Agencies vs clients vs tech knowledge

[nobody here but us chicke]

I just want to support

setjmp and longjmp


Oh, and inline assembler.

[Durbs]

1. It's an ECMA standard so if VB dissappears, you can still use it in theory. The mono project is making sure of that.
2. Documentation comments (not an issue with .net 2.0 but VB.net ones are fugly)
3. Much easier to read
4. Much easier to write safe code as no unsafe conversions are performed.
5. Syntax similar to Java so there are a lot of Java programmers around.
6. Syntax not similar to VB so it's easier to filter out a lot of old school clueless VB programmers.
7. Constructs are generally smaller (look at how ugly property accessors are in VB.Net
8. Generics don't make you want to vomit your guts out.
9. C# uses OO terms rather than laymans terms (think virtual abstract etc rather than Friend or whatever everyone uses in VB).

Sigh, well we'll just have to agree to disagree. I personally find VB.nets verbose nature very easy on the eye and a lot easier to quickly read, I wouldnt class it as legacy at all, its a brand shiny new language just like C# (both are based on old languages). If i were a Windows dev then mebbe things would be different but i'm a web dev so VB.net is the natural progression from ASP 3.0 (which i sorely miss).

J# is the only runt of the .NET litter.

[TheMonkey]

The whole C# vs VB.NET argument is plums, there is no advantage to using one or the other, each has a few features that the other cant do (I'd say VB.NET just squeaks it as the better language but would not kick C# out of bed either), its totally a matter of personal preference. Saying one promotes sloppy coding is ridiculous, a bad coder is a bad coder, doesnt matter what the language is.

Bizarrely the majority of the .net jobs i see advertised are for C# but what I see in the real world on clients sites is the majority of apps being coded in VB.NET, whats going on there? (or are the few places i've worked recently the exception to the rule?)

A bad coder is a bad coder, but I think VB.Net really does promote crap code. I think you are the exception to the rule where recruitment goes. I've never worked with VB.Net on a project unless it's a legacy badly written cock up. I've been a TA on a couple of VERY large C# projects and I can tell you that we just couldn't have done it in VB without shooting ourselves somewhere. Why people use C# over VB.Net:

1. It's an ECMA standard so if VB dissappears, you can still use it in theory. The mono project is making sure of that.
2. Documentation comments (not an issue with .net 2.0 but VB.net ones are fugly)
3. Much easier to read
4. Much easier to write safe code as no unsafe conversions are performed.
5. Syntax similar to Java so there are a lot of Java programmers around.
6. Syntax not similar to VB so it's easier to filter out a lot of old school clueless VB programmers.
7. Constructs are generally smaller (look at how ugly property accessors are in VB.Net
8. Generics don't make you want to vomit your guts out.
9. C# uses OO terms rather than laymans terms (think virtual abstract etc rather than Friend or whatever everyone uses in VB).

I could go on but I can't be bothered. There is just no reason to use VB other than it's a legacy piece of crap and you can't be arsed to retrain.

[Durbs]

The whole C# vs VB.NET argument is plums, there is no advantage to using one or the other, each has a few features that the other cant do (I'd say VB.NET just squeaks it as the better language but would not kick C# out of bed either), its totally a matter of personal preference. Saying one promotes sloppy coding is ridiculous, a bad coder is a bad coder, doesnt matter what the language is.

Bizarrely the majority of the .net jobs i see advertised are for C# but what I see in the real world on clients sites is the majority of apps being coded in VB.NET, whats going on there? (or are the few places i've worked recently the exception to the rule?)

[mcquiggd]

On Error Goto Cleethorpes was one I had seen....

[xoggoth]

C was always best as you could shove loads and loads of stuff into one for loop and make it really totally incomprehensible, which of course should be the aim of any decent programmer. Programming really started going downhill once they starting discouraging GOTO and allowing variables longer than six letters although I fight back by calling all my variables arse.

[ratewhore]

I had to listen to a pimp spell out H-T-T-P on the phone once, it was obvious they didnt have a fecking clue...

Gotta love em!

[Jabberwocky]

I always avoid functional programming - I think it comes from my Fortran years and a fear of long arguments - they are just so common. Nowadays I just stick everything in main and cut and paste in repeated code blocks - saves the compiler inlining it all.

[Spacecadet]

its all about the right tool for the job.

VB.NET is adequate enough for many small-medium size jobs. The real problem as mentioned is the lazy coding monkeys... lack of OO i can understand its another layer of complexity which for small jobs you don't always need, what i really really hate is when you get the cut and paste merchants who can't be bothered to functionalise anything

[mcquiggd]

I disagree.... the language may look verbose but in certain cases its more productive than C# (and C# is my speciality).

To say the best programmers come from a c++ background is a bit suspect - ive seen crappy c++ code and .Net code produced by people who claim to have lived in OO land for decades... common sense, good analytical skills, the ability to understand and develop a solution are not the sole preserve of people who type { or >> a lot.....

[DimPrawn]

VB.NET just looks so childish, is verbose and encourages sloppy thinking.

Best .NET developers come from a C++ or Java background (and have solid OO mindset).

VB.NET devs tend to have come from a VB6 or VBScript background and the lack of OO techniques in their code shows real bad. Cut and paste reuse and lots of modules of functions with many simple type parameters. Messy.

Microsoft, do the decent thing and drop VB.NET and force these types back to plumbing, macdonalds and roadsweeping where they belong......

[mcquiggd]

Well VB.Net isnt too bad... just coming to the end of a 6th month sojourn with it and frankly it does the job, although I prefer C# as the squiggly bits make me look like Im a real programmer...

[Xenophon]

Isn't it amazing that you load your CV with hints that you're a C# guy and you end up having to work with VB.Net and classic ASP (clunk-o-matic languages).

What is the world like.

The world is full of agencies who use rubbish CV-sifting techniques.

[cswd]

Isn't it amazing that you load your CV with hints that you're a C# guy and you end up having to work with VB.Net and classic ASP (clunk-o-matic languages). I'm not moaning but it's not "ideal".