Looking for a good C# to VB.NET converter
-
If you judge your programming language by it's syntax then you're easily pleased. I'd rather judge a language on what it can achieve, how it works with other languages, what libraries are available for use and what sort of support is in place for that language. But that's just me. cheers, Chris Maunder
Hi Chris. For some reason, you've jumped on my prior comment that VB.NET syntax sucks ( and you did so even at the time ). It does, but that's the least of it. I'm more concerned about things like empty strings being equal to Nothing, and functions magically generating their own return values. There is not one thing you've listed where VB.NET is in any way better than C#, and there are a myriad of ways in which it is worse. The main problem with VB.NET though is that too many idiots are using it. I've never claimed that no VB.NET user can program properly, but through working on other peoples projects, I can testify that most C# projects I see are reasonably well put together, and none come close to as bad as the mid rangeof the VB.NET projects I've worked on. The worst of them are just plain excreble. The trouble is that it's hard to convince a client that the code base they have, which sort of works, albeit with plenty of bugs, is useless in the long term, and they'd do better to have the whole thing done properly from a design standpoint before they worry about bug fixes and extensions. Last time we discussed VB.NET, a former VB6 user said that VB.NET started well, and was killed by VB6 users crying for backward compatibility with features that deserved to die. He also said that all real programmers had moved to C#. That's the opinion of a VB user who is also a programmer. The core issue really is that VB.NET users are surely close to all VB6 migrants, so the new features do not get used, the old syntax is used instead. I've worked on VB.NET ASP.NET projects where the code did not use viewstate, always posted back and put everything on the URL, etc. It was an old asp site with VB.NET replacing vbscript. VB.NET sucks because VB6 sucked. Yes, it generates IL, although I'm told not as efficiently as the C# compiler, but if all we wanted from a language was to generate raw code, why move away from C++ ? Or C ? Or assembler ? A language is as good as both the facilities it offers, and the rules it uses to both enforce good practice, and leave a good programmer with freedom to break the rules when needed. C++ did that better than C# does, IMO. VB.NET doesn't do it at all, it's loaded with gotchas and poor design decisions. Functions invent their own return values ? Who decided that was a good idea ? Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
addhandler
He wasn't asking, he was showing an example of the sort of question he doubts these people want to have to answer. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
He wasn't asking, he was showing an example of the sort of question he doubts these people want to have to answer. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
oh well, i'll answer anyways
-
Regarding your question about c# to vb.net converters, well that's tough. I understand your situation, and although converting c# to vb.net is a walk in the park, performing that walk 550 times is quite a tedious task. If you're wondering why there are so many vb.net to c# converters yet not the reverse, the answer I believe is quite simple. Many legacy COM applications were built in VB for pure RAD reasons, which otherwise would have been built in MFC. When vb.net was released people were able to upgrade great big portions of their vb 6 apps with the upgrade wizard and then manually changing the 20% that was not successfully converted. Once the project was all vb.net, a vb.net to c# converter could be used to finally bring the application closer, at least in syntax, to a c++ style environment, although to say that c++ and c# are the same is plain ignorance, for there is no language that even reaches the knees of c++. Back to the point, many vendors saw this opportunity and thus the availability of so many converters. Second, pay no attention to all the vb trash talk that goes around here, especially that produced by Christian. Most, if not all, of his arguments are completely flawed, and are just the result of his ignorance about the language. Don't get me wrong, I love and encourage language wars, for I believe they are healthy; however, insulting people just for using a particular language is just not my style. Also, and just to reemphasize, except for syntax, c# and vb.net are more similar to each other than c# is similar to c++. I have absolutely no hands on experiece with c++ but I come from an academic background, and after having had to take so many classes in c++, there's no doubt it is the king of kings. Also, expect to see lots of horrendous c# code in the not too distant future. I don't know if you've worked with 2.0 yet, but there's no doubt that c# is loosing its identity in response to so many vb programmers switching over. The intellisense, edit and continue, etc..., all feature that go against the hard core c style of programming yet are finding a place in c#. Why is this? Christian, you there?????? You wanna battle?????
Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Most, if not all, of his arguments are completely flawed, and are just the result of his ignorance about the language. ROTFL. Actually, I thought you generated my standard list of comments about VB.NET. Wasn't it you who pointed out that an empty string == Nothing in VB.NET, etc. ? I found out that functions invent their own return value on my own..... Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: however, insulting people just for using a particular language is just not my style. As I recall, last time I said that VB sucks, you took it incredibly personally. I've never said that all VB.NET programmers are idiots ( although the majority of VB.NET code I've seen was plainly written by idiots ). Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Also, and just to reemphasize, except for syntax, c# and vb.net are more similar to each other than c# is similar to c++. Yes, this is true. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: I have absolutely no hands on experiece with c++ but I come from an academic background, and after having had to take so many classes in c++, there's no doubt it is the king of kings. You took C++ classes, but you've never coded in it ? How does THAT work ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Also, expect to see lots of horrendous c# code in the not too distant future. This could well be the case, because C#, like VB6 and VB.NET, definately is easy enough for a newbie programmer to feel they know what they are doing, just because their code does not crash. But for now the truly terrible code seems to be more in the VB.NEt end of the field. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: I don't know if you've worked with 2.0 yet, but there's no doubt that c# is loosing its identity in response to so many vb programmers switching over. The intellisense, edit and continue, etc..., all feature that go against the hard core c style of programming yet are finding a place in c#. Why is this? This is plain stupid. edit and continue existed in VC6, and intellisence has always been there. C# is growing to be more like C++ with the addition of things like templates. I don't really like anonymous methods, but iterators rock, and templates should have been there from the beginning. You're talking about IDE features. There is nothing wrong with the IDE providing means to make it easier to focus on the code. otherwise, we'd all be using notepad.
-
oh well, i'll answer anyways
*grin* can't hurt, I suppose. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
Hi Chris. For some reason, you've jumped on my prior comment that VB.NET syntax sucks ( and you did so even at the time ). It does, but that's the least of it. I'm more concerned about things like empty strings being equal to Nothing, and functions magically generating their own return values. There is not one thing you've listed where VB.NET is in any way better than C#, and there are a myriad of ways in which it is worse. The main problem with VB.NET though is that too many idiots are using it. I've never claimed that no VB.NET user can program properly, but through working on other peoples projects, I can testify that most C# projects I see are reasonably well put together, and none come close to as bad as the mid rangeof the VB.NET projects I've worked on. The worst of them are just plain excreble. The trouble is that it's hard to convince a client that the code base they have, which sort of works, albeit with plenty of bugs, is useless in the long term, and they'd do better to have the whole thing done properly from a design standpoint before they worry about bug fixes and extensions. Last time we discussed VB.NET, a former VB6 user said that VB.NET started well, and was killed by VB6 users crying for backward compatibility with features that deserved to die. He also said that all real programmers had moved to C#. That's the opinion of a VB user who is also a programmer. The core issue really is that VB.NET users are surely close to all VB6 migrants, so the new features do not get used, the old syntax is used instead. I've worked on VB.NET ASP.NET projects where the code did not use viewstate, always posted back and put everything on the URL, etc. It was an old asp site with VB.NET replacing vbscript. VB.NET sucks because VB6 sucked. Yes, it generates IL, although I'm told not as efficiently as the C# compiler, but if all we wanted from a language was to generate raw code, why move away from C++ ? Or C ? Or assembler ? A language is as good as both the facilities it offers, and the rules it uses to both enforce good practice, and leave a good programmer with freedom to break the rules when needed. C++ did that better than C# does, IMO. VB.NET doesn't do it at all, it's loaded with gotchas and poor design decisions. Functions invent their own return values ? Who decided that was a good idea ? Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
My point was that while VB has a lot of inconsistencies and issues relating to legacy compatibility, IMO it's still far, far better than many other options (FORTRAN, Delphi, Java). Not syntactically, not in terms of "Why on Earth did they do that", but because it has great support, great tools, and an excellent suppport library. So my argument is, I admit, a little shoddy. Essentially I'm saying any .NET language supported by VS.NET isn't too shabby. And I know you're point is that compared to C#, VB is a dog's breakfast. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Most, if not all, of his arguments are completely flawed, and are just the result of his ignorance about the language. ROTFL. Actually, I thought you generated my standard list of comments about VB.NET. Wasn't it you who pointed out that an empty string == Nothing in VB.NET, etc. ? I found out that functions invent their own return value on my own..... Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: however, insulting people just for using a particular language is just not my style. As I recall, last time I said that VB sucks, you took it incredibly personally. I've never said that all VB.NET programmers are idiots ( although the majority of VB.NET code I've seen was plainly written by idiots ). Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Also, and just to reemphasize, except for syntax, c# and vb.net are more similar to each other than c# is similar to c++. Yes, this is true. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: I have absolutely no hands on experiece with c++ but I come from an academic background, and after having had to take so many classes in c++, there's no doubt it is the king of kings. You took C++ classes, but you've never coded in it ? How does THAT work ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Also, expect to see lots of horrendous c# code in the not too distant future. This could well be the case, because C#, like VB6 and VB.NET, definately is easy enough for a newbie programmer to feel they know what they are doing, just because their code does not crash. But for now the truly terrible code seems to be more in the VB.NEt end of the field. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: I don't know if you've worked with 2.0 yet, but there's no doubt that c# is loosing its identity in response to so many vb programmers switching over. The intellisense, edit and continue, etc..., all feature that go against the hard core c style of programming yet are finding a place in c#. Why is this? This is plain stupid. edit and continue existed in VC6, and intellisence has always been there. C# is growing to be more like C++ with the addition of things like templates. I don't really like anonymous methods, but iterators rock, and templates should have been there from the beginning. You're talking about IDE features. There is nothing wrong with the IDE providing means to make it easier to focus on the code. otherwise, we'd all be using notepad.
CG wrote: "ROTFL. Actually, I thought you generated my standard list of comments about VB.NET. Wasn't it you who pointed out that an empty string == Nothing in VB.NET, etc. ? I found out that functions invent their own return value on my own....." precisely, you needed someone else's premises for your argument. Never said it was perfect, but as long as patterns are implementable and you're getting good money doing it, why not? besides its only getting better in 2.0m with some exception, which I can list for you so that you can continue moaning and groaning. CG wrote: "You took C++ classes, but you've never coded in it ? How does THAT work ?" Never had to, nor was asked to VB 6 did it all, and where it didn't, pulled out the wallet and bought some awesome tools. Why fight it? CG wrote: "As I recall, last time I said that VB sucks, you took it incredibly personally. I've never said that all VB.NET programmers are idiots ( although the majority of VB.NET code I've seen was plainly written by idiots )." CG: "This could well be the case, because C#, like VB6 and VB.NET, definately is easy enough for a newbie programmer to feel they know what they are doing, just because their code does not crash. But for now the truly terrible code seems to be more in the VB.NEt end of the field" let time takes its toll, ch, ch, ch, changes!!!!!!!!!!! Already apologized for that, because like I said, it's not my style, yet it sure is your style to insult people. you've obviously got issues that go beyond programming. CG wrote: "This is plain stupid. edit and continue existed in VC6, and intellisence has always been there. C# is growing to be more like C++ with the addition of things like templates. I don't really like anonymous methods, but iterators rock, and templates should have been there from the beginning." you can honestly say with a straight face that VC6's edit and continue was like VB's? CG: "Why ? We did it before, you not only agreed with some of my points, but provided a further list of reasons that C# kills VB.NET. Go back and reread it, it'll have the same effect." Why you ask? Why not, it's fun, and I currently having nothing to do besides playing, production is complete!
-
Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Most, if not all, of his arguments are completely flawed, and are just the result of his ignorance about the language. ROTFL. Actually, I thought you generated my standard list of comments about VB.NET. Wasn't it you who pointed out that an empty string == Nothing in VB.NET, etc. ? I found out that functions invent their own return value on my own..... Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: however, insulting people just for using a particular language is just not my style. As I recall, last time I said that VB sucks, you took it incredibly personally. I've never said that all VB.NET programmers are idiots ( although the majority of VB.NET code I've seen was plainly written by idiots ). Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Also, and just to reemphasize, except for syntax, c# and vb.net are more similar to each other than c# is similar to c++. Yes, this is true. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: I have absolutely no hands on experiece with c++ but I come from an academic background, and after having had to take so many classes in c++, there's no doubt it is the king of kings. You took C++ classes, but you've never coded in it ? How does THAT work ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Also, expect to see lots of horrendous c# code in the not too distant future. This could well be the case, because C#, like VB6 and VB.NET, definately is easy enough for a newbie programmer to feel they know what they are doing, just because their code does not crash. But for now the truly terrible code seems to be more in the VB.NEt end of the field. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: I don't know if you've worked with 2.0 yet, but there's no doubt that c# is loosing its identity in response to so many vb programmers switching over. The intellisense, edit and continue, etc..., all feature that go against the hard core c style of programming yet are finding a place in c#. Why is this? This is plain stupid. edit and continue existed in VC6, and intellisence has always been there. C# is growing to be more like C++ with the addition of things like templates. I don't really like anonymous methods, but iterators rock, and templates should have been there from the beginning. You're talking about IDE features. There is nothing wrong with the IDE providing means to make it easier to focus on the code. otherwise, we'd all be using notepad.
