I found this: http://du2.in/VBDead
It means that C# will completely replace Visual Basic. What dou you think
about this, is VB dead?

I did not get this impression from reading the article.  This is just one
person's opinion.  I believe Microsoft has given the axe to J sharp, but I
don't believe they will ever do this to VB.Net.  I do not agree with the
author on saying C# is for helping Java programmers transition over to .Net;
that is what J# was for.
   From what I understand, it doesn't really matter what language you code
in, it all compiles down to the same MSIL.
   I think VB.Net will be around for some time.

[Tim]

Show quoteHide quote

On Jun 16, 3:06 pm, Tim <T***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
I agree. While the LSE and Intellisense works differently for VB than
it does for C#, and there are some namespaces available in VB that
aren't available in C# (and vice version, I assume), it is my
impression that both are merely wrappers for the .NET Framework, which
really does all the work.

Show quoteHide quote

If you have to code in VB, make sure you charge by the line...

VB Property:

Private newPropertyValue As String
    Public Property NewProperty() As String
        Get
            Return newPropertyValue
        End Get
        Set(ByVal value As String)
            newPropertyValue = value
        End Set
    End Property

C# Property:

private int myVar;
public int MyProperty {
    get{ return myVar; }
    set{ myVar = value; }
}

It adds up.


Show quoteHide quote

Show quote Hide quote   private int myVar;

  public int MyProperty
  {
    get
    {
      return myVar;
    }

    set
    {
      myVar = value;
    }
  }

rossum



Show quoteHide quote

rossum wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteHowever, the VB version can't be shortened... can it?

ummm Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not a newsgroup for c# vs vb discussions
""Fernando A. Gómez F."" <fernando.a.gome***@gmail.com> wrote in message
Show quoteHide quote

Abubakar wrote:
But is a newsgroup for C# discussions, is it not? If not, I beg you a
pardon... :)

""Fernando A. Gómez F."" <fernando.a.gome***@gmail.com> schrieb:
I wonder why there should be the possibilty to shorten it.  The way the
property is defined in VB allows for easy extension by adding new statements
to each accessor's body.

If I want to see the signatures only, I use the class view or object browser
instead.

Probably doable too in VbNet, the line:


        public int WhatIsThat { get; set; }


***completely*** defines a perfectly working read/write propery, with
anonymous variable 'sustaining it', in C#, since version 3.5 of the
framework (if not before). It is not 'just' the signature. I don't see it
often used, though, in comparison with the long version., which uses an
explicit declaration of the local variable (the one capturing the 'value'
for the set definition and returning what get expect to return), and an
explicit statement for each get and set access.




Vanderghast, Access MVP


Show quoteHide quote

Show quote Hide quote Well, I never said that it's the signature only.  I just mentioned that I
prefer the long version because it's easier to extend.  The long version's
code skeleton is typically generated by a code snippet, including the
backing field.

Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
Nobody said there should be one... IIUC, Neb said that VB was too
verbose (which I agree, but I guess that it is a matter of getting used
to). Rossum's reply implied that C# was also too verbose, just by adding
whitespace. The point of my post was to state that C# does not have to
be verbose, but that VB had to be verbose.

If only because that was one of the original primary design goals for
the language.

Best regards.

  The whole of .Net is aimed at Java programmers. (And at
getting 3rd-party programmers out of the Windows system.)
From "the horse's mouth" (Mark Russinovich):

"A few years ago Microsoft embarked on an anti-Java campaign called .NET,
spinning .NET as a revolutionary technology (while failing to explain that
it's really Microsoft's own implementation of the JVM concept with new
languages layered on top of it)."

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2005/04/16/the-coming-net-w
orld-i-m-scared.aspx

   But people are writing Windows software with a 200 MB
dependency because they think it's "what Microsoft wants"!
Microsoft wants whatever makes money. That may be something
different tomorrow than it is today. Microsoft is not a guru. It's a
for-profit corporation.
   If people don't know any better than to write Windows "desktop"
software with a 200 MB dependency, then what difference does it
make what language they're using?

   The competition between languages will always be there.
Some C-type people look down on basic-type languages
as being too verbose. Some Perl people look down on everyone
else for the same reason. :)  So what? Can't people think for
themselves a bit rather than trying to work out "the truth"
by reading junk filler pieces on blogs? The linked article is
written by someone with high school writing abilities who fails
to express any clear thoughts. It's just a "tossed salad" of
hearsay and wiseacreing.

------------ Looking at a few samples  -------------------

* most really cool pieces seem to be in C# and not VB.Net.*

  "Cool"? What's "cool" other than what does the job?

* The ones [job applicants] that strike me as really "senior" mostly
trend towards C# and not VB.Net. Sure, it could be a coincidence,
but it might not be. *

  Translation: "C# people seem to be more "cool", but then
again my judgment can't be trusted."

* For the time being, VB.Net is my .Net language of choice; ...
VB.Net is an easy way to tap into the .Net Framework ....
So, C# it is. Am I thrilled? Not really. I like what they are doing with
C# but not C# itself. But I feel like I have hit the limits of VB.Net.
*

  He's sticking with VB.Net, and VB.Net is good,  but  now he
apparently has to switch to C#, but he doesn't like C#, but VB.Net
is not so good...

   Is your head spinning yet? Mine is.

   Most of the "article" is just one long string of popular cliches. (It's
usually a good bet that people are going to prattle cliches when they
start sentences with "Sure, ..."   Use of the word "cool" is another
dependable indicator. "Cool", after all, is really just a "cool"
synonym for  "fashionable".)

mayayana wrote:
<snip>
<snip>

Both of then fantastic goals. If Sun and friends hadn't sued MS years
ago, we'd all have to program in an MS variation of Java today.
Honestly, I can read Java, but I hate programming in it. =))

And having 3rd parties cast out off the Windows API is great,
considering the amount of trouble bad usage of said API and COM has
brought to us all in the years before .Net.

<snip>

The "dependency" part is really relative, don't you aggree? Ok, .Net,
if not installed in a system, will take some minutes to download
(according to Brazilian metrics =)) -- last time I checked the full
3.0 redist is around 50MB. Once it's installed, I have *no* idea how
much disk space/memory it will amount for. **But** once it is
installed (and it will be), it becomes part of the system (that is,
zero dependency =))). So, what are we talking about here? Download
time? Space in a setup CD? These are, usually, non-issues.

If for dependency you mean the actuall labraries each .Net app depends
upon, well, by this metric most native Windows app has a *huge*
dependency then (on all the native windows dll's that must be loaded
for the application to run). My point is: once the required code is
part of the system, dependency becomes zero.

