Replies

C# is identical to the new version of Visual Basic. MS added a bunch of very cool features to VB that is backward compatable with VB 6.0 and almost identical to C#

VB.NET == C#

C# = VB.NET

The choice between using VB and C# is more a matter of taste than a serious technology choice. The manuals for each language are almost identical and they give you the VB and C# syntax for every class libarary method. The reason C# will destroy Java is that C# can be compiled down to binary, Java is terrible for writing User Interface programs, Java is slow and usually runs on a buggy Virtual machine, and Java is not portable, while with C# the issue is who cares about portability.

C++ is still not totally obsolete and will remain a core langage for doing high performance graphics until MS gives me a replacement for COleControl in C#

I am working on a project in C# to view DNA Sequences and I hope to have it available on the net in a couple of weeks. I took a look at Human Chromosome 5 in my viewer this week and I am trying to make a generic DNA viewer for examining Sequences and performing Protein, cross linking, Coiling, and search operations. There is an entire new field of Bio-Informatics that is going to change the future even more than the invention of the Semiconductor chip changed the present. I hope to have something to show by next week. The real trick in computer programming is Installation, because any idiot can write good software with the tools available these days.

It is not an established fact that any new C# code is going to be running on my customers computers.

Software is easy, installation is hard.

The reason C# will destroy Java is that C# can be compiled down to binary, Java is terrible for writing User Interface programs, Java is slow and usually runs on a buggy Virtual machine, and Java is not portable, while with C# the issue is who cares about portability.

If you are writing Java on Windows, then it isn't portable, but every other version of Java I've used runs anywhere. There are complilers available that take Java source code and generate machine code, which isn't portable. C# normally generates CLI not machine code which runs on the .NET runtime engine (which isn't portable yet) and is very similar to the Java virtual engine.

If you want to write in C# you can, but please be accurate about what C# and Java are.

I'm afraid Java and C# will die from the same cause, bloat. The core languages while being small is lost to the very large number of library functions you have to learn to take advantage of the language.

"MS added a bunch of very cool features to VB that is backward compatable with VB 6.0..."

That's just plain wrong. VB.Net is in no way, shape, or form backwards compatible with VB 6.

Try using the DEFINT command in Dot Net. Try using the Goto command. Try using the Gosub/Return commands in Dot Net. They aren't there any longer.

Dot Net may have some cool new features in it, but don't kid yourself about it being backwards compatible. It isn't. Less than 40% of VB 6 code will compile in Dot Net. The object property differences in .frms/.frxs alone is staggering...

Now, if all you've ever written are Hello World programs for your college profs, I can understand that you wouldn't comprehend that MS threw out the backwards compatibility baby with the bathwater, but if someone is paying you money for your VB knowledge, then they deserve what they've got...