Why is VB being forsaken?

[Alan Burkhart]

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

[wizardzz]

Well worded post and valid concerns. I think it's a matter of syntax, don't worry though, you can pick up C# real quick if you want to.

"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson

[JimmyRopes]

Hold 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]

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.

[Slacker007]

well said.

Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)

[Lutoslaw]

Sorry, no operator overriding in VB :omg: (& is a string cont op in VB)

Greetings - Jacek

[Oakman]

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.

[Roland71]

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#.

[adudley256]

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 :)

[db7uk]

So is +

[realJSOP]

In VB, it's "&", not "+", and I use StringBuilder (or String.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

[Mikel Taylor]

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

[Mikel Taylor]

...and automatic event wireups ;)

[MSBassSinger]

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.

[Alan Meadows]

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.

[Alan Meadows]

Yes, but using the plus sign could get you in trouble if your strings were just numeric values.

[db7uk]

indeed. but who in the world concats numbers and strings in that manner anyway. :-D

[Marcio_Coelho]

Hummmmm! Interesting! I started with VB in 1994 and move to c# in 2000, then back to VB and again back to c#. If you are a vb developer I feel you will be able to make an easy transition to c#. I see they both are very similar in performance, and different in syntax. However, if you have developed web sites, chances are you have used JavaScript. I personally like C# better because I think it is more standard and in a certain way close to Java and JavaScript. As far as VB being retired, I do not think so. As far as c# being more popular, yes of course. At the end , the choice is yours.

[kenSemantics]

I dont care what others say but I still vote for VB. I can program with VB and C# with equal ease but prefer the former because it lets me concentrate on my programming and logic rather than syntax. This actually saves me a lot of time with capitalization of variables. Think of it and calculate. if you have one capital for a variable and you have 10 variables and use it 10 times in your class, that means in C# you are using the "shift" key 100 times more. doesnt it give us that much more time? VB does it for you. So what if isnt OOPS strictly. It gets the work done and thats it. And it lets me get the work done easily. And if MS were to dump VB I will write my own compiler for it and sit on a hunger strike till they give me the code for the compiler.

[John Stewien]

That was me. Until I learned SQL, which is fun.