Channel 9 Forums - Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

tsilb — Fri, 19 May 2006 02:31:21 GMT

So, as some of you may know, I've been dealing with a (healthcare company of 1000 people in 3 states) for a month or two, getting lined up for a job as a Web Admin / IntraWeb Admin / PC Tech. Unfortunately, the Web Admin / IntraWeb Admin who would be above me (but thankfully 1500-2000 miles away) is a VB coder; and from what I've heard, a shoddy one at that. I'm a C# coder.

I started programming in GWBasic back in the 80's, and moved up through QBasic and Pascal in school, finally settling on C# only recently. I've also been learning ASP.NET 2.0, and the more of it I learn, the more I love .NET!

My question to the more experienced folks here is, how hard is it for someone who knows C#, ASP.NET 2.0, and very old forms of BASIC to learn VB.NET? From what I'm hearing, I'll be hired tomorrow and starting Monday. If it's just different syntax and a few different namespaces I don't see a problem.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Ang3lFir3 — Fri, 19 May 2006 03:04:02 GMT

From the perspective of a VB.net dev with a little Java background I find that I can easily read C# for the most part (couple little shorthand syntax things that trip me up sometimes)...... So i really don't think it will be any trouble for you at all as soon as you get a handle on the syntax differences....

Though other than for the sake of the "Web Admin / IntraWeb Admin" you will be working under I don't see a reason why you couldn't continue to write code in C# for the most part....

Good luck and just remember VB is long winded is all (ok there are more differences than that)

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Larsenal — Fri, 19 May 2006 04:29:20 GMT

You should have no problems.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

spoofnozzle — Fri, 19 May 2006 04:36:15 GMT

If you are already C# and .Net fluent...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596003196

pretty much all you need.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

tsilb — Fri, 19 May 2006 05:10:42 GMT

Outstanding, thanks all. I expect I'll be kludging through with Intellisense by my side.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Tensor — Fri, 19 May 2006 08:35:48 GMT

spoofnozzle wrote:

If you are already C# and .Net fluent...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596003196

pretty much all you need.

++

good book - also works other way around.

Also - snippets really come in to there own here. Incredibly useful when o know framework but not the syntax- at least I found so going the other way.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Lee Dale — Fri, 19 May 2006 09:02:48 GMT

I seriously wouldnt worry about it, if you know the framework then more or less every construct in C# has an equivelent in VB.Net which is only a google search away. Im from a VB background and my last contract was an ASP.Net web project all done in C#, it literally was just a matter of getting used to curly braces and some different keywords although i did know c++ so it wasnt too hard to get used to.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Another_Darren — Fri, 19 May 2006 11:27:53 GMT

VB.NET... Run, run as fast as you can and hide from it.

7 Years of VB 6 and I finally tried to migrate my skills to VB.NET this year, one and one week later I was buying C# books. I cannot see the point in learning/using VB.NET if you know C#? It would be better to get the other VB developer to migrate to C#, he'll (or she?) will thank you later on.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Lee Dale — Fri, 19 May 2006 11:46:11 GMT

Another_Darren wrote:

VB.NET... Run, run as fast as you can and hide from it.

7 Years of VB 6 and I finally tried to migrate my skills to VB.NET this year, one and one week later I was buying C# books. I cannot see the point in learning/using VB.NET if you know C#? It would be better to get the other VB developer to migrate to C#, he'll (or she?) will thank you later on.

sorry but thats rubbish theres no reason to use C# over VB.Net it all acheives the same thing at the end. Id suggest learing both theres no great learning curve to learn either if you already know one and it will be worth it if you intened to work on many different .net projects.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Another_Darren — Fri, 19 May 2006 15:03:39 GMT

For starters VB.NET usually needs more lines of code to achieve the same result that C#. And VB.NET is not as nice at handling certain logic operators or statements without additional checks in you code.

From my experience with VB 6 allowed lazy programming and that's why it was popular. Moving VB to .NET microsoft tried to neaten the language up but all the VB developers moaned about "but in VB 6 we just had to....." so they put all the shortcuts (usually meaning more processing) and lazy options back into VB. I am a VB programmer and I hate the language when compared to C#, found the learning curve of VB 6 to VB.NET to be worse than VB 6 to C#.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Tensor — Fri, 19 May 2006 15:09:03 GMT

Another_Darren wrote:

For starters VB.NET usually needs more lines of code to achieve the same result that C#. And VB.NET is not as nice at handling certain logic operators or statements without additional checks in you code.

Right, so c# biggots criticise VB for introducing the My namespace on the grounds that its dumbing-down, and then criticise because it takes more lines of code to achieve something?

One, you cant have it both ways. Two, thats rubbish as in both you are basicly writing code to target framework classes which takes the same number of lines.

And exactly which logic operators or statements are not as nice? What additional checks do you need exactly? I think all the things you are attributing to the language are in fact due to lazy code.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Sven Groot — Fri, 19 May 2006 15:11:05 GMT

Tensor wrote:

And exactly which logic operators or statements are not as nice?

