Why all the VB/C# flak?
-
I can understand why a lot of people hate the stereo-typeical VB programmer. [You know the type I'm talking about, they post asking for other people to do the work for them and they think they're 1337 for doing it]. But WHY are so many people here adamantly against VB and C#? In the right hands VB and C# (really the .NET Framework) are powerful tools that can do a lot of what MFC can do. I've heard the argument that by making programming easier it'll bring in more under-qualified programmers driving our salaries down. I think it would be just the opposite! With there being a lot of under-qualified programmers you can ask for more because it would be harder to find the good ones. A good analogy would be restaurants. You've got your Mom and Pop diners, then you've got the franchise's, then a step up from there you have the places that require buisness casual dress, and at the top you've got your ultra classy. Right now there are a lot of businesses out there that can't afford to pay some of you guys to write any software for them; I'm sure theres a few that can't even afford to pay me to write something for them. Why care if some VB/C# guys come in and take some of these lower middle businesses away? Those businesses were probably stopping you from pursuing a higher paying client anyway. Then there's the argument about tying yourself down to MS. Are you using MFC? ATL? COM? WTL? How about Windows? Using any of those binds you to MS anyway, so a rewrite is gonna have to be done anyway if you need to develop for *nix or Mac. After reading Joseph M. Newcomer's Optimization: Your Worst Enemy article the next two arguments seemed pretty insignificant. Pointers? Both VB and C# pass by reference, so thats not a valid reason for needing pointers. The only thing I can think of left is optimizations. Why should you have to worry about making pointer level optimizations? Let the compiler handle those details. Its better at making those decisions than any human would be. Worried about execution speed? Why? Only a few cases require that execution speed be the top priority, in those cases why are you even thinking about using something like MFC or a traditional windows app in the first place?! My favorite argument. What about templates? Yes, VB and C# are both lacking in
-
I can understand why a lot of people hate the stereo-typeical VB programmer. [You know the type I'm talking about, they post asking for other people to do the work for them and they think they're 1337 for doing it]. But WHY are so many people here adamantly against VB and C#? In the right hands VB and C# (really the .NET Framework) are powerful tools that can do a lot of what MFC can do. I've heard the argument that by making programming easier it'll bring in more under-qualified programmers driving our salaries down. I think it would be just the opposite! With there being a lot of under-qualified programmers you can ask for more because it would be harder to find the good ones. A good analogy would be restaurants. You've got your Mom and Pop diners, then you've got the franchise's, then a step up from there you have the places that require buisness casual dress, and at the top you've got your ultra classy. Right now there are a lot of businesses out there that can't afford to pay some of you guys to write any software for them; I'm sure theres a few that can't even afford to pay me to write something for them. Why care if some VB/C# guys come in and take some of these lower middle businesses away? Those businesses were probably stopping you from pursuing a higher paying client anyway. Then there's the argument about tying yourself down to MS. Are you using MFC? ATL? COM? WTL? How about Windows? Using any of those binds you to MS anyway, so a rewrite is gonna have to be done anyway if you need to develop for *nix or Mac. After reading Joseph M. Newcomer's Optimization: Your Worst Enemy article the next two arguments seemed pretty insignificant. Pointers? Both VB and C# pass by reference, so thats not a valid reason for needing pointers. The only thing I can think of left is optimizations. Why should you have to worry about making pointer level optimizations? Let the compiler handle those details. Its better at making those decisions than any human would be. Worried about execution speed? Why? Only a few cases require that execution speed be the top priority, in those cases why are you even thinking about using something like MFC or a traditional windows app in the first place?! My favorite argument. What about templates? Yes, VB and C# are both lacking in
From a purely technical point of view you are absolutely correct, IMHO. The problem is the affect on the industry at large. The hype surrounding languages such as VB/C# or whatever, creates the impression that these languages reduce the complexity of an application. They don't. Managers are made to believe that it is the language used which makes any given application complex. And they come to believe that any application of any complexity can be dealt with by anyone who has ever done a "Hello World" app in VB. If an application is simple, than yes, certianly, a simple language can be more efficiently employed to create it. However, if the application is a complex one, than a simple language is not going to make the application simple. The complexity is still there, and you need a more powerful tool to deal with it. People managing application development need to understand that.
