|
SuperBase! Way ahead of its time.
|
|
|
|
|
It really was, not many would remember it though. An example of a product destroyed by better marketing.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
In 1981 I was told that COBOL was dead and it was a waste of time learning it (I didn't). Funny ... nearly 40 years later, COBOL is still quite alive and well.
So is "classic" VB. Last year it ranked between 10th and 15th in every software survey I read. Maybe VB is dead and it's returned as a revenant?
|
|
|
|
|
BryanFazekas wrote: Last year it ranked between 10th and 15th in every software survey I read There was a sh*t load of applications written in it, it would be interesting if the surveys identified the volume of app support, the majority I suspect.
No matter how you look at it, classic VB is no longer supported and has not been for many years. Anyone STARTING a new project in it is nuts.
BryanFazekas wrote: COBOL is still quite alive and well. I think "well" is a bit of a stretch, even alive is only because some legacy systems are just to expensive to replace.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: There was a sh*t load of applications written in it, it would be interesting if the surveys identified the volume of app support, the majority I suspect. That's my guess as well.
Mycroft Holmes wrote: No matter how you look at it, classic VB is no longer supported and has not been for many years. Anyone STARTING a new project in it is nuts. I agree on both points. But that's not my point -- which is the fact that a language that has been unsupported as a stand-alone product for 15+ years still ranks. I spotted VB on several lists a number of years back and was surprised -- I hadn't done VB6 since 2002-ish and assumed it was long since dead.
Although VB is still supported. It's the macro language behind MS Office. My normal.dotm contains macros I wrote in Word 97. Still running as originally written, still useful today.
Mycroft Holmes wrote: I think "well" is a bit of a stretch, even alive is only because some legacy systems are just to expensive to replace. I know a number of guys who make very good rates doing COBOL. Sure, it's not used for much new development, but a kid coming out of school today could make a career of COBOL. [I'm not recommending that; simply pointing out an option.]
Every negative point in this entire topic is irrelevant if folks are making a living from a language.
|
|
|
|
|
unfortunately there is a ton of old business apps out there with no plans to be completely rewritten. I personally know of a couple companies reliant on accounting software written (supported and still added to) all in VB6.
|
|
|
|
|
I know of 2 written by me , they are so mature that they have not required support in years, I would have trouble supporting something so old.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
georani wrote: Visual Basic.NET is a great programming language
Nothing which includes
On Error Resume Next Can be described as great, or even as a programming language.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
modified 21-Jul-18 3:15am.
|
|
|
|
|
Now you have done it. He already was foaming over throwing VB and VB.Net into one pot.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
VB fanbois: you know what they are like ...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
And I thought I was the only one here who enjoys poking the fanbois (of any sort) until they jump up to the ceiling.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: On Error Resume Next
There is no this kind of code in VB
NET.
Study more.
Try
x = x \ y
MessageBox.Show("end of Try block")
Catch ex As Exception
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message)
MessageBox.Show("Stack Trace: " & vbCrLf & ex.StackTrace)
Finally
MessageBox.Show("in Finally block")
End Try
|
|
|
|
|
Rather than going with an opinion, I'd suggest that you check the facts instead:
Module Module1
Sub Main()
On Error Resume Next
Console.WriteLine("Hello World!")
Console.ReadLine()
End Sub
End Module Just because Try...Catch blocks are there, doesn't mean the old ways aren't.
But then, facts never mean anything to the faithful, do they?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OK, C# has GOTO, and now?
for (int i = 0; i < x; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < y; j++)
{
if (array[i, j].Equals(myNumber))
{
goto Found;
}
}
}
Console.WriteLine("The number {0} was not found.", myNumber);
goto Finish;
Found:
Console.WriteLine("The number {0} is found.", myNumber);
Finish:
Console.WriteLine("End of search.");
|
|
|
|
|
And VB doesn't?
Yes it does have goto - because there are occasions when you need it.
But outside a student's homework submitted to a lazy teacher I've not seen - let alone used - goto once in the "real world".
Face it: VB is based on a language designed for people who can't code, don't want to code, and have no interest in quality. It still has those early days buried deep in it's fabric: the On Error rubbish, the weak typing, the lack of need to declare anything.
Those aren't strengths, they are contributing factors to poor maintainability which are designed right into the language. That's why C# is the way it is: it encourages the production of more robust and understandable code.
Yes, you can produce good code in VB - but you have to treat it more like C# to do it and do all the work yourself!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Face it: VB is based on a language designed for people who can't code, don't want to code, and have no interest in quality. It still has those early days buried deep in it's fabric: the On Error rubbish, the weak typing, the lack of need to declare anything.
False assertion, you can produce bad or good code in VB.NET or C #, the choice is yours.
Quote: the weak typing, the lack of need to declare anything.
False assertion, you just use
Option Strict On at start of your VB.NET code.
Study more, please, did you heard about Python?
|
|
|
|
|
VB.NET was my first language and, unfortunately, I have to agree with OG here.
Yes, there is an Option Strict, but it's off by default and many programmers "forget" to turn it on.
VB was created to make programming easier and as a result non-programmers started programming.
And boy have I seen my share of VB code... Assigning strings to ints, coding everything directly into a single form, and, indeed, lots of GOTO's and On Error Resume Next.
Because that's the way VB is by default.
Yes, VB.NET can do everything C# can, and then some more. And that "more" part often isn't very good.
That said, I've seen big piles of crap written in C# as well.
Ultimately it boils down to the developer who uses it.
VB doesn't deserve the hate it gets.
I really can't believe VB.NET is more popular than C# though.
I've been doing C# for a good five years now, but before that time it was almost impossible to find good tutorials or examples in VB.NET (which is why I learned C# in the first place).
If I look for jobs in the Netherlands I find almost 900 jobs for "c#" and 87 for "vb" and "vb.net" combined.
VB isn't even (fully) supported on many newer platforms like .NET Core and Azure...
So I wonder where this popularity on TIOBE came from.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking a little closer at the numbers, classic VB was down 1.21% while VB.Net was up 1.2%. Maybe they changed how they handled the classified the data?
|
|
|
|
|
Every time you tell a seasoned programmer to "study more" you are just sinking your own argument and, frankly, alienating the people that you're trying to puff yourself up to.
The point is that good software written in VB is despite the language, not empowered by it.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
that was a hold over from VB6 days. when the first VB.net came out, it supported a upgrade wizard to moved VB6 to VB.Net. Way to many devs in VB6 relied on this because there was no structured error handling.
They should drop support for some of the old baggage, but MS will likely keep it forever. C# was lucky as it was new and fresh and (mostly) had none of the burdens of an older sibling.
|
|
|
|
|
georani wrote: but more fun and readable to program with
|
|
|
|
|
georani wrote: but more fun and readable to program with
Google translate: "The only language I know"
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Wait until he discovers JavaScript. He is perfect JS fanboi material.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh gawd. We don't need another one; the world doesn't need another one.
Anyway, he'll never cope: "{" instead of "Begin" will blow his mind.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Nah man, hoisting would cause seizures.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|