I hate VB .net

[MKing]

Is it just me, or are there any other VB programmers out there who just cant get there head round this new VB/C thing called VB.NET?

 

[Thinker]

You have come to the wrong place to complain about .Net. It is
a serious improvement over any earlier version of VB. There
are pieces still missing, but it can only make good programmers
better (while making bad ones worse).

 

[wyrd]

Those who have not programmed in a pure OO language before (ie; Java) may find the sort of flexibility .NET offers a bit overwhelming at first and even frustrating at times because it works so differently then previous versions. You really have to change your whole way of thinking when it comes to OO programming compared to linear programming that VB6 pretty much offered. To be honest I was about to give up on VB until I got .NET. I was unpleased about the way VB handled OOP, especially since it was very slow.

.NET just offers way more flexibility, speed, scalability and RAD options. VB is finally a real programming language that can compete with C++ in a serious way. Not to mention that its probably going to kill Java (it may take a few years, but I can see it coming).

 

[Divil]

Microsoft knew when they made the decision to go the whole way with VB.NET that some less competant programmers would be left wondering what on earth was going on. It takes even the best programmers a while to get their heads around the different mindset that is VB.NET, but once you have you will see just how good it is.

Complaining about it here wont do you any good, however. Microsoft have said theyll support VB6 until 2008 so it looks like you have plenty of time to learn.

 

[Volte]

VB.NET took me about half-an-hour to pick up. Seriously. The concept
is really not that hard, if you understand VB6. If you dont understand VB6,
it will take you a bit longer, but is still an excellent place to start learning
the OOP concepts and stuff.

I felt the same way as you at one point, but once I actually tried
learning it, it came to me quite easily. The MSDN system is great,
as is the new highly-documented intellisense system.

 

[Robby]

Im with Volte, I felt like a total newbie the first couple of days, then I started with a few walkthroughs, and well I really dont want to go back to VB6.

BTW, Im also loving C#.

 

[wild wolf]

hello,

Take this from a java freak, after i learned the power of C#.NET, i stopped working on java coz it offered me everything i liked about java and it made my work much faster. i converted all my codes to C#.net

asrar

 

[Neil Fallon]

Originally posted by wild wolf
hello,

Take this from a java freak, after i learned the power of C#.NET, i stopped working on java coz it offered me everything i liked about java and it made my work much faster. i converted all my codes to C#.net

asrar

C# was written for Java developers in an effort to get them to move from Java to a Microsoft product. After Microsoft lost the Sun suit they didnt have a choice but to come out with a language that was similar to Java. C# applications are also compiling on Linux under Mono. That is the major step (cross platform programming) that had to happen for Java developers to make the switch.

 

[Neil Fallon]

Originally posted by Thinker
You have come to the wrong place to complain about .Net. It is
a serious improvement over any earlier version of VB. There
are pieces still missing, but it can only make good programmers
better (while making bad ones worse).

Actually, I think anything to do with vb.net (good or bad) should be heard. If its a VB developer having problems and venting then there shouldnt be any restrictions on them doing it in the Random Thoughts forum. Isnt this section here for peoples thoughts on VB.NET or just for the good thoughts?

 

[Derek Stone]

there shouldnt be any restrictions

I dont see anyone telling him he cant express his opinion, however his argument is slim to nothing.

 

[MKing]

I am sorry that the argument has so far been too slim!

The problem is that VB.NET is a product that is so far removed from the previous versions of VB that it is hardly fair to use the VB name at all.

It is however much closer to C or Java. I can understand why so many people believe this is a good thing. If you are a developer who has used a range of languages then VB.NET probably feels like a very comfortable language to use. However, if you have only used VB then VB.NET is a mamoth departure from traditional VB.

Many of the new concepts are very strange. Up to Vb.NET we were told by Microsoft not to bind data to forms as this was inflexible and innefficient. Now they are saying that binding data to controls is the best/only way to display it. I find this really incredible and totally unrealistic. Maybe in the sample applications or very simple projects it is feasible to bind data to controls, but in real world complex apps this is totally unacceptable.

ADO.NET is another example of where something changes totally, but by keeping the same name Microsoft pretends it is the same thing!

Ruby forms were great! they were flexible enough to do everything I ever required of them. They could act as a nice simple form object, or as a class when required. We seem to have lost a lot of usability by going to Win Forms, but gained very little.

My basic gripe is this; In an attempt to make it easyer for VB programmers to do web development, and in making VB a first class language, Microsoft have removed all that made VB great in the first place. Its simplicity and usability are gone.

Customers do not care how good we are at programming, what they want to know is does the application deliver what they want on time and every time. With VB6 we could do that with .net we cannot.

 

[Volte]

None of these concepts are "new" at all (at least not most of
them.) They have all been around in C++ for a very long time, VB.NET
has just integrated them very deeply into the framework.

ADO.NET and ADO are not the same thing, nor do they have the
same name. BASIC and Visual Basic are not the same thing, yet
they share a similar name, and the same goes with VB and VB.NET.

We have lost no functionality with going to WinForms; we have
gained an absolutely insane amount. You can do 10x what you
used to be able to do with forms now; Forms in VB werent classes
in VBs eyes, so they were hardly expandable at all. In the case of
VB.NETs eyes, every object is a class making it very expandable
indeed.

One point I do agree with is that VBs simplicity is gone. But the usability
is still there; you just have to know the language. With VB6, any
newbie programmer could sit down and make a pseudo-decent
program (albeit probably filled with redundant code and broken
coding standards), but with VB.NET you have to learn and
understand the language in order to get the most out of it.
Complaining that VB.NET isnt good because it takes a little bit of
effort isnt a strong argument at all.

