Is VB.Net difficult or not - OR - How difficult?

[Michael Culley]

2 things:
First, you don't have to learn them all, to get the same functionality just
learn the original 84.
Second, try doing one of the missing 248 functions in vb6. Most likely you
will find many that will require subclassing in VB6. Now which is easier?

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com

[Chris Loubier]

*******************************************************
Well, how about looking at it on a comparative basis. A useful and relatively
simple control in vb6 is the TextBox control. It has about 84 Properties,
Methods and Events associated with it. The same control in .NET has 332 members
in it’s TextBox Class (System.Windows.Forms). My position is a simple question.
How long would it take you to commit a list of 84 items to memory..? Now
how long would it take you to commit a list of 332 items to memory. So, is
it harder… You be the judge….

Chris
********************************************************







"Michael Culley" <mculley@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>> Mike: I can't speak for others, but what I've often said is that I don't
>> think VB.NET is much more difficult than VB6 for a beginner to learn (I
>say
>> "much more difficult" only because VB.NET lacks Edit and Continue, which
>is
>> a valuable learning aid. When VB.NET gets E&C, it will be just as easy
to
>> learn as VB6, if not easier, IMO).
>
>I think you are right but i'd include ADO.net in the harder basket.
>
>> Both products have learning curves: to this day, after more than 25 years
>of
>> programming in MS BASIC, I still have to look up the syntax for VB6's
>Input$
>
>This is absolutely right, the file handling functions in vb6 are a pain
in
>the butt and they seem to hide them really well in the help file
>
>--
>Michael Culley
>www.vbdotcom.com
>
>
>"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote in message
>news:3d0d82e9$1@10.1.10.29...
>> > This reinforces my take on .NET: It's just too darn arcane
>> > and long-winded for most classic VB programmers to get
>> > their heads around! So if *I* think this, and obviously others
>> > do as well, how come certain folks here often say things like,
>> > "...VB.NET is as easy as VB6...?"
>>
>> Mike: I can't speak for others, but what I've often said is that I don't
>> think VB.NET is much more difficult than VB6 for a beginner to learn (I
>say
>> "much more difficult" only because VB.NET lacks Edit and Continue, which
>is
>> a valuable learning aid. When VB.NET gets E&C, it will be just as easy
to
>> learn as VB6, if not easier, IMO).
>>
>> Both products have learning curves: to this day, after more than 25 years
>of
>> programming in MS BASIC, I still have to look up the syntax for VB6's
>Input$
>> statement (which parameter comes first: the file handle, or the number
of
>> characters to read?), the Line statement, and the various file sharing
>modes
>> of the Open statement. VB.NET only seems "arcane" to you because it's
>> unfamiliar; judging by the frequently-asked questions in various
>newsgroups
>> ("How do I make a form stay always on top?", "How can I use the Enter
key
>to
>> move between fields, without that annoying beep?", "How can I prevent
the
>> menu on an MDI child form from replacing the parent form's menu?", etc.),
>> VB6 can seem just as arcane to its newbies, too.
>> ---
>> Phil Weber
>>
>>
>
>

[Phil Weber]

> My position is a simple question. How long would it take you
> to commit a list of 84 items to memory..? Now how long would
> it take you to commit a list of 332 items to memory?

Chris: The only textbox properties, methods and events I use on any sort of
regular basis (in other words, the only ones I've felt a need to commit to
memory) are .Text, .Font, Change, KeyPress, KeyDown and possibly .SelStart
and .SelLength. Anything else I might need I access via the Properties
window or IntelliSense.

Visual Studio (both versions) makes it easy enough to find and work with
properties, methods and events that the number of items has very little
effect on difficulty. As Michael points out, additional object capabilities
actually make the language easier to use in the medium- to long-term,
because there's more built-in functionality, and less need to write and
debug code.
---
Phil Weber

[Mike Mitchell]

On 18 Jun 2002 21:15:24 -0800, "Chris Loubier" <chrisxl@att.net>
wrote:

>Well, how about looking at it on a comparative basis. A useful and relatively
>simple control in vb6 is the TextBox control. It has about 84 Properties,
>Methods and Events associated with it. The same control in .NET has 332 members
>in it’s TextBox Class (System.Windows.Forms). My position is a simple question.
>How long would it take you to commit a list of 84 items to memory..? Now
>how long would it take you to commit a list of 332 items to memory. So, is
>it harder… You be the judge….

Three hundred and thirty-two members for a ruddy TextBox?!! And this
is not bloatware writ large? The more I read about .Net the less I
like it. (And I didn't like it much to begin with.)

MM

[Phil Weber]

> The more I read about .NET the less I like it.

Mike: Gee, what a surprise. You've always been so unbiased and open-minded
in the past.
---
Phil Weber

[Ed Courtenay]

Well, I'm not so sure that all 332 of those members are actually public
(I've not counted so I'm not certain).

As for bloatware, far from it. The vast majority of the methods, properties,
events and fields that TextBox exposes are inherited from its base classes.
TextBox itself only implements 6 new properties (AcceptsReturn,
CharacterCasing, PasswordChar, ScrollBars, Text and TextAlign) and 1 new
event (TextAlignChanged). A much larger list is implemented by TextBoxBase
(which TextBox is derived from), which also provides RichTextBox with most
of its functionality.

Now if all of the members were explicitly implemented in TextBox, you'd have
a point about bloatware.

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d105a8b.852857@news.devx.com...
> On 18 Jun 2002 21:15:24 -0800, "Chris Loubier" <chrisxl@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, how about looking at it on a comparative basis. A useful and
relatively
> >simple control in vb6 is the TextBox control. It has about 84
Properties,
> >Methods and Events associated with it. The same control in .NET has 332
members
> >in it's TextBox Class (System.Windows.Forms). My position is a simple
question.
> >How long would it take you to commit a list of 84 items to memory..? Now
> >how long would it take you to commit a list of 332 items to memory. So,
is
> >it harder. You be the judge..
>
> Three hundred and thirty-two members for a ruddy TextBox?!! And this
> is not bloatware writ large? The more I read about .Net the less I
> like it. (And I didn't like it much to begin with.)
>
> MM

[Bob]

In article <3d10055c$1@10.1.10.29>, chrisxl@att.net says...
>
> *******************************************************
> Well, how about looking at it on a comparative basis. A useful and relatively
> simple control in vb6 is the TextBox control. It has about 84 Properties,
> Methods and Events associated with it. The same control in .NET has 332 members
> in it’s TextBox Class (System.Windows.Forms). My position is a simple question.
> How long would it take you to commit a list of 84 items to memory..? Now
> how long would it take you to commit a list of 332 items to memory. So, is
> it harder… You be the judge….
>
> Chris
> ********************************************************
>
I've been using VB since 1.0 and I have yet to memorize more than a handful
of properties for the textbox. It doesn't matter. That's what the property
window is for.

Bob