What do you guys and gals think of VB.NET?

Should I learn it?

I like C# better.

But all "next gen" MS languages feed of off their .NET framework, so they're all pretty much the same. I just prefer the syntax of C#.

It's worth learning, IMO.

I like C# better.

But all "next gen" MS languages feed of off their .NET framework, so they're all pretty much the same. I just prefer the syntax of C#.

It's worth learning, IMO.

Agreed C# is way better

I think the only reason you would want to go with VB.net is if you have a background in Visual Basic. Otherwise go with C#.

...... Actually, avoid that aswell, go with Perl instead.

I've just picked up ASP.NET and am learning VB.NET. It's great. Highly reccomend learning it.

Agreed C# is way better

C# is no better than VB.

All .NET languages use functionality from exactly the same set of base classes provided by the ASP.NET framework, so everything you can do in C#, you can do in VB.NET. It's purely a matter of preference. You could even learn Perl.NET and COBAL.NET if you really wanted. Might find examples on the 'net hard to come by though.

I did find an article once which had a reason for choosing VB over C# but I forgot what it was. If I remember I'll re-post.

It would depend on what he's using VB for. I it's for the web, then he would use vbscript. But, I still think C# is better than VB.

Actully, VB.NET is not VBScript. VBScript is used in bog standard ASP, client side scripting in IE, Windows Scripting Host, and a few others. ASP.NET VB is a compiled language.

I'd be interested to hear on what grounds you think C# is better?

They are the same, setting aside some very small subtle details.

If someone likes C#, then it's purely because of the syntax. There's no other reason...

Visual Basic is based on Basic whereas many other languages have their roots in C.
C# has similarities to the syntax of Java, JavaScript, Perl, PHP etc because they are all C based.
Learning languages with the same root makes for less of a learning curve.
However, Microsoft want people to use C# to create .Net applications so maybe that's a good reason not to,

If anything C# looks like Java.

And its not constrained to Microsoft anymore. I have a Virtual host on my local machine that runs mod_mono under apache. This gives me the ability to run asp.NET apps from apache 2.0 FDC2 Linux (though i have no reel need, just been Geeky).

Mono also provides a C# compiler and lets you run your C# apps I believe it also comes with a basic complier though i have not bothered with it.

If your interested http://www.go-mono.com/ is the URL for mono. It also runs on windows.

So Linux strkes back (anything you can do we can do too!) he he and since Microsoft did not release its back end code it seems these guys have reversed engineered it making it completely FREE! Runs just like the windows counterpart with its own GAC and what have you (populated with dll's to keep cross platform support).

The only thing i have not tried is running an .exe from windows when it was built under mono linux. I have tried it the other way round though with no problems.

Just waiting on V2 for a more improved SWF library.

Ibbo

Originally Posted by Chroder

If someone likes C#, then it's purely because of the syntax. There's no other reason...

I agree completely. I was very familiar with ASP when .NET came out so went over to VB.NET, then I played with C#.NET and found the syntax easier.

So Linux strkes back (anything you can do we can do too!) he he and since Microsoft did not release its back end code it seems these guys have reversed engineered it making it completely FREE!

Why re-invent the wheel? As far as I was aware, the .NET framework is a free download from Microsoft and ships with Windows 2003 Server for no extra cost...

But you still gorra pay for Windows aint you! Unless of course everyone runs a snide copy.

So yes you still have to pay and if you get done for having an illegal copy you gorra pay more.

Ibbo

It's worth paying for. Most companies have the money, and for home users, it tends to ship with off the shelf PCs included in the cost. Beats having to mess about with Linux.

Originally Posted by Minaki

It's worth paying for. Most companies have the money, and for home users, it tends to ship with off the shelf PCs included in the cost. Beats having to mess about with Linux.

Nothing is worth paying for if you can achieve the same for free! (give or take some brain power) I cant understand why people are so intent and stuck on that.

Does LINUX scare you all?

Messing with linux is all part of the parcel. Like most people i suspect that which confuses never gets used. Which is a crying shame. Considering your all would be developers if you can grasp programming concepts and that you can grasp another OS.

The pro's and cons of LINUX (as a linux man) far outweight those of Bills products. Though you will negate that.

Still Bill gets richer by the day for folks like you will allways use his stuff. And while this is the case the computing industry will be stuck in Bills rut with a narrow field of expansion that wont sway far from bills path.



Ibbo

ibbo
I am also a 'Linux' advocate but feel constant Microsoft bashing is counter-productive.
For me the key issue is choice, some choose to use Windows and some do not.
Not everyone has the knowledge, time, inclination or need to learn a different operating system.
Although criticising Bill Gates is seen by some as fashionable I think there are many better ways to further the cause of non-Windows systems. Let's direct our energies towards those. :-)

Well i didnt know i was making any offense so appologies to those who may have taken it.

I am not anti-windows its come along in leaps and bounds recently but I must stress that you cant go wrong with free open source stuff.

My points still stand though i wont go back on them.

Ibbo

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1567370,00.asp

No, it doesn't scare me. It's just a pain. When I have a job to do, i want to get it done - not sit there and configure my OS for 3 hours to get anything to work.

I've heard an increasing number of stories about companies regretting their move to open source. We half use it at work and it really bites. Causes so much lost productivity...

Although criticising Bill Gates is seen by some as fashionable

Couldn't of put it better myself.

Personaly I like VB.NET. Coming from php I really figured I would have liked C# more considering the similiarity in syntax, however that was not the case. I have found that not having to enclose everything in brackets has sped up my coding, at least a bit. Besides, if you know one you know the other. I can read C# and even convert to VB.NET without any third party tools.

No matter which flavor you favor it's always good to excercise the other choice. I have found that alot more samples and tutorials are written for C# so knowing how to put that to use in my VB.NET apps helps me alot in the end.

As far as Linux v. MS goes....I have to agree that although it is free you absolutely get what you pay for. I once was very pro-linux, anti-ms until I spent some time trying to do some very real world business things with various linux platforms. Then I realized that most people would spend more time figuring it out and trying to make it work right and also hoping not to break it then would be able to just plug it in off the shelf and let it go.

There is a good reason MS is at the top of the heap and contrary to popular belief its not because they are an evil dominant empire. They simply create better products. Now I know that is a loaded statement and could be hotly debated so I will clarify, they create better products for the majority, not the minority. Which the majority includes CEO's who want to understand at least a little bit about how their IT stuff works. We, as webmasters complain about IE, well we are the minority, the majority see's it as a better product and it is for them because it's geared towards them, not us. Get the picture or am I rambling now?