Best regards,

Branco.

[SNIP]
No, it was mostly hackers and malware that caused the most persistent
problems that weren't already caused by defects in the API and COM
themselves  - and nearly all of the malware causing these problems got in
due to slack security settings that allowed the JavaScript, VBscript, &
ActiveX autoloaders to execute without the user's knowledge or consent.

As for buggy software, no serious problems here. Back in 1999, I surveyed
nearly 500 software packages and less than twenty functioned substantially
as documented. Most didn't function at all, many were pretendware (GUI with
no other object code), and about 1 in 5 blue screened windows or crashed
Windows altogether if they were set to run on startup. The Windows 98SE
operating system that bore the full fury of these tests still runs to this
day, and is more stable than some WinXP and Vista systems.

I might add that third party software is much improved. Fully half of it
actually works these days and pretendware is much rarer than it was in the
90's. Nonetheless if buggy software caused the amount of grief you mention,
that clunky old Win98SE system of mine would be reduced to a smoking pile of
blue-screens by now. This is not the case.

Without third parties in the API, you have no security packages other than
the few malware removal tools Microsoft have to offer. If it were not for
third party packages that police the security settings in the registry (eg.
Drawbridge), it would be impossible to keep the script kiddies out of any
computer system, because the door that is so commercially favourable SaaS is
the same hole that modern "hackers" use to gain access in more than 99% of
modern security exploits.

And having 3rd parties cast out off the Windows API is great,
considering the amount of trouble bad usage of said API and COM has
brought to us all in the years before .Net.
  I daresay that whole idea of "get the clowns
out of the API" is a good example of a cliche
that's been spread around, and that people have
picked up without really thinking about it. As the
marketing experts know, it's very easy to get
people to accept a premise by simply repeating
it over and over.

  When your anti-API statement is scrutinized it's really
a somewhat illogical thing for a programmer to say. It
amounts to saying, "I'm happy to be put into a sandbox
where I can't access the system if that helps to block
other people who don't know what they're doing."

  Beyond that there's a profound implication in
the changes brought by .Net's sandbox. The end result
of shutting off the real API is the transformation
of Windows from a platform to a service. The
security/stability issue is a red herring. (Remember,
the original idea was that an OS is a "platform"
that supports software by interfacing with the
hardware. It's important to distinguish between
needed security improvements on the one hand,
and radical redefiniton of the product on the other.)

...And speaking of cliches, what's with all the
badmouthing of COM? I don't mean just what you
said. I've heard derision of COM for years. But I don't
find any problems with it. It's been great for scripting.
And Windows itself is still extensively COM-oriented,
while being almost entirely free of .Net.

The "dependency" part is really relative, don't you aggree?
  Ultimately, sure. But a basic XP system is about 1GB.
..Net2 is about 88 MB unpacked, by my measure. As I
understand it, .Net3 is over 200 MB. It's adding some
25% to the OS. So where do you draw the line with
what's "relative"? Would you install a 2 MB Java program
if you knew it was going to require a 200-300MB VM?
I wouldn't.
   We're talking here about whether .Net is a sensible
choice for desktop software -- not just whether some
people will be agreeable to having the .Net runtime
installed. There are issues of bloat, security, possible
instability, etc. It's not just a question of how long it
takes to download the package.

  If the "relative" bloat of the runtime were not an issue
then .Net installers wouldn't be designed to sneak out
and download the runtime without even asking the person
installing the software.

  Then there's also the general unsuitability in the design
of .Net for Windows software. If you read Mark Russinovich's
piece from the link you'll see that his whole point is the same
point that I'm making. (And I suspect that most of the people
reading this also agree, and are probably using .Net not
for Windows software but rather are using it where
they might have formerly used Java -- server-side or for
producing corporate intranet web services.)

I translate this differently.  .NET is (still) new.  Senior people used
something before .NET, mostly C++ or Java.  People who knew C++ or Java
before starting .NET were more comfortable with C#, people who knew Classic
VB/VBA were more comfortable with VB.NET

Once .NET reaches 10 years old this will no longer be true of course, and
we'll know longer be able to identify the bogus job postings by the way they
require "10 years experience with C#".

Some Perl people need to have a look at APL.

rossum

The article is from 2007 while it state by instance that there was no Linq
in VB, which is completely wrong.

Linq was developed in different tastes for C#2 by instance DLink and
whatever fancy name.

The Linq that was used for C#3 was however the same as in VB9

And in that way the article goes on, it looks to nothing.

By the way, many C# developers complain that there are so few (correct)
samples on Internet, they only find VB

Cor

I don't think that is correct. In fact, MS themselves admit to about a 50/50
percent spread between C# and VB. In a recent video I watched, MS claimed
that they were directing future VS studio development to making features in
both languages equal and were diverting from adding even more bells and
whistles.

It is a good idea, however, to become conversant in both languages. They are
not that different, anyway,

Cheers

pfft!  You would not believe how many new articles pop up a year stating
that.

And more often than not they are written by self righteous C# developers who
think it is a "better" language.

Has Harry rightly said above, Microsoft are improving development of both C#
and VB.NET to the extent that both languages will receive new features at
the same time.  It's all horses for courses really, I write in both C# and
VB.NET regularly, and personally I prefer VB.NET.

So nope... VB.NET is far from being dead.

Show quoteHide quote

nak wrote:
Finally, they've taken the blame out of us, C++ers... LOL

VB6 completely sucked, but the .NET versions kinda improved the language
--as required by the CLS. Nowadays I don't like VB because it is very
verbose (see Okla's post above), but that's the only thing I can think
about.

But I agree that it is far from dead.

A new member to the family: F#. AFAIK it will be a fully supported
language in VS10. Let's see how it goes.

Regards.

""Fernando A. Gómez F."" <fernando.a.gome***@gmail.com> wrote in message
Show quoteHide quoteSometimes the verbosity of VB is good - other times it's not.  However, the
one feature I really like in VB is the declarative syntax for event
handlers.  Given that winforms are created as partial classes, having the
event handlers declared in the user part of the class and not hidden in the
designer.vb file is really nice.  You don't have to go hunting for your
event handlers.  The other thing I like, and this is an IDE issue only so C#
could also get it is the IDE feature that creates the interface handlers.  I
can never remember the actual interface handler design templates.

Mike Ober.

On 2009-06-17, Michael D. Ober <obermd> wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteVB is what it is, but the declarative syntax is fine until you want to add the
same event handler to multiple events, and then it becomes cumbersome really
quickly.

