|
Having or not having a specific operator can hardly be an argumant in favor of any language. There are thousands of keywords other languages provides that VB doesn't have!
Besides, Pascal also has with . And I already told you that much in a different thread.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
I always forget about pascal, a language I learned but never really wrote anything in.
|
|
|
|
|
That was just an aside. Every single object oriented language doesn't need and doesn't want a with keyword! If you need to perform a series of operations on a single object, then you write a method for that! You won't even need the introductory '.', and you can just call the method from different places without having to copy the original code (including the errors therein). That's a lot more elegant than your example, and far better readable because the implementation will be within the context of the object class, rather than in the context of some arbitrary function that just happens to use it!
I do realize that VB has classes too - but that is all the more reason that it shouldn't even have a with statement: it just leads to code that is harder to maintain than writing a class method.
Have you never wondered why an old language like Pascal has it, but none of the newer ones? Not even the newer languages by Niklaus Wirth himself (Modula, Oberon) have it! If you must discuss the merits of with , shouldn't you instead ask why its inventor, Niklaus Wirth, and (almost) all other designers of modern programming languages abandoned it?
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
I has everything to do with being able to get full words onto the screen and not have to repeat them, there is no compiler benefit.
There is a psychology difference in the mind of the programmer that is more acceptable to human error and overall costs less while getting to the result faster and cleaner then any language.
|
|
|
|
|
What you say are exactly the things I didn't bother pointing out in favor of using class methods, and against the with statement. But if you're not familiar with basic OO concepts, then there's no point discussing this any further.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you mean OOP object-orientated-programming.
No I am only advocating for the use of full word camel cased variables because I have no experience in the field.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect he's talking about the With block. Of course, as the With statement was introduced to fix a defect in VB in the first place...
|
|
|
|
|
its not a with block,
"new image with"
|
|
|
|
|
and you can do the same in C# without the need for "with" keyword
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
Without the with keyword in C# it reduces the available scope
|
|
|
|
|
So, the same as Auto-initialisation in C# then.
new Image{ Height = 150, Width= 150 }
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colborne_Greg wrote: its not a with block
It's an object initializer, which is fully supported in C#, without needing an extra keyword.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb384062.aspx[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
You sir, win the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
Catch
End Try
Next
Catch
End Try
End Sub
A rat's tail of different closing elements instead of some simple closing brackets.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
Visual basic does not have the closing bracket issue that C# has.
It makes it easier for people that have less or no skill to be more productive, oh look win for VB.
|
|
|
|
|
Colborne_Greg wrote: It makes it easier for people that have less or no skill to be more productive
And that's exactly what raises my expectations whenever someone comes with VB.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
I came from Cobol and JCL, with 25 years of experience. I own a start up software company.
Anyone that has C experience or web experience I find are bad employees, they make great leaders, not great employees, unless your business in devoted to C and C type languages, then you probably have 20 programmers to my one.
|
|
|
|
|
Correlation is not causation. Maybe the reason the C programmers are necessary is the nature of the problem that cause C to be picked as the implementation language in the first place.
I've spent most of the last 30 years programming very near the hardware level. VB would have been a huge inconvenience for the types of problems I was solving. This doesn't make C/C++ inherently better or worse then VB.. only suited to a different problem domain.
As to good vs. bad employees.. there are lots of ways to get those.. I've seen my share of good VB programmers and bad C programmers.. and VICE VERSA. Again.. correlation does not equal causation.
|
|
|
|
|
25 years here, came up from cobol and JCL, and worked on switching systems for northern telecom.
We are in the cell phone era, not the hardware layer.
Anyways the topic is that VB needs more credit.
I have seen my share of both as well, and when training people to program how I want them to program its easier to employ people that are not programmers and teach them what I need them to know in VB, if I tried this in C# it would not be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
My experience of non-programmers is like this: they are good at small things. Ask them for small programs that do simple things and you are golden. Ask them for anything requiring Systems Analysis and real rigor and you've got serious quality problems on your hands. Its not that you can't get it from untrained individuals.. only that it takes a LOT longer.
And 'the hardware layer' is where systems programming lives, which is what I do.. 'cellphone era' is a reference to time, not computers. I really don't know what you are trying to say..
As to C# vs. VB and trainability.. nonsense. I've seen folks pick up both. And seriously: what do you have against programmers?
|
|
|
|
|
Considering 3 people are doing the work of 30 people, with 5 code monkeys that have no skill, I would say this business model is working.
|
|
|
|
|
How long have you been running this way? How many bugs do you fix per week? Saying your business is working means nothing to me.. there are quality measures you either meet or you don't.
I'll put it very directly: I've seen folks make money while treating their customers like dogs. And left those same customers with applications that barely worked. You can make money and still create completely useless buggy software. Financial success is important to you I'm sure.. your customers have different motivations..
|
|
|
|
|
Programs here are written and completed within three days.
Up until this point the company has been focused on real estate software for Canadian Companies, 100s of Unidex apps will be released for Windows phone 8.1 when Windows Phone 8.1 is released to the public either this month or it looks like Windows Phone 8.1 won't be released till November.
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't write such empty Try's but.... still I like it over this here ^^
}
}
}
}
}
and this things aint better...
}
}
}
|
|
|
|