VB vs C#

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

Re: VB vs C#


"Jeremy Todd" <jhtodd@uiuc.ed u> wrote in message
news:O5L1eH0IEH A.3528@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]" <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote in
> message news:u4cTz9zIEH A.2128@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...
>[color=green]
>> Yes, but I'd argue that IMass.Mass and IWeight.Weight, even if they work[/color]
> the[color=green]
>> same in one situation, are entirely different and as a matter of
>> understanding using the same method to implement them isn't going to make
>> code that makes immediate sense. Although I can't think of a physics[/color]
> example[color=green]
>> to qualify it. Once you do that, how do you seperate them again in a[/color]
> derived[color=green]
>> class? You could say I don't like the conceptual muxing of different
>> ideas
>> for convenience.[/color]
>
> Yes, this was discussed at length. :) In the end, we decided the pros
> and cons slightly favored doing it my way, because the class hierarchy was
> determined early on and we knew well in advance how each class would
> behave.
>[color=green]
>> How often are non-public interfaces on public types a good idea? IMHO not
>> very often. ;) You should be designing your architecture so that public
>> types contain mostly publically accessible functionality(o r underlying
>> protected functionality for virtuality). However, that is my personal
>> POV.[/color]
>
> I don't follow. How is the use of non-public interfaces different from
> non-public class members? Are you also opposed to private fields and
> methods? :)
>[/color]
Merely that they are interfaces. Its not so much a necessity as a goal I
strive to reach. I don't like to implement internal interfaces on public
classes, I'd rather rely on managers\factor ies and implement the interfaces
there and write the public classes without interfaces designed for internal
usage.
I also do my best to avoid designs which rely on internal members(I can't
think of the VB keyword for this, but assembly only access). They are a
nessecery evil in many cases, but something I always look for other ways
around. I don't mean that protected methods or private method(which usually
are helpers for public or protected methods) shouldn't exist, just that when
possible an interface should strive to be public and if a class can't expose
all its externally required behaviour publically there is probably a better
design available. However, this is a guideline I try to follow, not a
steadfast rule; I have written more than one internal interface\metho d in my
lifetime.[color=blue]
> Jeremy
>[/color]

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB vs C#

Hi Jon,[color=blue]
>
> General readability. There seems absolutely no need for it, and it
> makes the context of a statement harder to see.[/color]

Although we agree this one completely, is this the same as using distinction
between upper and lowercase in C derived languages (and a lot more older
languages).

You are not obligated to use it.

Cor

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB vs C#

Hi Jon,[color=blue]
>
> General readability. There seems absolutely no need for it, and it
> makes the context of a statement harder to see.[/color]

Although we agree this one completely, is this the same as using distinction
between upper and lowercase in C derived languages (and a lot more older
languages).

You are not obligated to use it.

Cor

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: VB vs C#

Cor Ligthert <notfirstname@p lanet.nl> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > General readability. There seems absolutely no need for it, and it
> > makes the context of a statement harder to see.[/color]
>
> Although we agree this one completely, is this the same as using distinction
> between upper and lowercase in C derived languages (and a lot more older
> languages).
>
> You are not obligated to use it.[/color]

That's never a good enough reason, IMO - if a feature is present,
people *will* use it, and like it or not, we don't always read code
that we've written ourselves.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>

http://www.pobox.com/~skeet

If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: VB vs C#

Cor Ligthert <notfirstname@p lanet.nl> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > General readability. There seems absolutely no need for it, and it
> > makes the context of a statement harder to see.[/color]
>
> Although we agree this one completely, is this the same as using distinction
> between upper and lowercase in C derived languages (and a lot more older
> languages).
>
> You are not obligated to use it.[/color]

That's never a good enough reason, IMO - if a feature is present,
people *will* use it, and like it or not, we don't always read code
that we've written ourselves.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>

http://www.pobox.com/~skeet

If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB vs C#

Hi Jon,

There is a very simple question in the VB.language group, almost everybody
was busy with it.
There is this sentence in.
dialogresult = me.show

My answer was this is not possible, when you want to do that it should be
with a new created form and a showdialog.

