«

No major differences in power between C# or VB.NET. They both compile to the
same IL and use the same base classes. Matter of fact, what differences
there were in the initial versions, is diminishing as time goes on with the
one exception that C# can use pointers and allows you to write unsafe code.
Other than that no difference.

Leigh

"Chris Pettingill" <> wrote in message
news:...
> They may not have been 'designed' for a particular tier, but I have read
> articles suggesting that VB is a little nicer for GUI stuff, and C# is
nicer
> for the backend plumbing (although either should be able to do either
task).
> Of course, I can't find any of those articles now to prove my point.
>
> However if you look at
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...sualStudio.asp,
> it does seem to _imply_ some more important differences between VB.NET
> ("Applications made with Visual Basic ... take advantage of the .NET
> Framework") and C# ("Applications written in Visual C# ... take full
> advantage of the .NET Framework"). Notice the addition of the word "full"
> in the C# description. Maybe this is just a innocent difference in the
> wording, but there's other things that seem to imply that C# is a little
> more powerful in some ways. Since C# is closer to C/C++ I'm hoping it'll
> make it easier to work with low-level Win32 API's if/when I need to.
>
>
>
> "General Protection Fault" <> wrote
> in message news:...
> > Chris Pettingill wrote:
> >
> > > I also meant to mention... if you do decide to pursue an MCSD, there's
a
> > > few documents on MS'es website explaining the differences of VB and
C#.
> > > I think in general, VB is more aimed at building UI's while C# is more
> > > for middle tier, and back end stuff. However, in theory you should be
> > > able to use either language for either job I think. VB is supposed to
> > > be easier for beginners. I think new stuff (like generics) are
supposed
> > > to be available in C# first. While I'm going to focus on C#, I'm
> > > expecting that I'll need to be pretty familiar with VB too. But I
also
> > > figure that if I know C#, VB will come easy.
> >
> > Neither language is designed for either tier. They're equivalent.
> >
> > If you learn C# first, VB.NET might be tough because you'll have to
> > learn to think like a moron to program in VB.NET.
> >
>
>

> If you learn C# first, VB.NET might be tough because you'll have to
> learn to think like a moron to program in VB.NET.


Are you an insecure C bigot or an ex-VB'er with an inferiority complex?

"General Protection Fault" <> wrote
in message news:...
> Chris Pettingill wrote:
>
> > I also meant to mention... if you do decide to pursue an MCSD, there's a
> > few documents on MS'es website explaining the differences of VB and C#.
> > I think in general, VB is more aimed at building UI's while C# is more
> > for middle tier, and back end stuff. However, in theory you should be
> > able to use either language for either job I think. VB is supposed to
> > be easier for beginners. I think new stuff (like generics) are supposed
> > to be available in C# first. While I'm going to focus on C#, I'm
> > expecting that I'll need to be pretty familiar with VB too. But I also
> > figure that if I know C#, VB will come easy.
>
> Neither language is designed for either tier. They're equivalent.
>
> If you learn C# first, VB.NET might be tough because you'll have to
> learn to think like a moron to program in VB.NET.
>

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:57:41 -0500 in article
<> in
microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd , "Chris Pettingill"
<> wrote:

>They may not have been 'designed' for a particular tier, but I have read
>articles suggesting that VB is a little nicer for GUI stuff, and C# is nicer
>for the backend plumbing (although either should be able to do either task).
>Of course, I can't find any of those articles now to prove my point.
>
>However if you look at
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...sualStudio.asp,
>it does seem to _imply_ some more important differences between VB.NET
>("Applications made with Visual Basic ... take advantage of the .NET
>Framework") and C# ("Applications written in Visual C# ... take full
>advantage of the .NET Framework"). Notice the addition of the word "full"
>in the C# description. Maybe this is just a innocent difference in the
>wording, but there's other things that seem to imply that C# is a little
>more powerful in some ways. Since C# is closer to C/C++ I'm hoping it'll
>make it easier to work with low-level Win32 API's if/when I need to.
>
>

In fact VB uses slightly more of the CLR in one way - I forget the
syntax (I use C# , but it supports a more complex catch statement
than C# utilising an interface the CLR exposes which C# doesn't use.

On the other hand, C# does allow unsafe code which VB doesn't.

As far as Interop with Win32 and COM go, they are both exactly the
same as far as I know (VB may be slightly 'better' with optional
parameters though). I'd love to hear of any differences but I don't
think that there are any.

I can't think of any reason why you'd use one over the other for GUI
of backend systems except habit.


--
Simon
simon dot smith at snowvalley dot com
"Insomnia is a small price to pay for the stuff you read on UseNet"

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:21:42 -0500, "Leigh Kendall"
<> wrote:

>Are you an insecure C bigot or an ex-VB'er with an inferiority complex?

lol! Although gpf has a point!