As for your last point.... youre..... well.... wrong. VB.NET makes development
much faster. With the new OOP style of VB, you can do what
you need to do in a much shorter time than with VB6. You
just need to know how to do it. Just take a look at C++, the most
popular language for large-scale apps; you think its easy making
programs like Word or Adobe Photoshop in C++? A program like
Photoahop would be unthinkable in VB6, but attainable in VB.NET.

You just have to put some effort into it.

 

[Robby]

Originally posted by MKing
The problem is that VB.NET is a product that is so far removed from the previous versions of VB that it is hardly fair to use the VB
name at all.

A couple of years ago I read the White Paper that MS released, and yes, I agreed with that statement. I was under the impression that they kept the name just to entice VBers to pickup this new language. If they named it something else, how many of us wouldve jumped on it.

Well I picked it up earlier this year, and I havent looked back since. Ok I have a used Java and C++ many years ago but never professionally and nothing I can remember.

Ruby forms were great!

I dont know what that is.

My basic gripe is this; In an attempt to make it easier for VB programmers to do web development, and in making VB a first class language, Microsoft have removed all that made VB great in the first place. Its simplicity and usability are gone.

I find ASP.NET the easiest thing, I re-code my entire web-site last week. It took less than a week, I made one aspx page and one vb class. The classic ASP version took a month, it had 20 asp files and 20 html files.

Customers do not care how good we are at programming, what they want to know is does the application deliver what they want on time and every time. With VB6 we could do that with .net we cannot.

Once you get the hang of it, you will find it easier and faster as I do.

 

[MKing]

I am sure you are right to say that these new concepts have been around in C for a long time. That is what made C so good. It is also quite possible that the reason VB was so good was that it did not have to deal with some of these concepts.

One of the most amazing things about VB3/4/5 and 6 (probably 1 and 2 as well, but I never used them) was that it was very simple to learn and new programmers could write useful programs very quickly. This importance of this strength should not be underestimated. It is unlikeley that VB would have been any kind of success if it had not been to simple to use.

I am probably expecting too much to think that an experienced vb programmer could start writing production code in .net straight away. I am however, quite worried about the number of bad reports of the current training being offered. I cannot currently see any reason to move to this platform. The investment in retraining would be huge, and I cannot see where any productivity gain is likley to come from.

 

[Volte]

Originally posted by MKing
One of the most amazing things about VB3/4/5 and 6 (probably 1 and 2 as well, but I never used them) was that it was very simple to learn and new programmers could write useful programs very quickly. This importance of this strength should not be underestimated. It is unlikeley that VB would have been any kind of success if it had not been to simple to use.

This isnt necessarily a good thing. Its because of its simplicity and
ease of use that it is widely considered a "newbie language". Of
course, the people that call it that are obviously uninformed, they
do have a point that it is a very beginner-like language.

I am probably expecting too much to think that an experienced vb programmer could start writing production code in .net straight away. I am however, quite worried about the number of bad reports of the current training being offered. I cannot currently see any reason to move to this platform. The investment in retraining would be huge, and I cannot see where any productivity gain is likley to come from.

It took me less than half-an-hour to learn the concepts of .NET, being an
experienced VB6 programmer. It may be a bit advanced for the rookie
programmers, but its still an excellent place to start. If its business
you are concerned about, then you do have a point. The time may
not be right to switch now, because of the lack of experienced .NET
programmers. If the system that you have now with VB6 works, theres
no point switching. But thats no to say that you shouldnt still
persue .NET; itll get more popular very fast.

 

[Answer]

i have to say that at first i was VERY reluctant to move to .net. Infact i hated .NET. But due to advice from the forum i bought a book and read 2 chapters out of the book, and now i LOVE .net.

I will never go back.

 

[Divil]

Humans, by nature, have a tendancy to oppose change. When I began to see how much Id have to re-learn, I was skeptical too, its just natural. Everyone is different, but I like to plunge in headfirst with a big project and then be forced to learn it all as I go through.

I find some peoples biggest hurdles with learning .NET is trying to do things the way they would in VB6, whereas there are now developments which make it either totally different, or even totally unnecessary to write the same code.

 

[Iceplug]

I recently downloaded and installed the .NET on my computer... I have so far learned everything that I ever knew in QBasic in terms of VB.Net & C##. Now, I have to search for the other concepts that Ive been missing. Its quite fun... I love .NET programs...
* Iceplug hugs his version of .NET

 

[john]

Originally posted by Neil Fallon
C# was written for Java developers in an effort to get them to move from Java to a Microsoft product. After Microsoft lost the Sun suit they didnt have a choice but to come out with a language that was similar to Java. C# applications are also compiling on Linux under Mono. That is the major step (cross platform programming) that had to happen for Java developers to make the switch.

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that is what J# was for. I also thought from reading about C# in a word document downlaoded from Microsoft (whish is actually from 2000 so may be outdated) that C# is a kind of .NET replacement for C/C++ with the development speed of Visual Basic. Meaning that C# would be the succesor to C++ (in .NET terms anyway). Although I do know how similar Java is to C/C++, I think it is a little bit of stretch say that C# was written for Java developers.

Here is the starting part of this document:

From Microsofts C# docs
C# is a simple, modern, object oriented, and type-safe programming language derived from C and C++. C# (pronounced

 

[Thinker]

No, the focus has changed since the release of J#, but C# isnt
a replacement for C++. They wouldnt have gone to all the
trouble to upgrade C++ for managed code. C# is still the main
focus, J# is to make it easier for Java and especially J++ users to
make the transition.