| pblais@odstrategies.org 2006-08-20, 9:55 pm |
| Pretty much. It is the politically correct way to bury VB - call it
new VB. When you compare it it is really a joke. It's just C# with
some old VB syntax. You can reverse compile IML to VB or C# as you
like and no loss what so ever. That is exactly the same spot
Clarion.Net will be when completed. Old VB is as dead language as
COBOL.
What a lot of people miss with .Net is that it won't matter what you
use to write it with - it ends up all the same as IML. This whole idea
that one language is somehow "better" is almost over in the .NET
world. If it isn't proper IML then it is not .NET - period. If it is
no problem.
It was the one thing MSoft did right and it's why SV has decided to
write a Clarion.Net product. They just add a whole lot of good layers
we already know how to use.
There is a lot to poke holes in with . Net 2003, but given that is an
old new language who cares. 2.0 is the new game and 3.0 adds a raft
of other things too. So why does anyone care about VB Net 2003.
As I see it Clarion.NET will add a lot of extra layers that right now
you pay a lot of 3rd party money for after the basic MSoft Visual
Studio Pro money. Check out the 3rd party .Net tools and see what
they cost.
Sure C# is better than old VB. Clarion 6.3 is better than old VB but
it is not the point. Personally I like C# as a language but it isn't
as productive as Clarion.
On 19 Aug 2006 21:28:20 -0400, Michael Gould <mgould@omnicc.com>
wrote:
>In fact, VB.Net 2005 is much closer to C# than it's ever been
>when it comes to features. So much was added that there really isn't much
>difference between C# and VB.Net anymore.
---------------------------------------
Paul Blais - Hayes, Virginia
|