Is VB.Net really that bad?

The endless VB.Net discussion

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

50 Replies - 32661 Views - Last Post: 14 October 2017 - 01:01 PM

#16 jhouns  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head
  • member icon

Reputation: 25
  • View blog
  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 21-December 09

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 26 December 2009 - 06:04 PM

Okay first of all i'm not saying one is better but more that they compliment each other when learning. I was recently teaching my friend how to program in the most powerful, popular languages (in my opinion C++, Assembly (i love it and believe it this is not the place for that discussion) etc) and well could just have easily taught him C# (as it is pretty good in its own rights) but i found he couldn't understand certain parts well no matter how i explained it. thus entered vb.net! (holy music) he understood that well enough and we carried it accross to C++. both have their points in performance and stuff but all i am saying is i use vb.net to teach and learn and experiment but any serious project that would be large scale i would port to something like C++.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#17 Amrykid  Icon User is offline

  • 4+1=Moo
  • member icon

Reputation: 150
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,589
  • Joined: 16-December 08

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 27 December 2009 - 11:04 AM

Im not saying VB is good nor bad, but VB.NET introduced me to programming and the .NET framework. Without it, i probably wouldn't become a programmer. I agree with @jhouns, I've taught a friend of mine who never programmed before in his life (except with BATCH files <_<) to program with VB.NET. At the time, i was first kind of starting too. He got so good that he was better than me....Long story short, VB has its strengths and weaknesses but if you were to teach someone who has a BATCH background or a total newbie to make applications? Go with VB.NET.

This post has been edited by Amrykid: 27 December 2009 - 11:06 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#18 PsychoCoder  Icon User is offline

  • Google.Sucks.Init(true);
  • member icon

Reputation: 1658
  • View blog
  • Posts: 19,853
  • Joined: 26-July 07

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 27 December 2009 - 11:28 AM

View Postccubed, on 26 Dec, 2009 - 01:07 PM, said:

@PsychoCoder - You're just as bad, if not worse, than Raynes.


I'm sorry you feel that way, I really am but I just reached my wits ends with Raynes finding any thread he can to bash someone's choice of language. Trust me this isnt the first time it's happened and unfortunately given who it is it wont be the last. He acts like he's some sort of Godfather of programming and has the right to pick what languages should be used and which ones shouldn't.

So he doesn't like VB.NET, that gives him no right to call others stupid and crap because they use it (and yes he has done that on many occasions. I know of others (including myself) who feel the same way about the languages he decides to use/promote, but we dont go into any thread we can find to bash them, in fact I think I've only said 1 thing about it and that was in my first reply in this thread, but he feels for some reason that's he's entitled to it and it just finally pushed me over the edge.

He did this same exact thing to a Moderator not too long ago, and for me that was almost the straw that broke the Camels back, then I read what he had to say in this thread and I just lost it, it happens you know. Having a green badge does not make me immune to frustration and irritation, nor does it deny me the right to have an opinion or voice my concerns (Granted, I probably didn't do it very professionally this time and for that I am regretful, but I just couldn't bite my tongue any longer).

VB.NET isn't that bad of a language, as stated before I have worked at places that used it exclusively, and for inhouse applications that were used by thousands of users and web applications that supported over 500,000 users and we had no performance issues, no issues that aren't reported with just about any language. VB.NET uses the same classes/methods/functions that C# uses, and can do anything C# can do. So what if the syntax is different, so what if it doesn't use curly braces and semi-colons, how is that any way to judge a language? I use C# 99.9% of the time and sometimes I just get tired of curly braces and semi-colons, but that isnt going to cause me to change languages.

I just got tired of him attacking people and trying to make them feel les than him because of the language they chose to program in, I think that kind of attitude is crap and very immature. Hopefully someday he will grow up and change that kind of attitude.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#19 Asscotte  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Addict
  • member icon

Reputation: 35
  • View blog
  • Posts: 610
  • Joined: 08-February 09

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 27 December 2009 - 11:48 AM

Personally I think that Visual Basic is a very good language, because it is more like a langauge that you would speak, it has a very logical syntax for someone that hasn't ever seen a programming langauge before. And for that reason I think that it's great it can teach a computer novice about; threads, OOP, and the way that computer programs work. But to learned user you can create usefull programs rather than, *cough* some other less usefull things. (fart machine). And anyway as for syntax why does it matter? C# is more like;C++,C,Java but is slightly less readable unless you know what you are Reading, and I'm sure that Microsoft first aimed for a progression of langauges, in the old days, but then they realised quite how popular .net is so they kept them as they both provide a solid base to new commers, as in the past the one thing that Microsoft had going for them was the number of programs and applications that could run on their platform, but now that matters less so .net is a fully supported base for all programmers that is highly flexible. I would be interested to know how MS are going to arange this merge between vb and c#. Microsoft may prefer .net over all other langauges because they have complete control over what you can do, therfore they can improve the overall standard of programs, or lower it :).

