VB or C#

[Steve C. Orr, MCSD]

VB and C# are 99% identical in their capabilities. The difference is
primarily syntax.
If you have any experience with any version of BASIC, then use VB because
you'll find it familiar.
If you have any experience with any version of C or Java, then use C# for
the same reason.

VB is friendlier to beginning programmers.

C# is better for real low level stuff like manipulating memory, creating
device drivers and other such things. But I doubt you'll be doing much of
this kind of thing in ASP.NET apps.

And of course you can always use both languages. They play together nicely.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD
[url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]



"JOHN BURT" <JB014I3846@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iGUVa.386$kS5.273@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...

> hi
> Im wanting to learn asp.net but I don't which language would be best

to

> program in, VB or C#.
>
> whats the pros and cons of both, is one better and which is easiest to
> learn.
>
> can anyone help
>
> andy
>
>

[Harry Simpson]

I think Steve Orr is giving the ol' partyline response. Truth is Microsoft
favors C# heavily. Most of the Dev mags mostly do C#.
<<VB and C# are 99% identical in their capabilities.>>
Wish that were the case. You cannot develop design time reusable controls
using VB.NET. You gotta use C#. Sure i'm a little bitter since working
with VB since VB3. But C#ers get paid more, are more respected, and enjoy
a much greater wealth of code examples. Plus Microsoft loves the
C#ers.....i know.

Anyhoo, thought you might at least be entitled to a little truth here....

Harry

"Kevin Spencer" <kevin@takempis.com> wrote in message
news:uGkbVRuVDHA.2272@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> One caveat: If you use VB.Net, do yourself a favor and turn "option

strict"

> ON. While it may take a bit of time to get used to using strong data

types,

> it will prevent all kinds of chaos. I wish MS had this turned ON by

default!

>
> --
> HTH,
>
> Kevin Spencer
> Microsoft MVP
> .Net Developer
> [url]http://www.takempis.com[/url]
> Complex things are made up of
> lots of simple things.
>
> "Steve C. Orr, MCSD" <Steve@Orr.net> wrote in message
> news:uh%23XW7sVDHA.1984@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > VB and C# are 99% identical in their capabilities. The difference is
> > primarily syntax.
> > If you have any experience with any version of BASIC, then use VB

because

> > you'll find it familiar.
> > If you have any experience with any version of C or Java, then use C#

for

> > the same reason.
> >
> > VB is friendlier to beginning programmers.
> >
> > C# is better for real low level stuff like manipulating memory, creating
> > device drivers and other such things. But I doubt you'll be doing much

of

> > this kind of thing in ASP.NET apps.
> >
> > And of course you can always use both languages. They play together

> nicely.

> >
> > --
> > I hope this helps,
> > Steve C. Orr, MCSD
> > [url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]
> >
> >
> >
> > "JOHN BURT" <JB014I3846@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:iGUVa.386$kS5.273@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...

> > > hi
> > > Im wanting to learn asp.net but I don't which language would be

best

> > to

> > > program in, VB or C#.
> > >
> > > whats the pros and cons of both, is one better and which is easiest to
> > > learn.
> > >
> > > can anyone help
> > >
> > > andy
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>

[andy]

every little helps me as a beginner!
may start with vb if its easier and migrate to C# once i get the gist.

cheers guys


"Harry Simpson" <hssimpson@nospamphgt.net> wrote in message
news:OQ#WXS4VDHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

> I think Steve Orr is giving the ol' partyline response. Truth is

Microsoft

> favors C# heavily. Most of the Dev mags mostly do C#.
> <<VB and C# are 99% identical in their capabilities.>>
> Wish that were the case. You cannot develop design time reusable controls
> using VB.NET. You gotta use C#. Sure i'm a little bitter since working
> with VB since VB3. But C#ers get paid more, are more respected, and

enjoy

> a much greater wealth of code examples. Plus Microsoft loves the
> C#ers.....i know.
>
> Anyhoo, thought you might at least be entitled to a little truth here....
>
> Harry
>
> "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@takempis.com> wrote in message
> news:uGkbVRuVDHA.2272@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > One caveat: If you use VB.Net, do yourself a favor and turn "option

> strict"

> > ON. While it may take a bit of time to get used to using strong data

> types,

> > it will prevent all kinds of chaos. I wish MS had this turned ON by

> default!

> >
> > --
> > HTH,
> >
> > Kevin Spencer
> > Microsoft MVP
> > .Net Developer
> > [url]http://www.takempis.com[/url]
> > Complex things are made up of
> > lots of simple things.
> >
> > "Steve C. Orr, MCSD" <Steve@Orr.net> wrote in message
> > news:uh%23XW7sVDHA.1984@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > > VB and C# are 99% identical in their capabilities. The difference is
> > > primarily syntax.
> > > If you have any experience with any version of BASIC, then use VB

> because

> > > you'll find it familiar.
> > > If you have any experience with any version of C or Java, then use C#

> for

> > > the same reason.
> > >
> > > VB is friendlier to beginning programmers.
> > >
> > > C# is better for real low level stuff like manipulating memory,

creating

> > > device drivers and other such things. But I doubt you'll be doing

much

> of

> > > this kind of thing in ASP.NET apps.
> > >
> > > And of course you can always use both languages. They play together

> > nicely.