it's obvious I am not popular around here
-
My point was that while VB has a lot of inconsistencies and issues relating to legacy compatibility, IMO it's still far, far better than many other options (FORTRAN, Delphi, Java). Not syntactically, not in terms of "Why on Earth did they do that", but because it has great support, great tools, and an excellent suppport library. So my argument is, I admit, a little shoddy. Essentially I'm saying any .NET language supported by VS.NET isn't too shabby. And I know you're point is that compared to C#, VB is a dog's breakfast. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. cheers, Chris Maunder
LOL - when we use FORTRAN as the base case, anything looks good. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
LOL - when we use FORTRAN as the base case, anything looks good. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
Don't you start dissing FORTRAN. :mad: cheers, Chris Maunder
-
CG wrote: "ROTFL. Actually, I thought you generated my standard list of comments about VB.NET. Wasn't it you who pointed out that an empty string == Nothing in VB.NET, etc. ? I found out that functions invent their own return value on my own....." precisely, you needed someone else's premises for your argument. Never said it was perfect, but as long as patterns are implementable and you're getting good money doing it, why not? besides its only getting better in 2.0m with some exception, which I can list for you so that you can continue moaning and groaning. CG wrote: "You took C++ classes, but you've never coded in it ? How does THAT work ?" Never had to, nor was asked to VB 6 did it all, and where it didn't, pulled out the wallet and bought some awesome tools. Why fight it? CG wrote: "As I recall, last time I said that VB sucks, you took it incredibly personally. I've never said that all VB.NET programmers are idiots ( although the majority of VB.NET code I've seen was plainly written by idiots )." CG: "This could well be the case, because C#, like VB6 and VB.NET, definately is easy enough for a newbie programmer to feel they know what they are doing, just because their code does not crash. But for now the truly terrible code seems to be more in the VB.NEt end of the field" let time takes its toll, ch, ch, ch, changes!!!!!!!!!!! Already apologized for that, because like I said, it's not my style, yet it sure is your style to insult people. you've obviously got issues that go beyond programming. CG wrote: "This is plain stupid. edit and continue existed in VC6, and intellisence has always been there. C# is growing to be more like C++ with the addition of things like templates. I don't really like anonymous methods, but iterators rock, and templates should have been there from the beginning." you can honestly say with a straight face that VC6's edit and continue was like VB's? CG: "Why ? We did it before, you not only agreed with some of my points, but provided a further list of reasons that C# kills VB.NET. Go back and reread it, it'll have the same effect." Why you ask? Why not, it's fun, and I currently having nothing to do besides playing, production is complete!
Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: precisely, you needed someone else's premises for your argument. No, someone else came along, who was supposed to be supporting VB.NET, and instead added to my arguments. You strengthened my case, you did not build it tho. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Never said it was perfect, but as long as patterns are implementable and you're getting good money doing it, why not? Because 1/ Patterns are not everything. The fact that you can impliment abstract factory (i.e. the fact that the language has classes ) does not mean that everything about the language is good, or even that most of it is. 2/ The money is also good using real languages. And the money is better, because you can work faster, and therefore do more work. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Never had to, nor was asked to VB 6 did it all, and where it didn't, pulled out the wallet and bought some awesome tools. Why fight it? Yeah, that seems to be your attitude. Let VB6 do it all, any real work you can pay someone else to write a C++ component. Not dissing you, that's how VB6 survived. It doesn't answer my question. How were you tested in your C++ class, if you never actually wrote any C++ ? What was the class for ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: you've obviously got issues that go beyond programming. ROTFL !!! Loving it..... Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: you can honestly say with a straight face that VC6's edit and continue was like VB's? No, not at all. But it was there, it's hardly new or unique to C#. The nature of .NET makes edit and continue easy to impliment, just get the function to recompile. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Why you ask? Why not, it's fun, and I currently having nothing to do besides playing, production is complete! Yeah, well, sadly I have to finish yet more bugs on this worthless VB.NET project. The original author should be shot. I fix all the bugs, and the client finds new ones ( that is, ones that were always there, but they just keep surfacing as I make more and more of the site finally work to the point that it can be browsed to ). Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
it's obvious I am not popular around here
Don't worry about it. Post voting sucks. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
it's obvious I am not popular around here
Hey if you spend your life learning a system and then they try to yank the rug from underneath you, well you are likely to stomp on that rug and try to pull it back, if there is a good reason. I don't know if C#.Net is better, but considering the time it took me to get familiar with MSVC++, I very much doubt if I am going to give up without a struggle. If this is just corporate shenigans to make make money off of a new system then I am sure as sugar going to pull back. The executables are huge, the IDE is certainly no improvement, and the main argument for is that it standardizes typical functions into a platform independent, cross-language object is just not good enough for me personally to move all of my code into this new improved system. It is also slow as Hell with same idiotic problems that Java had. These are 3Ghz machines what more do they need? Slowwwww. Good God, what is happening under the hood here?
-
addhandler
Thanks? I wasn't looking for an actual reply, especially since the correct answer is look it up in MSDN. However, I think this is one case where VB makes more sense then C#. The C# syntax seems like something a new developer that just learned about operator overloading would do.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: precisely, you needed someone else's premises for your argument. No, someone else came along, who was supposed to be supporting VB.NET, and instead added to my arguments. You strengthened my case, you did not build it tho. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Never said it was perfect, but as long as patterns are implementable and you're getting good money doing it, why not? Because 1/ Patterns are not everything. The fact that you can impliment abstract factory (i.e. the fact that the language has classes ) does not mean that everything about the language is good, or even that most of it is. 2/ The money is also good using real languages. And the money is better, because you can work faster, and therefore do more work. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Never had to, nor was asked to VB 6 did it all, and where it didn't, pulled out the wallet and bought some awesome tools. Why fight it? Yeah, that seems to be your attitude. Let VB6 do it all, any real work you can pay someone else to write a C++ component. Not dissing you, that's how VB6 survived. It doesn't answer my question. How were you tested in your C++ class, if you never actually wrote any C++ ? What was the class for ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: you've obviously got issues that go beyond programming. ROTFL !!! Loving it..... Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: you can honestly say with a straight face that VC6's edit and continue was like VB's? No, not at all. But it was there, it's hardly new or unique to C#. The nature of .NET makes edit and continue easy to impliment, just get the function to recompile. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: Why you ask? Why not, it's fun, and I currently having nothing to do besides playing, production is complete! Yeah, well, sadly I have to finish yet more bugs on this worthless VB.NET project. The original author should be shot. I fix all the bugs, and the client finds new ones ( that is, ones that were always there, but they just keep surfacing as I make more and more of the site finally work to the point that it can be browsed to ). Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
CG: "No, someone else came along, who was supposed to be supporting VB.NET, and instead added to my arguments. You strengthened my case, you did not build it tho." cg, my man, let's face it, you had no argument. wordiness does not cut it, and if that were the case, then you have to apply your argument to languages like pascal and cobol. furthermore, short circuiting is no longer an issue. you know my attitude already, i think c# is awesome, but i can't say it's better than vb.net, from a pure language standpoint, at least not the current versions (1.1). in 2.0 maybe just maybe... cg: "1/ Patterns are not everything. The fact that you can impliment abstract factory (i.e. the fact that the language has classes ) does not mean that everything about the language is good, or even that most of it is." 2/ The money is also good using real languages. And the money is better, because you can work faster, and therefore do more work." true, patterns aren't everything, but you can't live without them, unless you're naive enough to ignore to ignore the experiences of the world around you. work faster??? you're kidding, right????? fast