C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co m> schrieb:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > I think C# is more "dotnetized " than VB.NET.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>> Well, I have to disagree. VB.NET is at least as .NETized as C#.[/color]
>
> I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
> is more "dotnetized " as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.[/color]

VB.NET has been designed *specifically* for .NET too. Remember the huge
discussion about VB.NET vs. a real VB7? Compatibility to VB6 obviously had
not been one of the goals of VB.NET's language designers.
[color=blue]
> VB.NET, however, has several "features" which I suspect wouldn't be
> there if they weren't there for backward compatibility - in other
> words, it has a large legacy to support. Hence all the functions...[/color]

Nobody is forced to use these functions. C# suffers from legacy syntax like
'switch', which has been taken from C and then "fixed" with ugly hacks,
distinction of identifiers' names only by their case, which stands against
the rules of the CLS and can be considered a feature copied over from C for
reasons of legacy support too, ...

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

[Kevin Spencer]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

SQL, any flavor of it, is indeed a programming language. There are 3
specific features that all programming languages share in common:

1. Sequence
2. Selection
3.Iteration

SQL has all of these, and in fact, is compiled. SQL is a set of instruction
code that is specifically tailored for databases.

HTML, on the other hand, contains no instruction code whatsoever. Neither is
it compiled. It is a *markup* language that contains text *specifications *
(daata) used *by* applications for the purpose of displaying the HTML. There
is no sequence, selection, *or* iteration in HTML. It requires a programming
language such as JavaScript to manipulate HTML elements. And in fact,
neither JavaScript nor CSS actually manipulate HTML elements. They
manipulate objects in the logical Document Object Model which is created by
the application that reads the HTML. The HTML itself remains unchanged.

It might better be argued that XML *can be* a programming language, in the
form of XSLT, XAML, and other extensions of XML that contain processing
instructions, sequence, selection, and iteration. On the other hand, XSD is
not a programming language, as it is simply a set of definitions in a
schema. The difference between a programming language and a markup language
is that a programming language contains *process and data*, while a markup
language contains *only* data.

In other words, words mean things. Words are what distinguishes one idea
from another. They identify ideas. Once the meaning of a word is twisted
beyond definition, there is no meaning left. Black becomes White; One
becomes Zero; Right becomes Wrong. And none of these words mean anything at
all.

Pretzel Logic is not logic at all. It is simply rhetoric. It is truly sad
when the rhetorician falls for his own rhetoric, particularly when that
person makes a living as a programmer. Such a person would be better suited
as a politician or a salesperson. A computer will never be convinced that 1
== 0.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co m> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dd6d7 b5ee9dba9598ca1 9@msnews.micros oft.com...[color=blue]
> Cor Ligthert [MVP] <notmyfirstname @planet.nl> wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > I'm sure that depends on how much it's measured. If you're counting
>> > "people who've used VB" that may well be true, as it's often used by
>> > people who *aren't* professional developers, who just need to scratch
>> > an itch.[/color]
>>
>> How do you count the enormous amount of people who make only Cxx
>> snippets as additions to games?[/color]
>
> I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean patches/cracks? If so, I don't
> think there are *that* many people
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > (I suspect it also depends on whether you include HTML as a "computer
>> > language :)[/color]
>>
>> If you call SQL a program language, than HTML is it in my opinion as
>> well.[/color]
>
> I wouldn't call HTML a programming language (although I would say that
> SQL is - or rather, T-SQL, PL/SQL etc), but HTML *is* a computer
> language IMO. They're not the same thing.
>
> --
> Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too[/color]

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

Cor Ligthert [MVP] <notmyfirstname @planet.nl> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
> > is more "dotnetized " as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> If that was true than they could have done it better and would not have used
> that enormous bunch of legacy C code that is now in C#.[/color]

There are no legacy C functions in C#. It uses C syntax, but I don't
see that as a legacy issue aside from a couple of specific places (in
particular, the switch statement). The rest is there because people
like it, not because they're trying to use C code as C# code.
[color=blue]
> In my opinion are the Net program languages designed with developers (users)
> in mind.[/color]

Absolutely - we just disagree about what exactly that means, I suspect.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Well, I have to disagree. VB.NET is at least as .NETized as C#.[/color]
> >
> > I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
> > is more "dotnetized " as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.[/color]
>
> VB.NET has been designed *specifically* for .NET too. Remember the huge
> discussion about VB.NET vs. a real VB7? Compatibility to VB6 obviously had
> not been one of the goals of VB.NET's language designers.[/color]

I would say it was a goal - just not one which was as high up the
agenda as might have been desirable.

