difference between C# and VB.Net except syntax Dinesh Says Thanx ....
-
:laugh:That was a biased answer if ever I saw one. The implication is that since you consider a VB6 programmer to be a dud, they will still be duds if they move to VB.net but fine of course if they adopt curly braces and hit c# (from VB6 of course) Give me two teams, two jobs, two languages. 9 times out of 10 the VB team will deliver sooner and produce more maintainable code which is handy when they all leave for a job in C# at you place. C#: If its hard to write it should be hard to understand
robvon wrote:
The implication is that since you consider a VB6 programmer to be a dud, they will still be duds if they move to VB.net but fine of course if they adopt curly braces and hit c# (from VB6 of course)
No, that's totally not what I said. Here is what I said: VB.NET contains a lot of terrible stuff that came over from VB6. For that reason, I would not hire someone who moved from VB.NET, because they will be trying to use it as if it was still VB6. I base this on my observations in programming forums, where lots of people are fighting VB.NET, trying desperately to turn it into VB6. Sadly, it's still half way there, for those who want it to be. If they were to hit C#, they would not have the ability to write the bad code that can be written in VB.NET.
robvon wrote:
9 times out of 10 the VB team will deliver sooner and produce more maintainable code which is handy when they all leave for a job in C# at you place.
Now this is a load of biased crap.
robvon wrote:
C#: If its hard to write it should be hard to understand
See, I said that I find VB.NET hard to write and understand. I didn't say that either language was either of those things. I just said that it's a matter of personal bias. I spoke to someone in the MSDN forums the other day, complaining that VB6 only allows code files to be 52325 lines long. You think that 9 times out of 10, VB teams write more maintainable code ? I doubt it. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
:laugh:That was a biased answer if ever I saw one. The implication is that since you consider a VB6 programmer to be a dud, they will still be duds if they move to VB.net but fine of course if they adopt curly braces and hit c# (from VB6 of course) Give me two teams, two jobs, two languages. 9 times out of 10 the VB team will deliver sooner and produce more maintainable code which is handy when they all leave for a job in C# at you place. C#: If its hard to write it should be hard to understand
I worte a VB.net program and then translated it to C#. The only thing that was different is the Module in VB.Net. The other thing was late binding - i found it...different in C#. Botton line it the same thing. The only reason i choose c# is that my fellow c++ programmers could understand my code. (c++ programmers has the tendancy to wipe their arses with vb code if they see it - old habbits die hard) If you can spell Chuck Norris in Scrabble - you win forever:-D
-
robvon wrote:
The implication is that since you consider a VB6 programmer to be a dud, they will still be duds if they move to VB.net but fine of course if they adopt curly braces and hit c# (from VB6 of course)
No, that's totally not what I said. Here is what I said: VB.NET contains a lot of terrible stuff that came over from VB6. For that reason, I would not hire someone who moved from VB.NET, because they will be trying to use it as if it was still VB6. I base this on my observations in programming forums, where lots of people are fighting VB.NET, trying desperately to turn it into VB6. Sadly, it's still half way there, for those who want it to be. If they were to hit C#, they would not have the ability to write the bad code that can be written in VB.NET.
robvon wrote:
9 times out of 10 the VB team will deliver sooner and produce more maintainable code which is handy when they all leave for a job in C# at you place.
Now this is a load of biased crap.
robvon wrote:
C#: If its hard to write it should be hard to understand
See, I said that I find VB.NET hard to write and understand. I didn't say that either language was either of those things. I just said that it's a matter of personal bias. I spoke to someone in the MSDN forums the other day, complaining that VB6 only allows code files to be 52325 lines long. You think that 9 times out of 10, VB teams write more maintainable code ? I doubt it. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
VB teams write more maintainable code ? I doubt it.
