Why is VB being forsaken?
-
All the programming I have done has been with VB then VB.NET. Microsoft keeps continues to develop and release it along side C# and the rest. However, over the last few years, I have seen very little new information out there regarding VB. Very few articles on Code Project and other sites. Oh, and I'm a subscriber to MSDN magazine and I haven't seen a single line of VB.NET code in .. in .. I can't even remember the last issue. I can say at least the last four issues there hasn't been anything in VB.NET. It's all been C#, C++ and even F# but no VB! Is Microsoft trying to push it to the side so it whithers and dies and hope that no one notices or pays attention? Even here on Code Project I've noted next to nothing new on VB. Every week I get the newsletter with all the new articles and rarely do I see anything on VB.NET. There may be one article among the 30 C# articles but that's on a good week. So, what am I supposed to do? Just stop using it, pick up a "Learning C# For Lonely, Left Behind VB.NET Programmers" and just think of VB.NET as fond memories of long ago? I have a hard time with such a concept. VB.NET has evolved into a good language and is capable of doing pretty much anything C# can do (using the .net framework, of course) so why isn't it promoted more by MS and others?
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I get the impression that part of the "anti-VB" sentiment goes back to the good ol' days.
Yes, the C++ crowd resented having to spend 3 or 4 days coding a message box, when VB-ers could just by waving a wand and saying "Messagius Boxius!" ;) Truth be told, C# is VB.NET with C syntax. Of course it's equally true that VB.NET is C# with FORTRAN syntax. C/C++ is still the only Microsoft language you program computers in, the others are all methods of connecting to C++ and asking it to do the heavy lifting.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
Yes, the C++ crowd resented having to spend 3 or 4 days coding a message box, when VB-ers could just by waving a wand and saying "Messagius Boxius!" ;)
True, but it would have a limegreen background with a pink buttons.
www.software-kinetics.co.uk Wear a hard hat it's under construction
-
Oakman wrote:
Yes, the C++ crowd resented having to spend 3 or 4 days coding a message box, when VB-ers could just by waving a wand and saying "Messagius Boxius!" ;)
True, but it would have a limegreen background with a pink buttons.
www.software-kinetics.co.uk Wear a hard hat it's under construction
Norm .net wrote:
True, but it would have a limegreen background with a pink buttons.
And 17 different responses accessed by a double dropdown menu.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I get the impression that part of the "anti-VB" sentiment goes back to the good ol' days.
Yes, the C++ crowd resented having to spend 3 or 4 days coding a message box, when VB-ers could just by waving a wand and saying "Messagius Boxius!" ;) Truth be told, C# is VB.NET with C syntax. Of course it's equally true that VB.NET is C# with FORTRAN syntax. C/C++ is still the only Microsoft language you program computers in, the others are all methods of connecting to C++ and asking it to do the heavy lifting.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
Truth be told, C# is VB.NET with C syntax.
I thought C# was derived from Java?
Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.(Winston Churchill)
-
A good programmer should be able to learn any language with ease. The transtion to c# should be quite easy and the rewards will allow to learn other 'c' style lamguages like C, C++. The compelling reason is most technical applications are written in c#.
www.software-kinetics.co.uk Wear a hard hat it's under construction
Norm .net wrote:
A good programmer should be able to learn any language with ease.
I agree with a good programmer being able to learn a new language. However with ease... My day job is mostly with SAS - which is not generally classed as a programming language. We use it as a programming language and it took me 6 months to get comfortable with it(read to stop hating it and have some respect for it). The issue was not the syntax - it was more that the programming paradigm of SAS is that everything is an exception when it comes to syntax and methods. SAS is basically a bunch of bolt-ons created without any standards.. This can make it really hard for us programmers to learn...
Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.(Winston Churchill)
modified on Sunday, July 31, 2011 6:06 AM
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I get the impression that part of the "anti-VB" sentiment goes back to the good ol' days.
Yes, the C++ crowd resented having to spend 3 or 4 days coding a message box, when VB-ers could just by waving a wand and saying "Messagius Boxius!" ;) Truth be told, C# is VB.NET with C syntax. Of course it's equally true that VB.NET is C# with FORTRAN syntax. C/C++ is still the only Microsoft language you program computers in, the others are all methods of connecting to C++ and asking it to do the heavy lifting.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
the others are all methods of connecting to C++ and asking it to do the heavy lifting.
True. I have a lot of respect for those who can actually stare at C++ code and have a clue what it means. C# I can figure out even though I don't use it. C++ gives me heartburn. :)
XAlan Burkhart
-
All the programming I have done has been with VB then VB.NET. Microsoft keeps continues to develop and release it along side C# and the rest. However, over the last few years, I have seen very little new information out there regarding VB. Very few articles on Code Project and other sites. Oh, and I'm a subscriber to MSDN magazine and I haven't seen a single line of VB.NET code in .. in .. I can't even remember the last issue. I can say at least the last four issues there hasn't been anything in VB.NET. It's all been C#, C++ and even F# but no VB! Is Microsoft trying to push it to the side so it whithers and dies and hope that no one notices or pays attention? Even here on Code Project I've noted next to nothing new on VB. Every week I get the newsletter with all the new articles and rarely do I see anything on VB.NET. There may be one article among the 30 C# articles but that's on a good week. So, what am I supposed to do? Just stop using it, pick up a "Learning C# For Lonely, Left Behind VB.NET Programmers" and just think of VB.NET as fond memories of long ago? I have a hard time with such a concept. VB.NET has evolved into a good language and is capable of doing pretty much anything C# can do (using the .net framework, of course) so why isn't it promoted more by MS and others?