Do you believe that if they'd designed the language from scratch with
*no* reference to VB6, there'd have been quite so many similarities?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > VB.NET, however, has several "features" which I suspect wouldn't be
> > there if they weren't there for backward compatibility - in other
> > words, it has a large legacy to support. Hence all the functions...[/color]
>
> Nobody is forced to use these functions.[/color]

No, but they're there. They're part of the language, and you really
need to know they're there if you want to read VB.NET code, because
even if you choose not to use it, other people will.
[color=blue]
> C# suffers from legacy syntax like
> 'switch', which has been taken from C and then "fixed" with ugly hacks,[/color]

Duly acknowledged in many places. The switch statement was one of the
C# design team's worst moments, IMO.
[color=blue]
> distinction of identifiers' names only by their case, which stands against
> the rules of the CLS[/color]

Only for public/protected members, I believe - and if you want to be
CLS-compliant, you can always include the appropriate attribute and get
warnings or errors if you do the wrong thing. It's about as hard to do
as, say, turning option strict on...
[color=blue]
> and can be considered a feature copied over from C for
> reasons of legacy support too, ...[/color]

No - because there's no legacy support. There's no C to C# conversion;
no-one (in their right mind, anyway) tries to directly convert C code
to C# code, because they're idiomatically so different. A lot of the
syntax is the same, but a lot is different too. (Heck, where exactly
are class declarations in C anyway?)

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[m.posseth]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

Hmmm


HTML

Hyper Text Markup Language

do i need to say more ???

well i guess that someone called it a language ,,,,,, however a programming
language ??? i guess this is a mather of personall taste

about SQL

Well i wrote myself Transact SQL that had so manny logic that it could
replace a externall business logic component so :-) i guess that if it is
capable of that , that you could call it a programming language


Regrds


Michel Posseth [MCP]





"Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMM ERSDIEtakempis. com> schreef in bericht
news:ePxr3ri4FH A.1420@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> SQL, any flavor of it, is indeed a programming language. There are 3
> specific features that all programming languages share in common:
>
> 1. Sequence
> 2. Selection
> 3.Iteration
>
> SQL has all of these, and in fact, is compiled. SQL is a set of
> instruction code that is specifically tailored for databases.
>
> HTML, on the other hand, contains no instruction code whatsoever. Neither
> is it compiled. It is a *markup* language that contains text
> *specifications * (daata) used *by* applications for the purpose of
> displaying the HTML. There is no sequence, selection, *or* iteration in
> HTML. It requires a programming language such as JavaScript to manipulate
> HTML elements. And in fact, neither JavaScript nor CSS actually manipulate
> HTML elements. They manipulate objects in the logical Document Object
> Model which is created by the application that reads the HTML. The HTML
> itself remains unchanged.
>
> It might better be argued that XML *can be* a programming language, in the
> form of XSLT, XAML, and other extensions of XML that contain processing
> instructions, sequence, selection, and iteration. On the other hand, XSD
> is not a programming language, as it is simply a set of definitions in a
> schema. The difference between a programming language and a markup
> language is that a programming language contains *process and data*, while
> a markup language contains *only* data.
>
> In other words, words mean things. Words are what distinguishes one idea
> from another. They identify ideas. Once the meaning of a word is twisted
> beyond definition, there is no meaning left. Black becomes White; One
> becomes Zero; Right becomes Wrong. And none of these words mean anything
> at all.
>
> Pretzel Logic is not logic at all. It is simply rhetoric. It is truly sad
> when the rhetorician falls for his own rhetoric, particularly when that
> person makes a living as a programmer. Such a person would be better
> suited as a politician or a salesperson. A computer will never be
> convinced that 1 == 0.
>
> --
> HTH,
>
> Kevin Spencer
> Microsoft MVP
> .Net Developer
> A watched clock never boils.
>
> "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co m> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1dd6d7 b5ee9dba9598ca1 9@msnews.micros oft.com...[color=green]
>> Cor Ligthert [MVP] <notmyfirstname @planet.nl> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> > I'm sure that depends on how much it's measured. If you're counting
>>> > "people who've used VB" that may well be true, as it's often used by
>>> > people who *aren't* professional developers, who just need to scratch
>>> > an itch.
>>>
>>> How do you count the enormous amount of people who make only Cxx
>>> snippets as additions to games?[/color]
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean patches/cracks? If so, I don't
>> think there are *that* many people
>>[color=darkred]
>>> > (I suspect it also depends on whether you include HTML as a "computer
>>> > language :)
>>>
>>> If you call SQL a program language, than HTML is it in my opinion as
>>> well.[/color]
>>
>> I wouldn't call HTML a programming language (although I would say that
>> SQL is - or rather, T-SQL, PL/SQL etc), but HTML *is* a computer
>> language IMO. They're not the same thing.
>>
>> --
>> Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>
>> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
>> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

