Support NeoGAF

[snapty00]

I've never been a programming expert, and I mostly just dabble in scripting languages like ASP and Perl/PHP now (and occassionally x86 ASM and very simple C/C++). I used to really love Visual Basic, though, especially Visual Basic 6.

But now that I've used .NET, I can't stand it. I think it's absurd to call it Visual Basic, seeing as how it's now nearly as complicated as grabbing any C/C++ compiler and building a Windows app from free Windows libraries. Why did Microsoft decide to change, like, 60% of the language? Any code I write in Visual Basic .NET looks nothing like the code from Visual Basic 6.

I also tried the beta version of Visual Basic Express, which to me is not sufficiently simpler than .NET. It's certainly a lot closer to .NET than Visual Basic 6 -- that's for sure.

Was anyone else shocked at how complicated this development kit -- that was supposed to save time -- was?

 

[Kefkaff]

Well, VB.NET was the first language I learned so I really can't say I had any complaints or anything about it. I didn't mind it at all, really.

 

[cubicle47b]

VB .Net complicated? I don't understand.

 

[LinesInTheSand]

I quite like .NET

 

[Ecrofirt]

It's a big change from 6 to .NET, that's for sure.

I haven't done enough with .NET yet to tell if I like it or not, however.

 

[Drinky Crow]

The funny thing is that from a C/C++ dev perspective, C# and .NET seem ridiculously easy, and from a Java perspective, well, it's nice to have all your major classes in one hierarchy.

 

[maharg]

I think it's absurd to call it Visual Basic, seeing as how it's now nearly as complicated as grabbing any C/C++ compiler and building a Windows app from free Windows libraries.

It was more or less absurd to call it Visual Basic to begin with, considering it bore little resemblance to QuickBasic, let alone real BASIC.

Your second claim is exaggeration to an insane degree. I don't even like or choose to code in .net, but to say that it's as complicated as straight win32 programming is what's absurd here. My beefs with it come more in the form of the fact that it enforces reference semantics and doesn't have any generic programming capabilities (even .net 2.0's generics are too weak to really be considered such), and that is what I see as a major future growth area in programming language capabilities.

 

[6.8]

I've started playing around with it today, and I'm finding it ridiculously easy.

 

[Ecrofirt]

It was more or less absurd to call it Visual Basic to begin with, considering it bore little resemblance to QuickBasic, let alone real BASIC.

Your second claim is exaggeration to an insane degree. I don't even like or choose to code in .net, but to say that it's as complicated as straight win32 programming is what's absurd here. My beefs with it come more in the form of the fact that it enforces reference semantics and doesn't have any generic programming capabilities (even .net 2.0's generics are too weak to really be considered such), and that is what I see as a major future growth area in programming language capabilities.

It was called Visual Basic because of it's ease of developing applications.

 

[Ecrofirt]

Oh, and I've got a question.

What's the difference between Visual Studio .NET and Visual Studio .NET 2003?

I've got .NET from my college, and I'm debating whether or not to shell out for 2003.

 

[maharg]

No, it wasn't. It was derived from QuickBasic, which was derived from BASIC. There is a very clear lineage, if you take all the versions into account. By 6 it wasn't very QBish anymore.

It's a version number. What you call VS.net is actually VS.net 2002. VS.net 2003 has a MUCH improved C++ compiler and the IDE is less buggy. That's about it.

When it came out it was a $30 upgrade from 2002. Now, it's probably not worth it since 2005 is on the way.

 

[RiZ III]

I've been using 6.0 for a long time now so I was really used to it. I started using .net a fw weeks ago. At first it really was kind of annoying cause the layout was a bit different, but then i just made it look like 6.0 and its not bad. Plus the intellisense seems to work a lot better in .net.

 

[Ecrofirt]

tell me how to make it look like 6

 

[CaptainABAB]

I'm sorry but VB.net is such an improvement over VB6, it's not even funny. It finally has true exception handling, no more win32 api bullshit to do anything serious, a command line compiler, apps can be developed entirely in a text editor, REAL threading, REAL file I/O, REAL network sockets (not some crappy control), a much better library, the same language for win32 gui and server-side web (no more VB vs. VBA vs. VBscript nonsense), etc.


It IS a drastic change in some respects, but it was needed.


The only thing missing, that is legitimate, is being able to debug-edit-continue.

 

[Phoenix]

Hate .Net? No. There are lots of things to like about .Net technology. Now some of the languages that interface with .Net, like VB, are definitely showing their age