|
Easy: Simply ignore VB 
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd love to honestly. It's not a "real" language AFAIAC. However, the CodeDOM dictates target languages. I don't. The fact is, despite me complaining about VB there are probably N other languages like Python that have weird quirks so I really did need to correct for all this (except for the bugs in VBCodeProvider) for my stuff to work as advertised with all languages - or at least all languages that support a reasonable amount of the CodeDOM
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
So your complaint isn't about VB itself. It's about a buggy code generator.
|
|
|
|
|
That's pretty much my opinion of C# too, except for the details.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know. C# grew on me. I look at the grammar of it as like a serious subset of C++, with some sugar added so you don't have to worry about . vs. ->
although latter versions like C#8 are getting ugly.
Still, my main gripe with C# is lack of source level templates and lack of multiple inheritance, but especially the templates. Generics just don't cut it. You can't do things like partial template specializations or traits with generics.
I come from a C++ background but these days I code in C# a lot. I like the fact that it's "cheaper" in terms of effort and debugging than C++. It's like if Java were something I could stand. Which is nice.
Although I'll add, while the grammar is simple, it's highly ambiguous and requires extensive type information in order to parse it. That really bugs me. My parser has to do serious backtracking and then i spend ages in CPU cycles fixing the parsetree i get back by injecting type information into it and correcting it based on that. It's nasty.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I know it's heresy, but that's what I dislike so much about it. There is far too much going on under the hood for my tastes.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I don't mind that it wraps so many things. I mind that there's no way to get at stuff without it. Less of a problem in VB.NET then VB6, admittedly.
Edit: I lost the plot. You were talking about C#. I get what you mean, with anonymous methods and iterators awaitable methods and such it can be really difficult to know what's going on.
But you don't *have* to use that stuff. I could say the same honestly about STL with C++. There's way too much voodoo happening for my tastes. But it's the game.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
modified 19-Dec-19 17:39pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Rick York wrote: That's pretty much my opinion of C# too
Booooo! Hisssss! 
So what language DO you prefer?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Booooo! Hisssss!
Yeah! That's telling him. How dare he? 
|
|
|
|
|
Why would you support VB?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
It's more principle than anything. I want to support as many languages as possible. Actually supporting VB makes that possible because of how much work it was.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Different cars handle differently, too.
And if you want to drive a train or a truck or a motorbike or an aeroplane, you have to learn a whole lot of different stuff.
Funnily enough, each of the transportation items mentioned have advantages over the others.
Vive le difference!
(Haters don't really gotta hate -- they just want to.)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You're talking about VB.NET like it's a different language than C# or that you can do things with it you can't in the other.
That's not all that true.
Syntax differences aside, there isn't much different between the two, particularly in terms of overall capability.
I can literally translate code from C# to VB programatically
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
The Fiat cinquecento and the Ferrari Roma are both cars, and what you do with them can be "translated" from one to the other "programmatically", by your brain -- steering wheel, gears, pedals, etc. all perform the same basic functions, with relatively small differences.
99.999% (+/- 001%) of complaints about programming languages amount to no more than "I use this language, therefore it's the best!"
If you don't like using VB, fine. Just say you don't like using it. Saying that a language is "hateful" because it doesn't do a few things in precisely the way you're used to doing them is hardly productive.
e.g. VB is by far the quickest and most efficient language for making mock-ups of different options, to use when making decisions about which way to go (IMO, based on having to do that many times), and the fact that background functions can be quickly added to, imported into, or called by the mock-ups makes it a sheer joy.
Is C# therefore "hateful", because you can't do that as quickly and efficiently with it?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
C# and VB have the same engine under the hood. Your analogy is a non-starter.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Is C# therefore "hateful", because you can't do that as quickly and efficiently with it?
You've obviously misunderstood my criticisms in the OP.
It has nothing to do with what can be done efficiently with it.
It has to do with:
A) a kludgy grammar.
