G
Guest
I'm an experience programmer. I don't know visual basic but I want to learn VB.Net. Do I need to learn VB before learning VB.Net
TIA
Mar.
TIA
Mar.
H
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
* "=?Utf-8?B?TWFyZ2FyaXRhOTM=?= said:
No.
G
Guest
I feel much release when seeing you answer
Could you explain to me a little more if VB and VB.Net has any related language? Why call VB and VB.Net if they are not related language
TIA
Could you explain to me a little more if VB and VB.Net has any related language? Why call VB and VB.Net if they are not related languageTIA
T
Tom Shelton
I feel much release when seeing you answer
TIA
They are related, but they have some major differences as well. It is
not required to know VB, to know VB.NET. In fact, because of the
differences, it may hurt you to study VB.CLASSIC if your going to be
doing .NET programming...
S
Shannon Geraci
I think what Herfriend is saying is that if you are an experienced
programmer then picking up VB.NET shouldn't be difficult.
The VB. NET language has a similar syntax to VB6 (and earlier versions).
IMO, the important thing to learn is the .NET Framework and then whether you
choose VB.NET or C# doesn't really make a difference.
VB.Net if they are not related language?
programmer then picking up VB.NET shouldn't be difficult.
The VB. NET language has a similar syntax to VB6 (and earlier versions).
IMO, the important thing to learn is the .NET Framework and then whether you
choose VB.NET or C# doesn't really make a difference.
little more if VB and VB.Net has any related language? Why call VB andMargarita93 said:I feel much release when seeing you answer
VB.Net if they are not related language?
A
_Andy_
I feel much release when seeing you answer
TIA
Herfried's right. VB and VB.NET are completely different. I have often
wondered why it is called "VB.NET"... but I suppose it is Visual.. and
it is [quite] Basic.
VB and VB.NET are unrelated as languages, but are related in what they
try to do. Basically, VB.NET is object-oriented (and does a very good
job at it - beats Java and C++ hands-down). VB tried to implement OO,
but it was essentially a hack.
I have yet to meet a VB developer who moved to VB.NET and wants to go
back. Best to forget about VB. Forget it ever happened.
Rgds,
B
Brian Henry
classic VB is basicly dead now in terms of imporvements. VB.NET took over
and has a whole new library of classes and features. Learning VB then VB.NET
will cause confusion, because there are major changes between the two.
and has a whole new library of classes and features. Learning VB then VB.NET
will cause confusion, because there are major changes between the two.
learn VB.Net. Do I need to learn VB before learning VB.Net?Margarita93 said:
T
Tom Shelton
I feel much release when seeing you answer
TIA
Herfried's right. VB and VB.NET are completely different. I have often
wondered why it is called "VB.NET"... but I suppose it is Visual.. and
it is [quite] Basic.
Bull. VB.CLASSIC and VB.NET are very much related. They are different,
but looking at them side-by-side they obviously have similar roots.
True, except that they are related - and they certainly don't beet Java
and C++ hands down as OO languages.
C
Chris Dunaway
I recall the same question asked about C and C++.
There were those who said you had to know C in order to learn C++ and those
who said you didn't need to learn C, C++ was its own language.
I was surprised to see this argument about VB and VB.Net.
Just for the record, my opinion is that knowing VB is not required.
A
_Andy_
I feel much release when seeing you answer
TIA
Herfried's right. VB and VB.NET are completely different. I have often
wondered why it is called "VB.NET"... but I suppose it is Visual.. and
it is [quite] Basic.
Bull. VB.CLASSIC and VB.NET are very much related. They are different,
but looking at them side-by-side they obviously have similar roots.
Ok, I'll give you that there are similarities. Of course, you can
write code that looks very similar indeed, but that code wouldn't
exactly be making the best use of the technology. But wouldn't you
agree that learning VB.CLASSIC would in no way help learining VB.NET?
Java (not including the latest beta) doesn't support shadowing or
strong typing. Both are key to decent OO. The absence of "freind" also
reduces the possiblities in developing strong domain objects.
I'm an OO puritan, so I always regarded VB.CLASSIC as a toy. So I
moved to Java as soon as it came out, and enjoyed it for a time. Once
..NET came out, my prayers were answered: a robust modelling tool that
allowed for strong design techniques (just when they said that OO was
dying). Of course, I'm never totally happy... but I hear that MS are
going to implement typedef...
Rgds,
A
_Andy_
I was actually one of those who recommended learning C first. When C++
came out, the only full documentation was Stroustrup's, and his
writing was almost incomprehensible. It did get better though...
Rgds,
G
Guest
You definitely do not need to know previous versions of VB to learn VB.NET. It's a totally new language with new syntax and methods for doing everything.
I'm finding it a pain in the neck trying to convert to VB.NET because I already knew previous versions very well. I was (am) still stuck in my old ways I guess. I can see the advantages of VB.NET but I sure do miss some things about VB6. The design environment in VB6 is WAY BETTER than VB.NET.
It's just a new technology we have to learn to keep up with the Jones
David
I'm finding it a pain in the neck trying to convert to VB.NET because I already knew previous versions very well. I was (am) still stuck in my old ways I guess. I can see the advantages of VB.NET but I sure do miss some things about VB6. The design environment in VB6 is WAY BETTER than VB.NET.
