What are the Advantages of VB.NET?

[Dan Barclay]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:53:56 -0800, "David Rothgery"
<drothgery@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:

>
>"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message
>news:gmu54vg8qg0lho2apqb52euhea3bboa9gt@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:47:22 -0500, "Mark Jerde"
>> <jerde@sanspamcompuserve.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> There's no way in VB to advance to the next iteration of a
>> >> loop without GoTo.
>> >
>> >Other than an if block, which I have used to avoid GoTo.
>>
>> You don't need that old fashioned "If" either. You can use the newer
>> Select Case instead.
>
>And when you can find an 'If considered harmful' paper by someone as
>reputable as Djikstra, we'll talk.

LOL. Oh, but we're going by Patrick's standards. We've gotta clean
up this piece of crap language.

Maybe you'd like something from Stroustrup though (regarding C/C++
compatibility):
=====================
For maintenance programmers, each incompatibility is yet another thing
for the programmer to keep in mind and a source of errors. For library
builders, differences require decisions about which language and
dialect should be used for implementation and create a need for
multiple interfaces (or a common interface using minimal features
only) to support several languages and dialects. For tools builders,
including compiler writers, each incompatible feature forces a special
case in the implementation and often a compiler option for its
control.
=====================

Of course, this wouldn't apply to VB.

Dan
Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)/(#1!)
Error 51
Error 3
Error 9
....

[Dan Barclay]

Cool idea. Sounds like something that may be on their list.

Dan

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:31:08 -0800, "Bob Butler"
<butlerbob@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message
>news:shu54vkcaqldushac67pbo0epd1b8dfmtn@4ax.com
>> On 6 Feb 2003 15:19:04 -0800, "Patrick Troughton"
>> <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Why
>>>> not eliminate GoTo as well?
>>>
>>> There's no way in VB to advance to the next iteration of a loop
>>> without GoTo. But if VB gets a Continue statement, this reason is
>>> gone.
>>
>> Yup, maybe you should look for that change in the next version.
>> Getting rid of that will keep people from writing nasty spaghetti
>> code.
>
>Good idea. They can replace "Next" with "End For" and then re-use "Next"
>for that purpose! <g>
>
>

Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)/(#1!)
Error 51
Error 3
Error 9
....

[Dan Barclay]

Great. So long as *your* code works it's probably OK then. I'd be ok
without it myself, so I guess the change is in!

Dan


On 6 Feb 2003 16:30:01 -0800, "Patrick Troughton"
<Patrick@Troughton@.com> wrote:

>
>Hi Dan,
>
>That would be fine with me. The only time I use GoTo is in the situation
>I just described...
>
>While blnCondition = False
> 'do some processing
>
> 'if some condition then
> GoTo Continue
> 'end if
> 'do some processing
>
>Continue:
>End While
>
>If VB ever gets a Continue statement, getting rid of GoTo would be very easy
>for me to do. It pays to think ahead. Also, if I even need to port VB.NET
>code to C#, again, it would be very easy to do.
>
>/Pat
>--------------------------
>It's the platform, stupid.
>--------------------------
>
>Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:
>>On 6 Feb 2003 15:19:04 -0800, "Patrick Troughton"
>><Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Yup, maybe you should look for that change in the next version.
>>Getting rid of that will keep people from writing nasty spaghetti
>>code.
>>
>>Dan
>>Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
>> (#6)/(#1!)
>>Error 51
>>Error 3
>>Error 9
>>....

Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)/(#1!)
Error 51
Error 3
Error 9
....

[Patrick Troughton]

Hi Dan,

The fact that see no difference between GoTo and If proves my point that
you still don't get it....that you don't understand what was changed or why.
In fact, this is exactly what I was talking about a few days ago. Thanks,
you just helped me prove my point.

/Pat
--------------------------
It's the platform, stupid.
--------------------------

Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:53:56 -0800, "David Rothgery"
><drothgery@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message
>>> You don't need that old fashioned "If" either. You can use the newer
>>> Select Case instead.
>>
>>And when you can find an 'If considered harmful' paper by someone as
>>reputable as Djikstra, we'll talk.
>
>LOL. Oh, but we're going by Patrick's standards. We've gotta clean
>up this piece of crap language.
>
>Maybe you'd like something from Stroustrup though (regarding C/C++
>compatibility):
>=====================
>For maintenance programmers, each incompatibility is yet another thing
>for the programmer to keep in mind and a source of errors. For library
>builders, differences require decisions about which language and
>dialect should be used for implementation and create a need for
>multiple interfaces (or a common interface using minimal features
>only) to support several languages and dialects. For tools builders,
>including compiler writers, each incompatible feature forces a special
>case in the implementation and often a compiler option for its
>control.
>=====================
>
>Of course, this wouldn't apply to VB.
>
>Dan

[blob]

>It is case-insensitive.
That should give him a good reason to choose VB.NET.

