|
demofo wrote:
access raw memory with pointers
Why on earth would you want to do something so dodgy? That breaks every structured / OO programming rule in the book.
demofo wrote:
No need to argue,C++ is always superior to VB
Depends upon your definition of superior. (more later)
demofo wrote:
.MFC sucks,it simply a wrapper of win32API and have no sense to OO(like OnInitDialog,OnDestroy..e.tc),
This gets to the heart of the matter. The pure C++ language used on it's own is fantastic, VB can not stand against it. The problem comes when you want to use it on the Win32 system.
C++/MFC makes it unnecessarily hard to use COM objects. The whole point of OO programming is to abstract things. This is meant to HIDE complexity. In VB if I want to use a COM object I just create it and use it, VB hides all of the API calls and handles reference counting and all of the other crap. In C++ I am responsible for so much crap that the job becomes unnecessarily more complex.
demofo wrote:
2.Microsoft intentionally build better support on VB,whatever in IDE,library and source sample
You're right to say that the VB IDE has always been much better than C++'s (now irrelevant as all use the same IDE). As I've said before, if you are comparing the C++ language with the VB (pre .NET) language then C++ wins by a mile. If you include the IDE and other tools then VB starts to catch up, and if you look at my argument (which was about productivity) - as you said yourself:
demofo wrote:
VB did a pretty good job in quick and dirty application development
Unfortunately, as I've said before, this has led to any idiot believing they could program (hence your dirty comment).
Anyway crap un-reusable code comes from crap (or no) analysis. You can write crap code in ay language.
demofo wrote:
VB.net should be trashed, it is nothing but a clone from other OO language with cryptic syntax
Get your facts right. VB was created in 1964, C was created 7 years later in 1971 as an evolution (i.e. clone) of B and BCPL.
The move from VB to VB.NET, although described as revolutionary, is not as big as some people make out, they simply ironed out some of the stupid idiosyncracies. VB was nearly an OO language before, now VB.NET is.
Also, there is no way VB.NET's syntax can be described as cryptic when compared to C++. In all languages the use of symbols should be restricted to operators/expressions, not used in place of keywords. BEGIN and END are much more informative than {} (and easier to keep track of)
If you had said VB should be trashed I would tend to agree with you (as both C# and VB.NET are far superior development environments).
Before .NET came about we had no development tool which satisfied all requirements. C++ was powerful but failed to hide the complexity of COM, VB lacked inheritance and lots of other stuff, but had a great IDE and hid a lot of complexity)
Now we turn to .NET. The framework has eliminated the problems associated with MFC. We now have one IDE for all languages. This means we can compare the .NET languages on their own merits ie syntax and power. As C# still contains some functionality that VB.NET doesn't, I would say that C# is currently the best programming environment. That doesn't mean that we should ignore VB.NET Many people are more comfortable with VB than C and the differences are so minute that there is no reason to ditch VB.NET. At least all of us crap VB programmers will have an OO language to write crap code in. 
demofo wrote:
and don't proud of being a VB developer
Actually the biggest problem I can see with C++ is that overuse of it tends to bring on a superiority complex. I don't think I'm any better than someone just because they use a different programming language to me. Thinking like that has caused more problems in life than anything else. Can you provide a rational explanation of why people spit blood over issues like this? These people are no better than the religious bigots who cause most of the problems in this world. If someone wishes to use VB then let them, it's none of your business.
|
|
|
|
|
antidemon wrote:
I've used VB professionally for many years and the reason for that is that so many employers picked it for their developments. Why? Because the productivity levels are so superior to C++.
The right tool for the job.
You can be productive hanging pictures by useing a small hammer and small nails. You can be productive building a house by using a big hammer and big nails. But if you try to build a house with a small hammer and small nails, you will not be too productive.
If you need to hang pictures, use VB. If you need to build a house, use C++ (or possibly C# if the house needs some kind of ASP.NET connectivity).
"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art."
Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
|
|
|
|
|
So true, I was going to say something similar but thought I might be overdoing the housebuilding analogy 
|
|
|
|
|
"But if you try to build a house with a small hammer and small nails, you will not be too productive."
But the sentiment here is, you should use a big hammer no matter what you do. If you dare to disagree, then you must be a stupid low-life VBer, and you will be condamned into some bigshot's signature forever.
|
|
|
|
|
Picture Hanger wrote:
But the sentiment here is, you should use a big hammer no matter what you do. If you dare to disagree, then you must be a stupid low-life VBer, and you will be condamned into some bigshot's signature forever.
No the sentiment here is: Use VB for whatever it is good for, but don't claim that VB is anywhere near C++ - especially if you have problems with semicolons and curly braces.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
No the sentiment here is: Use VB for whatever it is good for, but don't claim that VB is anywhere near C++ - especially if you have problems with semicolons and curly braces.
Yeah, right. It is quite reasonable to require all the small hammer users to take a moment of silence, before starting their work, to pay respect to all the big hammer users, failing to do so will result in a holy attack from the big hammer users. 
|
|
|
|
|
Picture Hanger wrote:
you will be condamned into some bigshot's signature forever
You will only be condemded until some other picture hanger comes along and dares to disagree.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
antidemon wrote:
I've used VB professionally
That sounds like an oxymoron !
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign'
Rob Manderson wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't agree more. A language that before templates I would have to create a string class to be able to work with strings. I spent many years on mainframes writing code in COBOL, I hated every minute of it, Assembler let me do so much more, more efficiently, and was even easier to debug. But most other developers could not support it, but everyone was able to use COBOL. Quick and Easy and full of wholes. If I had to choose between VB and COBOL, I would choose VB without a doubt.
