VB.NET is not VB! 
Author Message
 VB.NET is not VB!

I've been using .NET for a while but I really haven't bothered to look at VB
until now, since I'm a C++ programmer (C# nowadays).

The one thing that struck me the most was the forcing of paranthesis to not
only functions with no parameters, but with subs as well. How hard could it
have been to have kept the old syntax?

And non-zero based arrays are gone, with the CLR standard as an excuse. That
is stupid, and could have be worked around by just substracting the lower
index in all references. That is, if the developers had actually wanted to
create a new version of the VB language.

After taking a look at this new language, it looks to me as it was written
by C++ programmers, who's trying to show VB programmers what's best for
their own good. It wouldn't surprise me if the all the VB compiler does is
parse through the VB code, converts it to C# and compiles it using the C#
compiler.



Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:51:32 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!

Quote:

> I've been using .NET for a while but I really haven't bothered to look at VB
> until now, since I'm a C++ programmer (C# nowadays).

> The one thing that struck me the most was the forcing of paranthesis to not
> only functions with no parameters, but with subs as well. How hard could it
> have been to have kept the old syntax?

> And non-zero based arrays are gone, with the CLR standard as an excuse. That
> is stupid, and could have be worked around by just substracting the lower
> index in all references. That is, if the developers had actually wanted to
> create a new version of the VB language.

They almost had a new version of VB, until it got axed.NET...


Quote:
> After taking a look at this new language, it looks to me as it was written
> by C++ programmers, who's trying to show VB programmers what's best for
> their own good. It wouldn't surprise me if the all the VB compiler does is
> parse through the VB code, converts it to C# and compiles it using the C#
> compiler.

"Yeah - we've got that!"

 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3ACD4562.609C%40cluestick.org

 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B2BE988.50%40cluestick.org

VB is dead.  Long live VB!

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com>  "Regged" again? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!



Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:37:51 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!

Quote:
> After taking a look at this new language, it looks to me as it was written
> by C++ programmers, who's trying to show VB programmers what's best for
> their own good. It wouldn't surprise me if the all the VB compiler does is
> parse through the VB code, converts it to C# and compiles it using the C#
> compiler.

Well, VB has always been written in C++. So umm, this is nothing new!


Quote:
> I've been using .NET for a while but I really haven't bothered to look at
VB
> until now, since I'm a C++ programmer (C# nowadays).

> The one thing that struck me the most was the forcing of paranthesis to
not
> only functions with no parameters, but with subs as well. How hard could
it
> have been to have kept the old syntax?

> And non-zero based arrays are gone, with the CLR standard as an excuse.
That
> is stupid, and could have be worked around by just substracting the lower
> index in all references. That is, if the developers had actually wanted to
> create a new version of the VB language.

> After taking a look at this new language, it looks to me as it was written
> by C++ programmers, who's trying to show VB programmers what's best for
> their own good. It wouldn't surprise me if the all the VB compiler does is
> parse through the VB code, converts it to C# and compiles it using the C#
> compiler.



Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:17:41 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!

Quote:
> > After taking a look at this new language, it looks to me as it was
written
> > by C++ programmers, who's trying to show VB programmers what's best for
> > their own good. It wouldn't surprise me if the all the VB compiler does
is
> > parse through the VB code, converts it to C# and compiles it using the
C#
> > compiler.

> Well, VB has always been written in C++. So umm, this is nothing new!

When I used "C++ programmers" in this context I wasn't just talking about
people who are capable of writing programs in C++. I was talking about
programmers who prefer C++, and over VB. What language the VB.NET compiler
was actually written in is irrelevant.


Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:50:04 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!

Quote:
> It wouldn't surprise me if the all the VB compiler does is
> parse through the VB code, converts it to C# and compiles it using the C#
> compiler.

It would surprise me. C# doesn't have all the constructs that VB.Net does.
For example...

Catch Err as Exception When X > 0

C# doesn't have the When clause, a CLR supported construct. They can
simulate it, but there is a performance hit to do so.

This is just the tip of the ice berg. There are many things that VB.Net can
do that C# can't. Some are just syntactic sugar and automagical constructs,
others are actual CLR features that C# didn't implement.

--
Jonathan Allen

"VB is dead.  Long live VB!"
- Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster 10/9/2001


Quote:
> I've been using .NET for a while but I really haven't bothered to look at
VB
> until now, since I'm a C++ programmer (C# nowadays).

> The one thing that struck me the most was the forcing of paranthesis to
not
> only functions with no parameters, but with subs as well. How hard could
it
> have been to have kept the old syntax?

