What are the Advantages of VB.NET?

[Sandhya]

Hi,
Can anybody tell me the advantages of VB.NET compared to other programming
languages? Any please let me know of some useful sites of VB.NET. Thanx

Cheers
Sandhya

[Kent]

"Sandhya" <sandhu83@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>Can anybody tell me the advantages of VB.NET compared to other programming
>languages? Any please let me know of some useful sites of VB.NET. Thanx

>
>Cheers
>Sandhya

Sandhya,

There are no advantages to using VB.Net as compared to using say Java or
C#

There is nothing that can be done in VB.Net that cannot be done in any of
the other .Net languages. They all accomplish the same thing in pretty much
the same way.

You can however avoid the use of curley braces if you think that it somehow
makes your code look ugly. The curley braces are used by languages such
as C++ which have been around for years.

Also, if you do your research you will see that VB developers do not make
as much money as Java/C# developers and are not as well respected in the
development community.

Also, you should know that .Net is not an open language and is only supported
by Microsoft on the Windows platform. If you want your code to run elsewhere
use Java. Some here will tell you that .Net is portable, but I assure you
if you examine the Mono project you will see this is not the case.

VB.Net is said by some here to be an extension of VB6 however this is not
the case as the two languages are now very different. Code from VB6 will
not compile in VB.Net. This is not the case with other languages such as
C++ which can remain almost unchanged. This fact makes many feel that VB
is not a stable language and is instead in a constant state of flux.

With C# this may not be an issue because it is an ECMA standard. Though
no one can say how effective that group is, since Microsoft holds many seats
in that particular group.

So you see there are more advantages to not using VB.Net than there is to
using it. I am being completely sincere in my efforts to guide your career.
I hope it helps.

Kent

[Bob]

Sandhya

Dont' listen to Kent, he's a Java fanatic only here to troll this newsgroup.


VB.Net has several advantages over C# such as better Intelisense, no case
sensitivity, many little convenient features missing from C#, such as With
blocks, Select Case blocks, code completion, etc. plus high (but not perfect)
code compatibility with VB6.

Java is more portable than .Net right now, but likely not for long. If you
are writing server apps, Java is a good choice but if your writing desktop
apps, .Net is far better.

[Paulo Costa]

Sandhya and Kent,

Kent is right. VB.Net was supposed to be the upgrade of Visual Basic 6 but
it isn't. VB.Net syntax is not compatible with Visual Basic. VB.Net is a new
language. Visual Basic programmers achieved the number of 3 million over the
world. Many of these people got a substantial codebase along 10 years of
life of Visual Basic and now this codebase is not compatible with the VB.Net
syntax and is becoming hard to maintain it. What's more, Visual Basic 6 is
prevented from taking advantage of the new features of the .Net framework
that VB.Net got. So, if Visual Basic 6 programmers want to migrate their
codebase and algorithms to VB.Net will have to redesign it, to rewrite it
and to test it, and to test it, and to test it...

This is the true and this is my case. I'm still waiting for a Visual Basic
compatible release. I think MS is able to do it if they want to. Visual
Basic programmers were not so respected as C++ programmers, for example,
however imagine how many productivity tools were developed with Visual Basic
by these 3 million of developers last years, and how many work was executed.
As an high level programming tool Visual Basic was the best.

This is for Sandhya: If you are starting now and if you choose VB.Net be
aware that, with exception of C++, Microsoft may discontinue any other of
their programming tools without notice, having seen this Visual Basic
precedent.

This is for Microsoft: please give me back Visual Basic, the one used to be
Visual Basic.

Paulo Costa
-----------
VB.net could have been implemented without
losing *Language Compatibility* with VB6.


