WriteOnly
-
Did you know VB.NET has a WriteOnly property to make properties into /dev/nulls? :wtf: It even offers IntelliSense to remove the Get accessors!
CLR: Removes tough Java-based stains fast!
I suppose a write-only property (in whatever language, but preferably C#) could be used when defining something like a queue (Enqueue) or a stack (Push). (Though not recommended.)
-
Yes, it's a good language, but I prefer C#. Besides, WriteOnly is so weirdly funny! :laugh:
CLR: Removes tough Java-based stains fast!
Full ACK. It's those little advantages of C# like anonymous delegates, lambda expressions without return value, automatic properties, a.s.o. that made me prefer C#. But one can't say VB is horrible! Basically, it has all features of C# and just an other syntax.
-
Robert Surtees wrote:
Maybe the property is part of a quantum computer and so write only to spare the possible life of a cat.
You would need 9 WriteOnly properties then. Remember; they have 9 lives! LOL. :laugh: (who would build a supercomputer in VB? the language is slightly crippled, but this WriteOnly thing gives a advantage over C# or the awful C++)
CLR: Removes tough Java-based stains fast!
writeonly properties are just as possible in c#, just create a property without an accessor. It's probably not great practice to use one but there may be times when it came in handy
-
Did you know VB.NET has a WriteOnly property to make properties into /dev/nulls? :wtf: It even offers IntelliSense to remove the Get accessors!
CLR: Removes tough Java-based stains fast!
I quite often use write only properties in C# Consider this: Object A depends on an internal state and also needs an Object B for whatever it does. Object B inherits from a baseclass or interface, so there are many classes that may be used to create an instance to use as object B. Hardcoding it in A is not an option. Instead I use a write only property of A to pass a suitable object B at runtime. Object A then reinitializes it's internal state and prepares B for its use. I do not want to have access to object B anymore. It is not needed and indeed any tampering with B would have a bearing on A's state. With a write only property this problem cannot arise.
-
Did you also know VB is straight up just an ugly language? VB itself is a coding horror.
Mark Brock Click here to view my blog
MarkBrock wrote:
VB itself is a coding horror.
maybe the greatest advantage to VB is that the programmers aren't as arrogant as C# programmers. (otherwise: the meaning of writeonly also is a secret for me.)
-
Hi all of you that think VB are such a horrible language to use for coding. I’ve notice some of you think a large project can’t be done in VB. Well, I’ve got news for you. I work for a company that develops Point of Sale software for the last 14 years, and we are currently working on a new version for the Point of Sale that has at least 2 million lines of source code in it! It is a full client-server application and can be used on a single PC and up to thousands of computers all with a breeze. Programming some parts of the application in C and other languages, VB still is the most organised and understandable code there is. Call a project with more than 2 million lines of source code small? The project contains about 121 dll’s written in VB6 and about 67 dll’s written in VB.Net. Currently we are converting all the VB6 dll’s to VB.Net dll’s. After all, it is not the language that makes an application what it is, but the programmer’s ability to develop good and reliable code, regardless of the language. ;)
A programmer's life is good... or is it?? Ek dink nie so nie!
haha I don't think any of the "anti-VB"'ers in here are really serious about what they say. I've worked on a very large VB.NET project as well - A customized CMS for our government. People are just taking the piss. ;)
Mark Brock Click here to view my blog
-
MarkBrock wrote:
VB itself is a coding horror.
maybe the greatest advantage to VB is that the programmers aren't as arrogant as C# programmers. (otherwise: the meaning of writeonly also is a secret for me.)
Arrogance? Perhaps, but stereotypes usually do not come out of a void. Until .Net VB hardly was a candidate to do any serious work with. And those who tried often gave a picture of needlessly fighting windmills to overcome its shortcomings and proove that they were right. Also, the acronym 'BASIC' is still held high by advertising VB as the ideal language for beginners. Is it really a wonder that all diehard VB users are automatically percieved as such? Last, the syntax obviously is one of those love-or-hate things. So am I being arrogant if I don't want to be irritated by it the entire day? Or am I arrogant when I decide that I have better things to do than arguing with people who automatically put me into the 'annoying newbie' box?
-
Arrogance? Perhaps, but stereotypes usually do not come out of a void. Until .Net VB hardly was a candidate to do any serious work with. And those who tried often gave a picture of needlessly fighting windmills to overcome its shortcomings and proove that they were right. Also, the acronym 'BASIC' is still held high by advertising VB as the ideal language for beginners. Is it really a wonder that all diehard VB users are automatically percieved as such? Last, the syntax obviously is one of those love-or-hate things. So am I being arrogant if I don't want to be irritated by it the entire day? Or am I arrogant when I decide that I have better things to do than arguing with people who automatically put me into the 'annoying newbie' box?
CDP1802 wrote:
but stereotypes usually do not come out of a void.
That may be right, but then its a question of character, whether you want to take stereotypes for your opinion, and wether you want to reproduce stereotypes on and on. To have preferences cannot be called arrogance, neither criticizing some VB concepts. (I've lots of criticism myself, for example the mixing up of "=" and "==" in one operator - gruesome, isn't it?) But to me it's the IDE, which keeps me staying in VB, because of the background-compiling, because contextmenu "go to definition" leads directly to the objectbrowser, and the objectbrowser displays the return-types of functions already in the overview.
-
haha I don't think any of the "anti-VB"'ers in here are really serious about what they say. I've worked on a very large VB.NET project as well - A customized CMS for our government. People are just taking the piss. ;)
Mark Brock Click here to view my blog
-
MarkBrock wrote:
I've worked on a very large VB.NET project as well - A customized CMS for our government.
Not the one for the FBI that failed miserably and waisted $100 mil taxpayer's money by any chance is it ?
haha... that's classified :).
Mark Brock Click here to view my blog
-
This is the type of comment that only can be written by someone that doesnt know the language. I work on c# but i worked on VB.Net a few years before. The two main diferences i noticed on the transition was that intelisence is a lot better on VB, and on vb i don't have to compile the code to see errors.
Member 2411327 wrote:
The two main diferences i noticed on the transition was that intelisence is a lot better on VB, and on vb i don't have to compile the code to see errors.
That's not a language difference, it's an IDE difference.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
This is the type of comment that only can be written by someone that doesnt know the language. I work on c# but i worked on VB.Net a few years before. The two main diferences i noticed on the transition was that intelisence is a lot better on VB, and on vb i don't have to compile the code to see errors.
I am a 8yr VB (and generic BASIC) refugee and I must say that C# has given me a warm fuzzy feeling since I started using it. One word: keystrokes ;).