourmets seem to feel no one should
    eat at McDonald's.

    Mark Jerde
    Biometrics - www.idtechpartners.com



  13. #73
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:04:00 -0500, "Cali LaFollett"
    <cali@no-spam-please-visionized.com> wrote:

    >> Imports System.Runtime.InteropServices

    >
    >Hmmmm... then don't use it. Just type out the full name every time you need
    >to use something from that namespace. Compare it to something like a giant
    >With statement. Also, you can put it in the project properties and never see
    >it in your code file.


    Why does it have to be so convoluted, so yukky, so...ugh? In VBc I
    just call up the References box and add a reference to, say, the ADODB
    stuff. Why in VB.Net do I need to write "System.Runtime." before
    "InteropServices"? Hasn't .Net got enough smarts to *know* where
    InteropServices came from? Or is there *another* InteropServices that
    could confuse it? In VB6 I can reference the ADODB engine, then just
    say Dim rs As RecordSet. I don't *have* to write Dim rs As
    ADODB.Recordset, unless there is ambiguity with, say, DAO. Also, when
    I use the References list in VB6 I see nice, meaningful English
    phrases like "Visual Basic objects and procedures", or "Microsoft
    ActiveX Data Objects 2.5 Library". I don't see ugly jargon like
    "System.Runtime.InteropServices". B.A.S.I.C. has always been a fully
    *spelled-out* language! It uses the one thing most of us know quite
    well to get its message across, namely English. VB.Net seems to have
    gone overboard to make the language *less* approachable in this sense.

    >> <StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)> _

    >
    >It's called an attribute but you dont' have to use these that much unless
    >you want advanced stuff which you seem opposed to.


    Well, there'd be little point in using it if I didn't have to. That
    has nothing to do with being opposed to advanced stuff or not. Even if
    I were opposed, if it were necessary for the program, I'd *have* to
    use it! Also, why is it placed within chevrons?

    > This particular one
    >allows you to *specify* how you want the structure to be marshalled.
    >Something <= VB6 never allowed you to do.


    The only marshalling I'm used to, apart from the sort epitomised by
    Clint Eastwood, is when I'm sending back a client recordset to the
    database. Okay, let's dig a little deeper and look at the Visual
    Studio 6 online help: It says: "Marshaling: Packaging and sending
    interface method calls across thread or process boundaries." Whew! But
    that's not what the VBc programmer needs to know, is it? Surely that
    is all there for the benefit of the C++ developer? But now you appear
    to be telling me that I need to have a much wider knowledge of
    marshalling for VB.Net. VB6 never allowed lots of stuff because it was
    considered to be inapplicable, inappropriate, or just too darned
    esoteric for the kinds of user VB was aimed at. Now they appear to be
    aiming only for VB users with the mindset of C++ programmers, not
    ordinary VB application developers. Fine, if they can find enough
    willing guinea pigs.

    >> Implements IDisposable

    >
    >Ahh, so you don't even use classes in VB6 huh? This is not a new keyword.


    It's not that I have *never* written a class! (There! Mikey is an OOP
    aficionado after all!) I have on occasions written a class, for
    experimental reasons mainly, but primarily when developing add-ins.
    However, it wasn't the Implements keyword I was highlighting there,
    but the reference to the IDisposable interface, something alien to VBc
    programmers -- it's not even mentioned in the Visual Studio 6 help
    at all, so it'll be something extra they'll need to study for VB.Net.

    >> timeGetDevCaps(tc, Marshal.SizeOf(tc))

    >
    >****, this is really no different that using a VB6 library helper function.
    >This one can be compared to Len(tc) but since Structures (i.e. UDTs) can
    >also have a properties and methods, the Marshal.SizeOf gets the marshalled
    >(compacted) size of the structure.


    Really no different? Well, perhaps. Once the VBc programmer has
    learned what the Marshal. part means. That's after they've learned
    that UD"T"s are now structures. I've just checked my Visual Basic .Net
    Programmer's Reference (borrowed from the local library), and it
    doesn't explain it. Returning to Dan Appleman's book, however, it
    looks like it's all to do with marshalling attributes. Whatever. It's
    just another arc on the new learning curve which I suspect many VB
    programmers are just going to shy away from as too difficult and
    unnecessary for the kinds of business apps they've been developing
    with classic VB. When I read Dan's book I am continually reminded how
    we in the classic fraternity always used to say "This ain't rocket
    science," but now it is, sadly. Must be, otherwise there wouldn't be
    the rumours from Redmond that MS is thinking about a "dumbed down"
    version at some later stage.

    >> Me.Reset()
    >> (the empty parentheses just make me puke - it's a sub for gawd's
    >> sake!)

    >
    >Why would you care when the IDE automatically puts it in there for you. You
    >actually think I typed those? You ARE lost!!!!!!


    Ah, the first symptom of your mounting ire! When I see such a row of
    bangs, I do have to wonder......

    Anyway, I care, because I still have to read the code, whether the IDE
    puts it in for me or not!!!!!!!! And reading a call to a sub with
    empty parentheses after working with proper B.A.S.I.C. for twenty-odd
    years just looks wrong, sorry.

    See, I just typed the following into a VB app:

    Sub GG()
    Dim x As Integer
    x = 1
    End Sub

    Then I tried calling GG(), and it throws an error:

    Compile error. Expected: =

    So I tried writing

    Call GG()

    and the IDE *strips out* the ( ) !

    Imagine the kinds of problems VB programmers are going to be
    confronted with if they're writing VB.Net code whilst maintaining VB6
    code!

    >> Protected Overrides Sub Finalize()

    >
    >Can you say "Class_Terminate"? ****, did it again. I assumed you knew what a
    >class was in VB6. BTW, hows that Delphi/Kylix code coming along. Declared
    >many classes lately??????