> > >
> > > --
> > > I hope this helps,
> > > Steve C. Orr, MCSD
> > > [url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "JOHN BURT" <JB014I3846@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:iGUVa.386$kS5.273@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > > hi
> > > > Im wanting to learn asp.net but I don't which language would be

> best

> > > to
> > > > program in, VB or C#.
> > > >
> > > > whats the pros and cons of both, is one better and which is easiest

to

> > > > learn.
> > > >
> > > > can anyone help
> > > >
> > > > andy
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>

[Steve C. Orr, MCSD]

The ol' partyline response is the truth.
Microsoft does not heavily favor C#.
Of course C# was a new language when .NET came out and Microsoft wanted to
give it a publicity push to make sure it flourished and didn't die. So much
of their early .NET promotions were using C#. Now that C# is able to stand
on its own two feet, this is not needed nearly so much any more.
Most of the publications I currently read have more VB.NET examples than C#,
or they are 50/50.
I've developed a number of high quality reusable controls using VB.NET. It
is not only possible, it is practical.
One of the few correct statements you made is that C#ers tend to get paid
more. VB has never gotten the respect it's deserved from the C camp, and
that hasn't changed much. But us VB developers know better. We get the job
done quicker and we always have. If you want to spend all day tweaking your
code to get a 0.5% performance increase, then C# is definitely the language
for you. But I have more important work to do.

Microsoft loves all .NET programmers. There tend to be more C# programmers
working at Microsoft because they mostly use to use C++ (because it's more
appropriate for OS development) and C# is a natural progression from that,
as I explained in my original response.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD
[url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]



"Harry Simpson" <hssimpson@nospamphgt.net> wrote in message
news:OQ%23WXS4VDHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

> I think Steve Orr is giving the ol' partyline response. Truth is

Microsoft

> favors C# heavily. Most of the Dev mags mostly do C#.
> <<VB and C# are 99% identical in their capabilities.>>
> Wish that were the case. You cannot develop design time reusable controls
> using VB.NET. You gotta use C#. Sure i'm a little bitter since working
> with VB since VB3. But C#ers get paid more, are more respected, and

enjoy

> a much greater wealth of code examples. Plus Microsoft loves the
> C#ers.....i know.
>
> Anyhoo, thought you might at least be entitled to a little truth here....
>
> Harry
>
> "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@takempis.com> wrote in message
> news:uGkbVRuVDHA.2272@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > One caveat: If you use VB.Net, do yourself a favor and turn "option

> strict"

> > ON. While it may take a bit of time to get used to using strong data

> types,

> > it will prevent all kinds of chaos. I wish MS had this turned ON by

> default!

> >
> > --
> > HTH,
> >
> > Kevin Spencer
> > Microsoft MVP
> > .Net Developer
> > [url]http://www.takempis.com[/url]
> > Complex things are made up of
> > lots of simple things.
> >
> > "Steve C. Orr, MCSD" <Steve@Orr.net> wrote in message
> > news:uh%23XW7sVDHA.1984@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > > VB and C# are 99% identical in their capabilities. The difference is
> > > primarily syntax.
> > > If you have any experience with any version of BASIC, then use VB

> because

> > > you'll find it familiar.
> > > If you have any experience with any version of C or Java, then use C#

> for

> > > the same reason.
> > >
> > > VB is friendlier to beginning programmers.
> > >
> > > C# is better for real low level stuff like manipulating memory,

creating

> > > device drivers and other such things. But I doubt you'll be doing

much

> of

> > > this kind of thing in ASP.NET apps.
> > >
> > > And of course you can always use both languages. They play together

> > nicely.

> > >
> > > --
> > > I hope this helps,
> > > Steve C. Orr, MCSD
> > > [url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "JOHN BURT" <JB014I3846@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:iGUVa.386$kS5.273@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > > hi
> > > > Im wanting to learn asp.net but I don't which language would be

> best

> > > to
> > > > program in, VB or C#.
> > > >
> > > > whats the pros and cons of both, is one better and which is easiest

to

> > > > learn.
> > > >
> > > > can anyone help
> > > >
> > > > andy
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>

[Harry Simpson]

Steve,

Check back with you in a couple of years and we'll review these statements.

Harry Simpson
MCSD

"Steve C. Orr, MCSD" <Steve@Orr.net> wrote in message
news:OAqJBk5VDHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> The ol' partyline response is the truth.
> Microsoft does not heavily favor C#.
> Of course C# was a new language when .NET came out and Microsoft wanted to
> give it a publicity push to make sure it flourished and didn't die. So

much

> of their early .NET promotions were using C#. Now that C# is able to

stand

> on its own two feet, this is not needed nearly so much any more.
> Most of the publications I currently read have more VB.NET examples than

C#,

> or they are 50/50.
> I've developed a number of high quality reusable controls using VB.NET.

