Overpaid, over engineered and totally in-yer-face...

[Marc Clifton]

I think you just proved why I have such a low opinion of VB programmers. (Marc ducks and runs for cover)

Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!

[Duncan Edwards Jones]

It'd probably be as ugly in C#with the need for explicit interface implementation

[Lost User]

It's been a while since I've seen any VB..

Public ReadOnly Property Enabled As Boolean
Get
Return m_enabled
End Get
End Property

C# certainly appears to be slightly cleaner in my opinion, although it's a matter of preference/working environment/etc..

public readonly bool Enabled { get { return m_enabled; } }

How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

[Duncan Edwards Jones]

You can do implied getters/setters in VB (and C#) to save a bit of space. It was more the one implements of the interface per event handler that was the OMG part.

[Lost User]

I've seen a lot (lot) worse, tbh :(

How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

[Sander Rossel]

Public Property Something As String
Get
Return _Something
End Get
Set(value As String)
_Something = value
End Set
End Property

public string Something
{
get
{
return _Something;
}
set
{
_Something = value;
}
}

That's eight vs. eleven lines. It adds up! I always find VB has a vertical cleanliness whereas C# has a horizontal cleanliness :) I love both languages by the way. It's just a little bit easier to write messy code in VB due to backwards compatibility with VB1-6, but you can write utter crap in both languages any language! Started out in VB.NET and later moved to C#.

Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.

Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra

Regards, Sander

[Lost User]

In your example, VB has 20 keywords, variable names, etc. C# has 9. Nuff said :)

How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

[Sander Rossel]

But still less vertical space! :laugh:

Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.

Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra

Regards, Sander

[Lost User]

Sander Rossel wrote:

But still less vertical space! :laugh:

public string Something
{
get { return _Something; }
set { _Something = value; }
}

Where, exactly?

Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)

[Sander Rossel]

Stop ruining my point with your better syntax![^] :laugh: So maybe properties aren't the best example... Let's look at a switch statement? Always loved them in VB, but disliked them in C# (mandatory break!?)... :)

Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.

Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra

Regards, Sander

[Lost User]

Yep, that's how I would write simple getters and setters. I only go multiline if there's some additional logic in there :)

How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

[Sinisa Hajnal]

In VB.NET you could type only Public String Something variable _Someting would be internally created and accessible without explicit definition. I don't know if they added it in C# too.. While there are more keywords, intellisense is better and there is actually less typing in vb version :)

[Lost User]

Similar like C#, but there the generated backing-field is not accessible. http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/06/Auto-Properties[^]

Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)

[Nagy Vilmos]

VB? I see why you're ashamed!

veni bibi saltavi

[Duncan Edwards Jones]

expected ';' ;P