in

ASP.NET Weblogs

Carl Franklin

.NET Wonk

A well-deserved smack back to some C# zealotry

Someone sent me a link to this page, which lists seven reasons why VB.NET programmers should be converted into C# programmers, and I just had to respond. It's crap like this that does nothing but obfuscate the real issues. Let me respond to each “reason“

> #1) Developers who program primarily in C# earn 26 percent more than those who develop primarily in Visual Basic .NET. (Source: 2003 Salary Survey: How Do Your Earnings Stack Up?, Visual Studio Magazine, June 2003) >

I don't doubt it. Most C# programmers are former C++ programmers who typically have more CS education and low-level understanding of computers. There are (or were, I should say) more VB programmers out there than programmers of any other language. Anyone who understands macroeconomics knows that when there are 10 VB programmers for every available VB position, and 2 C++ programmers for every C++ position, the C++ programmer is going to make more money. Those VB programmers that learn VB.NET and keep their jobs don't immediately get a raise to match the C++ developer's salary. The C++ developer who learns C# does not take a pay cut.

> 2) C# just looks more elegant because it was consistently designed. VB.Net was evolved over many years and has inconsistencies. <

This is completely a matter of personal preference and is NOT a reason to switch languages. In fact, I think C# looks ugly. To me, it's not as readable. So, I can make the same argument for VB.NET. Matters of personal preference are not arguments for switching. As for being elegant, I'll match the elegance of my code to yours any day, no matter what language you wrote it in.

> 3) C# is closer to Java which means it is easier for you to move to or from Java. This is good for your career. <

So, now “because you can convert to Java“ is a reason for converting to C# ?  Planning on converting to Java anytime soon?

> 4) C# is perceived as a “real” language where VB.Net is still perceived as a “toy” language. <

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's because of stupid statements like this that we have this perception. Let's ask Dan Appleman's customers. Dan is a dual CS/EE major and spent many years writing components in C++. His company, Desaware, recently published a suite of all their .NET components and tools WITH SOURCE. The language they were all written in? VB.NET.  Are you saying that Dan Appleman uses a toy language to make toy components that companies like NASA use for their toy software to land toy rovers on Mars?  Give me a fucking break.

> 5) Microsoft does all of its internal .Net development in C#. Even MS thinks C# is the better language. <

Microsoft is made up almost completely of C++ programmers. Naturally, they are going to latch on to C# as their development language. Naturally the C# programmers at MS are going to think C# is better than VB.NET. However, the VB.NET team and a large (and still growing) population of C#/VB.NET developers at Microsoft spend every waking moment thinking of how to improve VB.NET as a language and a development environment.

I know some assembler programmers that make the best FFT matrix computational components. I use them in VB.NET. But Carl, these guys obviously think Assembler is the best language!

> 6) C# has the following features which VB.Net doesn’t have: (Operator overloading, XML code documentation, Ability to write “unsafe” code for better interoperability) <

Wrong.

VB.NET Whidbey has Operator overloading and XML Code Documentation. As for unsafe code, this has never been a problem for the VB.NET developers I know. And, if it is a problem, I can write a small DLL in C# and call it from VB.NET. That's like buying a new car because the cigarette lighter broke. Just fix the freaking lighter.

If anyone should be making the feature comparison argument, it is the VB.NET programmers. VB.NET has a background compiler, which compiles a statement immediately after writing it. This makes intellisense and design-time error reporting work. While your brain is busy decoding cryptic error messages, mine is moving on to a critical piece of business logic.

> 7) Microsoft is actively adding new useful features to C# including generics, iterators, anonymous methods, and partial types.<

VB.NET 2005 has generics and partial types, so this argument is lame. I often hear the rebuttal, “VB.NET developers aren't savvy enough to use features like generics anyway“ which is nothing but pompous fascist bullshit.

When are these C# zealots going to stop telling us VB.NET programmers that we suck, our language sucks, and that we don't know how to use our own language. I'm not talking about the civilized C# programmers, such as those at Microsoft, and the leaders in the .NET community. I'm talking about zealots who propagate yesterday's myths as reasons for their superiority.

Just use C# and shut up.

Published Jul 12 2004, 06:12 PM by Carl Franklin
Filed under: ,

Comments

 

Paul Litwin said:

There is no good reason in modern computing for language case sensitivity. C types make excuses galore for why case sensitivity is a good thing but we all know it's a pile of poop. The machine is supposed to do the work, not the human! Just admit that Kernighan and Ritchie got it wrong and let's be done with case sensitivity already cause it really, really sucks.

Paul
July 12, 2004 6:21 PM
 

Mark Dunn said:

Well said Carl. We deal with about a dozen fortune 500 companies that use VB6 or VB .Net for production development. I've also worked closely with multiple agencies at the State of Alabama over the last year and 90% of the .Net development currently under way there is in VB .Net. I know those clients would laugh in the face of anyone suggesting VB is a toy language.