-
From a purely technical point of view you are absolutely correct, IMHO. The problem is the affect on the industry at large. The hype surrounding languages such as VB/C# or whatever, creates the impression that these languages reduce the complexity of an application. They don't. Managers are made to believe that it is the language used which makes any given application complex. And they come to believe that any application of any complexity can be dealt with by anyone who has ever done a "Hello World" app in VB. If an application is simple, than yes, certianly, a simple language can be more efficiently employed to create it. However, if the application is a complex one, than a simple language is not going to make the application simple. The complexity is still there, and you need a more powerful tool to deal with it. People managing application development need to understand that.
Stan Shannon wrote: And they come to believe that any application of any complexity can be dealt with by anyone who has ever done a "Hello World" app in VB. I know that type of person, my boss is that way, luckily he understands when I say "thats not feasible for me to do" :) James Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki "Not be to confused with 'The VD Project'. Which would be a very bad pr0n flick. :-D" - Michael P Butler Jan. 18, 2002
-
I can understand why a lot of people hate the stereo-typeical VB programmer. [You know the type I'm talking about, they post asking for other people to do the work for them and they think they're 1337 for doing it]. But WHY are so many people here adamantly against VB and C#? In the right hands VB and C# (really the .NET Framework) are powerful tools that can do a lot of what MFC can do. I've heard the argument that by making programming easier it'll bring in more under-qualified programmers driving our salaries down. I think it would be just the opposite! With there being a lot of under-qualified programmers you can ask for more because it would be harder to find the good ones. A good analogy would be restaurants. You've got your Mom and Pop diners, then you've got the franchise's, then a step up from there you have the places that require buisness casual dress, and at the top you've got your ultra classy. Right now there are a lot of businesses out there that can't afford to pay some of you guys to write any software for them; I'm sure theres a few that can't even afford to pay me to write something for them. Why care if some VB/C# guys come in and take some of these lower middle businesses away? Those businesses were probably stopping you from pursuing a higher paying client anyway. Then there's the argument about tying yourself down to MS. Are you using MFC? ATL? COM? WTL? How about Windows? Using any of those binds you to MS anyway, so a rewrite is gonna have to be done anyway if you need to develop for *nix or Mac. After reading Joseph M. Newcomer's Optimization: Your Worst Enemy article the next two arguments seemed pretty insignificant. Pointers? Both VB and C# pass by reference, so thats not a valid reason for needing pointers. The only thing I can think of left is optimizations. Why should you have to worry about making pointer level optimizations? Let the compiler handle those details. Its better at making those decisions than any human would be. Worried about execution speed? Why? Only a few cases require that execution speed be the top priority, in those cases why are you even thinking about using something like MFC or a traditional windows app in the first place?! My favorite argument. What about templates? Yes, VB and C# are both lacking in
Because C++ is harder to learn to use than VB/C#, so programmers like to feel that because they have gone through more pain they are "better". It's the 'anything that hurts you makes you stronger' mentality. It's similar to the mentality of these guys who spend every waking moment fixing up their rust bucket 30 year old cars and think that modern cars are cheap, crappy pieces of plastic - merely because they are quiet, need no attention and don't have loose wires hanging out everywhere. A lot of it is merely justification for sticking with something you know instead of taking a wider view and investigating other options. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Because C++ is harder to learn to use than VB/C#, so programmers like to feel that because they have gone through more pain they are "better". It's the 'anything that hurts you makes you stronger' mentality. It's similar to the mentality of these guys who spend every waking moment fixing up their rust bucket 30 year old cars and think that modern cars are cheap, crappy pieces of plastic - merely because they are quiet, need no attention and don't have loose wires hanging out everywhere. A lot of it is merely justification for sticking with something you know instead of taking a wider view and investigating other options. cheers, Chris Maunder
Oh come on Chris! do you really think that elitism is the reason VB/VB programmers is treated with disdain in 100% of cases? It's not a case of more pain == better at all. If you have the basic groundings in programming, then the tool you use to implement your project is immaterial. From that point of view, core skills are more important. Core skills are aqcuired through experience. There are _no_ shortcuts to experience. IMO, VB encourages programmers to be lazy, pure and simple. If you have experianced a little "pain", then you are more likely to be able to fix the problem yourself. Microsoft are attempting to create a generation of spoon-fed programmers, and that can't be good for anyone. I've worked with good programmers and bad programmers, the language they used was usually irrelevant. But the best programmers _can_ fix their own cars, to borrow your analogy. You use the right tool for the right job because each language has its place, but VB can foster false expectations.
