6 ms·

This poll should be more specific with Visual Basic. There are a few different languages that share the name VB. VBA VB.NET VB6 VBScript

wting 13y ago
I can also break out Lisp into Arc, SBCL, Emacs, Chicken, Racket but I have to draw the line somewhere. Also historically VBasic has not garnered many responses thus the catch all.
- adolfojp 13y ago
  Some VB variants like VBA, VBScript, and VB6, are indeed similar enough to be grouped into a single item, I'll grant you that. VB.NET, however, is not. It's basically C# in VB's clothing. It kept the VB name and some of its syntax to bring VB6 developers into the world of .NET. So, IMHO, grouping VB.NET with VB6 would be like grouping C, C++, and C# together just because they have a C in their names.
  - danielsamuels 13y ago
    What about Java and Javascript? :)
  - Pxtl 13y ago
    VBA and VBScript (iirc) have only On Error Resume Next, while VB6 has On Error Goto. This is a tremendous difference in how you structure your program's error handling.
    - XorNot 13y ago
      VBA in MS Access has On Error Goto.
      - Pxtl 13y ago
        Oh, I might be getting VBA confused with VBScript then. I know VBScript only allows you to crash or just continue on an error, whereas full VB6 lets you On Error Goto Errorhandler and you can provide an Errorhandler label for your error code.
- fdr_cs 13y ago
  There is a Scheme option for Racket/Chicken
Pxtl 13y ago
And honestly, VB6 and VB.Net both get a bad rap. VB6 excelled at what it was designed to do, it was an easy-to-use language that was the fastest way to get a GUI up onto the screen and throw together a simple program. I learned on VB4 and it was great. It was the whole COM thing and the serious enterprise perversions of it that ruined the language. VBA and VBScript, on the other hand, are abominations - the lack of an exception system is excruciating. VB.Net is basically a few #Defines away from C# and has most of the nice functional features of C# they added in .NET 4.0. It's easy to read and powerful. Plus, the "Handles" keyword makes coding event-driven OOP objects quite pleasant. My only problems with VB are the non-short-circuiting Boolean operators (so you have to write AndAlso and OrElse for short-circuit instead of And and Or), the bizarre +1 array sizing (but you should be using lists instead of arrays anyways so it doesn't matter) and the anachronistic Dim keyword. Even the option-strict thing makes sense because there are some cases where static typing is excruciating if you're just hacking something out - "oh crap, I have to use this terrible .net 1.1 library that predates generics, either I have to write a zillion typecasts or I can just go with dynamic typing".
- midnitewarrior 13y ago
  Yes, there are some backwards compatibility artifacts in the language. I like how verbose it is, little room for ambiguity when sharing code with lesser-experienced programmers. C# is efficient, but a bit cryptic for people not well-versed on c-style languages. Also, curly braces.
  - Pxtl 13y ago
    I think curly braces are perfectly clear, to me the big problem with C-derived languages is the use of cryptic Boolean operators. The SQL-style "And", "Or" and "Not" Boolean operators are far more legible than "||", "&&" and the easy-to-miss "!".
- Locke1689 13y ago
  Given that the VB.NET side of Roslyn is written in VB.NET, I can probably say I've hacked on the largest modern VB codebase in existence. As someone who has had never looked at any form of VB before this: meh. It's basically C# with a... unique syntax. There are a few things that VB does better though: type inference for lambda expressions and exception filters.

wting 13y ago

I can also break out Lisp into Arc, SBCL, Emacs, Chicken, Racket but I have to draw the line somewhere. Also historically VBasic has not garnered many responses thus the catch all.

adolfojp 13y ago
Some VB variants like VBA, VBScript, and VB6, are indeed similar enough to be grouped into a single item, I'll grant you that. VB.NET, however, is not. It's basically C# in VB's clothing. It kept the VB name and some of its syntax to bring VB6 developers into the world of .NET. So, IMHO, grouping VB.NET with VB6 would be like grouping C, C++, and C# together just because they have a C in their names.
- danielsamuels 13y ago
  What about Java and Javascript? :)
- Pxtl 13y ago
  VBA and VBScript (iirc) have only On Error Resume Next, while VB6 has On Error Goto. This is a tremendous difference in how you structure your program's error handling.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    VBA in MS Access has On Error Goto.
    - Pxtl 13y ago
      Oh, I might be getting VBA confused with VBScript then. I know VBScript only allows you to crash or just continue on an error, whereas full VB6 lets you On Error Goto Errorhandler and you can provide an Errorhandler label for your error code.
fdr_cs 13y ago
There is a Scheme option for Racket/Chicken

Pxtl 13y ago

And honestly, VB6 and VB.Net both get a bad rap. VB6 excelled at what it was designed to do, it was an easy-to-use language that was the fastest way to get a GUI up onto the screen and throw together a simple program. I learned on VB4 and it was great. It was the whole COM thing and the serious enterprise perversions of it that ruined the language. VBA and VBScript, on the other hand, are abominations - the lack of an exception system is excruciating. VB.Net is basically a few #Defines away from C# and has most of the nice functional features of C# they added in .NET 4.0. It's easy to read and powerful. Plus, the "Handles" keyword makes coding event-driven OOP objects quite pleasant. My only problems with VB are the non-short-circuiting Boolean operators (so you have to write AndAlso and OrElse for short-circuit instead of And and Or), the bizarre +1 array sizing (but you should be using lists instead of arrays anyways so it doesn't matter) and the anachronistic Dim keyword. Even the option-strict thing makes sense because there are some cases where static typing is excruciating if you're just hacking something out - "oh crap, I have to use this terrible .net 1.1 library that predates generics, either I have to write a zillion typecasts or I can just go with dynamic typing".

midnitewarrior 13y ago
Yes, there are some backwards compatibility artifacts in the language. I like how verbose it is, little room for ambiguity when sharing code with lesser-experienced programmers. C# is efficient, but a bit cryptic for people not well-versed on c-style languages. Also, curly braces.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  I think curly braces are perfectly clear, to me the big problem with C-derived languages is the use of cryptic Boolean operators. The SQL-style "And", "Or" and "Not" Boolean operators are far more legible than "||", "&&" and the easy-to-miss "!".
Locke1689 13y ago
Given that the VB.NET side of Roslyn is written in VB.NET, I can probably say I've hacked on the largest modern VB codebase in existence. As someone who has had never looked at any form of VB before this: meh. It's basically C# with a... unique syntax. There are a few things that VB does better though: type inference for lambda expressions and exception filters.