-
jim norcal wrote:
Is Microsoft trying to push it to the side so it withers and dies
Stop playing with our emotions like that. If VB were to be killed off, I would gladly be a pallbearer just so I can say I helped put it 6 feet under.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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, 1997Hold on there cowboy. You work for the government. They won't change their ways until many years have past since private industry has adopted a new technology. You are destined to be writing VB code for the rest of your professional life if you do not move on.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
Oakman wrote:
Truth be told, C# is VB.NET with C syntax.
I thought C# was derived from Java?
Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential.(Winston Churchill)
GuyThiebaut wrote:
I thought C# was derived from Java?
It was supposed to be a Java-killer and was therefore an attempt to create a C-syntax language that those who couldn't or wouldn't deal with C++ that could be migrated to. But C# needed to be as attractive and useful on the desktop as it was on the Web, a task at which Java was failing. MSFT already had a kinder/gentler language that was useful in both environments so there is a goodly chunk of C# that was modeled on VB. Meanwhile VB was forcibly converted into OO, just as C had been shoved (kicking and screaming IIRC) into C++. 2000-2001 was an interesting time to be involved in programming. However, my point was that these days nothing but syntax differentiates the two languages. Folks who claim that one is better than the other are arguing about which flavor of ice-cream they like and trying to turn it into a holy war, and as I said to Alan, both VB and C# (at least on the desktop) are just ways of asking C/C++ to pretty please do the heavy lifting.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
A good programmer should be able to learn any language with ease. The transtion to c# should be quite easy and the rewards will allow to learn other 'c' style lamguages like C, C++. The compelling reason is most technical applications are written in c#.
www.software-kinetics.co.uk Wear a hard hat it's under construction
well said.
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
-
Have you figured out stringbuilders yet or are you still concatenating in VB with "+"?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Sorry, no operator overriding in VB :omg: (& is a string cont op in VB)
Greetings - Jacek
Sure and there's no Optional Parameters in C#. Mouse-sized differences do not hide the mountain sized similarities.
Jacek Gajek wrote:
& is a string cont op in VB
"&" has a different purpose than "+"
dim z as string = 1 & 2
is a legit statement in VB and will return "12" "&" was BASIC's equivalent of "Concat" in assembler, while "+" was the equivalent of "add". Since BASIC was intended to be a simpler and more easily readable version of Assembler, it made great good sense to have different operators. Although I stopped worrying about it a long time ago, the idea of adding two strings together struck me as very odd when I first was exposed to it. Adding is what you do to numbers, concatenating is what you do to words. Usually, if you are doing a number of manipulations of a string, you are far better off with stringbuilder - something that was created for VB.NET and ported recently to C# ;)
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
C# is just a way better language.
I can switch back and forth with no problem. I occasionally make the kind of stupid mistake you talked about, of course, but I am way smarter than to blame that on the language.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
i too can switch back and forth very easily, yeah the occasional syntax leak over in both directions occur, but that simply boils down to me not paying attention. in a given day and all at the same time i am working on apps using several languages (each a seperate app) for example: PHP, C#, VB.NET, C++ at any given moment. and generally i have no real issues with any of them. it is not the language at fault, it is the fault of the developer for blaming the language. Plus just remember this (and this meant for all the C# only fan boys); if it was not for VB.NET C# would NOT i repeat NOT exist at all. So give it the respect it deserves as being one of the parent languages of C#.
-
All the programming I have done has been with VB then VB.NET. Microsoft keeps continues to develop and release it along side C# and the rest. However, over the last few years, I have seen very little new information out there regarding VB. Very few articles on Code Project and other sites. Oh, and I'm a subscriber to MSDN magazine and I haven't seen a single line of VB.NET code in .. in .. I can't even remember the last issue. I can say at least the last four issues there hasn't been anything in VB.NET. It's all been C#, C++ and even F# but no VB! Is Microsoft trying to push it to the side so it whithers and dies and hope that no one notices or pays attention? Even here on Code Project I've noted next to nothing new on VB. Every week I get the newsletter with all the new articles and rarely do I see anything on VB.NET. There may be one article among the 30 C# articles but that's on a good week. So, what am I supposed to do? Just stop using it, pick up a "Learning C# For Lonely, Left Behind VB.NET Programmers" and just think of VB.NET as fond memories of long ago? I have a hard time with such a concept. VB.NET has evolved into a good language and is capable of doing pretty much anything C# can do (using the .net framework, of course) so why isn't it promoted more by MS and others?
