3 ms·
> I get tired of the VB.NET hate. You read a bit much into my comment. My point is just: If two languages are largely equivalent in terms of difficulty and ec
by codeflo 3y ago
> I get tired of the VB.NET hate.
You read a bit much into my comment. My point is just: If two languages are largely equivalent in terms of difficulty and ecosystem, why pick the more obscure one? That's not "hate".
> Any kind of coding is good coding.
Any kind of coding is better than no coding, but that doesn't mean you can't make distinctions. I simply don't see a point in making learners later lives more difficult for no obvious pedagogic benefit.
- ethbr0 3y agoThe way I'd put it is: learning C# would teach you everything learning VB.NET would, and more, in a programmer-standard way. So given they're approximately the same level of syntactical difficulty to learn (for equivalent amounts of power), why choose the more restrictive and esoteric one? It's not that VB.NET is a bad or useless language. It's just a very different language than the common modern multi-paradigm ones. Which isn't great for career progression. Side note: VB.NET's anonymous function shoehorning is syntactically atrocious: https://stackoverflow.com/a/6091579 https://stackoverflow.com/a/6091579
- jmann99999 3y agoCodefio- Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation.