Why all the VB hate?

[Cypher]

Unlike most people, I don't hate it 'irrationally'. I hate it because the language itself teaches horrific practices, and lacks the many features that are required for this area of programming.

1) Pointers. You can't use them. Period. (Not IntPtrs. I'm talking about actual pointers [byte*, int*, etc])
2) Case sensitivity. VB(.NET) is case-insensitive. So if a C# coder (like myself) uses the same name in a field, as well as the param to a function, you're pretty much screwed.
3) We're writing code. Not books. VB is designed for people who have never touched a programming language before, and is only meant to aid in teaching control flow. Nothing else. I don't understand why people still use the language after the first week or so of dealing with it. Not to mention; the required characters to do the same line in 2 different languages is nearly doubled when VB enters the picture.
4) It's VB. There's no reason to like it. Ever.
5) See above.
6) Too many people think that using the VB6 backwards compatibility libs are a 'good' thing. Without even bothering to do the research to find out that MS TELLS YOU NOT TO USE THEM UNLESS YOU'RE PORTING YOUR APPLICATION FROM VB6. (AkA: VB programmers can't ****ing read for shit.)

In other words; VB teaches you to do things wrong, right off the bat. Which is just plain stupid.

Edit: The fact that you claim they compile to the same code proves my points above. While they both compile to IL, they are most definitely different.

^ This.

The people who say "Durr, VB and C# compile to the same thing so they're effectively the same language" are the ones who are 'uninformed morons'.

[Zurkei]

My favourite is when people refuse to move on from VB6 to C#.
Here is how the conversation normally goes.

Me: Why are you still using VB6 and not C#.
Other: Because VB6 is simpler and you get the same results.
Me: No it doesn't, my friend can make your VB6 program in C# and it would be better.
Other: No it would be the same thing.
Me: Dude I ported this VB6 program to C# and it used significantly less memory.
Other: Using less memory doesn't make it better.
Me: /facepalm, I am glad you don't plan to program as a professional.


Note: We were talking about a simple program nothing major.

[suicidity]

My favourite is when people refuse to move on from VB6 to C#.
Here is how the conversation normally goes.

Me: Why are you still using VB6 and not C#.
Other: Because VB6 is simpler and you get the same results.
Me: No it doesn't, my friend can make your VB6 program in C# and it would be better.
Other: No it would be the same thing.
Me: Dude I ported this VB6 program to C# and it used significantly less memory.
Other: Using less memory doesn't make it better.
Me: /facepalm, I am glad you don't plan to program as a professional.


Note: We were talking about a simple program nothing major.

Excellent example, you made this thread better.

[Cypher]

My favourite is when people refuse to move on from VB6 to C#.
Here is how the conversation normally goes.

Me: Why are you still using VB6 and not C#.
Other: Because VB6 is simpler and you get the same results.
Me: No it doesn't, my friend can make your VB6 program in C# and it would be better.
Other: No it would be the same thing.
Me: Dude I ported this VB6 program to C# and it used significantly less memory.
Other: Using less memory doesn't make it better.
Me: /facepalm, I am glad you don't plan to program as a professional.


Note: We were talking about a simple program nothing major.

Did anyone else 'WTF' at this?

[Xarg0]

Yeah I did
When I read this I was like "why should a professional program anyways?"

[mindwalkr]

1) Real men write code in Fortran.
2) When that's not fast enough, screw platform independence and use ASM.
3) ....
4) Profit !!!
....
x) Note to self: to actually get stuff done, use a more modern language like C#

Seriously, to the "compiles to the same thing" dudes... go google "compiler assembler linker" or try this link and learn (which is why you are reading this forum).

[Sednogmah]

A Brain**** program: ++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.>+.>.

The same program in C++:

#include <iostream>
int main() {
    std::cout << "Hello world" << std::endl;
}

Both are compiled to the same output, e.g. x86 machine code. Thus Brain**** is just as good and useful as C++. I'm also selling this fine [Sarcasm Detector]. Nevertheless, Brain**** is a fun language to play with.

[MaiN]

A Brain**** program: ++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.>+.>.

The same program in C++:

#include <iostream>
int main() {
    std::cout << "Hello world" << std::endl;
}

Both are compiled to the same output, e.g. x86 machine code. Thus Brain**** is just as good and useful as C++. I'm also selling this fine [Sarcasm Detector]. Nevertheless, Brain**** is a fun language to play with.

Most likely not, because the brain**** goes through an interpreter while the C++ is compiled to ASM.

[Sednogmah]

Most likely not, because the brain**** goes through an interpreter while the C++ is compiled to ASM.

There are plenty of Brain**** compilers. The first one was 240 bytes large and produced native Motorola 68000 code.

[Cypher]

There are plenty of Brain**** compilers. The first one was 240 bytes large and produced native Motorola 68000 code.

Yup, as an example, here's a Linux one:
awib - Project Hosting on Google Code

[MaiN]

There are plenty of Brain**** compilers. The first one was 240 bytes large and produced native Motorola 68000 code.

Shit, that's my bad then. I always thought they were interpreters that maintaned an array of cells. My bad. Sorry about that.

[Krillere]

Weird language is weird.

[XTZGZoReX]

Shit, that's my bad then. I always thought they were interpreters that maintaned an array of cells. My bad. Sorry about that.

Weird language is weird.

This.

So you're excused. ;P

[BoogieManTM]

Regardless of the technical differences.. I really hate the syntax. It reminds me way too much of pascal/delphi, which I also hated. It's just far too literal and ugly. You're writing code, not a book.

[Jadd]

Hahahahaha!

QFT, xD

Have some rep

Have some more!