Visual Studio 2008 & .NET

[thor1182]

It's programming, cause it's programming language. Makes me believe that you actually don't know programming. VB in VB.NET is at version 9 and i can tell you that C# is not any better.

VB.NET does not have lamda expressions in it, where C# does. Without lamdas, LINQ losses a lot of its power and compactedness.

Its syntax is also clunky and often backwards and inconsistent across the language compared to other languages. Ternary(sp? (string1 == null)? "blank" : string1;) operations are messy compared to whats in C#.

Most of the time they will compile down to the same in the CLR, but sometimes VB aps will have additional VB6 libraries loaded to cover some of the VB functionality where C# won't.

Mostly C# vs VB.NET is a religious thing amongst .NET devs, but C# syntax will be more transferable to other languages than VB will.

[hemmy]

Every day I go to work and program in C++ in Borland C++ Builder 6.0

It sucks, bad. Visual Studio puts it to shame, but that is what the eldest employees started with (in Delphi, Pascal) so that is what we use

[hell_of_doom227]

VB.NET does not have lamda expressions in it, where C# does. Without lamdas, LINQ losses a lot of its power and compactedness.

Its syntax is also clunky and often backwards and inconsistent across the language compared to other languages. Ternary(sp? (string1 == null)? "blank" : string1;) operations are messy compared to whats in C#.

Most of the time they will compile down to the same in the CLR, but sometimes VB aps will have additional VB6 libraries loaded to cover some of the VB functionality where C# won't.

Mostly C# vs VB.NET is a religious thing amongst .NET devs, but C# syntax will be more transferable to other languages than VB will.

Actually it does have. I think you need to do research too. Btw you can do LINQ without lamdas with the same efficiency. Infact you don't need lamdas at all. How do i know that it runs fast? Cause i do loadtesting on enormous number of users and i can tell you that average time is less then 0.300s per transaction.

Speaking of which. Do you think it's more efficient to use GridView or custom written html renderer to render appropriate table?

I am not saying C# is worse then VB. Using C#.Net or VB.Net = same ****.

[yehuda]

Actually it does have. I think you need to do research too. Btw you can do LINQ without lamdas with the same efficiency. Infact you don't need lamdas at all. How do i know that it runs fast? Cause i do loadtesting on enormous number of users and i can tell you that average time is less then 0.300s per transaction.

Speaking of which. Do you think it's more efficient to use GridView or custom written html renderer to render appropriate table?

I am not saying C# is worse then VB. Using C#.Net or VB.Net = same ****.

VB supports Lambda expressions, but not lambda statements.
Lambdas are not only LINQ related, but they go a long way in making your code more readable instead of using delegates (which VB kind of misses with how it forces you to use Function()).

IMO the differences between C# and VB are small, but I just like the way C# is written.
Some VB features are quite nice, like XML literals.

About the grid, we have Telerik's components which I really like, but for other projects I usualy use the default grid.

[thor1182]

Speaking of which. Do you think it's more efficient to use GridView or custom written html renderer to render appropriate table?

A lot of the built in .NET controls while easy to use put out crap HTML. Even with that they still are good at what they do.

The telerik controls are both nice and crap. For the most part they are really easy to work with and have more power than the standard ones, but you often sacrifice html and css control when you use them. The Rad editor is a Godsend for my line of work though.

[hell_of_doom227]

A lot of the built in .NET controls while easy to use put out crap HTML. Even with that they still are good at what they do.

The telerik controls are both nice and crap. For the most part they are really easy to work with and have more power than the standard ones, but you often sacrifice html and css control when you use them. The Rad editor is a Godsend for my line of work though.

I agree. They really put sometimes some crappy html. I wrote my own HTML Renderer, and i can render anything in run time on page based on conditions and data i am getting. I don't use gridview and repeaters. I heard telerik controls are good, but you have to pay for those right?