|
web
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
C# vs. VB.NET: typing speeddifferences are. To my surprise I am *much* faster with VB.NET. I don't know why, pressing the shift key to capitalize letters slows me down tremendously, among having to type a semicolon after each statement, not having intelligent auto-complete and auto-indentation and not having the (evil, maybe) with statement ... I also like the horizontal lines that clearly distinguish different functions. I still think C# looks much nicer (less verbose) if you come from Java/C++, but after you get used to VB.NET's syntax, you begin changing your mind about that as well... VB.NET seems to have quite a horrible history/legacy (at least when it comes to good OO design), which is why many "oldschool" developers do not use it. Is there anything beyond that that makes it less useful than C#? I mean, it is a first class language, after all, isn't it? Are there any tools out there that convert one language to the other, project-wide, so that if a customer wants a C# solution, I can still use it and convert it at the very last moment? Sept. 10, 2006
I can go millions of lines faster with VB... I'm just not good at remembering casing, either. :-) As far as the code convertor - I believe I saw one on MSDN as a sample for VS 05..... try searching MSDN. And nope, I don't think there are really any issues which make VB less useful than C#. -- Show quoteHide quoteJoseph Bittman Microsoft Certified Solution Developer Microsoft Most Valuable Professional -- DPM Blog/Web Site: http://CactiDevelopers.ResDev.Net/ <byteschr***@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:1157990042.664080.245200@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >I recently switched temporarily from C# to VB.NET to see what the > differences are. > > To my surprise I am *much* faster with VB.NET. I don't know why, > pressing the shift key to capitalize letters slows me down > tremendously, among having to type a semicolon after each statement, > not having intelligent auto-complete and auto-indentation and not > having the (evil, maybe) with statement ... > > I also like the horizontal lines that clearly distinguish different > functions. I still think C# looks much nicer (less verbose) if you come > from Java/C++, but after you get used to VB.NET's syntax, you begin > changing your mind about that as well... > > VB.NET seems to have quite a horrible history/legacy (at least when it > comes to good OO design), which is why many "oldschool" developers do > not use it. > > Is there anything beyond that that makes it less useful than C#? I > mean, it is a first class language, after all, isn't it? > > Are there any tools out there that convert one language to the other, > project-wide, so that if a customer wants a C# solution, I can still > use it and convert it at the very last moment? > converter are not perfect. there are a few free ones. some app requires
substantial manual tweak, so much that productivity gain gets lost. Maybe that is just my experience. As for case senility one could get over that with some macro, scanners or fancy editors Btw, in vibe, you get a form type application working well, then you add a few lines of codes and the newly compiled code will not load with something about unhandled exception and leave you wondering which statement you neglected to put in try ... catch end try. there are some apps or part of some apps that are more suited with c <byteschr***@googlemail.com> wrote in message Show quoteHide quote news:1157990042.664080.245200@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > I recently switched temporarily from C# to VB.NET to see what the > differences are. > > To my surprise I am *much* faster with VB.NET. I don't know why, > pressing the shift key to capitalize letters slows me down > tremendously, among having to type a semicolon after each statement, > not having intelligent auto-complete and auto-indentation and not > having the (evil, maybe) with statement ... > > I also like the horizontal lines that clearly distinguish different > functions. I still think C# looks much nicer (less verbose) if you come > from Java/C++, but after you get used to VB.NET's syntax, you begin > changing your mind about that as well... > > VB.NET seems to have quite a horrible history/legacy (at least when it > comes to good OO design), which is why many "oldschool" developers do > not use it. > > Is there anything beyond that that makes it less useful than C#? I > mean, it is a first class language, after all, isn't it? > > Are there any tools out there that convert one language to the other, > project-wide, so that if a customer wants a C# solution, I can still > use it and convert it at the very last moment? > Byteschreck,
