C# 4.0: VB revisited
-
Shog9 wrote:
Maybe now we can let VB.NET fade into obscurity and bring everyone on board VB With Braces
Fifty years from now when all you have to do is speak into Visual Studio no one will care. :)
My Blog: http://cynicalclots.blogspot.com
-
http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/10/CSharp-Optional[^] Named parameters. Optional parameters. Dynamic (late-bound) types. About time. Maybe now we can let VB.NET fade into obscurity and bring everyone on board VB With Braces.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Any article that uses the non-word "irregardless" is not to be taken seriously.
-
http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/10/CSharp-Optional[^] Named parameters. Optional parameters. Dynamic (late-bound) types. About time. Maybe now we can let VB.NET fade into obscurity and bring everyone on board VB With Braces.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Shog9 wrote:
VB With Braces
It will be nice to have a language with straight teeth for a change. Now if she can handle Prolog-style lists with such constructs as [head] and [tail] she'll be really useful. ;)
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Aren't most C++ users here complaining about being dumbed down by C#?
Naw, the C# converts are busy talkin' sour grapes: they're much more productive / anything that C# can't do doesn't need doing / C++ coders are stupid luddites / etc. :-\
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Shog9 wrote:
anything that C# can't do doesn't need doing
That's what I said when HP introduced hpl; look where that got me... Bullhead City. :sigh:
Shog9 wrote:
C++ coders are stupid luddites
They have their uses. Dog handlers, for instance - they really know pointers. And they should be as good at spotting syntax errors as COBOL programmers - Bog knows they've had enough practice.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
Shog9 wrote:
Maybe now we can let VB.NET fade into obscurity and bring everyone on board VB With Braces
Fifty years from now when all you have to do is speak into Visual Studio no one will care. :)
My Blog: http://cynicalclots.blogspot.com
Dirk Higbee wrote:
Fifty years from now when all you have to do is speak into Visual Studio no one will care
I will! I can't speak Chinese.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
I don't think that analogy works... The biggest difference between VBA and VB6 is the ability to compile standalone programs. I've used VBA in instances where I didn't have VB6 at my disposal. The vast majority of functionality is identical (VB6 even uses the VBA libraries) VBScript and C++ are completely different creatures entirely.
I don't claim to be a know it all, for I know that I am not...
I usually have an answer though.
-
http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/10/CSharp-Optional[^] Named parameters. Optional parameters. Dynamic (late-bound) types. About time. Maybe now we can let VB.NET fade into obscurity and bring everyone on board VB With Braces.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
I'm all Iron now, with added Iron and a sprinkling of Iron on top. Very much looking forward to IronC#, but I've a feeling the whole static/dynamic argument is cyclical and that VB6 will be the cure all :omg: :wtf:
My Bookmarks I clicked the link. In an instant I was transported 15 years back in time.
I'm at IronButt version 1.2.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/10/CSharp-Optional[^] Named parameters. Optional parameters. Dynamic (late-bound) types. About time. Maybe now we can let VB.NET fade into obscurity and bring everyone on board VB With Braces.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Default parameters would be a welcomed addition. I liked using them in C++, but they complicated the use of function overloading - you essentially had to choose between function overloading, or using default parameters.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
But who will we mock then?
peterchen wrote:
But who will we mock then?
Ourselves :-)
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link
