|
Shog9 wrote: For the last few months, i've been enhancing and maintaining a library written in VB.NET.
I've done a lot of other stupid, miserable things during this time, but this library pretty much takes the cake in terms of filling me with shame and self-loathing at the end of a long day.
So why didn't you just rewrite the thing?
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: So why didn't you just rewrite the thing?
Well, i am, a bit at a time. But technically, i'm not supposed to be spending all that much time on it - the original plan was, i'd take over ownership of it, but any work would be done by outside consultants, thereby freeing me up to work on more interesting projects. So... now i'm slowly learning to program consultants. In the meantime, there's still work that needs to be done...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: So... now i'm slowly learning to program consultants.
Big job. What language are you using for that? 
|
|
|
|
|
Since i don't know Hindi, i'm trying to use English. It's not a very good fit.
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any reason you can't convert it to C# ? Excellent tools exist for this purpose.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
|
|
|
|
|
Other than the one you illustrated below? 
It's not the syntax that really irritates me; it's the little programming techniques that, by now, just scream "VB" to me: insufficient error handling, massive amounts of duplicate code, unnecessary use of late binding, etc. Every time i need to make significant changes to a class or routine, i'll re-write it, to where it reads the same as it would have if i'd written it in C#. Eventually, i'll either have re-written the whole thing to where converting it to C# will be painless... or i'll have pushed the project off onto some other poor sucker, and won't care anymore...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
You do have "Option Strict" on?
|
|
|
|
|
It's set up to warn. Eventually, i'll manage to clear up all the warnings... 
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience, the language used and the options set to the strictest of standards still doesn't prevent people from writing bad code.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. It sounds like the original code was written in .NET "VB6 procedural" style, and not leveraging any of the benefits provided to VB developers through .NET. It's an unfortunate side effect of people not upskilling their techniques with the move from VB6 to VB.NET.
|
|
|
|
|
Haha. I hate to say this, but in my career, I keep coming across projects that are mostly C# with a small percentage of awful VB.Net code. (I do find GOOD VB.Net code on the 'net.)
For example, in my first job out of college, 95% of the code was in C#. There was one group of dlls written in VB.Net where the developer had all methods take a single array of objects as THE argument. Even weirder was that almost all of the values being passed on the stack belonged as object-level fields. The code was an example of how NOT to use weak typing.
It was very clear to me that the original developer spent a few months on the code... I re-wrote it all (from scratch) in 3 days!
|
|
|
|
|
I work on an app that was started by someone else in VB.NET. I hope it was the conversion to C# that causes me to still find code like:
for(int i = 0; i <= myObject.Length - 1; ++ i)
or, even better:
int g = item.Count - 1 + 1;
I find examples of both of these almost every time I wander into the guts of stuff I've not had to touch before, like some of the basic controls we suddenly decide to change after 2 years.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
|
|
|
|
|
?That sounds like the kind of moment where you wish the ESC button worked.
Brad
Australian
- Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript"
A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
|
|
|
|
|
*grin* yeah, I certainly did a double take.
Converting to C# took a half day to make work, and 2 days more to make work once I removed all references to the Microsoft.VisualBasic namespace. It was well worth it.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
|
|
|
|
|
What a mess.
Brad
Australian
- Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript"
A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I had been contracted and written dlls in C# which the app was using. It didn't occur to me that the main app could be VB.NET. Obviously VB.NET could do most of it ( it couldn't do the stuff I wrote, as it happens ), but I just hate it, and it's not a productive language for me.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
|
|
|
|
|
VB.NET is the devil. There, I said it.
Brad
Australian
- Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript"
A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. I prefer C#. It is elegant.
|
|
|
|
|
There's nothing more frustrating than maintaining crappy code
Elegance is in the hands of the coder. You can write efficient and elegant code in pretty much any language (VB.NET is no exception), just as you can write jibberish, inefficient code in pretty much any language (C# is no exception).
Unfortunately it sounds like from this forum that VB.NET is the language of preference for hacks, which disappointingly gives the language a bad name.
|
|
|
|
|
Eduardo Fandangle wrote: Unfortunately it sounds like from this forum that VB.NET is the language of preference for hacks, which disappointingly gives the language a bad name.
The language was designed for hacks. Literally. Important design choices were made to support VB6 hacks. A bastardized upgrade to a bastardization of a bastard language. Little surprise that the hacks seem more comfortable...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
I love vb.net
You're all just jealous of not having My.Settings :>
Ok, I'm just joking. Noone freak out
www.wickedorange.com
|
|
|
|
|
Hear hear Eduardo!
David Loring
!! Keep Music Live !!
|
|
|
|
|
If C++ is heaven and VB.Net is hell then C# is probably purgatory.
|
|
|
|
|
Amen
A polar bear is a bear whose coordinates has been changed in terms of sine and cosine.
Personal Site
|
|
|
|
|
Pascal Ganaye wrote: C++ is heaven and VB.Net is hell
VB.NET might be hell - I can't comment on that.
But C++ is certainly not heaven.
Its more like the treadmill of everyday life:
Somtimes fun and really exiting, somtimes making you mad, but most of the time just plain boring and repetitive.
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