-
Oh come on Chris! do you really think that elitism is the reason VB/VB programmers is treated with disdain in 100% of cases? It's not a case of more pain == better at all. If you have the basic groundings in programming, then the tool you use to implement your project is immaterial. From that point of view, core skills are more important. Core skills are aqcuired through experience. There are _no_ shortcuts to experience. IMO, VB encourages programmers to be lazy, pure and simple. If you have experianced a little "pain", then you are more likely to be able to fix the problem yourself. Microsoft are attempting to create a generation of spoon-fed programmers, and that can't be good for anyone. I've worked with good programmers and bad programmers, the language they used was usually irrelevant. But the best programmers _can_ fix their own cars, to borrow your analogy. You use the right tool for the right job because each language has its place, but VB can foster false expectations.
Mick Bythell wrote: do you really think that elitism is the reason VB/VB programmers is treated with disdain in 100% of cases Nope. But in many cases yes. Elitism from the point of view that C++ developers consider themselves better than VB programmers. Mick Bythell wrote: It's not a case of more pain == better at all...(and later) If you have experianced a little "pain", then you are more likely to be able to fix the problem yourself...(and then) But the best programmers _can_ fix their own cars, to borrow your analogy So more pain == better able to fix problems => a better programmer. Didn't you just contradict yourself here? If it isn't C++ programmers considering themselves better than VB programmers, then why do VB programmers get treated with disdain? cheers, Chris Maunder
-
I can understand why a lot of people hate the stereo-typeical VB programmer. [You know the type I'm talking about, they post asking for other people to do the work for them and they think they're 1337 for doing it]. But WHY are so many people here adamantly against VB and C#? In the right hands VB and C# (really the .NET Framework) are powerful tools that can do a lot of what MFC can do. I've heard the argument that by making programming easier it'll bring in more under-qualified programmers driving our salaries down. I think it would be just the opposite! With there being a lot of under-qualified programmers you can ask for more because it would be harder to find the good ones. A good analogy would be restaurants. You've got your Mom and Pop diners, then you've got the franchise's, then a step up from there you have the places that require buisness casual dress, and at the top you've got your ultra classy. Right now there are a lot of businesses out there that can't afford to pay some of you guys to write any software for them; I'm sure theres a few that can't even afford to pay me to write something for them. Why care if some VB/C# guys come in and take some of these lower middle businesses away? Those businesses were probably stopping you from pursuing a higher paying client anyway. Then there's the argument about tying yourself down to MS. Are you using MFC? ATL? COM? WTL? How about Windows? Using any of those binds you to MS anyway, so a rewrite is gonna have to be done anyway if you need to develop for *nix or Mac. After reading Joseph M. Newcomer's Optimization: Your Worst Enemy article the next two arguments seemed pretty insignificant. Pointers? Both VB and C# pass by reference, so thats not a valid reason for needing pointers. The only thing I can think of left is optimizations. Why should you have to worry about making pointer level optimizations? Let the compiler handle those details. Its better at making those decisions than any human would be. Worried about execution speed? Why? Only a few cases require that execution speed be the top priority, in those cases why are you even thinking about using something like MFC or a traditional windows app in the first place?! My favorite argument. What about templates? Yes, VB and C# are both lacking in
James T. Johnson wrote: But WHY are so many people here adamantly against VB and C#? In the right hands VB and C# (really the .NET Framework) are powerful tools that can do a lot of what MFC can do. Thanks for the post James. I think there is simply a lot of elitist thinking going on and anybody who does not use C++ is considered a bumb-programmer. I am not sure where or what that elitist thinking grew from however. When VB first came out did C++ programmers diss it as well? (I have not been around for long enough to remember :) ) BTW did you put it in the Lounge first and it was moved here, or did you put it here in the first place? Just curious... regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront
-
