Why are people still ripping on VB.NET?
-
I just read a post where someone was trying to decide to write a new application in C++ or C# and commented on how some lame team member suggested VB.NET. Don't you people get it yet? It doesn't matter what language you program in .NET! I've written over a million lines of code across a few applications since 2001... and, oh my god, in VB.NET. I've never been limited in any way, and they are incredibly powerful systems. People who make comments to make themselves feel superior are whiners, and wannabee's. People who ARE superior take home the prom queen. Matt
MachineGun wrote:
People who ARE superior take home the prom queen.
OK - that does down the posters who are the prom queen.:-D We have a large female population on these boards.
MachineGun wrote:
Don't you people get it yet? It doesn't matter what language you program in .NET! I've written over a million lines of code across a few applications since 2001... and, oh my god, in VB.NET. I've never been limited in any way, and they are incredibly powerful systems
If that's what floats your boat then great. I assume however, that the poster had some strong feeling about why they didn't like VB.NET. Perhaps they have come from a C, C++, Java background and feel that they were able to hit the ground running quicker with C#.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
I just read a post where someone was trying to decide to write a new application in C++ or C# and commented on how some lame team member suggested VB.NET. Don't you people get it yet? It doesn't matter what language you program in .NET! I've written over a million lines of code across a few applications since 2001... and, oh my god, in VB.NET. I've never been limited in any way, and they are incredibly powerful systems. People who make comments to make themselves feel superior are whiners, and wannabee's. People who ARE superior take home the prom queen. Matt
MachineGun wrote:
Don't you people get it yet? It doesn't matter what language you program in .NET!
It's shocking that a VBer doesn't know what he is talking about... no really... it is Another common misconception is that the same kind of superior performance on the .NET Framework can be attained regardless of the language you use[^]
led mike
-
MachineGun wrote:
Don't you people get it yet? It doesn't matter what language you program in .NET!
It's shocking that a VBer doesn't know what he is talking about... no really... it is Another common misconception is that the same kind of superior performance on the .NET Framework can be attained regardless of the language you use[^]
led mike
Ok, I'll give you that, I knew C++ was always better. :-> I programmed in C++ back in 90' for 3 years when it took 100 lines of code just to show a blank window. I should have been more specific and said specifically C# vs. VB.NET. What about that? Is it true for C# vs. VB.NET as well? Hey, I'm open-minded as long as it can be proven. If it's true, it's true...
-
MachineGun wrote:
People who ARE superior take home the prom queen.
OK - that does down the posters who are the prom queen.:-D We have a large female population on these boards.
MachineGun wrote:
Don't you people get it yet? It doesn't matter what language you program in .NET! I've written over a million lines of code across a few applications since 2001... and, oh my god, in VB.NET. I've never been limited in any way, and they are incredibly powerful systems
If that's what floats your boat then great. I assume however, that the poster had some strong feeling about why they didn't like VB.NET. Perhaps they have come from a C, C++, Java background and feel that they were able to hit the ground running quicker with C#.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
There are Prom Queens here?! Sweeeet. Ok, or "Prom Kings" for the ladies. (and dude's who are into that kind of thing. Not that there's anything wrong with that...)
-
Ok, I'll give you that, I knew C++ was always better. :-> I programmed in C++ back in 90' for 3 years when it took 100 lines of code just to show a blank window. I should have been more specific and said specifically C# vs. VB.NET. What about that? Is it true for C# vs. VB.NET as well? Hey, I'm open-minded as long as it can be proven. If it's true, it's true...
There are minor differences between them but it's largely aesthetics. VB allows optional parameters which makes writing COM wrappers easier. C# provides the unsafe keyword which allows c++esque pointer use to gain a bit of performance.
-- CleaKO The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything [about the problem]. Pete O`Hanlon Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?
-
Ok, I'll give you that, I knew C++ was always better. :-> I programmed in C++ back in 90' for 3 years when it took 100 lines of code just to show a blank window. I should have been more specific and said specifically C# vs. VB.NET. What about that? Is it true for C# vs. VB.NET as well? Hey, I'm open-minded as long as it can be proven. If it's true, it's true...
