Peter, if you take the time to learn about .NET instead of just flaming it the "why" of C# and .NET will become obvious.
The .NET Framework contains a whole lot of higher-level methods behind which commonly-required code is already written for developers. To create many common application features, what used to take dozens or hundreds of lines of code in C++ can now be done in a few in either C# or VB. Do you really need more reason than that to explain C# and .NET? OK. VB, with a huge base of users looking for more flexibility and power for developing adaptable/reusable code, needed to be upgraded. C++ needed to allow easy use of the powerful .NET Framework, a giant timesaver over MFC. Both needed to support much faster development of the very common requirements that kept showing up in development projects. These needs together presented an opportunity for convergence between the languages... as you said yourself, having developer skills widely split into two VB and C++ camps was sometimes costly. Need more? OK. Now developers who never made it past "Hello, world" in C++ are finding after learning VB.NET that they can read C#.NET code, and vice versa. I can already hire a .NET developer instead of looking for a VB developer to handle some parts of our projects and a C++ programmer to handle others. C++ developers who have morphed their skills to C# can now help develop web-based applications that were for many of them a completely foreign world in the past. A developer's favoured language is going to matter even less as .NET is more widely absorbed. Maybe one day there will be only one language. It should for sure be VB - those confusing curly braces and excessive punctuation have gotta go - but there's a chance some may disagree with that. :-) Either way, .NET's design ensures that this debate is a lot less important than it used to be. Hey Peter, I wasn't happy either to have to re-learn how to build applications... I'm still struggling with it! But I can already see that my little company is going to make money more easily with .NET. I wouldn't consider flouncing off elsewhere in a huff in order to punish Microsoft for forcing me to learn .NET. I'm pretty sure that people who do that are going to be eating bittersweet revenge while I eat Black Angus filet mignon. HTH -----Original Message----- From: Peter Kinev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:37 PM To: dotnet Subject: RE: Good book on using asp.net using vb I happen to remember "old good time" too (360/370, well before VB!). BTW, David you saved me from inflaming this list with correction of &15seconds about VB timing. Thank you. Now, David can you give me the rational behind decision of MS to introduce C# in .NET? Reasonable people will ask why to fix anything what works? IMHO, the C# is very good language indeed. No joke. But, would it be slightly cumbersome to maintain few equally important environments. I know from my experience working in development of one of the principal UNIX flavor how it's difficult to do something like that. And, LIST please try do not put words in my mouth. Let's use intelligent arguments. Best regards, Peter Kinev. --- You are currently subscribed to dotnet as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------- Administrated by 15 Seconds : http://www.15Seconds.com List Archives/Search : http://local.15Seconds.com/search Subscription Information : http://www.15seconds.com/listserv.htm Advertising Information: http://www.internet.com/mediakit/