I did not understand how he would do this. Now he says he got the program
from someone else and it is to complex for him to read. I think there is
something in that program as.
\\\
Shadows Sub Show()
Dim frm As New Form2
Dim result As DialogResult
result = frm.ShowDialog( )
End Sub
Private Sub Button1_Click(B yVal sender As System.Object, _
ByVal e As System.EventArg s) Handles Button1.Click
Me.Hide()
Me.Show()
Me.Button1.Pare nt.Show()
End Sub
///

I told that if this is true that he was working in my idea, as I call them,
by the
maker obfuscated program.

Maybe it is not this code or something (I see now that it should be minimal
a function with a return of the result) however than you are talking about
the "with". Which what I said we agree. (second time in two days)

:-)

Cor

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB vs C#

I hope you understand the last row of this message, I see now, that I
corrected it to often.

The meaning is.
Maybe it is not exactly this code what is made (I see now too that it should
be minimal function with a return of the result)

However if it is this kind of code why should we than talk about the "with"/

Cor

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB vs C#

Hi Jon,

There is a very simple question in the VB.language group, almost everybody
was busy with it.
There is this sentence in.
dialogresult = me.show

My answer was this is not possible, when you want to do that it should be
with a new created form and a showdialog.

I did not understand how he would do this. Now he says he got the program
from someone else and it is to complex for him to read. I think there is
something in that program as.
\\\
Shadows Sub Show()
Dim frm As New Form2
Dim result As DialogResult
result = frm.ShowDialog( )
End Sub
Private Sub Button1_Click(B yVal sender As System.Object, _
ByVal e As System.EventArg s) Handles Button1.Click
Me.Hide()
Me.Show()
Me.Button1.Pare nt.Show()
End Sub
///

I told that if this is true that he was working in my idea, as I call them,
by the
maker obfuscated program.

Maybe it is not this code or something (I see now that it should be minimal
a function with a return of the result) however than you are talking about
the "with". Which what I said we agree. (second time in two days)

:-)

Cor

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: VB vs C#

Cor Ligthert <notfirstname@p lanet.nl> wrote:[color=blue]
> There is a very simple question in the VB.language group, almost everybody
> was busy with it.
> There is this sentence in.
> dialogresult = me.show
>
> My answer was this is not possible, when you want to do that it should be
> with a new created form and a showdialog.[/color]

What was not possible? Sorry, you haven't said what the actual question
was...
[color=blue]
> I did not understand how he would do this. Now he says he got the program
> from someone else and it is to complex for him to read. I think there is
> something in that program as.
> \\\
> Shadows Sub Show()
> Dim frm As New Form2
> Dim result As DialogResult
> result = frm.ShowDialog( )
> End Sub
> Private Sub Button1_Click(B yVal sender As System.Object, _
> ByVal e As System.EventArg s) Handles Button1.Click
> Me.Hide()
> Me.Show()
> Me.Button1.Pare nt.Show()
> End Sub
> ///
>
> I told that if this is true that he was working in my idea, as I call them,
> by the maker obfuscated program.
>
> Maybe it is not this code or something (I see now that it should be minimal
> a function with a return of the result) however than you are talking about
> the "with". Which what I said we agree. (second time in two days)[/color]

I'm afraid I really didn't follow any of that... what point were you
trying to make again?

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>

http://www.pobox.com/~skeet

If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Cor Ligthert]

Re: VB vs C#

I hope you understand the last row of this message, I see now, that I
corrected it to often.

The meaning is.
Maybe it is not exactly this code what is made (I see now too that it should
be minimal function with a return of the result)

However if it is this kind of code why should we than talk about the "with"/

Cor

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: VB vs C#

Cor Ligthert <notfirstname@p lanet.nl> wrote:[color=blue]
> I hope you understand the last row of this message, I see now, that I
> corrected it to often.
>
> The meaning is.
> Maybe it is not exactly this code what is made (I see now too that it should
> be minimal function with a return of the result)
>
> However if it is this kind of code why should we than talk about the "with"/[/color]

If *what* is this kind of code?

