Registering Event Handlers in C# vs. VB .NET

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Peter,

I think a lot of this boils down to what Nigel Shaw once referred to as the
"culture" from which each language came. C# was created from the ground up
specifically to target the .NET Framework whereas VB.NET "came from" the
original classic Visual Basic - which "came from" the original BASIC, and
so
on, ad nauseum.

I find that you are very negative writing about C#.

It has inherited a lot of the good things from other program languages
(including VB6).

I would sure not compare it in a direct line with the first program
languages which were developed as you do, however you are of course free to
do that.

By the way the culture shock for the VB6 users to the first VB for Net, was
much more then those who came from the then existing C type program langages
to C#. The way VB was first changed was dramatic for some. There has been
later added a lot to VB to let the classic VB users as well accept it. (Not
that I like "those" additions).

An example Jon Skeet writes side by side Java and C# as far as I know.
(Although I have seen he becomes beter and beter in VB for Net too).

Cor

 

[Scott M.]

Geeze Peter,

We're not going to debate what the meaning of "is" is are we?

Without calling my college English professor, I think it's pretty obvious
that your first post was not referring to any specific subset of VB
developers, you wrote "a VB .NET programmer", you did not qualify the subset
to which that programmer belongs in your estimation. Later on, you said
that you have always been talking about a subset of VB programmers. It
doesn't take a dictionary or an English major to see that you are now saying
something different than before.

You seem to just have a problem accepting that I do get what you are saying
and I just disagree with it.

 

[Chris Shepherd]

We're not going to debate what the meaning of "is" is are we?

Without calling my college English professor, I think it's pretty obvious
that your first post was not referring to any specific subset of VB
developers, you wrote "a VB .NET programmer", you did not qualify the subset
to which that programmer belongs in your estimation. Later on, you said

This is incorrect. Peter did qualify which subset of VB .NET programmer he was
discussing -- those for whom it (proper event handler registration) was a
difficult concept to understand.


Chris.

 

[Peter Duniho]

We're not going to debate what the meaning of "is" is are we?

No, why should we? I won't waste my time trying to offer you a grammar
education.

Without calling my college English professor, I think it's pretty obvious
that your first post was not referring to any specific subset of VB
developers, you wrote "a VB .NET programmer"

Call your college English professor, I don't care. Your assertion of
what's "obvious" is self-serving and contrary to a common-sense
interpretation of what I wrote.

I have no idea why you've decided to take on the burden of being so
offended, in spite of my original text being reasonably clear. Even if it
wasn't (and you're the only person who seems to have trouble getting it,
so that seems unlikely), I have provided more than sufficient
clarification. Only a complete jerk would continue to persist on
insisting that they know better than the author of the original words what
the intent of those words are.

So, if you want to hold on to your perception of offense, to feed whatever
dark part of your soul seems so hungry for conflict and persecution, far
be it from me to continue to try to disavow yourself of that. But make no
mistake: that's your own choice and it has nothing at all to do with the
reality of the situation.

[...] It
doesn't take a dictionary or an English major to see that you are now
saying
something different than before.

No, but it does take someone who simply cannot admit that they have
misread something that was plain enough to everyone else.

You seem to just have a problem accepting that I do get what you are
saying
and I just disagree with it.

It only seems that way to _you_. Of course, you are not an unbiased
observer, having committed yourself several times to the assertion that
you _did_ understand what I wrote. To admit now that you were wrong
would, apparently, cost your ego far too much to go through with that
admission.

The thing I find funniest about this whole exchange is that early on, I
even acknowledged the possibility that I hadn't expressed myself well
enough to make myself understood, and you continued on insisting that you
knew exactly what I meant, even though it was clear enough to me that you
didn't.

There's just no plausible claim that I have any motivation whatsoever to
backpedal on my original statement. The only cost to me would be
admitting I hadn't expressed myself well enough, and I've already done as
much. What possible cause would I have at this point to contradict what
you're saying, other than a general belief in the truth?

No, it's very clear that you are the only person here with any motivation
to refuse to admit fault. That makes it painfully obvious that this
disagreement continues only because of your inability to admit you didn't
understand what I wrote in the first place. Get over it.

Ironically, if you'd just accepted my apology for not making myself
understood in the first place, you wouldn't even feel backed into the
corner you do. At that point, you could have just called it my fault and
been done with it. Instead, you continued to insist that you understood,
leaving you here without any way to acknowledge the truth in what I'm
saying without admitting a mistake on your own part.

