Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > ASP .Net > Visual Basic is Dead!

Reply
Thread Tools

Visual Basic is Dead!

 
 
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2009
""Fernando A. Gómez F."" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb:
> However, the VB version can't be shortened... can it?


I wonder why there should be the possibilty to shorten it. The way the
property is defined in VB allows for easy extension by adding new statements
to each accessor's body.

If I want to see the signatures only, I use the class view or object browser
instead.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
vanderghast
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2009
Probably doable too in VbNet, the line:


public int WhatIsThat { get; set; }


***completely*** defines a perfectly working read/write propery, with
anonymous variable 'sustaining it', in C#, since version 3.5 of the
framework (if not before). It is not 'just' the signature. I don't see it
often used, though, in comparison with the long version., which uses an
explicit declaration of the local variable (the one capturing the 'value'
for the set definition and returning what get expect to return), and an
explicit statement for each get and set access.




Vanderghast, Access MVP


"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> ""Fernando A. Gómez F."" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb:
>> However, the VB version can't be shortened... can it?

>
> I wonder why there should be the possibilty to shorten it. The way the
> property is defined in VB allows for easy extension by adding new
> statements to each accessor's body.
>
> If I want to see the signatures only, I use the class view or object
> browser instead.
>
> --
> M S Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
> V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2009
> I do not agree with the
> author on saying C# is for helping Java programmers transition over to

..Net;
> that is what J# was for.


The whole of .Net is aimed at Java programmers. (And at
getting 3rd-party programmers out of the Windows system.)
From "the horse's mouth" (Mark Russinovich):

"A few years ago Microsoft embarked on an anti-Java campaign called .NET,
spinning .NET as a revolutionary technology (while failing to explain that
it's really Microsoft's own implementation of the JVM concept with new
languages layered on top of it)."

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussino...e-coming-net-w
orld-i-m-scared.aspx

But people are writing Windows software with a 200 MB
dependency because they think it's "what Microsoft wants"!
Microsoft wants whatever makes money. That may be something
different tomorrow than it is today. Microsoft is not a guru. It's a
for-profit corporation.
If people don't know any better than to write Windows "desktop"
software with a 200 MB dependency, then what difference does it
make what language they're using?

The competition between languages will always be there.
Some C-type people look down on basic-type languages
as being too verbose. Some Perl people look down on everyone
else for the same reason. So what? Can't people think for
themselves a bit rather than trying to work out "the truth"
by reading junk filler pieces on blogs? The linked article is
written by someone with high school writing abilities who fails
to express any clear thoughts. It's just a "tossed salad" of
hearsay and wiseacreing.

------------ Looking at a few samples -------------------

* most really cool pieces seem to be in C# and not VB.Net.*

"Cool"? What's "cool" other than what does the job?

* The ones [job applicants] that strike me as really "senior" mostly
trend towards C# and not VB.Net. Sure, it could be a coincidence,
but it might not be. *

Translation: "C# people seem to be more "cool", but then
again my judgment can't be trusted."

* For the time being, VB.Net is my .Net language of choice; ...
VB.Net is an easy way to tap into the .Net Framework ....
So, C# it is. Am I thrilled? Not really. I like what they are doing with
C# but not C# itself. But I feel like I have hit the limits of VB.Net.
*

He's sticking with VB.Net, and VB.Net is good, but now he
apparently has to switch to C#, but he doesn't like C#, but VB.Net
is not so good...

Is your head spinning yet? Mine is.

Most of the "article" is just one long string of popular cliches. (It's
usually a good bet that people are going to prattle cliches when they
start sentences with "Sure, ..." Use of the word "cool" is another
dependable indicator. "Cool", after all, is really just a "cool"
synonym for "fashionable".)



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tom Shelton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2009
On 2009-06-17, Michael D. Ober <obermd> wrote:
> ""Fernando A. Gómez F."" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> nak wrote:
>>> pfft! You would not believe how many new articles pop up a year stating
>>> that.
>>>
>>> And more often than not they are written by self righteous C# developers
>>> who think it is a "better" language.
>>>

>>
>> Finally, they've taken the blame out of us, C++ers... LOL
>>
>>> Has Harry rightly said above, Microsoft are improving development of both
>>> C# and VB.NET to the extent that both languages will receive new features
>>> at the same time. It's all horses for courses really, I write in both C#
>>> and VB.NET regularly, and personally I prefer VB.NET.
>>>
>>> So nope... VB.NET is far from being dead.
>>>