I think he's talking about the AndAlso and OrElse mess, and if so it's the only point from his post I agree with.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

phreaks — Fri, 19 May 2006 15:19:02 GMT

The main difficulties you are likely to encounter are minor.

Things like inadvertantly using curly braces, forgetting to use the Dim as Object style vs the Object myObject style, and using the Implements and Inherits keywords vs the semi-colon.

Delagates in VB are weird, so you may want to research that.

But that is about it, at least for me anyway.

Good Luck!

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Lee Dale — Fri, 19 May 2006 15:20:26 GMT

Sven Groot wrote:

Tensor wrote:
And exactly which logic operators or statements are not as nice?

I think he's talking about the AndAlso and OrElse mess, and if so it's the only point from his post I agree with.

yes i agree personally im not a fan of them operators but remember VB was created to be more like psuedo code so people who didnt have a degree in maths could pick it up to customise there applications. However VB has evolved and can do everything C# can and being a little more easier to read and a bit more verbose doesnt mean its an inferior language its just as powerful.

Saying that I still prefer C#

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

AndyC — Fri, 19 May 2006 15:24:32 GMT

leeappdalecom wrote:

sorry but thats rubbish theres no reason to use C# over VB.Net it all acheives the same thing at the end.

Not entirely true. If you need unsafe code, then you have to use C#. Likewise if your doing late-bound COM work, VB rules.

Right tool for the right job and all that. For the majority of stuff though, it's about personal preference (or in house coding guidelines!)

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Lee Dale — Fri, 19 May 2006 15:31:32 GMT

AndyC wrote:

leeappdalecom wrote:

sorry but thats rubbish theres no reason to use C# over VB.Net it all acheives the same thing at the end.

Not entirely true. If you need unsafe code, then you have to use C#. Likewise if your doing late-bound COM work, VB rules.

Yes true but i was trying not to get picky about it

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Christian Liensberger — Fri, 19 May 2006 17:35:37 GMT

it's easy. Use an automated tool to convert your C# to VB.NET. hehe

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

tsilb — Fri, 19 May 2006 19:32:35 GMT

Another_Darren wrote:

VB.NET... Run, run as fast as you can and hide from it.

7 Years of VB 6 and I finally tried to migrate my skills to VB.NET this year, one and one week later I was buying C# books. I cannot see the point in learning/using VB.NET if you know C#? It would be better to get the other VB developer to migrate to C#, he'll (or she?) will thank you later on.

Because apparently, the lady who's going to be my boss has to see all my work before it can be published; and she has to know what it's doing. The thing that confuses me is that I can look at VB code and know what it's doing; why can't she do that with C#?

She's apparently been working in VB since VB4, and according to my 'insider contact', she's never been very good at it. I can only imagine the pain of trying to teach her a new language, much less trying to get her to learn it on her own.

[quote user"Tensor"]Right, so c# biggots criticise VB for introducing the My namespace on the grounds that its dumbing-down, and then criticise because it takes more lines of code to achieve something? [/quote]
Isn't VB's 'my' namespace similar to C#'s 'this'?

Here's a question, I was messing with VB.NET last night, and I've been trying to figure out FOR loops. In C# it's as easy as:

for (int index = 0; index < 10; index++) {
[...] }

But in VB I have to:

Dim b As Integer = 0
For b = 0 To 10
[...]
Next

Seems to me there should be an easier way, especially since I won't need 'b' anymore after the loop. I tried for (dim b as Integer) = 1 to 10, that didn't work; I tried for dim b as Integer = 1 to 10, that didn't work; I tried the classic BASIC method of for b = 1 to 10, that didn't work without declaring and initializing 'b' ahead of time.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Sven Groot — Fri, 19 May 2006 19:40:33 GMT

SlackmasterK wrote:

I tried for dim b as Integer = 1 to 10, that didn't work

Almost there.

For b As Integer = 1 To 10
' Stuff
Next

That works. This feature was introduced in VS2003, it won't work with 2002.

EDIT: As a FYI, you can also do this with For Each: For Each x As String In someCollection

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Sven Groot — Fri, 19 May 2006 19:42:24 GMT

SlackmasterK wrote:

Isn't VB's 'my' namespace similar to C#'s 'this'?

No, Me is VB's equivalent to this. My is a utility namespace and was introduced in VB2005. It contains the stuff that C# puts in the Properties namespace (so, settings and resources) but also a lot of other stuff designed to make common tasks easier.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

phreaks — Fri, 19 May 2006 19:50:35 GMT

EDIT: something is wrong with the quote engine:

Encapusalating your methods into components of Single Responsability will ensure that the GC flags them as unreachable and marks them for deallocation from the stack in a timely manner.

Again, at least that is my understanding of it, if I am undertsanding your question properly.

Please fill in any missing parts or add corrections.

EDIT2: WTF, now half my response is gone.
Is something wrong with C9?