C# has been doing that for a long time.  In a cooler way since C#'s IDE
experince is definately better overall.

""Fernando A. Gómez F."" <fernando.a.gome***@gmail.com> wrote in message
Which is what made it the most popular Microsoft language ever, right?




Oh, I almost forgot: bite me.

(Flame on!)

Jeff Johnson wrote:
Yep, but wasn't it the only MS language at the time?

Easy man, we're here to talk. Why did you have to go aggressive?

""Fernando A. Gómez F."" <fernando.a.gome***@gmail.com> wrote in message
Nope, sure wasn't.

Nobody wrote:
Sorry I missed that. Which other languages had MS at the time?
Certainly, C++ is not a MS language... Perhaps you refer to J++?

Best regards.

By that definition, Basic is definitely not a Microsoft language.  It
predates Microsoft by a decade.

The only truly Microsoft language is C#.

Tim Roberts wrote:

Good point, but isn't the analogy the same?

    VB.NET is to BASIC, what
    C# is to C++

C++ and BASIC aren't Microsoft invented but the mutations C# and
VB.NET are.  No? :-)

Maybe that is why SUN nips on potential mutation of JAVA by Microsoft
and sued them before it became their own.  That is the reason
Microsoft is abandoning Java.NET - they can't control it. :-)

I doubt C# is a language unto itself. C# is simply another variation or
dialect of C, along with C+, C++ etc. (hence the affectation of 'C' with
modifier in the name).

The only language I can trace back to Microsoft is RTF (1987). RTF can be
structured two ways. One uses group hierarchies to define non-overlapping
format zones and results in a structure identical to that of the style of
SGML that uses the generic closure tag; </>. In RTF this is replaced by the
closing curly brace: }. Interestingly, SGML also has another structure
identical to the inline (potentially overlapping) flag system used in RTF
when the group hierarchy is not used. RTF's equivalent of block elements are
deployed with the same structure as that used in IBM's GML, which is the
root for SGML. RTF may well use different control characters, but in terms
of structure it is closer to a SGML and GML than HTML. Nevertheless, RTF,
having its own vocabulary, is much more a language unto itself than is the #
variant of C.

Much of what we consider "new" on PCs has already been done on mainframes
and minicomputers. Honeywell had DDR memory in minicomputers decades before
it was "new" in PCs and some of the decades old 1Gb SSDs used in older ICBMs
are *still* much faster than the brand "new" SSDs made for the PC market.
Macros were used to describe classes before the word 'macro' was
systematically misused to promote MS Office's reinvention of what was once
known as "master mode". Master mode was the first attempt at laying a
foundation for SaaS, once again back in the mainframe days, and once again
master mode was discredited spectacularly decades before malware authors
used the exact same techniques to exploit Office "macro" functionality. In
fact, the same techniques for information theft are still used via
JavaScript, VBScript, ActiveX, XAML, & .NET components served up to the
client as applications disguised as documents.

Relational databases have not changed since the 1970's - only the
programming interface has changed. Hierarchical databases are still plagued
by the same fragmentation issues now as they were when writers like Kroenke
(1977) outlined the methods and conundrums of data storage. Database
normalisation dates back to Codd (1970), and although Goveran & Date (1994)
are credited with the Orthogonal Design principle, the concept of functional
dependence discussed by authors like Kroenke (1977) is not dissimilar.

Basic was first designed and put to use at Dartmouth College by John Kemeny
and Thomas Kurtz in 1964. However as most of the original vocabulary of
Basic continues in Visual Basic, then VB is likewise an evolved dialect of
Basic (in much the same way that Standard Italian is an evolved dialect of
Latin - probably with overlap of variations of local dialect thrown in for
broader accessibility). The world's first IDE came with Dartmouth Basic, as
Basic was not intended to be simply a beginner's programming language but to
serve as an example of the cost savings offered by a little versatility and
simplified UI. This focus on simplicity is probably why Basic remained the
most versatile programming language. In time, console IDE evolved into
keyboard-based IDEs, such as Maestro I of the 1970's and then the graphic
IDE or CASE emerged in 1982 with GraphiText, followed by DesignAid; the
first to support a wide range of structured analysis and design
methodologies.

Then there is the broken paradigm (not the hippy symbol for establishment
perspective, but the real linguistic animal). Human language structures are
verb oriented, whereas modifications like that of Basic into VB have shifted
the fundamental structural orientation from verb oriented to noun oriented.
This makes separation and identification of subject and object vastly
simpler and more consistent than the more variable verb oriented
expressions. OOP was known decades ago as State Driven Programming and has
quite a long history. It was MIT that originally smashed the paradigm with
PDP-1, shortly followed by Daal & Nygaard's Simula 67 in the 1960's, which
interestingly also had the first 'garbage collection' functionality.

I think that VB will probably evolve into the programming equivalent of
"English" because it is used more often in reliable communications regarding
programming methods. VB already has demonstrable roots in GML, SGML,
Dartmouth Basic, PDP-1, Simula 67, & DesignAid, with influences hailing from
C (multilevel programming), Pascal (string assembly systems), etc. Only dead
languages like Latin and Esperanto are pretty. Popular languages are always
'bastardised' and anything but eloquent because it is that flexibility,
which makes a language most accessible to the broadest possible demographic;
and accessibility is the lifeblood of language.

Timothy Casey wrote:

Good show Timothy. Very good recollection of related computer history. :)

+1, BASIC dialect will most likely remain with us for a very long
time. I keep thinking "Maybe" we should switch our embedded server
langager to V8 (Google Javascript dialect used in Chrome), but we use
the basic BASIC dialect for marketing reasons - most people understand it.

However, we have also been moving back and forth and closer towards
interpreted languages, dynamic programming, auto construction and
execution is once again becoming feasible. The Hardware speeds pretty
much flatten out. That has always been the ultimate direction, it
came, it went, and languages like JavaScript and Prototyping methods,
along with other symbolic conceptual methods is bringing back the
basic ideas.

It will be the code (of course, it has to start somewhere), that will
be able to analyze a requirement, need, a "GAP", then code it and
executed it. :-)     Half the beauty of the smart IDE is just that,
auto-generation of code that links the different ideas.

On the practical side, The MS VB design team need to focus on the idea
that people have matured and can compress their coding and since
VB.NET does compile to the same footprint as C++/CLR and  C#, they
will/have attract many C/C++ developers. Not necessarily to switch,
but to use VB.NET mode.  It will be a mistake to believe that just
because the RAD (GUI designing) is now also available for C++ and C#,
that this would be enough to move everyone to C/C++/C#.  No, big time
marketing mistake.

