Amanda Silver - Talking about Mort | TheChannel9Team

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

"VB is now a great language to author your app framework in" ? Well, yeah! Now that it has "IsNot"! (OK, my last dig at IsNot inventors, I promise).

Cobler

Orbit86 wrote:
they need to make regular vb open source but .net can only be programmed in windows making programmers restricted to a windows only environment....

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. It is not that you can ONLY program for Windows, it is that you GET to program for Windows. Change a few words around and your whole attitude changes.

androidi

Orbit86 wrote:
they need to make regular vb open source but .net can only be programmed in windows making programmers restricted to a windows only environment....

With regards to this kind of comment it would only be fair to point out that Mono project (or some related to it) is building a vb.net support for that as well. So in future you can not only program .NET in C# for linux and mac, but in VB.net as well. Atleast if that project goes on well.

Given all the talk surrounding VB lately my guess is that something similar may happen with VB.NET as is happening/happened to C++.NET ..

Cause I am not very familiar with Mono, the following might be entirely incorrect: I believe that if the CLR is properly implemented in Mono it should run the VB.NET IL as well even if you had done it entirely in VS 2005 for example. But someone should verify me on this one..

Programous

You are correct; most programs written in VB.NET will run on the Mono project on Linux. Currently the entire framework it’s not ported but it’s getting there. And the windows forms rendering is ok, but is getting better. There also working on a VB.NET compiler (the already have a C#) but its still I alpha. There is also a port of Sharp Develop IDE to use GTK as a rendering engine, but written all in C#, that you can use as an IDE for Linux.

Programous

I must say that there are a lot of VB users that are not Morts. I believe most VB6 users will agree that trying to get multithreading to work in VB6 was fun. And now with .net there’s no real difference between C# and VB.NET. But there’s one feature that I personally would really like, has anyone else in VB.NET really wanted a asm{} command? or at least an unsafe directive?

Manip

VB.Net is the worst language is the history of the universe. It is a ugly mutated VB6 / C# cross bread that should have been shot at conception.

This video has just showed how bad the language design is.

VB6 Key Concepts:

- Event Driven
- Module Extensions (aka abstract class)
- Object Extensions

Microsoft has killed all the magic by giving the programmer complete control (and thus increasing the complexity 10 fold), that is NOT what VB was about. I asked for *more* power, I didn't ask for complete control. I liked the magic. I just wanted more toys to play with. If I want complete control I would use C++ with Win32 or access Win32 from VB and make the calls myself...

The syntax on the original VB was fine because you didn't have to write a lot but now you have to write out all this module / object code it becomes ugly and messy....

The original VB has transparent namespaces, where it finds them for you and adds them at run time.. This new one has insane things like namespace my, what the HELL is that?!

The entire current VB team should be fired...

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

Manip wrote:
VB.Net is the worst language is the history of the universe. It is a ugly mutated VB6 / C# cross bread that should have been shot at conception.

Well, as long as you're not overusing hyperboles & presenting well thoughtout argument like this, I guess you're right.

figuerres
???

Manip wrote:
VB.Net is the worst language is the history of the universe. It is a ugly mutated VB6 / C# cross bread that should have been shot at conception.

This video has just showed how bad the language design is.

VB6 Key Concepts:

- Event Driven
- Module Extensions (aka abstract class)
- Object Extensions

Microsoft has killed all the magic by giving the programmer complete control (and thus increasing the complexity 10 fold), that is NOT what VB was about. I asked for *more* power, I didn't ask for complete control. I liked the magic. I just wanted more toys to play with. If I want complete control I would use C++ with Win32 or access Win32 from VB and make the calls myself...

The syntax on the original VB was fine because you didn't have to write a lot but now you have to write out all this module / object code it becomes ugly and messy....

The original VB has transparent namespaces, where it finds them for you and adds them at run time.. This new one has insane things like namespace my, what the HELL is that?!

The entire current VB team should be fired...

1) you can't please everyone
2) everyone has an opinion

my self I rather like VB.Net in .Net 2.0

it's not perfect true...

but show me any thing on earth that *is* perfect!

beyond that this could go on for ever....

I'd rather have vb.net than say "WebBase.Net"

http://www.webbase.com/webbase.htm

now if you want to see the absolute *WORST* programming environment on god's earth IMHO
go try that out....

after a while you will have nightmares and beg to have VB.... or even a job at a fast food joint.
Smiley

http://www.webbase.com/expnwb.htm

I had to support an app in this for a while
and fanlly got the owner to let me port it to .asp
(before .net)
one of the reasons: he could not find anyone but me who would learn the bloddy thing!

staceyw
Before C# there was darkness...

Did not understand the ref to Refactoring. This is already in VS2005 - no? Or is this something beyond that for VB?