I'm no fan of case sensitive languages either. Paul has a good point there.

As a trainer teaching both C# and VB .Net, I can tell you from experience that VB is far easier on students. First time students in a C# class, unless they come from C++ or Java backgrounds, have a difficult time with the syntax. I've had a former UPS truck driver in a series of VB6 classes that had never written a line of code in his life and he was able to do very well with VB. I shudder to think of his experience with C#. He'd probably be driving a truck today asking what can Brown do for you.

My .02 worth,

-Mark Dunn
July 12, 2004 6:41 PM
 

Bill Vaughn said:

Ahem,
Ah, Carl, if you feel that strongly, perhaps you should take out a contract on this guy… ;)
As for me, (and I’ve been programming for a couple three decades too), I prefer Visual Basic as it’s more productive. I’ve been a development manager as well and as such, I prefer languages that my staff can use more efficiently. Managers and the developers they hire are rewarded by the number of problems they solve in a period of time. To me C# has been a “readable” language, but far harder to work with because it has not been as well integrated with the Visual Studio .NET IDE. In Visual Basic when I make a change to a variable or change its scope, I don’t have to do anything—the Visual Basic IDE takes care of the details—I have never had to. Visual Basic’s just easier to use for any number of reasons. The fact that there are billions of lines of Visual Basic code out there to draw on is another appealing factor. Sure, some of it’s going to have to be recoded to go use the Framework. We do this every few years to clean out the closet.
Sure, if you come from Java or C++, you’re going to want to write to C#. That’s fine. Statistically, those people do make more—but I can prove conclusively any fact you care to name given the ability to pick the sample. For example, I can prove that Visual Basic developers make more money simply by adding up the salaries of every man, woman and child that programs in Visual Basic—and include the professional developers along with the “paradevelopers” like the physicians, pundits, prosecutors, plumbers (who make even more) and politicians who make programming Visual Basic part of their job. Hell, the politicians alone would throw the income curve way off. Does that make Visual Basic more important or C# less important? Nah. It just means each has chosen the right language for the person with the problem.
Visual Basic is about productivity—doing more with fewer mistakes by more people without the need for specialized training. The Framework is about that too. The fact that you can use Visual Basic, or C# or any of a couple dozen other languages is immaterial. Saying one language is “better” than another is like saying Aramaic or Greek is better than English because that’s what the bible was written in and you can’t understand Christianity without reading and knowing these ancient tongues.
Carl’s right. Developers should not choose a language for any of the reasons he mentions. They should choose a language with which they are most comfortable and can make the most productive contribution to their company and to themselves.
Bill Vaughn
July 12, 2004 6:48 PM
 

TrackBack said:

Lazycoder weblog &raquo; C# AND VB.NET suck
July 12, 2004 6:49 PM
 

Martin spedding said:

I developed software,for many years using VB, doing a lot of things that people said you could not do with VB. I also worked on Java projects so when it came to choosing a primary .Net development language I went with C#. Partly because I had got tired having to defend vb against people who did not have a clue. The idiocy of the web page is that it is so full of errors and inaccuracies. In end it really does not matter which language you use, I feel happy using both of them.

Martin
July 12, 2004 7:07 PM
 

Chris Kinsman said:

I think there are two issues at work here.

I absolutely think that a project team must choose a language and stick with it for all code they create. Note I said create, not consume. Proliferation of multiple languages within a project is the road to madness.

That being said I think the strongest argument for that language choice is what are the developers backgrounds. If C/C++ developers great use C#. If Visual Basic/VBScript developers then use VB.NET. They aren't so different that the odd team member who doesn't sync up with the rest of the teams background can't catch on.

Now this is complicated by the foolish resolve of each of the language teams to further differentiate the languages so they can "compete" against one another. I think this is just going to promote more of the us vs. them mentality that is already swirling around language choice.
July 12, 2004 7:18 PM
 

Sherrod Segraves said:

Carl, the elegancetech page is silly, but you're not doing much better.

POINT 2: While I'd agree that it's mostly a personal preference issue, VB really does have some cruft. It's a minor but valid point.

POINT 4: You can rail against the injustice as much as you want, but like it or not, their statement is true. It's not fair, but many C++ people view VB as a toy language.

Blaming the situation on people who report it is unreasonable.

The real cause is that C++ acts as a gatekeeper. It's such a pain to learn that only the dedicated use it much. On the other hand, VB has always been easy, so even a clueless hobbyist can release buggy shareware.

POINT 6: You are talking about a future version, not what's currently being sold.

Anyway, I used VB from version 1 to version 6. It was wonderful for utilities and small apps, but I found it extremely constricting at times. I preferred C++ for professional projects.

Now with .Net, VB is a more full-featured language, but it still doesn't have unmanaged code. (Yes, I need unmanaged code.)

