Visual Basic is Dead!

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by Marcus, Jun 16, 2009.

  1. Marcus

    Marcus Guest

    I found this: http://du2.in/VBDead
    It means that C# will completely replace Visual Basic. What dou you think
    about this, is VB dead?
     
    Marcus, Jun 16, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Marcus

    Tim Guest

    I did not get this impression from reading the article. This is just one
    person's opinion. I believe Microsoft has given the axe to J sharp, but I
    don't believe they will ever do this to VB.Net. I do not agree with the
    author on saying C# is for helping Java programmers transition over to .Net;
    that is what J# was for.
    From what I understand, it doesn't really matter what language you code
    in, it all compiles down to the same MSIL.
    I think VB.Net will be around for some time.

    [Tim]

    "Marcus" wrote:

    > I found this: http://du2.in/VBDead
    > It means that C# will completely replace Visual Basic. What dou you think
    > about this, is VB dead?
    >
    >
    >
     
    Tim, Jun 16, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Marcus

    Joe Cool Guest

    On Jun 16, 3:06 pm, Tim <> wrote:
    >    I did not get this impression from reading the article.  This is just one
    > person's opinion.  I believe Microsoft has given the axe to J sharp, but I
    > don't believe they will ever do this to VB.Net.  I do not agree with the
    > author on saying C# is for helping Java programmers transition over to .Net;
    > that is what J# was for.
    >    From what I understand, it doesn't really matter what language you code
    > in, it all compiles down to the same MSIL.
    >    I think VB.Net will be around for some time.
    >
    > [Tim]
    >


    I agree. While the LSE and Intellisense works differently for VB than
    it does for C#, and there are some namespaces available in VB that
    aren't available in C# (and vice version, I assume), it is my
    impression that both are merely wrappers for the .NET Framework, which
    really does all the work.

    >
    >
    > "Marcus" wrote:
    > > I found this:http://du2.in/VBDead
    > > It means that C# will completely replace Visual Basic. What dou you think
    > > about this, is VB dead?
     
    Joe Cool, Jun 16, 2009
    #3
  4. The article is from 2007 while it state by instance that there was no Linq
    in VB, which is completely wrong.

    Linq was developed in different tastes for C#2 by instance DLink and
    whatever fancy name.

    The Linq that was used for C#3 was however the same as in VB9

    And in that way the article goes on, it looks to nothing.

    By the way, many C# developers complain that there are so few (correct)
    samples on Internet, they only find VB

    Cor
     
    Cor Ligthert[MVP], Jun 16, 2009
    #4
  5. Marcus

    Neb Okla Guest

    If you have to code in VB, make sure you charge by the line...

    VB Property:

    Private newPropertyValue As String
    Public Property NewProperty() As String
    Get
    Return newPropertyValue
    End Get
    Set(ByVal value As String)
    newPropertyValue = value
    End Set
    End Property

    C# Property:

    private int myVar;
    public int MyProperty {
    get{ return myVar; }
    set{ myVar = value; }
    }

    It adds up.


    "Tim" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > From what I understand, it doesn't really matter what language you code
    > in, it all compiles down to the same MSIL.
    > I think VB.Net will be around for some time.
     
    Neb Okla, Jun 16, 2009
    #5
  6. Marcus

    Harry Guest

    "Marcus" <> wrote in message
    news:h18or9$u0t$...
    >I found this: http://du2.in/VBDead
    > It means that C# will completely replace Visual Basic. What dou you think
    > about this, is VB dead?
    >

    I don't think that is correct. In fact, MS themselves admit to about a 50/50
    percent spread between C# and VB. In a recent video I watched, MS claimed
    that they were directing future VS studio development to making features in
    both languages equal and were diverting from adding even more bells and
    whistles.

    It is a good idea, however, to become conversant in both languages. They are
    not that different, anyway,

    Cheers
     
    Harry, Jun 16, 2009
    #6
  7. Marcus

    nak Guest

    pfft! You would not believe how many new articles pop up a year stating
    that.