Cor Ligthert [MVP] <notmyfirstname @planet.nl> wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> How do you count the enormous amount of people who make only Cxx
> >> snippets as additions to games?[/color]
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean patches/cracks? If so, I don't
> > think there are *that* many people[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Did you ever play online games as Unreal, Quake or seen somebody busy with
> Sims or whatever.
>
> You probably would change your opinion than, the come with complete packs to
> build 3D parts. This started by Duke Nukem 3D as far as I remember me.
>
> There is an endless amount of these maps, build with languages very close or
> complete the same as Cxx languages.
>
> To give you one examle
> http://www.unrealtournament.com/ut2003/maps.php[/color]

Ah, mods. I still believe there are far fewer people doing that than
have been using VBA/VB professionally just occasionally.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I wouldn't call HTML a programming language (although I would say that
> > SQL is - or rather, T-SQL, PL/SQL etc), but HTML *is* a computer
> > language IMO. They're not the same thing.[/color]
>
> For me a programming language builds a DLL an EXE or whatever, but is not
> direct processed. However that can be a personal idea about that.[/color]

That would discount things like Ruby and Perl. I think you're pretty
much on your own if you only count compiled languages as programming
languages.
[color=blue]
> For myself I don't call HTML a language[/color]

What do you think the "L" stands for?

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

Kevin Spencer <kevin@DIESPAMM ERSDIEtakempis. com> wrote:[color=blue]
> SQL, any flavor of it, is indeed a programming language. There are 3
> specific features that all programming languages share in common:
>
> 1. Sequence
> 2. Selection
> 3.Iteration[/color]

Do standardised SQL include "IF" etc? I thought the DML parts of
standardised SQL were only select/insert/delete/update. I could well be
very far off base there - I've rarely had to distinguish between
standard SQL and whatever dialect I'm using at the time.
[color=blue]
> SQL has all of these, and in fact, is compiled. SQL is a set of instruction
> code that is specifically tailored for databases.
>
> HTML, on the other hand, contains no instruction code whatsoever. Neither is
> it compiled. It is a *markup* language that contains text *specifications *
> (daata) used *by* applications for the purpose of displaying the HTML. There
> is no sequence, selection, *or* iteration in HTML. It requires a programming
> language such as JavaScript to manipulate HTML elements. And in fact,
> neither JavaScript nor CSS actually manipulate HTML elements. They
> manipulate objects in the logical Document Object Model which is created by
> the application that reads the HTML. The HTML itself remains unchanged.[/color]

Absolutely. And that's why I didn't try to argue that it's a
programming language. It's a language which is almost solely used on
computers, however, which is why I think it's reasonable to call it a
"computer language".

<snip>
[color=blue]
> Pretzel Logic is not logic at all. It is simply rhetoric. It is truly sad
> when the rhetorician falls for his own rhetoric, particularly when that
> person makes a living as a programmer. Such a person would be better suited
> as a politician or a salesperson. A computer will never be convinced that 1
> == 0.[/color]

I'm not sure whether or not I'm the target here, but please don't think
I believe that HTML is a programming language. I haven't said that, and
I wouldn't. Maybe you were aiming at Cor instead though, in which case
this is mostly a wasted post :)

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Kevin Spencer]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

> I'm not sure whether or not I'm the target here, but please don't think[color=blue]
> I believe that HTML is a programming language.[/color]

Oh no, Jon. I was agreeing with you! Backing you up. Sorry if you
misunderstood.
[color=blue]
> Do standardised SQL include "IF" etc? I thought the DML parts of
> standardised SQL were only select/insert/delete/update. I could well be
> very far off base there - I've rarely had to distinguish between
> standard SQL and whatever dialect I'm using at the time.[/color]

Yes, in fact. I co-authored a book about it several years ago, and have done
quite a bit of database application work in the past (still do, from time to
time, but am rather over it). The ISO standard includes if statements, case
statements, and looping statements. It's come a long way since all it did
was fetch cursors.
[color=blue]
> I wouldn't. Maybe you were aiming at Cor instead though, in which case
> this is mostly a wasted post :)[/color]

It seemed wise to back you up rather than to argue directly with any
individual. As to what is a waste, well, this is a public newsgroup. I tend
to offer information for anyone that may be happening to read a thread. You
never know when seeds of knowledge will find purchase.