"Kent" <kp@kp.org> wrote in message news:3e41c08a$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
>
> "Sandhya" <sandhu83@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >Hi,
> >Can anybody tell me the advantages of VB.NET compared to other
programming
> >languages? Any please let me know of some useful sites of VB.NET. Thanx
>
> >
> >Cheers
> >Sandhya
>
> Sandhya,
>
> There are no advantages to using VB.Net as compared to using say Java or
> C#
>
> There is nothing that can be done in VB.Net that cannot be done in any of
> the other .Net languages. They all accomplish the same thing in pretty
much
> the same way.
>
> You can however avoid the use of curley braces if you think that it
somehow
> makes your code look ugly. The curley braces are used by languages such
> as C++ which have been around for years.
>
> Also, if you do your research you will see that VB developers do not make
> as much money as Java/C# developers and are not as well respected in the
> development community.
>
> Also, you should know that .Net is not an open language and is only
supported
> by Microsoft on the Windows platform. If you want your code to run
elsewhere
> use Java. Some here will tell you that .Net is portable, but I assure you
> if you examine the Mono project you will see this is not the case.
>
> VB.Net is said by some here to be an extension of VB6 however this is not
> the case as the two languages are now very different. Code from VB6 will
> not compile in VB.Net. This is not the case with other languages such as
> C++ which can remain almost unchanged. This fact makes many feel that VB
> is not a stable language and is instead in a constant state of flux.
>
> With C# this may not be an issue because it is an ECMA standard. Though
> no one can say how effective that group is, since Microsoft holds many
seats
> in that particular group.
>
> So you see there are more advantages to not using VB.Net than there is to
> using it. I am being completely sincere in my efforts to guide your
career.
> I hope it helps.
>
> Kent

>
>Why not inheritance, overloading, overriding, web programming
>*and_the_classic_Visual_Basic_syntax* together? Did Microsoft declared it
>was impossible?
>


The problem here is that VB 'Classic' is based on COM, which imposes many
limitations (COM doesn't have implementation inheritance). But you are
right, it would be possible to add those, even if COM needed adjustements in
the way. But MS decided to ditch COM and replace it with .NET, so it's
unlikelly that they would double the development effort. That still wouldn't
solve DLL ****, deployment issues and circular references that were
(unfortunatly) present in COM (and by consequence in VB).

>
>VB.Net is not Visual Basic syntax, only the name. Dumbing down VB.Net
(there
>are rumours of that) would piss VB.Net users. But a VB6 version 2 for .Net
>;-) or a VB8 for .Net since Visual Basic compatible would be enough for me.
>


There is some confusion as to what is the language and what are extentions
(or platform). In fact, most of the language of VB.NET is either compatible
or easilly upgraded, except for a few issues like GoSub and non-zero based
arrays (which I agree, should have made it to .NET).

It's the change of platform though that causes most of the issues, like the
forms package, clipboard, printer, etc...

I am happy that you agree that the solution would be to split VB in 2
instead of dumbing down VB.NET like some claim. It's also nice to know that
you gave the platform a try, for I was thinking you were one of those
..NOTters with the 'VB6 is good, .NET is evil' attitude. The .NET platform is
here to stay, and I for one am happy that there is a VB in it.

But I must stress, jut the record, that the migration path sucks big time.
MS should really both complement .NET so it's more VB-like (arrays,
fixed-length strings, faster string handling, edit-and-continue, SDI option,
procedure view, etc...) and also complement VB6 with a SP or a 6.5 version
that eases the migration (by providing mock-up classes of the .NET ones, or
easier integration with .NET).

A final suggestion, change your signature, 'cos it really couldn't

>Paulo Costa
>-----------
>VB.net could have been implemented without
>losing *Language Compatibility* with VB6.
>

[Miguel Santos]

> This is for Microsoft: please give me back Visual Basic, the one used to
be
> Visual Basic.
>
> Paulo Costa
> -----------
> VB.net could have been implemented without
> losing *Language Compatibility* with VB6.
>

<sarcasm>
Yeah, bring the old dated forms engine, and webclasses are so much better
than ASP.NET, and who needs docking and anchoring when you can have
page-long resize code? Who cares if the windows common controls are slow in
VB6? Who cares if there was no print preview? And why would anyone need
inheritance, reflection, overloading, overriding, remoting, multithreading,
web programming and all that crap in VB?
</sarcasm>
(needed those sarcams tags so ppl wouldn't confuse me with MM

It has been agreed my most (all?) that the migration from VB6 to VB.NET
sucks. And you are right to complain about it. And you can even ask MS for a
VB6.5 or a VB7 with some fixups or something, but to dumb down VB.NET just
so it's compatible with VB6? No Thanks.

Take a look at the platform Paulo, and you'll understand why VB.NET is not
compatible with VB6. It's lightyears away in terms of concept. And thought
the platform isn't perfect yet (heck, it's a V1.0), it would benefit most
from people pointing out it's shortcomings, rather than blindly dismissing
it.

