Direct me to a GOOD VB.Net Tutorial?
-
I dont think i need the Intro, kinda intermediate/beginner, im taking it in college. i've read the main textbook(a few times now). Which explains the basics of programming(and some of .Net)e.g.loops, control structures,sytnax,semantics, etc... But i need something more, about all this crazy .Net framwork stuff...lol It boggles my mind! :) Thanks in Advance :) ______________________________________________ "I'm not me when I dream...anymore." -TRUSTcompany
If you want to seriously know .NET in depth read "Applied .NET - Jeffery Richter" or "Essential .NET - Don Box". Be warned that these books contain complex details and internals of .NET framework, things VB programmers are used to avoiding.
R.Bischoff | C++ .NET, Kommst du mit?
-
Rar!!!!! Veeee Beeeee :Booming voice: Apparently VB.Net has some cool new stuff in it that you can't do in C#, but I can't remember what it is. :rolleyes: :laugh:
Giles wrote: Apparently VB.Net has some cool new stuff in it that you can't do in C# It has at least one feature missing from C#, the ability to create modules. But unless you have a specific use for it the features of C# outweigh the small features of VB.NET. IMO anyway ;) James "It is self repeating, of unknown pattern" Data - Star Trek: The Next Generation
-
If you want to seriously know .NET in depth read "Applied .NET - Jeffery Richter" or "Essential .NET - Don Box". Be warned that these books contain complex details and internals of .NET framework, things VB programmers are used to avoiding.
R.Bischoff | C++ .NET, Kommst du mit?
Soliant wrote: Applied .NET - Jeffery Richter I love that book. Soliant wrote: Be warned that these books contain complex details and internals of .NET framework, things VB programmers are used to avoiding. ;P
Nick Parker
The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything. - Theodore Roosevelt
-
I dont think i need the Intro, kinda intermediate/beginner, im taking it in college. i've read the main textbook(a few times now). Which explains the basics of programming(and some of .Net)e.g.loops, control structures,sytnax,semantics, etc... But i need something more, about all this crazy .Net framwork stuff...lol It boggles my mind! :) Thanks in Advance :) ______________________________________________ "I'm not me when I dream...anymore." -TRUSTcompany
I thought that GOOD and .Net were oxymorons? ;P Chris Meech "what makes CP different is the people and sense of community, things people will only discover if they join up and join in." Christian Graus Nov 14, 2002. "AAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! Those leaks are driving me crazy! How does one finds a memory leak in a garbage collected environment ??! Daniel Turini Nov. 2, 2002.
-
Rar!!!!! Veeee Beeeee :Booming voice: Apparently VB.Net has some cool new stuff in it that you can't do in C#, but I can't remember what it is. :rolleyes: :laugh:
Overloading methods by return value only. :(
Hey, what can I say? I'm a chick magnet...a babe conductor...a logarithm for the ladies. -Strong Bad from HomeStarRunner.com Essential Tips for Web Developers
-
Giles wrote: Apparently VB.Net has some cool new stuff in it that you can't do in C# It has at least one feature missing from C#, the ability to create modules. But unless you have a specific use for it the features of C# outweigh the small features of VB.NET. IMO anyway ;) James "It is self repeating, of unknown pattern" Data - Star Trek: The Next Generation
James T. Johnson wrote: It has at least one feature missing from C#, the ability to create modules. Aren't the modules just a crippled variant of namespaces? :~ -- "It is amazing how f-ing crazy I really am."
-
James T. Johnson wrote: It has at least one feature missing from C#, the ability to create modules. Aren't the modules just a crippled variant of namespaces? :~ -- "It is amazing how f-ing crazy I really am."
I thought they were basicly namespace-less classes, but it looks like they do have a namespace attached.. "Modules are a reference type similar to classes, but with some important distinctions. The members of a module are implicitly Shared and scoped to the declaration space of the standard module's containing namespace, rather than just to the module itself. Unlike classes, modules can never be instantiated, do not support inheritance, and cannot implement interfaces. A module can only be declared in a namespace and cannot be nested in another type. You can have multiple modules in a project, but members with the same name defined in two or more modules must be qualified with their module name when accessed outside of their module." So it looks like they are equivalent to:
public sealed MyModule : object
{
private MyModule() { }public static /* field, property, method, etc */
}It could mean more or less though, I stopped looking at VB.NET when I found how much I liked C# :D James "It is self repeating, of unknown pattern" Data - Star Trek: The Next Generation
-
I thought they were basicly namespace-less classes, but it looks like they do have a namespace attached.. "Modules are a reference type similar to classes, but with some important distinctions. The members of a module are implicitly Shared and scoped to the declaration space of the standard module's containing namespace, rather than just to the module itself. Unlike classes, modules can never be instantiated, do not support inheritance, and cannot implement interfaces. A module can only be declared in a namespace and cannot be nested in another type. You can have multiple modules in a project, but members with the same name defined in two or more modules must be qualified with their module name when accessed outside of their module." So it looks like they are equivalent to:
public sealed MyModule : object
{
private MyModule() { }public static /* field, property, method, etc */
}It could mean more or less though, I stopped looking at VB.NET when I found how much I liked C# :D James "It is self repeating, of unknown pattern" Data - Star Trek: The Next Generation
-
Soliant wrote: Applied .NET - Jeffery Richter I love that book. Soliant wrote: Be warned that these books contain complex details and internals of .NET framework, things VB programmers are used to avoiding. ;P
Nick Parker
The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything. - Theodore Roosevelt
Don't tell me that!!!!! I'm an amazonaholic. Nooo, more money. Go on then, why is it good? Fav chapter and why please. I think I know why and its on my wishlist for the next batch. Got to say of all the .NET books so far, Inside C# my Mr Archer is damn good.
