From VB.net to C# - Page 11


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 196

Thread: From VB.net to C#

  1. #151
    Jason Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
    >Consistent or not, in VB6 this way of doing it was a good thing. In .Net

    the
    >number of keywords are too many, so a new way should be invented.
    >
    >VB.Net is not consistent with Property Get/Let. And then there is the arcane
    >syntax of attributes, which is not consistent with anything.
    >
    >The new Class statement declares its inheritance in a separate line, so
    >what's wrong with methods doing the same thing?
    >
    >..Thomas


    Sounds like you just don't like the language, and that is okay. If you want
    something a little less wordy, try C#. There are an awful lot of features,
    but you don't have to use most of them for day to day stuff, and they are
    there if and when you need them.

    If you don't like that, try J#. Java is a very simple language, and mostly
    consistent.

  2. #152
    Jason Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    >>Ergo, with this mindset,
    >>there *is* no "local app" any more where the concept of a "classic VB"
    >>would fit the bill.

    >
    >.NET supports "local apps".
    >
    >-Rob


    .NET does even more. It supports apps that run locally but are entirely
    maintained on a server, and distributed automatically from that server.
    It's not a new concept, and Java does the same sort of thing. The difference
    is that you have a much harder time trying to get a satisfying user interface
    out of Java.

    Think of it this way. In a few years, you will be able to buy an application,
    but you won't need to install it. If you have a service agreement, you will
    just see new features pop up every now and again, and sometimes you'll get
    a whole new look and feel, all without having to do anything. It's a very
    compelling model for software distribution, and it could be "the next big
    thing," now that you can write a high quality app for Windows.

    You need an OS to run the app, although it can interact with the Internet.
    You need a fast CPU, because the program loads and runs entirely on your
    local system.

    Anyway, I'm rambling again.


  3. #153
    Jason Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    >>That's how it happened with classic VB. Most successful
    >>programming language ever. Apart from English.


    I'm thinking Mandarin Chinese, with 600M speakers, is probably more successful
    than VB. I'd suspect that French, Spanish, and Portuguese are also more
    successful than VB.

    Actually, now that I think about it, in about 10 years, there won't be many
    people left "speaking" VB. Hardly a success, when you think about it.

    Yes, it's a silly argument, but it's in response to an equally silly statement.


    >>Unicode made no difference to any of
    >>my apps, except that I couldn't rely on strings for file buffers any
    >>more. Unicode was for me a pain in the butt. It was just a ****
    >>nuisance that suddenly appeared on the scene.

    >
    >Fine - for *YOU*. There are 1.3 billion people in mainland China alone,

    and
    >here's a clue: if they use computers, they don't use plain-vanilla ASCII.
    >Again, *YOU* are not the majority, and MS isn't going to build software

    for
    >*YOU* as an individual.


    Oh, yeah, there is that Chinese thing again! ASCII has been around for some
    time, but Unicode is all over the place. These "languages" seem to be very
    successful. I'll bet the number of people who use ASCII is a lot higher
    than the number of people who use VB.



    This is a question for Mike, and it may be silly, but I am anxious to know
    the answer:

    Do you still think that nobody will EVER use 640K?

    Bonus question:

    Are 64K segments big enough, or should we make them bigger? :-)

  4. #154
    Thomas Eyde Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    One argument used many times in a previous post was "...is inconsistent with
    the VB way...", I pointed out that there are things in VB.Net which already
    are inconsistent. A suggestion to how the language could have been different
    may be bad, but you can't use inconsistency to prove it.

    I was too hasty with Inherits, of course it is correct to compare it to the
    Implements statement which has always been on a separate line. Thanks for
    correcting me.

    ..Thomas

    "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:3cb1a62e$1@10.1.10.29...
    > VB.NET Proeprty declarations are inconsistant with VB6, but what's this

    about
    > Inherits? Did you have a secret copy of VB6 that implemented inheritance
    > with the keyword in the same line?





  5. #155
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:54:52 +0100, "Ed Courtenay"
    <my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote:

    >Mike,
    >
    >Let's recap here:
    >
    >* You found Patrick's article, and posted the link in your message.
    >* You lifted an entire paragraph out of the article, and also pasted into
    >your message, trying to counter my argument that .NET is not all about Web
    >Services.
    >* You failed to properly read Partrick's article, and in doing so,
    >completely changed the context of the original quote.
    >* Once it was pointed out to you, by several in this NG and by the author
    >himself, you started ranting about how it should have been written better in
    >the first place.
    >
    >We all make mistakes, no-one is perfect. However, it's painfully obvious
    >that you cannot bring yourself to admit that you made a mistake. Grow up,
    >and be man enough to admit that you were wrong.


