Why I hate .NET...

[MyndFyre]

I'm ghostwriting this series called "Beginners Corner" for a colleague (which sucks because I won't get any credit, but at least I'll get some cash for it).  But the series has to be good for both people using C# and VB, so I have to write shit like this:

"Abstract methods are written using the abstract modifier in Visual C# or the MustOverride modifier in Visual Basic.  Because the class must also be declared as abstract, Visual C# users must decorate the declaring class as abstract, or Visual Basic users as MustInherit."

So many new features were introduced in Visual Basic to make it a full .NET language....  The only reason that some of these language choices were made was to make it a clear and different choice from C#.  And we use the abstract terminology because that's its name in the CLR and in pretty much every programming textbook ever written....  I've never heard of a "MustInherit" class in any classes I took...

[Blaze]

http://www.nmia.com/~mgdesign/qor/begin/begin.htm

I must say, I do enjoy your work.  Although, I am having some difficulties with step three on tying.  Could you lend me a hand on it?

[Sidoh]

http://www.nmia.com/~mgdesign/qor/begin/begin.htm

I must say, I do enjoy your work.  Although, I am having some difficulties with step three on tying.  Could you lend me a hand on it?

lol

That has always been something that I've wondered about with .NET.  It seems like it would be massively easier on them if they just chose one language and stuck with it.  I guess I understand that there are probably some capabilities in C++ .NET (maybe I'm making that up) that aren't present in the other languages, but they can probably at least be emulated.  Either way, I say down with VB all together!

[Camel]

I am pretty sure VB .NET was created solely so that users could transform VB6 code to VB .NET code. There were, at least in its infancy, a number of things that had no equivalence from VB to C# and vice-versa - but it has been a long time since I've used either, so that has probably been fixed by now.

[MyndFyre]

I am pretty sure VB .NET was created solely so that users could transform VB6 code to VB .NET code. There were, at least in its infancy, a number of things that had no equivalence from VB to C# and vice-versa - but it has been a long time since I've used either, so that has probably been fixed by now.

The only reason that there is a lack of equivalence is that there are artificial language barriers presented by either one.  For instance:

* VB did not initially have the concept of unsigned integers, an artificial limitation (like Java's).
* C# lacks the ability to declare a raise handler for events (VB has RaiseEvent).
* VB lacks pointer support.

There's probably other stuff, but the bottom line is that everything is supported by the runtime.  Everything is.  Why not make them all support everything supported by the runtime?  Because that would make them the same and raise a question as to the justification of two products that do the same thing.

[Camel]

The micromanagers at M$ don't have time to approve that kind of a change.