>>
>> VB6 completely sucked, but the .NET versions kinda improved the
>> language --as required by the CLS. Nowadays I don't like VB because it is
>> very verbose (see Okla's post above), but that's the only thing I can
>> think about.
>>
>> But I agree that it is far from dead.
>>
>> A new member to the family: F#. AFAIK it will be a fully supported
>> language in VS10. Let's see how it goes.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> --
>> Fernando Gómez
>> www.fermasmas.com
>>

>
>
> Sometimes the verbosity of VB is good - other times it's not. However, the
> one feature I really like in VB is the declarative syntax for event
> handlers. Given that winforms are created as partial classes, having the


VB is what it is, but the declarative syntax is fine until you want to add the
same event handler to multiple events, and then it becomes cumbersome really
quickly.

> event handlers declared in the user part of the class and not hidden in the
> designer.vb file is really nice. You don't have to go hunting for your
> event handlers. The other thing I like, and this is an IDE issue only so C#
> could also get it is the IDE feature that creates the interface handlers. I


C# has been doing that for a long time. In a cooler way since C#'s IDE
experince is definately better overall.

--
Tom Shelton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Branco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2009
mayayana wrote:
<snip>
> * The whole of .Net is aimed at Java programmers. (And at
> getting 3rd-party programmers out of the Windows system.)

<snip>

Both of then fantastic goals. If Sun and friends hadn't sued MS years
ago, we'd all have to program in an MS variation of Java today.
Honestly, I can read Java, but I hate programming in it. =))

And having 3rd parties cast out off the Windows API is great,
considering the amount of trouble bad usage of said API and COM has
brought to us all in the years before .Net.

> * *But people are writing Windows software with a 200 MB
> dependency because they think it's "what Microsoft wants"!
> Microsoft wants whatever makes money. That may be something
> different tomorrow than it is today. Microsoft is not a guru. It's a
> for-profit corporation.
> * *If people don't know any better than to write Windows "desktop"
> software with a 200 MB dependency, then what difference does it
> make what language they're using?

<snip>

The "dependency" part is really relative, don't you aggree? Ok, .Net,
if not installed in a system, will take some minutes to download
(according to Brazilian metrics =)) -- last time I checked the full
3.0 redist is around 50MB. Once it's installed, I have *no* idea how
much disk space/memory it will amount for. **But** once it is
installed (and it will be), it becomes part of the system (that is,
zero dependency =))). So, what are we talking about here? Download
time? Space in a setup CD? These are, usually, non-issues.

If for dependency you mean the actuall labraries each .Net app depends
upon, well, by this metric most native Windows app has a *huge*
dependency then (on all the native windows dll's that must be loaded
for the application to run). My point is: once the required code is
part of the system, dependency becomes zero.

Best regards,

Branco.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2009
> ------------ Looking at a few samples -------------------
>
> * most really cool pieces seem to be in C# and not VB.Net.*
>
> "Cool"? What's "cool" other than what does the job?
>
> * The ones [job applicants] that strike me as really "senior" mostly
> trend towards C# and not VB.Net. Sure, it could be a coincidence,
> but it might not be. *
>
> Translation: "C# people seem to be more "cool", but then
> again my judgment can't be trusted."


I translate this differently. .NET is (still) new. Senior people used
something before .NET, mostly C++ or Java. People who knew C++ or Java
before starting .NET were more comfortable with C#, people who knew Classic
VB/VBA were more comfortable with VB.NET

Once .NET reaches 10 years old this will no longer be true of course, and
we'll know longer be able to identify the bogus job postings by the way they
require "10 years experience with C#".


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeff Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2009
""Fernando A. Gómez F."" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...

> VB6 completely sucked


Which is what made it the most popular Microsoft language ever, right?




Oh, I almost forgot: bite me.

(Flame on!)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Timothy Casey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2009
"Branco" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

[SNIP]
>And having 3rd parties cast out off the Windows API is great,
>considering the amount of trouble bad usage of said API and COM has
>brought to us all in the years before .Net.

[SNIP]

No, it was mostly hackers and malware that caused the most persistent
problems that weren't already caused by defects in the API and COM
themselves - and nearly all of the malware causing these problems got in
due to slack security settings that allowed the JavaScript, VBscript, &
ActiveX autoloaders to execute without the user's knowledge or consent.