    I categorically refute your argument. I made no mistake. I am not
    wrong. I have nothing to apologise for. I didn't "rant" about how it
    should have been written better. That was the author, Patrick, who
    said that, though he wasn't "ranting" -- that's just your
    disparagement creeping in. I read the entire piece and included the
    salient paragraph referring to web services in its entirety. That
    paragraph stated:

    ".NET is all about Web Services. No doubt about it. Microsoft has
    poured a lot of resources into Web Services, especially in terms of
    providing an infrastructure that enables developers to create Web
    Services more quickly and easily. There's still a long way to go
    before you can concentrate solely on the functionality rather than the
    underlying plumbing, but it's a start. Nevertheless, Web Services are
    just one type of application that VS.NET enables you to build. Nothing
    vanished mysteriously; you can still create the desktop, database,
    client/server, and n-tier applications that have dominated corporate
    development for the last decade."

    Read the first sentence. Read the second sentence. Read the third
    sentence. Read the fourth sentence.

    All these confirm that Patrick's (and my) view is that .Net is all
    about web services. When Patrick wrote "No doubt about it." he
    /confirmed/ that first sentence! If I dare paraphrase the segment in
    question: "There is no doubt that .NET is all about Web Services."
    This means to me that the primary, overriding, key aim of .Net is to
    enable, facilitate and expedite the production and use of web
    services. Which it is.

    Please tell me what I should apologise for.

    MM

  6. #156
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On Sun, 7 Apr 2002 16:04:27 -0400, "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote:

    >..........and was obviously said for the sole purpose of *****ing.


    Obvious to whom? How "obvious"? Oh, perhaps you mean, "Let's just
    claim he wrote it deliberately so that we can say he was *****ing and
    thus we can make him appear stupid and therefore we score a point,
    which is all this ng is about anyway, no doubt about it."

    That obvious, eh? <g>

    MM

  7. #157
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On 8 Apr 2002 09:11:30 -0800, "Jason" <jason@creative_nospam_corp.com>
    wrote:

    >Sounds like you just don't like the language, and that is okay.


    [snip]

    >If you don't like that, try J#. Java is a very simple language, and mostly
    >consistent.


    How about: Let's keep the ethos of a *really* simple language, namely
    classic VB, then *build* upon it? "Building upon" means, let's see
    what we can add to the building without removing all the walls down to
    the foundations, digging up the foundations, then building from
    scratch on the lot next door while peering over the fence just to see
    that we've got the gist.

    As soon as the designers of VB.Net started making the severe changes
    they did, they had already kissed goodbye to the VB ethos. And once
    they had the freedom to tear up all the rules they grabbed the C++
    manual, the JScript manual, and the C# manual and thus VB.Net hit the
    streets. Maybe from time to time someone (Bill?) popped his head round
    the door and said they had to make it at least /look/ superficially
    like B.A.S.I.C. Just enough to allow the marketing boyos to claim it
    was the next version of VB.

    And now it appears that some do not like it. And the only solution you
    can come up with is, okay then, use something else! This after pouring
    eleven years (for some) of time, money, and effort into realising,
    understanding and exploiting the ethos of VB.

    What a waste of time that all was then!

    MM

  8. #158
    Daniel Pratt Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Hi Mike,

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3cb1e51d.416438@news.devx.com...
    > On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:54:52 +0100, "Ed Courtenay"
    > <my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >
    > I categorically refute your argument. I made no mistake. I am not
    > wrong. I have nothing to apologise for...

    <snip>
    > Please tell me what I should apologise for.


    Most of the time your uninformed drivel doesn't bother me in the
    slightest. This time, however, you managed to annoy me greatly.

    Patrick and several other people have provided you with a very rational
    explanation of why you were mistaken in your interpretation of Patrick's
    article (as if you needed an explanation). Instead of just letting it go,
    you decide to remove the text in question from its original context and
    reformat it in a desperate attempt to justify your prior comments.

    While its true that no one who knows of your activity here or has read
    the article you "quoted" should be decieved by you, it does not change the
    fact that you are trying to be deceptive. Furthermore, your comments are
    tantamount to calling Patrick a liar, which you have no grounds to do. If
    this was a moderated forum, I'd be calling for your removal, unless you made
    a hasty apology.