It

> is not only possible, it is practical.
> One of the few correct statements you made is that C#ers tend to get paid
> more. VB has never gotten the respect it's deserved from the C camp, and
> that hasn't changed much. But us VB developers know better. We get the

job

> done quicker and we always have. If you want to spend all day tweaking

your

> code to get a 0.5% performance increase, then C# is definitely the

language

> for you. But I have more important work to do.
>
> Microsoft loves all .NET programmers. There tend to be more C#

programmers

> working at Microsoft because they mostly use to use C++ (because it's more
> appropriate for OS development) and C# is a natural progression from that,
> as I explained in my original response.
>
> --
> I hope this helps,
> Steve C. Orr, MCSD
> [url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]
>
>
>
> "Harry Simpson" <hssimpson@nospamphgt.net> wrote in message
> news:OQ%23WXS4VDHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

> > I think Steve Orr is giving the ol' partyline response. Truth is

> Microsoft

> > favors C# heavily. Most of the Dev mags mostly do C#.
> > <<VB and C# are 99% identical in their capabilities.>>
> > Wish that were the case. You cannot develop design time reusable

controls

> > using VB.NET. You gotta use C#. Sure i'm a little bitter since working
> > with VB since VB3. But C#ers get paid more, are more respected, and

> enjoy

> > a much greater wealth of code examples. Plus Microsoft loves the
> > C#ers.....i know.
> >
> > Anyhoo, thought you might at least be entitled to a little truth

here....

> >
> > Harry
> >
> > "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@takempis.com> wrote in message
> > news:uGkbVRuVDHA.2272@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > > One caveat: If you use VB.Net, do yourself a favor and turn "option

> > strict"

> > > ON. While it may take a bit of time to get used to using strong data

> > types,

> > > it will prevent all kinds of chaos. I wish MS had this turned ON by

> > default!

> > >
> > > --
> > > HTH,
> > >
> > > Kevin Spencer
> > > Microsoft MVP
> > > .Net Developer
> > > [url]http://www.takempis.com[/url]
> > > Complex things are made up of
> > > lots of simple things.
> > >
> > > "Steve C. Orr, MCSD" <Steve@Orr.net> wrote in message
> > > news:uh%23XW7sVDHA.1984@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > VB and C# are 99% identical in their capabilities. The difference

is

> > > > primarily syntax.
> > > > If you have any experience with any version of BASIC, then use VB

> > because

> > > > you'll find it familiar.
> > > > If you have any experience with any version of C or Java, then use

C#

> > for

> > > > the same reason.
> > > >
> > > > VB is friendlier to beginning programmers.
> > > >
> > > > C# is better for real low level stuff like manipulating memory,

> creating

> > > > device drivers and other such things. But I doubt you'll be doing

> much

> > of

> > > > this kind of thing in ASP.NET apps.
> > > >
> > > > And of course you can always use both languages. They play together
> > > nicely.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > I hope this helps,
> > > > Steve C. Orr, MCSD
> > > > [url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "JOHN BURT" <JB014I3846@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:iGUVa.386$kS5.273@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > > > hi
> > > > > Im wanting to learn asp.net but I don't which language would

be

> > best

> > > > to
> > > > > program in, VB or C#.
> > > > >
> > > > > whats the pros and cons of both, is one better and which is

easiest

> to

> > > > > learn.
> > > > >
> > > > > can anyone help
> > > > >
> > > > > andy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>

[Seaside]

Seems like you guys would be smart enough to use both. There isn't that much
difference. Most jobs call for multiple skillsets. Ie javascript, html,
etc. and multiple applications ie exchange, iis, etc. Why hamstring
yourself and make it an either or when there is so little difference in the
languages? I recall when I was interviewing at a major software company and
was asked about a specific language they were using in one area of their
development. (They used others as well because of the complexity of the
apps) I thought about it a minute or two and replied that it was just
another language. What is most important is the concepts used not the
language. I got the job and a hefty increase in salary as a result of that
reply.
Everyone else came in with such a narrow focus they couldn't get past the
idea they would have to be flexible.

By the way, the language was XML (LOL). of course it was in it's infancy
but the fact remains it was new at the time.

So in short....who cares if it's C# or VB? Just get the friggin job done!

LOL




"Harry Simpson" <hssimpson@nospamphgt.net> wrote in message
news:eM47LwCWDHA.1480@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> Steve,
>
> Check back with you in a couple of years and we'll review these

statements.

>
> Harry Simpson
> MCSD
>
> "Steve C. Orr, MCSD" <Steve@Orr.net> wrote in message
> news:OAqJBk5VDHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > The ol' partyline response is the truth.
> > Microsoft does not heavily favor C#.
> > Of course C# was a new language when .NET came out and Microsoft wanted

to

> > give it a publicity push to make sure it flourished and didn't die. So

> much

> > of their early .NET promotions were using C#. Now that C# is able to

> stand

> > on its own two feet, this is not needed nearly so much any more.
> > Most of the publications I currently read have more VB.NET examples than

> C#,

> > or they are 50/50.
> > I've developed a number of high quality reusable controls using VB.NET.