Regards,

Miguel Santos
-----------
VB.net could have been implemented without
losing *Language Compatibility* with VB6,
if only MS would dumb down VB.NET enough

[Paulo Costa]

"Miguel Santos" <RemoveThisToMail_ms@netvisao.pt> wrote:
> <sarcasm>
> Yeah, bring the old dated forms engine, and webclasses are so much
> better than ASP.NET, and who needs docking and anchoring when
> you can have page-long resize code? Who cares if the windows
> common controls are slow in VB6? Who cares if there was no print
> preview? And why would anyone need inheritance, reflection,
> overloading, overriding, remoting, multithreading, web programming
> and all that crap in VB?
> </sarcasm>
> (needed those sarcams tags so ppl wouldn't confuse me with MM

Why not inheritance, overloading, overriding, web programming
*and_the_classic_Visual_Basic_syntax* together? Did Microsoft declared it
was impossible?

> It has been agreed my most (all?) that the migration from VB6 to VB.NET
> sucks. And you are right to complain about it. And you can even ask MS for
a
> VB6.5 or a VB7 with some fixups or something, but to dumb down VB.NET just
> so it's compatible with VB6? No Thanks.

VB.Net is not Visual Basic syntax, only the name. Dumbing down VB.Net (there
are rumours of that) would piss VB.Net users. But a VB6 version 2 for .Net
;-) or a VB8 for .Net since Visual Basic compatible would be enough for me.

> Take a look at the platform Paulo, and you'll understand
> why VB.NET is not compatible with VB6. It's lightyears
> away in terms of concept. And thought the platform isn't
> perfect yet (heck, it's a V1.0), it would benefit most from
> people pointing out it's shortcomings, rather than blindly
> dismissing it.

I took a look. It's nice and very JAVA like.

Paulo Costa
-----------
VB.net could have been implemented without
losing *Language Compatibility* with VB6.

[Patrick Troughton]

Hi Sandhya,

"Sandhya" <sandhu83@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>Can anybody tell me the advantages of VB.NET compared to other programming
>languages?

The advantages and disadvantages really depend on which other langauges you're
comparing it against. VB.NET is a modern, object-oriented language that features
full support for structured, event-driven, and RAD paradigns. Overall, VB.NET
probably uses the easiest, most simple language syntax than another language.
It is case-insensitive. 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. 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. VB.NET also offers features such as With...End With
blocks and Optional parameters which reduce coding.

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.

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. 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).

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.

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.

>Any please let me know of some useful sites of VB.NET. Thanx

Sure. Here's a start....

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/

http://www.vb2themax.com/

http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,...3D18054,00.asp

http://www.extreme-vb.net/

http://www.devx.com/dotnet/

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

[Jonathan West]

Miguel,


"Miguel Santos" <RemoveThisToMail_ms@netvisao.pt> wrote in message
news:3e425407$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
>
> It has been agreed my most (all?) that the migration from VB6 to VB.NET
> sucks. And you are right to complain about it. And you can even ask MS for
a
> VB6.5 or a VB7 with some fixups or something, but to dumb down VB.NET just
> so it's compatible with VB6? No Thanks.
>
> Take a look at the platform Paulo, and you'll understand why VB.NET is not
> compatible with VB6. It's lightyears away in terms of concept. And thought
> the platform isn't perfect yet (heck, it's a V1.0), it would benefit most
> from people pointing out it's shortcomings, rather than blindly dismissing
> it.

There's nothing wrong with having all those things that you want *as well
as* the ability to port VB6 code. You want to use Windows Forms for new
apps? Fine, no problem. For new apps (or for new forms on existing apps) I
probably would as well.

It's about time people realised that compatibility <> no new features.

--
Regards
Jonathan West

[Patrick Troughton]

Hi Jonathan,

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.

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

"Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>There's nothing wrong with having all those things that you want *as well
>as* the ability to port VB6 code. You want to use Windows Forms for new
>apps? Fine, no problem. For new apps (or for new forms on existing apps)
I
>probably would as well.
>
>It's about time people realised that compatibility <> no new features.
>
>--
>Regards
>Jonathan West
>

[Patrick Troughton]

Hi Sandhya,

Sorry, lots of typos in my first post, let me try again....

"Sandhya" <sandhu83@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>Can anybody tell me the advantages of VB.NET compared to other programming
>languages?

The advantages and disadvantages really depend on which other languages you're
comparing it against. VB.NET is a modern, object-oriented language that features
full support for structured, event-driven, and RAD paradigms. Overall, VB.NET
probably uses the easiest, most simple language syntax available. VB.NET
is case-insensitive. 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. VB.NET uses English-like keywords like Inherits and
End If rather than cryptic symbols like : and }. Again, this just makes VB.NET
easier to read. VB.NET also offers features such as With...End With blocks
and Optional parameters which reduce coding.