:-)

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

Jon,

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co m> schrieb:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> Well, I have to disagree. VB.NET is at least as .NETized as C#.
>> >
>> > I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
>> > is more "dotnetized " as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.[/color]
>>
>> VB.NET has been designed *specifically* for .NET too. Remember the huge
>> discussion about VB.NET vs. a real VB7? Compatibility to VB6 obviously
>> had
>> not been one of the goals of VB.NET's language designers.[/color]
>
> I would say it was a goal - just not one which was as high up the
> agenda as might have been desirable.[/color]

VB.NET has been marketed as VB6' successor, but from a technical point of
view I don't see many similarities. Behavior of the language's syntax has
been altered in many occasions, thus I believe that it has not been one of
the main goals when designing the language. "Micrsosoft.Vis ualBasic.dll" is
a nice add-on which makes using VB.NET easier for VB6 programmers. However,
"Microsoft.Visu alBasic.dll" is a managed library, and from a technical
standpoint there are no reasons for avoiding its use.
[color=blue]
> Do you believe that if they'd designed the language from scratch with
> *no* reference to VB6, there'd have been quite so many similarities?[/color]

No, I do not believe that. But to you believe they had designed the C#
language from scratch with *no* reference to C/C++ and Java, there would
have been quite so many similarities? It's petty clear that Microsoft
didn't attempt to reinvent the wheel. It's hard to position a new
programming language on the market if nobody is familiar with its syntax.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > VB.NET, however, has several "features" which I suspect wouldn't be
>> > there if they weren't there for backward compatibility - in other
>> > words, it has a large legacy to support. Hence all the functions...[/color]
>>
>> Nobody is forced to use these functions.[/color]
>
> No, but they're there. They're part of the language[/color]

No, they are part of a library. They are not part of the language. It's
not guaranteed that all implementations of the language provide this
library. Some of the methods of the library are not avalilable on
handhelds, etc. So they are clearly an add-on.
[color=blue]
> and you really need to know they're there if you want to read
> VB.NET code, because even if you choose not to use it, other people will.[/color]

The .NET Framework and .NET technology is the infrastructure programming
languages can be built on. The 'using' statement, for example, is simply a
wrapper around a method call and error handling code. Some .NET programming
languages do not provide an equivalent keyword as part of their syntax. So,
people using another .NET programming language will have problems to
understand C# or VB.NET code too.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> and can be considered a feature copied over from C for
>> reasons of legacy support too, ...[/color]
>
> No - because there's no legacy support. There's no C to C# conversion;
> no-one (in their right mind, anyway)[/color]

Well, there is a Java to C# conversion wizard available. Maybe they didn't
copy C but copied Java instead... I don't think this argument makes much
sense.

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

[Charlie Tame]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

May I add my 2c here since I am a total newcomer but recognize talent when I
see it :)

Bearing in mind your comments and leaving them for others to read I will add
my observations below.