> And non-zero based arrays are gone, with the CLR standard as an excuse.
That
> is stupid, and could have be worked around by just substracting the lower
> index in all references. That is, if the developers had actually wanted to
> create a new version of the VB language.

> After taking a look at this new language, it looks to me as it was written
> by C++ programmers, who's trying to show VB programmers what's best for
> their own good. It wouldn't surprise me if the all the VB compiler does is
> parse through the VB code, converts it to C# and compiles it using the C#
> compiler.



Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:53:02 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!

Quote:
> VB is dead.  Long live VB!

I see you finally decided to accept the new VB. Welcome aboard.

--
Jonathan Allen




Quote:

> > I've been using .NET for a while but I really haven't bothered to look
at VB
> > until now, since I'm a C++ programmer (C# nowadays).

> > The one thing that struck me the most was the forcing of paranthesis to
not
> > only functions with no parameters, but with subs as well. How hard could
it
> > have been to have kept the old syntax?

> > And non-zero based arrays are gone, with the CLR standard as an excuse.
That
> > is stupid, and could have be worked around by just substracting the
lower
> > index in all references. That is, if the developers had actually wanted
to
> > create a new version of the VB language.

> They almost had a new version of VB, until it got axed.NET...


> > After taking a look at this new language, it looks to me as it was
written
> > by C++ programmers, who's trying to show VB programmers what's best for
> > their own good. It wouldn't surprise me if the all the VB compiler does
is
> > parse through the VB code, converts it to C# and compiles it using the
C#
> > compiler.

> "Yeah - we've got that!"

>  http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3ACD4562.609C%40cluestick.org

>  http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B2BE988.50%40cluestick.org

> VB is dead.  Long live VB!

> --
> Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com>  "Regged" again?

<http://www.xenu.net/>

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're
coming  to
> because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away,
ha ha!



Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:45:17 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!

Quote:

> > After taking a look at this new language, it looks to me as it was written
> > by C++ programmers, who's trying to show VB programmers what's best for
> > their own good. It wouldn't surprise me if the all the VB compiler does is
> > parse through the VB code, converts it to C# and compiles it using the C#
> > compiler.

> Well, VB has always been written in C++. So umm, this is nothing new!

Much of the first few versions was written in assembly, yet VB 1/2/3
didn't have MOV or JZ statements.  Why, then, must VB.NOT's arrays
start with 0, just because some C-weenies can't conceive of an array
starting with anything else?

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com>     On the cans? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!



Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:24:54 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!
Joe,

I don't know whether most people have seen enough of your posts to know that
there is *nothing* that can be said which will shake you loose from your
belief that VB6 was the be all and end all of programming languages.

So this post is for the benefit of others ...

Quote:
> Why, then, must VB.NOT's arrays
> start with 0, just because some C-weenies can't conceive of an array
> starting with anything else?

It has been suggested that all that's needed to implement non-zero based
arrays is to simply subtract the lower bound before, presumably, passing the
array to some method written using some other language.  That won't work.

Let's suppose that you had an 1-based array, passed it to some c# method
which held on to it and then later passed some integer to a method which was
then used as an index into the previously-passed array.  Off by one error.
There is no general way to address that issue other than by requiring
consistency between languages (well, unless you would resort to the absurd
suggestion that all languages be aware of and track array-indexing issues
presented by all other languages).

IMO if you have to choose between zero-based and one-based arrays, then
zero-based is the best choice because a) it's more efficient in the first
place and b) calculations of indices into the array are generally more
efficient since they don't require +1 all over the place.

Ok, rant on d00d.

Zane



Sun, 28 Mar 2004 02:55:47 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!

Quote:

> I don't know whether most people have seen enough of your posts to know that
> there is *nothing* that can be said which will shake you loose from your
> belief that VB6 was the be all and end all of programming languages.

That's a *lie*, and you know it.  If, as you assert, I had some sort of
"belief" that "VB6 was the be all and end all of programming languages",
surely I'd denounce any and all routes to implementation inheritance in
VB instead of talking about the aborted *real* VB7 or about providing
inheritance through bolt-ons and add-ins?  Would I have asked about an
"Inherits" keyword to complement "Implements"?

 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=11021%40bftsi0.UUCP

 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=924808591.409.13%40news.remarQ.com

 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tjci65bv9n67b7%40corp.supernews.com

 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=%23bzKWjkOBHA.1788%40tkmsftngp03

 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tlgpr9ge699r2a%40corp.supernews.com

"You _are_ wrong.  Next time we're in Redmond together, I'll introduce you to someone
who will verify that the VB team was within two months of having full inheritance in
the Classic version before they were pulled to the damn .net project."

Now kindly just FOAD, mmmkay?

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com>   L. Ron Dullard <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!