Luckily, C# has most of the development speed and ease-of-use of VB combined with most of the power and respect of C++.
July 12, 2004 7:25 PM
 

Wallym said:

VB.NET also has xml documentation. There is an addin available from gotdotnet to add it.

Wally
July 12, 2004 7:38 PM
 

Carl said:

> POINT 2: While I'd agree that it's mostly a personal preference issue, VB really does have some cruft. It's a minor but valid point <

I'll take a little cruft over C# any day. Therefore, it's my personal preference.

> POINT 4: You can rail against the injustice as much as you want, but like it or not, their statement is true. It's not fair, but many C++ people view VB as a toy language. <

Their statement is false. The statement "VB.NET is a toy language" Is false. The only way to say it truthfully is "There is a perception that VB.NET is a toy language."

The only reason there is a perception is because people make the statement. Since the peception is based on a falsehood, why wouldn't anyone rail against it. Are we not searching for the truth? Do we just embrace the lies? Is that what you're suggesting we do?

> Blaming the situation on people who report it is unreasonable. <

I blame liars for lying. That seems reasonable to me.

> VB has always been easy, so even a clueless hobbyist can release buggy shareware. <

Take a dose of your own medicine. Blaming the buggy shareware on the language is worse than calling liars liars. It's the clueless hobbyist (as you call them) who is responsible for the buggy shareware.

> Anyway, I used VB from version 1 to version 6. It was wonderful for utilities and small apps, but I found it extremely constricting at times. I preferred C++ for professional projects. <

I also found VB 1-6 limiting. Many times.

> Now with .Net, VB is a more full-featured language, but it still doesn't have unmanaged code. (Yes, I need unmanaged code.) <

And this gets back to personal preference. Go ahead and use C# if you need it. I won't come to your house and tell you not to.






July 12, 2004 7:57 PM
 

Daveo said:

My.Programming.Language.Is.Better.Than.Yours()

:)
July 12, 2004 8:37 PM
 

Jason Olson said:

First of all, I will admit that I am actually a C# guy myself and love it. However, I totally agree with Carl that the reasons are total bull-honkey. With that said, I believe that choosing which language you use is mostly just a personal decision (it's all basically syntactical sugar anyways (since it all gets compiled down to MSIL (disregarding Unmanaged code of course))).

Even though I personally like C#, I work with both C# and VB.NET and there are specific things that I like about both languages. With VB.NET, there are two primary reasons that I love working with it when I do: background compliation, and the AddressOf operator (which is an *awesome* tool to have when working with delegates). I can't explain really why I prefer C#, I think it is as simple as me liking curly braces instead of "End If" kinds of things.

However, it is a pet peeve of mine when someone tries to say that C# is superior to VB.NET. This is totally bogus and it just tells me how un-informed the person actually is. After all, if you get rid of the level of abstraction, we are all just coding in MSIL to begin with (assuming all the codebase is managed). Both languages have their strengths and their weaknesses. I wish people could just deal with that and accept that fact. "I have a dream, where all languages are created equal", yada yada yada.

Nice post Carl! :)
July 12, 2004 8:45 PM
 

Sherrod Segraves said:

Carl, you said: "Their statement is false. The statement 'VB.NET is a toy language' Is false. The only way to say it truthfully is 'There is a perception that VB.NET is a toy language.'"

But yheir website says: "C# is perceived as a 'real' language where VB.Net is still perceived as a 'toy' language."

They are stating the unpleasant truth, and it's exactly what you say they should say. Maybe they changed their website after you wrote your post?
July 12, 2004 10:31 PM
 

Carl said:

No, I was just ranting. You're right of course. It still makes me mad that I rarely hear people saying "VB is a toy language" anymore. All I hear is that people percieve of it. Fair enough. Let's stop talking about the minority who keey saying the sky is falling, and shine a light on reality. Nuff said.
July 12, 2004 10:49 PM
 

Brad Corbin said:

You guys missed the best one:

2. "Your developers will be more productive because they will work in a language that they like."

What, because C# is the FUN language? Parties with curly braces?
July 12, 2004 11:49 PM
 

Jerry Pisk said:

WHo woULD neED CASE SensITIVIty tHESe DAYs QuestIOn MARK anD WHY woULD aNyOnE uSE PUNctaTION whEN YOu can spELL iT OUt QUEstIon mARk THoSE are clEARly DRAGginG PRODUCTIVITY DowN CoMMa MAkiNG thE cOdE difFICult tO reAD Dot
July 13, 2004 12:16 AM
 

Scott Swigart said:

Find me a consulting shop that says they will charge you more if you insist on having it written in VB.NET. If all the stuff we argue about doesn't manifest itself in something measurable, then by definition, it doesn't matter.