Show quote Hide quote It all comes down to usage. I expect that BASIC will inherit a few of the
technical functions of C (like perhaps the compiler in VC) and I suspect
some aspects of Java are trickling in too. The most successful language is
the one that seems most familiar to everyone. In time, every programming
language you've ever heard of will be killed off by the NLP (Natural
Language Processor). A proper NLP will eliminate the coding step and allow
compilation to proceed directly from the specification. Fluency in English
will one day pay very well because advanced NLP compilers will eventually be
capable of modeling and compiling a working prototype directly from the work
breakdown. Basic NLP will make the difference between Google's word for word
auto-translator (which has been a wonderful cross-cultural ice-breaker) and
the kind of auto-translator that only errs only on idiom and is better at
optical character recognition than a competent human cryptographer. Do you
think the person who solves all the conundrums necessary to invent the NLP
would want to write it in an interpreted language?

Compiled code will always be faster, and this is important when performing
high intensity functions such as near match (executing a number of lines of
code equal to 32 times the number of bytes being searched times the square
of the length of the search string). Even with multiple core processing,
independent drives with separate reading arms for caching, application
access, and data access; getting completion times down to milliseconds could
prove a challenge over 150Mb of random length records (300-600 Mb in Unicode
depending on whether you use 16 or 32 bit and if you are talking about
formatted documents this equates to 250, 500, or 1000 Mb depending on
whether you are encoding 150mb unformatted ASCII in formatted; UTF-8,
UTF-16, or UTF-32). Whether the code is interpreted or compiled could spell
the difference between comfortable use and product unmerchantability.

When programmers go independent, the first thing they look for is a compiler
in their language. No-one making a living in shareware wants their source
code cut and paste into someone-else's application - even if it is simply an
adaption of well known techniques into something new with no real trade
secrets (eg. most content managers). When ISVs use interpreters it is the
original developer that always loses out because all the work and investment
is made by the original developer - whereas the reverse engineers get a
finished product they can license in their own names for next to nothing.
Only large corporations such as Honeywell can afford to have investigators
track hallmarks and pursue a legal remedy for such violations of copyright.
It's never so simple in compiled object code. This need to keep one's code
out of the open source domain is what makes third party .NET compilers such
as Dotnet Reactor so popular, and why interpreted code is always very bad
news for ISVs (Independent Software Vendors: people who develop, market, and
sell their own products as finished packages - eg. shareware vendors).

Interpreters are great if you want to write in-house or open source
products. However, interpreters make it cheaper to violate copyright and
vastly more expensive to protect copyright of commercial software directly
exposed to the open market. So if you're in business for yourself, and you
haven't signed away your right to own intellectual property, compilers are
the cheapest way to make reverse engineering more expensive.

Timothy Casey wrote:

Hasn't it already?  Prototyping is currently the hottest direction
today and people familiar with it see it employed in .NET languages
and more so in coming MS coming work.  There is no doubt Anders is
incorporated Javascript prototyping ideas into future .NET plans, but
also with a more declarative approach as well.

Why didn't Prolog take off?  NLP has its place.  Why just english?  I
would think globalization will raise a barrier higher toward this long
time endeavor.  IMO, symbolic languages will probably get more play.
Component engineering is a model of this, components becoming symbols
that have a "Snapping" (key/receptor) property to it.

NLP implies dynamic "automatron" accumulation and generation of
knowledge old and new combined with query dissemination techniques.
It may use fuzzy logic, neuron networks.  In general, such systems
required KB Engineers and/or Experts engineers to establish the core
and spark to get the engine running.

Its really a whole different set of applications.

Sure, it all depends. A big direction in the application server market
is to offer embedded programming methods, i.e. server-side scripting,
using JIT and/or p-code. ASPX is, but not exclusive, example of that.
Our own application server product has "net programming" as its name
sake "Wildcat! Interactive Net server" with multi-language API, p-code
compilers, JIT dynamic programming, interpreted scripting components
of the framework.  But it took a compiler to create it. :-)

Sure to protect their asset.

It depends in how its applied.  But sure, the point is solid.

See ya.

If English were the ideal language for expressing technical concepts,
there would be no formulas or diagrams in engineering books.

Human languages are not designed for expressing algorithms and data
structures precisely and concisely.

I do NLP research for a living.  This is not what it's good for.

Show quote Hide quote That depends on specification. I too have an NLP research program, which I
started several years ago.  What I am working on will eventually be
adaptable to turning specifications into code - unless the specifications
are incomplete, vague, or misleading (which renders the specification a
meagre pretence).

Mike wrote:

Actually, if you've taught Prolog -- as I have -- you quickly realize
that it isn't just "write down the specification and it executes."  With
Prolog no less than with other languages, you have to think about how
the execution will proceed.  Lots of things come out a lot more concise
in Prolog than in other languages.  I hope it will go on to achieve
wider use; I think one of the key needs is more interoperability with
other languages, so that you could (for instance) code the GUI in C# and
do the computing in Prolog.

Michael Covington wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteYou seem to be (Prof and author) I exchanged emails with regarding bad
coding and ethical training at the earliest age about 15 years ago?
Different Michael Covington? :-)

I agree, didn't teach it, but applied many AI languages including
Prolog for the development of Expert systems during my days at
Westinghouse.  I also attributed languages like APL to mold my
thinking process understanding how many concepts work in concert and
how data is manipulated mentally.  It helped me to quickly apply other
languages as well.

But AI and natural languages processing languages have a long history
and pretty much have their place.  I guess in the past, overhead and
performance was a factor, so its possible they would be more
applicable today.  In the area of intelligence learning,
gathering/searching, the question is when is most needed. Google would
see a common example where it might apply, but their methods is
probably finely tune for fast classification and query dissemination.
One might thing that is ideally the situation. On the other hand, you
have marketing pressures. i.e. google will yield more than what you
actually ask for, including near hits as well (you have to use he
advance searching to restrict it).

Finally, use, I think there should be more convergence of difference
languages.  This is more proof of the interpretive, dynamic and JIT
direction affordable by hardware power today.  MS seems to be heading
in the right direction. Whether its something most people will use,
thats probably will be answer much later. :-)

I think everyone (most people) becomes an "expert" in its own ways,
and what they believe once as "better," easier and natural for them,
inevitably becomes redundant and changes in time for them.

So whats correct, better or good for us or everyone will probably
always be a subjective concept.

If you think about it, the method of programming today - typing a
keyboard is really prehistoric and slow.  Voice-based programming
"should" the ultimate goal one would think.