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:uNKP4an4FH A.4076@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Jon,
>
> "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co m> schrieb:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> >> Well, I have to disagree. VB.NET is at least as .NETized as C#.
>>> >
>>> > I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
>>> > is more "dotnetized " as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.
>>>
>>> VB.NET has been designed *specifically* for .NET too. Remember the huge
>>> discussion about VB.NET vs. a real VB7? Compatibility to VB6 obviously
>>> had
>>> not been one of the goals of VB.NET's language designers.[/color]
>>
>> I would say it was a goal - just not one which was as high up the
>> agenda as might have been desirable.[/color]
>
> VB.NET has been marketed as VB6' successor, but from a technical point of
> view I don't see many similarities. Behavior of the language's syntax has
> been altered in many occasions, thus I believe that it has not been one of
> the main goals when designing the language. "Micrsosoft.Vis ualBasic.dll"
> is a nice add-on which makes using VB.NET easier for VB6 programmers.
> However, "Microsoft.Visu alBasic.dll" is a managed library, and from a
> technical standpoint there are no reasons for avoiding its use.
>[color=green]
>> Do you believe that if they'd designed the language from scratch with
>> *no* reference to VB6, there'd have been quite so many similarities?[/color]
>
> No, I do not believe that. But to you believe they had designed the C#
> language from scratch with *no* reference to C/C++ and Java, there would
> have been quite so many similarities? It's petty clear that Microsoft
> didn't attempt to reinvent the wheel. It's hard to position a new
> programming language on the market if nobody is familiar with its syntax.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> > VB.NET, however, has several "features" which I suspect wouldn't be
>>> > there if they weren't there for backward compatibility - in other
>>> > words, it has a large legacy to support. Hence all the functions...
>>>
>>> Nobody is forced to use these functions.[/color]
>>
>> No, but they're there. They're part of the language[/color]
>
> No, they are part of a library. They are not part of the language. It's
> not guaranteed that all implementations of the language provide this
> library. Some of the methods of the library are not avalilable on
> handhelds, etc. So they are clearly an add-on.
>[color=green]
>> and you really need to know they're there if you want to read
>> VB.NET code, because even if you choose not to use it, other people will.[/color]
>
> The .NET Framework and .NET technology is the infrastructure programming
> languages can be built on. The 'using' statement, for example, is simply
> a wrapper around a method call and error handling code. Some .NET
> programming languages do not provide an equivalent keyword as part of
> their syntax. So, people using another .NET programming language will
> have problems to understand C# or VB.NET code too.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> and can be considered a feature copied over from C for
>>> reasons of legacy support too, ...[/color]
>>
>> No - because there's no legacy support. There's no C to C# conversion;
>> no-one (in their right mind, anyway)[/color]
>
> Well, there is a Java to C# conversion wizard available. Maybe they
> didn't copy C but copied Java instead... I don't think this argument
> makes much sense.
>
> --
> M S Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>[/color]

1. the NET framework is associated with various misconceptions ranging from
Bill Gates wanting to take over the world to problems with the MS Passport.
I don't think it is recognized as a virtual machine in the same way that
Java is yet by most of the public users, it is seen as some kind of network
related system that's not really connected with local software. Unfortunate
naming perhaps, but since programs written using it require a download I
think it will suffer delays in real widespread usage. I know quite a few who
decline the NET framework updates offered because they don't want more
invasive MS stuff. Yes I am serious, that is what I see.

2. I have written a couple of apps in C#, more educational then useful
although one I'm quite pleased with, but having taken these apps to work to
try on various machines and combinations I am finding various "Can't
install" problems that would discourage me from asking others to test them.
Of course this was done using a beta but I hope MS can bring things together
so that when real live applications hit the streets they will not cause the
less knowledgeable user to have too much trouble, this is bad for the
reputation.

3. I'm finding the C# language a bit easier than C++ but as a complete
novice I am not sure how much is due to the IDE and how much is actually
easier. I do wonder how it will get used though if it proves to be
problematic for users since people tend to err on the side of unfavorable
comparisons against something they are used to.

Anyway, my 2c, the original question was interesting.

Charlie

[Kevin Spencer]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

Hi Herfried,

Good arguments, and well-stated.

I prefer C#, but I'm not religious about it. It does more than VB.Net, and
I've always liked the syntax. The second reason, however, is purely personal
preference.

It is heartening, though to see the improvements in VB.Net that are in the
..Net 2.0 Framework, and in the Visual Studio.Net 2005 IDE. For example, I
have complained for years about Option Strict being OFF by default, and that
is fixed in the new Visual Studio. I can see why it was done originally, but
the argument just didn't hold water. As you've pointed out, VB.Net is .Net,
*not* VB6. It has all the power of .Net, and that means all of the
opportunity to screw up. That implies that it should be more strict than its
predecessor, which it is.

Other constraints in the new version are also encouraging. Microsoft has had
quite a tightrope to raverse with VB.Net, and has made some adjustments in
the right direction. They had enough trouble selling it to VB6 developers in
the first place, but the problems their accomdations caused certainly
outweighed the complaints of those who were not used to a strongly-typed,
fully object-oriented programming technology. I believe Microsoft has
finally struck the right balance in the latest version. VB6 developers will
simply have to adapt and grow, like everybody else. And that will be good
for everyone.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
A watched clock never boils.

