Would love to see a VB version...

Topics: CAB & Smart Client Software Factory
Jun 17, 2006 at 3:56 AM
originally posted by: AspenSteve

I can make the argument to adopt the SC-BAT to my management, but because we have so many VB developers in the company (a very large company), it just won't get adopted.

I hope there are plans for a VB version in the near future.
Jun 17, 2006 at 7:08 AM
originally posted by: ssamayoa

Me too but to keep up to date I'm forced to learn C#.

I was using VB to do things in .NET to make a "mind barrier" because I'm work as Java Architect/Developer (as I seen C# is very similar to Java since both where modeled after C) but .NET cool new stuff is writed in C#.

If your co-workers can to VB.NET (make and emphasis on .NET), learn C# is just a mater of learn a new syntax.

Regards.
Jun 19, 2006 at 5:31 AM
originally posted by: pkanabos

My unfortunate experience is that before you persuade a VB programmer to use SC-BAT you have to persuade him to use MVC, or any other form of UI apart from the old VB-style, "grid-bound-to-table". The mentality shift from VB6-style programming to object-oriented programming is a much greater hurdle than understanding C# once you know the very similar VB.NET. Even when a VB.NET version comes out, you may still have trouble persuading your management, or worse, the developers.

In my experience, people that understand OO are at least familiar with Java, C++ or C#. It is nearly impossible to read a book about patterns without encountering examples in these languages. Given the lack of good books for VB.NET and the unwillingness of authors to use it, I think a .NET developer will have to know C# if he wants to use OO techniques and patterns.
Jun 19, 2006 at 11:14 PM
originally posted by: WayneVanRooyen

I must say i have to disagree. Why should one have to learn a new language to take advantage of blocks provided by Microsoft as well as learn OO. Arent all .Net languages capable of OO. I think it is sad that all samples lately are geared towards C#. This is as if though VB developers are being told to make the change to C# or forget about learning to use the blocks provided. Is Microsoft trying to work in a way to make developers change to C# so they can drop VB.
Using C# or VB or C++ does not contribute to writeing better applications. it is up to the developer to do this. You can have badly written apps in C#. Choosing a language should not be forced upon us based on what samples are provided. I brought this up in the CAB forum once and was flamed so badly as i was looked upon as a total looser due to the fact that i was a VB programmer, and wanted to continue in VB and complained about the samples.

My 2cents.
Jun 20, 2006 at 9:05 PM
originally posted by: pkanabos

I do not say that VB.Net isn't capable of OO. Just that in my experience VB6 programmers have a great difficulty adjusting to the OO mentality and patterns. I'm currently trying to persuade some members of my team that no, creating forms that bind to tables isn't the fastest-and-simplest solution for a banking application, and no, we can't build our own simpler MVC implementation, and yes, we do need patterns, even if the rest of the team never "needed" them in previous projects.

Besides, all books on patterns use samples in Java, C++, C#, even Smalltalk, but never VB. This makes sense, as all the books were written when VB6 was around, and VB6 wasn't the best OO language, but that's how things are now. If you want to use the best resources on patterns you have to be able to at least understand a C-family language. You can't expect Kent Beck, or Martin Fowler, or any other of the best authors to write their book samples in VB.Net.

This is in fact, a great truth about programming. You can't just learn one language and work with it for ever. You have to be able to understand multiple languages so that you can use aspects and notions of one language when programming with another. My experience with C+, Java and patterns helped me build some very well structured and flexible programms in VB6. My experience with C+ templates helps me now use generics to their greatest advangate, way beyond "type-safe collections".