> It

> > is not only possible, it is practical.
> > One of the few correct statements you made is that C#ers tend to get

paid

> > more. VB has never gotten the respect it's deserved from the C camp,

and

> > that hasn't changed much. But us VB developers know better. We get the

> job

> > done quicker and we always have. If you want to spend all day tweaking

> your

> > code to get a 0.5% performance increase, then C# is definitely the

> language

> > for you. But I have more important work to do.
> >
> > Microsoft loves all .NET programmers. There tend to be more C#

> programmers

> > working at Microsoft because they mostly use to use C++ (because it's

more

> > appropriate for OS development) and C# is a natural progression from

that,

> > as I explained in my original response.
> >
> > --
> > I hope this helps,
> > Steve C. Orr, MCSD
> > [url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]
> >
> >
> >
> > "Harry Simpson" <hssimpson@nospamphgt.net> wrote in message
> > news:OQ%23WXS4VDHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

> > > I think Steve Orr is giving the ol' partyline response. Truth is

> > Microsoft

> > > favors C# heavily. Most of the Dev mags mostly do C#.
> > > <<VB and C# are 99% identical in their capabilities.>>
> > > Wish that were the case. You cannot develop design time reusable

> controls

> > > using VB.NET. You gotta use C#. Sure i'm a little bitter since

working

> > > with VB since VB3. But C#ers get paid more, are more respected, and

> > enjoy

> > > a much greater wealth of code examples. Plus Microsoft loves the
> > > C#ers.....i know.
> > >
> > > Anyhoo, thought you might at least be entitled to a little truth

> here....

> > >
> > > Harry
> > >
> > > "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@takempis.com> wrote in message
> > > news:uGkbVRuVDHA.2272@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > One caveat: If you use VB.Net, do yourself a favor and turn "option
> > > strict"
> > > > ON. While it may take a bit of time to get used to using strong data
> > > types,
> > > > it will prevent all kinds of chaos. I wish MS had this turned ON by
> > > default!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > HTH,
> > > >
> > > > Kevin Spencer
> > > > Microsoft MVP
> > > > .Net Developer
> > > > [url]http://www.takempis.com[/url]
> > > > Complex things are made up of
> > > > lots of simple things.
> > > >
> > > > "Steve C. Orr, MCSD" <Steve@Orr.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:uh%23XW7sVDHA.1984@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > > VB and C# are 99% identical in their capabilities. The difference

> is

> > > > > primarily syntax.
> > > > > If you have any experience with any version of BASIC, then use VB
> > > because
> > > > > you'll find it familiar.
> > > > > If you have any experience with any version of C or Java, then use

> C#

> > > for
> > > > > the same reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > VB is friendlier to beginning programmers.
> > > > >
> > > > > C# is better for real low level stuff like manipulating memory,

> > creating

> > > > > device drivers and other such things. But I doubt you'll be doing

> > much

> > > of
> > > > > this kind of thing in ASP.NET apps.
> > > > >
> > > > > And of course you can always use both languages. They play

together

> > > > nicely.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > I hope this helps,
> > > > > Steve C. Orr, MCSD
> > > > > [url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "JOHN BURT" <JB014I3846@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:iGUVa.386$kS5.273@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > > > > hi
> > > > > > Im wanting to learn asp.net but I don't which language would

> be

> > > best
> > > > > to
> > > > > > program in, VB or C#.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > whats the pros and cons of both, is one better and which is

> easiest

> > to

> > > > > > learn.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > can anyone help
> > > > > >
> > > > > > andy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>

[Mark Heimonen]

That's right. The languages are so similar that there is little point
arguing over which language is better. In my experience, however, it
appears that VB.NET is being geared towards beginners. I have a relatively
slow computer (P3 500 /w 512 MB RAM) at my office. Working with larger
projects in VB is painful because the IDE attempts to re-evaulate the entire
codebase after every line is entered. The worst part is that I can't find
any way to turn off this "feature". C# at least has the patience to wait
until you want to compile. This is less of a problem at home, since I have
a faster computer.

Looking at the roadmap (msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/roadmap.asp)
leads me to believe that VB.NET is going to become a lot more dumbed down
(i.e. providing suggestions for your code, a la office) I can just see a
paperclip dancing around my code:

"it looks like you are creating a database application. Would you like me
to do that for you?"

No thanks, that is why I am switching to C#.


"Seaside" <ss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uIiHTeGWDHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> An excellent case has just been made for using EITHER. There is so little
> difference today that it is hardly worth noting.
>
>
>
> "John Sparrow" <jsparrow@ecclescollege.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:1357b958.0308011157.57543ff3@posting.google.c om...

> > "Steve C. Orr, MCSD" <Steve@Orr.net> wrote in message

> news:<OAqJBk5VDHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...

> > > Most of the publications I currently read have more VB.NET examples

than

> C#,

> > > or they are 50/50.

