New to application programming... Please HELP!

[Guest]

After spending hours at microsoft.com and Borders bookstore, I've come to a dilemma. I have conquered the art of simple web design (html/dreamweaver/php/sql/javascript) but I am interested in application programming - and I am lost in terms of which way to turn

My online exploration lead me to believe that C++ was a great language because of its power and versatility. I read many online tutorials to understand the general syntax of the language, but soon came to realize that without extensive knowledge of the Windows API or other libraries, it would be hard to create anything useful with the language

I decided to head over to the bookstore to learn more about C++ and the Windows API. I found plenty on C++, but nothing on Windows API. (I may have these terms wrong - but you know what I mean) I had a previous notion that I didn't want to spend hundreds of dollars on a microsoft dev program thinking that it would be worthwhile (and more cost effective) to learn the actual code on my own. But, as I said before, I can't find anything to learn how to do that

So, I am thinking to do any application programming, I should probably "find" one of the microsoft Visual programs

Next problem

ASP.NE
Visual Basi
Visual C
Visual C+
Visual J
Visual Studi

To name a few..

and... to make it worse some of them have the ".NET" and some do not

I've posted on many message boards and emailed a ton of people, and nobody seems to want to help

I think that most of the above programs are just different interfaces to the same general program - and when compiled, they would all have similar machine code

So, what I'm asking is

1) Is learning how to program windows type programs (using the Windows API) even something to consider
2) Which of the above programs are good for what purpose? Which one would you recommend

Note: I would want the capability of interfacing my programs with the web, fax, print, etc

Any suggestions
****
I've copied the above message many many boards with no response. Please can someone shed a bit of light on this issue or point me in the right direction. I've searched high and low and can't find any answers in plain english.

 

[Guest]

Well, hello there Mr. Newbie... Let me see if I can answer your questions as succinctly as possible

Q: Is programming Windows using the API the best way to go

A: If you understand the basic gist of how C language works (functions, arguments, and return values) works, then you need to understand that Windows is, for lack of a more in-depth explanation, a program. The API, or "Application Program Interface", therefore, are simply pre-compiled C language functions (C is the predecessor to C++). Everything that runs under Windows uses the WIndows API, no mater what language it is written in

Some languages will attempt to "wrap-up" or encapsulate the Windows API to give it a more object-oriented look and feel. With a GDI and event-driven environment like Windows, doing this makes it a LOT easier to program than natively programming the API. Depending on what you want to do with your programs, you will may or may not care to have direct access to the API (and from what it sounds like you want to do, you really won't). If you're writing things that are very resoruce intensive, such as games or other high-performance software, you may need a LOT of direct access to the API. On the other hand, if you're writing very ordinary Windows programs, i.e. simple user interfaces, or the back-end for web aplications, you will need little or no access to it

C++ is, by far the language of choice for those who consider themselves "real" programmers. That is because of C++'s extensive use of operators and data types, and it's object-oriented structure, lend it well to doing almost anything. There is nothing you cannot do with C++, and that is not the case for some other languages, such as Visual Basic (which, for example doesn't handle moving memory objects around very well... Not that you need to all the time, but it's nice to have that flexibility when you need / want it.

For all of it's object-oriented look and feel, Windows, and the WIndows API is in and of itself NOT an object-oriented thing. In fact, for a new programmer, the task of programming Windows via its native API can ofte times seem convoluded and non-intuitive. If you thought understanding pointers for C++ was rough, and didn't quite get the whole thing with main() and why it had that "int argc, char* argv[]" thing in there, then have a look at the WinMain() function of a prototype Windows application and you'll see just how deep the rabit hole goes...