MachineGun wrote:
What about that? Is it true for C# vs. VB.NET as well?
Is what true? They are not "exactly the same", yes they are not[^]. For me personally I have always found VB syntax next to unreadable. That wiith the inherent performance advantages in C# makes it a clear winner and a no brainer for me.
led mike
-
I just read a post where someone was trying to decide to write a new application in C++ or C# and commented on how some lame team member suggested VB.NET. Don't you people get it yet? It doesn't matter what language you program in .NET! I've written over a million lines of code across a few applications since 2001... and, oh my god, in VB.NET. I've never been limited in any way, and they are incredibly powerful systems. People who make comments to make themselves feel superior are whiners, and wannabee's. People who ARE superior take home the prom queen. Matt
-
MachineGun wrote:
Why are people still ripping on VB.NET?
Because it is inferior?
Brad Australian - bryce on "Problems with Code Project" *sigh* Maunder's been coding again...
Why did I even try to have an intelligent conversation on this board? I'm surrounded by neophytes. :sigh: Tell me why you think that? Do you have a good reason, or are you just being prejudice to your language of choice?
-
Why did I even try to have an intelligent conversation on this board? I'm surrounded by neophytes. :sigh: Tell me why you think that? Do you have a good reason, or are you just being prejudice to your language of choice?
Did I not clear that up in a previous post? ;P Anyway I think the reason your pressious VB.net is so discriminated against is because it is often associated with beguinners... also its syntax is sub par.
Brad Australian - Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript" A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
-
Did I not clear that up in a previous post? ;P Anyway I think the reason your pressious VB.net is so discriminated against is because it is often associated with beguinners... also its syntax is sub par.
Brad Australian - Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript" A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
I know. It's the oldest debate in programming history. I don't even know why I started the conversation. I must have been in a bad mood that day when I saw that post. It is quite annoying though. I've seen things done in VB.NET that are incredible. I relented to the C++ guy because he showed me proof, but I have yet to see something similar for C#.
-
I just read a post where someone was trying to decide to write a new application in C++ or C# and commented on how some lame team member suggested VB.NET. Don't you people get it yet? It doesn't matter what language you program in .NET! I've written over a million lines of code across a few applications since 2001... and, oh my god, in VB.NET. I've never been limited in any way, and they are incredibly powerful systems. People who make comments to make themselves feel superior are whiners, and wannabee's. People who ARE superior take home the prom queen. Matt
Anybody for COBOL.NET?
-
I just read a post where someone was trying to decide to write a new application in C++ or C# and commented on how some lame team member suggested VB.NET. Don't you people get it yet? It doesn't matter what language you program in .NET! I've written over a million lines of code across a few applications since 2001... and, oh my god, in VB.NET. I've never been limited in any way, and they are incredibly powerful systems. People who make comments to make themselves feel superior are whiners, and wannabee's. People who ARE superior take home the prom queen. Matt
MachineGun wrote:
I've never been limited in any way, and they are incredibly powerful systems.
Well, that's only true because you've not needed the few things that C# does and VB.NET does not. You're mostly right, most things can be done in VB.NET. But, VB.NET does carry a lot of VB6 rubbish that makes it ugly compared to C#.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
I know. It's the oldest debate in programming history. I don't even know why I started the conversation. I must have been in a bad mood that day when I saw that post. It is quite annoying though. I've seen things done in VB.NET that are incredible. I relented to the C++ guy because he showed me proof, but I have yet to see something similar for C#.
Read my image processing articles.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
MachineGun wrote:
What about that? Is it true for C# vs. VB.NET as well?
Is what true? They are not "exactly the same", yes they are not[^]. For me personally I have always found VB syntax next to unreadable. That wiith the inherent performance advantages in C# makes it a clear winner and a no brainer for me.
led mike
led mike wrote:
They are not "exactly the same"
It's true. .NET languages aren't all the same. What's true is that they are all on roughly the same footing with respect to access to the functionality of the .NET framework. They are not all equivalent with respect to language features and expressiveness.
led mike wrote:
I have always found VB syntax next to unreadable.