and vb are one in the same, and no doubt C# is taking the same rad approach, of course in light of the success vb has had. i make money by telling the hands that feed what they want to hear: "I will make it happen". none of them actually care how it happens, i of course do, but none of them do. it's funny, just the other day we had a meeting with the business folks to discuss a project, and my novice partner, not that I'm a veteran either, started talking the tech talk, and in the end ended up looking like a fool, why because users don't give rat's a.. how a program functions from within, they just want the program to make their lives and that of the business easier. cg wrote: "Yeah, that seems to be your attitude. Let VB6 do it all, any real work you can pay someone else to write a C++ component. Not dissing you, that's how VB6 survived. It doesn't answer my question. How were you tested in your C++ class, if you never actually wrote any C++ ? What was the class for ?" christian, please, cut me some slack. I don't want to impress anyone other than the people that pay me. for example, back in the COM days I got a call center type project. the environment was NT 4, and sure enough, TAPI COM was available only with 2K and above, everything below it involved straight windows c dll calls, and lots of them. Could I have done it without the support of a third party to
-
CG: "No, someone else came along, who was supposed to be supporting VB.NET, and instead added to my arguments. You strengthened my case, you did not build it tho." cg, my man, let's face it, you had no argument. wordiness does not cut it, and if that were the case, then you have to apply your argument to languages like pascal and cobol. furthermore, short circuiting is no longer an issue. you know my attitude already, i think c# is awesome, but i can't say it's better than vb.net, from a pure language standpoint, at least not the current versions (1.1). in 2.0 maybe just maybe... cg: "1/ Patterns are not everything. The fact that you can impliment abstract factory (i.e. the fact that the language has classes ) does not mean that everything about the language is good, or even that most of it is." 2/ The money is also good using real languages. And the money is better, because you can work faster, and therefore do more work." true, patterns aren't everything, but you can't live without them, unless you're naive enough to ignore to ignore the experiences of the world around you. work faster??? you're kidding, right????? fast and vb are one in the same, and no doubt C# is taking the same rad approach, of course in light of the success vb has had. i make money by telling the hands that feed what they want to hear: "I will make it happen". none of them actually care how it happens, i of course do, but none of them do. it's funny, just the other day we had a meeting with the business folks to discuss a project, and my novice partner, not that I'm a veteran either, started talking the tech talk, and in the end ended up looking like a fool, why because users don't give rat's a.. how a program functions from within, they just want the program to make their lives and that of the business easier. cg wrote: "Yeah, that seems to be your attitude. Let VB6 do it all, any real work you can pay someone else to write a C++ component. Not dissing you, that's how VB6 survived. It doesn't answer my question. How were you tested in your C++ class, if you never actually wrote any C++ ? What was the class for ?" christian, please, cut me some slack. I don't want to impress anyone other than the people that pay me. for example, back in the COM days I got a call center type project. the environment was NT 4, and sure enough, TAPI COM was available only with 2K and above, everything below it involved straight windows c dll calls, and lots of them. Could I have done it without the support of a third party to
Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: you had no argument Really ? So you deny that having the language invent return values is an issue ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: i think c# is awesome, but i can't say it's better than vb.net, from a pure language standpoint, at least not the current versions (1.1). in 2.0 maybe just maybe... Really - so I'm right that C# is being given more features than VB.NET, and therefore that VB.NET is being left behind to die ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: true, patterns aren't everything, but you can't live without them, unless you're naive enough to ignore to ignore the experiences of the world around you. You agree - patterns are not everything, yet before you essentially said they were. 'so long as I can use patterns and I get paid' is the essence of your former comment. I can use patterns in Delphi and Smalltalk, should I convert to these languages ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: work faster??? you're kidding, right????? No, VB.NET slows me done considerably, and does the same for everyone else I know who has used it. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: i make money by telling the hands that feed what they want to hear: "I will make it happen". none of them actually care how it happens, i of course do, but none of them do. So why the hell are you using VB.NET, if the client will let you use a real language ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: not all about programming , it's a about the nasty game of money and politics. I suppose it can be. And there's nothing wrong with using components if they get the job done. All that worries me is people claiming that VB6 can do the job, when it can't. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: What did I learn in my c++ classes, lots of things? let me see, first there was introduction to programming using C, then data structures using C, then data structures using c++, then intr and advanced oo programming using c++ Apart from the fact that you were taught all wrong, how did you do 'advanced OO in C++' without writing any classes ? Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
Hey if you spend your life learning a system and then they try to yank the rug from underneath you, well you are likely to stomp on that rug and try to pull it back, if there is a good reason. I don't know if C#.Net is better, but considering the time it took me to get familiar with MSVC++, I very much doubt if I am going to give up without a struggle. If this is just corporate shenigans to make make money off of a new system then I am sure as sugar going to pull back. The executables are huge, the IDE is certainly no improvement, and the main argument for is that it standardizes typical functions into a platform independent, cross-language object is just not good enough for me personally to move all of my code into this new improved system. It is also slow as Hell with same idiotic problems that Java had. These are 3Ghz machines what more do they need? Slowwwww. Good God, what is happening under the hood here?
