From VB.net to C# - Page 4


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 196

Thread: From VB.net to C#

  1. #46
    Constance J. Petersen Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Hi Mattias,

    "Mattias Sjögren" <mattias.dont.want.spam@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:3cabf69c.206300434@news.devx.com...
    >
    > >Can you be more specific? What else should have been covered?

    >
    > I don't have the book here with me at the moment, and it has been a
    > couple of months since I read it. So I can't mention any specific
    > details at the moment, that'll have to wait a couple of days.


    When you get the chance, I hope you'll post some specifics.

    > But if you really start looking for differences between VB.NET and C#,
    > you'll find lots of little things that could be important to you. And
    > I just remember missing many of them in the book, he mostly mentioned
    > the big differences. That was kinda surprising, and not like the stuff
    > Appleman has written before.


    That depends on whether you're comparing it to one of his API books or his "How
    Computer Programming Works" book. <g>

    --
    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. #47
    Cali LaFollett Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    > 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.

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

    > Implements IDisposable


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


    > 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.


    > 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!!!!!!

    > 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??????

    > Me.Dispose(False)


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

    > 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 ***"?

    > 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.

    > Me.Dispose(True)


    See the above "Me.Dispose(False)"

    > 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!!!!!

    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!

    nuff said!

    Cal



  3. #48
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    "Cali LaFollett" <cali@no-spam-please-visionized.com> wrote:
    >
    >> 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.


    Just one point of clarification:
    Methods don't belong to instances, they aren't marshaled, and don't form
    part of the size equasion. The SizeOf method is used to determine the size
    of the unmanaged version of the data, which may be different from the managed
    data size. For example, if your structure contains a Boolean, in .NET it's
    16-bits. However, you can marshal the boolean field as a C(++) bool value,
    which is 32-bits. Thus, the size of the unmanaged view of your data is larger
    than the managed view of the same data. The SizeOf method takes these differences
    into account.

    -Rob

  4. #49
    stever Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    HAW HAW HAW!
    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.

    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). But since MM clearly has no experience with
    these parts of VB.old, he naturally wonders why VB.NET makes so much more
    sense.


    "Cali LaFollett" <cali@no-spam-please-visionized.com> wrote in message
    news:3cacc9f1@10.1.10.29...

    > > 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!!!!!
    >
    > 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!
    >
    > nuff said!
    >
    > Cal
    >
    >




  5. #50
    Cali LaFollett Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    > HAW HAW HAW!
    > The most direct and proper response to MM ever!


    Thanks! ;-) Just getting tired of the rhetoric and thought it was time to
    nip it in the bud!

    Also, I asked him not to "poo poo" it and he didn't listen! ;-) I don't
    expect him to reply to that post. Typically when I, or anyone else for that
    matter, point out his faults in such a manner that he is completely shut
    down, he ignores the post like the plague!

    Cal



  6. #51
    Ed Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    Heh Mike,

    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.

    Ed




    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 07:31:40 -0500, "Cali LaFollett"
    ><cali@please_no_spam_visionized.com> wrote:
    >



  7. #52
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    > I have no idea what it netted him, but I found it clear, easy to follow, and
    > well organized. A longer, denser treatise would not have served my needs as
    > well.
    >
    > Besides, it surely saved me far more than $10 compared to the cost of my own
    > time, if I were to have researched, analyzed, and organized the same info.


    Hi Constance!

    Nice to see you posting again. Beware of making TOO much sense in THIS
    newgroup... <VBG>

    Mark Jerde
    Biometrics - www.idtechpartners.com



  8. #53
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Rob,

    > Actually, it's a long-running joke. He's been trying to convince us for over
    > a year that Delphi (Kylix) is superior - and obviously, he wouldn't even
    > be able to understand half the product to begin with.


    <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>

    Mark Jerde
    Biometrics - www.idtechpartners.com



  9. #54
    Cali LaFollett Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    > 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.


    Ed,

    I really don't mind the right and wrong part but Mike has continued to spout
    information that he has no concept of and most of all, it is not true. Not
    once has he bothered to just *peek* at VS.NET let alone write one line of
    code in VB.NET. I would give his opinion all the credit in the world if he
    would just try it. But, alas, he won't and nor do I think he ever will.
    Until he does, though, his opinions are pretty much worthless.

