C# striking a chord with programmers

I stand by my statement. It's you who've managed to imply that good programmers wrap every line of their code with If Err statements, and that simply isn't the case. - Southack

"Don't play cute. Show me where I said I "wrap every line of my code with If Err statements". You can't, because you put words in my mouth. Another crooked debate tactic." - You are here

Perhaps you simply don't understand the meaning of the word "imply," but it's a far cry from putting words in your mouth..

"Then, look up the meaning of the Component Object Model."

Don't even pretend to claim that COM means that VB.Net is really, truly, secretly backwards compatible with VB 6...

Bump.

I do not know what to say if you really think that .NET is a very good system with your 23 years of experience.

I can name you couple of security holes in .NET Read the following article. If you want more, I can send more: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-898302.html

What I think about .NET:

.NET is not very different than Java system. Why should I change into C# from Java when Java has hundreds of already ready to use components, frameworks (Apache etc. Check Sourceforge and Freshmeat for thousands of open source Java libraries, programs etc.), millions of developers behind?

C# has improvements over Java (autoboxing, double checking algorithm works for singletons etc.), but not significant. With Java, I can do everything that I can do with C#. So, I see no point in shifting to C#.

VB.NET is a limited C#. They are same languages with different syntax since they were built on top of common language. VB.NET is closer to C# than it is to VB. Why is it supported? :

1. MS had to support VB. Lots of legacy developers.

2. But, MS also knows that having two languages which are functionally same but different in syntax does not make sense, so it did not include all the features included in C#. They are marketing it as C# is "the" language, you should start .NET with C#. But, VB users!! We do not forget you. You can use VB.NET for some time. Bullocks. VB.NET is not VB. Clasical Billy lies.

On how many platforms .NET code is running now? Java code is running on Mac OS 9, OSX, Beos, FreeBSD, Linux, Unix, All Windows Clones etc NOW.

Surprise, surprise!!!! Performance tests show that .NET and Java are not very different in speed. Java even beats .NET in many categories. Here is the one from the Queens University: http://www2.fit.qut.edu.au/CompSci/PLAS/ComponentPascal/virtual_machines.pdf

This is from the .net security holes article. I provided the link at the beginning:

----------------------------------------------------

The hacker presented the results of his analysis of ASP.Net, the Web services portion of the .Net Framework, at the conference Thursday. While he found several vulnerabilities in some components of the framework, his main criticisms fell on the heads of Microsoft's documentation writers.

"Most developer resources are wrong!" he wrote in a slide, adding that each of the five most popular ASP.Net books fails to mention at least one of several common .Net security problems.

In addition, the primary example that programmers will look to in developing .Net Web applications--Microsoft's IBuySpy store Web application--has a Unicode vulnerability and leaves two project files configured so as to be accessible by anyone on the Web, Moore said.

Finally, he added, the Microsoft Developer Network documentation instructs developers to create a file containing people's passwords and places it in a directory accessible from the Web--a definite security no-no.

-----------------------------------------------

Binary compatibility is still there, so is support for VB6, we're going to be tied to v6 products for a long time to come. There are alot of shops out there still with VB5 for alot of the reasons you have stated, in some orgs this is just the "right" time to use VB or upgrade. If you change compilers or platforms, to be thourgh you have to retest everything anyway, this just changes the game a little. For new development though, it makes no sense to use v6 products, there's better to be had. Back compatibility HAD to be broken in order to provide a better framework to provide just the panacea you are arguing for here. The old VB was just not suited to providing libraries of code that could be re-used, it just had too many limitations. Most places who wrote fault tolerant code that needed to be fail-safe never wrote a line of code in VB anyway.. that's a C++, Fortran, ADA world.

I assume that you havn't used the VB upgrade tool by your non-response, that's too bad, I think you'd be (as I was) supprised at the execelent soloution they provided for the mojority of code "upgrades". It at least lessens the "pain" that you may experience in your upgrade.

"For new development though, it makes no sense to use v6 products, there's better to be had."

I agree. VB.Net is better in a face to face competition against VB 6 for NEW development.

"Back compatibility HAD to be broken in order to provide a better framework to provide just the panacea you are arguing for here."

Nonsense! MS didn't "have to" leave out the DEFINT command, for a single example of many, in order to create a new, better framework/panacea.

"The old VB was just not suited to providing libraries of code that could be re-used, it just had too many limitations."

Nonsense. Corporations built enormous libraries of classes, forms, and specific subroutines in VB 6 precisely because it was easy to develop and prove solutions in VB 6 and because those corporations have already committed to re-using code as their primary means of improving development speed and quality. We are talking about a high-level language, anyway. It's not like the high-level command statements and form properties matter to the underlying low-level framework to such a degree that killing some of them gives any design advantage (kill VBRunn*.dll if you want, but that doesn't mean that various high-level command statements have to be abandoned).

"Most places who wrote fault tolerant code that needed to be fail-safe never wrote a line of code in VB anyway..."

Is that a wild guess or do you have personal experience or statistics to support that claim? It's certainly NOT what I've seen at my clients, though admittedly my experiences can't be proven to be representative of the entire market.

"Now why the hell would I "pretend to claim that COM means that VB.Net is really, truly, secretly backwards compatible with VB 6", when my whole damn point all along has been that it isn't?"

Because I've pretty well limited my discussion on this entire thread to the lack of backwards compatibility in VB.Net, and one would presume that you were trying to at least attempt to make relevant comments towards that backwards compatibility issue when you suggested that I go research COM.

But hey, if you had another reason, feel free to explain it. I'm enjoying watching you dance around. Your If Err comments were particularly amusing.

"Your persistent harping on that obsolete keyword speaks volumes about your skills (as does your assinine harping on On Error Goto, along with your ignorance of how to properly code error handlers)."

You still haven't managed to comprehend why I've mentioned simple commands such as DEFINT, and that is that there is no situation that "forced" MS to leave DEFINT (and numerous other commands) out of VB.Net in order to implement their new "revolutionary" compiler (a bald-faced lie of a claim that is repeatedly proferred by those who wish to defend MS's lack of backwards compatibility).

Put simply: maintaining such language commands would NOT have prevented MS from building the dot net compiler.

Likewise, your "If Err" statements demonstrate that you are an amatuer programmer with no sophisticated grasp of VB 6 programming realities. However, that deficiency is modest in comparison to your misunderstanding of old VB 6 code "working" in VB.Net either by automated/manual "massaging," implementing certain coding styles prior to dot net, or by compiling said code and using Dot Net to call the compiled versions. The first two of those situations negates earlier testing/passing phases (which demands new re-work) and the last situation isn't even at issue (no one is complaining that run times are incompatible with anything, after all).

In short, what you REALLY wish that you could manage is to first discredit anyone who dares not praise every line of MS code and second pretend that vb.net's backwards incompatibility is no big deal while third blaming programmers for writing "bad" code rather than MS for writing a compiler that can't compile prior versions of VB, and despite your myriad efforts you've managed to fail on all counts (no doubt just as your code fails for whatever poor company is stuck employing you, if any).

"programmers who coded properly (instead of those who wrote GWBASIC-style sphagetti) can continue to use their code. That's the nature of contemporary reusability. Code is reusable in its compiled form."

No, that's incorrect. FUNCTIONALITY is reuseable when one uses the compiled version of old code, but code is only reuseable when it can be imported into a new project directly.

That is a fundamental programming misunderstanding that you hype above. You have clearly failed to learn the distinction between "code" and "functionality," relatively basic concepts for professional programmers (of which you do not appear to be).

So to sum up:

MS 'Strategic Partners' posting to this thread trying to sell .NET solutions won't address the known issues of .NET, won't give any specifics of successful .NET implementations and won't even admit that the lack of backwards compatability in VB is a problem.
Java developers posting here have tried .NET and found a nice start with some critical problems that need to be worked out.
Existing VB developers posting here have tried .NET and found a nice start with some critical problems that need to be worked out.

When the only people who say .NET is without problems are it's salemen, I find it's pretty easy to draw a conclusion.

Heck, the very title of the piece is a spin line right up there with 'The Comeback Kid' -- the story says no one is using it but the headline says it "Strikes a chord with programmers".

I love FR.