|
code
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
VB.NET or C++.NET or C#Hi, all. I'm a verteran in VB6, The company where I work for, will soon
switch to Visual Studio.NET...(latest version)... Besides language style, structure and syntax, which of the three stooges, VB.NET or C++.NET or C# you think will do more for any company, Consider the following: - Amount of code. - Speed in coding - Speed in compiled application(solution) - Time for learning (from zero) - Uses under difffrent situations (internet, data, etc) Thanks for any comments and reasons for your choices. -- Rick Rick wrote:
"This weekend's flame wars begin here" Sorry to be flippant Rick, but there are at least two threads currently debating this, and all of them have at least one sub-thread which is a big flame war involving Karl Peterson, Michael C, Paul Clement & Dan Barclay. Not that I'm implying I'm above this :) See the threads started by "Anthony" entitled VB6, VB2005, or Something Else? (started at 23/02/2006 20:08 GMT) and Rolling the dice on vb6 (started at 08/03/2006 18:17 GMT) Stewart
Show quote
Hide quote
"Rick" <R***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message Frankly, while I have a personal opinion, I have found in going from shop tonews:A124D9AB-41FF-4839-ADF3-7B96091B2919@microsoft.com... > Hi, all. I'm a verteran in VB6, The company where I work for, will soon > switch to Visual Studio.NET...(latest version)... > > > Besides language style, structure and syntax, which of the three stooges, > VB.NET or C++.NET or C# you think will do more for any company, > Consider the following: > - Amount of code. > - Speed in coding > - Speed in compiled application(solution) > - Time for learning (from zero) > - Uses under difffrent situations (internet, data, etc) > > Thanks for any comments and reasons for your choices. > > > -- > Rick shop, team to team - it really doesn't make a dime's worth of difference. With your list above - what you might gain on one feature, you lose on another. It really depends on your current stable, your resources, and to some degree the type of applications you are planning to write. Some quick observations... If you have predominately VBers - then go VB.Fred. Case sensitivity and squirrelly braces annoys them and adds an unnecessary burden to the effort in the beginning. If you have any expertise in VC++ then VC++/CLI is definitely the more 'powerful', but line for line C++ still takes more effort than any other language. (And with power comes the ability to not only take your own foot off, but the appendages of anyone else in the room.) Ramp-up time will be longer unless, once again, the team has had experience in developing with C++. (And I am not talking about a couple of college courses.) C# has a 'published' standard, and it appears that MS might submit VC++/CLI as a standard. No such thing exists or is planned for VB.Fred - so you run a risk. They screwed it up once, they may do so again. You might also consider your predominate problem domain. Most available Web code is written in VB.Net, most computational code is C#. All the languages have seemed to have 'found' a niche. But once someone gets a handle on the Framework - the ability to 'read' C# and VB.Net becomes inter-changeable. The Framework and Design are the real story, the language is a SideBar. hth -ralph Rick wrote:
> Hi, all. I'm a verteran in VB6, The company where I work for, will History teaches us the *only* question that matters is,> soon switch to Visual Studio.NET...(latest version)... > > Besides language style, structure and syntax, which of the three > stooges, VB.NET or C++.NET or C# you think will do more for any > company, Consider the following: > - Amount of code. > - Speed in coding > - Speed in compiled application(solution) > - Time for learning (from zero) > - Uses under difffrent situations (internet, data, etc) > > Thanks for any comments and reasons for your choices. "What Would Microsoft Do?" HTH... "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message aka... "WWMD" MS is nuking our code assets.news:OzWUsoIRGHA.4300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > > History teaches us the *only* question that matters is, > > "What Would Microsoft Do?" Show quoteHide quote -- Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - Please keep all discussions in the groups.. DLL Hell problems? Try ComGuard - http://www.vbsight.com/ComGuard.htm On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:27:26 -0800, "Ken Halter"
<Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote: in <O6xajKrRGHA.5***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl> >"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message That's the impression I get also. Almost as if they don't want any>news:OzWUsoIRGHA.4300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >> >> History teaches us the *only* question that matters is, >> >> "What Would Microsoft Do?" > >aka... "WWMD" MS is nuking our code assets. developers other than their own, but that's just too wacky a concept to swallow. --- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no conferred rights. Stefan Berglund On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:53:33 -0800, Stefan Berglund
<sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:27:26 -0800, "Ken Halter" Just as an aside, this morning I was reading the newspaper and saw one><Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote: > in <O6xajKrRGHA.5***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl> > >>"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message >>news:OzWUsoIRGHA.4300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >>> >>> History teaches us the *only* question that matters is, >>> >>> "What Would Microsoft Do?" >> >>aka... "WWMD" MS is nuking our code assets. >That's the impression I get also. Almost as if they don't want any >developers other than their own, but that's just too wacky a concept to >swallow. of those stupid MS dinosaur advertizements. For a change I read it carefully - the jist was that they were trying to persuade corporates to upgrade from Office 97 Maybe MS have some other problems, it makes one wonder ... --
Show quote
Hide quote
mayayanaX***@mindXXspring.com (Remove Xs for return email.) J French <erew***@nowhere.uk> wrote in message news:4416802d.172545763@news.btopenworld.com... Isn't it striking how forgettable their ads are? I suppose> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:53:33 -0800, Stefan Berglund > <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote: > > >On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:27:26 -0800, "Ken Halter" > ><Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote: > > in <O6xajKrRGHA.5***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl> > > > >>"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message > >>news:OzWUsoIRGHA.4300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > >>> > >>> History teaches us the *only* question that matters is, > >>> > >>> "What Would Microsoft Do?" > >> > >>aka... "WWMD" MS is nuking our code assets. > > >That's the impression I get also. Almost as if they don't want any > >developers other than their own, but that's just too wacky a concept to > >swallow. > > Just as an aside, this morning I was reading the newspaper and saw one > of those stupid MS dinosaur advertizements. > > For a change I read it carefully > - the jist was that they were trying to persuade corporates to upgrade > from Office 97 > it's not easy to put an image to software. The only ad of theirs that sticks in my mind was one with a blonde 30-ish woman as an anthropomorphized, stuffed, purple butterfly. The ad was on the back of my phone book. I remember it because the woman had a distinct expression on her face: the wilting but vague look of moral indictment typical of sexually repressed goodie-goodies. I kept wondering why the marketing dept. chose such an unpleasant shot. (Aside from the fact that the butterfly costume was ludicrous, of course.) The dinosaur ad has been running full-page in Wired magazine for as long as I can remember. (1-2 years?). There was an article in the Boston Globe yesterday: http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/03/13/how_office_got_its_ groove/ Not really new news, but somewhat interesting. It's mostly talking about how Ray Ozzie is pushing for web-based products and that that's a rough transition for MS. On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:37:50 GMT, "mayayana"
<mayayanaX***@mindXXspring.com> wrote: in <yjCRf.3988$sL2.2***@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> Show quoteHide quote > How odd. When I went to reply to this all the quoted text appeared as a> >-- >mayayanaX***@mindXXspring.com >(Remove Xs for return email.) >J French <erew***@nowhere.uk> wrote in message >news:4416802d.172545763@news.btopenworld.com... >> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:53:33 -0800, Stefan Berglund >> <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote: >> >> >On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:27:26 -0800, "Ken Halter" >> ><Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote: >> > in <O6xajKrRGHA.5***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl> >> > >> >>"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message >> >>news:OzWUsoIRGHA.4300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >> >>> >> >>> History teaches us the *only* question that matters is, >> >>> >> >>> "What Would Microsoft Do?" >> >> >> >>aka... "WWMD" MS is nuking our code assets. >> >> >That's the impression I get also. Almost as if they don't want any >> >developers other than their own, but that's just too wacky a concept to >> >swallow. >> >> Just as an aside, this morning I was reading the newspaper and saw one >> of those stupid MS dinosaur advertizements. >> >> For a change I read it carefully >> - the jist