James T. Johnson wrote: But WHY are so many people here adamantly against VB and C#? In the right hands VB and C# (really the .NET Framework) are powerful tools that can do a lot of what MFC can do. Thanks for the post James. I think there is simply a lot of elitist thinking going on and anybody who does not use C++ is considered a bumb-programmer. I am not sure where or what that elitist thinking grew from however. When VB first came out did C++ programmers diss it as well? (I have not been around for long enough to remember :) ) BTW did you put it in the Lounge first and it was moved here, or did you put it here in the first place? Just curious... regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront
Paul Watson wrote: When VB first came out did C++ programmers diss it as well? (I have not been around for long enough to remember ) I wasn't around either. Back when VB4 had come out (sometime back in '95 since it had 16bit and 32bit support) I found VB1 for DOS on some warez site. If you take out the common controls and the data access, then port the interface to DOS, that was VB1. There have been some language changes and feature enhancements, but from what i remember thats all there was to it. It pretty much sucked compared to what we have now, but I think it was just right to hook me into continue programming :) Paul Watson wrote: BTW did you put it in the Lounge first and it was moved here, or did you put it here in the first place? I started to post it to the lounge, then by the time I finished it I realized this was a much better place for it. James Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki "Not be to confused with 'The VD Project'. Which would be a very bad pr0n flick. :-D" - Michael P Butler Jan. 18, 2002
-
Paul Watson wrote: When VB first came out did C++ programmers diss it as well? (I have not been around for long enough to remember ) I wasn't around either. Back when VB4 had come out (sometime back in '95 since it had 16bit and 32bit support) I found VB1 for DOS on some warez site. If you take out the common controls and the data access, then port the interface to DOS, that was VB1. There have been some language changes and feature enhancements, but from what i remember thats all there was to it. It pretty much sucked compared to what we have now, but I think it was just right to hook me into continue programming :) Paul Watson wrote: BTW did you put it in the Lounge first and it was moved here, or did you put it here in the first place? I started to post it to the lounge, then by the time I finished it I realized this was a much better place for it. James Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki "Not be to confused with 'The VD Project'. Which would be a very bad pr0n flick. :-D" - Michael P Butler Jan. 18, 2002
James T. Johnson wrote: It pretty much sucked compared to what we have now, but I think it was just right to hook me into continue programming :) Me too. I was using QBasic, upgraded to QuickBasic (I can make .EXE files! :eek: ). Then found VB1 somehow, and was really taken by it. Treating a button as a "thing" (i didnt know the word Object then) just seemed to make sense to me. Then VB3 came out and I could make these .EXE files for Windows! :eek: :eek: And I am pretty sure that C++ programmers would have though that VB was a joke back then, yes. Just thinking of all the things you couldnt do with VB, I am sure they would have. I think it certainly is elitism. In the hands of the right person, VB6 is an amazing programming language. -- David Wengier
-
James T. Johnson wrote: It pretty much sucked compared to what we have now, but I think it was just right to hook me into continue programming :) Me too. I was using QBasic, upgraded to QuickBasic (I can make .EXE files! :eek: ). Then found VB1 somehow, and was really taken by it. Treating a button as a "thing" (i didnt know the word Object then) just seemed to make sense to me. Then VB3 came out and I could make these .EXE files for Windows! :eek: :eek: And I am pretty sure that C++ programmers would have though that VB was a joke back then, yes. Just thinking of all the things you couldnt do with VB, I am sure they would have. I think it certainly is elitism. In the hands of the right person, VB6 is an amazing programming language. -- David Wengier
David Wengier wrote: VB6 is an amazing programming language. Hello David I think VB6 is very useful as a COM testing tool. Like if we are writing an ATL component, the best and fastest way, we can check whether the component works is using VB6. I mean all we need to do is :- dim a as object set a = createobject("abc.abc") msgbox a.somefunction(some parameters) Simple huh? I think that is VB6's greatest and most powerful use. I wonder how many C++ guys use VB6 to test their components! Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
-
Because C++ is harder to learn to use than VB/C#, so programmers like to feel that because they have gone through more pain they are "better". It's the 'anything that hurts you makes you stronger' mentality. It's similar to the mentality of these guys who spend every waking moment fixing up their rust bucket 30 year old cars and think that modern cars are cheap, crappy pieces of plastic - merely because they are quiet, need no attention and don't have loose wires hanging out everywhere. A lot of it is merely justification for sticking with something you know instead of taking a wider view and investigating other options. cheers, Chris Maunder