July 13, 2004 12:25 AM
 

Andrew Baum said:

While I am a csharper, I completely agree with you Carl. It's time for everyone to move on from these types for arguments. The types of people that continue to use these arguments are so rooted in the past they've failed to realize that its all about the Framework today, not the language. The analogy I commonly use is this: Say you need to write a letter to someone. You have a pen, a pencil and a piece of paper. C# is the pen and VB.NET is the pencil (or the otherway around), and the letter is the IL code. It doesn't matter which one you write it with, the letter's content is the same.
July 13, 2004 3:11 AM
 

Frans Bouma said:

"Wrong.

VB.NET Whidbey has Operator overloading and XML Code Documentation."
Nope. VB.NET doesn't have operator overloading. It also doesn't have XML documentation generation, you need an add-on for that.

"> 7) Microsoft is actively adding new useful features to C# including generics, iterators, anonymous methods, and partial types.<

VB.NET 2005 has generics and partial types, so this argument is lame."
No, it's not. iterators and anonymous methods are not part of VB.NET 2005.

"Just use C# and shut up."
If I could I definitely would, Carl. But the sad thing is, I can't, as I also have to support VB.NET code :) When you have to do that, you run into all kinds of nice things, like this little fellah:

- derive a class from datatable
- add a memberfield
- try to serialize it over the wire using SOAP with the memberfield!

you can't in VB.NET, as it doesn't allow you to re-implement an interface member (ISerializable.GetObjectData(), which is implemented private in DataTable). THis requires that you derive your class in C#, and if you solely use VB.NET, you then have to create a C# project with this class.

There are more of these things which can bug you during development. No, not when you are dragging and dropping datareaders on asp.net forms to mimic MS' demos, but when you're doing real world software development, you can run into these issues.

I'd really like to create an Object query language with operator overloading. The problem is that I have to write a complete set of methods for VB.NET because it doesn't support operator overloading nor does it support implicit operator overload calling. (the BCL contains a lot of implicit conversion operators which are not used by VB.NET).

Language lameness like Public Overrides Overloads Function Foo() As Boolean (which overrides an abstract method, but I have to specify overloads!)... I can live with that, we have a clueless 'break' statement in case blocks which are totally meaningless because fall through is not supported anyway. It's the missing features that you run into when you want to do something in VB.NET which is possible in C# but not in VB.NET. THAT's what matters.

However after I've seen the MC++ enhancements for whidbey, I think we all should move to MC++ :)
July 13, 2004 4:35 AM
 

Carl Franklin said:

> Nope. VB.NET doesn't have operator overloading. It also doesn't have XML documentation generation, you need an add-on for that. <

Um. VB.NET Whidbey has operator overloading AND XML Document generation. Look it up.

> I think we all should move to MC++

I'm not touching that one.

You bring up some good points. It's still not enough to make me switch.
July 13, 2004 4:45 AM
 

Frans Bouma said:

"Um. VB.NET Whidbey has operator overloading AND XML Document generation. Look it up. "
Where can I buy VB.NET Whidbey? Version VS.NET 2008 also has great new features. And no-one can use them today.

Perhaps YOU should look up something, like the meaning of the words "Not yet available".

Today, tomorrow and even the first half of 2005 I can't use what you say that's available :)

"It's still not enough to make me switch."
That wasn't my intention, everybody should use what he/she thinks is best for his/her software development. That also means that if C# is better for some sort of software development, people shouldn't whine but switch, the same goes for the other way around of course. Like the constant stream of whining about E&C in C# or the lack thereof. If people like it so much, use the tool that has it. :)
July 13, 2004 5:42 AM
 

Daren said:

I think one C#/VB.NET difference is even more simple than that.

Its a name thing. Sharp vs Basic

Now imagine you are non techy employer deciding who to hire or what wage to pay, you know nothing of curly brackets or overloads, do you pay more to the "Sharp Programmer" or to the "Basic Programmer" ?

Next your a software house selling a custom solution to your "hasn't a clue" customer, Do you say "We have a team of Sharp Programmers or a team of Basic Programmers ?"

OK, so all the VB houses will say "We have a team of .Net Programmers" but they are still bidding against the company down the road that has a "Team of Sharp .Net Programmers"

I think it is a marketing thing, perhaps it will change as business discovers it can get 5 vb programmers for the price of 4 c# programmers, but first it has to overcome the word BASIC, im not sure that will ever happen.
July 13, 2004 6:24 AM
 

TrackBack said:

July 13, 2004 9:46 AM
 

M Kenyon said:

Search for truth, it will be found.

I like not worrying about case, but still use case for my own pleasure. (VB.Net allows me to choose.)

It's also a matter of syntax. Csharpers sometimes come across with the attitude 'If you're not doing it the hard way, you're not a real programmer.' Maybe they don't say it outright, but it comes across...