   - NEW FORM PLEASE
   - ADD A VERTICAL SPLIT PANEL, DOCK FULL PLEASE
   - ADD TREE VIEW IN LEFT SIDE
   - ADD REPORT VIEW IN RIGHT SIDE
   - SAVE AS STANDARD TREE & REPORT SPLIT VIEW FORM

The next time, you can just say:

   - NEW STANDARD TREE & REPORT SPLIT VIEW FORM

However, I think voice based designs have a degrading factor, probably
in the area of recall.  Will you recall the saved phrase to voice it
out over time?  I guess the system will incorporate a solution,

   - Show me all forms.

Just consider how voice based technical support are getting better and
better in steering callers to a final resolution or point where it
needs to transfer to a human.

Then again, I find that annoying today, and TALK programming can be
deemed annoying by co-workers. For night owls working at home, the
sleeping wife might throw her cell phone at you. "SHUT UP! YOU ARE
GOING TO WAKE UP LITTLE BILL!" :-)

So maybe the final evolution is Thought Programing  :)

Mike wrote:
That's me.  Michael Covington of "Natural Language Processing for Prolog
Programmers" and other books.


Well, I don't know about that.  A good typist can do 75-100 words per
minute, which is comparable to the speed of speech (100-180 wpm).  The
keyboard is likely to be a lot more concise in many ways.


If only you can get them to THINK!  :)

Michael Covington wrote:


Very cool!

Interesting. Didn't know the correlation. I think people who grew up
type writers, teletypes machines, punch cards, etc, are fast typist
and possible "power" software programmers. Yes, I can see the more
concise "output" although of recent, my keyboard replacement
selections have been sucking and maybe a little of aging and dyslexia
is kicking in. :-)

Right! which brings me to a surprising twist of a society axiom I
recently saw which I will further twist and apply here:

   Give a man an answer, and he will solve his
   problem for that day.

   Teach a man how to think and find his own solutions,
   and we will lose a great business opportunity!

<g>

One other thought... Something that worked against Prolog is that in the
late 1980s and 1990s, there was a movement to do everything in one
programming language (first C++, then Java) and kill off all the other
languages.  Prolog got no respect simply because it wasn't a dialect of
C.  Maybe F# will catch on and will raise people's consciousness about
alternative programming methodologies.

Maybe, maybe not. If I compare Prolog to SQL, both are about what we want
rather than how to get it, right?  but SQL is still quite alive and well,
even got it nobility recognition by being copied (such as for LINQ).


Vanderghast, Access MVP

Michael Covington wrote:

Thats a very good point. In fact, if I recall, there was a movement to
  have one OS - Pink? Or something else? Brain is fading. :-)  But
that was the promise of the then big people in control, IBM,
Microsoft, Sun and others who have a sake in all this.  It never
really materialized.

The axiom I stated in the last post applies.  The socialist method (a
monopoly is really a form of socialism) only benefits one capitalist.

So having different ways of doing the same things, some easier than
others, some more powerful than others, etc, with a never-ending
expansion capability allows for more businesses and competition to exist.

I recall in a PDC I attended a while back, arriving tired to the hotel
in Seattle, getting to my room, turning on the TV where there was a
local news channel interviewing Bill Gates about the important PDC
starting the next day.  When asked, "How do you keep with your
competitors?", he surprisingly said:

      "Change the standards every two years."

It shocked the crap out of me!  Of course, he was thinking of then #1
competitor Borland (before he get a record breaking multi-million
signing bonus to steal Anders from Borland), including every MS
developer and business who to depend on Microsoft and could never keep
up with them.

In other words, there is less profits in a stable technology, market
place and it helps competitors to keep them 1 or 2 steps behind always
trying to keep up.

Got to admire Bill Gates. :-)  Ray Ozzie?  I am not too thrill about him.

"Visual Basic Soul is in our of us"...

What does that mean...?

Mark Rae [MVP] wrote:

Oops

"Visual Basic Soul is in ALL of us"...

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:19:59 -0500, "Fernando A. Gómez F."
<fernando.a.gome***@gmail.com> wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteI love lines like that. I wrote several apps in VB6 (for a former
employer) that are running fine today. I know because I still play
tennis with the old company once or twice a summer. They do exactly
what they were supposed to do and never crash and never leak memory.

I once wrote a voice mail system in VB3 for a 12 step group that had
no money. It ran, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on a 40 mhz 386
system, no UPS, for 15 years. It used a third party tool called Visual
Voice from Stylus Innovations.

I remember that it took me about two hours to figure out how VV
worked, and about two weeks to write the app. I recently was asked to
do something similar, but the brilliantly simple Visual Voice is no
longer available. I investigated somethings offering the same TAPI
functionality with DotNet. Due to the wonderful "object oriented"
design, it is now much, much more complicated. There's a Phone object,
and a Call object, and oh, so much more. And, the cheaper version
doesn't allow you to issue a flash, so you can't do three-way calling
(that's how the old app would patch through to a volunteer).

The learning curve was staggering because the complexity was off the
charts. All to do the same stuff as VV did.

I work in DotNet, and have since version 1, so I'm well used to object
oriented technology. But it isn't always better and this was a clear
example to me.

I always laughed at guys like you, bemoaning how VB wasn't a real
language because it had a runtime. I guess C# isn't a real language
because it has this big runtime called DotNet.

dgk wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteSo did I. I guess they still run, they did their purpose quite well. VB
had its market share, and it was designed for a specific purpose. In
particular, we used to create the front end in VB and back end
components in C++ with COM.

Show quoteHide quotePerhaps it was a bad design. At any rate, I agree that OO is not always
the better. Each paradigm has to be chosen according to the design goals
of the application involved.

Please, re-read my post. I never said it wasn't a real language, that
was your assumption. It was designed for specific tasks and under
specific conditions, as happens with any other language. The thing is,
it had all these hidden features and hacks that made the language
unclean and error-prone. Its paradigm was some kind of hybrid between
structured and OO, yet it didn't allowed truly OO design.

You can write apps with any language, and certainly each project must
choose the proper language and platform according to its design goals,
etc. I did that a long time ago, that's why I wrote VB6 code. And that's
why, when needed, I write VB.NET code (although I don't like its syntax,
which I consider too verbose). But that has nothing to do with language
characteristics, rather more with the framework and the programmer's
skills.

And as for that, from an OO perspective, VB6 lacked several features,
despite being marketed as an OO language. That is why I think VB6 sucked.