    Regards,
    Dan



  9. #159
    dont_eat_the_salmon Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3cb1ecdd.2400891@news.devx.com...
    > How about: Let's keep the ethos of a *really* simple language, namely
    > classic VB, then *build* upon it?

    ....
    >And now it appears that some do not like it. And the only solution you
    > can come up with is, okay then, use something else! This after pouring
    > eleven years (for some) of time, money, and effort into realising,
    > understanding and exploiting the ethos of VB.
    >
    > What a waste of time that all was then!
    >
    > MM


    Um, if VB was such a simple, easy-to-use language for solving complex
    problems, why are you whining about how the past 11 years of learning its
    intricacies and exploits is suddenly irrelevant? If it was such a simple,
    elegant language, surely it would have been possible to master in 21 Days,
    like the books say! The fact that you've spent over a decade
    "understanding" VB, yet apparently have no experience working with VB in
    projects outside of 2-3 week quickie front-ends to databases, probably says
    a lot more about you than VB itself.

    Face it, you are just pissed off that all your accumulated knowledge of VB
    hacks and workarounds is going to amount to nothing more than a few bratty
    messages on a news server.





  10. #160
    Ed Courtenay Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3cb1e51d.416438@news.devx.com...
    > >
    > >We all make mistakes, no-one is perfect. However, it's painfully obvious
    > >that you cannot bring yourself to admit that you made a mistake. Grow up,
    > >and be man enough to admit that you were wrong.

    >
    > I categorically refute your argument. I made no mistake. I am not
    > wrong.


    If the author himself has to drop into the thread and complain about being
    misquoted, I'd say that was wrong in my book. All it would take is a small
    apology on your part, a slight loss of face, and no-one would care less.
    Instead you've managed to discredit yourself over and over again over the
    past few days. Sad really, because any *real* points you might have now get
    lost in the noise of people laughing at you.



  11. #161
    Kathleen Dollard Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Kunle,

    > That's Dan *opinion*. To VB's creators and many users, this is just

    another
    > [albeit radical] evolution of the dialect of BASIC that underlies VB.


    Sorry to side track this hopelessly side tracked thread, but why do you
    think this? It is not what the spec says.

    Kathleen



  12. #162
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >
    >All these confirm that Patrick's (and my) view is that .Net is all
    >about web services. When Patrick wrote "No doubt about it."


    Mike - how can you possibly state that when Pat came here personally and
    specifically said that is *NOT* the meaning of the statement you quoted,
    and further explained why.
    You can claim ignorance before he clafified it, but now it's simply intentional
    lying and misdirection.

    >he /confirmed/ that first sentence!


    He did no such thing. He confirmed you are using it out of context.

    >If I dare paraphrase the segment in question

    ^^^^^^^^^^
    Therein lies part of your problem.

    -Rob

  13. #163
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >
    >This after pouring
    >eleven years (for some) of time, money, and effort into realising,
    >understanding and exploiting the ethos of VB.


    And apparently you still don't understand it.

    >What a waste of time that all was then!


    Interesting how you continue to waste it.

    -Rob

  14. #164
    Kathleen Dollard Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Michael,

    > I'm trying to get our shop to move from vb.net to C#. So far we don't have
    > too much code so it should be easy. But I still have to convince those at
    > the top. Can anyone give me some good ammo? They keep saying that if they
    > are so similar why not just stick with VB.


    Well, this has turned into the thread from ****.

    There is both good and bad in EMCA standardization. C# language itself is
    new and relatively untainted, although not entirely so as there are two uses
    for the word Using, etc. Stylistic differences affect productivity.

    A while back I scribbled down why I used VB.NET to convince myself it was
    not strictly inertia. There are a number of issues, including more wrapping
    for new concepts such as the new event model, delegates, and a few things
    that are just far easier in VB.NET. Case insensitivity alone is worth it for
    me.

    However, I would not suggest choosing a language for any of these reasons.
    Right now C# and VB.NET are more similar than they will ever be in the
    future. They have announced that C# will aim to power and VB.NET to RAD. I
    believe that C# will also stay in the hands of "language purists" (stole
    that line from Zane) where things like wrappers will be introduced very
    slowly or not at all. Producitivity tools such as the online compiler may
    never appear, and usability is not likely to be a primary concern. VB.NET
    seems likely to focus on the millions of developers that used VB6 and will
    struggle with VB.NET. Helpful wrappers such as we see in the delegates arena
    may profilerate.