Ps. Please excuse spelling errors I'm typing this on my iPhone. And the it is so hard to type when it is stuck in portriat rotation :)
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#20 danny_kay1710  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular
  • member icon

Reputation: 29
  • View blog
  • Posts: 359
  • Joined: 27-April 08

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 27 December 2009 - 06:21 PM

View Postremorseless, on 26 Dec, 2009 - 10:08 AM, said:

Really good replies coming in guys, keep them coming. I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a Raynes vs PsychoCoder flamewar but I was expecting it. Comments about age are quite low, Psycho, I'm sorry to say that. I'm 15 too, so what you said also applied to me.

One last thing.

Quote

I've yet to see a single solid reason why VB.NET is bad, only nit picking about small syntax differences.


But, Do you really think its just nit-picking? Like Choscura said, the syntax doesn't matter if you already now it, but if you are introduced to programming through VB.Net, don't you think it would be wiser to start off with the standard syntax? At least that way a student can be more suited to other languages when they leave that class. Do you or do you not agree?


I think VB.NET is a great language to learn the way to think, the way to attack a problem in a programming sense without having to pay loads of attention to semi-colons, curly braces and the odd difference in case.

If you learn VB.NET well enough and become a proficient developer then you should have no problems moving to another language. If you do have problems with another language you simply don't understand VB.NET well enough to be able to make sense of the syntax differences. That is my opinion.

The hardest part of programming is learning to break things down and approach things logically and constructively. Although I hate this phrase it's learning to think outside the box. In my opinion some people just can't do this and will struggle to do well in programming. Once you can do this however the differences in syntax shouldn't mean a thing.

EDIT: I actually started with VB6 migrated to VB.NET (without any classes this was self taught) and I have to admit looking back I barely understood the concepts behind programming. I started watching some Video tutorials from 3dbuzz.com on C++ and it went through the very basics which although I was already familiar with seeing it in another language with a slightly different explanation to the one I had researched actually made the penny drop fully so to speak. Strange really. Moving languages didn't confuse me just re-enforced concepts and actually made me the programmer I am today. I now prefer C# have to use Vb.Net for work however. Can program in a multitude of programming languages now.

This post has been edited by danny_kay1710: 27 December 2009 - 06:32 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#21 MeltingPoint  Icon User is offline

  • New D.I.C Head

Reputation: -4
  • View blog
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 31-March 09

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 29 December 2009 - 04:19 AM

Yes, VB.Net is "really that bad". However it has nothing to do with the BASIC syntax or the things that are usually linked to BASIC based languages. VB.NET suffers from same issues all other .NET languages suffer from: ease of decompilation aka no real way to protect your IP (obfuscation is a joke), massive runtime (close to 400MB as of ver3.5) vs. 1MB for VB6 for example, and performance issues (compiled/native apps will always, ALWAYS, be faster and leaner than anything powered by .NET).

With that said, VB (6.0 and earlier) is actually pretty good. You get all the benefits of a BASIC syntax, RAD-friendly IDE, and none of the .NET baggage.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#22 AdamSpeight2008  Icon User is offline

  • MrCupOfT
  • member icon

Reputation: 2298
  • View blog
  • Posts: 9,535
  • Joined: 29-May 08

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 29 December 2009 - 07:48 PM

The framework isn't 400MB its 197MB, then that contains the runtime for 3 different cpu targets (x86, x64 and IA-64) each on there own is 60MB

The last few versions of the Operating System have come with the .net framework installed already.
Windows Vista - .net 3.0 (3.5 & 3.5 SP 1) are downloadable via a windows update.
Windows 7 -> .net 3.5
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#23 mentallybroken  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head
  • member icon

Reputation: 7
  • View blog
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 03-October 07

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 30 December 2009 - 01:44 AM

now im beginning to doubt if i should learn c# than VB.. c# seems good if you are a c++ or java programmer because of its syntax. but i could not really differentiate the core of both language.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#24 baavgai  Icon User is offline

  • Dreaming Coder
  • member icon


Reputation: 6966
  • View blog
  • Posts: 14,572
  • Joined: 16-October 07

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 30 December 2009 - 05:33 AM

View Postmentallybroken, on 30 Dec, 2009 - 02:44 AM, said:

now im beginning to doubt if i should learn c# than VB.. c# seems good if you are a c++ or java programmer because of its syntax. but i could not really differentiate the core of both language.


VB syntax sucks. ;) However...

VB.NET and C# and any other "managed" language that creates .NET should get you the same performance. They all "compile" into CIL, the p-code that the .NET virtual machine runs.