That is the main reason I like VB.Net more than C#, for the rest there are almost no differences. It is not only typing speed, it are as well optimized code as Dataset ds = new Dataset(); in VB.Net dim ds as New Dataset I wished that crazy dim was not needed (optinal) than it would be even more typing speed. (Another thing is that you can without problems nest much deeper than in C#, something you would as well not believe on first sight) Cor <byteschr***@googlemail.com> schreef in bericht Show quoteHide quote news:1157990042.664080.245200@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >I recently switched temporarily from C# to VB.NET to see what the > differences are. > > To my surprise I am *much* faster with VB.NET. I don't know why, > pressing the shift key to capitalize letters slows me down > tremendously, among having to type a semicolon after each statement, > not having intelligent auto-complete and auto-indentation and not > having the (evil, maybe) with statement ... > > I also like the horizontal lines that clearly distinguish different > functions. I still think C# looks much nicer (less verbose) if you come > from Java/C++, but after you get used to VB.NET's syntax, you begin > changing your mind about that as well... > > VB.NET seems to have quite a horrible history/legacy (at least when it > comes to good OO design), which is why many "oldschool" developers do > not use it. > > Is there anything beyond that that makes it less useful than C#? I > mean, it is a first class language, after all, isn't it? > > Are there any tools out there that convert one language to the other, > project-wide, so that if a customer wants a C# solution, I can still > use it and convert it at the very last moment? > The background compilation feature of VB.NET 2005 are sorely needed in C#.
In C#, you have to do another build after correcting the previous build's compile errors. The VB compiler silently does this for you and you can actually watch your error count go down. The tradeoff here is that the VB compiler requires a boatload of memory. The only native feature C# has that VB doesn't is the "yield" statement for early returning out of enumerations. Fortunately, VB can mimic this by returning the entire collection, but this has the trade off of requiring the entire result set be computed before the first return. VB explicitly tags event handlers with the "handles" clause. You don't have to go into the form designer to verify which event handlers go with which events. Also, since VB has a "(Declarations)" section for each module that lists all procedures that don't have associated controls, it's real easy to find, without compiling, orphaned event handlers. VB 2005 is still missing one thing that made the VB 6 editor even better. This is the ability to limit the editor scope to just the procedure you're looking at, which prevents you from accidentally scrolling past the top or bottom of the procedure you're interested in. Also, E&C isn't as well done in VB 2005 as VB 6. As for multi-language development, MS has done an outstanding job. I am currently working on a web-site that has assemblies in both VB 2005 and C# 2005 and the debugger doesn't even miss a beat when switching assemblies or displaying objects that are declared in one language and then used in the other. Mike Ober. Show quoteHide quote "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message news:OTNqpMc1GHA.4388@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Byteschreck, > > That is the main reason I like VB.Net more than C#, for the rest there are > almost no differences. > > It is not only typing speed, it are as well optimized code as > > Dataset ds = new Dataset(); > in VB.Net > dim ds as New Dataset > > I wished that crazy dim was not needed (optinal) than it would be even > more typing speed. > > (Another thing is that you can without problems nest much deeper than in > C#, something you would as well not believe on first sight) > > Cor > > <byteschr***@googlemail.com> schreef in bericht > news:1157990042.664080.245200@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >>I recently switched temporarily from C# to VB.NET to see what the >> differences are. >> >> To my surprise I am *much* faster with VB.NET. I don't know why, >> pressing the shift key to capitalize letters slows me down >> tremendously, among having to type a semicolon after each statement, >> not having intelligent auto-complete and auto-indentation and not >> having the (evil, maybe) with statement ... >> >> I also like the horizontal lines that clearly distinguish different >> functions. I still think C# looks much nicer (less verbose) if you come >> from Java/C++, but after you get used to VB.NET's syntax, you begin >> changing your mind about that as well... >> >> VB.NET seems to have quite a horrible history/legacy (at least when it >> comes to good OO design), which is why many "oldschool" developers do >> not use it. >> >> Is there anything beyond that that makes it less useful than C#? I >> mean, it is a first class language, after all, isn't it? >> >> Are there any tools out there that convert one language to the other, >> project-wide, so that if a customer wants a C# solution, I can still >> use it and convert it at the very last moment? >> > > VB.NET is missing anonymous methods and closures. It is an incredibly