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Sven Groot — Fri, 19 May 2006 19:53:26 GMT

H4L0PR1CK wrote:

EDIT: something is wrong with the quote engine:

No it isn't. Both you and SlackmasterK had a [/quote] too many in your posts.

H4L0PR1CK wrote:

Encapusalating your methods into components of Single Responsability will ensure that the GC flags them as unreachable and marks them for deallocation from the stack in a timely manner.

Again, at least that is my understanding of it, if I am undertsanding your question properly.

Please fill in any missing parts or add corrections.

Using the for( int x = 0; x < 10; ++x ) method in C# (or the For x As Integer = 0 To 9 method in VB) doesn't help with variable lifetime. Like in C(++), using this construct means that the variable is out of scope outside the loop body, but .Net does not support C(++)'s destruction semantics for arbitrary scopes, which means the variable's lifetime will end at the end of the method, regardless of the scope.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

phreaks — Fri, 19 May 2006 19:59:16 GMT

Sven Groot wrote:

H4L0PR1CK wrote:
EDIT: something is wrong with the quote engine:

No it isn't. Both you and SlackmasterK had a too many in your posts.

Ahh, that was the problem.

H4L0PR1CK wrote:
Encapusalating your methods into components of Single Responsability will ensure that the GC flags them as unreachable and marks them for deallocation from the stack in a timely manner.

Again, at least that is my understanding of it, if I am undertsanding your question properly.

Please fill in any missing parts or add corrections.

Using the for( int x = 0; x < 10; ++x ) method in C# (or the For x As Integer = 0 To 9 method in VB) doesn't help with variable lifetime. Like in C(++), using this construct means that the variable is out of scope outside the loop body, but .Net does not support C(++)'s destruction semantics for arbitrary scopes, which means the variable's lifetime will end at the end of the method, regardless of the scope.

No kidding? Thanks for the insight.
I always thought it was the same.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Mike Sampson — Fri, 19 May 2006 22:15:42 GMT

You can see this if you look at the il code. All the locals are declared at the top of the method body even if they exist in loop contexts.

I believe the C++ did some work to make code they generate more C++-y so these rules may work in that language. That's hearsay though.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

Sven Groot — Fri, 19 May 2006 22:54:05 GMT

Sampy wrote:

I believe the C++ did some work to make code they generate more C++-y so these rules may work in that language. That's hearsay though.

That's partially correct. If you use the deterministic finalization pattern in an arbitrary scope, it generates a try block to make sure the Dispose method is called at the end of the scope (similar to a using statement in C# or VB). However, just like in C# or VB the object can't actually be collected until the method ends.

For instance:
int main()
{
   Console::WriteLine(L"Before");
   {
      System::IO::StreamWriter writer(L"D:\test.txt");
      writer.WriteLine(L"Hello");
   }
   Console::WriteLine(L"After");
   return 0;
}

This is compiled to the following IL when using /clr:safe:

.method assembly static int32 main() cil managed
{
   .entrypoint
   // Code size 65 (0x41)
   .maxstack 2
   .locals init ([0] class [mscorlib]System.IO.StreamWriter writer,
      [1] int32 V_1,
      [2] class [mscorlib]System.IO.StreamWriter modopt([mscorlib]System.Runtime.CompilerServices.IsConst) V_2)
   IL_0000: ldc.i4.0
   IL_0001: stloc.1
   IL_0002: ldstr "Before"
   IL_0007: call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string)
   IL_000c: ldstr "D:\test.txt"
   IL_0011: newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.IO.StreamWriter::.ctor(string)
   IL_0016: stloc.2
   .try
   {
      IL_0017: ldloc.2
      IL_0018: stloc.0
      IL_0019: ldloc.0
      IL_001a: ldstr "Hello"
      IL_001f: callvirt instance void [mscorlib]System.IO.TextWriter::WriteLine(string)
      IL_0024: leave.s IL_002d
   } // end .try
   fault
   {
      IL_0026: ldloc.0
      IL_0027: callvirt instance void [mscorlib]System.IDisposable::Dispose()
      IL_002c: endfinally
   } // end handler
   IL_002d: ldloc.0
   IL_002e: callvirt instance void [mscorlib]System.IDisposable::Dispose()
   IL_0033: ldstr "After"
   IL_0038: call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string)
   IL_003d: ldc.i4.0
   IL_003e: stloc.1
   IL_003f: ldloc.1
   IL_0040: ret
} // end of method 'Global Functions'::main

What confuses me though is why they don't use try/finally, but instead put a call to Dispose in a fault clause and again in the normal flow of execution.

Coffeehouse - Learning VB.NET

bhar — Thu, 25 May 2006 14:00:16 GMT

Hi,

You can also rely on good books. Choosing VB.net or C# is always debatable.

TRy this Title:"Database programming using VB.net and Sql server 2000". This book teaches you the complete database application development including masters, transactions and reports.
Visit http://www.vkinfotek.com.

Regards
bhar