-
I dont think i need the Intro, kinda intermediate/beginner, im taking it in college. i've read the main textbook(a few times now). Which explains the basics of programming(and some of .Net)e.g.loops, control structures,sytnax,semantics, etc... But i need something more, about all this crazy .Net framwork stuff...lol It boggles my mind! :) Thanks in Advance :) ______________________________________________ "I'm not me when I dream...anymore." -TRUSTcompany
xBlitzerx wrote: Re: Direct me to a GOOD VB.Net Tutorial? http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html[^] :cool:
-
Overloading methods by return value only. :(
Hey, what can I say? I'm a chick magnet...a babe conductor...a logarithm for the ladies. -Strong Bad from HomeStarRunner.com Essential Tips for Web Developers
Funny thing having operator overloading in VB - or structured exception handling. I personally think VB.NET will make VB developers either give up programming, or become better programmers. On a sude note, from some strange reason, I can't explain, I just love the static constructor in C#. Love it, love it, love it. Not really had to use it yet, though I can think of loads of C++ projects from the past where I would have used it if such a feature had been avaliable. Oooh and Indexers.
-
Funny thing having operator overloading in VB - or structured exception handling. I personally think VB.NET will make VB developers either give up programming, or become better programmers. On a sude note, from some strange reason, I can't explain, I just love the static constructor in C#. Love it, love it, love it. Not really had to use it yet, though I can think of loads of C++ projects from the past where I would have used it if such a feature had been avaliable. Oooh and Indexers.
Static constructors!? *seaching MSDN* Found it! Cool feature indeed. Should be possible to implement in C++ too I think. Hopefully the standards committee is thinking about this one. :) -- "It is amazing how f-ing crazy I really am."
-
If you want to seriously know .NET in depth read "Applied .NET - Jeffery Richter" or "Essential .NET - Don Box". Be warned that these books contain complex details and internals of .NET framework, things VB programmers are used to avoiding.
R.Bischoff | C++ .NET, Kommst du mit?
your name looks like it has been repeatedly voted a 1 :-D My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Static constructors!? *seaching MSDN* Found it! Cool feature indeed. Should be possible to implement in C++ too I think. Hopefully the standards committee is thinking about this one. :) -- "It is amazing how f-ing crazy I really am."
Its funky and I love it. In fact I want to have babies with it, though physically its not possible. :-D For the C++ standards guys to implement this, it would need to be more aware of the system and threading architecture. Saying that, even if they were not able to (and I think its tricky), it would be good to see a C++ standard threading library, but thats a step forward again. How would you implement it? I've just had a thought that you would have to implement an extra byte/flag on the V-Table and make use of an OS specific sync model to make sure that you could identify when to call the static constructor. I can see a way of doing it with a Base class, but to integrate in to the language in a cross platform way is more tricky. e.g. a real time OS.
-
Its funky and I love it. In fact I want to have babies with it, though physically its not possible. :-D For the C++ standards guys to implement this, it would need to be more aware of the system and threading architecture. Saying that, even if they were not able to (and I think its tricky), it would be good to see a C++ standard threading library, but thats a step forward again. How would you implement it? I've just had a thought that you would have to implement an extra byte/flag on the V-Table and make use of an OS specific sync model to make sure that you could identify when to call the static constructor. I can see a way of doing it with a Base class, but to integrate in to the language in a cross platform way is more tricky. e.g. a real time OS.
Giles wrote: For the C++ standards guys to implement this, it would need to be more aware of the system and threading architecture. I don't think so actually. All you need is a conditional. Shouldn't be that tricky, should it? Also, the standards guys only have to specify the behaviour, it's up to the compiler/runtime guys to implemented. And furthermore, they could make this a compiler option just like exceptions and RTTI. Giles wrote: How would you implement it? I've just had a thought that you would have to implement an extra byte/flag on the V-Table and make use of an OS specific sync model to make sure that you could identify when to call the static constructor. You wouldn't want it in the vtable, since there is nothing virtual about this - it's per class instance, not object instance. So you could shove a bit into a possibly already existing bit vector into the class information block. CLASS_OPT_STATIC_CONSTRUCTOR_ON_THIS_BRANCH = 1 -> Start executing static initializers from top to bottom. Of course, the entire inheritance chain from root to this-class needs to be locked, but that's obvious if you think/draw pictures about it. Giles wrote: but to integrate in to the language in a cross platform way is more tricky. e.g. a real time OS. I don't see the problem actually. There are threaded and non-threaded environments. The non-threaded environments we don't need to consider - the fact that they are non-threaded makes the implementation easy as pie. Threaded environments need only support one thing: conditionals. If they don't, then something's terribly f-ed up in that environment. It's like having files and file systems, but in no way provide a way to open/create files. Cross platform differences are solved in runtime libraries. It's done that way today, and it works just fine.. doesn't it? :~ If I wasn't so damn lazy I think I could pull this one off using GCC. (If it hasn't already been done that is). -- "It is amazing how f-ing crazy I really am."