If I was to look at PC development languages prior to Java, limiting them to VB, Delphi and C++, believe you me I would choose Delphi, and I am sure that is why Microsoft hired Delphi's architect to develop C#. Delphi is C++ developed like VB, with all the advantages of both languages, and the eloquence of Pascal.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok I understand some bias towards VB6 and prior, it lacked in a lot of oomph. But now with the CLR and a lot of oomph and access to the same things I'm surprised by the poll. I suppose in part it's likely VB.Net developers are elsewhere, as there's not even a tab for developers going that route here.
Even so, I'm a bit surprised.. maybe that'll turn me more to C# or another C-variant. Although familiar with C I've done a lot of Powerbuilder / Powerscript and have been headed towards a VB.Net certification, thinking that might be the most logical approach - still some RAD but finally some real OO and reuse (at least by appearances thusfar). Maybe that thought will prove wrong.. any educated feedback rather than 'I don't like VB' knee-jerk reactions? 
Craig
edit - I'll do some searching around here too, the more I look the more I get the impression there's some concrete stuff, but also a lot of fluff.. looking for the concrete - and note that I'm NOT coming from VB, I'm quite used to real enterprise applications with OO and reuse and very powerful data controls, thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Your approach is fine, I think.
Don't take the VB-bashing here too seriously. This site used to be for MFC and such, so mostly C++ guys visit here. C++ developers in general are very reasonable people, except when it comes to VB some of them become very biased and childish. This is probably a result of their insecurity and jealousy.
Before I got flamed, please note that I haven't made a single comment about which language or tool is better. Perhaps just being impartial between VB and C++ will be enough to earn me a death penalty with a panel of all C++ jurors.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
Before I got flamed, please note that I haven't made a single comment about which language or tool is better.
You also have not allowed us to know just who you are either. 
Comon... come out of the shadows and let the rest of us VBers know who you are....
Paul Watson wrote:
"At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote:
"Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
|
|
|
|
|
"Comon... come out of the shadows and let the rest of us VBers know who you are..."
I am working for the CIA, that's why I am in the shadow. We use buggy VB programs to find Bin Laden and buggy C++ programs to crash Sadam's computer. You see, the job market for incompetent programmers will never dry up.
|
|
|
|
|
 I have no idea why so many people don't like C# i mean come on you have to expect some kind of change in 10 years. I mean it's so much easier to write C#/DirectX 9.0 than it is to write C++/DirectX 9.0 trust me i know. I tried a few months ago and then support came for C# and it clicked instantly. I have even read a few books where the authors were former C++ developers and then came C# and they never went back.
|
|
|
|
|
Huh?
From the activity I've seen on this site, both in terms of new C# articles and comments on the Lounge, etc., I'd say that most C++ programmers have embraced C#. They understand that it's not as powerful and flexible as C++, but most know that C# makes .NET programming (expecially ASP.NET) a joy.
Regards,
Alvaro
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
sumo_guy wrote:
have no idea why so many people don't like C#
I use C# for .NET development, and can't say that I don't like it (I'll like it even more when generics are included). For everything else, I see no reason to leave C++ which is more powerful and flexible language.
|
|
|
|
|
sumo_guy wrote:
I have no idea why so many people don't like C#
for me, the explanation requires one word:
performance
-c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote:
for me, the explanation requires one word:
performance
Actually the performance level has to do with the .NET Framework and not with C#. If you run ngen on a C# generated exe, you get the same speed as a native exe, unless the code actually calls the .NET BCL
Nish
Author of the romantic comedy
Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win]
Review by Shog9
Click here for review[NW]
|
|
|
|
|
What I have read the JIT is better than the NGEN in some cases. The JIT will always do its best on the system the program is running on at the moment, but the NGEN needs to be static, and thus it will not have the best performance in all the systems.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant S wrote:
Actually the performance level has to do with the .NET Framework and not with C#.
yes, i suppose that's true.
but, using C# without .Net seems silly.
-c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
ngen will give you more speed, but on the other hand the dll/exe that will produce will be bigger.
Frankly for me C++ is a mess because to keep the compatibility with C alot clarity is sacrificed.
|
|
|
|
|
I am fairly new to actual C++ and have to say for quick and dirty C# is great. But you have far more control and power available to you with C++. This to me is like asking why C++ programmers don't like VB as much. Hey it's great but if I need to have a continually refreshing list view I don't want to here users complain about flickering. I also don't want my data to be back logged so the threading support in C++ was a major reason. Everyone I talk too says C# is great but when you need to have more control C++ is still the way to go. Also, if you want pure speed use native C++ not the .NET framework variety so that still is a major, major plus in C++.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
Hey it's great but if I need to have a continually refreshing list view I don't want to here users complain about flickering
You can still use double buffering in C#/.NET to avoid flickering
Anonymous wrote:
I also don't want my data to be back logged so the threading support in C++ was a major reason
C#/.NET has a threading model (System.Threading) that is very robust, that can perform similar tasks as C++.
Anonymous wrote:
Also, if you want pure speed use native C++ not the .NET framework variety so that still is a major, major plus in C++.
If you are just concerned about speed then you should just write assembly specific to the cpu's instruction set.
I don't think you quite understand C# vs. C++, they are both meant for specific tasks.
These arguments about language choice are funny, you choose your tool for the job, it is as simply as that. Now if you are educated enough to know what language offers what features then your doing well.
R.Bischoff | C++
.NET, Kommst du mit?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I was referring to VB in comparing with C++. I should have split into paragraphs but I am lazy like that.
<here's a="" new="" one="">
However I haven't had time to sit and play with all the aspects of C# so the information you provided is helpfull.
|
|
|
|
|
Because C# is intimately tied to the .NET platform, which is by no means universally accepted.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