> >
> > It's interesting how the easy stuff tends to be published bi-lingual
> > or VB only, where as the heavier stuff tends to be C#!
> >
> > A guy I know in Microsoft suggests the tide is turning away from VB.
> > Of course he could be wrong!
> >
> > His story is this: VB was always popular because it was easy. Hence it
> > lacked loads of features like structured exception handling and full
> > OO, precisely to keep it accessible. When it got massively upgraded
> > for .net, it alienated lots of programmers who liked their simple
> > language (the famous '.NOT' crowd!).
> >
> > Going from VB6 to VB.NET is a big change. It's really little more
> > change to go from VB6 to C#.
> >
> > So what does it matter? The one good argument in favour of C# is it's
> > syntactical elegance, brevity and consistency. And the fact that it
> > was created from scratch for .net (albeit with a huge nod to Java).
> > For example: 80 keywords in C#, as opposed to 160 in VB.
> >
> > VB's heritage, on the other hand, it a bit... 'patchy'! LOL
> >

> > > But us VB developers know better. We get the job
> > > done quicker and we always have. If you want to spend all day

tweaking

> your

> > > code to get a 0.5% performance increase, then C# is definitely the

> language

> > > for you. But I have more important work to do.

> >
> > Hey, we're talking about C# here, not C++! There are very few areas of
> > application development that are quicker in VB - the only example I
> > can think of is the dumbing down of the Reflection interface.
> >
> > Also - less typing in C#! It's object orientated from the ground up,
> > none of this retro "CType(x,integer)" but instead "int.Parse(x)".
> >
> > John

>
>

[Steve C. Orr, MCSD]

Sounds like you need to upgrade to a modern computer if you want to use
modern features.

You exaggerate so much! There are no paperclips!
Although I do like the fact that VS.NET will give suggestions to fix
programming errors. Whereas you'll have to look up the C# solution. Who do
you think will get the job done sooner if I have the solution handed to me
on a silver platter and you have to spend all that extra time looking up
syntax? I think I'll be coding rings around you.

I also like the fact that VB.NET will have edit and continue back. No such
feature is mentioned for C#. Every time you make the slightest change to
your C# code you'll have to shut down your app, recompile, start it up
again, get back to where you were and test to see if it worked. Waste of
time! Once again, I'll be coding rings around you.
Go ahead and switch to C# if you want, but it sounds like a big headache to
me!

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD
[url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]


"Mark Heimonen" <markh@adiaim.com> wrote in message
news:eC0jvmGWDHA.1680@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> That's right. The languages are so similar that there is little point
> arguing over which language is better. In my experience, however, it
> appears that VB.NET is being geared towards beginners. I have a

relatively

> slow computer (P3 500 /w 512 MB RAM) at my office. Working with larger
> projects in VB is painful because the IDE attempts to re-evaulate the

entire

> codebase after every line is entered. The worst part is that I can't find
> any way to turn off this "feature". C# at least has the patience to wait
> until you want to compile. This is less of a problem at home, since I

have

> a faster computer.
>
> Looking at the roadmap

(msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/roadmap.asp)

> leads me to believe that VB.NET is going to become a lot more dumbed down
> (i.e. providing suggestions for your code, a la office) I can just see a
> paperclip dancing around my code:
>
> "it looks like you are creating a database application. Would you like me
> to do that for you?"
>
> No thanks, that is why I am switching to C#.
>
>
> "Seaside" <ss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uIiHTeGWDHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > An excellent case has just been made for using EITHER. There is so

little

> > difference today that it is hardly worth noting.
> >
> >
> >
> > "John Sparrow" <jsparrow@ecclescollege.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1357b958.0308011157.57543ff3@posting.google.c om...

> > > "Steve C. Orr, MCSD" <Steve@Orr.net> wrote in message

> > news:<OAqJBk5VDHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...

> > > > Most of the publications I currently read have more VB.NET examples

> than

> > C#,

> > > > or they are 50/50.
> > >
> > > It's interesting how the easy stuff tends to be published bi-lingual
> > > or VB only, where as the heavier stuff tends to be C#!
> > >
> > > A guy I know in Microsoft suggests the tide is turning away from VB.
> > > Of course he could be wrong!
> > >
> > > His story is this: VB was always popular because it was easy. Hence it
> > > lacked loads of features like structured exception handling and full
> > > OO, precisely to keep it accessible. When it got massively upgraded
> > > for .net, it alienated lots of programmers who liked their simple
> > > language (the famous '.NOT' crowd!).
> > >
> > > Going from VB6 to VB.NET is a big change. It's really little more
> > > change to go from VB6 to C#.
> > >
> > > So what does it matter? The one good argument in favour of C# is it's
> > > syntactical elegance, brevity and consistency. And the fact that it
> > > was created from scratch for .net (albeit with a huge nod to Java).
> > > For example: 80 keywords in C#, as opposed to 160 in VB.
> > >
> > > VB's heritage, on the other hand, it a bit... 'patchy'! LOL
> > >
> > > > But us VB developers know better. We get the job
> > > > done quicker and we always have. If you want to spend all day

