END function in .NET???

there are few things you can do in C# that can't be done in VB.NET and with each release of VS.NET (IE, 2002, 2003, and soon to be 2005) the gap seems to be getting smaller. They keep adding. Either way the differences are very very small.. and 99% of the time you won't use the additional things.

A lot of people say C# is better because .NET was written in it.. but that really doesn't mean anything...

as far as salaries go.. I read an article on that and C# programmer get paid more, not because C# is more powerful a language.. but generally C# programmers come from a C background versus VB.NET programmers coming from a VB background..

there is less learning curve because they have been working with full OO languages already, where VB users are now learning these new features...

Well, I have worked with PHP, PERL, JavaScript, MySql, VB, VB.NET (HTML of course who hasn't) So I don't think that applies in my case (of course I could be wrong).

JavaScript for one, being only a scripting language, is OOP and OOP is available in both PERL and PHP though both of those languages do include quite a few intrinsic functions and are both scripting languages.

Though I must say OOP is pretty much all that I use in these languages as OOP ROCKS!!! It is the most flexible, reusable, logical way to program (again in my most humble opinion).

So I would say that it would really rely on your background as a whole.

well that is why i said generally... of course it could be looked at on a case by case basis... but when you are going to work at some big company... and they are doing applications in .NET, chances are they would rather hire a C# developer with lots of C on his resume over a VB.NET programmer with VB6 on his resume (or her resume.. sorry laides)

but to each his own.. i make a pretty damn good living and I don't touch C or C#, simply because I don't need to.

Not that I'm advocating one language over the other, it's really more preference, but there are some things you can do in C# that can't be done in VB. An unsafe code block is a block of code (marked as unsafe) where you can use pointers. That's probably a bad explanation, check it out on MSDN.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Hildner
Not that I'm advocating one language over the other, it's really more preference, but there are some things you can do in C# that can't be done in VB. An unsafe code block is a block of code (marked as unsafe) where you can use pointers. That's probably a bad explanation, check it out on MSDN.

i think they are "unsafe" or "unmanaged" because they go outside the scope of the framework and if not done correctly can cause a major crash versus just the runtime throwing up an exception...

The documentation says unsafe is needed for stuff that uses pointers and is not verifiable by the command language runtime. I'm not sure if that means unmanaged or not. When I think unmanaged, I think unmanaged C++. That is, does not rely on .NET at all.

I have the book, C# Complete, I think it's called, that has a pretty good section on some things that C# can do that VB.NET cannot, it also lists some stuff that C# cannot do, but C++ can.

Personally, I've never had to use anything that C# can do that VB.NET can't, I guess it applies somewhere.

I agree whole-heartedly with what you say about salaries, BTW.

Quote:

Originally posted by kleinma
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...tinternals.asp

Well, I have to admit that's interesting. Some of the points I see in that article:

1. Most old-style methods (CInt, Mid, Left, etc) are wrappers for the system class equivalent methods.
2. There are some distinct cases where some of the old-style methods don't have system class alternates.
3. The authors say that some old-style calls are actually faster than the system class equivalents (even though they call system class methods).
4. You can't prevent a VB.Net executable assembly from loading Microsoft.VisualBasic namespace.

OK. Let's see:

1. Right, that sounds reasonable. But in this case, why would we want to use wrapper classes unless we have to ? Generally speaking, IMHO the only right place to use wrapper classes purposefully is to expose primitive types as objects (like the Integer class).

2. Right again. That's what I've been saying for some time now, if you HAVE to use old-style functions and know what you're about then go do it.

3. That didn't sound right, how can methods that are actually wrappers for the system class be faster ? I quote:
Quote:
The Mid, Left, and Right methods in Visual Basic .NET all call String.Substring. However, the Visual Basic Runtime methods are optimized to prevent string allocation for some common cases. For example, the following simple case is 85 percent faster using the Visual Basic Runtime methods versus the System method:
VB Code:
Dim s1, s2 As String 
s2 = "abc"
 
' fast, prevents string allocation
s1 = Left(s2, 3)
' SubString is not optimized for this case
s1 = s2.SubString(0, 3)
Recommendation: Use Mid, Left, and Right, which are found in the VisualBasic namespace.
So I wrote the following:
VB Code:
Dim i As Integer
 
        Dim s1 As String, s2 As String
        s2 = "abcdef"
 
        Dim sw As StopWatch = New StopWatch()
 
        For i = 1 To 100000
            s1 = Mid(s2, 1, 3)
        Next
 
        Debug.WriteLine("Time1: " + ((sw.Peek() / 10)).ToString + " msec")
 
        Dim sw2 As StopWatch = New StopWatch()
 
        For i = 1 To 100000
            s1 = s2.Substring(0, 3)
        Next
 
        Debug.WriteLine("Time2: " + ((sw2.Peek() / 10)).ToString + " msec")
where StopWatch is a copy of the StopWatch class used in the Prime Numbers contest. The results I'm getting are that the String.Substring method calls are being executed slightly faster. That much about 85% speed gains. BTW, here's the IL for the Mid method.