    Like I said earlier, only really in add-ins in VB6. My Class_Terminate
    event for the Connect class reads:

    Set IDTExtensibility = Nothing
    Set mfrmMain = Nothing
    Set mMenuItem = Nothing
    Set CommandBar = Nothing

    But I'd still have to learn about Protected and Overrides, as well as
    finding out why I should need to finalize, or whether it's akin to
    Setting to Nothing.

    >> Me.Dispose(False)

    >
    >I could have named this anything I wanted to, including Close, which is
    >currently something you cannot so in VB6!!!!!


    There is no Dispose in VB6, so it's immaterial.

    >> MyBase.Finalize()

    >
    >It's called "calling down to the base class", something you definitely don't
    >know nor care about. If you don't then don't use classes. You can easily
    >declare a module and use those instead. Of course that has already been told
    >to you though! Can you say "Pig headed" or "Dumb ***"?


    Yeah, look: "Pig headed", "Dumb ***". See! I knew I could! I bet you
    knew I could, too!

    >> Public Overridable Sub Dispose() Implements IDisposable.Dispose
    >> (***?)

    >
    >*** back atcha????? You prefer the old cheesie named interface implementing
    >technique in VB6? Oh, that's right, you didn't know VB6 had an Implements
    >keyword.


    I think I've shown that I did! It was IDisposable that was a little
    stranger.

    >> Me.Dispose(True)

    >
    >See the above "Me.Dispose(False)"


    Ditto.

    >> Protected Overridable Sub Dispose(ByVal disposing As Boolean)
    >>
    >> Now, I certainly could spend a few weeks going through all those
    >> snippets and trying to rustle up the barest whiff of enthusiasm for
    >> them. But, sorry, when I see things like "Public Overridable Sub
    >> Dispose() Implements IDisposable.Dispose" I just can't stop laughing!
    >> This is supposed to be B.A.S.I.C. is it? You know, "Beginner's" and
    >> all that? What a joke!

    >
    >If it took you a few weeks to figure out the sound bites that, then you SUCK
    >as a developer!!!! Get OUT-A-HERE!!! You got to be kidding me!!!!!


    I certainly suck as a consumer of spaghetti, but as a developer? That
    must mean they've been paying me under false pretences for all these
    years! It's not that it would take me more than the few weeks to
    figure it out, but that I could never find any enthusiasm for it. It
    would just seem like a chore.

    >If you want B.A.S.I.C then I have an old TI 99/4A I can sell ya. All 16K of
    >memory included at no charge. Also, I think here in the states, there are a
    >few nice big pasters we can put you out to!!! You can just graze all day
    >long!


    Well, if that includes being paid for it, I'm game! I'll graze as much
    as you like. Make sure you warm those hands, though!

    MM

  14. #74
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3cadacb7.3311686@news.devx.com...
    > On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:53:05 -0600, Bob <no@spam.com> wrote:
    >
    > >I think we've identified the problem. MM has never advanced beyond
    > >"Beginner".

    >
    > Well, I'll overlook the "we" there, because that implies you've just
    > thrown in your lot with the rest in attending a public stoning, but
    > even it were true, what is wrong with being a beginner? The name of
    > the language is a dead giveaway: B.A.S.I.C., and I don't need to bore
    > anyone with what the letters stand for.


    Actually, VB.NET is a better beginner language than VB6. I started in VB
    many many years ago, coming from DB3 and much later, when I started to sniff
    around C++ and Delphi I had a horrible time trying to map VB domain
    knowledge into either language.

    However, once I choked down Delphi, little lightbulbs began to pop on all
    over the place. Everything became a cakewalk...and later, when I went to
    look at Java...No problem. Delphi is a fantastic "beginners" language and
    VB.NET and Delphi are syblings. I see nothing that impedes or confuses a
    beginner in VB.NET and most of the clap-trap and overhead you're so afraid
    of isn't even an issue. The programmer doesn't have to deal with any of
    it...but if she does, it's there, open and available with no slimey hacks.


    <snip>
    > However, the evangelists only seem happiest when they're convincing VB
    > programmers to join them! Those they fail to convince become the enemy
    > of mankind, are stupid, are beginners, are sleeping with their
    > sisters, and all manner of other rabid, religious claptrap that simply
    > refuses to countenance any even veiled criticism of their new baby.
    > Curiously enough, though, it's *we* classic VB programmers who have
    > been given the one-way tcket to the future as they see it! We didn't
    > ask to join the train, we never wanted such massive changes, yet still
    > we are the suckers who have to suffer in silence and sacrifice eleven
    > years of long and painstaking hard-won experience.
    >
    > MM


    Actually, the "classic" VB programmers you champion are better off. I know
    that's a hard statement to swallow, but the pain or bitterness of the pill
    comes simply from the fact that VB has always been seen as a sub-standard,
    second-class citizen in the programming world and VB programmers have had
    their noses rubbed in it for years. You didn't spend 11 years learning how
    to program in BASIC. You spent 11 years figuring out how to hack VB to keep
    up with everyone else. The beauty of it is, none of that knowledge is lost.
    You'll be as powerful a programmer with VB7 as you were with VB6 and with a
    little more work you can truly write software and not a pile of slimey
    hacks.


    --

    -Robert

    Have a cow, man:
    http://www.riddleme.com/html/cow.html



  15. #75
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:26:52 EST, Mark Jerde
    <mark.jerde@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:

    >These people were obviously wrong. Fortunately there is now a path to
    >enlightenment.


    Of course. Each and every program they developed should be rewritten
    in a *proper* language, since none of them could have possibly been
    any good at all.

    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