In an attempt to make programming the API easier, moer intuitive, and to provide a standard by which to make applications more consistent and extensible (maintainable), Microsoft introduced the Microsoft Foundation Classes, or MFC. MFC dosn't contain any executable code, per se; it is a hierarchical "application framework" of C++ classes that was designed to present the most useful functionality of the Windows API in an object-oriented way. MFC makes it (with some argument) considerably easier for the C++ developer of average skill level to venture into the rather ominous world of Windows programming. MFC is not a programming language; as I said, it's simply a set of pre-defined C++ classes, from which you inherit and then extend with your own code to develop WIndows programs

Are you still there? Okay...

Q: What about all these languages? Which one is the best? Which one is the right one for me

A: Languages are tools, and as your granddaddy told you "Son, use the right tool for the right job..." C++, as I said, is an extension of a language called "C", and C language has the virtue of (according to tis original designer, a fellow named Dennis Ritchie with Bell Labs) being a language developed "by programmers, for programmers." Again, as I said before, most people who regard themselves as "real" programmers are programming in C++, or at the very least C++ is where they cut their teeth in the world of real programming. Having said all that, C++ is not the end-all-be-all of languages..

Visual Basic, for example, is the (very, very, very, very, very, very) extended version of an old personal computer language called "BASIC" (Remember your old Commodore 64? LOL... I still have my TI-99/4A <smug grin> ) Visual Basic, while barely recognizable as BASIC by those old standards, has the virtue that, being very object-oriented, it is extremely easy to use, relatively powerful, and easy for even non-programmers to lean <gasp>. Visual Basic (VB, as it's called) is a good language for putting together a functional program in a big hurry. Ad hoc programmers like VB, and it's also useful as a prototyping tool even for "real" programmers, when you're only concerned about getting the mock-up of an interface going, for example, and not too terribly worried about al that stuff under the hood until later in the design phase. The major drawbacks to VB are that, because it's so easy to use (even for those (cursed) non-programmers), it encourages sloppy design. Throwing something together in a hurry is seldom ever a good way of getting the job done, especially if you think you're gonig to need to go back and extend or modify its functionality later. VB is also somwhat limited in the things it can do. It's use of operators and data types is somewhat restrictive, and as such, some tasks (such as memory management and dynamic memory allocation) can be tedious if not impossible

Java, a language which you're at least vaguely familiar with, I gather (even if in it's watered-down JavaScript form for the web), is Solaris' answer to the problem that C++, being a platform independent language, either needs platform-specific extensions or a lot of work on the developer's part to make it integrate well with modern GDI's, among other things. Java takes the best functionality of C++, wraps it up a pre-defined set of classes that are cross-platform compatible, and does a good job of providing a language that can do a lot of things, whether you're on a Linux, Novell, Solaris / Sun, AS400, Mac, or MS-based system. It accomplishes this with something called a JIT ("Just In Time") compiler, that actually waits until you run the program for the first time to finish compiling it. The JIT fine-tunes the program's compilation process to meet the needs of the platform its running on. Java, however has some of the same limitations of VB. When you're working within the Java pre-defined classes to do things, yuo're fine. While you "CAN" go out and get access to things like the native Windows API, when you do so you're (as they say in JavaSpeak) "playing outside the sandbox", a practice which is not recommended and kind of out of the spirit of Java programming. Java is a good language, but it never took off as well as some other implementations, such as MFC and Borland's OWL ("Objects With.... um.... "Links", I think...) did. (OWL is Borland's own C++ framework to encapsualte the Windows API. I have never touched it, and know nothing about it.) The C+ and Java camps really kind of did a lot of head butting several years ago, as Microsoft decided to invent their own flavor of Java, called J++ (and enter JScript, and the obscure and almost totally unused J#). I think the widespread exisiting support for C++ and the uncertainty over the exact future of Java have doomed the language, at lest on the MS paltform, as a development language and has banished it to the realm of JavaScript, which in contrast has quite a presence on the web as you know.

Q: What's all this .NET this and that stuff?

Wow... I actually out-typed the limit for a post... LOL Never had that happen before. Does this mean I have to charge you $19.95 for my "e-book"? LOL... I'll pick this up in the NEXT post...

