<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Poll: Where does VB.NET stand? ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-25T08:15:39-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[OOP is difficult to create and maintain?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3483766]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[And imperative spaghetti-code isn't?Sure, let's just get rid of &quot;generics&quot; and go back casting hell!  Boxing-unboxing, loads of fun!Even as a C# programmer one should know, VB is perfectly capable of OOP.  Proper OOP lends its self to best practices which can (arguably) lead to better maintain ability. I think the better argument for not using VB is it allows you to put strings, lawnmowers and whatever (option explicit anyone?) in your code leading to bad maintainability.VB is also overly verbose and awkward to read coming from any other language point of view (like C, C++, Java, etc.) C# is cleaner and case sensitive (I prefer to see my exceptions in design-time, rather than run-time thank you).]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3483766]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[deadlycreature]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:20:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Alive and kicking ...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3483555]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[http://visualcobol.microfocus.com/]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3483555]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ergins@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:07:34 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[did I miss a memo ??]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3483485]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I thought MS said we were going to F# ??? or some other new f-in language]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3483485]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ctisdm1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 06:30:00 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Experience suggests]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482739]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Rear view mirrors...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482739]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony Hopkinson]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 02:55:18 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Ayup...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482632]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&gt;had my head up my arse on a few occasions until I RTFM'd Been there more than once myself.And it's darned hard to find the recto-cranial extractor when your field of view is scoped to where the sun don't shine...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482632]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[wclardy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:09:42 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Well that was the thing]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482587]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[No pointers, no eval, no threads, no exceptions, defered instantiation, no OO and variants. Short of giving your variables silly names, and knocking option strict off, never going to win... Though that deferred instantiation trick, had my head up my arse on a few occasions until I RTFM'd and realised it was n't going to tell me I'd referenced a null.....]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482587]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony Hopkinson]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:39:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I don't use them a lot either, damned handy though on occasion]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482586]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I have as much respect for VB.Net as I do C# (well nearly), VB6, well that's another kettle of fish entirely. It's an enviroment that encourages very poor coding practices, designed to appeal to people with no knowledge of good ones. I can and have written decent effective code with it (pretty sure I'm not unique) but VB6 was designed for people who couldn't and that's where most of the lack of respect comes from. However the top five worst implementations I've ever seen, were in Delphi and C# though, not VB6. You do not want to see incompetent code in a language with pointers, full on OO, threads and  exceptions, at least bad VB6 code is easy to square up. ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482586]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony Hopkinson]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:29:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[VB has no monopoly on bug-infested code]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482537]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&gt;VB6, which made it horribly easy to write truly awful code... On the other hand, there is no International Obfuscated VB Code Contest. ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482537]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[wclardy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:26:53 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not just VB != C#]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482536]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I know I can *do* lamdas in VB.NET. I'm just less than convinced that I need to use them -- in either C# or VB.The closest thing that I have to a problem is that C# == C$$, while VB  Respect. On the gripping hand, the bank seems to appreciate my preference for SELECT $QL AS Income.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482536]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[wclardy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:21:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I don't see that much with VB.NET]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482496]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[VB.NET is *much* more complex than VB Classic was, as a result, I see a lot less of the &quot;BA who tried to write an app&quot; with VB.NET than with VB Classic, VB Script, VBA, etc.J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482496]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:51:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[J#? Are you sure?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482504]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[J# hasn't been supported in ages:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_SharpJ.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482504]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:48:59 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Re: &amp;quot;so I have to wonder what the strategy is with VB.NET&amp;quot;]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482486]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It's easy... if you look at C#, they've been pushing a lot of interesting new features into it (I hesitate to call them &quot;innovative&quot; since I've seen them all in other languages...). But then they wait a generation to put them into VB.NET. VB.NET is very much so looking like the unwanted step child that they only update if they have to, and because enough of the work is actually done at the MSIL language that it isn't too much effort to bring it to VB.NET. I've seen a LOT of other Microsoft technologies in that boat, and few of them survive long term. FoxPro, anyone?J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482486]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:47:08 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Natural language is a poor argument]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482485]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Programming is not the same task as speech.  It's much more specialized and precise, and needs a language designed for that task, instead of the other one.  Just because you already know how to use a hammer doesn't make it the right tool for driving wood screws.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482485]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterling "chip" Camden]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:31:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Hmm I write verbose c#]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482464]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[But I distinguish language features from my code.Most of your problems seem to be VB != C#For a start you can do lamdas in VB in .net4...Those who came from C or C++ (not me !) do tend to value terseness though, and they can carry that on, it's not mandatory though...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482464]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony Hopkinson]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:16:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Slower to write]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482407]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It does take more keystrokes, and often-times more thougtht, to write something in VB than in C#.On the other hand, I find the old adage about &quot;You can do it fast, or you can do it right&quot; to be more than a tad applicable.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482407]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[wclardy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:08:21 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[But I find VerBose .NET code easier to maintain]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482410]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Why stay bound by the limitations of Visual Basic and all of the restrictions and backwardness that goes with it? Because there aren't many restrictions any more. I'm trying to think of the last time I couldn't translate a C# example into working VB.NET and coming up blank. Admittedly, there are a lot of nice conveniences in C# -- inferring namespaces from directory structure comes to mind, and the stub &quot;notarealpropety { get; set; }&quot; -- but the conveniences have prices (quickly dragging a class to a different folder to reorganize my structure breaks things a lot more than explicit renaming as required by VB, and there still seem to be a lot of C# programmers who don't really get the difference between an object with defined properties and a data structure),  Also, pedantic soul that I am, I am philosophically averse to relying heavily on late binding and anything else that means I'm coding to a best guess of how it's going to work in production. Lamdas can be very handy, but credible debugging can become uncomfortably inscrutable.Admittedly, these are self-imposed limitations that generally keep me off the bleeding-edge ooh-baby cool stuff, but I'm proud that my apps tend to be pretty resilient despite their functional-but-ugly UIs and whimsical names. And I will admit to resenting &quot;real programmers&quot; who write code in C# but are unwilling (unable?) to work with well-commented VB code (complete with accompanying .chm documentation detailing the classes and structure).Then again, I mostly earn my paycheck mucking around in another language that the C-centric folks seem to hate (T-SQL), so I'm probably never going to think like real programmers do. ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482410]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[wclardy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:04:55 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[If you can't manage good code in C#, you won't manage it in VB.Net either.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482354]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[so I agree. And vice versa. It's no easier to write good code or harder to write bad codce in either. VB.net suffers because it's associated with VB6, which made it horribly easy to write truly awful code...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482354]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony Hopkinson]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:05:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[good programers]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482270]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[both languages are good for windows and asp.net also. I mean its about  how good is a programer.If you don't like , write your own.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482270]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[info@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:19:59 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[VB.NET easier than C# ???]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482244]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I completely agree VB.NET is not any easier than C#!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482244]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Lasea]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:41:02 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Slow?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482061]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I hope you're not saying VB.NET is slow as compared to C# .... there is absolutely no performance delta]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347126-3482061]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[herlizness@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:37:51 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