Best regards.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:25:26 -0500, "Fernando A. Gómez F."
<fernando.a.gome***@gmail.com> wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteYes, it didn't have inheritence. And now it does and I don't use it.
Well, of course I do. Every class inherits from other classes. But I
don't write my own classes that way. I once was at a Dan Appleman
lecture where he said that he could only think of a few instances
where inheritence was needed to do an app right. Mostly I find that
inheritence makes things more complex unnecessarily.

To me, an application language is good when it solves the problem -
and I really did start with 360/370 assembler so I've been through a
few. VB solved an awful lot of problems for me.

I think most folks who argue against VB find it too verbose. I find it
just right but C# is a bit too concise, almost like it's being
intentionally cryptic. Here's an example of a nice concise statement
written in MUMPS:

S:R>E I=J I I I X X X I U 0 R:R J W $J(X,2)

Believe me, I could have made it far worse. Much more concise than C#
though. Does that make it better? By the way, MUMPS has the most
wonderful use of sparse arrays that I could ever imagine. For all the
advantages that DotNet has, I really miss that. Look at this

Set Person(1, "Address')="1919 Mockingbird Lane"
Set Person(1, "Name")="Smith, John"
Set Person(1,"Phone", "Cell")="917-555-1212"
Set Person(1,"Phone", "Home')="555-555-1111"
Set Person(1,"City")="New York City"

Set PersonXA("Smith","John",1)=""      ; this would be the index
pointing to the previous sparse array entry.

Data goes in the subscripts of an array. If the next person entered
doesn't have a cell phone, that array element simply doesn't exist.
Such a cool way to store data.

Ah, I love programming no matter what the language. I even coded in
Cobol and liked that. I didn't know better at the time though. Still,
the level 88s were fun.

It won't, since both languages have the same features.  However, C# is
usually much easier to deal with and much less to write, especially when
it comes to advanced features like delegates, lambdas, LINQ, etc.


Greets,
Ertugrul.

Does that mean my VB applications will stop working?


HA HA HA HA



Show quoteHide quote

Per the decades old flame war whose smoke and flame still linger eternal in
our hearts and minds...

The reality is that no matter what the "reality" is or is not... VB, by its
very name, has always and will always, apparently, suffer from SEMANTIC
Discrimination, based solely upon its lowly, debased name... which no longer
adheres to its type descriptor.

Yet, to interject, C# is nothing but VB (in spirit and form (pun intended)).
It took the spirit and purpose of VB and wrapped it in {}.  That's all.  C#
is not a powerful, dangerous, low level language (save for unmanaged code
segments) - it's a nice, highly abstract language that is powerful because of
its abstraction (like VB 6 was) and that is a million miles away from message
pumps, unmanaged pointers, and hwnd of C based windows development. 

The .NET Framework was a MAJOR advancement for VB and for VC++ programmers
who really wanted a simpler, VB like world to develop in... and wanted the
incredible real world gains that that provides.

VIVA LA GUERRA! 



Show quoteHide quote

Jai Singh wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteUnless you want to do something useful.  In which case the HWNDs, message
dispatch loops, and everything else are right there waiting to bite the
unsuspecting C# programmer.

Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteWell that's what I we read the Petzold for back in the 90s! I remember
porting image processing software from DOS (32bit with DOS4GW) to Win16
to Win32s to Win95/98, remember "thunking" and 32 bit extenders? And
always fighting with the stack limitations - but for visual image
processing there wasn't really much choice but C++ and assembler. "So
little time, so many pixels."

We've come a long way but since then but I recall no problems with a
properly managed message loop, in fact I always thought that was one of
the enjoyable things to debug... When I had to move to VB in my new job
(because nobody there want to support C) I first hated it,  but you get
used to most of the limitations - as long as you don't have to deal with
other people's code.

Now its fast forward to post 2008 and luckily our customers prefer C#, I
had no problems with switching to that, found it a lot easier than
dealing with C++ and ATL; definitely don't want to go back to VB. My
favorite feature of C# is tight scoping, to me } means a lot more than
END. Also explicit casting is so much nicer - VB used to often trap one
(especially with DateTime types) by doing oblique type conversions,
often resulting in garbled data.

PeekMessage, anyone?

Axel

This is sort of an add in to all of the replies in this sub-thread.

First a question to Ben... which managed features does C# provide for
accessing hWnds, message pumps, etc., that VB.NET does not currently support?
Or, are these really benefits provided by inline unmanaged code?  (thnx in
advance if you are still following this post)

In regards to all the referencing of image processing C and PeekMessage... I
agree that VB programmers (VB6 and VB.NET) that do not have a firm grasp of
Win32 app dev in C will essentially make less than optimal decisions in many
situations (but the same is true for C# programmers).  And, by defending VB,
I am in no way saying that VB, historically, was "powerful" in the sense that
it could handle games, graphics, or scientific programming.  I only meant
that VB was, historically, "powerful", because of what it did for the
programmer behind the scenes. And, really, message pump mis-handling in VB6,
especially via DoEvents, led to a lot of problems with no apparent,
straightforward, easy answers.

But, before digressing further my point is simply... in todays world many C#
programmers are not historical Win32 / C programmers and thus are essentially
VB programmers with {} wrapped around their heads.  Yet, there is a lot of
posturing by these programmers in the lowly world of the 'business
programmer' - where they believe that the utilization of 'C' within "C#"
allocates them to some lower level / higher order memory register. 

And, in my limited experience, many, many VC++ programmers that I have run
into are less than expert in the complexity within which they work.  It takes
so long to become proficient in VC++ or C / Win32 programming that many are
lost in the details as they struggle to keep up with the ever changing world
around them.

Thanks for posting!





Show quoteHide quote

You have to admit, VB/NET people can certainly hold their own. They
know their place, enjoy it and don't let anyone tell them otherwise. :-)

I was once in a $40M project with 36 or so people during a recession
where many engineers were transferred into the C/C++ OS/2 software
project to give them work.  They struggled big time with C/C++ and
OS/2 GUI slowing the project with lots of newbie C/C++ bad coding and
just a terrible time in writing GUI programs. Then something
incredible happen - Microsoft came out with a killer app called Visual
Basic, along with Windows 3.0, MS split with IBM, dumped OS/2 and
because of VB, the project was reduce $15M with 20 people, many
overpaid C/C++ OS/2 consultant were let go, the engineers prospered,
RAD, component engineering and the project was completed.  Never
forget that one (I helped decide the switch). :-)

Show quoteHide quote

Missing an important point, imho:  the memory management is not the same.
The framework makes memory management trivial, stupid. Before it, only VB6
was trivial with COM (who want write COM with C++? ) but even in VB6, the
COM reference count is not without problem.