Would you like to drive a car with an engine you build yourself, simply because a real driver builds his car from scratch? Silly really. If we want to do things the hard way, let's say a kit car, fine... it's a good thing to know how to do. But if your out their trying to get a solid product in short time, your not going to go and use something that restricts your speed.

Use the right tool for the job. If you can do the job faster in VB, do it. If C# is better for the job at hand, use that. If you have a team and can have some people that dabble in both, better yet.

Me, I'm VB. I came from the ranks of hobbyist, but would not consider myself hobbyist now. I stick with VB cause it does a professional job, but doesn't take me a lot of time.
July 13, 2004 9:50 AM
 

Tom Vande Stouwe said:

It's about the money. If the C# community can get the perception that thiers is the 'Real Language' and has less resources, then they will be able to charge the client more for the work. Time to get some real world studies to see if 2 similiarly skilled developers can develop the same code in different languages and see who is the most productive.

I also teach VB.net and C#.net, and the studens seeing C# for the first time are intimidated by the syntax structure, where similiar students in thge VB.net courses bet teh syntax structure immediately. It is easier for them to read, and see errors. (I spend more time in the C# class checking for ;'s and that is just plain dumb)

Tom
July 13, 2004 10:45 AM
 

Frans Bouma said:

Tom: well in VB.NET you have to check for '_' at the end of a wrapped line :) A C# developer hardly forgets a ';' like a VB.NET developer hardly forgets the '_', both because of the editor. If you develop C# or VB.NET in notepad for example, it would be much harder (and as I've done excessive C# to VB.NET porting in templates (thus no intellisense) I can tell you writing VB.NET without the VB.NET editor is no picknick ;))
July 13, 2004 11:52 AM
 

Sean Harvell said:

I have used VB since VBDOS and currently use C# 70% of the time though I like the appearance of well coded Visual Basic.Net better…

>"VB.NET is a toy language"
I can pull up Visual Studio.Net – File > New > C# ASP.Net web application. I can drag a button on to the form. Double click the button and add 1000 lines of interface, business and data access logic directly into the Button1_Click event. I can do this in VB too without semicolons… In reality either language (as most languages) can be used ineffectively.

- I find often less technical individuals (customers) find it much easier to read and follow VisualBasic.Net code. It can be an advantage to explain simple logic sitting next to a user viewing clear written English on the screen. In a similar discussion using C# you would really have to go to diagram because it is much less readable to “the average person”. I personally know of developers who do realize that because C# code is not as easily read initially by an “untamed eye” due to additional syntactical elements and arrangements it is perceived as more complicated and also therefore perceived as “the more powerful language” and this is why they use it...

I develop mostly in C# because of the uneducated developers and companies you speak of that assume C# is better... Unfortunately when opportunities present themselves its easier to implement with C# then to evangelize why I should be compensated the same with VB.NET after showing them err of their misguided ways...

>“Saying one language is “better” than another is like saying Aramaic or Greek is better than English because that’s what the bible was written in and you can’t understand Christianity without reading and knowing these ancient tongues.”
Knowing Aramaic and/or Greek can be helpful in knowing actual words used and their original meanings prior to English and other translations such as Petros etc… We do have references for such not requiring us to memorize the entire language though….
July 13, 2004 1:28 PM
 

Carolus Holman said:

A famous person once said, "Don't Mistake Kindness for Weakness." I would like to COOP that statement to, "Don't mistake Ease of Use for Lack of Power". Many people underestimate the power of simplicity, I remember a government employee telling me that MS-Word wasn't a real Word processor, Word Perfect would prevail in the end. Where is Word Perfect today? (Remember reveal codes?) When i first saw Word, I was hooked, when I first used VB.NET I was hooked. C# has too many syntactical anomolies for me to use easily. It's not that I am too stupid to understand it, it's just that I DON'T CARE or HAVE THE TIME to learn all of the syntax and place in my mental framework. Nice one Carl, it's time the gloves came off!
July 13, 2004 1:41 PM
 

Joe Grenier said:

I'm surprised they didn't tout the "C# programmers are paid more" argument in the "For The Manager" section! Oh well, we all know managers are too dumb to look in that other column.

I actually really enjoyed the User Testimonials: "Great tool to develop the application in VB.Net as your preferred language but then deploy and expose the code as C#". Gee, and I thought you deployed assemblies, not source code. Back to the docs for me!
July 13, 2004 3:19 PM
 

Dan Appleman said:

Well, despite being quoted here, I already weighed in on this topic in my ebook "Visual Basic .NET or C#: Which to Choose". There I go into a great deal of depth comparing the two languages and suggesting when you might want to choose one over the other. Right now it's really a wash - both languages have strengths and weaknesses.

I happen to personally prefer VB .NET because I really like background compilation - it makes me more productive. The lack of unsafe code doesn't bother me, because in applications where I really need unsafe code I'm doing a lot of mixing of COM/pointers and .NET, and for those I like to use C++ - which is really brilliant at mixing safe/unsafe/managed/unmanaged.

