The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
ha ha I think you're right in os far as what was probably meant, but as a die-hard VB defender I think ERL was right!
Trouble with all you anti-VB lot is that you're all stuck in the past. With the advent of .NET there is really not that much difference in what can be done in either language. If VB is still more forgiving of bad programming practice, such practices are still the fault of the developer, not the language.
In some ways, this coming together of the different languages in the .NET framework is a retrograde step, precisely because it takes away the relative advantages of one language over another. In the old days, VB was great for quick and dirty solutions, while C (in whatever guise) was all but essential for anything "heavy-duty". Nowadays, it really doesn't matter - it's purely a question of personal prefernce which language you use - they are all the same under the hood.
I must step in at this point, because Real Basic is comparable with VB 6, and not VB.NET, so arguments that VB.NET is as good as C#, while interesting, have no relevance here. It's like comparing a bicycle to a horse - while they both theoretically could be used for the same thing, nobody in their right mind would attempt to go show jumping on a bicycle.
So - what do I think about Real Basic? Well, I preferred VB - and that's saying something. The problem is, it's big selling point is that it's cross platform, which isn't of much interest to a lot of developers if the underlying application doesn't have access to the fancy features. And the simple fact is VB's biggest selling point was how customisable it was with the use of ActiveX controls, which aren't cross platform.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
I'm not anti-VB. I just poke fun at it from time-to-time.
Phil Uribe wrote:
this coming together of the different languages in the .NET framework is a retrograde step, precisely because it takes away the relative advantages of one language over another
You should look at something like Oxygene. It is an object pascal based language targetting the .NET Framework. It has some features that are way ahead of C# or VB.NET and it is accelerating away. You can't really accuse it of the "coming together of ... different languages"
For those of us working under deadlines maintaining code written by programmers who didn't like to use Option Strict, that statement is of little comfort.
Who in his sane mind would not use Option Strict? I know, DirectCast and CType are verbose (especially the former, which is way more useful), but what's the point of using a compiled language if you're going to rely in late binding? To hell with the VB culture.
That statement is equivalent to saying that the differences between every language that compiles to native code is just an illusion as well, because the real language is native machine code. Actually, if you are developing on Windows, it isn't even real machine code - it's abstracted to be executed by the HAL.
I'm not misinterpreting it. It is certainly thinner than the .NET framework (much thinner), but you can virtualize windows to run on just about any hardware by implementing a HAL that translates those CPU instructions accordingly. Yes, the "machine code" in the executables is very close (if not identical) to the X86 instruction set to minimize the translation needed.
But we are diverting...my point was that simply that just because everything ends up in a common format (be is MSIL or be it PE format for execution on windows) doesn't mean that every language that compiles down to the common format is equal and any differences are illusions.
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 21-May-18 7:13