Agencies vs clients vs tech knowledge

[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?)

[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]

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.

[nobody here but us chicke]

I just want to support

setjmp and longjmp


Oh, and inline assembler.