I'll be reviewing VB .NET and C# again, probably with the next Whidbey Beta. Based on what I've seen so far, I don't expect either to prove decisively better than the other.

The truth is, as any real .NET developer knows - it's not about the language, it's about the framework. Any C# developer worth his while can read and write VB .NET and vice versa.

Dan
July 13, 2004 7:36 PM
 

Dan Appleman said:

Oh, and by the way... I did like Carl's response very much. Sometimes extremist zeolots need to be responded to with extremist zeolotry.

I took a slightly different swing at it in my recent VS Magazing article.

Dan
July 13, 2004 7:39 PM
 

TrackBack said:

July 14, 2004 5:04 AM
 

TrackBack said:

July 14, 2004 6:48 AM
 

TrackBack said:

Why C# and VB programmers should switch to IL and assembler...
July 14, 2004 9:11 AM
 

Rob Teixeira said:

As a response to an earlier comment - XML documentation is in fact available right now. You can download the VB Powertoys from GotDotNet.com, and/or use it with nDoc. With Whidbey, the feature doesn't require a separate download.

> Now with .Net, VB is a more full-featured language, but it still doesn't have unmanaged code. (Yes, I need unmanaged code.) <

Well, I guess that means you can't use C# either. The only language MS makes that targets the .NET platform AND compiles *unmanaged* code is MC++. I really am tired of repeating this.
July 14, 2004 9:39 AM
 

Carl said:

That's true. Unsafe code is not Unmanaged code. C# is managed, even when using pointers.
July 14, 2004 9:41 AM
 

mike said:

I'm surprised that no one pointed out that the source of all this debate is a site whose business is specifically in converting VB code to C#. Why would anyone expect an objective viewpoint from them?
July 14, 2004 11:33 AM
 

David V said:

I think the point is entirely missed here. Having programmed in many languages (FORTRAN, Pascal, C++, Java, etc) Ive learned one thing; great programming transcends language. I could give Lance Armstrong the cheapest bike in the world, and hed still kick my ass on the most expensive bike in the world. Its not the language, its the expression of the idea. These so called zealots of any language will always be just mediocre programmers until they learn to get pass language obsession. By the way I dont program in VB or C#, I program .Net.
July 14, 2004 1:08 PM
 

TrackBack said:

July 14, 2004 1:41 PM
 

Joe Grenier said:

mike,
"I'm surprised that no one pointed out that the source of all this debate is a site whose business is specifically in converting VB code to C#."

That's kind of what I was getting at by poking fun at the "User Testimonials" and "For The Manager" sections of their site. What we've got here is clumsy marketing-speak, not true zealotry.
July 14, 2004 2:43 PM
 

Kathleen Dollard said:

Well, its an old argument...

I want to weigh in and point out that they are different languages. It does matter which you work with. There are things better and worse in each, and each language team is focused on fixing different things. Frans is right that there's some oversights in interfaces in VB (I think Whidbey may address this one). But have you really tried to manage various scoping options in interface implementations in C# - its a piece of cake in VB. You can't shadow by name in C# at all. VB's declarative, C# isn't (except attributes). VB's like a partner, C#'s like a tool. Some people like tool's and C# works like a computer - which can be good if you like that. My sons prefer C#, I prefer VB.

My point is not that VB is better, but that its not just an unimportant casual preference, like for different types of chocolate. It's a match between the way you think and the way the language works. If I was a manager, I'd give this test to my developers. I could not afford the logic errors that would result if they're immediate (2 second) reaction was wrong. (You can translate to VB.NET)

int i = 2;
int j = 3;
if (i/j > 0) then
{ /* Is this code executed? */ }

Also, the salary survey that the website quoted was fatally flawed. It was from a time that far more C# programmers were consultants and far more VB.NET programmers were hires. The survey did not account for this, and comparing cash income from conslutants and hires is just stupid.
July 14, 2004 9:17 PM
 

Bill Ryan said:

This debate is soooooo tired. Like Dan said, it's ALL about the framework.
July 14, 2004 11:10 PM
 

Coding Horror said:

pingback
July 15, 2004 12:05 AM
 

Sytelus said:

Why VB.Net is Better Then C#?

http://www.shitalshah.com/blog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=ea881384-4413-41d3-9c9c-0796fcad09da
July 15, 2004 3:05 PM
 

TrackBack said:

July 15, 2004 4:09 PM
 

Bill said:

Proctologist get paid more (~400K). It's shit job looking at semi-COLONS all day, but soemone has to do.
July 15, 2004 4:19 PM
 

TrackBack said:

July 15, 2004 11:12 PM
 

TrackBack said:

July 16, 2004 5:20 AM
 

Francisco Lopez said:

I use VB for about 80% percent of work.