useful feature. Brian byteschr***@googlemail.com wrote: Show quoteHide quote > I recently switched temporarily from C# to VB.NET to see what the > differences are. > > To my surprise I am *much* faster with VB.NET. I don't know why, > pressing the shift key to capitalize letters slows me down > tremendously, among having to type a semicolon after each statement, > not having intelligent auto-complete and auto-indentation and not > having the (evil, maybe) with statement ... > > I also like the horizontal lines that clearly distinguish different > functions. I still think C# looks much nicer (less verbose) if you come > from Java/C++, but after you get used to VB.NET's syntax, you begin > changing your mind about that as well... > > VB.NET seems to have quite a horrible history/legacy (at least when it > comes to good OO design), which is why many "oldschool" developers do > not use it. > > Is there anything beyond that that makes it less useful than C#? I > mean, it is a first class language, after all, isn't it? > > Are there any tools out there that convert one language to the other, > project-wide, so that if a customer wants a C# solution, I can still > use it and convert it at the very last moment? "Brian Gideon" <briangid***@yahoo.com> schrieb: Anonymous methods are useful in some rare cases, but in most cases they > VB.NET is missing anonymous methods and closures. It is an incredibly > useful feature. drastically reduce maintainability and structuredness of the code. -- 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] wrote:
> "Brian Gideon" <briangid***@yahoo.com> schrieb: Yep, it can be abused, but so can a lot of other things we take for> > VB.NET is missing anonymous methods and closures. It is an incredibly > > useful feature. > > Anonymous methods are useful in some rare cases, but in most cases they > drastically reduce maintainability and structuredness of the code. > granted. In this particular case I don't think it's rare enough to exlude the feature. Consider those scenarios where you've created a delegate that only ever has one target. The expressiveness of that situation when using an anonymous method is unambiguous and communicates that idea well to other developers maintaining the code. Also consider those scenarios where you have to create a whole new class just to capture parameters that need to be injected into the target of a delegate. Why not use the even more useful feature of closures for that? And then when you put them both together you get the ability to define dynamic predicate logic inline where it's actually used. For example, public static void Main() { int divisibleBy = GetRandomDivisor(); List<int> list = GetRandomInt32List(); List<int> result = list.FindAll(delegate(int x) { return x % divisibleBy == 0; }); foreach (int i in result) { Console.WriteLine(i); } } I think that's a pretty common scenario. Without both anonymous methods and closures that gets a bit more tricky, less expressive, and less elegant IMO. Brian
Show quote
Hide quote
"Brian Gideon" <briangid***@yahoo.com> schrieb: I think you are referring to the solution below. At least to me it does not >> > VB.NET is missing anonymous methods and closures. It is an incredibly >> > useful feature. >> >> Anonymous methods are useful in some rare cases, but in most cases they >> drastically reduce maintainability and structuredness of the code. > > Yep, it can be abused, but so can a lot of other things we take for > granted. In this particular case I don't think it's rare enough to > exlude the feature. Consider those scenarios where you've created a > delegate that only ever has one target. The expressiveness of that > situation when using an anonymous method is unambiguous and > communicates that idea well to other developers maintaining the code. > Also consider those scenarios where you have to create a whole new > class just to capture parameters that need to be injected into the > target of a delegate. Why not use the even more useful feature of > closures for that? And then when you put them both together you get > the ability to define dynamic predicate logic inline where it's > actually used. For example, > > public static void Main() > { > int divisibleBy = GetRandomDivisor(); > List<int> list = GetRandomInt32List(); > List<int> result = list.FindAll(delegate(int x) > { > return x % divisibleBy == 0; > }); > foreach (int i in result) > { > Console.WriteLine(i); > } > } > > I think that's a pretty common scenario. Without both anonymous > methods and closures that gets a bit more tricky, less expressive, and > less elegant IMO. pose such a big problem to use this solution. \\\ Public Module Program Public Sub Main() Dim Divisor As Integer = 2 Dim list As New List(Of Integer) list.AddRange(New Integer() {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}) Dim result As List(Of Integer) = _ list.FindAll(AddressOf (New IsDivisibleByMatcher(Divisor)).Eval) For Each i As Integer In result Debug.WriteLine(i) Next i End Sub Private Class IsDivisibleByMatcher Private m_Divisor As Integer Public Sub New(ByVal Divisor As Integer) m_Divisor = Divisor End Sub Public Function Eval(ByVal x As Integer) As Boolean Return (x Mod m_Divisor) = 0 End Function End Class End Module /// Even shorter: \\\ Private Sub Main() m_Divisor = 2 Dim list As New List(Of Integer) list.AddRange(New Integer() {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}) Dim result As List(Of Integer) = _ list.FindAll(AddressOf IsDivisibleBy) For Each i As Integer In result Debug.WriteLine(i) Next i End Sub Private m_Divisor As Integer Private Function IsDivisibleBy(ByVal x As Integer) As Boolean Return (x Mod m_Divisor) = 0 End Function /// -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/> Herfried,
Like you, I prefer the first solution. The second may be shorter, but it also pollutes the class with instance variables that don't logically represent the state of the class. And I agree, it's not a problem at all. It's clean, elegant, and easy to maintain. I just think the anonymous method approach is better because the compiler does all of that for you. Brian Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote: Show quoteHide quote > I think you are referring to the solution below. At least to me it does not > pose such a big problem to use this solution. > > \\\ > Public Module Program > Public Sub Main() > Dim Divisor As Integer = 2 > Dim list As New List(Of Integer) > list.AddRange(New Integer() {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}) > Dim result As List(Of Integer) = _ > list.FindAll(AddressOf (New IsDivisibleByMatcher(Divisor)).Eval) > For Each i As Integer In result > Debug.WriteLine(i) > Next i > End Sub > > Private Class IsDivisibleByMatcher > Private m_Divisor As Integer > > Public Sub New(ByVal Divisor As Integer) > m_Divisor = Divisor > End Sub > > Public Function Eval(ByVal x As Integer) As Boolean > Return (x Mod m_Divisor) = 0 > End Function > End Class > End Module > /// > > Even shorter: > > \\\ > Private Sub Main() > m_Divisor = 2 > Dim list As New List(Of Integer) > list.AddRange(New Integer() {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}) > Dim result As List(Of Integer) = _ > list.FindAll(AddressOf IsDivisibleBy) > For Each i As Integer In result > Debug.WriteLine(i) > Next i > End Sub > > Private m_Divisor As Integer > > Private Function IsDivisibleBy(ByVal x As Integer) As Boolean > Return (x Mod m_Divisor) = 0 > End Function > /// > > -- > M S Herfried K. Wagner > M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> > V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/> I agree with the premise of the previous statement.
Just because anon methods can reduce maintainability, so can a lot of other things. It should be developers choice about how they implement their solutions, not the VB language spec. "Steven Nagy" <learndot***@hotmail.com> schrieb: Then I am wondering why C#ies do not agree on this point when talking about >I agree with the premise of the previous statement. > Just because anon methods can reduce maintainability, so can a lot of > other things. > It should be developers choice about how they implement their > solutions, not the VB language spec. built-in late binding, for example. I'd like to see something similar to anonymous methods (or nested methods respectively) too, but I do not like C#'s solution. -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/> Steven and Brian,
Yes like the Cobol Alter statement, which creator is dammed by almost all using Cobol (and that are a lot) You mean something as that American car that once had is fuel tank in rear and when there was an accident it blow up. Because they have done that in that car they have to do it in every car. Maybe it is good to learn from mistakes. Just my opinion Cor Show quoteHide quote "Steven Nagy" <learndot***@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1158011869.737509.208130@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >I agree with the premise of the previous statement. > Just because anon methods can reduce maintainability, so can a lot of > other things. > It should be developers choice about how they implement their > solutions, not the VB language spec. > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
