C
Cor
OHM,
See my comment at Jon.
Cor
See my comment at Jon.
Cor
Cor said:As often discussed C# and VB.net have both advantages but not in the code
itself.
The advantage VB.net that it is somehow like a natural language
The advantage of C# that it is more strict.
Both are good idea's but they conflict with each other.
That does not make in my opinion things absolute more better or worse.
It is just the point of view what you find important decide that.
And because I am writing this from the VB.language group I did make the
comparising with a natural language like English.
I don't think Mark wants the member to be accessible via a variable. He just
wanted to know why there is a difference. IMHO.
Cor said:I did not say it is an advantage, I disagree that it is a disadvantage.
In VB.net you can use more different methods/functions (whatever) to do the
same thing if you want that.
But that is maybe exactly the difference between the people who use the
language.
I have the idea, that for C# people often everything has to be direct
visible in true or false.
(What by the way I always say it the basic of programming, but that is
another discussion).
Jon Skeet said:a type should
be seen as very distinct from an *instance* of the type, but VB.NET
is
Cor said:We will not agree now. However, in past I had the same idea as you.
However, VB.net has the strange thing, that it is the first programming
language that I have seen, which real acts in some degree as natural
languages, I like that.
Disadvantage is than that it has the same as every natural language, it can
be good or bad used, and therefore it can give a lot of misunderstanding.
But that is always with words you saw it, I wrote
(What by the way I always say it the basic of programming, but that is
another discussion).
What is by the way, as I always say, the basic of programming, but that is
another discussion
(That was about true and false)
If your point is meant to be that natural
language can easily be misunderstood, then it's certainly true - think
of C# as a language which helps to make sure that your use of language
is easily understood, and VB.NET (in this case) as a language which
allows the above.
Now consider that I can't understand what you wrote
above - why is that a *good* thing in your view?
Cor said:C# is not a langueage that is easily understood because it cannot be
misunderstood.
(I think that you mix up true and false with the wrong references)
A natural language needs less comments in the program language and that I
find a very *good* thing.
(Comments are often very bad because they are not checked by rules)
Cor said:I am not talking about static, threads, access members etc.
I was writing about the behaviour of the VB.net language and that it is in
some cases very inconsistent.
That is the nature of this programming language.
I did it when I started it by comparising it with a natural language, which
has that also, and you did disagree that.
It looks for me if you try in this discussion to take a single element and
show that it is true or false and therefore everything is true of false.
However, in most cases things exist in big collections from elements which
can be true or false and the complex from it can again make something true
or false (but mostly much more subjective).
A language as VB.net has the advantage that it needs fewer comments than the
more mathematical languages, but the consequence from this is that it has as
disadvantage that it has inconsistency problems.
Therefore is changing one element the route to making from VB.net a language
like C#. What is for me not a good idea, as well as it is in my opinion not
a good idea to make from a language as C# a language like VB.net.
The issue here is that Static members in C# are prevented from being
called through an instance of the class they are members of. This ought
to be the case for VB.NET as well in my opinion.
It sounds like you're basically going to refute *any* criticism of
VB.NET, which makes this a pretty worthless discussion...
Cor said:Because I do not disagree those points, I disagree that you have to make
changes in a language.
It is in my opinon it is the same as the fact that languages as
Java, C#, C++, Javascript, which all derive from C use the == operator,
while that can nowadays made easy optional and use simple the = when there
is no conflict. But it is a part of the the language and therefore you
should not do that.
And therefore I disagree that you have to change things in a language that
are part from it if they are not in conflict with themself.
Nobody says that you have to use it.
You agree that there is no advantage to having it, but there
*is* a disadvantage to having it?
Separating == from = adds clarity - it makes it very easy to see the
difference between an assignment and a comparison. If there were two
different characters for the two different ideas, that would be even
better, IMO.
No, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth having an opinion on how
it could be improved, or whether a language would be better off without
a certain feature even if it's not worth going as far as changing it
now.
Cor said:Do not put words in my mouth which I have never said, than I have to give a
reaction.
No I noware said that
there is an advantage that is language consistenty in
time and that is the only argument I use in this to long thread.
Your opinion and mine about this are different. I am using Arabic characters
for values, Latin for the alphabeth and I thought Greeck for operators. I
have no need for the new Calfornian ones. But that is not important.
My opinion is that arguing about this kind of things is the first step to
improvement.