JIM

 

[Guest]

This is my second of two posts on this issue, because I ran out of space in my original reply so.... Picking up where we left off...

Q: What's all this .NET this and that stuff

..NET is, in a nutshell, Microsoft's answer to the inconsistencies and incompatibilities of the differenct languages. C++ has been extended, extruded, and enhanced, to become a new .NET specific language called C# (C Sharp). Visual Basic has been extended, to a point in my opinion where it's almost useless and unrecognizeable as VB) to become VB .NET, and the best of C++ with MFC and Java have been married to form the world's most useless and obscure language, J#. What .NET does for your shop is to provide cross-language compatibility between different components in an application. This means that guys like me can write hard-core C# to support the middle-tier of an enterprise application, and the UI guys can use VB .NET to write the simple user interfaces. All the components (dll's, usually) can then be tied together into oen application (now we call them "assemblies... Yeah... a new term.... Like we don't have enough of 'em already eh? ) Because all the languages, C#, J#, VB .NET.... Because they all support each others data types, they are completely compatible. There isn't really anything you can do in one that you cannot do in the others. I personally find that C# is the language of choice for writing Windows applications and the back end of web apps, a fact which, given my obvious love for C++ should not, by this point surprise you. I'm not alone on that one. Again, most people who consider themselves "real programmers" are programming now ni C# if they're not using C++. While C++ extended the functinoality of C language, C# is not the same with respect to C++. The language syntax is very nearly the same, and if you know C++, you can learn C# in a VERY sort period time.... C#, however for example is not the "omnipotent" language that C++ is. C# does pretty much encapsulate the Windows API's, so you really don't even come close to working with them directly. Oh, you "CAN", but then you're putting yoru code inside of #unsafe blocks, something that just by the sound of it makes me shy away from doing it ("Hey man.... I would do this if I was you...." LOL) C# does a VERY good job of wrapping up the Windows API's and writes very efficient executable code. Because C# is an MS Platform-specifc language (i.e., you won't see C# for Linux, at least not right now) it's quite lean and mean; it's native support for everything Windows does is right there for you, and it doesn't have a lot of things you don't need. One thing C++ newbies often like about C# is that one of its more noteable attributes is that it does NOT use pointers. It uses Java-like references, and also has "garbage collection" to handle the deallocation of dynamically allocated resources so, you get the best of both worlds-- The dynamic allocation that only C++ afforded you in the past, and the easy and simple memory management of Java and VB objects

Q: What's Visual Studio .NET and all these different versions of the languages all about

A: Visual Stdio is the design-time environment and compiler the MS implementations of C++, VB, and the other languages, like J++, J#, etc. Visual Studio .NET is the latest in this family of products. In addition to its support of the old C++ and VB, Visual Studio .NET also now support C# and programming using the .NET franework. There are actually two versions of the .NET framework out there now, 1.0 and 1.1. Make suer you're using the most current one. Visual Studio .NET has two version now, 2002 and 2003. 2003 is not backward compatible with 2002; Meaning, that once you use 2003 to open up a 2002 project, you will not be able to open it with 2002 again, so be careful if you run both versions. 2003 is, also I beleive using a newer version of the .NET framework (1.2 or maybe 2.0?) I'm not 100% sure on this, and i do know that theer are some substantial changes to the way things work between 2002 and 2003 so ask about those things, and think carefully when maknig your choices

I don't know if I've answered a single one of your questions or not, but as a programmer who was largely self-taught, I can appreciate the plight of one who just sometimes really is hungry for some straight answers... I hope I have given you that. Please do the courtesy of passing the same along one day when it's your turn to carry the torch...

Best of luck to you

JIM

Q: So which one is right for me?

A: From everything you've said, I'm going to cast my voite for C#. I think that if you're going to write MS Windows applications, you're going to find that C# is really the best way to go if you're doing this professionally and want your work to look professional and to be maintainable. You're also going to want to know enough VB to understand how ASP pages work, and the whole concept of ASPX pages (called "webforms") in the MS .NET framework. Your current knowledge of Java will be helpful in learning C#, and frankly it's going to look VERY familliar to you. I didn't like C# at first, but I'm inherently resistant to change... LOL After having worked with it hands on for several months, I have come to realize that it really is a language of choice for programming WINDOWS. Of course, for anything non-MS, I'm still a flag-waving C++ man.

 

[Jeremy Todd]

One language note that I think has been left out here is that, in the
..NET world, the language you use very rarely has any impact on the finished
product. VB.NET and C# (and J#, if anyone uses that) all get compiled to
the same intermediate code called MSIL, so there is really no performance
difference based on which language you pick. This was not true in years
gone by, when C++ had a very large advantage over old-school VB, and there
is some lingering prejudice based on that.

Picking a .NET language is a matter of personal preference, not a
performance or ability concern. There are some things you can do in one
..NET language that you can't do in another (integrated XML documentation in
C#, better interface implementation and instant compiler errors in VB.NET),
but these are generally minor and are more stylistic things than anything
else.

For application programming, I would -definitely- recommend forgetting
about C++ and the Windows API, and just use a .NET language. You can do
just about everything without touching the Windows API (though you can still
get to it if you need to), and the skills you learn will be safe for quite a
few years -- the Windows API as we all know it is due to be phased out in
the next two years or so as the next version of Windows creeps along. As to
what language is "better," there is no correct answer. C# has a syntax
based on C++, so if you're a C++ programmer you'll be right at home. VB.NET
has a more English-based syntax, so it tends to be less cryptic and easier
for non-C people to read. Either way, the finished product will look and
run almost exactly the same, so it's all up to you.

Jeremy

 

[Cor]

Hi Jim,

Nice written and especially with that addition from Jeremmy,

However for real machine code programmers are C++ programmers probably often
only users.

Just my thought,

Cor

 

[Jeremy Todd]

Jeremy,

Point well taken on the the fact that project X in C# and project
Y in VB.NET all compile to the same MSIL intermediate. My issue,
and that of a lot of "real" programmers with VB is that, by the very
nature of the fact that it's so "non-cryptic" (I know what you mean,
but honestly C++ is not that cryptic, but people want to program
computers without understanding "how" to program.) But, by the
very nature of the fact that languages like VB are easy and so non-cryptic,
their lack of structure encourages poor programming style.

Heh...I'm surprised to see you on a Microsoft group, since that's a very
UNIX-like attitude.

Seriously though, do you think that's still true in the .NET world? I'd
be the first to agree back in the VB5/6 days, but I don't see any real
difference between VB.NET and C#. Apart from things like using
"Overridable" instead of "virtual," and End blocks instead of curly braces,
they work pretty much exactly the same way. In fact, I've even come to
prefer VB.NET because of its better support for interface implementation,
and because getting compiler errors in real time cuts way down on typos.

So, I agree with you that experienced programmers coming from a C++
background are likely to have better planning skills than those coming from
VB6. But do you think a -new- programmer entering .NET on the ground floor
is going to acquire poor programming practices because he chooses to start
with VB.NET instead of C#? I don't. In fact, that's one of the
"complaints" I see fairly often about VB.NET: it's lost part of the RAD
component that made earlier versions so popular. I don't think that's a
great loss, frankly, and I think it's made VB.NET just as mature a
programming language as C# or Java. The only thing I don't like is that you
can turn off Option Strict, which you should NEVER do as far as I'm
concerned.