C# is far more than just not a matter of adding curly to VB6!


Vanderghast, Access MVP

I did not mean to imply that C# was VB 6 with some sugary syntax overtop.
By 'spirit' I was trying to convey that, in a broad, general sense, C# and
the .NET framework in general, adopted the sort of RAD, abstracted, IDE
approach that VB 6 made so ubiquitous. 


Show quoteHide quote

On 6/22/2009 2:29 PM, Jai Singh wrote:
I'd say C# and VB.NET are more like Delphi than VB6. Don't they also share a
common developer?

I agree and it only furthers my point.  Either way... C# is much closer to
those platforms, in a sense, than to C. 

Show quoteHide quote

Try :
http://blogs.msdn.com/vbteam/archive/2009/06/20/future-directions-for-visual-basic-by-anders-hejlsberg-and-jonathan-aneja.aspx

And the article you talked about is 2 years old...

I doubt it will shorten this thread but at least you'll be able to make your
own mind...

discussion : h18or9$u0***@sunce.iskon.hr...
Show quoteHide quote

Show quote Hide quote This is from the horses mouth, not a bunch of conjecture.  Perhaps the truth
will put this to rest.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msteched.com%2Fonline%2Fview.aspx%3Ftid%3D1d3d650b-a6b3-4c98-9240-571866969b89&h=9854d3d78e589b6153631e6b2ddd5324

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fchannel9.msdn.com%2Fposts%2FCharles%2FLuca-Bolognese-C-and-VBNET-Co-Evolution-The-Twain-Shall-Meet%2F&h=9854d3d78e589b6153631e6b2ddd5324

Sorry if is from Facebook but there is a group in Facebook devoted to VB.NET
hosted by those who should know what is really happening with VB.

LS

That's a good one. A person wants to know
whether they should continue investing time
in VB.Net, and the two "most dependable"
answers are a Microsoft marketing video and
a signup-required Facebook chat.  :)

It's a very effective spam strategy.
Post something like "is vb dead" or "Why Abortion is Good" - and you can
harvest a bunch of ID's from the responses.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

It only works against people who use their (or a real) email address here.

Look at mime! <g>

You're looking at it from the perspective of a victim.
If you eschew the victim mentality, you won't feel the need to cower behind
Internet anonymity before.


..

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteI'm sure there are people who don't mind spam, in fact, desire it for
whatever reason.  I've been involved in telecommunications since early
80s.  I don't need to directly expose my contact addresses to "bad
guys", further watering them down, making it less trustworthy. In
additional, there is something about cyberspace that brings out the
"best" (sarcastic) in us, its makes the shy more vocal, more ignorant,
more rude, when in real face to face, the irony they might be the
nicest people. I have learned it is best (for me, for who I am and
represent in the near 30 years of telecommunications work) to remain
anonymous as much as possible when you are having public exchanges
with people, especially in one that has gone global where you can be
much greatly "victimized" in many ways.

Since you think that way , I guess you have no reason to troll here.

LS

  Actually I think it's an interesting issue
that's clearly of interest to a lot of people.
I'm interested in what the old hands here
have to say. And I'd be interested in opinions
from Joel Spolsy or similar people. But what
people don't need is more Microsoft marketing
gibberish. Would you go to Ford to find out
whether Ford is the best car to buy?

  And as for Facebook... I don't consider it
a valid link if I have to sign up to become
a member in a spyware teen chat site in order
to read what you're linking.

  As far as I can tell your top link is actually
the same link that Patrice posted (a 143 MB
video download of MS marketing) except that
it's routed through Facebook. Why would you
"Facebook" the link?! Your second link returns
"Bad Request" when the Facebook prepend is
removed.

Show quote Hide quote If you read the title of this long long posting, it is Visual Basic is dead.
I would think that a rational person would ask those in charge before
rambling on.  I'm not saying it is good , bad or other, just that instead of
rumors I thought some truth might help this thread.  I guess you don't but
that is your prerogative.

How you seem to view most things from your post would indicate that you
don't really care what others think so I will leave this alone.

LS

Lloyd Sheen wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteAs most people know, this is an long time sensitive issue for VB
people including those that use mix languages.   Regardless if this
was a sneaky spam ploy or the OP had an interest in VB future and
intentionally used a subject topic that maximizes input, is the really
  besides the point, but to show how deep the subject really is across
many disciplines of people.

Practically speaking, MS will never abandon "VB" in whatever mutations
  it comes.  Would it be in positions where it might be a step or two
behind C# development?  Well, there is some indication from MS that C#
  seems to be getting first dibs. The question will then be, how fall
will VB.NET fall behind?

My opinion is how far can you really take a VB.NET and blend it with
so many C++/C# dialect that it loses a value of being "easy" to use,
which whether we want to hear it or not, VB/VB.NET is a more simpler
language to use, even for the best C++/C# people out there.  So
VB/VB.NET will always continue to have an marketing position as a
'entry point' or "easy to program" RAD environment that doesn't
required highly trained C/C++ people.

Are you really suggesting that the best person to ask about the longevity of
a product is the person who wants to sell it to you? Sheesh!

Mike

Well if I have to choose between a 2 year old article that predict something
that didn't happened and the available material (try
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/dd582936.aspx) then yes.

It's good to be skeptical but I try to avoid being paranoid and to handle
expected changes rather than highly speculative ones...

de discussion : ufxXoyW9JHA.5***@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Show quoteHide quote

That was not the question I asked you. Will you please answer the question I
asked. For ease of reference, here it is again:

Mike

Yes, assuming this person is likely aware that you will ***continue*** to
buy, from him/her, in two years, that person is unlikely to boldly lie to
you. Eh, by the way,  is making money a sin?

Sure, sure, there are sales person having no kind of remorse to lie to you,
that does not mean any sales person is.

If not possibly the best kind of person, who would it be? a religious
extremist?  and why?

And before you resort to an "independant analyst", let me ask you, what that
analyst is really trying to sell you?, what his/here real goal? Are you LESS
on the defensive when you listen to that analyst than when you listen to a
salesman?  if so, you are more vulnerable toward a  sales person presenting
himself as an analyst.

So, yes. Else, who, and why's that?


Vanderghast, Access MVP


Show quoteHide quote

You're such a pussy.

Mike

"That was not the question I asked you. Will you please answer the question
I
asked. For ease of reference, here it is again:"


    If not, who would, and why?


Vanderghast, Access MVP


Show quoteHide quote

That's just answering one question with another. If you don't know the
answer to my question then just say so.

Mike

I answered your question with  a Yes.