C++ is like driving a manually geared automobile, C# is like driving an automatic gear vehicle and VB is like having a chauffeur. Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
-
David Wengier wrote: VB6 is an amazing programming language. Hello David I think VB6 is very useful as a COM testing tool. Like if we are writing an ATL component, the best and fastest way, we can check whether the component works is using VB6. I mean all we need to do is :- dim a as object set a = createobject("abc.abc") msgbox a.somefunction(some parameters) Simple huh? I think that is VB6's greatest and most powerful use. I wonder how many C++ guys use VB6 to test their components! Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
Turn off Option Explicit and you only need two lines :) I am a VB person, not a C++ person, so I think it has a lot more uses, but each to his own. I have written one C++ windows app for Uni, but didnt like it. Just not my thing. I think I could have written it better in VB :) -- David Wengier
-
C++ is like driving a manually geared automobile, C# is like driving an automatic gear vehicle and VB is like having a chauffeur. Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: and VB is like having a chauffeur yes, but if you want to, you can kick him out and drive off :) -- David Wengier
-
Turn off Option Explicit and you only need two lines :) I am a VB person, not a C++ person, so I think it has a lot more uses, but each to his own. I have written one C++ windows app for Uni, but didnt like it. Just not my thing. I think I could have written it better in VB :) -- David Wengier
My main use for VB in the past 2 years has been quick db frontends. The last one just exported data to a local access database from a remote SQL Server (used to store data for a data driven website). The only purpose for the local DB is so they can run reports off from it if they need to. James Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki "Not be to confused with 'The VD Project'. Which would be a very bad pr0n flick. :-D" - Michael P Butler Jan. 18, 2002
-
David Wengier wrote: VB6 is an amazing programming language. Hello David I think VB6 is very useful as a COM testing tool. Like if we are writing an ATL component, the best and fastest way, we can check whether the component works is using VB6. I mean all we need to do is :- dim a as object set a = createobject("abc.abc") msgbox a.somefunction(some parameters) Simple huh? I think that is VB6's greatest and most powerful use. I wonder how many C++ guys use VB6 to test their components! Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
I tend to use VB for testing my ATL COM objects, mainly because I can get it up and running within a couple of minutes. I also use VB for proto-typing applications especially when I need a screenshot to go into the functional specification. Michael :-)
-
I tend to use VB for testing my ATL COM objects, mainly because I can get it up and running within a couple of minutes. I also use VB for proto-typing applications especially when I need a screenshot to go into the functional specification. Michael :-)
Yeah Its good for a rapid prototyping [non-functional of course] but with all the major screens Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
-
Mick Bythell wrote: do you really think that elitism is the reason VB/VB programmers is treated with disdain in 100% of cases Nope. But in many cases yes. Elitism from the point of view that C++ developers consider themselves better than VB programmers. Mick Bythell wrote: It's not a case of more pain == better at all...(and later) If you have experianced a little "pain", then you are more likely to be able to fix the problem yourself...(and then) But the best programmers _can_ fix their own cars, to borrow your analogy So more pain == better able to fix problems => a better programmer. Didn't you just contradict yourself here? If it isn't C++ programmers considering themselves better than VB programmers, then why do VB programmers get treated with disdain? cheers, Chris Maunder
Ok, let's try this reply again (I'm on a windows box now, so maybe this works) You stated the one reason for elitism is that C++ programmers think more pain == better engineer. My original comment is aimed at your oversimplification of the situation. (Chris Maunder)Because C++ is harder to learn to use than VB/C#, so programmers like to feel that because they have gone through more pain they are "better". It's the 'anything that hurts you makes you stronger' mentality. What I was trying to say was: more pain == more experience == better able to fix problems == a better programmer. Where is the contradiction? Do you disagree with the above statement? Please don't use sophistry Chris, of course the two statements are contradictory when taken out of context of the paragraph they are in. One of the best engineers I know doesn't have a "new" car, he built it himself. Hardly the same as your analogy, and he does treat _some_ sloppy programmers with disdain, as do I, whether they happen to use VB or not. Is that elitism, or pride in your work? ;P mfg, Mick
