|
What if you don't have a job...?
/\ |_ E X E GG
|
|
|
|
|
... doesn't roll off the tongue.
... apps programmed with it might not have anything to do with the internet.
It's just that MS have given much more snappy titles to things in the past.
*¨¨`)
¸¸.·´ ¸.·*¨¨`)
(¸¸.·* ¸ .·*
¸¸.·*
(¸¸.~~> Joel Holdsworth.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh what's in a name....
I agree though, but I can't think of too many decent alternatives:
MSL (Microsoft Library)
MSF (Microsoft Framework)
MOE (Microsoft Operating Environment)
Regards,
Alvaro
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft Bob++ ?
COM*=2 ?
ActiveY ?
OLE-OLE ?
Drag 'n Plug 'n Play 'n Drop 'n Resurrect ?
Gertjan Schuurmans
Amsterdam
The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, very drole 
*¨¨`)
¸¸.·´ ¸.·*¨¨`)
(¸¸.·* ¸ .·*
¸¸.·*
(¸¸.~~> Joel Holdsworth.
|
|
|
|
|
My fake email that I have been using for about 6 years to bypass junk mail is SomeOne@SomeWhere.NET (.NET was part of my gaming nickname "NETWARRIOR")...and several other people I've seen used it before vs.net was out.
They should of named it Visual Studio 7.0 or Ultra or MX or XP or XT or XIIS (extreme interconnected interactive system)
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
The truth is… the VB.NET and C# are almost the same. Both languages can be very good and useful if you spend a lot of time to learn well.
Ι personally now deploy only Visual Basic.ΝΕΤ, αnd can say that… VB6 it has a lot of weaknesses and and cannot be compared with VB.NET
In the end I believe… VB.NET was created to drive us in next decade of programming
What's your own opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
rtertertdf^&*^(*#$&@^&*$^*^$&*#^$*@#&*$^*@#&^$*&@#^&*$^@#&*$^*@#$^*&@#^$*&@#^&*$^@#*&$^&*@#^$&*^@#*($@#*$^*@#^$*@#&^$*@#$%@#&$%@#%$^@#%$&%#@^$%@#&%$&@#%$&%$&%@#&%$&@#%$&*#%$&#@%&%$#%$&@#%&*$%@#&*%$@#&%$&@#%&
|
|
|
|
|
Again, folks, choosing between VB.NET or C# is depend more on your previous programming experience. You came from VB6, VB.NET's for u. You came from C-family/JAVA, then C#'s for u. Simple.
One language pretty much can do whatever the other language can do, since they both target the MSIL. It's just up to u on which syntax u're familiar with. Though, I've heard that there will be language divergence in Visual Studio "Whidbey"...C# will be segmented to different market from VB.NET market.
Personally, I use both C# & VB.NET.
However, to my experience, most of the time, my clients prefer me to develop using VB.NET since my clients' developers mostly came from VB6, and they're the ones that will maintain the codes.
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution of Visual BASIC continues, from VB1 in 1990 to VB6 and VB.NET.
VB is a language with a different approach that makes it unique.
Humayun
|
|
|
|
|
PaloukiLook wrote:
The truth is… the VB.NET and C# are almost the same.
Well, the devil is in the details, huh? Syntactically they are different; generically they produce the same MSIL (with exception to compiler optimization). Unfortunately there are employers that require developers to write in some VB-related language because they fear the learning curve may be too steep for someone they may hire to come in and maintain existing code. Just my two cents worth.
-Nick Parker
VB gets under people's skin because one can be ignorant of computer architecture and ASM and still
get a lot done.
-Don Box
|
|
|
|
|
they 've two different characters...depends which one do you like.
my company has recently developed an interesting application, half of them is vb.net and half in c#....strange, huh
BEN BEN
|
|
|
|
|
I think the survey results show pretty clearly that the ability to mix languages is not very significant in practice. It seems to me that C# *is* .NET, and 'managed C++' and 'VB.NET' only exist to ease the migration path.
Likewise, the JIT compilation seems a bit unnecessary. It made sense for Java, where cross-platform stuff was important, and would have been brilliant a few decades ago, but with the dominance of X86 machines, the .NET code is going to compile to the exact same sequence of bytes on virtually all machines. Sure, Itanium machines will grab some market share eventually, but virtually all code will have been recompiled by then anyway.
So what's the real appeal? Is it mainly the safety aspect? Or have I missed something?
|
|
|
|
|
Don Clugston wrote:
So what's the real appeal?
Two words: Micro soft.
But seriously... I don't really see the appeal of .NET for desktop apps. And apparently, neither does anybody else, since none of the apps I've used (or written) for the desktop require .NET.
That being said, although I am not by trade a web developer (though I play one on TV sometimes), .NET seems like it's leaps and bounds above things like ASP, COM, etc.
No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the flood.
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to see the real benifits of .Net, start using it.