Code:

.method public hidebysig static string Mid(string str, int32 Start, int32 Length) cil managed { // Code size 107 (0x6b) .maxstack 3 .locals init (int32 V_0, string V_1) IL_0000: ldarg.1 IL_0001: ldc.i4.0 IL_0002: bgt.s IL_0019 IL_0004: ldstr "Argument_GTZero1" IL_0009: ldstr "Start" IL_000e: call string Microsoft.VisualBasic.CompilerServices.Utils::GetResourceString(string, string) IL_0013: newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.ArgumentException::.ctor(string) IL_0018: throw IL_0019: ldarg.2 IL_001a: ldc.i4.0 IL_001b: bge.s IL_0032 IL_001d: ldstr "Argument_GEZero1" IL_0022: ldstr "Length" IL_0027: call string Microsoft.VisualBasic.CompilerServices.Utils::GetResourceString(string, string) IL_002c: newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.ArgumentException::.ctor(string) IL_0031: throw IL_0032: ldarg.2 IL_0033: ldc.i4.0 IL_0034: beq.s IL_0039 IL_0036: ldarg.0 IL_0037: brtrue.s IL_003f IL_0039: ldstr "" IL_003e: ret IL_003f: ldarg.0 IL_0040: callvirt instance int32 [mscorlib]System.String::get_Length() IL_0045: stloc.0 IL_0046: ldarg.1 IL_0047: ldloc.0 IL_0048: ble.s IL_0050 IL_004a: ldstr "" IL_004f: ret IL_0050: ldarg.1 IL_0051: ldarg.2 IL_0052: add.ovf IL_0053: ldloc.0 IL_0054: ble.s IL_0060 IL_0056: ldarg.0 IL_0057: ldarg.1 IL_0058: ldc.i4.1 IL_0059: sub.ovf IL_005a: callvirt instance string [mscorlib]System.String::Substring(int32) IL_005f: ret IL_0060: ldarg.0 IL_0061: ldarg.1 IL_0062: ldc.i4.1 IL_0063: sub.ovf IL_0064: ldarg.2 IL_0065: callvirt instance string [mscorlib]System.String::Substring(int32, int32) IL_006a: ret } // end of method Strings::Mid

I don't know about you ppl, but that doesn't seem like what I'd want to do.

4. That was an interesting revelation. Since that's true, I'll concede that any use of old-style methods doesn't associate with it the penalty of loading the DLL.

Since we're also talking about C#, there's also another point that I must make. In my team there are 4 ppl using .Net, one being a good C# programmer without any VB background. We have some projects in maintenance and I feel it's good that every programmer can maintain code regardless of whether it's VB or C#. I can imagine what the C# guy would say if he saw:
VB Code:
Dim s As String = IIf(some condition, Left(s1,2), Mid$(s1, 2, 3))
"Darn, what the heck is that ?" That's what he'd say.

Apologies for the lengthy post. :blush:

Cheers,
NTG

OK,

Since I seem to have all of the experts in this forum I thought I could pose this question here as I am still a bit of a newb.
When calling functions in your application that get called time and time again. Is it bad if you Dim variables in those functions.

Code:

Private Function getFileProps(ByVal path As String) Dim myStreamReader As New StreamReader("C:\myFile.txt") Dim myFileInfo As New FileInfo(path) Dim myFileSize As Integer = myFileInfo.Length Dim myXMLDocument As New XmlDocument myXMLDocument.Load("C:\myXMLDoc.xml") ... End Function

Or is this the way it should to be?

Code:

Private Function getFileProps(ByVal path As String) Dim myStreamReader As New StreamReader("C:\myFile.txt") Dim myFileInfo As New FileInfo(path) Dim myFileSize As Integer = myFileInfo.Length Dim myXMLDocument As New XmlDocument myXMLDocument.Load("C:\myXMLDoc.xml") ... myStreamReader = Nothing myFileInfo = Nothing myFileSize = Nothing myXMLDocument = Nothing End Function

I read somewhere that setting most stuff in .NET to Nothing does just that Nothing and that the garbage collector will pick them up.

Yet my application I am currently working on is how you say "The 12 days of Christmas"!

This function would be called every 10 seconds. For testing purposed it is being called every 2/10ths of a second.

Please let me know the right way.

Quote:

Originally posted by cpatzer
OK,

Or is this the way it should to be?

Code:

Private Function getFileProps(ByVal path As String) Dim myStreamReader As New StreamReader("C:\myFile.txt") Dim myFileInfo As New FileInfo(path) Dim myFileSize As Integer = myFileInfo.Length Dim myXMLDocument As New XmlDocument myXMLDocument.Load("C:\myXMLDoc.xml") ... myStreamReader = Nothing myFileInfo = Nothing myFileSize = Nothing myXMLDocument = Nothing End Function

I read somewhere that setting most stuff in .NET to Nothing does just that Nothing and that the garbage collector will pick them up.

Hi,

I thought the variables would be set to Nothing immediately the code went out of their scope.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike Hildner
Other than that, IMHO, C# code is much cleaner and easier to read than VB.

That's if you know C#. I know VB.NET and it's easier for me to read VB.NET code. Sense? :afrog:

Quote:

Originally posted by cpatzer
OK,

I read somewhere that setting most stuff in .NET to Nothing does just that Nothing and that the garbage collector will pick them up.

Yet my application I am currently working on is how you say "The 12 days of Christmas"!

This function would be called every 10 seconds. For testing purposed it is being called every 2/10ths of a second.

Please let me know the right way.

Your second method is fine. Scope is limited to the function.

Links on th GC:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...etGCbasics.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/1100/gci/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/1200/GCI2/

So I don't or I do have to set the variables to nothing?

Thanks