It's just a new technology we have to learn to keep up with the Jones
David
T
Tom Shelton
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:36:06 -0800, "Margarita93"
I feel much release when seeing you answer
TIA
Herfried's right. VB and VB.NET are completely different. I have often
wondered why it is called "VB.NET"... but I suppose it is Visual.. and
it is [quite] Basic.
Bull. VB.CLASSIC and VB.NET are very much related. They are different,
but looking at them side-by-side they obviously have similar roots.
Ok, I'll give you that there are similarities. Of course, you can
write code that looks very similar indeed, but that code wouldn't
exactly be making the best use of the technology. But wouldn't you
agree that learning VB.CLASSIC would in no way help learining VB.NET?
Yes, I would agree, as I already stated in my reply to the OP, that
learning VB.CLASSIC is not a benifit when moving to .NET. It's not a
matter of syntax - which is mostly familiar, but a matter of paradigm
which is different.
What do you mean Java doesn't allow strong typing? Java is most
definately a strongly typed language. And, Java does have the
equivalent of friend. There is no keyword for it in Java, but the
default access (no access specified) is to make the method/class visible
only in the current package.
The only thing on your list, that I can see that Java doesn't suppot is
shadowing... If anything since VB.NET by default is not typesafe
(Option Strict Off), it is less OO then Java - from a puritanical
standpoint (which I'm not).
T
Tom Shelton
You think that the VB6 IDE is better? Wow. IMHO, VS.NET is much, much
better.
G
Guest
Absolutely.
1) The code modules are separate and organized much better. I do not like the fact that a forms code module is one long code module separated by lines and the routines are all willy nilly
2) In VB6, there is better control in the design environment over the controls. Moving controls and placing them on a form is a pain in the ass in VB.NET, unless I am doing something wrong
3) I would really like to be able to view two different procedures from two different forms/modules at the same friggin time
I'm certain I will become more comfortable with the way VB.NET does things in the long run. VB.NET is obviously a better language but the IDE is lacking, probably because it has to cater to all the different languages in a similar manner
Davi
1) The code modules are separate and organized much better. I do not like the fact that a forms code module is one long code module separated by lines and the routines are all willy nilly
2) In VB6, there is better control in the design environment over the controls. Moving controls and placing them on a form is a pain in the ass in VB.NET, unless I am doing something wrong
3) I would really like to be able to view two different procedures from two different forms/modules at the same friggin time
I'm certain I will become more comfortable with the way VB.NET does things in the long run. VB.NET is obviously a better language but the IDE is lacking, probably because it has to cater to all the different languages in a similar manner
Davi
A
Al Reid
the fact that a forms code module is one long code module separated by linesDavid said:
and the routines are all willy nilly.
controls. Moving controls and placing them on a form is a pain in the ass
in VB.NET, unless I am doing something wrong.
two different forms/modules at the same friggin time.
in the long run. VB.NET is obviously a better language but the IDE is
lacking, probably because it has to cater to all the different languages in
a similar manner.
The things I miss the most are the add-ins I wrote for creating procedures,
comment, Headers, etc. (although I can probably rewrite them) and the
ability to edit and continue. I really miss edit and continue!
L
Lubos Hrasko
VB.NET. It's a totally new language with new syntax and methods for doingDavid said:
everything.
already knew previous versions very well. I was (am) still stuck in my old
ways I guess. I can see the advantages of VB.NET but I sure do miss some
things about VB6. The design environment in VB6 is WAY BETTER than VB.NET.
I agree with you about the old habits. In my consulting practice, I
generally recommend that VB.CLASSIC developers move to C#. This way forces
them to re-learn OO development and don't drag all of their old VB habits
and coding methods to .NET.
Cheers,
Lubos
C
Cor
Hi Tom,
I do much agree with Andy, a lot of people think in my opinion that C means
OO and what is OO in C is OO. Definitialy, C++ was a greath step to realize
polyphorisme and inherritance. In vb.net and C# you are using inherriterance
while you are not even thinking about it.
The way C++ is using pointers to archieve some things is in a way for me the
same as Cobol is using redefines.
I think that progress goes on and that VB.net (and C#) beats those old
languages.
Just my thought,
Cor
I do much agree with Andy, a lot of people think in my opinion that C means
OO and what is OO in C is OO. Definitialy, C++ was a greath step to realize
polyphorisme and inherritance. In vb.net and C# you are using inherriterance
while you are not even thinking about it.
The way C++ is using pointers to archieve some things is in a way for me the
same as Cobol is using redefines.
I think that progress goes on and that VB.net (and C#) beats those old
languages.
Just my thought,
Cor
T
Tom Shelton
VB.NET is no more OOP then Java. They implement almost the exact same
features when it comes to the 3 pillars.
Look, I'm not saying that Java is better - I'm just saying that it isn't
"less OO" then VB.NET. Given the choice between Java and anything .NET,
I'd take .NET everytime (and this has been recently made clear to me
having been sort of helping a little with a Java webservices client)
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
Powered By Gentoo Linux 1.4
"Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz smiled very slowly. This was done
not so much for effect as because he was trying to remember
the sequence of muscle movements. "
C
Cor
VB.NET is no more OOP then Java. They implement almost the exact same
Java is already a time back in my memory and I have only learned it. I do
not know the new improvements from Java (although improved C in my opinion)
and because of that: "did you see me write Java somewhere?
)
Cor
Hi Tom,
Java is already a time back in my memory and I have only learned it. I do
not know the new improvements from Java (although improved C in my opinion)
and because of that: "did you see me write Java somewhere?
)Cor