    Also, from the sounds of it, he didn't even use VB6 to even near it's
    capabilities (evident from many his posts and by his own admission) even
    though he has had plenty of years to practice. We can also say to him once
    again, his copy of VB6 should continue to work for some time and if that is
    what he is comfortable with then he can stick to it. In the mean time, he
    ought to respect the people here that want to know the *true* facts about
    VB.NET and butt out if he can't produce any.

    I started off a .NOTer. I even had a "letter to the editor" published on one
    of last years VBPJ (VSM) mags stating that opinion. I then grew up and
    realized that I shouldn't knock something I won't give a fair shake to (and
    no Mike, the jumping-off-the-Bridge analogy doesn't work here). I have since
    learned, through my own research and studies, that VB.NET is a very viable
    option and I also personally like coding in it. It's actually *fun* again
    and that to me is well worth the very minor learning curve even Mike would
    have to go through.

    Regards,

    Cal



  10. #55
    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:

    >nuff said!


    Well, I thought it was when I responded to your enquiry with what I
    thought was a pretty fair listing of the bits I found strange and
    off-putting, but you still want to persuade me over to your version of
    the future, despite what I said about finding it hard to discover any
    enthusiasm for VB.Net. And just because I refuse to play ball, you
    call me names!

    Oh, well.

    'nuff said.

    MM (aka Kylixboy)

  11. #56
    Cali LaFollett Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    > Well, I thought it was when I responded to your enquiry with what I
    > thought was a pretty fair listing of the bits I found strange and
    > off-putting, but you still want to persuade me over to your version of
    > the future, despite what I said about finding it hard to discover any
    > enthusiasm for VB.Net. And just because I refuse to play ball, you
    > call me names!


    So you choose not to reply to the individual line items? I tried to show you
    information about things that you didn't understand or that you thought were
    strange (Some of which are already in VB6) but apparently my explanation
    didn't make sense.

    Mike, I am not trying to persuade you but rather inform you but you continue
    to want to put your blinders on and not see things for what they really are.
    You also put your blinders on when making posts because most of them do not
    contain valid information.

    How am I supposed to respect your situation when you show a total lack of
    respect for anyone else not to mention a total lack of knowledge of the
    topic? Many of the things I showed you in that post are things you don't
    necessarily have to use. Again, there are Modules and you can use them to
    your hearts content. They work they same way!!! The cool part is that you
    have the option to put more than one within a code file! Big deal!

    Stick with VB6 because that is what you like and that is what you are
    familiar with. From the sounds of it, you didn't want anything upgraded or
    changed anyway. If that is the case, why *should* you upgrade? Even if
    VB.NET were actually a true VB7, if you didn't need any new feature, there
    is no reason for you to move to it. Am I right?

    Stay where you are, I am sure the stalagmites won't mind clinging to your
    body!

    Cal



  12. #57
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    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

  13. #58
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:11:45 -0500, "Cali LaFollett"
    <cali@please_no_spam_visionized.com> wrote:

    >........... It's actually *fun* again
    >and that to me is well worth the very minor learning curve even Mike would
    >have to go through.


    This sounds like an arranged marriage! "Yes, son, you *will* like the
    girl, trust us, your parents!"

    And then she turns up at the altar and has a face like a bag of
    spanners!

    MM

  14. #59
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    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.

    To refresh everyone's memory, I have said on numerous occasions that I
    have absolutely no beef with Microsoft for introducing a new language!
    Do you see me arguing the toss about C# for example? No, because I
    couldn't care less about C#. But VB.Net, although a new language, is
    being touted as the next *version* of Visual Basic, that's what gets
    my goat. If they had left VBc alone, but developed a new, parallel
    hybrid language called Visual.Net or something with exactly the same
    syntax as VB.Net, but none of the implied association with VBc, then
    maybe I wouldn't have needed to post one, single comment in this or
    any other ng on the subject.

    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

  15. #60
    Constance J. Petersen Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    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.

    > Unfortunately he
    > doesn't know what I need or want or can take advantage of. If he would have
    > stuck to the facts and didn't try and rate each category and declare a winner
    > it may have been a bit more useful.


    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?

    --
    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




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