Visual Basic needs more credit
-
So now instead of with I need this. And I would have to write this over and over and over
Colborne_Greg wrote:
I need this
Probably not.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
-
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
Simon_Whale wrote:
would of have
FTFY
new image**()** { Height = Height }In one small test, I see that thethis.isn't required, but it seems to confuse the debugger a bit. I prefer to usethis.just because.You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
-
I think he is referring to the empty catch, it was my first thought. Oh a new version of resume next :laugh:
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
He asked what if pictures were null. It's actually a shared class, and this procedure is only for displaying what is in the system.
-
Colborne_Greg wrote:
It makes it easier for people that have less or no skill to be more productive
And that's exactly what raises my expectations whenever someone comes with VB.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript.I came from Cobol and JCL, with 25 years of experience. I own a start up software company. Anyone that has C experience or web experience I find are bad employees, they make great leaders, not great employees, unless your business in devoted to C and C type languages, then you probably have 20 programmers to my one.
-
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.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Try writing an event that returns a value in VB
How do you do that in C# that you can't do in VB?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
Catch End Try Next Catch End TryEnd Sub
A rat's tail of different closing elements instead of some simple closing brackets.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript. -
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
As I frequently say - it's not the tool that is used that's the problem, but the tool that uses it.
========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================
-
I wouldn't write such empty Try's but.... still I like it over this here ^^
} } }}
}and this things aint better...
} //For } //If} //Try
-
No the problem is when one error exists it kills the loop half way through, this code is only run to display results on the GUI, so not only do I not want it to fail for one error, I don't want it to waste time trying to figure out anything related to that error. I am only unidex the only errors that get through to a client are typos, such as bad filenames
Colborne_Greg wrote:
so not only do I not want it to fail for one error
It's wrong. If there's an unexpected error, then the loop should break. That's always better than hiding the exceptions.
Colborne_Greg wrote:
I don't want it to waste time trying to figure out anything related to that error.
You cannot be bothered to check your own code if it reports an error. I would recommend your users to make backups. Very frequent.
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
No, for the love of something NO! It makes writing code easier for those that don't write code. It only exists as some one else pointed out (probably) in reaction to Borland's Delphi (Object Pascal) MS needed to make there Basic compiler have similar features to compete! Bad programmers can write bad code in any language, the language makes it easier (VB) compare to another (C#) but they compile to the same byte code, you can't tell the difference! :)
-
damn
-
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.
-
VB New image with {.height = height} C# New image {height = height} second one fails
It does not fail in C#.
class DataObj {
public int Height { get; set; }
}class Starter {
public static void Main() {
int Height = 23;
DataObj obj = new DataObj { Height = Height };
System.Console.WriteLine("Set to " + obj.Height);
}
}Compiles without warnings and gives the right answer. Once again, if you're going to make concrete statements about what is or isn't possible in a language, you need to check whether that statement is accurate first.
-
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
You hang on there my friend and protect our beloved language. I used to be a VB.NET developer back in 2002 then I've seen the light (that would be C#), this is because I played with VB5 and VB6 during high school, because I played with QBasic during my early high school... C# pays more and is more respected by developers and generally the code written in C# tends to be higher quality as the VB.NET code tends to be written by old school guys with less OOP experience than those of C# (I am saying "tends" not all). Advice, move to C#
Make it simple, as simple as possible, but not simpler.
-
I would not hire you sorry. The reason you can not use the with operator in such a fashion is scope
This is hilarious. This guy is straight out of dailywtf.
-
Colborne_Greg wrote:
its not a with block
It's an object initializer, which is fully supported in C#, without needing an extra keyword. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb384062.aspx[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
You sir, win the internet.
-
My employee cost vs performance says otherwise
Really? You have accurate data comparing those using 'with blocks' to those without? Those with C experience to those without? Those who know what a stack frame is compared to those who barely understand what a stack data structure is? Calls inside a 'with block' can either be accessing properties or local variables and it isn't immediately obvious which it is. You have to look up the page to see. Also, you're suppressing exceptions, which, if you're talking about cost of development, means your debugging cycle is a lot more intense because it doesn't blow up when something goes wrong.
-
You hang on there my friend and protect our beloved language. I used to be a VB.NET developer back in 2002 then I've seen the light (that would be C#), this is because I played with VB5 and VB6 during high school, because I played with QBasic during my early high school... C# pays more and is more respected by developers and generally the code written in C# tends to be higher quality as the VB.NET code tends to be written by old school guys with less OOP experience than those of C# (I am saying "tends" not all). Advice, move to C#
Make it simple, as simple as possible, but not simpler.
I think the OP needs some credit.. The intestinal fortitude required to even try to hold dialog favoring VB in anyway here is incredible. VB is my first language, partly because I've grown up my whole life under BASIC.. Partly because my first professional programming job was to convert VB6 to VB.NET and nearly every job since has required VB in one way or another. Who am I to question my employer on the politics of language? Who am I do judge my employer based on their chosen language? I pulled the trigger and learned C# and have projects I still maintain. Its different, but it works and it makes me more marketable to be able to work in both. Right now, VB.NET is the required language and is what pays my bills. When it comes to new projects where language isn't a requirement I find that any classic WinForm or windows service projects stay in VB but I aim to use C# for anything else if possible. Is C# still "the better language" if my code pattern mimics VB.NET concepts? Of course, regardless of right or wrong, it's still not VB. Is VB.NET any better of a language if my code pattern mimics C# concepts? Doubtful, because it's still VB.. I don't buy into this culture.
-
Yep, looks good to me.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
-
Really? You have accurate data comparing those using 'with blocks' to those without? Those with C experience to those without? Those who know what a stack frame is compared to those who barely understand what a stack data structure is? Calls inside a 'with block' can either be accessing properties or local variables and it isn't immediately obvious which it is. You have to look up the page to see. Also, you're suppressing exceptions, which, if you're talking about cost of development, means your debugging cycle is a lot more intense because it doesn't blow up when something goes wrong.
The entire difference between C# and VB are involved in that factoring, suppressing exceptions is not an acceptable thing for my employee's to do, suppressing exceptions happens by my efficiency team; who decided that at this moment didn't need to know the error. In visual basic with block
With CameraControl.LastKnownTaken DateTakenBlock.Text = .DateTaken FileNameBlock.Text = .FileName LatitudeBlock.Text = .Latitude LongitudeBlock.Text = .Longitude End Withnotice the period, if you cant figure out that the words with a period before them belong to the with block I wouldn't hire you
