Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Why the aversion to .NET Frameworks?
wraith808:
Using .net properly is harder than using C++.
-vlastimil (November 18, 2010, 06:16 AM)
--- End quote ---
I suppose you need to define properly.
* It misuses the C name. How does Ms sell the new VB? It renames it.-vlastimil (November 18, 2010, 06:16 AM)
--- End quote ---
Oh, that's flamebait if I ever saw it. Using C in the name is, imho, entirely appropriate - it's a C-based language after all, calling it a VB is really lame.
-f0dder (November 18, 2010, 06:41 AM)
--- End quote ---
Agreed 100%. Comparing C# to VB is like... I can't even find a good approximation, because they're just not the same at all. Syntactically it's quite close to C++, and structurally, you couldn't really objectively compare it to VB.
Flamebait +1.
Eóin:
I find it interesting though, that MS make a point of maintaining feature parity between VB.net and C#.
A number of the features introduced to C# 4.0 already exist or will be introduced in some form or other in Visual Basic:
* Late binding in VB is similar in many ways to dynamic binding in C#. In VB 10 (the “sister” VB version to C# 4.0), late binding has been extended to target the DLR for dynamic objects. Thus VB has the same degree of integration with dynamic objects as does C#.
* Named and optional arguments have been part of Visual Basic for a long time, and the C# version of the feature is explicitly engineered with maximal VB interoperability in mind.
* VB also already allows reference parameters to be omitted, and exposes indexed properties.
* PIA embedding and variance are both being introduced to VB and C# at the same time.VB in turn is adding a number of features that have hitherto been a mainstay of C#. As a result future versions of C# and VB will have much better feature parity, for the benefit of everyone.-http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vcsharp/ff628440.aspx
--- End quote ---
As a language for just getting things done by non-programmers, it seems to work well enough. I know, from among the classmates who graduated with me and went on to work in the financial sector, that all internal development is Visual Basic mixed with Excel. That's absolutely all!!
Renegade:
VB.NET is a fantastic language. It's much easier to use for beginners, and still offers truckloads of power. I'm not sure why there's so much hostility towards it from a lot of people. People always seem to look down on it.
I think the acid test for a language should be, "Does it let you get things done efficiently?" That will depend on what you're doing, and not all languages are appropriate to all tasks, but that doesn't make a language bad because it's not appropriate for a specific task.
f0dder:
The hostility towards VB is... probably because the entry barrier is so low. Too many people who shouldn't be programming (at least not before bumping up their skill level) are able to churn out programs. The visual designer introduced back in prehistoric days definitely has a lot of blame there (and hey, it rocked!). Especially because it's so damn easy double-clicking a button in the visual editor and write business logic in the OnClick handler.
VB.net today might not be as horrible as VB6, but... well, I definitely don't like the syntax, and code written without "option strict" and "option explicit" make me shudder. With that on, however, VB isn't all that bad - although I'll never get to terms with the syntax.
The stuff Eóin mentions above sounds like it's pretty useful for COM interop... which is especially important for MS Office stuff written in VB, which there's probably still a pretty big market for :)
Renegade:
The hostility towards VB is... probably because the entry barrier is so low. Too many people who shouldn't be programming
-f0dder (November 18, 2010, 04:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
There's more to it than that. If that were it, there would be just as much or even more disgust for PHP. It's part of it, but there's more to it than just that. The barrier for PHP is even lower.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version