4 ms·
I think at least -parts- of your statements are true. But really, VB.NET was the use case for your last paragraph. It's syntax is far closer to VB6 and it has
by csharptwdec19 6y ago
I think at least -parts- of your statements are true.
But really, VB.NET was the use case for your last paragraph. It's syntax is far closer to VB6 and it has a bunch of tricks in the language to make it easier for VB6/VBA devs to transition.
In my (personal) observations, you would see a lot of VB.NET stuff before LINQ was a thing. As that took off, a lot of shops (including one I worked at) saw that writing such was far less verbose in C# than VB.NET (Really, once you get into anonymous functions is where VB's verboseness becomes a huge liability and really makes readability a problem.)
tl;dr - Since VS 2008 C# has been growing steadily in popularity due to the number of features it has genuinely focused on making it easy to develop 'midrange' (i.e. not python/ruby slow, but not go/rust fast necessarily) code
- trboyden 6y agoI guess I may be part of the exception. I had been handed so many terrible VB6 and VBA projects by that point, that I jumped into C# when it was released. Of course I also did a bunch of Java programming at the time as well, so the similarities were convenient and I found I had to think a lot less when switching between C# and Java versus VB and C#. At this point almost everything I do is in C#, except for one legacy application where they use VB as a scripting language under their forms UI. Thank goodness for C# to VB converters!