View Single Post
Old 05-21-09, 12:21 PM   #28
hell_of_doom227
Registered User
 
hell_of_doom227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,387
Default Re: Visual Studio 2008 & .NET

Quote:
Originally Posted by thor1182 View Post
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 ****.
__________________
System: eVGA x58SLI x16 4Way Classified, Intel Six Core i7 X980@4.00Ghz, 6Gb GSkill DDR3-1600, Tri Crossfire 3xATI Radeon 5870 1Gb, Raid1 - 2xSSD Intel 80Gb X-25M, Raid0 - 2xHDD Samsung 2Tb, Raid1 - 2xHDD Samsung 1Tb, LG Blue-Ray/HD-DVD Player, Silverstone 1100W PSU, Intel Stock Cooler (New One), Thermaltake Xaser VI, LG 27" LCD, Logitech Keyboard G15, G5 Logitech Mouse
OS: Windows 7 x64

35708 - 3DMark Vantage
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=2109601
hell_of_doom227 is offline   Reply With Quote