|
Ray Cassick wrote: The language is syntacticly FINE. It is the idiots that USE it that you have problems with.
...please tell me that you're just saying that to be argumentative and that you don't actually believe that crap...VB syntax is absolutely disgusting
Ray Cassick wrote: I have seen equally as dumb ass stuff written in C++, C#, Pascal, etc...
...Don't even get me started on C++ lol ...I *almost* hate C++ more than I hate VB. ...C++ is the bastard child that hangs out in the middle of nowhere that hybridizes the procedural mentality with object oriented design capabilities...when an unqualified programmer gets hold of ANY language, the results are laughable....when a *semi*qualified programmer gets hold of C++, O.....M......G. When you get someone that has a decent grasp of object oriented design, but they use a language that has a direct interface into memory as a staple of its core, you usually end up in the situation where an app starts out rock-solid up front: (Solid implementation of design patterns, the application is programmed to target interfaces; not implementations...etc) but when said "semi-qualified" programmer runs into a tough spot in their design...the approach is usually "Uh-oh...I don't know how to do that....what ****CAN**** I do. And C++ will allow them to take an otherwise well-structured body of work and stitch it together into a frankenstein monster that is more hideous than having to debug FORTRAN's GOTO structure
"I need build Skynet. Plz send code"
|
|
|
|
|
Alaric_ wrote: ...please tell me that you're just saying that to be argumentative and that you don't actually believe that crap...VB syntax is absolutely disgusting
Seconded. Verbosity for the sake of verbosity. An entire ethos developed around the idea that every concept needs at least 3 words summing 30 characters in length. Painful to write, painful to read.
Its like hungarian notation: a useful idea from the '70s painfully continued ad nauseum today.
I'm largely language agnostic
After a while they all bug me 
|
|
|
|
|
Ray Cassick wrote: Why is your post not titled "I hate dumb ass VB programmers"?
Because if you think that's what I was saying, you either are incapable of(or you simply posted before)reading my follow-up to my original post.
I'll quote myself on this one:
Alaric_ wrote: ...btw, if you're a VB programmer and you think that I was insulting you or anything, then you misunderstood my intentions. ...My gripe is with the language and the reasoning behind the language....VB was designed to give "Non"programmers the ability to write quick, dirty desktop apps. I have a HUGE problem with VB being the language of choice in an enterprise setting, because most of the people that actually would say "Oh, I think we'll write this in VB. It does what we need to do" probably doesn't have the skill to make that decision. VB should never be used for anything other than "my app: I'm building it; I'm supporting it; It's running on my machine" Anything that is to actually be deployed to production should be written in a much more appropriate language because the GENERAL developer base for VB is absolute crap(a bunch of kiddie scripters that read a book and presto: qualified) ...and you end up with systems designed like the one that my snippets illustrate.
Again, not insulting ALL VB programmers(A qualified programmer is a qualified programmer is a qualified programmer) ...I write VB(mostly against my will, but what are you gonna do when the system was written in this horrible language and an enhancement comes your way?) ....Gripe about it.....every chance you get. GOD I HATE VB!!!!!
"I need build Skynet. Plz send code"
|
|
|
|
|
Ray Cassick wrote: language is syntacticly FINE. It is the idiots that USE it that you have problems with.
I ditto that. The same code could have been done in any other language and looked just as bad.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Conrad wrote: I ditto that. The same code could have been done in any other language and looked just as bad.
I think I could make some reasonable disagreement with that. When I'm forced to use VB.NET, I think differently than when I'm using C#. The C# language can do things VB.NET can't; and while I do try hard to retain the clarity of work I do in C#, the language itself gets in the way.
It's like being a highly skilled acrobat trying to walk down a straight hallway when all of the strangely shaped objects on the floor keep moving, trying to trip you. VB is those moving objects. The language itself seems designed to prevent clarity of thought.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Sears wrote: hard to retain the clarity of work I do in C#, the language itself gets in the way.
Can you give an example? Only problem I have is switching back to C# from VB.NET and forgetting ; sometimes.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
Then i guess the problem is you, and not the language. Programming languages are just tools used to create what we imagine. If you lack skill and imagination you cannot write any sensible code with C# or C++.
I work with VB most of the time, but I can develop in C# or C++ easily without any problems.
Most people are decieved into thinking writing code that "looks" complex makes them skilled.
C++ code normally looks like the following, it mostly contains symbols and therefore makes it look like it belongs to a so called skilled programmer.
<br />
_ATL$Main<br />
{<br />
__ *HRESULT ^ pointer!:<br />
<br />
?0x000007-IXc<br />
x++<br />
} 
|
|
|
|
|
What the bloody hell are you talking about?
I'm not talking about writing complex code. You think VB is simple? Please. All the extra fluff simply obscures what the program does. You want to deride programs for "looking" complex to make the writer seem skilled, berate VB.
I have no problem in Matlab, C#, C++, or C. My problem is not a lack of imagination, you sanctimonious twit. VB, however, gives me hives because it is so verbose.
Believe it or not, there actually CAN be tools that are ineffective at making our mental constructs a reality. For instance, you wouldn't use a tire iron to build a fence. Maybe some people are really good at building fences with tire irons. Personally, I would find the tire iron to get in the way.
Now, if you replace "fence" with "program" and "tire iron" with "VB" you'll get what I'm saying. Maybe some people are good at writing programs in VB. For me, the language gets in the way. All tools are not equal, which is essentially what you're attempting to argue.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are being a tad unfair to VB here.
The choice of language is mainly syntactical (I write and use both). The design of your system's architecture is nothing to do with VB per se, it's just bad design.
I do conceed that there are lots of bad/indifferent programmers in VB - but are there more because it's easier to learn VB than C# and so you get more beginners and self-taught coders in VB than other languages.
'Howard
|
|
|
|
|
I find it ironic that you are blasting VB, but in your messages on your profile you are using access. But in your defense that is some terrible code, where do you work and are they passing out salaries in the 200K range? I think I could move...
|
|
|
|
|
mr_lasseter wrote: I find it ironic that you are blasting VB, but in your messages on your profile you are using access.
...upon reading this, I decided that I wouldn't justify that with an answer. But after thinking about it, I decided that I would justify answering it just long enough to tell you that I won't justify that with an answer.
"I need build Skynet. Plz send code"
|
|
|
|
|
mr_lasseter wrote: using access
That is just about as bad.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
I know some VB. Where can I find the 200k jobs? 
Florin Crisan
|
|
|
|
|
Come to think of it; what is VB implemented in? VB? Any compiler worth its salt is written in the language that it compiles... (C# is the notable exception?)
Imagine if VB were open source and being maintained by VB programmers! 
|
|
|
|
|
Does this remind anyone of the chicken or the egg problem?
ROFLOLMFAO
|
|
|
|
|
Ri Qen-Sin wrote: Does this remind anyone of the chicken or the egg problem?
Nope. There is bootstrapping[^]
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Come to think of it; what is VB implemented in? VB? Any compiler worth its salt is written in the language that it compiles... (C# is the notable exception?)
I remember that argument coming up in college between the C/Unix and the VB/Win crowds. The answer turned out to be that VB 4/5 was an advanced OS script while real programmers wrote ANSI C in VI 
I'm largely language agnostic
After a while they all bug me
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, it's not the retards writing the VB net compiler that want backwards compatibility. It's the retards using the old VB syntax that want it.
I for one, can't stand the old VB6 crap and the "shortcuts" and implicit conversions it does in the background. If it was up to me, "On Error Goto", and alot of other pre-VB.NET crap, would have been tied to a post, blindfolded, and asked what it wanted on its Tombstone.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I for one, can't stand the old VB6 crap and the "shortcuts" and implicit conversions it does in the background. If it was up to me, "On Error Goto", and alot of other pre-VB.NET crap
"On Error Goto" was never a correct implementation of exception handling. I say that I hate "VB" because Visual Basic is the most popular incarnation of the BASIC language (in the current .NET flavor), but more accurately, I should have said that I despise BASIC
...does anyone that writes BASIC even know what it is??? It stands for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code. If you're a Beginner, writing BASIC is completely understandable. But you MUST realize that it is intended for use by non-programmers as a stepping stone to whatever language you go to after you are comfortable enough to step up
"I need build Skynet. Plz send code"
|
|
|
|
|
[quote]It stands for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code.[/quote]
The popularity of BASIC in the 1980's stemmed not from human ease of use, but rather from the ability to make a very compact editor/interpreter package. Some simple versions of BASIC are 4K or less. Indeed, the Atari 2600 implementation of BASIC includes a CodeView-style display (showing current execution point and the values of all variables), and has to implement its own font display handling (the hardware has none), keypad scanning logic, and even a crude screen-saver, and yet it still fits within 4K.
Many of the horrible parts of vb6 syntax can be traced to Microsoft's original BASIC interpreter for the IBM PC more than 25 years ago. Using oddball invocation formats for graphics statements line line (x1,y1)-(x2,y2),color,bf is fine in an on-the-fly interpreted language, but is not a good approach in a compiled procedural or object-oriented language. Fortunately, the most horrible aspects of syntax were dropped in vb.net.
|
|
|
|
|
supercat9 wrote: ...The popularity of BASIC in the 1980's...
And we are 2 years from "the 80s" being 30 years old. I imagine there might be legacy embedded systems in existence that still require the ability to fit everything within 4K of storage, but I would retort with the idea that if you needed something with that light of a memory signature, the programmer should be working on their optimization skills with whatever assembly language targets said embedded system's processor. BASIC serves absolutely no *valid* purpose, WHATSOEVER as a programming language outside of academia. There is a stigma on the culture surrounding BASIC as being full of underqualified, improperly educated developers. I would tend to agree with this stigma on a general basis, but I would say that it is only the fault of the developer in the fact that they never "advanced" beyond the beginner stage. Most of the blame can be placed on the language itself.
Example: Visual Basic supports optional parameters. I've heard developers complain that C# doesn't support optional parameters and think "oh...he/she's an ex VB programmer or a bad C++ programmer" Optional parameters promote horrid programming practices and completely belie a basic tenet of object-oriented programming (polymorphism) Optional parameters basically mode a method signature, which is a practice that has been laughed at for nearly 20 years as being a juvenile solution to any system outside of a state machine.
"I need build Skynet. Plz send code"
|
|
|
|
|
...beyond that, dimensional variable declarations are just plain syntactically hideous. That should be enough for anyone to loathe VB on its own
"I need build Skynet. Plz send code"
|
|
|
|
|
I concur.
Regardless of the language; when something is no longer useful, it should be deprecated, then removed. In the case of VB.NET, many things haven't even made it to deprecation, while others have been in the deprecated phase for years and versions upon versions.
If you think about it, one of the absolute biggest problems that Microsoft deals with is supporting backwards compatibility. They just need to grow a pair and cut the old "features" off at the knees. Move on! We cannot ever expect to receive a truly greater product if it continues to support these old (and completely useless) ideas.
The problem is, if they did move on and drop useless ideas, Microsoft would face a hailstorm from the "beginners" and the 61-year old original-COBOL programmer that just can NOT bring himself to learn something new.
Matt
(Find your own niche! This one's mine.)
|
|
|
|
|
They already did faced that garbage when they announced they were dropping support for VB6. A bunch of people really griped about it, including a bunch of MS MVPs that they just couldn't do that because there are a bunch of legacy apps out there they they still needed to support.
I say fine, start phasing out support for your legacy apps and move up to VB.NET. I know it costs money, and a bunch of it, to rewrite apps in VB.NET. That's why there is a migration path where VB.NET supports the old stuff in VB6. Great. But now we're into the 4th generation of VB.NET. They just can't tell me that they wasted the last 7 years still developing new apps in VB6 instead of moving their code base to .NET. That's just plain lazy...
|
|
|
|
|
That is just plain hideous.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
