I hate VB .net

[john]

Originally posted by 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.

Thanks Thinker. I know that C# isnt a replacement for C++, what Im trying to say is that from what I have seen in C# it seems to be like C++ in many ways but makes development quicker.

For fear of sticking my foot in mouth Ill just stop there

Orbity

 

[Tribalx]

This is a cool-sucky thing VB is

What sucks for me about the whole VB .Net thing is the fact that I find myself wandering back and forth between VB .Net and Visual Basic 6 and getting nothing done. Don

 

[Volte]

Lazy programmers are not good programmers. There are no "features"
of VB6 that are not in VB.NET, although they may have taken out some
less-functional, dumbed-down-for-the-lazy-programmer elements.
Everything that you need to create just about anything you need
is in VB.NET. They really havent taken away anything.

 

[Divil]

Adjusting mindsets to the newer ways of doing things can be difficult at first. For some things, you have to completely forget about any techniques you might have picked up in VB6.

For instance, you have access to the whole of GDI+ through a great system of managed classes, not least of which is the ability to create resolution-independant bitmaps and draw on them, blt them around and change their properties. And you complain about not having AutoRedraw

 

[Iceplug]

Wow... that post count seems to suit you, divil.

I find myself wandering back and forth between VB .Net and Visual Basic 6 and getting nothing done

That usually happens when you learn any new language with knowledge... when I learned C, it took a while to remember to put semicolons after every line.

 

[Thinker]

Lazy programmers are not good programmers.

I cant let this go by. Never was anything further from the truth.
When it comes to the history of computer programming, from the
first programs entered in with front panel switches, to the most
advanced languages we have today, laziness is the single most
important factor in this evolution.

 

[Bucky]

I think Volte meant lazy in the sense of irresponsible and sloppy
in terms of code and coding standards.

Id think that programmers want to try to be more efficient than
lazy, which in some cases may mean the same thing. Being
efficient means you have to do less work and get the same or
more out of it. So maybe efficient is a better adjective to describe
us, although I guess the driving force of efficiency is laziness
(most of the time). Bah, I dont know.

 

[Volte]

^ Indeed. If you can get by with something that is simpler and minimally
less functional, then go for it I say. However, if there are two methods
of doing something, one better (in terms of functionality) than the other, and you go for the
worse one simply because youre too lazy to look at the other one,
that is, I think, a bad thing.

 

[john]

Originally posted by VolteFace
^ Indeed. If you can get by with something that is simpler and minimally
less functional, then go for it I say. However, if there are two methods
of doing something, one better (in terms of functionality) than the other, and you go for the
worse one simply because youre too lazy to look at the other one,
that is, I think, a bad thing.

Well then Volte, ever looked at Assembly language? You can do with assembly anything you can do with any other language and it can be much faster and more efficent. Why dont we all write our apps in ASM then?

Orbity

 

[Volte]

Because thats usually very inefficient. Sloooooow development span
if you were developing anything major, and it would get done faster
and without much of a performance hit with C++ or VB.NET.

 

[john]

Originally posted by VolteFace
Because thats usually very inefficient. Sloooooow development span
if you were developing anything major, and it would get done faster
and without much of a performance hit with C++ or VB.NET.

VB.NET can compete with this example written by OnErr0r? http://www.syix.com/wpsjr1/rotatasm.zip

Orbity

 

[Thinker]

I think Volte meant lazy in the sense of irresponsible and sloppy
in terms of code and coding standards.

That isnt a definition of lazy, that is an example of how laziness
is acted out. It is like The Force. That is just the dark side.
VolteFaces original statement made no distinction between the
ways laziness can be directed, it just said flat out...

Lazy programmers are not good programmers.

I am a very lazy programmer. But that laziness is directed at the
kind of concepts that gave us OOP to begin with -- encapsulation
and reuse -- rather than toward poorer, sloppier code.

 

[Volte]

Making less work for yourself is not being lazy, its being an efficient
programmer. Having broken code standards simply because you
couldnt be bothered fixing them or learning about how to fix them
is being lazy.

If you spend years making a machine that will do all of your house
work for you so you never have to do it again, does that make you
a lazy person? I guess in a way, and I guess that could be applied here.
So I see what youre saying, but I also stick with what I am saying.

Planning ahead != lazy
Taking the easy way out == lazy

So I guess in programming, youre kind of planning ahead so you
can take the easy way out in the future. Er.. Im confusing myself.

 

[Bucky]

Planning ahead != lazy
Taking the easy way out == lazy

Using C-style syntax, are we?

Id expect:

Planning ahead <> lazy
Taking the easy way out = lazy

 

[Volte]

Hehe, Ive been C#-ing for a few days.