    And more often than not they are written by self righteous C# developers who
    think it is a "better" language.

    Has Harry rightly said above, Microsoft are improving development of both C#
    and VB.NET to the extent that both languages will receive new features at
    the same time. It's all horses for courses really, I write in both C# and
    VB.NET regularly, and personally I prefer VB.NET.

    So nope... VB.NET is far from being dead.

    "Marcus" <> wrote in message
    news:h18or9$u0t$...
    > I found this: http://du2.in/VBDead
    > It means that C# will completely replace Visual Basic. What dou you think
    > about this, is VB dead?
    >
    >
     
    nak, Jun 16, 2009
    #7
  8. nak wrote:
    > pfft! You would not believe how many new articles pop up a year stating
    > that.
    >
    > And more often than not they are written by self righteous C# developers
    > who think it is a "better" language.
    >


    Finally, they've taken the blame out of us, C++ers... LOL

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


    VB6 completely sucked, but the .NET versions kinda improved the language
    --as required by the CLS. Nowadays I don't like VB because it is very
    verbose (see Okla's post above), but that's the only thing I can think
    about.

    But I agree that it is far from dead.

    A new member to the family: F#. AFAIK it will be a fully supported
    language in VS10. Let's see how it goes.

    Regards.

    --
    Fernando Gómez
    www.fermasmas.com
     
    Fernando A. Gómez F., Jun 16, 2009
    #8
  9. rossum wrote:
    > On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:33:48 -0400, "Neb Okla" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> If you have to code in VB, make sure you charge by the line...
    >>
    >> VB Property:
    >>
    >> Private newPropertyValue As String
    >> Public Property NewProperty() As String
    >> Get
    >> Return newPropertyValue
    >> End Get
    >> Set(ByVal value As String)
    >> newPropertyValue = value
    >> End Set
    >> End Property
    >>
    >> C# Property:
    >>
    >> private int myVar;
    >> public int MyProperty {
    >> get{ return myVar; }
    >> set{ myVar = value; }
    >> }

    >
    > private int myVar;
    >
    > public int MyProperty
    > {
    > get
    > {
    > return myVar;
    > }
    >
    > set
    > {
    > myVar = value;
    > }
    > }
    >
    > :)
    >
    > rossum
    >


    However, the VB version can't be shortened... can it?

    --
    Fernando Gómez
    www.fermasmas.com
     
    Fernando A. Gómez F., Jun 17, 2009
    #9
  10. Marcus

    Abubakar Guest

    ummm Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not a newsgroup for c# vs vb discussions
    :)

    ""Fernando A. Gómez F."" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > rossum wrote:
    >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:33:48 -0400, "Neb Okla" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> If you have to code in VB, make sure you charge by the line...
    >>>
    >>> VB Property:
    >>>
    >>> Private newPropertyValue As String
    >>> Public Property NewProperty() As String
    >>> Get
    >>> Return newPropertyValue
    >>> End Get
    >>> Set(ByVal value As String)
    >>> newPropertyValue = value
    >>> End Set
    >>> End Property
    >>>
    >>> C# Property:
    >>>
    >>> private int myVar;
    >>> public int MyProperty {
    >>> get{ return myVar; }
    >>> set{ myVar = value; }
    >>> }

    >>
    >> private int myVar;
    >> public int MyProperty {
    >> get { return myVar; }
    >>
    >> set
    >> { myVar = value; }
    >> }
    >>
    >> :)
    >>
    >> rossum
    >>

    >
    > However, the VB version can't be shortened... can it?
    >
    > --
    > Fernando Gómez
    > www.fermasmas.com
     
    Abubakar, Jun 17, 2009
    #10
  11. ""Fernando A. Gómez F."" <> schrieb:
    > However, the VB version can't be shortened... can it?


