From VB.net to C#

[Jason]

"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.

[Jason]

>>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.

[Jason]

>>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? :-)

[Thomas Eyde]

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?

[Mike Mitchell]

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

[Mike Mitchell]

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

[Mike Mitchell]

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

[Daniel Pratt]

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

[dont_eat_the_salmon]

"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.

[Ed Courtenay]

"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.

[Kathleen Dollard]

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

[Rob Teixeira]

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

[Rob Teixeira]

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

[Kathleen Dollard]

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

[Jason]

>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... ;-)