Sun, 28 Mar 2004 04:12:28 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!

Quote:

> > VB is dead.  Long live VB!

> I see you finally decided to accept the new VB. Welcome aboard.

Still rewriting that sarcasm detector in VB.NET, are you?  Perhaps in
several years it'll work as well as the VB Classic version...

 http://joelonsoftware.com/stories/storyReader$47

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com>  "Regged" again? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!



Sun, 28 Mar 2004 04:18:53 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!
Joe,

Quote:
> That's a *lie*, and you know it.

One of your standard responses, name-calling.  Weenies, liars, etc.

Quote:
> Now kindly just FOAD, mmmkay?

I notice you didn't address the off-by-one issue, no surprise there.  Btw,
so you think it's ok for you to follow me around the newsgroups and reply
with StandardRants.ChooseOne() but it's not ok for me to reply to your
posts?  No surprise there either, zealots can't tolerate differences of
opinion.

Zane



Sun, 28 Mar 2004 04:24:27 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!
Can you keep the petty comments and bickering to e-mail please?  Frankly,
I'm sick of searching for legitimate information and running into 3rd grade
arguments.


Sun, 28 Mar 2004 04:24:28 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!
Joe,

Quote:
>  http://joelonsoftware.com/stories/storyReader$47

Still relying on whole-sale quotes instead of something resembling reason
eh?

Btw, Joel is flatout *wrong* about that.  There are, as I'm sure most here
recognize, times when the very best thing you can do is through a mess on
the trash-heap and rewrite from scratch.

Zane



Sun, 28 Mar 2004 04:29:20 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!

Quote:
> Btw, Joel is flatout *wrong* about that.  There are, as I'm sure most here
> recognize, times when the very best thing you can do is through a mess on
> the trash-heap and rewrite from scratch.

I think he made some good points, and I even tried to live by it in a
project. But when it finally came down it, a total rewrite ended up being
much better than trying to fix an inherently flawed architecture. With a
rewrite (keeping bits and pieces of course), I was able to do in a month
what 10 months worth of patches couldn't.

As for his example, things are still up in the air. Nav6 may have had some
problems, but I heard that they are being addressed in a new release.
Hopefully we can soon see if the rewrite is truly an improvement.

--
Jonathan Allen


Quote:
> Joe,

> >  http://joelonsoftware.com/stories/storyReader$47

> Still relying on whole-sale quotes instead of something resembling reason
> eh?

> Btw, Joel is flatout *wrong* about that.  There are, as I'm sure most here
> recognize, times when the very best thing you can do is through a mess on
> the trash-heap and rewrite from scratch.

> Zane



Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:03:12 GMT  
 VB.NET is not VB!
Jonathan,

Quote:
> I think he made some good points ...

Sure he did, but he takes such an absolutist position that it detracts from
his otherwise worthwhile comments.  Maybe the PHBs like to see that before
they hire him as a consultant. <shurg><g>

Quote:
> But when it finally came down it, a total rewrite ended up being
> much better than trying to fix an inherently flawed architecture. With a
> rewrite (keeping bits and pieces of course), I was able to do in a month
> what 10 months worth of patches couldn't.

I think there's a pretty fundamental, and obvious, flaw in his argument (at
least in the overly absolute form he presented it):

A design should flow out of *requirements* - an application which meets
those requirements should follow.  I think Joel's argument can be seen to be
false if you reduce it to the case where there is some simple application
which initially has a single requirement.  Some time goes by, new
requirements come along, and the application is "adjusted" to accomodate
them.  We have all experienced what happens as that process is iterated: at
some point the new requirements strain the implementation of the preceeding
requirements to the breaking point.  I think there must be a physical law at
work there.  Maybe I'll try to identify it and lay my claim to usenet fame.
:-)

Anyway, whether you start with 100 requirments or 1, the unending arrival of
subsequent requirements will eventually break the design.

Zane



Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:36:12 GMT  
 
 [ 25 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. I am learning VB.NET and am wondering....

2. i am using vb.net and crystal reports for visual studio.net

3. VB.NET - New Project - Form1.VB - ERROR: EnvDTR, or one of its dependencies, was not found

4. I am writing a book about VB .NET, and I need your help you

5. VB.NET is not VB!

6. My Vb.Net Apps will not run on other machine's with .Net Framework installed

7. VB.NET app does not run on OS having .NET redistributable files installed

8. Memory not released with vb.net and cr.net

9. I can not INSERT into Access95 using ADO.net and VB.NET

10. SetDataSource not working with Crystal Reports .NET in VB.NET

11. Difference between VB NET and VB NET 2003

12. Convert VB.Net to C#, convert C# to VB.Net

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software