4 ms·

How is this different than C#? What new concepts does this bring that C# doesn't? 20 years ago there was some momentum behind Visual Basic .Net; but the langua

by gwbas1c 3mo ago

How is this different than C#? What new concepts does this bring that C# doesn't? 20 years ago there was some momentum behind Visual Basic .Net; but the language was so similar to C# that it just wasn't worth using. There was a joke that .Net was a "skinnable language." BTW, there's a whole nitpicky/semantic argument that C# isn't null safe because of the null forgiving operator. That will probably come into play with G# if the null forgiving operator can be used from C# to pass null into G# code that doesn't expect it.

AdieuToLogic 3mo ago
> 20 years ago there was some momentum behind Visual Basic .Net; but the language was so similar to C# that it just wasn't worth using. IronPython[0] and IronRuby[1] would like a word... Largely so they could be remembered. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronPython https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronPython 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronRuby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronRuby
- fulafel 3mo ago
  And F# - though that's alive and well.
userbinator 3mo ago
There was a joke that .Net was a "skinnable language." I remember the MS documentation had sample code in all the variants of .NET languages they created (C#, F#, VB.NET), and of course there were decompilers that let you choose which one to target, with many other translation tools available between them.
- ygra 3mo ago
  They still do.
Foobar8568 3mo ago
The momentum behind VB.NET was mainly because most enterprises using VB6 assumed it was the natural replacement.
- gnabgib 3mo ago
  Your humble opinion? Nobody likes giving up what they know.. Perl, Python, Ruby, VB6 (can be moved to c#), Pascal (still relevant)
- WorldMaker 3mo ago
  To be fair, VB.NET itself also thought itself the natural replacement/direct continuation. Its compiler version started at 7.
fulafel 3mo ago
I think it would be more valuable if it had less concepts than C# but it doesn't seem clear if they succeeded in that.

by gwbas1c 3mo ago

AdieuToLogic 3mo ago

> 20 years ago there was some momentum behind Visual Basic .Net; but the language was so similar to C# that it just wasn't worth using. IronPython[0] and IronRuby[1] would like a word... Largely so they could be remembered. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronPython https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronPython 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronRuby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronRuby

fulafel 3mo ago
And F# - though that's alive and well.

userbinator 3mo ago

There was a joke that .Net was a "skinnable language." I remember the MS documentation had sample code in all the variants of .NET languages they created (C#, F#, VB.NET), and of course there were decompilers that let you choose which one to target, with many other translation tools available between them.

ygra 3mo ago
They still do.

Foobar8568 3mo ago

The momentum behind VB.NET was mainly because most enterprises using VB6 assumed it was the natural replacement.

gnabgib 3mo ago
Your humble opinion? Nobody likes giving up what they know.. Perl, Python, Ruby, VB6 (can be moved to c#), Pascal (still relevant)
WorldMaker 3mo ago
To be fair, VB.NET itself also thought itself the natural replacement/direct continuation. Its compiler version started at 7.

fulafel 3mo ago

I think it would be more valuable if it had less concepts than C# but it doesn't seem clear if they succeeded in that.