However, back in college I was taught to look at programming languages/compilers as syntax checkers or correct code abstractors/analyzers. Each having different purpose and inherent strength.

fortran - Scientific apps.
C/C++ - Just about anything.
prolog - fast prototyping.
vb - productivity.
APL - Math + financial.
Perl - ?? :)
...

While I used, in college, mainly C++; we were also told that for specialized and hard to abstract problems (i.e.Live Christmas Tree http://members.kconline.com/rdbarnhart/mct.htm);
sometimes the best choice is to develop; a tokenizer, syntax checker, and; thus, a compiler. As in http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Mini+Language+Core%22&btnG=Google+Search

Our code generator did emit C++ but that's besides the point.

I think we should settle our differences and use whatever is best for the problem at hand and gets us faster to what we want.
July 16, 2004 12:36 PM
 

Jeremy Marsch said:

What a thread this created!

I use C#, but I won't count myself an elitist -- I think that the whole .Net family is incredible technology.

For me, there is one interesting theme that plays through these C# vs VB arguments: There _are_ differences in the languages. We know that .net languages are allowed to be different, as long as they are compliant with some base rules.

For me, here's the million dollar question: Why do VB.Net and C# differ in the ways that they do? What's the message? What's the theme? Is there coordination between the C# and VB.net teams, where they decide what sensible differentiation to apply, or are the differences that we see just the result of open competition or at least a lack of coordination between the VB and C# teams?

There just doesn't seem to be a consitent plan dividing the features. And for that matter, should there be features absent from either language? If VB and C# are both built on .Net, and they both leverage the same framework, and are built by the same company, and they are both billed as industrial-strength languages, why shouldn't VB have every feature that is in C# and vice-versa?
July 16, 2004 3:29 PM
 

vbNullString said:

These guys are selling their little program to convert from VB .NET to C#. So it makes sense for them to make up stupid reasons to convert VB .NET to C# to sell their crap.
July 16, 2004 5:42 PM
 

M Kenyon said:

Rob Teixeira, I couldn't find the XML documenter.
July 19, 2004 10:00 AM
 

Eddy Recio said:

I guess am chiming in a bit late, but I still want to make a point.

It seems like I have heard a similar argument before, I wonder where…. Ahhh yes, I have this very same argument all the time with “real” CS geeks, who think that using a “toolkit” like the .NET framework is for sissies. They can write wrapper classes better! They can make better parsers in their sleep! They can, well you get the point. While I don’t doubt that certain talented people can write a better framework than the folks at MS. Who cares! I need productivity, I don’t have the time to write it myself, so I’ll use what ever tool fits the job at hand! The square peg in round whole example Carl uses all the time! So it seems we should band together under the Framework and not which language. After all there are lots of CS depts. in colleges all over the country that still only teach C, C++ and Java, and , .NET is viewed as part of the Evil empires goal to take over the world. And so in closing, while the latter statement might be true (jk), let’s convince the low level folks that writing your own shell and parsers is not the way the real world moves, unless of course you’re working on a framework team ;).

My $5 worth!
July 19, 2004 11:03 AM
 

Bruce Haslam said:

Three cheers for the "SLECT CASE" statement in Vb.net. This statement is flexible, elegant and powerful. C#'s is clumsy, constricted and downright ugly.

In my opinion, of course!

All you zealots, GET A LIFE!!!

Bruce
July 19, 2004 1:01 PM
 

TrackBack said:

July 19, 2004 9:38 PM
 

Dan K said:

Carl,

You also forgot to add that VB coders bathe and wash their hair more! Cleanliness is next to Gatesliness you know.
July 20, 2004 12:31 PM
 

Carl said:

Well, it's really the C++ programmers that have dirty hair. :)
July 20, 2004 1:27 PM
 

Dan K said:

Yeah well "those people" all look the same to me anyways.
July 20, 2004 2:40 PM
 

mikeb said:

A couple of minor points (note that I agree with Carl's main point):

"I often hear the rebuttal, 'VB.NET developers aren't savvy enough to use features like generics anyway' which is nothing but pompous fascist bullshit"

You should really have used 'elitist' instead of 'fascist'. I don't think this statement has anything to do with Fascism.

Also, I think that the Java/C# point might have a bit of merit. Not that C# projects will be converted to Java, but if you're a C# programmer looking for work, transitioning to a Java shop might be somewhat easier than for a VB.NET guy. This might well be a result of perception as much (or more) than actual ability.

Anyway, like you, I'm tired of the pointless language wars - particularly between C# and VB.NET - since the key to using either language effectively is in the Framework.
July 20, 2004 8:49 PM
 

Rob R said:

Don't you guys have anything better to do with your time?

