I haven't learned to hate VB
-
Michael K Gray wrote:
huge corporate projects
No, I use it at work now; it's rubbish. X|
-
EinA wrote:
self-taught many years ago
Well, that it explains it. ;P
EinA wrote:
15 support staff (call center, technicians, etc - no other programmers)
One programmer, 15 support staff. Now there's a reason to code in Basic if I ever heard one. :confused:
Gary
6 people in the 24/7 Call Center (1 per shift) and 4 technicians in 2 countries to install the hardware on the ships that we track. The rest are billing, reception & Operations Manager. Call Center staff can do minor software fault-finding & scripting & take care of the servers and client computers.
-
Luckily, I haven't ever had to code in VB. That last coding I did in BASIC was GWBasic way back 25 years or so ago. line 10, 20 30.... goto 20, etc.
I am a long time Basic programmer. Started with GWBasic on CPM machines. Then used QBasic, QuickBasic, PDS 7.1. In Windows I started with VB 1.0, then 2.0 and then VB 5.0 Pro. Didn't do a lot with VB though. I liked VB 1.0 and 2.0, but I started getting tired of OOP by 5.0 and because of a few other reasons I dropped VB in favor of PowerBasic. To be a good PowerBasic programmer one has to become experienced with the Windows API, which I have. While dot.net programmers are writing apps which huge in size (and a bit slower), PowerBasic can be used to write apps which are "lean and mean" (small and fast). I design drag and drop Visual Designers, build GUI engines, etc. with PowerBasic. My latest project is building an OpenGL based Canvas control for 3D scenes and animation. I wrote a proprietary 2D Sprite engine (no DirectX or OpenGL) using Powerbasic, which can convert a Graphic control (in PowerBasic that is simply an ownerdraw static control) into a 2D Sprite control which can animate 2D Sprites (hide/show/move, animate frames) and can even alphablend and antialias the sprites. The entire engine is just a 38 KB (size) DLL. You can't write that with VB ! Powerbasic provides me with the long time Basic language (has the same syntax as QuickBasic) so I can write procedural style code, but also gives many of the constructs found in C (ie. Data Pointers and Code Pointers), inline assembler, COM based OOP and a lot more. I don't hate VB ! VB is great in its own right. It just isn't powerful enough for me. Is too dependent upon ActiveX controls (can't even use the common controls or dialogs without an OCX).
-
Quite. The knee-jerk reactions against VB are from jerks who have either never used it, know nothing about it, or cannot program in any language. VB 2010 is a very mature and capable development language, targeted at large to huge corporate projects.
Well, I can say that I use VB.Net every week day. It was in place in the company before I was hired. And I wish every day at work that they would have chosen C#. VB has one huge problem, it looks nasty. There is way to much code to have your code clean. I am spending tons of time trying to read my coworkers code. There are NO ; I like them and want to see them. Because they exist in C# a new line doesn't need _ you can just simply start a new line. To be a little fair VB.Net 2010 has added the support for new lines in most cases without the use of the underscore. But I don't say VB programmers aren't as good as C# programmers. Simply put I don't enjoy VB.Net!
-
Well, I can say that I use VB.Net every week day. It was in place in the company before I was hired. And I wish every day at work that they would have chosen C#. VB has one huge problem, it looks nasty. There is way to much code to have your code clean. I am spending tons of time trying to read my coworkers code. There are NO ; I like them and want to see them. Because they exist in C# a new line doesn't need _ you can just simply start a new line. To be a little fair VB.Net 2010 has added the support for new lines in most cases without the use of the underscore. But I don't say VB programmers aren't as good as C# programmers. Simply put I don't enjoy VB.Net!
Disclaimer: I program in Perl now, so I'm used to using semicolons. A program in VB.NET will have far less underscores to continue a statement on a new line than a C# program has semicolons. If your statements are so long that they regularly need multiple lines, you are either doing something horribly wrong, or you're trying to program on a netbook (which could also be considered doing it horribly wrong). Most of the people who complain about VB(.NET) complain that they can't read the code (even though it is extremely verbose in comparison). Somehow some people just can't seem to follow blocks of code unless they are delimited with generic symbols ({..}) instead of specific words (If..End If). Of course there are also the people who believe that the programs will run better if written in C# (even though they compile down to the same MSIL)
I don't claim to be a know it all, for I know that I am not...
