VB.NET or C#

[Al Wilkerson]

Hey guys, just curiuos what you thought?

What is easier to learn and get an entry-level job in either VB.NET or C#?
for Windows or Web development?

 

[Guest]

I'd use C#. I don't have real reasoning behind it; I just like it. Syntax is
clean. Plus it just makes a lot of sense since I came from a Win32/C++
background. I'm taking VB.NET in college right now, and it's not pretty. The
syntax just seems all mangled from a professional standpoint. I'd say use C#
so you can easily navigate to newer languages that have the same syntax feel.
This makes you a much more efficient programmer. Hope this helped.

 

[Patrick A]

c#. VB is weak.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Al,

This are International newsgroups. Your question is not to answer when you
don't say exactly where you live and than it is even better to look in your
local newspapers what skills are most asked.

Just my thought,

Cor

 

[Gerry Hickman]

c#. VB is weak.

I think you mean "VB is Wack"

Only C# has the ECMA stamp of approval.

 

[Patrick A]

That's true, VB is Wack and C# is Phat.

 

[Gerry Hickman]

That's true, VB is Wack and C# is Phat.

Hehe, great minds think alike!

 

[alejandro lapeyre]

Can you explain that?
(I use VB)


Regards,
Alejanro Lapeyre

"Gerry Hickman" <[email protected]> escribió en el mensaje

That's true, VB is Wack and C# is Phat.

Hehe, great minds think alike!

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Alejandro,

Something the same as people who have a brand new Ferrari however not yet a
drivers license.



Cor

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Alejandro,

Can you explain that?
(I use VB)

Do you know what the "B" in Visual Basic stands for?

Nuff said.

 

[Sean Hederman]

Hi Alejandro,


Do you know what the "B" in Visual Basic stands for?

It's a bit unfair to hold a languages name against it isn't it? The fact of
the matter is that VB.NET 2003 can do pretty much all the things C# can do,
and in a syntax that many find easier and more compelling. Now, Whidbey
appears to dramatically change the languages, C# for the better and VB.NET
for the worse, which is why I switched to C#. Nonetheless as a VB.NET
programmer before my "conversion" I was more advanced than all the C#
developers in our company. It's not the language that defines your ability,
it's your ability that wields the language.

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Sean,

It's a bit unfair to hold a languages name against it isn't it? The fact of
the matter is that VB.NET 2003 can do pretty much all the things C# can do,
and in a syntax that many find easier and more compelling. Now, Whidbey
appears to dramatically change the languages, C# for the better and VB.NET
for the worse, which is why I switched to C#. Nonetheless as a VB.NET
programmer before my "conversion" I was more advanced than all the C#
developers in our company. It's not the language that defines your ability,
it's your ability that wields the language.

VB was a disaster from the get go. It never had a bright future (being
tied to only one platform) and none of the standards bodies would touch
it with a barge pole. C# is syntactically close to JScript and PERL, and
a perfect candidate for ECMA approval.

In some ways, one could say it's a "personal choice", but unfortunately
I have to make that choice on behalf of the corporates, and guess who
gets the sack if I make the wrong choice?

What exactly have they done in Whidby? This is news to me...

 

[Brian Gideon]

[snip]

It's not the language that defines your ability, it's your ability
that wields the language.

Sean,

Absolutely. I've seen VB apps perform better and faster than C++ apps
because of the skill differences in the programmers. That's why I'm
skeptical of a company turning two programmers loose on a competition
to develop a demonstration program to evaluate which platform is better
for the company's future. The better programmer will usually win the
competition, not the better platform.

Brian

 

[Sean Hederman]

Hi Sean,
[Snip stuff I agree with] What exactly have they done in Whidby? This is
news to me...

C# has added support for iterators and anonymous methods. VB will not ship
with support for these. VB.NET 2.0 will also reintroduce the concept of a
default form instance from VB6. When they took it out of VB, for VB.NET 1.0,
I convinced myself that they were finally accepting that VB.NET could be a
proper OOP language, and working from that basis. The changes to VB.NET 2.0
compared to C# 2.0 indicate that VB is *starting* to go back down the road
of being a toy language again. And don't get me started on My Namespaces.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Sean,

My idea too.

Cor

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Sean,

[Snip stuff I agree with] What exactly have they done in Whidby? This is
news to me...

C# has added support for iterators and anonymous methods. VB will not ship
with support for these. VB.NET 2.0 will also reintroduce the concept of a
default form instance from VB6. When they took it out of VB, for VB.NET 1.0,
I convinced myself that they were finally accepting that VB.NET could be a
proper OOP language, and working from that basis. The changes to VB.NET 2.0
compared to C# 2.0 indicate that VB is *starting* to go back down the road
of being a toy language again. And don't get me started on My Namespaces.

Wow! Thanks for the heads-up about this.