    I think it healthy to look at your own reasons for wanting to go to C#. If
    you don't have clear reasons, is it just the macho appeal of that C letter?

    I am quite happy with my decision to do VB.NET because with the framework,
    it is really going to be hard for C# to ever win on the "power" perspective.
    Whatever they give C# that is through the framework (which would appear to
    be everything) I will get. But the converse is not true, as usability issues
    can easily be supported by one compiler and not the other. If they let us
    down adn don't provide better solutions for tasks such as drawing and
    printing, then I may switch to C# in a couple of years. Since I will know
    the framework, I think it will be far easier to make the change then than
    now.

    Kathleen



  15. #165
    Jason Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    >How about: Let's keep the ethos of a *really* simple language, namely
    >classic VB, then *build* upon it? "Building upon" means, let's see
    >what we can add to the building without removing all the walls down to
    >the foundations, digging up the foundations, then building from
    >scratch on the lot next door while peering over the fence just to see
    >that we've got the gist.


    But Mike, classic VB is not simple. It's not even close. Take arrays, for
    example. You have your safe-array, which can contain Types, and your variant
    array which cannot. On the other hand, you can define hierarchical jagged
    arrays with a variant array, but you can't do that with safe-arrays. If
    you need to use the API, and you often do, you have to untyped pointers (Long).
    You often have to declare API functions differently in different parts of
    your application depending on how you plan to use them. You can't pass Types
    back through COM interfaces either, except in certain specific cases. You
    have to deal with Apartment threading, which was one of the worst design
    decisions ever made in VB (it basically ruined the chances of ever getting
    a good free threading model into the language). The menu editor is unsuited
    to all but the simplest of tasks.

    I could go on. But Mike, tell me how long VBPJ was able to publish "100
    Tips and Tricks for VB" annually, and there were about 50 workarounds in
    each issue due to problems with the language. THAT IS NOT SIMPLE!

    Mike, see if you can understand this - VB6 IS NOT A SIMPLE LANGUAGE! VB6
    is a very complicated, convoluted language that is not up to par with the
    latest programming languages and tools. Heck, even Java, with it's really
    sub-par GUI development libraries, is giving VB6 a run for its money, and
    beating the heck out of VB on the server.

    Porting the language over to .NET does not make any sense. It didn't make
    sense to port .VBX components to Win32 either. That caused a lot of consternation
    too, but no one is complaining about that anymore.

    >As soon as the designers of VB.Net started making the severe changes
    >they did, they had already kissed goodbye to the VB ethos. And once
    >they had the freedom to tear up all the rules they grabbed the C++
    >manual, the JScript manual, and the C# manual and thus VB.Net hit the
    >streets. Maybe from time to time someone (Bill?) popped his head round
    >the door and said they had to make it at least /look/ superficially
    >like B.A.S.I.C. Just enough to allow the marketing boyos to claim it
    >was the next version of VB.


    You insult my intelligence? I have been programming "BASIC" for 22 years
    now. I started on a TRS-80 Model 1. I have a TRS-80 Model 100 sitting on
    my desk at home. VB6 is not BASIC, nothing like it was 20 years ago. VB.NET
    is closer to the spirit of BASIC the way it was. It is simpler than VB6,
    yet also more powerful. It is an incredibly cleaned-up version of BASIC,
    with all the amenities of the modern programming languages (e.g. - Java and
    C#). There is more complexity, but you are not forced to use any features
    you don't need.

    On the other hand, and you would not know this because you refuse to ever
    learn anything new ever again, the new IDE rocks! It is far better than
    the VB6 IDE (except for the immediate window, which needs a little work).

    >And now it appears that some do not like it. And the only solution you
    >can come up with is, okay then, use something else! This after pouring
    >eleven years (for some) of time, money, and effort into realising,
    >understanding and exploiting the ethos of VB.


    Use whatever you want. I don't really care. Use VB6 if you want. I still
    use it for some ongoing work. If you don't like the language, YOU DON'T
    HAVE TO USE IT! I'm sure not everyone out there likes chocolate cake either,
    but that does not mean it totally sucks. I happen to like chocolate cake,
    and maybe you don't.

    My suggestion to you is stop sitting at the table and telling me how much
    my chocolate cake sucks. Just pipe down, or go to your room and play with
    your GI Joes. If you don't, I am going to hold you down and force you to
    eat the whole thing! Nyah!

    >What a waste of time that all was then!
    >
    >MM


    Not as big a waste of time as responding to your reply, but that's another
    story... ;-)


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