I haven't learned to hate VB
-
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 =) ;)
-
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...
prolly because it's such a standard. who doesn't love generics and linq? and can we get some stronger types over here?
-
typically i feel like reading the code and rewriting it in c# before i'll acknowledge its existence