I usually have an answer though.
-
I am a long time Basic programmer. Started with GWBasic on CPM machines. Then used QBasic, QuickBasic, PDS 7.1. In Windows I started with VB 1.0, then 2.0 and then VB 5.0 Pro. Didn't do a lot with VB though. I liked VB 1.0 and 2.0, but I started getting tired of OOP by 5.0 and because of a few other reasons I dropped VB in favor of PowerBasic. To be a good PowerBasic programmer one has to become experienced with the Windows API, which I have. While dot.net programmers are writing apps which huge in size (and a bit slower), PowerBasic can be used to write apps which are "lean and mean" (small and fast). I design drag and drop Visual Designers, build GUI engines, etc. with PowerBasic. My latest project is building an OpenGL based Canvas control for 3D scenes and animation. I wrote a proprietary 2D Sprite engine (no DirectX or OpenGL) using Powerbasic, which can convert a Graphic control (in PowerBasic that is simply an ownerdraw static control) into a 2D Sprite control which can animate 2D Sprites (hide/show/move, animate frames) and can even alphablend and antialias the sprites. The entire engine is just a 38 KB (size) DLL. You can't write that with VB ! Powerbasic provides me with the long time Basic language (has the same syntax as QuickBasic) so I can write procedural style code, but also gives many of the constructs found in C (ie. Data Pointers and Code Pointers), inline assembler, COM based OOP and a lot more. I don't hate VB ! VB is great in its own right. It just isn't powerful enough for me. Is too dependent upon ActiveX controls (can't even use the common controls or dialogs without an OCX).
Chris Boss wrote:
Powerbasic provides me with the long time Basic language (has the same syntax as QuickBasic) so I can write procedural style code, but also gives many of the constructs found in C (ie. Data Pointers and Code Pointers), inline assembler, COM based OOP and a lot more. I don't hate VB ! VB is great in its own right. It just isn't powerful enough for me. Is too dependent upon ActiveX controls (can't even use the common controls or dialogs without an OCX).
Don't forget one thing: ActiveX is just another word for COM. You can use the common controls and dialogs without loading the OCX, it's just a lot harder. The OCX is just a COM DLL with additional information about what controls it provides. On the other hand, COM is now antiquated. VB.NET supports COM Interop, but it doesn't use it by default, and the common controls and dialogs are built into the Windows.Forms framework.
I don't claim to be a know it all, for I know that I am not...
I usually have an answer though.
-
Disclaimer: I program in Perl now, so I'm used to using semicolons. A program in VB.NET will have far less underscores to continue a statement on a new line than a C# program has semicolons. If your statements are so long that they regularly need multiple lines, you are either doing something horribly wrong, or you're trying to program on a netbook (which could also be considered doing it horribly wrong). Most of the people who complain about VB(.NET) complain that they can't read the code (even though it is extremely verbose in comparison). Somehow some people just can't seem to follow blocks of code unless they are delimited with generic symbols ({..}) instead of specific words (If..End If). Of course there are also the people who believe that the programs will run better if written in C# (even though they compile down to the same MSIL)
I don't claim to be a know it all, for I know that I am not...
I usually have an answer though.
C#:
string strMyName;
or VB.Net:
Dim strMyName As String
This one is not as bad but still more than you need. VB is easier to read for someone that does not spend all of their time in code, therefore are not worthy to be called Software Engineers :) or so some say. C#:
public bool UpdateMyName(ref string strName, int intSpaces, bool blnReverse)
or VB.Net:
Public Function UpdateMyName(ByRef strName As String, ByVal intSpaces As Integer, ByVal blnReverse As Boolean) As Boolean
you see a simple function is really long. Imagine this in a more real example. some of our functions at work have 15 arguments and all the extra unneeded words clutter your code. There is no arguing that VB is structured as well as C#. Simply fact that it is to verbose for large projects.
-
C#:
string strMyName;
or VB.Net:
Dim strMyName As String
This one is not as bad but still more than you need. VB is easier to read for someone that does not spend all of their time in code, therefore are not worthy to be called Software Engineers :) or so some say. C#:
public bool UpdateMyName(ref string strName, int intSpaces, bool blnReverse)
or VB.Net:
Public Function UpdateMyName(ByRef strName As String, ByVal intSpaces As Integer, ByVal blnReverse As Boolean) As Boolean
you see a simple function is really long. Imagine this in a more real example. some of our functions at work have 15 arguments and all the extra unneeded words clutter your code. There is no arguing that VB is structured as well as C#. Simply fact that it is to verbose for large projects.