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

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

    --
    M S Herfried K. Wagner
    M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
    V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
     
    Herfried K. Wagner [MVP], Jun 17, 2009
    #11
  12. Marcus

    vanderghast Guest

    Probably doable too in VbNet, the line:


    public int WhatIsThat { get; set; }


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




    Vanderghast, Access MVP


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

    >
    > I wonder why there should be the possibilty to shorten it. The way the
    > property is defined in VB allows for easy extension by adding new
    > statements to each accessor's body.
    >
    > If I want to see the signatures only, I use the class view or object
    > browser instead.
    >
    > --
    > M S Herfried K. Wagner
    > M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
    > V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
     
    vanderghast, Jun 17, 2009
    #12
  13. Marcus

    mayayana Guest

    > I do not agree with the
    > author on saying C# is for helping Java programmers transition over to

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


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

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

    http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2005/04/16/the-coming-net-w
    orld-i-m-scared.aspx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Is your head spinning yet? Mine is.

    Most of the "article" is just one long string of popular cliches. (It's
    usually a good bet that people are going to prattle cliches when they
    start sentences with "Sure, ..." Use of the word "cool" is another
    dependable indicator. "Cool", after all, is really just a "cool"
    synonym for "fashionable".)
     
    mayayana, Jun 17, 2009
    #13
  14. Marcus

    Tom Shelton Guest

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

    --
    Tom Shelton
     
    Tom Shelton, Jun 17, 2009
    #14
  15. Marcus

    Branco Guest

    mayayana wrote:
    <snip>
    >   The whole of .Net is aimed at Java programmers. (And at
    > getting 3rd-party programmers out of the Windows system.)

    <snip>

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

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

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

    <snip>

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

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

    Best regards,

    Branco.
     
    Branco, Jun 17, 2009
    #15
  16. > ------------ Looking at a few samples -------------------
    >
    > * most really cool pieces seem to be in C# and not VB.Net.*
    >
    > "Cool"? What's "cool" other than what does the job?
    >
    > * The ones [job applicants] that strike me as really "senior" mostly
    > trend towards C# and not VB.Net. Sure, it could be a coincidence,
    > but it might not be. *
    >
    > Translation: "C# people seem to be more "cool", but then
    > again my judgment can't be trusted."


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

    Once .NET reaches 10 years old this will no longer be true of course, and
    we'll know longer be able to identify the bogus job postings by the way they
    require "10 years experience with C#".
     
    Ben Voigt [C++ MVP], Jun 17, 2009
    #16
  17. Marcus

    Jeff Johnson Guest

    ""Fernando A. Gómez F."" <> wrote in message
    news:%...

    > VB6 completely sucked


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




    Oh, I almost forgot: bite me.

    (Flame on!)
     
    Jeff Johnson, Jun 17, 2009
    #17
  18. "Branco" <> wrote in message
    news:...

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

    [SNIP]

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

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

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

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

    --
    Timothy Casey - Email:
    Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
    http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
    Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
     
    Timothy Casey, Jun 18, 2009
    #18
  19. "Marcus" <> wrote:

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


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


    Greets,
    Ertugrul.


    --
    nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex)
    http://blog.ertes.de/
     
    Ertugrul Söylemez, Jun 18, 2009
    #19
  20. Marcus

    mayayana Guest

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


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

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

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

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

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

    >

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


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

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

    Then there's also the general unsuitability in the design
    of .Net for Windows software. If you read Mark Russinovich's
    piece from the link you'll see that his whole point is the same
    point that I'm making. (And I suspect that most of the people
    reading this also agree, and are probably using .Net not
    for Windows software but rather are using it where
    they might have formerly used Java -- server-side or for
    producing corporate intranet web services.)
     
    mayayana, Jun 18, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. M P
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    570
    Joe Fallon
    Aug 7, 2004
  2. Stewart
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    547
    Ken Cox [Microsoft MVP]
    Feb 24, 2006
  3. Anthony Moss

    visual basic from visual C++

    Anthony Moss, Dec 16, 2003, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    303
    Aggro
    Dec 16, 2003
  4. Engineer
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    678
    Jeremy Bowers
    May 1, 2005
  5. hunkgym
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,026
    =?Utf-8?B?TGVvbiBNYXluZQ==?=
    Oct 30, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page