Poor design mistakes, no matter how efficient a language may be,
will almost certainly result in inefficient, if not dysfunctional code.
I think VB has its place, but as someone who has taught
programming to college students, I am dismayed at how many
people sit down and throw a form together in the GDI, make it
change colors or something, and think they're "programming".
VB is BAAAD for creating that facade with new programmers,
and once someone has cut their teeth of the VB way of thinking,
it's REALLY hard to turn them around in the "real world" and get
them to do good analysis and task planning before just forging
ahead and banging out code.

I agree, but I think old-school VB gets a bum rap in a lot of ways, the
same way Windows does in the OS world. I don't think it -created- bad
programmers, I think it just filled an existing demand for an environment
bad programmers could use. If VB didn't do it, it would've been a (further)
dumbed-down version of Delphi, or a completely new product invented by
someone else. The problem is people who want to start working on something
without learning how first, not the product that they use to do so.

Jeremy

 

[Guest]

The way I see it, we don't have any disagreements here. I agree with everything you just said, 100%

In fact, the very fact that VB.NET has changed so much from the old VB I don't think is necessarily a good thing. Again, I agree with you that bad programmers, like bad cooks (and bad artists) are going to exist. Bad programmers are no more the result of easy languages than bad cooks are the result of frozen dinners. It does happen to be though, in both cases, that when you make something so easy that people don't have to learn anything to do it, that more people will opt to do it whereas before, they would have stayed the Hell away. :

.....and yes, I do have a bit of that Unix elitist thing going on. As you may have seen in my original post, I learned to program when the other kids were learning to ride their bikes. Unix people have the virtue of having to understand the system they work with, sometimes at its lowest levels, because that's how you have to interface with it (at least in the past.) Uxix users' vision of the "perfect computer" was one they could program to do anything. Bill Gates' version of the perfect computer is the one that anyone can use and is useful to everyone. The two visions really have nothing to do with one another, even though the two camps have made quite an argument over which is "better" than the other

On the whole VB.NET thing, I think it was great as an ad hoc language, for putting up small apps that you needed in a hurry or for early implementations of an interface or application structure to demonstrate proof of concept without havnig to make a large resource investment in all that it took to get an MFC application off the ground. VB.NET does very much mirror similar structure and concept to C#, albeit sligthly different syntax (just enough to confuse the crap out of me when I want to use it for something. LOLL) I think VB.NET has, in fact run so far from Momma, that it's now something totally different. I can't say it's "useless", because lots of people are using it, but me thinks learning VB.NET is no easier than learning C#, whether you have C++ experience or not. To me, it seems like a pointless language, because it has lost the handful of things that I found useful about VB

Years ago, I took a course from Dennis Ritchie on C language, and he said that in the programming world, we have a myriad of programming languages, each to suit special purposes. ForTran, for example he said was great for scientific applications, because of its ability to handle precise numbers and complex equations; COBOL was designed to meet the specific needs of business and financial industry.... etc. He said that at the core of it all, there are really four languages used in academia in computer science. They are BASIC, Assembler, Pascal, and C. BASIC is a language well-suited to teaching students (then in a largely computer illiterate generation) ABOUT computers.. this is input, this is output... etc... Assemler was a language used from the enginerring perspective, by the guys who really had to care exactly which way every one of those binary switches was flipped, and what was going on inside all those registers... Pascal was a language developed to teach computer science students the concepts of structured programming (remember line numbered BASIC... Man, I thought I was gonna hate computer science the day they told me thing could only go in ONE direction... LOL) Finally, he said, there is C language, a language desinged BY programmers FOR programmers for PROGRAMMING. I don't think any of those statement are any less true today than they ever were, however some don't apply. We teach object-oriented programming now over structured analysis methodologies, and I don't think anyone younger than me knows that BASIC had line numbers. :

I think BASIC should have stayed a simple language. I think it's a great tool for teaching "the rest of us" (those who have no interest in programming, in this context) about the fundamentals of how computer programs work. VB is a WONDERFUL tool for scripting things like Excel, and is a tremendous asset because it means the simpletons can now do their own dumb reports without dumping that crap on the IT dept. VB and C each do some things well, and I think they should have left VB as it was. C# is a great thing, and I didn't think I'd ever say that, because I detest Java (mainly because so many Java programmers think they know as much as we C++ people and all know they don't <snicker>) I was worried that C# was goign to become some constricting thing, that was going to take away my feeling of technical omnipotence that i was endowed with the day I picked up C++ over ten years ago.... I have since lived that down. It's just my personal opinion that MS should stick with C#, fix all the crap that doesn't work right in Visual Studio, and give us all a free copy.... :

JIM
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world... Those who understand binary, and those who do not."

