Yes that is what programmers of Java and C# and VC++
what do you think is that right ??
do we have to migrate to other languages ??
Thank You
Printable View
Yes that is what programmers of Java and C# and VC++
what do you think is that right ??
do we have to migrate to other languages ??
Thank You
Yes? :ehh:
Your question is difficult to understand; would you rephrase... everything?
Oh I get it. He's saying, "The 'golden age' of Visual Basic is now gone. Should we be moving to other languages now?" He wants you to respond to it.
Ohhh, ok! I don't understand White Hart. :D
The answer is "No."
Also No as VB is the entry language for many new programmers as its easiest to start learning.
Moved
No No Never
Dont forget that they have VB 9 in the works. So that should keep the perpetual VB ball rolling :D
yea but i guess vb6 is totally different from vb7,8 or 9 (leave the designing part ;) )...
Yes and VB 6 will eventually taper off but not for a long time still. This thread was originally in the VB.NET forum so I think VB 6 was not implied. ;)
okay did u see karl e peterson page seeking support for classical visual basic ?seems like the end is so near :(( everytime i open the .net 2003 start page it scares me .will take some time for me to learn .net .vb6 is actually so much fun.u can atleast pop up a msgbox without importing anything
Its just as easy in .NET to popup a messagebox. You dont need to import anything just fully qualify it and your good to go.
1) VB6 is still viable and will continue to be for many years.
2) Rob, they may come out with VB9, but it may resemble VB6 as much as VB 2005 does.
ohhh i was comparing it with java.i just hate that language .you import so much to just print something on the console .even the interface is so yuckkk
Oh great - another "is basic going to die thread" ;)
I've coded in BASIC (mainframe, PDP-11 and VAX-11 BASIC) since 1980.
I've had my own software shop since 1986 - coding in BASIC - and making money. I even employee others!
I've heard since 1980 that BASIC was not a real language, that you could not develop commercial applications with BASIC - yadda, yadda, yadda...
When I hopped onto MS VB 6 five or so years ago I was kind of disappointed by the apparent hobbling together of functionality. You could tell it had a background in a simpler PC era and had grown and struggled to get where it got.
Now that I'm using VB.Net (VB 8) I am so happy that MS started from scratch and created a thoroughly consistent language for programming on extremely complicated PC's. Just setting the FONT last night programatically to BOLD was a struggle to code - but once I got the syntax correct I can appreciate the comprehensive tool that they have given us to use!
I fully trust that VB9 will add power to this product - not upset it with changes that cripple production of code.
Migrate to other languages - bah :D
But you do have to admit that writing a driver for some fast hardware is a bit difficult in VB. :)
You use th appropriate language for a particular project. Not one for all. ;)
Exactly :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Whooo Hooo! I finally answered a thread correctly :lol: :D
*Claps for RobDog*
And you didn't mention IE. Double kudos!
[Removed]
I think VB2005(.net framework 2) is the most best programming languages now
and i think that because anything i want to do it ..i can do it VB2005
and i notice that all programers of other languages hate vb ( all versions ) ...
thank you
That's a generalisation. I primarly code in PHP, Javascript, and C# and I don't hate VB.NET.
I don't hate VB6 either, it never fails to remind me why I love other languages :D
As long as it works for you, use what you want.
I mean most of them :-)
I love VB 2005 because anything i want to do it ..i can do it VB2005
So what's the point of this thread...?
** nothing to see here, move along now please ***
Quote:
So what's the point of this thread...?
what do you mean ??Quote:
** nothing to see here, move along now please ***
he means you started off comparing vb with other languages asking for a reason why vb is better and then u say that u actually like vb coz u can do anything u like to.
Can you lick your elbows with VB 2005?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaid
But comparing VB6 with VB.NET is actually quite irrelevant, since VB.NET and C# are almost the same. It's about the framework now.
Now J#... there's a language that should die a death that only Oprah deserves.
Hopefully it pulls ASP.Net down with it. :X
I started looking into RoR (Ruby on Rails) and I might actually convert...
Care to step outside, ser? :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
I had a look at Ruby too, I'm thinking, I'm thinking.
It just doesn't extend to other areas well, ya know? It's like, "Hey, I can stop using PHP now, but what am I going to do?"
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I can't say much until I tinker with it more, but my biggest drawback with ASP.Net right now is it's almost like MS tried to streamline too much. The VB/C# code behind is great for people to just jump between webforms and winforms (I'll admit, I was one of them. Did alot of .Net desktop development. Decided one day to throw together a web app with a textbox/button. It worked and my first reaction was "Oh wow, I didn't realize I was a web developer too!").
It just seems like the more complicated the projects I build with ASP.Net, the more it becomes apparent that MS' goals with ASP.Net were to make it mimic a winform instead of giving ASP.Net its own true optimized technology. Just IMO!!
I would disagree: the goal (for MS) is I guess to fit ASP into RAD environment as much as it is possible and that's what .Net is offering but you can still write your html code if you wish... it may not be worth doing it when you have such robust tool right in your hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
Which only further proves my point. By making webforms and winforms so interchangeable, you don't need seperate camps anymore for the two technologies. One developer could do both, but in order to make the transition between the two easier, the focus was shifted to making them both feel similiar instead of optimizing their usage.Quote:
I would disagree: the goal (for MS) is I guess to fit ASP into RAD environment as much as it is possible and that's what .Net is offering
I kind of keep hearing this - do you all really mean that a webform created with ASP.Net (and runs in a browser?) can function and look just like (and I mean function exactly) like a winform?Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
No, not at all (obviously). I'm talking about the perception from the IDE. The look and feel of building the two different apps is (IMO) overly similiar. Because of this, the deeper I get into ASP.Net applications; the more it feels like the similiarities are enforced rather then optimizing for the technology. And like Rhino said (in the context I used; not a direct quote), this does encourage RAD because more people need to know less.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Well that certainly didn't clear up anything for me ;)
I'm going to have to do some ASP.Net work - and see what it look like - guess that's the only way to understand.
Ohh, I thought you were being cynical and intentionally over-simplifying my retort. I didn't realize it was a true question. I'm sorry. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
It does in alot of ways. It can also not in alot of ways (that should clear you right up ;)). The code behind is very similiar, but all of that can only be processed on postback (where the client POSTs the page back to the server). Using scripting languages, you can have client side; but more and more winform developers who make the "easy" transition to ASP.Net just do it on postback (I'm was one). As far as the code behind goes, it is all built on the CLR. Everything you can use in winforms, you can use in webforms (threading, sockets, ect). The only real difference is configuring permissions with IIS.
That's kind of where ASP.Net and RoR differ. ASP.Net is a compiled language where RoR is an interpretted language (like PHP). It still uses the CLR and all the power of .Net, but optimizes the pages for client side technology. So it's still OOP, yo don't lose out on that; it's just that the technology is optimized (putting power before ease basically).
I don't know much about RoR yet, I just started getting into it recently.
ASP.NET wasn't built or meant to be an alternative to winforms. It's a RAD tool for web development. It allows you to concentrate more on the business logic rather than having to worry about the UI.
That's what makes it 'better', you can now develop enterprise-level web applications more efficiently and faster than if you were to use something like PHP, ASP 3.0, CGI and so on. In addition, thanks to Visual Studio, you can work and debug ASP.NET applications that reference class libraries, web services... even LEFT NIPPLES!!!
... and I think that is the main advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
You know, I think that if an IDE for Java quite comparable to Visual Studio had been made, I believe a lot of us here would be talking and debating about Java technologies. And there'd be fewer forums (and no chit-chat forum because we wouldn't have a sense of humor.)
I guess it's only fair to include this article (for anyone who might be searching for RoR):Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08..._security_bug/