4 ms·

This is gonna be like Python 3. There is an innumerable amount of “production” VB.

jeremyjh 7y ago
Is there really a lot of production VB.NET? I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there is more production VB 6 code and development on that stopped two decades ago.
- uk_programmer 7y ago
  Yes. Huge amounts of it. It is less relevant as time goes on but almost every .NET job will require you using some VB.NET.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Yes, it is the to go programming language in life sciences corporations when Office users outgrow their VBA skills and get to have IT install VS on their computers. I know a couple of places like this, no R, no Python, VB all the way.
papito 7y ago
Killing this stuff is not easy, but it has to start at some point. Now let's do Javascript.
BuckRogers 7y ago
Python didn't have the developer will to embrace interop between Python 2 and 3 transparently in bytecode, so you had a hard switch over. CIL doesn't have that problem, you can keep writing in VB.Net without being forced off a supported compiler. I was in a fork in the road and had the choice between Python or .Net to move forward with my career a few years back, there were a few factors on why I went .Net. Being one of very few pleasing to use and (extremely) widespread languages with static typing, along with MS's early embrace of WebAssembly were both major influences. Yet the biggest was the Python core devs refusal to address Python2/3 in a better way. There's no good reason why you couldn't use the same Python 3 interpreter for Python 2 code. I get the maintenance argument, but this raises questions about the future, and it makes their platform look rinky dink today. I came to the conclusion I'd never build anything important on it, which is essentially everything you write, as projects tend to grow.
int_19h 7y ago
It's far easier to convert VB.NET to equivalent C#, especially with tools like Roslyn. Nor is it going anywhere. It's simply joining the ranks of legacy-but-stable-and-supported tech like MFC and WinForms.

Is there really a lot of production VB.NET? I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there is more production VB 6 code and development on that stopped two decades ago.

uk_programmer 7y ago
Yes. Huge amounts of it. It is less relevant as time goes on but almost every .NET job will require you using some VB.NET.
pjmlp 7y ago
Yes, it is the to go programming language in life sciences corporations when Office users outgrow their VBA skills and get to have IT install VS on their computers. I know a couple of places like this, no R, no Python, VB all the way.

papito 7y ago

Killing this stuff is not easy, but it has to start at some point. Now let's do Javascript.

BuckRogers 7y ago

Python didn't have the developer will to embrace interop between Python 2 and 3 transparently in bytecode, so you had a hard switch over. CIL doesn't have that problem, you can keep writing in VB.Net without being forced off a supported compiler. I was in a fork in the road and had the choice between Python or .Net to move forward with my career a few years back, there were a few factors on why I went .Net. Being one of very few pleasing to use and (extremely) widespread languages with static typing, along with MS's early embrace of WebAssembly were both major influences. Yet the biggest was the Python core devs refusal to address Python2/3 in a better way. There's no good reason why you couldn't use the same Python 3 interpreter for Python 2 code. I get the maintenance argument, but this raises questions about the future, and it makes their platform look rinky dink today. I came to the conclusion I'd never build anything important on it, which is essentially everything you write, as projects tend to grow.

int_19h 7y ago

It's far easier to convert VB.NET to equivalent C#, especially with tools like Roslyn. Nor is it going anywhere. It's simply joining the ranks of legacy-but-stable-and-supported tech like MFC and WinForms.