I have no problem with it. The C-family languages aren't exactly known for being strong on readability. Though Java and C# are significantly better than C and C++. All of them are much better than Perl though. However, in all cases, readability is enhanced by the care taken by the developer. Most developers write poorly readable code whatever the language. A least that's been my experience from doing a lot of maintenance work.
led mike wrote:
That wiith the inherent performance advantages in C#
The performance differences are largely not worth bothering about. In relation to VB and C# it is primarily a matter of taste. I personally prefer C# but I've also been doing VB .NET for quite a while and have done a lot of classic VB before that. My main background is C++ however. Most CPers seem to hate VB. But this is largely just language bigotry and snobbery.
Kevin
-
I just read a post where someone was trying to decide to write a new application in C++ or C# and commented on how some lame team member suggested VB.NET. Don't you people get it yet? It doesn't matter what language you program in .NET! I've written over a million lines of code across a few applications since 2001... and, oh my god, in VB.NET. I've never been limited in any way, and they are incredibly powerful systems. People who make comments to make themselves feel superior are whiners, and wannabee's. People who ARE superior take home the prom queen. Matt
The anti-VB sentiment is largely down to language bigotry and snobbery.
Kevin
-
led mike wrote:
They are not "exactly the same"
It's true. .NET languages aren't all the same. What's true is that they are all on roughly the same footing with respect to access to the functionality of the .NET framework. They are not all equivalent with respect to language features and expressiveness.
led mike wrote:
I have always found VB syntax next to unreadable.
I have no problem with it. The C-family languages aren't exactly known for being strong on readability. Though Java and C# are significantly better than C and C++. All of them are much better than Perl though. However, in all cases, readability is enhanced by the care taken by the developer. Most developers write poorly readable code whatever the language. A least that's been my experience from doing a lot of maintenance work.
led mike wrote:
That wiith the inherent performance advantages in C#
The performance differences are largely not worth bothering about. In relation to VB and C# it is primarily a matter of taste. I personally prefer C# but I've also been doing VB .NET for quite a while and have done a lot of classic VB before that. My main background is C++ however. Most CPers seem to hate VB. But this is largely just language bigotry and snobbery.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
But this is largely just language bigotry and snobbery.
With the advent of VB.NET that might be the case, but plain old VB was NOT a real programming language. I don't believe you can generalize about the bigotry. For my bias, I was doing Internet development in 1995 on NT and Windows 3.11 :omg: ( yes really), then Win95... etc., both server and client. I even worked on TCP/IP stacks. All of this work was using C/C++. VB was never an option for the work I was doing, it would have been like playing Pee Wee Herman in a wheel chair as your point guard in the NBA. As time passed "Web" development became very important and I found my server develpment experience in great demand requiring me to learn HTML, Javascript, XML, etc. Now Web development is considered "mundane" and Many of today’s "Web" developers came from a VB Drag and Drop Desktop application background. They have no multi-threading experience because the language did not support it. They have no "protocol" experience because they don't know anything they can't drag and drop. They don't understand OOP because the language didn't support it. There are so many things you COULD NOT DO in VB I don't have time to list them all. Now with VB.NET most of those limitations are gone from the langauge, but in many cases not from the practitioners. Many of todays VB proponents think just because the language now supports threading they of course are capable of developing multi-threaded code. That's the way it works right? The only reason people were able to do it in the past was because C++ supported it right? We just dragged a thread icon into our project and presto... multi-threading. Nothing personal against you, but when people want to discuss the bias as though there is no technical merit to it... for me that just borders disgusting... that is the source of my bias. So in addressing your generalization about the bigotry towards VB I was able to vent some... thanks! :-D
led mike
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
But this is largely just language bigotry and snobbery.