Totally agree with you. Maintaining code is not the job of the language nor is a language (shall i say) designed to do so. YOU as progammer must maintain your code through documentation. Production wise - no difference Chuck Norris will figure out the real Da Vinci Code
-
DineshSharma wrote:
why should I use the C# for my business application development and why vb.net
Those who know the answer use C#. Those who have to ask use VB. Marc Pensieve Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson -- modified at 6:28 Monday 15th May, 2006
-
:laugh:That was a biased answer if ever I saw one. The implication is that since you consider a VB6 programmer to be a dud, they will still be duds if they move to VB.net but fine of course if they adopt curly braces and hit c# (from VB6 of course) Give me two teams, two jobs, two languages. 9 times out of 10 the VB team will deliver sooner and produce more maintainable code which is handy when they all leave for a job in C# at you place. C#: If its hard to write it should be hard to understand
Nothing is hard unless you dont know it, same with spoken languages. arabic is hard for non arabs (specially the odd looking letters), but it is easier for arabs to write a whole arabic book than speak a single sentence in English, it is really what you know best. But as a VB6 (vb.net now) programmer, I can tell you one VB advantage over C#, it is fully supported in MS office (as Macros), luckily everyone has MS office, no need to download a complier or install one. It is nice to show a trick or two when a friend has MS office installed on his computer and you can immediately code and compile. To get knowledge you must share it first.
-
There is a degree to which you're asking about the difference between Roman Catholic and Orthodox here - a degree to which the two sides will say 'the other will burn in HELL'. The truth is, they generate the same IL, so in the hands of a good programmer, there's no difference. However, VB contains a lot of stuff that Microsoft wanted to kill, and the VB community would not let them, C# is by far a better designed language, IMO. I also personally hate VB syntax, it gives me a gut ache. Some people feel the same about C#, I'm told. So, if you have a choice between a skilled VB team and a skilled C# team, and you don't care about the stigma of VB, toss a coin. Otherwise, if you're going to learn a language, I'd say toss a coin again. If you have a choice between a C# team and a team who went to VB.NET from VB6, I'd take the C# team, every time. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
The truth is, they generate the same IL
no they don't.
-
Nothing is hard unless you dont know it, same with spoken languages. arabic is hard for non arabs (specially the odd looking letters), but it is easier for arabs to write a whole arabic book than speak a single sentence in English, it is really what you know best. But as a VB6 (vb.net now) programmer, I can tell you one VB advantage over C#, it is fully supported in MS office (as Macros), luckily everyone has MS office, no need to download a complier or install one. It is nice to show a trick or two when a friend has MS office installed on his computer and you can immediately code and compile. To get knowledge you must share it first.
-
can anybody confirm me theat whats the basic difference between c# and VB.Net. why should I use the C# for my business application development and why vb.net Dear all ...Thanks a lot for your suggestion and a lot of responces.......Thanx:laugh: Dinesh Sharma -- modified at 8:01 Tuesday 16th May, 2006
Check out www.desaware.com for a pretty good (and reasonably unbiased) e-book on just this topic. BC
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
And I want to add VB is much more verbose, same code is about 10% bigger, because of longer keywordand syntax. This 10% more opportunity for bug!
More verbose does not necessarily mean more bugs.
-
A difference between the C "family" and the Visual Basic "family" used to be that the former was a better choice if application performace was your goal, and the latter if productivity (ie producing a working programme quickly) was more important. With the introduction of .NET this difference though perhaps still there to some extent is less the case - and one has to wonder if that is a good thing...
Marc Clifton wrote:
Those who know the answer use C#. Those who have to ask use VB.
Code-snobs choose C because they think it makes them look smarter. Smart people choose VB because it's easier. :) cheers P
-
:laugh:That was a biased answer if ever I saw one. The implication is that since you consider a VB6 programmer to be a dud, they will still be duds if they move to VB.net but fine of course if they adopt curly braces and hit c# (from VB6 of course) Give me two teams, two jobs, two languages. 9 times out of 10 the VB team will deliver sooner and produce more maintainable code which is handy when they all leave for a job in C# at you place. C#: If its hard to write it should be hard to understand
-
VB 1.1 vs C# 1.1 VB does generate dirent IL than C# The "translation phase" of the compiler fails a litte in favor of C# (aka C# is sligtly more performant than VB). VB is the languaje that MS wants to kill... It was put into de .Net FW since there was LOTS of VB6 developers that needed to be ".Net Evangelized". Basic, in general (and all his flavors: QB, Turbo, GW, etc.) is not a good and "serious" language. I used to be a VB6 developer, but I've choosed to start .Net with C# since there is a LOT more of sample made on C# than VB.