 

[Jeremy Todd]

I think VB.NET has, in fact run so far from Momma,
that it's now something totally different. I can't say it's
"useless", because lots of people are using it, but me
thinks learning VB.NET is no easier than learning C#,
whether you have C++ experience or not. To me, it
seems like a pointless language, because it has lost the
handful of things that I found useful about VB.

Well, I can see that to a certain extent. And if C# was able to do
everything I wanted to do, I'd love to use it. But as long as no language
has full support for all features of the CLR, I'd be careful about calling
any of them "pointless." Maybe the fault is Microsoft's, for giving their
premiere .NET language less support than they should. C# has a lot going
for it, but it's incomplete as it stands (maybe that will change in Whidbey;
I hope so). Also, don't neglect the importance of the IDE. It may not
factor into the design and planning stages, and it's not a language issue
per se, but a good IDE makes things -much- simpler while actually coding,
and VB.NET's editor is much slicker. I really wonder why, too, since they
did such cool things with C#'s editor -- especially the XML documentation,
which I would've LOVED to have had in C++ on any platform.

I think BASIC should have stayed a simple language.

BASIC and VB.NET have pretty much nothing in common except the keywords
"Dim" and "Sub." I don't think a comparison with BASIC as it existed 20
years ago is fair. On the other hand, VB.NET and C# are substantially the
same. Really, the syntax differs only in which strings are used to denote
which language features -- to the point that you can run a clever
search-and-replace on the source of one and do a good 80% of the work of
converting it to the other.

Or, to use your example of the four base languages of BASIC, assembler,
Pascal, and C, I don't think VB.NET inherits from BASIC at all. I think
VB.NET and C# both inherit from Java, which in turn would probably fall
under the C category (maybe Pascal, depending on what you think of it ).
I don't see any conceptual differences between the .NET languages, so I
don't see why one should be considered inherently better than the others.

C# is a great thing, and I didn't think I'd ever say that,
because I detest Java (mainly because so many Java
programmers think they know as much as we C++ people
and all know they don't <snicker>)

Okay. Here's a chance for you to help me understand exactly what you
mean. We've never disagreed that VB6 and earlier versions were in some ways
dangerous, so let's stick strictly to VB.NET. If you think C# is "great"
and VB.NET is "pointless," then there must be some important differences
between the two. Can you outline what they are? The only significant
differences I see are the names of keywords.

Just trying to understand,
Jeremy

 

[Cor]

Hi Jim,

I am one from the time we had all to do with cables.

We did not have assembler, that was a great invention especially macro
assembler.

Than we got languages you know very modern, COBOL as you mentioned it did
stay a long time the most productive tool.

A long time later C was developed, for high school students, a toy, in real
environments not productive, so COBOL did stay on top.

Then we got Basic even more a toy for less educated people.

After that came Pascal because that basic was weird with those line numbers
which we where in the real programmer's world forgotten a long time before.

However, they did stay and none of the toys was as productive as the tools
before.

Real software was made by so-called 4th generation tools, with what you can
make everything you never did want to make.

Now we have dotNet with languages as C# and VB.net, both well chosen to be
good in more places than only the university.

In my opinion, this are again tools for the real programmer after COBOL to
make real productivity and able to beat the products made with 4th
generation tools.

However only my thought.