As a web developer the difference is huge. No more dancing beat apps (scripting languages) - because backend and front end is seperated, code is easy to follow, and most of all, easy to maintain. Since moving over, both my dev and maintenance time has halved. Being able to build re-usable classes and controls has also made a big difference. For instance, yesterday i built an sms control that sends text messages. Now i can use that in any on of my apps simply by dragging and dropping the control from Visual Studio onto my page.
And then off course, there's the compiled code vs compile on request code, which means quicker apps.
While you may not see the appeal of .Net for desktop apps - for those of us who build n-tier apps it means that our application logic can sit in one central location, and all we have to rebuild is the front end for each platform.
And then there's the cross language thing. I'm a VB developer, and the other 2 guys in my department are C# developers, but we all work on the same apps, and use each others classes all the time. Developers are no longer bound by language preference.
As I said at the beginning - start playing with the .NET framework, and you won't look back
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with pretty much all that you said, except...
Resin wrote:
As I said at the beginning - start playing with the .NET framework, and you won't look back
I still don't think that .NET is for everyone.... Looking at things long and hard and you will see where I am coming from: performance among other things. Just my opinion.
BNEACETP
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still a relatively young developer so its not like I'm an authority on this or anything, but one thing that occured to me was when you mentioned .net not being very good for desktop applications was that .net isn't a finished product by any means. I think when longhorn and SQL Server yukon come out, then .net will become only more important. I've heard a lot of MS people say that longhorn is where .net really starts to get cool. I don't know about that really, but I've seen some pretty cool desktop application demos running on longhorn and written using XAML.
My point is - .net at the moment is by no means a finished entity. Microsoft is pretty long sighted. .Net *seems* to be setting the groundwork for more cool technologies in the future.
Take care all
Simon
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
- Hermann Goering
At the Nuremberg Trials after World War II
|
|
|
|
|
The survey shows that 22 percent use at least a mixture of languages. These are quite big numbers.
JIT indeed seems a bit silly with all the x86 machines out there, from our (PC-biased) point of view, but .NET is Microsoft's attempt to gain market share in the servers arena. I believe they started working on .NET in 98 or so, so this stuff will be with us for at least the next 5-10 years.
Itanium (and/or other) machines will surely grab market share in that period of time.
To us (8 developer software company), the real appeal of .NET is a big decrease in development time and costs.
Besides, it's just a real pleasure programming on a clear, consistent and reliable framework. (as opposed to MFC which badly suffers from old age, or the Win32 API, which suffers from backward compatibility issues)
N.B.
Of course, in about 5 years time, everyone will complain about this old-aged, patched up .NET framework, but hey, enjoy while it's new.
Gertjan Schuurmans
Amsterdam
The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
I have been a programmer for the last decade. I used to work as an Electrical Engineer, but later when back to school to obtain my degree in CS. Now I am working on my Phd. If you have ever developed applications using COM+ or even writing code using MFC to develop windows based application, this is a chore. The learning curve was extremely steep. That is the main reason why VB earned it's own spot in the programming world. But VB had it's own limitations. I am not a fan of VB, but it works. .Net on the other end has simplified alot of the programming task. For example, look at the class library provided. They are easy to learn and use. I believe Win32 APIs was totally unappealing. MS had to do something. I have yet to meet anyone who has had a grasp of the whole list of APIs. I think NET is on the right path. With your choice of language you can code and execute it using the CLR (Framework). I am currently developing all of my applications in NET. It is quick and easy and robust. It may be a tad slower compared to C++, but hey guess what, with all of the fast CPUs, a few miliseconds does not bother me at all. But MS will tweak the CLR and will improve on it or else, they will definitely loose market share. Give it a try. I will encourage you to. ;);););)
Robocop
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
has anyone got experience on launching execution of .bat files using ::CreateProcess? I need to spin a child process and make it run a .bat file but my program crashes somewhere in the ::CreateProcess internals...
Please help me.
Regards,
Andrea 
|
|
|
|
|
This seems like an odd place to ask this question, but it's like:
STARTUPINFO si = {0};<br />
si.cb = sizeof si;<br />
<br />
PROCESS_INFORMATION pi = {0};<br />
<br />
CreateProcess(NULL, "c:\\myfile.bat", NULL, NULL, FALSE, 0, NULL, NULL, &si, &pi);<br />
<br />
::WaitForSingleObject(pi.hProcess, INFINITE);
mnashadka
|
|
|
|
|
While I'd prefer C#, I console myself with the fact that I'm no longer using VB6 for new development.
Searching the web without Google is like straining sewage with your teeth.
Userfriendly, 2003/06/07
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know which is worse VB6 or VB.net both are equally bad languages.
I am that is
|
|
|
|
|
Normski wrote:
I don't know which is worse VB6 or VB.net both are equally bad languages.
Well, at least w/ VB.NET you have the .NEt framework; with VB6, you don't even have that. 
|
|
|
|
|
As a person who has done both, trust me when I say VB.Net is a huge improvement.
"if you vote me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" - Michael P. Butler.
Support Bone
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