With the advent of VB.NET that might be the case, but plain old VB was NOT a real programming language. I don't believe you can generalize about the bigotry. For my bias, I was doing Internet development in 1995 on NT and Windows 3.11 :omg: ( yes really), then Win95... etc., both server and client. I even worked on TCP/IP stacks. All of this work was using C/C++. VB was never an option for the work I was doing, it would have been like playing Pee Wee Herman in a wheel chair as your point guard in the NBA. As time passed "Web" development became very important and I found my server develpment experience in great demand requiring me to learn HTML, Javascript, XML, etc. Now Web development is considered "mundane" and Many of today’s "Web" developers came from a VB Drag and Drop Desktop application background. They have no multi-threading experience because the language did not support it. They have no "protocol" experience because they don't know anything they can't drag and drop. They don't understand OOP because the language didn't support it. There are so many things you COULD NOT DO in VB I don't have time to list them all. Now with VB.NET most of those limitations are gone from the langauge, but in many cases not from the practitioners. Many of todays VB proponents think just because the language now supports threading they of course are capable of developing multi-threaded code. That's the way it works right? The only reason people were able to do it in the past was because C++ supported it right? We just dragged a thread icon into our project and presto... multi-threading. Nothing personal against you, but when people want to discuss the bias as though there is no technical merit to it... for me that just borders disgusting... that is the source of my bias. So in addressing your generalization about the bigotry towards VB I was able to vent some... thanks! :-D
led mike
led mike wrote:
plain old VB was NOT a real programming language.
Of course it was. Just because it didn't have the features you were interested in for the sort of work you do doesn't mean it's not a programming language. Languages are tools. Use the appropriate tool for the task in hand. It was much easier and quicker to do UI and database access work in VB than C++. A common scenario was to do this stuff in VB and have other business logic and data-structure-related stuff done in C++. Prior to .NET my experience was that this was an increasingly common trend in the Microsoft world.
led mike wrote:
They don't understand OOP because the language didn't support it.
So that means all procedural languages are worthless, right? (Actually, you could do OOP in VB6 with a little work. Rocky Lhotka's well-regarded CSLA framework was originally developed in VB - dating back to VB 4 in fact.)
Kevin
-
led mike wrote:
plain old VB was NOT a real programming language.
Of course it was. Just because it didn't have the features you were interested in for the sort of work you do doesn't mean it's not a programming language. Languages are tools. Use the appropriate tool for the task in hand. It was much easier and quicker to do UI and database access work in VB than C++. A common scenario was to do this stuff in VB and have other business logic and data-structure-related stuff done in C++. Prior to .NET my experience was that this was an increasingly common trend in the Microsoft world.
led mike wrote:
They don't understand OOP because the language didn't support it.
So that means all procedural languages are worthless, right? (Actually, you could do OOP in VB6 with a little work. Rocky Lhotka's well-regarded CSLA framework was originally developed in VB - dating back to VB 4 in fact.)
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
this was an increasingly common trend in the Microsoft world.
I have zero experience where release software was developed using Visual Basic. I don't know what you mean by "Microsoft World". If you know of a Commercial Microsoft Product developed with VB please enlighten me.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Just because it didn't have the features you were interested in for the sort of work you do
"Interested in" See there you make it seem "optional"... it wasn't... deal with it.
led mike
-
Did I not clear that up in a previous post? ;P Anyway I think the reason your pressious VB.net is so discriminated against is because it is often associated with beguinners... also its syntax is sub par.
Brad Australian - Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript" A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
this was an increasingly common trend in the Microsoft world.
I have zero experience where release software was developed using Visual Basic. I don't know what you mean by "Microsoft World". If you know of a Commercial Microsoft Product developed with VB please enlighten me.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Just because it didn't have the features you were interested in for the sort of work you do
"Interested in" See there you make it seem "optional"... it wasn't... deal with it.
led mike
led mike wrote:
I don't know what you mean by "Microsoft World".
Companies who use Microsoft developer tools.
led mike wrote:
If you know of a Commercial Microsoft Product developed with VB please enlighten me.
If you're talking about shrink-wrapped products I've no idea. But there's plenty of bespoke apps. in VB. I've worked at several companies that have used VB for commercial software.
Kevin