B) forcing you to explicitly do things that should be implicit like implementing a method of an interface through a public method, or comparing value types and reference types without worrying about "Is" vs. "="
It's stupid.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: A) a kludgy grammar.
Translation: It doesn't have exactly the same grammar as the language I use, therefore it's hateful!honey the codewitch wrote: B) forcing you to explicitly do things that should be implicit like implementing a method of an interface through a public method, or comparing value types and reference types without worrying about "Is" vs. "="
Translation: It doesn't do things exactly the same as the things I do in the language I use, therefore it's hateful!honey the codewitch wrote: It's stupid.
There is certainly a degree of blind stupidity involved in this discussion, true.
Being abusive toward languages with different syntax (and therefore the people who use them), people with differently-coloured skin, and people of different gender all stem from the same places in the brain, and none of them should be treated as acceptable behaviour.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
A) You keep misrepresenting me. You keep putting words my mouth.
That's dishonest, and I don't wish to continue.
B) You are now calling my opinion abusive.
I can't take that seriously.
We're done.
Good day.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: A) You keep misrepresenting me. You keep putting words my mouth.
By directly quoting exactly what you said, without modifying your meaning?
A curious conclusion.honey the codewitch wrote: B) You are now calling my opinion abusive.
The way you stated your opinion was abusive.
In the same way that women are intimidated into staying silent in female-hostile workplaces, your words would intimidate VB users, specialists, and likers into staying silent in this place, CP, which should never be a place where any developer is afraid to speak.
"For those who code" does not mean "For those who code in my preferred language, and anyone who likes VB can shut up, because their preferred language is useless, hateful, and just stupid!"
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: By directly quoting exactly what you said, without modifying your meaning?
No. And now you're lying about what you wrote. More dishonesty. You said "translation" followed by straw men. You know it, I know it. You won't admit it which is why I meant it when I said we're done.
I'm not having this conversation with you other than to repeat my last reply in as many words as it takes for you to understand it.
You're being dishonest and I won't have a debate with someone arguing in bad faith.
If you think my comment is abusive report it. I'll just be over here, laughing.
More responses will illicit more of the same. I stand by the above.
Good day.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
When they came for the VB programmers, we did nothing...
I dislike talking to supremacist types, no matter how much they're convinced they're entitled to behave as they do, but someone has to tell them to modify their abhorrent behaviour.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You can end this any time you like
I stand by what I wrote. You don't agree, but guess what? I don't care about the opinions of people that can't even debate honestly. 
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you're a saint, and anyone who disgarees with you is obviously evil, stupid, hateful, etc.
If you were to read this thread without your "goggles of personal distortion" on, you would see that I have not insulted you, I have not perverted your words, and I have simply pointed out/complained that your words and behaviour in the OP of this thread are unwelcome, because if you insult someone's tools so wrongly and cruelly, then you are also insulting the user.
How many VB users feel less welcome here, after reading your words?
Probably all of them.
If you don't like a language, say you don't like it; don't say it's stupid, kludgy, hateful, etc, etc, etc.
Lots of people don't like VB (replace "VB" with any other language) here, so they say "I hate it!", not "It's hateful!"
But, as I said, you obviously believe that you are a saint, and above such things as equality (and certainly above users of VB), so I must be a bad person for pointing out your abusive behaviour.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
There you go, making things up about me again. You really can't help yourself, clearly.
You realize I can't take you seriously right? You're fighting with an imaginary version of me you've invented from whole cloth.
You remind me of that infamous moment where Clint Eastwood was arguing with a chair.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote:
A) a kludgy grammar.
B) forcing you to explicitly do things that should be implicit like implementing a method of an interface through a public method, or comparing value types and reference types without worrying about "Is" vs. "="
I will definitely agree that VB's syntax is kludgy in some areas such as lambda and anonymous functions. On the other hand, being forced to be explicitly identify interfaces has a lot of benefit when verifying the correctness of software. Ambiguity is the enemy of correctness.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