From a .NET perspective, it doesn't matter at all what language you used to get there, it only sees the CIL. This is why you can write an Assembly in C# and run it seamlessly in VB.NET, or vice versa.

For VB.NET compared to other .NET languages, performance it not a concern; they're all basically the same. The only difference is the programming layer, the syntax and quirks that make up a language and get you to the executable.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#25 MeltingPoint  Icon User is offline

  • New D.I.C Head

Reputation: -4
  • View blog
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 31-March 09

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 31 December 2009 - 01:33 AM

mentallybroken, it really depends on what you need to do. Different tools for different jobs as they say. If you are into web services and web side of stuff then Java, PHP, HTML, and even ActionScript (for Flash) are what you need to learn (one or all depending on need or job). If you are into commercial shrinkwrap applications, whether small-shop shareware-like or larger shrinkwrap commercial initiatives, then any true compile-to-native-code language would suffice, C++ and VB.Classic being my favorites. They are fast, lean, and have massive and countless benefits when it comes to commercial distribution. (Ngen-ing .NET apps is hilariously stupid and pointless)

As for .NET languages and all things .NET in general, .NET really has no place in the shrinkwrapped commercial world, or even for the web-side of things for that matter. You should really avoid wasting your time on it. Almost every major shrinkwrapped application (heck, just about EVERY application period) has been done in C/C++, VB.Classic, Delphi, or any other compile-to-native-code language. Including everything from popular media players, utilities, and almost every single commercial game out there. NET itself has mostly (and rightfully) settled itself into two niches. (one) Clueless and younger entry-level-developers and (two) tightly controlled enterprise/in-house development environments. I write a variety of shrinkwrap applications that I license to a variety of corporate clients, however competition is ferocious and using .NET as my foundation would probably put me out of business inside of three-to-four months, easily. First of all, most of my clients would drop me either as soon as the contracts ran out or they would chose not renew the licensing agreements (.NET in a industrial environment is by and large a rarity and liability risk as far as any clients are concerned) and my competitors would eat my intellectual property with delight. (.NET apps are truly open source for anyone even mildly interested). Unless you are writing a neato tic-tac-toe game or doing some specific in-house development in a tightly controlled enterprise environment, then you should stick to things like VB.Classic, C/C++, and Delphi. Even today 99% of commercial shrinkwrap apps are still done in those languages.

For instance, one of my most profitable applications (but probably most unexciting) is written largely in VB6, except for the installer and the licensing libraries (which I did in raw Win32/C++ many years ago and now I reuse in nearly every application I write). Right now I have it licensed to two mid-sized midwestern companies and it deals with machinery automation as well as inventory and billing/invoicing side of things. The app is tiny and has only just over 20,000 lines of VB code and about 3,000 lines of C++ code (three fourths of it in the licensing layer).

Back to .NET: .NET has been a failure. It has been almost a decade now and .NET is nowhere near ubiquitous as various Microsoft talking heads predicted back in 2001-2002. I remember attending a small conference in Wisconsin back in 2002 and a Microsoft rep spouted all kinds of .NET propaganda nonsense about and how it was going to take over everything. He predicted .NET framework installation base at close to 100% by 2005 (HA!). We know how it turned out in reality, don't we. It started out as something to cut-off Sun/Java's growth (a competitor which Microsoft made out to be bigger than it was) and anyways, that particular battle was lost before it began. Microsoft always seems to find some competitor to obsess over. Back then it was anything Sun/Java, now it's anything Google/web-search. (How is that 8% search share going for ya Microsoft? Bing!) Microsoft is always engaging in hopeless battles that are lost before they began.

Anyways, to make the point and finish this up, mentallybroken if you want to make money and become a professional and independent developer then stay away from all things .NET Outside of academic/teaching positions or those rare in-house enterprise jobs (which are increasingly getting outsourced) there is no money in it. VB.Classic, C++, and similar have paid for the computer I'm using right now to type this, the house I'm in now right now and the car parked in the garage next to the house. Very few, FOSS, .NET, or other enthusiasts/groupies can say the same thing.

This post has been edited by MeltingPoint: 31 December 2009 - 01:37 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#26 PsychoCoder  Icon User is offline

  • Google.Sucks.Init(true);
  • member icon

Reputation: 1658
  • View blog
  • Posts: 19,853
  • Joined: 26-July 07

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 31 December 2009 - 09:45 AM

I would like to mention that a lot of DotNetNuke is written in VB.NET, and trust me tons of companies and sites use DNN, so if it was that bad I douobt they would be using it.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#27 CreaturGames  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular

Reputation: 30
  • View blog
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 29-December 09

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 31 December 2009 - 10:03 AM

View PostRaynes, on 25 Dec, 2009 - 10:23 AM, said:

I wouldn't be caught dead teaching VB in any form to anybody as a first language. The things you mentioned, and because of the massive verbosity and wordyness of this language, coupled with the fact that everything upon everything is capitalized turns me off considerably.