DonaldDuvall wrote:
Imagine this in a more real example. some of our functions at work have 15 arguments and all the extra unneeded words clutter your code. There is no arguing that VB is structured as well as C#. Simply fact that it is to verbose for large projects.
15 arguments to a function is excessive. Related arguments should be combined into structures to reduce the possibility for errors and to improve code readability. If the arguments are completely unrelated, your function is probably doing too many things and should be split up.
I don't claim to be a know it all, for I know that I am not...
I usually have an answer though.
-
VB is kinda like dog crap - you avoid stepping in it, and are eager to wash off the stink after you have. It's a natural human reaction to crap.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Luckily, I haven't ever had to code in VB. That last coding I did in BASIC was GWBasic way back 25 years or so ago. line 10, 20 30.... goto 20, etc.
I have written my 1st program in Basic in 1967 September Oh a stupid one type a value x calculate sin²(x) + cos²(x) if the result is not 1 , write "the computer is stupid" I used PL1,Algol60,APL,COBOL,PASCAL and i found a clever language : C at work ( more than 2,000,000 lines written ) and at home C Microsoft/Borland . After the arrival of VB, i used VB 4 thru VB6 and C++ Microsoft but it was unpleasant , so i used VB6 ( i have even bought the full VB6 that i have always , useful with SQL Server 6.5 provided with it ).But i was using VB6 only because i was bothered with C++. 2003 : arrival of VC# and VB 2003. I bought them , and i begun to be fond of VC#. Since, i have bought VB/VC# 2005 and Visual Studio 2008 (Standard) and even VB/VC# 2010 (Express). Nearly all my programs are written in VC# , i am writing in VB only when , on forums, posters are asking for VB. I am finding VB less natural than VC# with a lengthy syntax and i am often grumbling because most of examples are in VB ( at least when SMO was launched , all samples were in VB, what a plea... especially when i have learnt that SQL Server is mostly ( > 90% ) in VC#. I have rejected the scripts for WMI and DMO because their flavour of VB. I have not known a more annoying language than Basic and its "sons" ( except COBOL that i have used during nearly 20 years )I have written programs for banks,trade,works,insurances during 25 years .For me, to learn a new language is not stupid or an annoyance, but Basic ( and its children ), it is only when i cannot do in an other way
-
Well, I can say that I use VB.Net every week day. It was in place in the company before I was hired. And I wish every day at work that they would have chosen C#. VB has one huge problem, it looks nasty. There is way to much code to have your code clean. I am spending tons of time trying to read my coworkers code. There are NO ; I like them and want to see them. Because they exist in C# a new line doesn't need _ you can just simply start a new line. To be a little fair VB.Net 2010 has added the support for new lines in most cases without the use of the underscore. But I don't say VB programmers aren't as good as C# programmers. Simply put I don't enjoy VB.Net!
DonaldDuvall wrote:
VB has one huge problem, it looks nasty. There is way to much code to have your code clean.
COBOL was nasty because it was too verbose. LMAO. At least there wasn't an abundance of unnecessary words. VB = barf. Of course, this is only my opinion, as an experienced software engineer. Basic is for kids and wanna-be's, unless you're forced into it. Why does VB typically come with "I taught myself to program?"
Gary
-
Well, I can say that I use VB.Net every week day. It was in place in the company before I was hired. And I wish every day at work that they would have chosen C#. VB has one huge problem, it looks nasty. There is way to much code to have your code clean. I am spending tons of time trying to read my coworkers code. There are NO ; I like them and want to see them. Because they exist in C# a new line doesn't need _ you can just simply start a new line. To be a little fair VB.Net 2010 has added the support for new lines in most cases without the use of the underscore. But I don't say VB programmers aren't as good as C# programmers. Simply put I don't enjoy VB.Net!
DonaldDuvall wrote:
support for new lines in most cases without the use of the underscore
Yeah, but they didn't do enough.