There are tons of new tutorials for VB.Net, MS have just released Light Switch, and all the demos are pretty much exclusively in VB.NET. It won't die, MS make programming for all types of people, including people that shouldn't be programming, but they can, because of VB and VB.net. I'm not slating VB.Net, We use it for our major project without issue, and you've got to admit, XML literals are ace. We also use C# for another project, and I really miss the WithEvents keyword :)
-
Sorry, no operator overriding in VB :omg: (& is a string cont op in VB)
Greetings - Jacek
-
Have you figured out stringbuilders yet or are you still concatenating in VB with "+"?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
In VB, it's "&", not "+", and I use
StringBuilder(orString.Format()) in new code. I almost never use string concatenation. I have a rule that dictates never go back and change existing code (if I didn't originally write the file) unless changing the method is a part of the maintenance process. At that point, I may replace existing string concatenation with appropriate code, depending on a) how big the method is, and whether or ot I'm under an extreme time crunch.".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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 -
Have you figured out stringbuilders yet or are you still concatenating in VB with "+"?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
sure we do. string builders and generics are our friends, yes. (but we use a "&" ... we reserve the "+" for addition)... funny you ask because as i jump from project to project, I find myself concatenating string in sql with the "&" and in vb with a "+" kind of like when your grandma would call you and rattle off a list of your cousins prior to getting your name right, lol
-
There are tons of new tutorials for VB.Net, MS have just released Light Switch, and all the demos are pretty much exclusively in VB.NET. It won't die, MS make programming for all types of people, including people that shouldn't be programming, but they can, because of VB and VB.net. I'm not slating VB.Net, We use it for our major project without issue, and you've got to admit, XML literals are ace. We also use C# for another project, and I really miss the WithEvents keyword :)
...and automatic event wireups ;)
-
All the programming I have done has been with VB then VB.NET. Microsoft keeps continues to develop and release it along side C# and the rest. However, over the last few years, I have seen very little new information out there regarding VB. Very few articles on Code Project and other sites. Oh, and I'm a subscriber to MSDN magazine and I haven't seen a single line of VB.NET code in .. in .. I can't even remember the last issue. I can say at least the last four issues there hasn't been anything in VB.NET. It's all been C#, C++ and even F# but no VB! Is Microsoft trying to push it to the side so it whithers and dies and hope that no one notices or pays attention? Even here on Code Project I've noted next to nothing new on VB. Every week I get the newsletter with all the new articles and rarely do I see anything on VB.NET. There may be one article among the 30 C# articles but that's on a good week. So, what am I supposed to do? Just stop using it, pick up a "Learning C# For Lonely, Left Behind VB.NET Programmers" and just think of VB.NET as fond memories of long ago? I have a hard time with such a concept. VB.NET has evolved into a good language and is capable of doing pretty much anything C# can do (using the .net framework, of course) so why isn't it promoted more by MS and others?
I started VB with 1, after years of programming in FORTRAN, COBOL, Clipper, and QuickBasic. I never did use procedural programming, but did modular programming. That made the transition to OOP inVB4 through 6 pretty easy. Since my VB6 programs were OO, they ported easily to VB.NET. I also learned C# several years ago. I program in C# where I work since C# is the comfortable choice for the decision makers with a Java and C background. I program in VB.NET for my own development. I find VB.NET to be more productive, even in complex n-tiered apps. VB.NET does everything C# does, so why should I program in a 1960s throwback style when I can program in a simpler, more powerful syntax? I hear the anti-VB folks talk about C# being more "elegant". Huh? What does that mean? My wife and daughter are elegant. I don't want my language of choice to be girly or curly. :) I think "elegant" is used in the context of programming languages when one is unable to give a coherent reason for using a language. Simply put, if Java or C/C++ is your background, then use C#. If VB6 is your background, then use VB.NET. If you want to be mire hirable, know both well. After all, 80% of being an excellent .NET developer is knowing the framework.
-
Sure and there's no Optional Parameters in C#. Mouse-sized differences do not hide the mountain sized similarities.
Jacek Gajek wrote:
& is a string cont op in VB
"&" has a different purpose than "+"
dim z as string = 1 & 2
is a legit statement in VB and will return "12" "&" was BASIC's equivalent of "Concat" in assembler, while "+" was the equivalent of "add". Since BASIC was intended to be a simpler and more easily readable version of Assembler, it made great good sense to have different operators. Although I stopped worrying about it a long time ago, the idea of adding two strings together struck me as very odd when I first was exposed to it. Adding is what you do to numbers, concatenating is what you do to words. Usually, if you are doing a number of manipulations of a string, you are far better off with stringbuilder - something that was created for VB.NET and ported recently to C# ;)
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Re StringBuilder versus appending text in VB... in VB6, there were several examples of doing an initially large string variable where you kept track of your own location within the string and used mid$ to place an appended string at the end of what was already there. This was only about a hundred times faster than stringA = stringB & stringC stuff. But, VB.Net obviously includes StringBuilder. The reason I (a former Microsoft Visual Basic MVP) went to C# was the arguement that learning the framework and OOP through C# was a better way than relying on VB6 preocedural styles to get into Dot Net. Best decision I ever made.