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:uNKP4an4FH A.4076@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Jon,
>
> "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co m> schrieb:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> >> Well, I have to disagree. VB.NET is at least as .NETized as C#.
>>> >
>>> > I agree with the previous poster - and it's perfectly natural that C#
>>> > is more "dotnetized " as it was designed *specifically* for .NET.
>>>
>>> VB.NET has been designed *specifically* for .NET too. Remember the huge
>>> discussion about VB.NET vs. a real VB7? Compatibility to VB6 obviously
>>> had
>>> not been one of the goals of VB.NET's language designers.[/color]
>>
>> I would say it was a goal - just not one which was as high up the
>> agenda as might have been desirable.[/color]
>
> VB.NET has been marketed as VB6' successor, but from a technical point of
> view I don't see many similarities. Behavior of the language's syntax has
> been altered in many occasions, thus I believe that it has not been one of
> the main goals when designing the language. "Micrsosoft.Vis ualBasic.dll"
> is a nice add-on which makes using VB.NET easier for VB6 programmers.
> However, "Microsoft.Visu alBasic.dll" is a managed library, and from a
> technical standpoint there are no reasons for avoiding its use.
>[color=green]
>> Do you believe that if they'd designed the language from scratch with
>> *no* reference to VB6, there'd have been quite so many similarities?[/color]
>
> No, I do not believe that. But to you believe they had designed the C#
> language from scratch with *no* reference to C/C++ and Java, there would
> have been quite so many similarities? It's petty clear that Microsoft
> didn't attempt to reinvent the wheel. It's hard to position a new
> programming language on the market if nobody is familiar with its syntax.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> > VB.NET, however, has several "features" which I suspect wouldn't be
>>> > there if they weren't there for backward compatibility - in other
>>> > words, it has a large legacy to support. Hence all the functions...
>>>
>>> Nobody is forced to use these functions.[/color]
>>
>> No, but they're there. They're part of the language[/color]
>
> No, they are part of a library. They are not part of the language. It's
> not guaranteed that all implementations of the language provide this
> library. Some of the methods of the library are not avalilable on
> handhelds, etc. So they are clearly an add-on.
>[color=green]
>> and you really need to know they're there if you want to read
>> VB.NET code, because even if you choose not to use it, other people will.[/color]
>
> The .NET Framework and .NET technology is the infrastructure programming
> languages can be built on. The 'using' statement, for example, is simply
> a wrapper around a method call and error handling code. Some .NET
> programming languages do not provide an equivalent keyword as part of
> their syntax. So, people using another .NET programming language will
> have problems to understand C# or VB.NET code too.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> and can be considered a feature copied over from C for
>>> reasons of legacy support too, ...[/color]
>>
>> No - because there's no legacy support. There's no C to C# conversion;
>> no-one (in their right mind, anyway)[/color]
>
> Well, there is a Java to C# conversion wizard available. Maybe they
> didn't copy C but copied Java instead... I don't think this argument
> makes much sense.
>
> --
> M S Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>[/color]

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

Michel,

See as well my replies to Jon to that, you can call something a language (or
whatever) than it is therefore not a language.

In computing is more often the word "language" used for things that had
nothing to do with a language.

It can be that it is my interpretation from a language, a language is for me
a tool to communicatie between two media if it is a natural language or a
program language. A description is that not. There have be more developments
tools been (4th generation) that where no language however got that name.

Just my opinion,

Cor

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

Jon,
[color=blue]
> Ah, mods. I still believe there are far fewer people doing that than
> have been using VBA/VB professionally just occasionally.
>[/color]

Of course those people use VBA/VB professonally
LOL
(I know therefore it are not professional developpers)
[color=blue][color=green]
>> For myself I don't call HTML a language[/color]
>
> What do you think the "L" stands for?
>[/color]
I have written in this thread that it is a "descriptio n language", however I
kept always some doubt about that.

I cannot come on that phrase for that at the moment.

Cor

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

Jon,

This what I write bellow I can never proof.

I have strongly the idea that the Microsoft Visual Basic namespace is only
created, to keep it apart from the framework so that C++ and Java
developpers whould not have the idea that the languages C# and J# are a kind
of changed VB (what I do not say or think).

That does not mean as I have often written that I am lucky with the
behaviour from all classes in that Visual Basic namespace (by instance the
strange use of the indexers). However there are many, which would have
enrichen the basic Net namespase, if they where as well direct available to
the other Net languages.

Let us not start talking in detail about this, which would and which should
not.

Cor

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Re: C# v VB.NET - any research on usage?

Charlie,

May I have the conclusion from your statements that Microsoft has problems
to sell C# and J# to the Java and C++ developers. I see that more and more
classic VB developers are successful adapting VB Net.

:-)

Cor