If you can only accept one answer to your question, that is not a question.

Vanderghast, Access MVP

Show quoteHide quote

Well actually it was a qualified "Yes", but you now appear to have
unqualified it I will assume an unqualified "Yes" as your answer. Just to
recap, here is my question and your answer again:

     My question: Are you really suggesting that the best
     person to ask about the longevity of a product is
     the person who wants to sell it to you?

    Your answer: Yes.

You really are a little pussy, aren't you. A salesman's wet dream . . .

.. . . Oh, I've just realised, you are a Micro$oft MVP. That explains it all.
Your answers to questions relating to Micro$oft and its products are almost
certainly heavily biased in Micro$oft's favour and hence highly unreliable.
Mustn't bite the hand that feeds you, eh :-)

Mike

My answer to your question was: Yes, if that someone would likely to still
be in business in two years and would need decent credibility to make deal
with you.

The statement has no need to be a Microsoft case to hold, it holds for any
business.  No need to be a MVP to understand it.

In fact, you did not attack the argument, but you decided to attack (if we
can qualify your objections as an attack) the one who brougth the argument.
Unfortunately for you,  my argument does not require to have faith in my
word, or on my reputation, since it only realy on every day experience of
EVERYONE reading these lines.



Since you seems to insist, tell me, how is it so hard, for you, to have the
upper hand over a 'pussy' ?




Vanderghast, Access MVP





The day before the battle of Issus:
Darius:  Return back home, I don't fight with children.
Alexender the Great: Tomorrow, if you win, your prestige won't be much
greater thant oday, you would only have defeated a child. But if you lose,
the world would consider that you worth less than a child.





Show quoteHide quote

I don't agree with you. In fact the last person I would listen to regarding
the quality or suitability or longevity of a product would be a
representative of the company that manufactured it or is trying to sell it
to me. If for example I was thinking about buying a specific model of motor
car I would listen to the views of /independent/ people who had driven and
or tested it and who had personally compared it to other models they had
driven or tested. I would correctly assume that the manufacturer of that
particular model of car, or one of his representatives or salesmen, would
not tell me the truth, and certainly not the whole truth, and so I would not
take their views into consideration. For that reason I would be very
suspicious of the views of Micro$oft and of the views of a Micro$oft MVP
such as yourself when deciding whether to purchase one of their products,
and I would not believe what they told me, just as I do not believe you.

Mike

  Independent analysts are often nothing more
than shills. All sorts of official experts have
"done studies". A famous one was done by a
company that came out of nowhere, called Asset
Metrix. They flooded the online media with a
"study" when Win98 was being "end-of-lifed".
Their study found that Win98 was less safe
than WinXP. Why? Because it was going off
support.:) Asset Metrix was in the business of
helping companies update to XP. Their study was
sheer nonsense. But the online tech. media were
only too happy to trumpet it for a headline, so
that anyone who didn't actually download the PDF
and read it was likely to assume that Asset Metrix
was a "going concern" and that their statement
was true, backed by coherent research.
  Asset Metrix was later bought by Microsoft.
(I wonder why?)

   You don't have to go to so-called analysts.
You could listen to people who use the product,
who also use other products, and who have a
future interest. You can ask people who know
more than you do. (Isn't that what newsgroups
are for, after all?)

  Hopefully you don't have an order in for a new
Pontiac. Then again: "Eh, by the way,  is making
money a sin?"   :)

Depends on how you make it.

Mike

I fired two ISPs in a row before winding up with my present service - and
and I fired them both for the same reason. Their call centre technicians
*boldly* and brazenly lied to me thinking I'd never bother to check. I
always check, and because lying doesn't fix any real world problems, that
put them in breach of contract which I successfully terminated out of court,
in both instances.

Many people really *are* stupid enough to lie to you about well known and
easily verifiable facts - especially when you are only a customer of their
customer. Enough to make it highly likely.

Always check the facts for yourself. After all,
It is only human nature to make all kinds of misteaks!

And no, making money is _not_ a "sin" - it is exclusively *how*
you treat others in the process of making your money, that counts.

No, not all salesmen will lie to you, but many of them will. The fact that
they are trying to sell you something makes it more likely that they will
lie to you than somebody who is not trying to sell you something. If you
don't understand that, which by your statements you clearly don't, then you
don't understand very much at all about human nature and you are a
salesman's wet dream, which is why I called you a little pussy.

That depends on how you make it. Making money is not in itself a sin, but
the act of making it often can be. There are people and companies who will
sink to very low depths in order to increase their profits and who are
prepared to do almost anything today in order to increase their power
tomorrow. In fact some companies, or at the very least some of their top
level employees, appear to be quite happy to behave like corporate gangsters
in their lust for power and profit.

http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/government-law/public-sector/news/index.cfm?newsid=6124&pn=1

Mike

Latin is dead. So are Simula 67 and GML!

VB is very much in use. Many happy users and possibly many unhappy users.
Either way, VB is very much alive, kicking, screaming, and disemboweling the
incautious.

People who opine that VB is a dead language either fail to understand the
role of usage as a determiner of language or they are a little out of touch
with the real world, or both.

VB can be used to produce applications that work. Period. So, whether you
'should' invest in VB all boils down to what *you* need from a programming
language. If you need employment as a coder, the more languages you acquire
the more customers can include you in their project development teams, and
the more contracts you can choose from. If you need to write an antivirus
application, neither VB nor C, nor any language other than Assembler or raw
machine code are up to the task. If you need to write ASP and SaaS then
VB.NET is also accompanied by VC and a bevy of other visualised language
interfaces, so the choice is yours. If you need to put a desktop app onto a
286 VB4 does an admirable job, although any C or Basic compiler should do
the trick with a little more work, but neither VB5, VB6, VB.NET, VB2005, or
VB2008 are capable. If it's desktop applications for modern PCs, then VB6
works securely for shareware vendors, while VB .NET has a fantastic IDE &
CASE. Once again, there are always plenty of other programming languages to
choose from.

The big question has always been whether the language suits *you*.
The best way to find out is to try it and see.

Good luck...

Marcus wrote:
found a little another thread with a little resemblance here:
http://www.hd720i.com/Future-of-CSharp-vs-future-of-VB-274987.aspx

Detailsview updading issue
Basic question: returning @@IDENTITY from stored procedure...
Is asp.net menu realy that bad?
PrincipalContext in class constructor
Change Scheme From HTTP To HTTPS On PostBack
Document markup language version question
Skinning Question for checkboxes
Custom Authentication
Return GridView sort to default
Compatibility of asp.net 2.0 http modules with 3.5