For example, in some languages (such as any in the
>C family), thisisMyIntegerCounter is different than thisIsMyIntergerCounter.
>When you're looking at thousands of lines of code, a slight mistake in case
>can easily trip you up.
I don't know, maybe the ****ing compiler will catch some of it?

>VB.NET uses English-like key words like Inherits
>and End If rather than cryptic symbols like : and }. Again, this just makes
>VB.NET easier to read.

Oh yeah, those cryptic : and }. Jesus, I hate those. VB is much easier
than:

public class C : I

Wow, that hurts my head.


>VB.NET also offers features such as With...End With
>blocks and Optional parameters which reduce coding.

And allow you to hack any f*****G thing you want.

>
>Even though VB.NET is very easy to use, it is extremely powerful. VB.NET
>is fully object-oriented with support for implementation and interface inheritance,
>polymorphism and encapsolation. You can use callbacks, events, and threading.
>Support for hashtables, regular expressions, bitshifting encryption and
GDI+
>is built-into the frameword.

Yeah, but you won't have that mark of VB programmer over your head if you
choose another language.

>
>VB.NET is very versitile. You can create virtually any type of application
>in VB.NET....everthing from games....to Web sites...to business applications...to
>screen savers....to NT services.
Hip hip hooray. What will you say when they scrap it?


>You can even write apps for your PDA and
>cell phone using VB.NET. However, you cannot do really low level stuff like
>write device drivers or write you own OS in VB.NET (currently, anyway).
Oh come on, tell him more. How about that signed thing?

>
>As far as development tools, Visual Studio .NET is widely considered the
>best. There are also a couple of freeware IDEs such as Web Matric and SharpDevelop
>you can use for free.
>
>As I said, the advantages and disadvantages really depend on what languages
>you compare it to. Some of the advantages listed about also apply to other
>languages such as Delphi, Java, VB6 and C#. Of course, these have their
own
>drawbacks as well.

How about some drawbacks of VB.NET? Are there none?
>
>Personally, I've programmed in C, Java, C# and VB6, and VB.NET is my favorite
>language. I've been using VB.NET for two years now and I've been very satisfied
>with it.
>
Yay.

[Patrick Troughton]

Hi Dan,

No, what I said is that it pays to think ahead.

/Pat
--------------------------
It's the platform, stupid.
--------------------------

Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:
>Great. So long as *your* code works it's probably OK then. I'd be ok
>without it myself, so I guess the change is in!
>
>Dan
>
>
>On 6 Feb 2003 16:30:01 -0800, "Patrick Troughton"
><Patrick@Troughton@.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi Dan,
>>
>>That would be fine with me. The only time I use GoTo is in the situation
>>I just described...
>>
>>While blnCondition = False
>> 'do some processing
>>
>> 'if some condition then
>> GoTo Continue
>> 'end if
>> 'do some processing
>>
>>Continue:
>>End While
>>
>>If VB ever gets a Continue statement, getting rid of GoTo would be very
easy
>>for me to do. It pays to think ahead. Also, if I even need to port VB.NET
>>code to C#, again, it would be very easy to do.
>>
>>/Pat
>>--------------------------
>>It's the platform, stupid.
>>--------------------------

[Bob]

"blob" <blob@blobbloblboblo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bob" <vb@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>Yeah, tell him the truth. It adds all the **** that you mentioned so you
>don't have to use real programming languages and actually learn something.

You say _you_ use a real programming language, but apparantly it hasnt' taught
you anything.

[Mike Mitchell]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:38:36 -0000, "Miguel Santos"
<RemoveThisToMail_ms@netvisao.pt> wrote:

>(needed those sarcams tags so ppl wouldn't confuse me with MM

<sarcasm>

Oh?

</sarcasm>

Ah, I see what you mean now.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:02:07 +0100, <RemoveThisToMail_ms@netvisao.pt>
wrote:

>.....................Well talk again in a few years time and see what
>prevailed.