Gonzalo Brusella wrote:
Basic, in general (and all his flavors: QB, Turbo, GW, etc.) is not a good and "serious" language.
One of my undergraduate professors said the same thing about BASIC in 1985. 20+ years later Visual Basic is still one of the most used languages out there. I've heard the MS rumors about wanting to kill VB. Considering how many VB programmers there are, it is unlikely MS will be able to get rid of it any time soon.
-
Phil Uribe wrote:
Smart people choose VB because it's easier.
.....and because they can't figure out event declarations.:cool:
..no - because they don't have to!! If you want to go round making work for yourself go right ahead, but I'll be the one wearing the shades on my day off, cool cat, while you're still figuring.... :-D
-
nicko wrote:
don't know about .Net v2.0, but with v1.1 you can only inherit from a single base class (which can in turn inherit from a single base class, and so on) - ie. doesn't support multiple inheritance
That's a feature of .NET. You can only inherit from one base class, but you can implement multiple interfaces. It's the same with C#.
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
True, C# is the same, but there are languages on the .NET platform that allow for multiple inheritance. Eiffel is one of them, if I remember correctly.
-
There is a degree to which you're asking about the difference between Roman Catholic and Orthodox here - a degree to which the two sides will say 'the other will burn in HELL'. The truth is, they generate the same IL, so in the hands of a good programmer, there's no difference. However, VB contains a lot of stuff that Microsoft wanted to kill, and the VB community would not let them, C# is by far a better designed language, IMO. I also personally hate VB syntax, it gives me a gut ache. Some people feel the same about C#, I'm told. So, if you have a choice between a skilled VB team and a skilled C# team, and you don't care about the stigma of VB, toss a coin. Otherwise, if you're going to learn a language, I'd say toss a coin again. If you have a choice between a C# team and a team who went to VB.NET from VB6, I'd take the C# team, every time. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
True, C# is the same, but there are languages on the .NET platform that allow for multiple inheritance. Eiffel is one of them, if I remember correctly.
-
can anybody confirm me theat whats the basic difference between c# and VB.Net. why should I use the C# for my business application development and why vb.net Dear all ...Thanks a lot for your suggestion and a lot of responces.......Thanx:laugh: Dinesh Sharma -- modified at 8:01 Tuesday 16th May, 2006
Hi Dinesh, The key difference between C# and VB.Net is the syntax & readability. Both languages conform to the Common Language Specification (CLS) and use the Framework Class Library (FCL). Personally I prefer C#'s syntax, but I prefer how VB is case insensitive, its intellisense is smarter and you dont have the casting/converting issues which can really slow you down productivity. Off the top of my head, ReDim'ing arrays is a bonus for VB but C# as mentioned above tends to push the boundaries a little more - eg Refactoring was inbuilt in C# 2005. With porting tools (C#2VB and vice versa) getting really good, I'd recommend you use the language you feel most comfortable with. HTH Jeremy
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The truth is, they generate the same IL
no they don't.
Igor Velikorossov wrote:
no they don't.
Maybe not exactly, but not different in any way that has a significant effect on performance, or anything else. The suggestion that C# IL is faster than VB IL is, frankly, ridiculous. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Lots of people are picking up VB for the first time because of Express. VB6 has been out of date for 4 years, surely someone learned VB in that time ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Igor Velikorossov wrote:
no they don't.
Maybe not exactly, but not different in any way that has a significant effect on performance, or anything else. The suggestion that C# IL is faster than VB IL is, frankly, ridiculous. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
The suggestion that C# IL is faster than VB IL is, frankly, ridiculous.
Christian pls point me where I have suggested that.