> tweaking

> > your

> > > > code to get a 0.5% performance increase, then C# is definitely the

> > language

> > > > for you. But I have more important work to do.
> > >
> > > Hey, we're talking about C# here, not C++! There are very few areas of
> > > application development that are quicker in VB - the only example I
> > > can think of is the dumbing down of the Reflection interface.
> > >
> > > Also - less typing in C#! It's object orientated from the ground up,
> > > none of this retro "CType(x,integer)" but instead "int.Parse(x)".
> > >
> > > John

> >
> >

>
>

[Steve C. Orr, MCSD]

I know lots of C# guys who'd like to suggest that "the tide is turning away
from VB." But C people have always slammed VB. There's nothing new about
that.
The fact is that more people program in VB than any other language in the
world, and for good reasons.
There was a lot of momentum behind C# when it first came out because it was
so new and exciting. I'll admit I was a little worried back then that the
days of VB might be numbered. But in recent months I've really seen VB.NET
catch on as I knew it should.

VB.NET is still easy. Sure there's a lot of new stuff to learn, but it
doesn't MAKE you learn most of it. You can program mostly like you used to
in VB6 if you want, and you can take your time to learn most of the new
advanced features.

I'd agree that "brevity" is an accurate word to describe C# syntax, but I'd
disagree about "syntactical elegance." There is nothing elegant about
having to memorize a bunch of obscure commands and symbols. (Not only that,
but you have to memorize the case of each letter in every keyword!) VB.NET
uses real words. Now THAT'S elegance, and it's intuitive as well.

It's true that VB's heritage was a bit patchy and inconsistent. That's why
they've rewritten it the right way. In VB.NET they finally smoothed out
those issues and now VB is better than ever. Long live VB! (and C# too -
there's room for both!)

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD
[url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]



"John Sparrow" <jsparrow@ecclescollege.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1357b958.0308011157.57543ff3@posting.google.c om...

> "Steve C. Orr, MCSD" <Steve@Orr.net> wrote in message

news:<OAqJBk5VDHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...

> > Most of the publications I currently read have more VB.NET examples than

C#,

> > or they are 50/50.

>
> It's interesting how the easy stuff tends to be published bi-lingual
> or VB only, where as the heavier stuff tends to be C#!
>
> A guy I know in Microsoft suggests the tide is turning away from VB.
> Of course he could be wrong!
>
> His story is this: VB was always popular because it was easy. Hence it
> lacked loads of features like structured exception handling and full
> OO, precisely to keep it accessible. When it got massively upgraded
> for .net, it alienated lots of programmers who liked their simple
> language (the famous '.NOT' crowd!).
>
> Going from VB6 to VB.NET is a big change. It's really little more
> change to go from VB6 to C#.
>
> So what does it matter? The one good argument in favour of C# is it's
> syntactical elegance, brevity and consistency. And the fact that it
> was created from scratch for .net (albeit with a huge nod to Java).
> For example: 80 keywords in C#, as opposed to 160 in VB.
>
> VB's heritage, on the other hand, it a bit... 'patchy'! LOL
>

> > But us VB developers know better. We get the job
> > done quicker and we always have. If you want to spend all day tweaking

your

> > code to get a 0.5% performance increase, then C# is definitely the

language

> > for you. But I have more important work to do.

>
> Hey, we're talking about C# here, not C++! There are very few areas of
> application development that are quicker in VB - the only example I
> can think of is the dumbing down of the Reflection interface.
>
> Also - less typing in C#! It's object orientated from the ground up,
> none of this retro "CType(x,integer)" but instead "int.Parse(x)".
>
> John

[Steve C. Orr, MCSD]

I know lots of C# guys who'd like to suggest that "the tide is turning away
from VB." But C people have always slammed VB. There's nothing new about
that.
The fact is that more people program in VB than any other language in the
world, and for good reasons.
There was a lot of momentum behind C# when it first came out because it was
so new and exciting. I'll admit I was a little worried back then that the
days of VB might be numbered. But in recent months I've really seen VB.NET
catch on as I knew it should.

VB.NET is still easy. Sure there's a lot of new stuff to learn, but it
doesn't MAKE you learn most of it. You can program mostly like you used to
in VB6 if you want, and you can take your time to learn most of the new
advanced features.

I'd agree that "brevity" is an accurate word to describe C# syntax, but I'd
disagree about "syntactical elegance." There is nothing elegant about
having to memorize a bunch of obscure commands and symbols. (Not only that,
but you have to memorize the case of each letter in every keyword!) VB.NET
uses real words. Now THAT'S elegance, and it's intuitive as well.

It's true that VB's heritage was a bit patchy and inconsistent. That's why
they've rewritten it the right way. In VB.NET they finally smoothed out
those issues and now VB is better than ever. Long live VB! (and C# too -
there's room for both!)

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD
[url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]


"John Sparrow" <jsparrow@ecclescollege.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1357b958.0308011157.57543ff3@posting.google.c om...

> "Steve C. Orr, MCSD" <Steve@Orr.net> wrote in message

news:<OAqJBk5VDHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...

> > Most of the publications I currently read have more VB.NET examples than

C#,

> > or they are 50/50.