-
Because C++ is harder to learn to use than VB/C#, so programmers like to feel that because they have gone through more pain they are "better". It's the 'anything that hurts you makes you stronger' mentality. It's similar to the mentality of these guys who spend every waking moment fixing up their rust bucket 30 year old cars and think that modern cars are cheap, crappy pieces of plastic - merely because they are quiet, need no attention and don't have loose wires hanging out everywhere. A lot of it is merely justification for sticking with something you know instead of taking a wider view and investigating other options. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris, I must disagree with this. I think the "C++ programmers are masochists(sp?)" crowd have simply never worked on a really large application in a fast past entreprenuerial environment. C/C++ is best suited for that environment simply because you have to have tools which compensate for the fact that the specification/planning phase of the process is usually very short. VB (I'll withhold my judgement on C# but I really don't see how it could be better than C++) simply will not work in that kind of an environment. At some point the development of the application will become a kludge fest. When you have already written 50,000 lines of code, and you are being hit with a dozen new specifications a day and it is only two weeks before the thing is due to ship and you are working 15 hour days - you will thank god for C++. In other words, we need C++ because of bad management of the development process. The closer management comes to getting the process right, the more sense tools like VB make. The irony is that the bad managers, being bad, do not seem to understand this. It's a kind of Catch-22 - if the managers were good they would understand the need for C++, but if they were good there would be less need for C++! "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
-
Ok, let's try this reply again (I'm on a windows box now, so maybe this works) You stated the one reason for elitism is that C++ programmers think more pain == better engineer. My original comment is aimed at your oversimplification of the situation. (Chris Maunder)Because C++ is harder to learn to use than VB/C#, so programmers like to feel that because they have gone through more pain they are "better". It's the 'anything that hurts you makes you stronger' mentality. What I was trying to say was: more pain == more experience == better able to fix problems == a better programmer. Where is the contradiction? Do you disagree with the above statement? Please don't use sophistry Chris, of course the two statements are contradictory when taken out of context of the paragraph they are in. One of the best engineers I know doesn't have a "new" car, he built it himself. Hardly the same as your analogy, and he does treat _some_ sloppy programmers with disdain, as do I, whether they happen to use VB or not. Is that elitism, or pride in your work? ;P mfg, Mick
I was just trying to stir things up ;) but I've completely run out of energy (and enthusiasm) So would it be safe to say that those C++ programmers who treat VB programmers with disdain do it because C++ programmers generally have a better understanding of the underlying framework and so are better able to spot deficiencies in VB programs caused by either a lack of attention by the programmer or a lack of flexibility in the language? Or maybe because there are more flaky VB programs out there than flaky C++ programs (because VB buffers your mistakes, while C++ forces you to get it right else it'll all blow up?) Or is it because of the stereotypical grooming, dress sense and lifestyle differences between the two camps? cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Ok, let's try this reply again (I'm on a windows box now, so maybe this works) You stated the one reason for elitism is that C++ programmers think more pain == better engineer. My original comment is aimed at your oversimplification of the situation. (Chris Maunder)Because C++ is harder to learn to use than VB/C#, so programmers like to feel that because they have gone through more pain they are "better". It's the 'anything that hurts you makes you stronger' mentality. What I was trying to say was: more pain == more experience == better able to fix problems == a better programmer. Where is the contradiction? Do you disagree with the above statement? Please don't use sophistry Chris, of course the two statements are contradictory when taken out of context of the paragraph they are in. One of the best engineers I know doesn't have a "new" car, he built it himself. Hardly the same as your analogy, and he does treat _some_ sloppy programmers with disdain, as do I, whether they happen to use VB or not. Is that elitism, or pride in your work? ;P mfg, Mick
dude where are u Sean Sp1@agere.com