Cor

 

[Cor]

Hi Jeremy,

The difference between Vb.net and C# is in my eyes so simple.

C# is a language for university people, who want to prove academically what
is better.

VB.net is a language for business people, who want to prove with the results
what is better.

However, they never can make that clear to each other, because they both
find the things the other find important not important.

Of course again, just my thought.

Cor

 

[Jeremy Todd]

You asked that, if C# and VB.NET are (almost
inarguably) the same, how can one be "great" and the
other "useless"... I don't think I chose my words correctly
there. I should have said that VB is "redundant".

But see, the only basis for saying that is existing prejudices about
previous languages. Coming from a C++ background, you naturally latch onto
C# as the "correct" language, and VB.NET as the "knockoff." In fact, both
languages were developed concurrently, both are equally powerful, and both
are only loosely based on previous languages, with most of the features
coming from the CLR or the .NET Framework. Coupled with the fact that, as
you say, VB.NET is just too difficult for non-programmers to use, there's no
danger of dumbing down (or at least, the danger is no greater than it is
with C#, which is equally difficult). So the only reason for concluding one
of them is preferable is, well, personal preference.

Again, I don't think they should have done away with VB;
I just don't think they should have tried to make it like C#.
If you want to program like C#, then I say learn C#...

But couldn't I just as easily say that if you want to program like
VB.NET, then use VB.NET, and stop trying to force the square peg of
low-level syntax into the round hole of a high-level language? In a lot of
ways, the .NET system is closer to VB than to C++: pseudo-interpreted,
high-level, dependent on a large base library to function. How you view
what is "correct" is based solely on where you're coming from.

I like the way C language makes you think about what
you're going to write.

Does this still apply to C#, though? You don't have to deal with
pointers, you have fancy garbage collection, and segfaults are a thing of
the past. The logic you are using is that C/C++ requires you to know what
you're doing, and C# has a syntax similar to C++, therefore C# requires you
to know what you're doing. I disagree that the conclusion follows from the
premises. Now, there is still some correlation, because experienced C++
programmers are going to pick C# over VB.NET purely out of familiarity. But
for people entering on the ground floor, I don't think C# will encourage
good programming practices any more than VB.NET.

Programming / system analysis is a skill that I think is going
to go through quite a bit of evolution as we see the next
generation of systems emerge.

All I ask for is a comfortable slave pit when the AI's take over.

You're right on C#'s shortcomings, and I'm holding out faith
that this is changing. It is, after all a new language.

That's a good point. If MS can manage to get C# whipped into shape for
Whidbey, I'd be very tempted to switch. You make a good point that we don't
really need two functionally equivalent but semantically different .NET
languages. I just disagree about whether it's quite so clear-cut which the
"real" one is.

You know it just has occurred to me, that what started out as
one man's inquiry has turned into quite a thread between the
three of us.. and the fellow has never even come back to thank
any of us... I sure hope he reads all this. I don't know about
you, but after writing my "book" yesterday I abuot couldn't
type for an hour.. LOL

I thought you were a keyboard man!

Jeremy

 

[Cor]

Hi Jim,

I think we agree that.

However, you never saw a weird C program?

And when you really want to write productive you can not keep on with those
half written VB.net programs, however they will stand and will all have
"option strict off".

And so what, in my opinion the most important is that you and I can do with
the VB.net tool things in a better way when we want that.



Cor

Hehehe... I don't know about all that now Cor.... Coming from someoen

who's mostly self-taught, and not from the world of academia, all I erally
know is business. Again, I don't question which language is better at
getting results, as I think we'll agree they both pretty much do the same
things. My issue is more with the way of thinking of "VB" people vs. "C"
programmers. Visual Basic takes a bad rap for the fact that most VB
programmers are sloppy programmers, a failing of the programmer, not of the
language. So, I'll conede that C# may be no better a language than VB, but
I don't agree with the design methodologies of most of the people who write
VB.