4 ms·
>it’s really just an alternative syntax for C# That's very true. Either C# or VB.NET, you're programming the NET Framework. All you can do in C# you can do in
by lucio 8y ago
>it’s really just an alternative syntax for C#
That's very true. Either C# or VB.NET, you're programming the NET Framework. All you can do in C# you can do in VB.NET, and even there's some features that are better implemented in VB.NET, like Type.Missing https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/eric_carter/2004/04/15/type-missing-c-and-word/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/eric_carter/2004/04/15/type...
Of course any language with "Basic" in its name will be look down, but in today's NET there's no objective reasons to do so. Nowadays, VB is a better choice than C# to develop in-house business management software.
- cm2187 8y agoThat is a bit dated, C# fixed that problem many years ago [1] But there are still instances where the VB.net syntax is nicer than c#, for instance date litterals, or array litterals: C# foreach(var x in new string[] {"A", "B", "C"}) VB For Each x in {"A", "B", "C"} Also switch statements in C# are horrendous. But there are also instances where C# has a better syntax, like "x=>x+1" is way more elegant and practical than "Function(x) x+1". But I think the writing is on the wall. VB will go the way of Winforms, i.e. sort of supported but nothing more. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_4.0#Optional_parameters_and_named_arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_4.0#Optional_parameter...
- gary__ 8y agoSwitch statements got an upgrade in v7 which makes things better https://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2017/02/01/pattern-matching.aspx?m=1 https://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2017/02/01/pattern...