I used VB 6 a while ago before I started learning some real languages. However, I still can't get over how much easier it was to make GUI applications in VB, despite how much the language itself sucked. Window toolkits for other languages are horrible to use and rarely come with a real visual editor - Tk sucks ass, Swing sucks ass, win32 API in C is either a pain in the ass or I can't figure out a good way to do it...
I haven't tried MFC or any .NET shit yet. How the hell do people write real Windows apps? Should I try something else?
Name:
Sakamura2006-01-17 19:00
Java
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-18 5:33 (sage)
>>41
He said language, not money sucking consultancy.
Name:
gir2006-01-18 20:54
Learn Pascal for a month because its easy, no longer because no one uses it anymore. Then C because its a beautiful language and Java, PHP, Javascript, Actionscript, C++, C#, and many more other languages are based on it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-18 21:02
try visual basic.net or visual c#.net, using visual studio 2005
they have a similar interface to VB for making GUI apps, and a better language
.Net is a completely different platform - VB.Net is almost source compatible with but not an extension from VB6. So STFU you uneducated simpleton.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-21 8:15
>>1 You raise an interesting problem. My guess is you want a "better VB". That is a language which is just as good at the things VB is good at, and doesn't have as many of the warts... Well... it turns out that for a particular set of problems (simple little gui apps) VB is better in some areas. So unless you find that you can't do the things you want to in it I doubt you will find another language which you are happy with.
Languages don't all try to solve the same problems. As I said before, VB isn't that bad for simple gui apps. The pain comes when you want to create a bunch of custom widgets to make the display look really nice. Or when you need to build up complex data structures with intresting interactions. Or when things are just too slow. Or threading... The list goes on and on.
I suggest that if you are serious about trying other languges you first work out what you don't like about VB and what kinds of things you would be prepared to live without. If you aren't ready to learn a new way of doing things, and new types of programs that you can create, then don't even bother going over.
You'll end up getting pissed off and going back to VB while complaining to everyone that all the other platforms suck and VB is so much better than everything else.
Visual Studio.net's implementation of VB is actually pretty cool.
Unlike VB6 which isn't truely an object-oriented program language (Let's face it. It's not. Don't fucking argue.), VB.net makes everything so much easier. Not only that, but it is far superior to VB6 in almost every way, and might actually be a programming language worth being called a programming language.
...But if you're cool, you'll go with C++, C#, or Java.
VB.net and C# are pretty much on a par with each other. Each has a couple areas of functionality that the other doesn't, it's true. But when it comes to commonly used functionality, they've both go it.
Of course, C# is the more experimental language, with Anders Hejlsburg at the head, and I find its terser syntax vastly preferable to VB's verbosity.
>>58
You must love bloatware and be a stupid microsoft user
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-28 1:34
>>59
You must whine "GPL" until software becomes free and be a homosexual linux user.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-28 2:42
70mb? isn't that the size of xemacs?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-28 9:57
>>60
ROFL... Nope, I'm not from the GNAA either, I like BSD, MPL, etc., truly free licenses. [Hopes to start another license war] Oh and I use commercial software too, and my workstation OS of choice is Windows NT, if that helps. This has nothing to do with disliking stupidly bloated useless shit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-29 16:19
>>62
Are you trying to imply that the GNAA is against Free software? They are not, they release all their spam tools under Free licenses.
You may mock, but having BASIC interpreters built into home computers of the 80s was what set them apart from games consoles and initiated the programming industry as we know it today.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-30 6:52
Where did you guys get 70mb from? The .Net redistributable 2.0 is 22.4 MB.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-30 9:09
>>66
after decompression, maybe?
the JRE is like 9 mb but expands to 100+ mb "for speed purposes" lol
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-30 9:47
After programming both for a couple of years, I much prefer c#/.net to java. It just seems cleaner and better thought out, you know?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-30 21:39
>>68
That's what we in fuck industry call "second mover advantage". Still, C# is nice and with a Free (as in freedom) implementation around too. Unlike javur.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-31 5:31
>>69
Sun had 10 years and many oppurtunities to fix Java. They chose to fuck it up more instead. Even with a chance to learn from C#, they choose to keep fucking up. These days, Sun is just a company that relies on spam marketing big numbers (zomg!!!1!!1oneone 64 cores!!!!!!), drumming up publicity on pointless things (google toolbar, WTF. You can get that without any shit smeared on it, thank you very much.), assaulting sites with comment spam on their 'awesomeness' (guess they did learn something from JBoss), smearing shit all over java.net, trying to get free labour and then stealing all your work, and screaming "choice, choice, choice" on said spam marketing outlets, despite the fact that 90% of decision makers simply do not give a fuck unless your company is about to tank. Oh wait, maybe that's a sign that Sun IS about to tank.
Fact: Vendor independence and "choice" is the absolute lowest priority for the overwhelming majority of companies. For one thing, they know where they'll end up buying all the support from anyway, even years later. They've also been burned enough times by Java's marketing bullshit that they know better.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-31 6:06
Sun always says how productive and fast Java is.
Tell me what you brag about and I'll tell you what you lack.
Technically, Java is an overgeneralized, overengineered piece of bloat, and its strict, strong OO bites.
>>42
What are you talking about? Consultancy is the bomb, literally. You cash in, getting paid to give your _advice_, and watch others bomb when they ignore it.
>>71
Strong OO bites????? Would you rather have super strong typing? Like ML? *ick*
I'd rather have strong OO or at least a language that opens additional features only when needed (raises a C++ flag)
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-31 22:34 (sage)
Strong OO versus strong typing?
It's clear >>73 doesn't know what he's talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2006-02-01 4:58
>>73
More like you watch every stupid management sucker follow everything you say turning their project into an underperforming, overbudget, late-running piece of shit while you flail around making excuses like "OO, platform independence, best practices and other stupid shit".
The majority of consultants are full of shit. The majority of those also happen to promote Java. I propose an object type specified to distinctly cater for them; this type will be called "Jackass".
A decent technical consultant will understand the problem first, then can and will explain the practical benefits, cavaets and implications of doing something without having to resort to marketing handwaving like best practice, vendor independence, MVC, more OO and other bullshit. Pro-Java consultants love to ignore the problem and just start shitting their bullshit around with no clue what their talking about. Lines like (true story), "JBoss isn't an appserver, just EJB, you still need <our service here>" Hey, dipshit! This JBoss Application Server thing sitting in front of us must be just our imagination then!