>
> It's interesting how the easy stuff tends to be published bi-lingual
> or VB only, where as the heavier stuff tends to be C#!
>
> A guy I know in Microsoft suggests the tide is turning away from VB.
> Of course he could be wrong!
>
> His story is this: VB was always popular because it was easy. Hence it
> lacked loads of features like structured exception handling and full
> OO, precisely to keep it accessible. When it got massively upgraded
> for .net, it alienated lots of programmers who liked their simple
> language (the famous '.NOT' crowd!).
>
> Going from VB6 to VB.NET is a big change. It's really little more
> change to go from VB6 to C#.
>
> So what does it matter? The one good argument in favour of C# is it's
> syntactical elegance, brevity and consistency. And the fact that it
> was created from scratch for .net (albeit with a huge nod to Java).
> For example: 80 keywords in C#, as opposed to 160 in VB.
>
> VB's heritage, on the other hand, it a bit... 'patchy'! LOL
>

> > But us VB developers know better. We get the job
> > done quicker and we always have. If you want to spend all day tweaking

your

> > code to get a 0.5% performance increase, then C# is definitely the

language

> > for you. But I have more important work to do.

>
> Hey, we're talking about C# here, not C++! There are very few areas of
> application development that are quicker in VB - the only example I
> can think of is the dumbing down of the Reflection interface.
>
> Also - less typing in C#! It's object orientated from the ground up,
> none of this retro "CType(x,integer)" but instead "int.Parse(x)".
>
> John

[Steve C. Orr, MCSD]

Computers exist to do things for us.
If you don't like that then maybe you should go back to using a pencil and
paper and maybe an abacus.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD
[url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]


"Bill Priess" <no.spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:oprs8z131gcimqky@localhost...

> I have to chime in on this one... being a reformed VB programmer.
>
> I have come to love the speed and simplicity of C#. All I have read in

this

> thread is how VB does *this* and *that* for you. That is part of the
> problem. I never realised how lazy I was when it came to coding until the
> first day that I was made to use C# and not rely on VB anymore. Just being
> made to remember symantics has made me, IMHO, a better programmer. I am
> much more concerned now about how my code flows and how to acomplish
> something in the smallest amount of code possible. Whereas in VB, I really
> didn't care that much about speed (because of VB5 and VB6's lack of speed
> in the first place) or the amount of code I wrote (again, because in

VB5/6,

> you couldn't really have compact code).
>
> As for E&C, I am torn on the issue, yeah, it's nice, but with E&C, if you
> fix something in one step, and break something 3 steps back, you won't

know

> it until you rebuild and start all over anyway. I prefer now-a-days to
> actually rebuild and start from the beginning just to make sure that I
> don't have a backwards domino effect.
>
> And finally, I, along with most of my team, know most of the syntax for C#
> and the major namespaces. For those that we don't, well, we have
> Intellisense.
>
> In closing, I agree, with the CLR, there really isn't an argument as long
> as MSFT can work on making the individual lauguage features co-exist, then
> what difference does it make who codes in what? (Although, we can always
> pick out the faster, LAZIER, VB.NET guys, right?) lmao... (couldn't
> resist!)
>
> Bill Priess
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 14:58:02 -0700, Steve C. Orr, MCSD <Steve@Orr.net>
> wrote:
>

> > Sounds like you need to upgrade to a modern computer if you want to use
> > modern features.
> >
> > You exaggerate so much! There are no paperclips!
> > Although I do like the fact that VS.NET will give suggestions to fix
> > programming errors. Whereas you'll have to look up the C# solution.

Who

> > do
> > you think will get the job done sooner if I have the solution handed to
> > me
> > on a silver platter and you have to spend all that extra time looking up
> > syntax? I think I'll be coding rings around you.
> >
> > I also like the fact that VB.NET will have edit and continue back. No
> > such
> > feature is mentioned for C#. Every time you make the slightest change

to

> > your C# code you'll have to shut down your app, recompile, start it up
> > again, get back to where you were and test to see if it worked. Waste

of

> > time! Once again, I'll be coding rings around you.
> > Go ahead and switch to C# if you want, but it sounds like a big headache
> > to
> > me!
> >

>
>
>
> --
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: [url]http://www.opera.com/m2/[/url]

[John Sparrow]

I agree there's plenty of room for both communities, and I see
Microsoft shifting the emphasis of VB to create more of a market
("super-intellisence"?? The paperclip line made me laugh loads!!) for
VB with the '.NOT' crowd.

I just want to be factually accurate. C# programmers don't have to
"memorize a bunch of obscure commands and symbols" any more than VB
people do. The editor has intellisence, and it pops up just like in
VB. The bulk of the complexity in both language is the Framework,
which of course is identical in C# or VB.

Interestingly (I havent formally checked this out) reserved words in
both languages don't pop up with intellisence. And reserved words tend
to be shorter in C# and much less numerous...

VB: dim a as integer
C#: int a;

Does that make me 266% quicker than you at writing code? Grin.

John

"Steve C. Orr, MCSD" <Steve@Orr.net> wrote in message news:<#NMCypHWDHA.3232@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>...

