3 ms·
VB.NET should never have happened. It has only superficial similarity with VB6. It was sold as upgrade path from VB6 but that never worked.
by rqtwteye 4y ago
VB.NET should never have happened. It has only superficial similarity with VB6. It was sold as upgrade path from VB6 but that never worked.
- paranoidrobot 4y agoPerhaps, but I think it offered people who didn't have exposure to C-like language syntax, an easier upgrade path for their own skills. I was writing stuff in VBA and a little VB6. The move to VB.NET was made easier because of the synax similarities. My move from VB.NET to C# was made easier because by then I understood the framework, and it was just a matter of learning the syntax differences. Maybe that's not such a big deal with a lot more people having exposure to C-like syntax languages like Javascript.
- cm2187 4y agoI followed the same path. Muscle memory is a big deal. Muscle memory is what makes you productive. It’s why those syntactic things actually matter.
- cm2187 4y agoI disagree. It only broke backward compatibility with VB6 when VB6 didn’t make any sense. Like byref arguments by default, or the useless “set” keyword, or collections being inconsistently 0 or 1 based, stupid constraints on what types you can expose as a field or property in a class, or no way to distinguish empty strings and null. Having done the transition from VB6 to VB.net, yes there were a few things to learn but that was the only way to move on from legacy design choices.
- pjmlp 4y agoI am more radical, .NET should never have happened, rather the original Ext-VOS idea with COM instead of trying to build on top of Java ideas. VB6 was AOT compiled and used COM as its component model, C# should have been similar but for C++ folks, basically what .NET Native came to be. However they really botched UWP execution, when it could have been the proper .NET reboot back to Ext-VOS roots.