was that they were trying to persuade corporates to upgrade >> from Office 97 >> > Isn't it striking how forgettable their ads are? I suppose >it's not easy to put an image to software. The only ad of >theirs that sticks in my mind was one with a blonde 30-ish >woman as an anthropomorphized, stuffed, purple butterfly. >The ad was on the back of my phone book. I remember it >because the woman had a distinct expression on her face: >the wilting but vague look of moral indictment typical of >sexually repressed goodie-goodies. I kept wondering why >the marketing dept. chose such an unpleasant shot. (Aside >from the fact that the butterfly costume was ludicrous, >of course.) > The dinosaur ad has been running full-page in Wired >magazine for as long as I can remember. (1-2 years?). > >There was an article in the Boston Globe yesterday: >http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/03/13/how_office_got_its_ >groove/ > > Not really new news, but somewhat interesting. >It's mostly talking about how Ray Ozzie is pushing >for web-based products and that that's a rough >transition for MS. single hollow square. I had to select it all to make it appear, but the header doesn't offer any clues. For a few very amusing videos, check these out: http://youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k Ah, I see the page changes content so look through these also: I thought the ballmer and vista videos were spot on. http://youtube.com/results?related=microsoft And just for good reading - Linux saving taxpayer money: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/9C85E113E60B16B4CC25712D0010E126?OpenDocument --- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no conferred rights. Stefan Berglund J French wrote:
> Just as an aside, this morning I was reading the newspaper and saw one Definitely. They see the single biggest competitor to Office 2003 to be -- > of those stupid MS dinosaur advertizements. > > For a change I read it carefully > - the jist was that they were trying to persuade corporates to upgrade > from Office 97 > > Maybe MS have some other problems, it makes one wonder ... Office 2000! Their main problem is, they haven't offered anything new that "real people" care about in at least that long. The only benefits to Office 2000 over earlier 95/97 versions is a newer build of VBA. So even corps don't see any reason to update. What's their answer? Break stuff! Just wait til you see the "interface" in the next version. Yikes. > Definitely. They see the single biggest competitor to Office 2003 to Excel also handles much bigger spreadsheets in the version after 97...> be -- > Office 2000! Their main problem is, they haven't offered anything new > that > "real people" care about in at least that long. The only benefits to > Office > 2000 over earlier 95/97 versions is a newer build of VBA. So even corps > don't see any reason to update. -- Show quoteHide quoteBob Comer <I've hit that wall a few times> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:OpLAy$4RGHA.2536@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >J French wrote: >> Just as an aside, this morning I was reading the newspaper and saw one >> of those stupid MS dinosaur advertizements. >> >> For a change I read it carefully >> - the jist was that they were trying to persuade corporates to upgrade >> from Office 97 >> >> Maybe MS have some other problems, it makes one wonder ... > > Definitely. They see the single biggest competitor to Office 2003 to > be -- > Office 2000! Their main problem is, they haven't offered anything new > that > "real people" care about in at least that long. The only benefits to > Office > 2000 over earlier 95/97 versions is a newer build of VBA. So even corps > don't see any reason to update. > > What's their answer? Break stuff! Just wait til you see the "interface" > in > the next version. Yikes. > -- > Working without a .NET? > http://classicvb.org/ > > Robert Comer wrote:
>> Definitely. They see the single biggest competitor to Office 2003 to I'd forgotten that. (Actually, that's probably the one feature they could>> be -- >> Office 2000! Their main problem is, they haven't offered anything >> new that >> "real people" care about in at least that long. The only benefits to >> Office >> 2000 over earlier 95/97 versions is a newer build of VBA. So even >> corps don't see any reason to update. > > Excel also handles much bigger spreadsheets in the version after 97... add, at this point, that'd boost Office upgrades -- getting rid of the current pre-DOS-era 256 column limitation! <ugh>) 
Other interesting topics
Password Change
how to convert string to date? Text to Speech TransparentBlt and Autoredraw issues (refresh isnt solving it) VB6 writing to text files requires Close to commit Picturebox fit newbe question write to disk and permissions Control similar to MS Access List Box Code for stored procedures Call a DLL in C from VB |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