I stand by my original argument, and that is that there are so many better languages out there, there is no reason for VB.NET to exist, or be used unless it's required by work (I feel sorry for you), and defending it is just plain redundant.

There is hardly ever a time when VB.NET is better than another language at any particular task, it doesn't even have that going for it.

Beyond fanboyim, VB.NET just isn't that great. There are better options, and until that is no longer true, I'll continue trying my best to keep people away from the language. Bygones will be bygones, and I get flamed every time I so much as refer to VB.NET in a negative light, but it's certainly worth it.


Well, in many cases, VB.NET can be considered a pretty good language becuase of how basic it is, which has its name stand out literaly. B)

Becuase of its basicality(sorry of my word choice), it can be considered a beginners programming language, which my brother used it becuase he didn't know which programming language to start with. Now if your understanding of languages such as C++ and C# are to the intermediete or advanced standards, then VB isn't the best choice.

One reason VB.NET exhists is because of its capablitity of being basic, which is good for MOST beginners(not all beginners start with BASIC). Now, in my case, I know C# and C++ better then BASIC, so whats the point of VB. Now if your a newbie to programming, then you probably should start at VB, becuase you'll probably not even know what this means:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Windows.Forms;

namespace WindowsFormsApplication1
{
	static class Program
	{
		/// <summary>
		/// The main entry point for the application.
		/// </summary>
		[STAThread]
		static void Main()
		{
			Application.EnableVisualStyles();
			Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
			Application.Run(new Form1());
		}
	}
}



You can still get a kick at it, but I wouldn't expect any beginner to get this code, but anything is possible. Everybody has a different brain and learning style. Like for me for this instants. I started C# as a beginner and made my own word-processing unit.

So you can't say that VB has no use or VB shouldn't exhist, but you can't expect to make the next block-buster game or next Microsoft Office Word 2007. Thats the thing. VB isn't actually that powerful in a point-of-view, but others may think differently :)

So VB.NET wasn't a total failure, and it is meant for beginners.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#28 remorseless  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head
  • member icon

Reputation: 29
  • View blog
  • Posts: 129
  • Joined: 08-August 09

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 05 January 2010 - 04:37 AM

Becuase of its basicality(sorry of my word choice), it can be considered a beginners programming language, which my brother used it becuase he didn't know which programming language to start with. Now if your understanding of languages such as C++ and C# are to the intermediete or advanced standards, then VB isn't the best choice.

This is probably now my stance towards VB.Net. I know first hand how easy and powerful VB.Net is, It was my first programming language, but as I grew a bit stronger in the language, I guess C# sort of took over me simply because of the syntax. This is because you can cram in more into less code e.g. Dim x As Integer = g + 1 in VB.Net can be cramed into int x = g + 1;. That could be just my laziness ^_^, but it could also be greatly helpful in giant pieces of code. (I'm talking about 20k+ lines of code) Apart from the syntax, VB.Net has everything of C# and the choice between the two just comes down to taste, in my opinion.

I know some people are saying that VB.Net and C# need the .Net Framework to work blah blah, but that's not a really valid point. You can program a game in Java and it wouldn't run on a computer that does not have Java, does that make it a crap language? No, it's still a great language, it just means it just means it requires something to work.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#29 rajdeeptechie07  Icon User is offline

  • New D.I.C Head

Reputation: 0
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 12-March 09

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 20 January 2010 - 06:05 AM


not at all

This post has been edited by rajdeeptechie07: 20 January 2010 - 06:07 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#30 T.Jackson  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head

Reputation: 4
  • View blog
  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 27-January 10

Re: Is VB.Net really that bad?

Posted 29 January 2010 - 03:55 AM

BASIC (Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code) -- in the professional world, has always had a bad name.

Is it an outright bad, inefficient language?, or is it harshly judged and underrated because of its users?

I personally tend to lean towards the later of the two.

Anyone can write a program in VB6. A twit with an IQ of 75 could probably come to grips with it to some extent.

95% of the VB6 programs on the web are rubbish.

It takes one hell of a determined person to come up with something good in VB6.

I think what I am really trying to say is this ...

There's too many ways to do something in BASIC, and often enough people are choosing to take the path of disappointment. The more people that take this road, the further the language becomes unfairly discredited.

Java is a much better stepping stone, and it is widely accepted as being a professional high-level language, and it is what the Universities in Australia are teaching. The syntax is similar to C, so there is no wasted effort learning Java if you wish to further advance down the path. Further advance your way down the road towards a paying job.
VB.NET runs at a good clip, just as fast as Java in general.

BASIC is not a bad language if you know what you're doing with it, but the majority of people using it are.

Trent Jackson

This post has been edited by T.Jackson: 29 January 2010 - 04:02 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4