I know, I know... I must admit, I have met many many DUMB A*S VB
programmers. Only because it's so much easier to pick up than C++ I suppose.

I suppose if C++ was easier, more of the dumb ones using VB might have
jumped shipped earlier! <g>.

What's so amusing now, is that there's really no worthy difference between
C# and VB.NET in the world of .NET, but the fanatics continue to rage on!

Leigh

"Kline Sphere" <-> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:21:42 -0500, "Leigh Kendall"
> <> wrote:
>
> >Are you an insecure C bigot or an ex-VB'er with an inferiority complex?
>
> lol! Although gpf has a point!

>I must admit, I have met many many DUMB A*S VB
>programmers.

There are plenty of 'DUMB A*S VB programmers' who are not vb'ers!

I've started learning the C# syntax, and I'm almost wishing I had chosen
VB.NET instead now. While I can see the C influence in C#, it's amazing how
close to Delphi, C# is. Since I've used Delphi for a long time, the jump to
C# looks like it's going to be dead easy. Since VB.NET has changed so much
since VB (i.e. it's actually OO now), I may have done better to learn
VB.NET. Then I'd be able to use VB.NET because I'd studied it, and C#
because it's so close to Delphi.

In reading through the book I have ("Programming C#" published by O'Reilly),
it does mention some things you can only do in C#, and other things you can
only do in VB.NET, but there's nothing significant so far. And, from what
I've learned reading responses to my posts in this thread, the stuff is
changing so fast that the differences mentioned in the book may no longer
actually hold true.


"Leigh Kendall" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I know, I know... I must admit, I have met many many DUMB A*S VB
> programmers. Only because it's so much easier to pick up than C++ I
suppose.
>
> I suppose if C++ was easier, more of the dumb ones using VB might have
> jumped shipped earlier! <g>.
>
> What's so amusing now, is that there's really no worthy difference between
> C# and VB.NET in the world of .NET, but the fanatics continue to rage on!
>
> Leigh
>
> "Kline Sphere" <-> wrote in message
> news:...
> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:21:42 -0500, "Leigh Kendall"
> > <> wrote:
> >
> > >Are you an insecure C bigot or an ex-VB'er with an inferiority complex?
> >
> > lol! Although gpf has a point!
>

Not sure what you mean?...

"Kline Sphere" <-> wrote in message
news:...
> >I must admit, I have met many many DUMB A*S VB
> >programmers.
>
> There are plenty of 'DUMB A*S VB programmers' who are not vb'ers!

You are right on.

In reality, the thing that's important, is understanding the framework and
all the base class libraries. Pick a language you like and go from there.
Once you know the framework, it's for the most part a simple translation
between languages. Yes, some things are easier to do in one than the other,
but not earth shattering.

As a "professional" (not used loosely), you MUST be able to work with both,
and at a minimum, be able to read both.

Leigh

"Chris Pettingill" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I've started learning the C# syntax, and I'm almost wishing I had chosen
> VB.NET instead now. While I can see the C influence in C#, it's amazing
how
> close to Delphi, C# is. Since I've used Delphi for a long time, the jump
to
> C# looks like it's going to be dead easy. Since VB.NET has changed so
much
> since VB (i.e. it's actually OO now), I may have done better to learn
> VB.NET. Then I'd be able to use VB.NET because I'd studied it, and C#
> because it's so close to Delphi.
>
> In reading through the book I have ("Programming C#" published by
O'Reilly),
> it does mention some things you can only do in C#, and other things you
can
> only do in VB.NET, but there's nothing significant so far. And, from what
> I've learned reading responses to my posts in this thread, the stuff is
> changing so fast that the differences mentioned in the book may no longer
> actually hold true.
>
>
> "Leigh Kendall" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > I know, I know... I must admit, I have met many many DUMB A*S VB
> > programmers. Only because it's so much easier to pick up than C++ I
> suppose.
> >
> > I suppose if C++ was easier, more of the dumb ones using VB might have
> > jumped shipped earlier! <g>.
> >
> > What's so amusing now, is that there's really no worthy difference
between
> > C# and VB.NET in the world of .NET, but the fanatics continue to rage
on!
> >
> > Leigh
> >
> > "Kline Sphere" <-> wrote in message
> > news:...
> > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:21:42 -0500, "Leigh Kendall"
> > > <> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Are you an insecure C bigot or an ex-VB'er with an inferiority
complex?
> > >
> > > lol! Although gpf has a point!
> >
>
>

>Not sure what you mean?...

Exactly what it says. Being a 'DUMB A*S' programmer is not tied down
to one who only knows vb, i.e. it;s not language specific!