Visual Basic needs more credit
-
If I could be arsed, I'd find similar classes in Java and show you how anonymous constructors work there too.
not familiar with Java so that would be great
-
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.
My dislike of
with(also in Pascal I think) is that the only place I would have liked to use it, it won't work... If I have two things (not necessarily the same type), and I want to copy a number of values (not necessarily all the values) between them:thing1.fieldM = thing2.fieldP ;
thing1.fieldD = thing2.fieldQ ;
...I want a
withthat will allow me to do something like:with ( thing1 , thing2 )
{
fieldM = fieldP ;
fieldD = fieldQ ;
...
}That would be usefull. As it stands,
withis pointless (in my opinion) so I have never used it. However, one could use something like:{
var src = thing1 ;
var dst = thing2 ;dst.fieldM = src.fieldP ;
dst.fieldD = src.fieldQ ;
...
}which is almost a good. :shrug:
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
-
That may be part of the problem...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
Without the with operator C# has a smaller scope
Sorry as Bob has pointed out, this sort of argument needs more research. many have also pointed out from the .net framework that C# doesn't need the
Withkeyword. There are many other keywords if you looked and were pedantic enough C# doesn't use but slight change / merge of keywords you could achieve the same thing. relax and enjoy the lounge they don't really care what language you code in.Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON
-
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
Wow. Dude. If you're going to say something like that, make sure you're exposed to more languages first.
-
That's just laziness and the expectation that it works 100% of the time
..and also something that happens quite often in VB. And no, one cannot call it lazy - the author of said snippet included TWO handlers to swallow the exceptions. That's not lazy, that's extra work. It could be improved by simply REMOVING the check completely.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
visual basic takes less skill to get the job done
If it's in VB, it isn't "done". :laugh:
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
-
I should have left out the try catch
Or handled it.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
My dislike of
with(also in Pascal I think) is that the only place I would have liked to use it, it won't work... If I have two things (not necessarily the same type), and I want to copy a number of values (not necessarily all the values) between them:thing1.fieldM = thing2.fieldP ;
thing1.fieldD = thing2.fieldQ ;
...I want a
withthat will allow me to do something like:with ( thing1 , thing2 )
{
fieldM = fieldP ;
fieldD = fieldQ ;
...
}That would be usefull. As it stands,
withis pointless (in my opinion) so I have never used it. However, one could use something like:{
var src = thing1 ;
var dst = thing2 ;dst.fieldM = src.fieldP ;
dst.fieldD = src.fieldQ ;
...
}which is almost a good. :shrug:
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
I would not hire you sorry. The reason you can not use the with operator in such a fashion is scope
-
..and also something that happens quite often in VB. And no, one cannot call it lazy - the author of said snippet included TWO handlers to swallow the exceptions. That's not lazy, that's extra work. It could be improved by simply REMOVING the check completely.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Most of that code is autocompleted also the inside catch is to ensure the loop continues
-
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
-
Nothing against vb, but catching exceptions and then not handling them is epic fail for me, not "beauty and elegance".
Running through a database there are some times bad records. I don't want them crashing the program nor do I care at this point what the problem is
-
With, when used appropriately, aids clarity just by removing characters – if you have to read past "SomeLongObjectName." at the start of every line you won't actually see the important word. When used badly (so you don't know whether the tokens on the line are part of the with'd object or locals or something else) it makes things worse. I've used with in ActionScript, usually for graphics code which is doing nothing but a bunch of calls to lineTo, moveTo, setBitmapFill etc, and (imo anyway) not having "e.graphics." on every line makes that clearer.
BobJanova wrote:
doing nothing but a bunch of calls to lineTo, moveTo, setBitmapFill etc, and (imo anyway) not having "e.graphics." on every line makes that clearer
Howsabout writing a function then? Now I'm wondering wether or not an anomymous function would do that...
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
-
If it's in VB, it isn't "done". :laugh:
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
Whats not in visual basic?
-
Wow. Dude. If you're going to say something like that, make sure you're exposed to more languages first.
6 years of school, granted my studies are out of date by 5 years
-
Or handled it.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
When dealing with a database, sometimes there are bad records. I meant for these try catches to be this way, as I don't care at this point why there would be problems in the data, all other errors are handled.
-
Sorry as Bob has pointed out, this sort of argument needs more research. many have also pointed out from the .net framework that C# doesn't need the
Withkeyword. There are many other keywords if you looked and were pedantic enough C# doesn't use but slight change / merge of keywords you could achieve the same thing. relax and enjoy the lounge they don't really care what language you code in.Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON
VB New image with {.height = height} C# New image {height = height} second one fails
-
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 ?
Inline XML? Does C# have that yet?
-
6 years of school, granted my studies are out of date by 5 years
"with" isn't particularly unique or interesting. There's a lot of functionality in a few lines. But you can stack up languages like cordwood that have lambdas, currying and/or templating features that would reduce the footprint of that code far more. It's awesome to be excited about a language. Lord knows I've spent most of the last 40 years that way. But do yourself a favor, take this post and put it in a calendar item marked 5 years from now and come back and look at it then. Visual Basic has come a long way since the VB3 days. But it's a very very long way away from winning awards for elegance.
-
VB New image with {.height = height} C# New image {height = height} second one fails
No as you would of written it like this VB.NET Version
New image With
{
.height = height
}C# Version, in the C# version the With Keyword is ommited
new image { height = this.height }
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON
