I hate VB .net

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thinker said:
No, the focus has changed since the release of J#, but C# isn't
a replacement for C++. They wouldn't have gone to all the
trouble to upgrade C++ for managed code. C# is still the main
focus, J# is to make it easier for Java and especially J++ users to
make the transition.
Click to expand...

Thanks Thinker. I know that C# isn't a replacement for C++, what I'm trying to say is that from what I have seen in C# it seems to be like C++ in many ways but makes development quicker.

For fear of sticking my foot in mouth I'll just stop there :D

Orbity
 
This is a cool-sucky thing VB is

What sucks for me about the whole VB .Net thing is the fact that I find myself wandering back and forth between VB .Net and Visual Basic 6 and getting nothing done. Don’t get me wrong I’m really like VB .Net it’s just I’m lazy and don’t want to code my own auto redraw to persist graphics. Then there is VB6 love it but it’s weak without populating it with workarounds but there is a power to it that attracts programmers I think. I don’t care how I program, how good I am at it, or what language I use as long the end product comes out working excellent and I certainly am not in competition with anyone. But I think that Microsoft could have found a way to preserve some of the features VB6 has
And VB .Net lacks. Like I said to my wife after working with VB .Net for one week.
“Man leave it up to MS to give me some really cool stuff and then take away all that was already cool”. Well, I hope soon I can produce my first release in VB .Net soon but so far as of yet I’m still banging away at VB6 and playing with VB .Net.
 
Lazy programmers are not good programmers. There are no "features"
of VB6 that are not in VB.NET, although they may have taken out some
less-functional, dumbed-down-for-the-lazy-programmer elements.
Everything that you need to create just about anything you need
is in VB.NET. They really haven't taken away anything.
 
Adjusting mindsets to the newer ways of doing things can be difficult at first. For some things, you have to completely forget about any techniques you might have picked up in VB6.

For instance, you have access to the whole of GDI+ through a great system of managed classes, not least of which is the ability to create resolution-independant bitmaps and draw on them, blt them around and change their properties. And you complain about not having AutoRedraw :)
 
Wow... that post count seems to suit you, 'divil'. :D

I find myself wandering back and forth between VB .Net and Visual Basic 6 and getting nothing done
Click to expand...
That usually happens when you learn any new language with knowledge... when I learned C, it took a while to remember to put semicolons after every line. ;)
 
Lazy programmers are not good programmers.
Click to expand...
I can't let this go by. Never was anything further from the truth.
When it comes to the history of computer programming, from the
first programs entered in with front panel switches, to the most
advanced languages we have today, laziness is the single most
important factor in this evolution.
 
I think Volte meant lazy in the sense of irresponsible and sloppy
in terms of code and coding standards.

I'd think that programmers want to try to be more efficient than
lazy, which in some cases may mean the same thing. Being
efficient means you have to do less work and get the same or
more out of it. So maybe efficient is a better adjective to describe
us, although I guess the driving force of efficiency is laziness
(most of the time). Bah, I don't know. :)
 
^ Indeed. If you can get by with something that is simpler and minimally
less functional, then go for it I say. However, if there are two methods
of doing something, one better (in terms of functionality) than the other, and you go for the
worse one simply because you're too lazy to look at the other one,
that is, I think, a bad thing.
 
VolteFace said:
^ Indeed. If you can get by with something that is simpler and minimally
less functional, then go for it I say. However, if there are two methods
of doing something, one better (in terms of functionality) than the other, and you go for the
worse one simply because you're too lazy to look at the other one,
that is, I think, a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Well then Volte, ever looked at Assembly language? You can do with assembly anything you can do with any other language and it can be much faster and more efficent. Why don't we all write our apps in ASM then?

Orbity
 
Because that's usually very inefficient. Sloooooow development span
if you were developing anything major, and it would get done faster
and without much of a performance hit with C++ or VB.NET.
 
I think Volte meant lazy in the sense of irresponsible and sloppy
in terms of code and coding standards.
Click to expand...
That isn't a definition of lazy, that is an example of how laziness
is acted out. It is like The Force. That is just the dark side.
VolteFace's original statement made no distinction between the
ways laziness can be directed, it just said flat out...
Lazy programmers are not good programmers.
Click to expand...
I am a very lazy programmer. But that laziness is directed at the
kind of concepts that gave us OOP to begin with -- encapsulation
and reuse -- rather than toward poorer, sloppier code.
 
Making less work for yourself is not being lazy, it's being an efficient
programmer. Having broken code standards simply because you
couldn't be bothered fixing them or learning about how to fix them
is being lazy.

If you spend years making a machine that will do all of your house
work for you so you never have to do it again, does that make you
a lazy person? I guess in a way, and I guess that could be applied here.
So I see what you're saying, but I also stick with what I am saying.

Planning ahead != lazy
Taking the easy way out == lazy

So I guess in programming, you're kind of planning ahead so you
can take the easy way out in the future. Er.. :p I'm confusing myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top