jw wrote: "Hey if you spend your life learning a system and then they try to yank the rug from underneath you, well you are likely to stomp on that rug and try to pull it back, if there is a good reason. I don't know if C#.Net is better, but considering the time it took me to get familiar with MSVC++, I very much doubt if I am going to give up without a struggle" I won't argue against your point, rather reinforce it. It must be tough having spent so much time learning and using c++ to now have all this .net hype in your face. i've said this a thousand times before, c++ is a much more difficult language, one that has investment far superior to any other language, and MS knows this and that's why MFC is still strong, despite managed extensions having gone down the toilette. I feel for you, and I applaud your courage to stick with c++, although you loose nothing and gain everything by using it in the managed world if you must. Being able to delete your objects when you want wherever you want, being able to use multiple inheritance to implement temporary throw away bridges, all that is totally awesome and only available in c++. from a pure language standpoint whether c# is better than vb, at least in version 1.1, i can assure it's not, although in 2.0 c# has a language edge at least for me with its support for, in order of importance to me, 1) refactoring, 2) iterators, 3) native language support for nullable types, and 4) anonymous methods, although be very careful how you use these, for you could end up with some horrible memory and performance issues if not used carefully. jw wrote: "If this is just corporate shenigans to make make money off of a new system then I am sure as sugar going to pull back." of course it's about money, it's always about money, and that's a good thing, let market forces do there thing. jw wrote: " The executables are huge" the executables are huge, sure they are, but remember you're dealing with meta data filled assemblies, not binary code, at least not until the JIT compiler does its magic, and this is a good. all this meta data expressed in the form msil is why .net components can interact seamlessly, why you can create a base class in c# in one assembly and derive another class from it in vb from from a different assembly with total ease, although in COM it wasn't that difficult to implements an interface exposed by another component either. if you want a smaller footprint, try creating a native image of the asssembly and see if that brings the size down. i
-
jw wrote: "Hey if you spend your life learning a system and then they try to yank the rug from underneath you, well you are likely to stomp on that rug and try to pull it back, if there is a good reason. I don't know if C#.Net is better, but considering the time it took me to get familiar with MSVC++, I very much doubt if I am going to give up without a struggle" I won't argue against your point, rather reinforce it. It must be tough having spent so much time learning and using c++ to now have all this .net hype in your face. i've said this a thousand times before, c++ is a much more difficult language, one that has investment far superior to any other language, and MS knows this and that's why MFC is still strong, despite managed extensions having gone down the toilette. I feel for you, and I applaud your courage to stick with c++, although you loose nothing and gain everything by using it in the managed world if you must. Being able to delete your objects when you want wherever you want, being able to use multiple inheritance to implement temporary throw away bridges, all that is totally awesome and only available in c++. from a pure language standpoint whether c# is better than vb, at least in version 1.1, i can assure it's not, although in 2.0 c# has a language edge at least for me with its support for, in order of importance to me, 1) refactoring, 2) iterators, 3) native language support for nullable types, and 4) anonymous methods, although be very careful how you use these, for you could end up with some horrible memory and performance issues if not used carefully. jw wrote: "If this is just corporate shenigans to make make money off of a new system then I am sure as sugar going to pull back." of course it's about money, it's always about money, and that's a good thing, let market forces do there thing. jw wrote: " The executables are huge" the executables are huge, sure they are, but remember you're dealing with meta data filled assemblies, not binary code, at least not until the JIT compiler does its magic, and this is a good. all this meta data expressed in the form msil is why .net components can interact seamlessly, why you can create a base class in c# in one assembly and derive another class from it in vb from from a different assembly with total ease, although in COM it wasn't that difficult to implements an interface exposed by another component either. if you want a smaller footprint, try creating a native image of the asssembly and see if that brings the size down. i