Grow up.
July 22, 2004 8:31 AM
 

Amber said:

Carl,
It's not that C# is a better programming language than VB (even thought it really is). You are correct it is a personal preference. It's just that people who prefer C# are better.

anywho, I take it you are a VB Man. I was a VBer until I figured out c# is less typing. To me that is the major advantage. Less Verbosity.
July 22, 2004 5:49 PM
 

Kevin Daly said:

I used to be a VB programmer (although that sounds like a fundamentalist preacher bullshitting about what a sinner he used to be) before I came over to the Dark Side and adopted C#, and I have to admit that I was disappointed that VB Script lost out to Javascript, partly because of its familiarity at the time, but also because I hated case-sensitivity.
I do find case-sensitivity in C# pretty painless with Intellisense though, and it's a big help with naming fields and associated properties (and parameters). I also prefer things like the casting syntax in C# - but this *is* just a personal preference, and there's nothing huge in any of it. The two languages really are functionally equivalent for all intents and purposes, and ideally I'd like to learn VB.NET properly to increase my employment opportunities (some places want C# developers, and some want VB.NET developers - so why not equip ourselves for both?).
If we agree that the C#/VB.NET language war is childish and stupid (which it is), consider how stupid the C#/Java language war is.
July 24, 2004 4:28 AM
 

benj said:

My personal preference is C#. I don't believe VB.NET should have come to exist at all, but I have begun to acknowledge its place for the thousands of VB developers out there. It is though, just syntactic sugar for those people, with only a skin-deep resemblence to VB6.

Point 2 - I would agree with. C# doesnt try to turn code into babytalk, rather allow developers to pick it up quickly because of it's remarkable similarity to Java, and it's syntactic similarity to C/C++, PHP, Java, JavaScript etc.

Point 3 - Is of course right.

Point 4 - Well, the reasoning for such comments should also be obvious, but I am a strong proponent of the 'Why make it more difficult than needs be' argument. I would have given this same argument more credit for VB6 because it was it's own language with it's own origins.

Point 5 - Wouldn't surprise me. But I am not in that team so what would I know?

Point 6 - Now come on.. Wrong? Because it's GOING to be in the next version? Would it be wrong to say VB.NET 2002 developers didn't have access to bitshift operators until 2003 came out?

Anyway, really I don't mind what people use until it affects my work directly, in which case I will of course TRY to steer clear of VB.NET
July 27, 2004 3:15 AM
 

David V. Corbin said:

Point #7 is the real interesting one. The [microsoft] developers for Whidbey placed generics as #17 on their priority list. It was #1 on the list for the C# developers.

As (beta) shipment neared, it was apparant that they were NOT going to get to item #17. An uproar [internal to MS] occured, "We have to have generics BECAUSE C# does!".

As a result 6 items which were deemed more important than generics [by user survey, internal analysis, etc] were abandoned for this release!!!!

Now we hav a language wich supports a given feature, NOT because it was a top ranking request, NOT because it was internally deemed technically important, BUT simply to appease a complaint that was marketing related!

July 29, 2004 12:58 PM
 

RPS said:

What are the main arguments for/against case-sensitivity in C#? I like being able to use TitleCase for my methods and properties, and thisCase for my parameters and fields. (I hate using under_stupid_scores for things.
August 11, 2004 12:51 PM
 

TrackBack said:

September 3, 2004 12:05 AM
 

TrackBack said:

September 3, 2004 12:06 AM
 

Universal Accessibility « On The Primacy of Abstraction said:

PingBack from http://reroute.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/universal-accessibility/

December 8, 2006 7:42 PM
 

Laurie said:

I only WISH I had all of your problems. I came from a .NET shop and preferred VB.NET, although I didn't mind C# because it was similiar to Java. I always liked Java, but thought that its biggest problem was the lack of a good IDE. Then along came .NET and C# which made that mostly moot since C# is so Java-eque.

My problem now is I transferred to a place where they are using LOTUS-FREAKING-NOTES as the application development "language". The worst part is that I can't even find any good resource arguments online to back up my claims that Lotus Notes is garbage and that we should switch to a real programming language like Java or .NET because it's like trying to make an argument in favor of using a car vs. a tricycle. The comparison is so absurd its not even necessary.

I'm still banging my head on the desk from frustration. Using Lotus Notes as an application development language is about as effective and fun as trying to build a house using a pile of toothpicks and a screwdriver. Use C# or VB.NET and count your blessings :(

June 7, 2007 2:53 PM
 

AX said:

I think VB.Net and C++.Net are a Complete Couple and C# is Something Suspended Between Them

September 7, 2007 4:27 AM
 

Jonathan said:

with csharp, vb,cplusplus do

try

 argue;

finally

  free

end;

translation: all of the above comments tell me you should all be using delphi anyway.

July 3, 2008 9:52 PM
 

Punisher 007 said:

oh baby the best is vb.net ........

C# codes are hard and uncomfortable

but vb codes are as powerful as c# codes but more easier

August 13, 2008 10:45 AM

Leave a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  
Add
Terms of Use