> I know lots of C# guys who'd like to suggest that "the tide is turning away
> from VB." But C people have always slammed VB. There's nothing new about
> that.
> The fact is that more people program in VB than any other language in the
> world, and for good reasons.
> There was a lot of momentum behind C# when it first came out because it was
> so new and exciting. I'll admit I was a little worried back then that the
> days of VB might be numbered. But in recent months I've really seen VB.NET
> catch on as I knew it should.
>
> I'd agree that "brevity" is an accurate word to describe C# syntax, but I'd
> disagree about "syntactical elegance." There is nothing elegant about
> having to memorize a bunch of obscure commands and symbols. (Not only that,
> but you have to memorize the case of each letter in every keyword!) VB.NET
> uses real words. Now THAT'S elegance, and it's intuitive as well.
>
> It's true that VB's heritage was a bit patchy and inconsistent. That's why
> they've rewritten it the right way. In VB.NET they finally smoothed out
> those issues and now VB is better than ever. Long live VB! (and C# too -
> there's room for both!)
>
> --
> I hope this helps,
> Steve C. Orr, MCSD
> [url]http://Steve.Orr.net[/url]

[John Sparrow]

Agreed.

I'm not suggesting there's a functional difference. I was just
defending C# against the accusation of being "difficult to use", "only
for writing device drivers", "less efficient to write code in", and
"requiring huge amounts of obscure knowledge".

(I'm not suggesting you've said any of this, btw!)

These points may be true of C++, they are not true of C#. It's just as
easy and quick to code in as VB, once you've learned the syntax of
your choosen language. (and while C# may look initially more
intimidating, it has only 50% of the reserved words to learn).

Given a novice with an aptitude for programming, they can learn C# as
easily as VB. Without the aptitude, the Framework is going to kill
them anyway!

John

"Seaside" <ss@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<uIiHTeGWDHA.2032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...

> An excellent case has just been made for using EITHER. There is so little
> difference today that it is hardly worth noting.

[Mark Heimonen]

I thought about this issue a little more, and I think the one change that
would make me happy would be the ability to turn on or off portions of the
intellisence built into the VB.NET IDE. Being able to turn off validation
would allow me to work without being interrupted until I am ready. A
keyboard shortcut (Similar to Ctrl-K + Ctrl D to Autoformat) that would
validate my code would be an invaluable addition.

If the intellesense and auto-error correction features where set up in this
way, I would like them to be added to both VB.NET and C#.

Mark Heimonen
Developer
Adia Information Management Corporation

"John Sparrow" <jsparrow@ecclescollege.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1357b958.0308020313.5cb997ef@posting.google.c om...

> Grin, the Office Paperclip line made me laugh a lot!
>
> I absolutely agree - it would make sense for Microsoft to let the
> products evolve in this way.
>
> I only got into this discussion because writing forms in C# was being
> made to sound like writing device drivers in C++!! ie tough!
>
> I think people fall into VB because they beleive stuff they read about
> C# being esoteric and intolerant. But as you know, it's got just the
> same intellisense as VB. Once newbies have climbed the mountain of
> "&&" meaning "AND", there's really not much else to it! grin.
>
> Elegance and brevity is the key for me. And anyone who doesn't have a
> background in C-family languages should consider the benefits of
> learning C#, that will give them massive help in getting up-to-speed
> with JScript, Java and C++ (which will probably remain the 'ultimate'
> programming language for the next decade).
>
> There will always be a place for VB - it may even remain the
> numerically dominant programming language. In the same way that
> McDonnald's is the numerically dominant food retailer...
>
> John
>
>
> "Mark Heimonen" <markh@adiaim.com> wrote in message

news:<eC0jvmGWDHA.1680@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>...

> > That's right. The languages are so similar that there is little point
> > arguing over which language is better. In my experience, however, it
> > appears that VB.NET is being geared towards beginners. I have a

relatively

> > slow computer (P3 500 /w 512 MB RAM) at my office. Working with larger
> > projects in VB is painful because the IDE attempts to re-evaulate the

entire

> > codebase after every line is entered. The worst part is that I can't

find

> > any way to turn off this "feature". C# at least has the patience to

wait

> > until you want to compile. This is less of a problem at home, since I

have

> > a faster computer.
> >
> > Looking at the roadmap

(msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/roadmap.asp)

> > leads me to believe that VB.NET is going to become a lot more dumbed

down

> > (i.e. providing suggestions for your code, a la office) I can just see

a

> > paperclip dancing around my code:
> >
> > "it looks like you are creating a database application. Would you like

me

> > to do that for you?"
> >
> > No thanks, that is why I am switching to C#.

[Bill Priess]

Steve, c'mon, you're not mad about the (LAZIER, VB guys) line of my post,
are ya? ;)
heh,

Hell, I would love to go back to using my abacus, it's still the best
calc.exe on earth.. ;)

Bill P.



On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:01:20 -0700, Steve C. Orr, MCSD <Steve@Orr.net>
wrote:

> Computers exist to do things for us.
> If you don't like that then maybe you should go back to using a pencil
> and
> paper and maybe an abacus.
>

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: [url]http://www.opera.com/m2/[/url]