-
DonaldDuvall wrote:
Imagine this in a more real example. some of our functions at work have 15 arguments and all the extra unneeded words clutter your code. There is no arguing that VB is structured as well as C#. Simply fact that it is to verbose for large projects.
15 arguments to a function is excessive. Related arguments should be combined into structures to reduce the possibility for errors and to improve code readability. If the arguments are completely unrelated, your function is probably doing too many things and should be split up.
I don't claim to be a know it all, for I know that I am not...
I usually have an answer though.
Which is why C always had structures while BASIC only gained them much later.
-
What? VB.Net 2010 is designed from the ground up as a data-centric, *large* corporate business software development language! With tight integration into SQL Server technologies.
Michael K Gray wrote:
With tight integration into SQL Server technologies.
Why would I want that? I'm database agnostic. (Though I prefer SQL Server.)
-
I don't know why all 'serious' programmer always blame VB. VB.NET is practicaly identical to C# exept the syntax. You can do everything in VB.NET what you can do in C#. There are stupid guys doning stupid things and asking stupid questions at Code Project, and they normaly don't program in C#, thats right. But that is not the fault of the language. There are lot of stipid people talking english, but no one blames the english language for it... Best regrads: Didi P.S. I program in VB.NET for many years now, and I am happy with it, and does not know why I should learn the cryptic C# syntax just to look serious...
DidiKunz wrote:
exept the syntax
Which is exactly the problem.
DidiKunz wrote:
You can do everything in VB.NET what you can do in C#.
Unsafe? Pinvoke? Casting? Break statements willy-nilly and put comments wherever you like?
DidiKunz wrote:
There are stupid guys doning stupid things and asking stupid questions at Code Project, and they normaly don't program in C#,
No, we get our share in the C# forum. :sigh:
-
DonaldDuvall wrote:
support for new lines in most cases without the use of the underscore
Yeah, but they didn't do enough.
Well, I don't really have anything to say besides: I like C# more than VB.Net. VB.Net is by far simpler for beginners to learn on their own, and far better than VB 6. In my opinion that is the usefulness of VB.Net. Now, I may be biased because I have to work with VB.Net everyday at work. But that aside I think C# is the perfect blend of a Verbose C based language. So, why would I even bother to use VB.Net. Plus, VB.Net allows programmers to have bad application structure. Modules? no good, why on earth do I want a Global (Public) Static Class that you don't need to reference to use? It is simply a bad idea in my opinion. I am working on several large applications and it just makes it difficult when a coworker starts putting functions in Modules to manipulate form's components (that should be in the form's class). I have a feeling this will be a never ending argument. So, I rest my case with this. Delphi Pascal OWNS all other languages so there. ;P But honestly, thanks for reading my posts and I hope that I don't offend anyone. I just don't like VB.Net so much.
-
Michael K Gray wrote:
huge corporate projects
No, I use it at work now; it's rubbish. X|
That's less competition for me! :)
-
Luckily, I haven't ever had to code in VB. That last coding I did in BASIC was GWBasic way back 25 years or so ago. line 10, 20 30.... goto 20, etc.
-
I don't know why all 'serious' programmer always blame VB. VB.NET is practicaly identical to C# exept the syntax. You can do everything in VB.NET what you can do in C#. There are stupid guys doning stupid things and asking stupid questions at Code Project, and they normaly don't program in C#, thats right. But that is not the fault of the language. There are lot of stipid people talking english, but no one blames the english language for it... Best regrads: Didi P.S. I program in VB.NET for many years now, and I am happy with it, and does not know why I should learn the cryptic C# syntax just to look serious...
I'm going to chime in here... and probably get flamed for it, which is why I never do. If you haven't played with VB since its inception, your attitude needs adjusting. Not that you are required to *like* it, just to stop relegating it to the sub-basement. There are a few minor things you can do in C# that I can't do in VB (or at least, not without some severe coding), but MOST of that is in some newer areas (i.e., coded workflows... read-only properties can be written to in C#, the VB compiler complains.. but there is a work-around)- and microsoft has heard all the complaints about 'real programmers' not using VB, so neglected those of us who have no choice. This is bad. let the flames begin
-
Walt Fair, Jr. wrote:
next
How nice of you to use a keyword they'd recognize :rolleyes:.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^]hilarious. you can tell how long it's been. since i had to go back and foreach post reread the context of the next statement. if only there was a goto for ref =) ;)