@mallard said:
VB.Net is an alternative syntax to C# designed (IMHO) to allow programmers to more easily transition from VB6 to C#.
Perhaps C# was written to lure C++ programmers closer to the dark side? Hmm... VB.NET wasn't written to bring us all together. CLR was. If VB.NET was considered transitional, they wouldnt be currently developing 'VB9'.
The real reason why VB.NET, C# and C++ exist in MS's world, is quite simply because thats how they can target the largest number of developers, and their favoured languages. I.E more $$$$ for MS.
@mallard said:
If VB.Net was the same language, then porting applications from VB6 to VB.Net would require changes, but not a complete rewrite.
If VB.NET was a different language, then VB6 programmers would have as much difficulty learning it as they would C++/CLI. But they dont. It maintains much of the same syntax as VB6, the real learning curve being the framework.
@mallard said:
It's not that they broke compatibility......
The reason why porting is so time consuming is because MS broke compatibility. Some would say that if breaking changes are inevitable then they should come sooner rather than later.
@mallard said:
......it's that they replaced it with a language that isn't "VB7" no matter what they called it internally.VB6 was a language that could trace it's ancestory all the way back to GWBASIC....
Windows XP still gets called "Windows" even though its source code would barely resemble the original. It doenst make it any less of a descendant.
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck and feels like a duck.......then it is a duck. Unless option strict is on...