> Steven and Brian, I do not know Cobol so I'm unable to comment.> > Yes like the Cobol Alter statement, which creator is dammed by almost all > using Cobol (and that are a lot) > You mean something as that American car that once had is fuel tank in rear Ah...the barbecue that seats four, otherwise known as the Ford Pinto.> and when there was an accident it blow up. Because they have done that in > that car they have to do it in every car. I'm not sure how it relates or what makes you think all cars have a fuel tank in the rear. > Maybe it is good to learn from mistakes. What you call a mistake I call inovation. But, I've made my point.You either buy or you don't so we may just have to agree to disagree. Show quoteHide quote > > Just my opinion > > Cor > > "Steven Nagy" <learndot***@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht > news:1158011869.737509.208130@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >I agree with the premise of the previous statement. > > Just because anon methods can reduce maintainability, so can a lot of > > other things. > > It should be developers choice about how they implement their > > solutions, not the VB language spec. > > <byteschr***@googlemail.com> schrieb:
> Is there anything beyond that that makes it [VB.NET] less useful than C#? Not really. There are some differences in the feature set, but basically it > I > mean, it is a first class language, after all, isn't it? should not matter which one of the two languages you are using. > Are there any tools out there that convert one language to the other, Yes and no. If you are using VB's 'My' feature, for example, you cannot > project-wide, so that if a customer wants a C# solution, I can still > use it and convert it at the very last moment? easily convert the code. -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/> Actually, all the commerical converters convert most aspects of "My" (ours
does and the others say they do, but I haven't tried them recently). -- Show quoteHide quoteDavid Anton www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com Instant C#: VB to C# converter Instant VB: C# to VB converter Instant C++: C#/VB to C++ converter C# Code Metrics: Quick metrics for C# "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" wrote: > <byteschr***@googlemail.com> schrieb: > > Is there anything beyond that that makes it [VB.NET] less useful than C#? > > I > > mean, it is a first class language, after all, isn't it? > > Not really. There are some differences in the feature set, but basically it > should not matter which one of the two languages you are using. > > > Are there any tools out there that convert one language to the other, > > project-wide, so that if a customer wants a C# solution, I can still > > use it and convert it at the very last moment? > > Yes and no. If you are using VB's 'My' feature, for example, you cannot > easily convert the code. > > -- > M S Herfried K. Wagner > M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> > V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/> > > Regarding the conversion issue, the commercially available VB to C# and C# to
VB converters will convert entire projects (the online converters will not do this). Try a few of these to see if they fit your needs (ours are in my signature). We do have customers who regularly convert projects in either direction, so the conversions are exhaustive and accurate enough to make this practical. -- Show quoteHide quoteDavid Anton www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com Instant C#: VB to C# converter Instant VB: C# to VB converter Instant C++: C#/VB to C++ converter C# Code Metrics: Quick metrics for C# "byteschr***@googlemail.com" wrote: > I recently switched temporarily from C# to VB.NET to see what the > differences are. > > To my surprise I am *much* faster with VB.NET. I don't know why, > pressing the shift key to capitalize letters slows me down > tremendously, among having to type a semicolon after each statement, > not having intelligent auto-complete and auto-indentation and not > having the (evil, maybe) with statement ... > > I also like the horizontal lines that clearly distinguish different > functions. I still think C# looks much nicer (less verbose) if you come > from Java/C++, but after you get used to VB.NET's syntax, you begin > changing your mind about that as well... > > VB.NET seems to have quite a horrible history/legacy (at least when it > comes to good OO design), which is why many "oldschool" developers do > not use it. > > Is there anything beyond that that makes it less useful than C#? I > mean, it is a first class language, after all, isn't it? > > Are there any tools out there that convert one language to the other, > project-wide, so that if a customer wants a C# solution, I can still > use it and convert it at the very last moment? > > 
Other interesting topics
About IDisposable.Dispose()
Inherited Forms in VB.NET class code does not show 'inherits from...' Configuration in published program Determining if MS Word is running through VB code java developer wants to learn VB.NET Mnemonics for Buttons with symbols on Mail merge from word using sql server express and vb.net 2005 Licensing with Plimus Treeview (Eric Moreau) Running and Controling another Application via VB.net Application |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