Surely refactoring is an IDE feature that VB.NET could have just as easily ? Iterators are cool, but I'd agree with you in putting anonymous methods at the bottom of the list. I'm waiting to see if I become enthusiastic about them, right now, I am not. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: despite managed extensions having gone down the toilette Well, that is good news. I always said they would. On what do you base the statement though ? I've never seen them taken up in any meaningful way, nor did I expect them to. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: you had no argument Really ? So you deny that having the language invent return values is an issue ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: i think c# is awesome, but i can't say it's better than vb.net, from a pure language standpoint, at least not the current versions (1.1). in 2.0 maybe just maybe... Really - so I'm right that C# is being given more features than VB.NET, and therefore that VB.NET is being left behind to die ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: true, patterns aren't everything, but you can't live without them, unless you're naive enough to ignore to ignore the experiences of the world around you. You agree - patterns are not everything, yet before you essentially said they were. 'so long as I can use patterns and I get paid' is the essence of your former comment. I can use patterns in Delphi and Smalltalk, should I convert to these languages ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: work faster??? you're kidding, right????? No, VB.NET slows me done considerably, and does the same for everyone else I know who has used it. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: i make money by telling the hands that feed what they want to hear: "I will make it happen". none of them actually care how it happens, i of course do, but none of them do. So why the hell are you using VB.NET, if the client will let you use a real language ? Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: not all about programming , it's a about the nasty game of money and politics. I suppose it can be. And there's nothing wrong with using components if they get the job done. All that worries me is people claiming that VB6 can do the job, when it can't. Giancarlo Aguilera wrote: What did I learn in my c++ classes, lots of things? let me see, first there was introduction to programming using C, then data structures using C, then data structures using c++, then intr and advanced oo programming using c++ Apart from the fact that you were taught all wrong, how did you do 'advanced OO in C++' without writing any classes ? Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
cg wrote: "Really ? So you deny that having the language invent return values is an issue ?" it doesn't invent a return value, it just simply retuns the default value of the member's return type. I already admitted that this is not ideal, although I must admit I have used it before, especially when dealing with form inheritance. unfortunately, the windows form designer cannot handle a form that derives from an abstract form, so in order to get around the issue I define the base form as non abstract and redefine abstract methods into empty non abstract virtual methods that simply raise an error if invoked, meaning derived forms need to override them. also, i've used this feature when doing rad programming and my intent is simply to program the ui against an interface without worrying about how the interface is implemented, at least not yet, for example: 'some class public class c public function foo() as boolean end function public readonly property myprop as string get end get end property end class 'then i may move on straight to the UI and worry about the above class's 'implementation later private sub btn_click() (byval sender as object, byval e as eventargs) handles btn.click 'yeah, you wish c# had handles dim obj as new c() if c.foo() then txt.text = c.myprop end if end sub in the end I believe it should be treated as a warning not an error. cg wrote: "Really - so I'm right that C# is being given more features than VB.NET, and therefore that VB.NET is being left behind to die ?" c# is getting a few more code focused features, which weren't included in vb only because of time, nothing more, nothing less, and of course overarchitecting at the expense of delivery is a big no, no. it would be a bad java move for ms to drop vb, because the one language fits all has already proven to be a failure, and ms knows this, and in order to make more money, ms provides variety. cg wrote: "You agree - patterns are not everything, yet before you essentially said they were. 'so long as I can use patterns and I get paid' is the essence of your former comment. I can use patterns in Delphi and Smalltalk, should I convert to these languages ?" of course you shouldn't convert, use what your best at. Smalltalk certainly won't work for you, for it seems you despise loosely typed languages. Delphi, well, Delphi and VB are to similar in syntax for you to be able to do anything in pascal, besides having to declare all your variables in one spot sucks, a
-
Don't you start dissing FORTRAN. :mad: cheers, Chris Maunder
You must have started out in the science field. I did some good work in FORTRAN just hated allocation of memory in predefined blocks. And those functions that took large number of arguments, or those idiots that define every variable using the first letter. In SGI and Sun machines it was possible to allocate memory dynamically, but it was platform dependent. Jeez now look at us. Templates, and you don't even have to worry about swap space or the size of static memory. Ah, those wer the days.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer