|
Which nobody here appears to know, and on google turns up blank. Meaning the only reference to your coding is the lazy sample you gave us.
P.S.:
If you didn't find bugs, you didn't test enough.
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)
modified 16-Jun-14 8:21am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do miss the with operator. I have cases where it could save hundreds of characters and make it way easier to read.
Don't listen to the C# purists. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: and make it way easier to read
I would argue the opposite.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of people do. I can't understand why, but yes, a lot of people do.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
visual basic is easier for people with less skill
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. So if you're intent on hiring people with low skills, VB is a reasonable choice.
Most hiring staff want people with high skills though...
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know what its like in an agile environment with highly skilled programmers that all think they are the best and try to leave there mark on a program?
Not only do they cost more, they wasted extra hours, and broke the conditions of the client.
Most of the places that want high skills are getting over qualified people for simple tasks in a lot of cases, there is so mush wasted talent that could benefit from a team of code monkey's, these people carry out the thoughts of the skilled programmer.
If skilled programmers came with code monkey's I would hire them 
|
|
|
|
|
It all depends on the kind of work at hand:
I've been working with high skilled programmers for 30 years, and my experience is quite the opposite. The applications were all quite large and complex, or had highly innovative and complex functionality, or both.
Of course if the job at hand is more mechanical in nature and doesn't require the coder to really think out of the box, then a skilled programmer won't be happy, and will quit, or not even apply to the job in the first place.
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)
|
|
|
|
|
My family owns a factory warranty center for Panasonic, growing up I was trained on programming microchips.
When I deal with people and they tell me they know computers my first thought is to think they are full of themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
With, when used appropriately, aids clarity just by removing characters – if you have to read past "SomeLongObjectName." at the start of every line you won't actually see the important word. When used badly (so you don't know whether the tokens on the line are part of the with'd object or locals or something else) it makes things worse. I've used with in ActionScript, usually for graphics code which is doing nothing but a bunch of calls to lineTo, moveTo, setBitmapFill etc, and (imo anyway) not having "e.graphics." on every line makes that clearer.
|
|
|
|
|
BobJanova wrote: doing nothing but a bunch of calls to lineTo, moveTo, setBitmapFill etc, and
(imo anyway) not having "e.graphics." on every line makes that clearer
Howsabout writing a function then? Now I'm wondering wether or not an anomymous function would do that...
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
The minimum you can have without with would be g.lineTo(), g.moveTo() etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, looks good to me.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you still opposed to using (the namespace one, not the disposing one or the alias one) as well?
|
|
|
|
|
Public Shared Function GetImage(FileName As String) As BitmapImage
If FileName <> "" Then
Using isStore = IsolatedStorageFile.GetUserStoreForApplication()
Using targetStream = isStore.OpenFile(CameraControl.LastKnownTaken.FileName, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read)
Dim ImageCaptured = New BitmapImage
ImageCaptured.SetSource(targetStream)
Return ImageCaptured
End Using
End Using
End If
Return Nothing
End Function
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. And I really don't like that Extension Methods require the using directive.
Very powerful are aliases though. Recently I used an alias to resolve a namespace conflict, rather than have globall:: scattered throughout some code:
namespace PIEBALD.Data.MySql
{
using MySqlClient=global::MySql.Data.MySqlClient ;
public sealed class DatabaseInfo : PIEBALD.Data.DatabaseInfo<MySqlClient.MySqlDbType>
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank God I don't need SQL anymore.
I use Unidex which I wrote in Visual basic 
|
|
|
|
|
visual basic takes less skill to get the job done
|
|
|
|
|
If it's in VB, it isn't "done". 
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Whats not in visual basic?
|
|
|
|
|
In the time of autocompletion editors, less typing is no longer a valid argument.
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)
|
|
|
|
|
If you'd picked a case of With doing namespace/object elision, you might have a point. But as several people have pointed out, this is an object initialiser which is included in C# and (I think) has been since the same .Net compiler version as the VB.Net syntax you're demonstrating.
Other languages like JavaScript, Ruby, Perl etc can create objects with data in a single statement like this, too, and have been able to for years.
If you're going to make a claim like "no other language can do [something your fave can]" then at least a tiny bit of research would be a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Without the with operator C# has a smaller scope
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry as Bob has pointed out, this sort of argument needs more research.
many have also pointed out from the .net framework that C# doesn't need the With keyword. There are many other keywords if you looked and were pedantic enough C# doesn't use but slight change / merge of keywords you could achieve the same thing.
relax and enjoy the lounge they don't really care what language you code in.
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