I believe that With promotes less readable code, and therefore C# is
better without it. Just because you *can* write unreadable code in any
language doesn't mean that the language should encourage you to do so.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>

http://www.pobox.com/~skeet

If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: VB vs C#

Cor Ligthert <notfirstname@p lanet.nl> wrote:[color=blue]
> There is a very simple question in the VB.language group, almost everybody
> was busy with it.
> There is this sentence in.
> dialogresult = me.show
>
> My answer was this is not possible, when you want to do that it should be
> with a new created form and a showdialog.[/color]

What was not possible? Sorry, you haven't said what the actual question
was...
[color=blue]
> I did not understand how he would do this. Now he says he got the program
> from someone else and it is to complex for him to read. I think there is
> something in that program as.
> \\\
> Shadows Sub Show()
> Dim frm As New Form2
> Dim result As DialogResult
> result = frm.ShowDialog( )
> End Sub
> Private Sub Button1_Click(B yVal sender As System.Object, _
> ByVal e As System.EventArg s) Handles Button1.Click
> Me.Hide()
> Me.Show()
> Me.Button1.Pare nt.Show()
> End Sub
> ///
>
> I told that if this is true that he was working in my idea, as I call them,
> by the maker obfuscated program.
>
> Maybe it is not this code or something (I see now that it should be minimal
> a function with a return of the result) however than you are talking about
> the "with". Which what I said we agree. (second time in two days)[/color]

I'm afraid I really didn't follow any of that... what point were you
trying to make again?

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>

http://www.pobox.com/~skeet

If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[cody]

Re: VB vs C#

> > Using the keyword class for other purposes than declaring a class was my[color=blue][color=green]
> > idea too a few weeks ago.
> > I wanted to use it to get the current type of the class:
> >[/color]
> Yes, I remember. It was actually what finally gave me the bit of syntax I
> needed for deciding on this.[color=green]
> > static void Foo()
> > {
> > Type t = class
> > Console.Writeli ne("Iam declared in " + t);
> > }
> >[/color]
>
> I would rather see typeof(class) over just assigning class.[/color]

Yes thats what I meant, I just forgot the typeof().
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Since GetType() is not available in static methods and hardcoding the
> > class
> > via typeof(MyClass) is errorprone and confusing,
> > I find using "class" here is completely fine.[/color][/color]

--
cody

Freeware Tools, Games and Humour
http://www.deutronium.de.vu || http://www.deutronium.tk

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: VB vs C#

Cor Ligthert <notfirstname@p lanet.nl> wrote:[color=blue]
> I hope you understand the last row of this message, I see now, that I
> corrected it to often.
>
> The meaning is.
> Maybe it is not exactly this code what is made (I see now too that it should
> be minimal function with a return of the result)
>
> However if it is this kind of code why should we than talk about the "with"/[/color]

If *what* is this kind of code?

I believe that With promotes less readable code, and therefore C# is
better without it. Just because you *can* write unreadable code in any
language doesn't mean that the language should encourage you to do so.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>

http://www.pobox.com/~skeet

If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[cody]

Re: VB vs C#

> > Using the keyword class for other purposes than declaring a class was my[color=blue][color=green]
> > idea too a few weeks ago.
> > I wanted to use it to get the current type of the class:
> >[/color]
> Yes, I remember. It was actually what finally gave me the bit of syntax I
> needed for deciding on this.[color=green]
> > static void Foo()
> > {
> > Type t = class
> > Console.Writeli ne("Iam declared in " + t);
> > }
> >[/color]
>
> I would rather see typeof(class) over just assigning class.[/color]

Yes thats what I meant, I just forgot the typeof().
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Since GetType() is not available in static methods and hardcoding the
> > class
> > via typeof(MyClass) is errorprone and confusing,
> > I find using "class" here is completely fine.[/color][/color]

--
cody

Freeware Tools, Games and Humour
http://www.deutronium.de.vu || http://www.deutronium.tk