As for buggy software, no serious problems here. Back in 1999, I surveyed
nearly 500 software packages and less than twenty functioned substantially
as documented. Most didn't function at all, many were pretendware (GUI with
no other object code), and about 1 in 5 blue screened windows or crashed
Windows altogether if they were set to run on startup. The Windows 98SE
operating system that bore the full fury of these tests still runs to this
day, and is more stable than some WinXP and Vista systems.

I might add that third party software is much improved. Fully half of it
actually works these days and pretendware is much rarer than it was in the
90's. Nonetheless if buggy software caused the amount of grief you mention,
that clunky old Win98SE system of mine would be reduced to a smoking pile of
blue-screens by now. This is not the case.

Without third parties in the API, you have no security packages other than
the few malware removal tools Microsoft have to offer. If it were not for
third party packages that police the security settings in the registry (eg.
Drawbridge), it would be impossible to keep the script kiddies out of any
computer system, because the door that is so commercially favourable SaaS is
the same hole that modern "hackers" use to gain access in more than 99% of
modern security exploits.

--
Timothy Casey - Email: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ertugrul Söylemez
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2009
"Marcus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I found this: http://du2.in/VBDead
> It means that C# will completely replace Visual Basic. What dou you
> think about this, is VB dead?


It won't, since both languages have the same features. However, C# is
usually much easier to deal with and much less to write, especially when
it comes to advanced features like delegates, lambdas, LINQ, etc.


Greets,
Ertugrul.


--
nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex)
http://blog.ertes.de/

 
Reply With Quote
 
mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2009
>
And having 3rd parties cast out off the Windows API is great,
considering the amount of trouble bad usage of said API and COM has
brought to us all in the years before .Net.
>


I daresay that whole idea of "get the clowns
out of the API" is a good example of a cliche
that's been spread around, and that people have
picked up without really thinking about it. As the
marketing experts know, it's very easy to get
people to accept a premise by simply repeating
it over and over.

When your anti-API statement is scrutinized it's really
a somewhat illogical thing for a programmer to say. It
amounts to saying, "I'm happy to be put into a sandbox
where I can't access the system if that helps to block
other people who don't know what they're doing."

Beyond that there's a profound implication in
the changes brought by .Net's sandbox. The end result
of shutting off the real API is the transformation
of Windows from a platform to a service. The
security/stability issue is a red herring. (Remember,
the original idea was that an OS is a "platform"
that supports software by interfacing with the
hardware. It's important to distinguish between
needed security improvements on the one hand,
and radical redefiniton of the product on the other.)

...And speaking of cliches, what's with all the
badmouthing of COM? I don't mean just what you
said. I've heard derision of COM for years. But I don't
find any problems with it. It's been great for scripting.
And Windows itself is still extensively COM-oriented,
while being almost entirely free of .Net.

>> But people are writing Windows software with a 200 MB
>> dependency

>

The "dependency" part is really relative, don't you aggree?
>


Ultimately, sure. But a basic XP system is about 1GB.
..Net2 is about 88 MB unpacked, by my measure. As I
understand it, .Net3 is over 200 MB. It's adding some
25% to the OS. So where do you draw the line with
what's "relative"? Would you install a 2 MB Java program
if you knew it was going to require a 200-300MB VM?
I wouldn't.
We're talking here about whether .Net is a sensible
choice for desktop software -- not just whether some
people will be agreeable to having the .Net runtime
installed. There are issues of bloat, security, possible
instability, etc. It's not just a question of how long it
takes to download the package.

If the "relative" bloat of the runtime were not an issue
then .Net installers wouldn't be designed to sneak out
and download the runtime without even asking the person
installing the software.

Then there's also the general unsuitability in the design
of .Net for Windows software. If you read Mark Russinovich's
piece from the link you'll see that his whole point is the same
point that I'm making. (And I suspect that most of the people
reading this also agree, and are probably using .Net not
for Windows software but rather are using it where
they might have formerly used Java -- server-side or for
producing corporate intranet web services.)


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Visual Studio 2005 and Visual Basic .net 2003 Stewart ASP .Net 1 02-24-2006 07:32 AM
What is the difference between Visual Basic.NET and Visual Basic 6? Jimmy Dean Computer Support 3 07-25-2005 07:05 AM
Visual Studio .Net v.s. Visual Basic .Net? M P ASP .Net 6 08-07-2004 04:25 AM
eMbedded Visual Basic & Visual Studio .NET - No Longer Supported? ¢harlie MCSD 0 12-26-2003 07:23 PM
Upgrading Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 to Microsoft Visual Basic .NET Jaime MCSD 2 09-20-2003 05:16 AM



Advertisments