Visual Basic needs more credit
-
I think that Visual Basic should be shown off for its beauty and elegance. Here is a sample of what it can do - that no other language can do:
Private Sub AlbumListPopulate()
Try
AlbumsList.ItemsSource = New List(Of Image)For Each AlbumName In Pictures.Albums Try AlbumsList.ItemsSource.Add \_ ( New Image With { .Height = 150, .Width = 150, .Source = RotateStream \_ ( Pictures.Album(AlbumName).Picture, Pictures.Album(AlbumName).Angle ) } ) Catch End Try Next Catch End TryEnd Sub
-
That code doesn't fail
-
I have to say, you walked right into that one.
No better way to learn. I was told that C# and visual basic are the same language but I can find things in Visual Basic that are not in C# and things in C# that are not in Visual Basic
-
I think that Visual Basic should be shown off for its beauty and elegance. Here is a sample of what it can do - that no other language can do:
Private Sub AlbumListPopulate()
Try
AlbumsList.ItemsSource = New List(Of Image)For Each AlbumName In Pictures.Albums Try AlbumsList.ItemsSource.Add \_ ( New Image With { .Height = 150, .Width = 150, .Source = RotateStream \_ ( Pictures.Album(AlbumName).Picture, Pictures.Album(AlbumName).Angle ) } ) Catch End Try Next Catch End TryEnd Sub
Colborne_Greg wrote:
Catch End Try
No, it doesn't need more credit; and your example sums up nicely why VB got that reputation :) Yes, you can swallow exceptions in other languages too, but it doesn't happen as often there as it does in VB.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
I think that Visual Basic should be shown off for its beauty and elegance. Here is a sample of what it can do - that no other language can do:
Private Sub AlbumListPopulate()
Try
AlbumsList.ItemsSource = New List(Of Image)For Each AlbumName In Pictures.Albums Try AlbumsList.ItemsSource.Add \_ ( New Image With { .Height = 150, .Width = 150, .Source = RotateStream \_ ( Pictures.Album(AlbumName).Picture, Pictures.Album(AlbumName).Angle ) } ) Catch End Try Next Catch End TryEnd Sub
I totally agree on that most of the complaints about VB is of the immature kind. But one thing I need to give them is the
On Error Resumeabomination. Which you sadly have emulated with your empty Catch. :sigh: My personal opinion is that since C# and VB.Net is based on the same CLR and the same Framework, most quarrels are just silly. Use what you feel most at home with, but stop being ridiculous about it!Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
Colborne_Greg wrote:
Catch End Try
No, it doesn't need more credit; and your example sums up nicely why VB got that reputation :) Yes, you can swallow exceptions in other languages too, but it doesn't happen as often there as it does in VB.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
That's just laziness and the expectation that it works 100% of the time
-
I think that Visual Basic should be shown off for its beauty and elegance. Here is a sample of what it can do - that no other language can do:
Private Sub AlbumListPopulate()
Try
AlbumsList.ItemsSource = New List(Of Image)For Each AlbumName In Pictures.Albums Try AlbumsList.ItemsSource.Add \_ ( New Image With { .Height = 150, .Width = 150, .Source = RotateStream \_ ( Pictures.Album(AlbumName).Picture, Pictures.Album(AlbumName).Angle ) } ) Catch End Try Next Catch End TryEnd Sub
-
I have to say, you walked right into that one.
With his pants on fire :laugh: I read somewhere that there are things that VB can do and C# can't an vice versa though... Think it had something to do with Errorhandling ?
-
So, the same as Auto-initialisation in C# then.
new Image{ Height = 150, Width= 150 }
I never knew
-
No better way to learn. I was told that C# and visual basic are the same language but I can find things in Visual Basic that are not in C# and things in C# that are not in Visual Basic
That's what makes C# better than VB. :-D Try writing an event that returns a value in VB. :cool:
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
-
That's what makes C# better than VB. :-D Try writing an event that returns a value in VB. :cool:
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
I would say the opposite
-
That code doesn't fail
-
As well there shouldn't be. C# doesn't need it.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
Considering the missing connection between me knowing C# can get away without using the with word, proves its problems. The with keyword gets the coder in a mindset.
-
I do miss the with operator. I have cases where it could save hundreds of characters and make it way easier to read. Don't listen to the C# purists. :zzz:
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
and make it way easier to read
I would argue the opposite.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
-
See my answer to your other post - you don't need the
Withoperator in C# for object or collection initializers.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
If pictures is null the memory space creates itself and returns a empty album list
-
RyanDev wrote:
and make it way easier to read
I would argue the opposite.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
-
I think that Visual Basic should be shown off for its beauty and elegance. Here is a sample of what it can do - that no other language can do:
Private Sub AlbumListPopulate()
Try
AlbumsList.ItemsSource = New List(Of Image)For Each AlbumName In Pictures.Albums Try AlbumsList.ItemsSource.Add \_ ( New Image With { .Height = 150, .Width = 150, .Source = RotateStream \_ ( Pictures.Album(AlbumName).Picture, Pictures.Album(AlbumName).Angle ) } ) Catch End Try Next Catch End TryEnd Sub
If you'd picked a case of With doing namespace/object elision, you might have a point. But as several people have pointed out, this is an object initialiser which is included in C# and (I think) has been since the same .Net compiler version as the VB.Net syntax you're demonstrating. Other languages like JavaScript, Ruby, Perl etc can create objects with data in a single statement like this, too, and have been able to for years. If you're going to make a claim like "no other language can do [something your fave can]" then at least a tiny bit of research would be a good idea.
-
Just because you don't need the extra keyword doesn't mean that C# can't do it:
new Image
{
Height = 150,
Width = 150,
Source = RotateStream
(
Pictures.Album[AlbumName].Picture,
Pictures.Album[AlbumName].Angle
)
}
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
If you'd picked a case of With doing namespace/object elision, you might have a point. But as several people have pointed out, this is an object initialiser which is included in C# and (I think) has been since the same .Net compiler version as the VB.Net syntax you're demonstrating. Other languages like JavaScript, Ruby, Perl etc can create objects with data in a single statement like this, too, and have been able to for years. If you're going to make a claim like "no other language can do [something your fave can]" then at least a tiny bit of research would be a good idea.
Without the with operator C# has a smaller scope