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 encapsulation. You can use callbacks, events, bit shifting,
P/Invokes and threading. Support for hash tables, regular expressions, encryption
and GDI+ is built-into the framework.

VB.NET is very versatile. You can create virtually any type of application
in VB.NET....everything from games....to Web sites...to business applications...to
screen savers....to database front ends... to NT services. 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).

As far as development tools, Visual Studio .NET is widely considered the
best. There are also a couple of freeware IDEs such as Web Matrix 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.

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.

>Any please let me know of some useful sites of VB.NET. Thanx

Sure. Here's a start....

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/

http://www.vb2themax.com/

http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,...3D18054,00.asp

http://www.extreme-vb.net/

http://www.devx.com/dotnet/

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

[Paulo Costa]

"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.

Agree that a full migration wizard could have avoid most of the complaints
and all of us would be programming in .Net. But just one question: if MS
made a good migration wizard would people cry why they didn't made a VB6
syntax compiler also?

Paulo Costa
--------------------------
It's the upgrade wizard, stupid.
--------------------------

Just when I though you were coming to your senses... You fail to realize
that VB6 is so tied to COM as VB.NET is tied to .NET, and the platform
always dictated VB6's features and not the other way around.

Anyway, you're welcome to join the 'ASM is better than C, C is better than
C++, DOS is better than Windows, Windows 3.1 is better than Windows 95,
Windows 95 is better than Windows XP, COM is better than .NET, VB6 is better
than VB.NET' group. Well talk again in a few years time and see what
prevailed.

>
>Paulo Costa
>-----------
>VB.net could have been implemented without
>losing *Language Compatibility* with VB6.
>


Regards,

Miguel Santos

[Paulo Costa]

<RemoveThisToMail_ms@netvisao.pt> wrote:

> The problem here is that VB 'Classic' is based on COM, which
> imposes many limitations (COM doesn't have implementation
> inheritance). But you are right, it would be possible to add those,
> even if COM needed adjustements in the way. But MS decided
> to ditch COM and replace it with .NET, so it's unlikelly that they
> would double the development effort. That still wouldn't solve
> DLL ****, deployment issues and circular references that were
> (unfortunatly) present in COM (and by consequence in VB).

I was referring to the syntax, while the underlying technologies would be
irrelevant for me. Don't forget that Visual Basic used to be an high level
programming language for everyone. The same effort MS put in the creation
and evolution of this great tool could be put in it's continuity.

> I am happy that you agree that the solution would be to split VB
> in 2 instead of dumbing down VB.NET like some claim. It's also
> nice to know that you gave the platform a try, for I was thinking
> you were one of those .NOTters with the 'VB6 is good, .NET
> is evil' attitude. The .NET platform is here to stay, and I for one
> am happy that there is a VB in it.

Changing VB.NET syntax now would be an error of the same kind of breaking
Visual Basic compatibility.

> But I must stress, jut the record, that the migration path sucks
> big time. MS should really both complement .NET so it's more
> VB-like (arrays, fixed-length strings, faster string handling,
> edit-and-continue, SDI option, procedure view, etc...) and also
> complement VB6 with a SP or a 6.5 version that eases the
> migration (by providing mock-up classes of the .NET ones, or
> easier integration with .NET).

If MS provided classic Visual Basic syntax plus access to .Net system object
classes plus the guarantee of efficiency of such a release.

> A final suggestion, change your signature, 'cos it really couldn't

I don't change my flag because I continue believing it was possible if they
wanted.

Paulo Costa
-----------
VB.net could have been implemented without
losing *Language Compatibility* with VB6.

[Paulo Costa]

<RemoveThisToMail_ms@netvisao.pt> wrote:

> Just when I though you were coming to your senses... You
> fail to realize that VB6 is so tied to COM as VB.NET is tied
> to .NET, and the platform always dictated VB6's features
> and not the other way around.

Now think about the problems of Microsoft's Developer and Platform
Evangelism Division... ;-) Anyway, my position is because I have no way to
move my codebase to .Net architecture at this time, which alternatives have
I?

> Anyway, you're welcome to join the 'ASM is better than C, C
> is better than C++, DOS is better than Windows, Windows 3.1
> is better than Windows 95, Windows 95 is better than Windows
> XP, COM is better than .NET, VB6 is better than VB.NET'
> group.

If you read my previous posts in this newsgroup you'll realize that this
doesn't apply to me.

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

He... yes, market will decide (is deciding).

Paulo Costa
-----------
VB.net could have been implemented without
losing *Language Compatibility* with VB6.