One word: L-i-n-u-x.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On 6 Feb 2003 06:07:56 -0800, "Patrick Troughton"
<Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:

>Yes, but most of the .NOTers want to achieve compatibility by eliminating
>some of the improvements made to VB. If .NOTters just focused their attention
>on the Upgrade Wizard and compatility library, few of us would have cause
>to disagree. In fact, many of the pro-.NETters would happily join forces
>with you guys. But as long as .NOTters continue to insist on rollbacks, there
>will never be any agreement.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I do not insist on rollbacks.
VB.Net is here now and I would certainly not wish upon VB.Netters the
same kind of woe visited upon the classic VB programmers who remain
loyal to the VB ethos. So, what's done is done. But there is no reason
why Microsoft could not resurrect the classic VB project and continue
developing it. The kudos alone would stand them in good stead for many
years to come. And who knows? Maybe some VB programmers would, over
several years, take a closer look at VB.Net and start planning on how
they would move if and when they wanted to. But there wouldn't be this
sword of Damocles hanging over them the whole time. That's the
difference.

If Windows 95 is still being used by a significant number of users
around the world (and it is), then Windows 98 certainly is, too. Plus,
in the UK Microsoft have just pushed back the cut-off on NT 4.0
support till end 2004, following a huge outcry from the very many
users of that system. So there are millions of users, corporates,
clients, programmers, public bodies, schools and colleges around the
world who would still benefit from a continued RAD programming system
as epitomised by classic VB. It would take some guts to do it, since
the public opprobrium would suck muchly. But after a week or so,
people would come round to the idea. And the marketing droids would be
able to have a field day going commando in their hyperbole pants.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On 6 Feb 2003 11:25:10 -0800, "Bob" <vb@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>The obsolete GoSub command, for one.

But you don't have to use it, do you? Why remove it just to spite
those that do?

MM

[Patrice Scribe]

Integer being 32 bits was done IMO for consistency across languages. A
VB.NET Integer is the same than a C# int.
Though this is a problem for now this is IMO better on the long run.
Similarly arrays were once declared with the length rather than the upper
bound and it was undone (do you want to favor backward compatibility or
consistency across the new platform ?)

I don't really see the point about having a system dependant integer as you
run with a runtime. If you really want to recompile on a different platform
you could use something like :

Imports SysInt=System.Int32

Dim a As SysInt
Debug.Write(a.GetType())

so that you can easily recompile using System.Int64 on another platform if
you really want to...

Patrice

"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
jjq54vonhf0kolkri95g1j853jdoom61g4@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:30:35 +0100, "Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Integers being now 32 bits ? (C++ bigotry thread)
>
> I, for one, have proposed they introduce a SysInt to be an integer
> designed to be tied to best size for the underlying system. This
> would allow you to use an "optimized" integer if you want, or a
> known-sized integer if you want.
>
> In doing that, what improvement would you lose?
>
> Dan
>
>
> >
> >"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
> >htb54v05pvs12c517sv9s4ajalq08qpqcn@4ax.com...
> >> On 6 Feb 2003 06:07:56 -0800, "Patrick Troughton"
> >> <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yes, but most of the .NOTers want to achieve compatibility by
eliminating
> >> >some of the improvements made to VB.
> >>
> >> Please name "some of the improvements" that folks want to eliminate.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >> Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
> >> (#6)/(#1!)
> >> Error 51
> >> Error 3
> >> Error 9
> >> ...
> >
>
> Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
> (#6)/(#1!)
> Error 51
> Error 3
> Error 9
> ...

[Patrick Troughton]

Hi Mike,

I was talking 'present tense': I use Try...Catch...End Try now.

/Pat
--------------------------
It's the platform, stupid.
--------------------------

Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 6 Feb 2003 16:30:01 -0800, "Patrick Troughton"
><Patrick@Troughton@.com> wrote:
>
>>That would be fine with me. The only time I use GoTo is in the situation
>>I just described...
>
>The *only* time? What about error handling? Or did your code not
>require any?
>
>MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:53:56 -0800, "David Rothgery"
<drothgery@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:

>And when you can find an 'If considered harmful' paper by someone as
>reputable as Djikstra, we'll talk.

The paranoia over GoTo was just that: Hysterical, OTT, FUD. It's only
a jump, for gawd's sake! Arrange real jumps in a stupid fashion and
watch while the horsies all break their legs.

It's what you do with the tool that is important, not what you *could*
do with it. Stick a chisel in your eye and you're likely to go "ow!"
Use it for shaping wood, and you'll be going "ooh!" in no time! See
the difference between sense and nonsense? In any case, fancy building
one's lifelong reputation on a squabble about a jump!

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On 6 Feb 2003 16:30:01 -0800, "Patrick Troughton"
<Patrick@Troughton@.com> wrote:

>That would be fine with me. The only time I use GoTo is in the situation
>I just described...

The *only* time? What about error handling? Or did your code not
require any?

MM