You really need to learn to admit to your mistakes. It's not actually all
that painful to do, and it will really help you avoid looking like such an
ignorant jerk in the future (sorry, it's too late for you in this thread).

Pete

 

[Scott M.]

Chris,

That makes no sense. You are saying that the subset Peter describes as
having a problem with understanding events are those who have trouble
understanding events?

No, go read his first post - he clearly says that a VB .NET developer will
have trouble... He does not qualify any subset.

-Scott

 

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

Chris,

That makes no sense. You are saying that the subset Peter describes as
having a problem with understanding events are those who have trouble
understanding events?

No, go read his first post - he clearly says that a VB .NET developer will
have trouble... He does not qualify any subset.

He said "can", a potential, a possibility, not "will". I quote "It can be
an especially difficult leap for a VB.NET programmer to grasp". If, picking
a VB.NET programmer at random, the probability that said programmer has
difficulty grasping the concept is non-zero, then the statement is accurate.
This is both necessary and sufficient assuming that the pool of VB.NET
programmers is finite, which if we discount the possibility of
non-Earthlings somewhere having acquired VB.NET skills, is well founded.

Since we've heard several examples of anecdotal evidence that at least some
VB.NET programmers have been observed to have difficulty with that exact
concept, the statement is accurate.

Now I don't exactly agree with the way Peter sunk to ad-hominem attacks when
his statement was questioned, but I think I've been at least that tactless
at times so I will encourage all to simply forgive.

 

[Peter Duniho]

[...]
Now I don't exactly agree with the way Peter sunk to ad-hominem attacks
when
his statement was questioned, but I think I've been at least that
tactless
at times so I will encourage all to simply forgive.

For my own benefit, please point out the "ad-hominem attacks" to which you
refer.

I try very hard to _not_ use ad-hominem attacks and I believe that my
posts demonstrate this very well. In this thread, it's true...I finally
called a spade a spade, pointing out the basic jerk-like behavior on the
part of Scott (he is at this point accusing me of being a liar). But that
message came later, at a point when frankly I cannot find any other
explanation for the continued debate other than that observation, and
after Scott had already made his own personally-directed attacks.

If I made an ad-hominem attack elsewhere, it was unintentional and if you
could point it out that would help me understand better what you're
talking about. Maybe I can avoid something like that in the future.

Thanks,
Pete

 

[Scott M.]

I'm pretty sure I made no attacks, but stated politely that I disagreed and
used those words to say so. I am also pretty sure I did not call you a liar
or a jerk.

So, who's doing the attacking?

[...]
Now I don't exactly agree with the way Peter sunk to ad-hominem attacks
when
his statement was questioned, but I think I've been at least that
tactless
at times so I will encourage all to simply forgive.

For my own benefit, please point out the "ad-hominem attacks" to which you
refer.

I try very hard to _not_ use ad-hominem attacks and I believe that my
posts demonstrate this very well. In this thread, it's true...I finally
called a spade a spade, pointing out the basic jerk-like behavior on the
part of Scott (he is at this point accusing me of being a liar). But that
message came later, at a point when frankly I cannot find any other
explanation for the continued debate other than that observation, and
after Scott had already made his own personally-directed attacks.

If I made an ad-hominem attack elsewhere, it was unintentional and if you
could point it out that would help me understand better what you're
talking about. Maybe I can avoid something like that in the future.

Thanks,
Pete

 

[Peter Duniho]

I'm pretty sure I made no attacks, but stated politely that I disagreed
and
used those words to say so. I am also pretty sure I did not call you a
liar
or a jerk.

Every time you wrote that the point I originally made was different than
the point I made later, you called me a liar. Why? Because you are
unwilling to accept my original reply to you stating that you'd
misunderstood my intent.

It is reasonable for you to tell me I failed to express myself clearly,
thus causing a misunderstanding. That was, in fact, my very first reply
to your expressing an idea incompatible with what I wrote. But you
rejected that possibility.

It is also reasonable for you to tell me that I expressed myself clearly,
but that you failed to understand in spite of that. You also rejected
that possibility.

It is ABSOLUTELY NOT REASONABLE for you to tell me that I meant something
other than what I am telling you I meant but since you rejected the first
two possibilities, this is the only possibility left. When you do that,
you are accusing me of lying about what I originally intended and when you
accuse me of lying I get very angry.

I have been told that I can be somewhat unpleasant when I get angry.

So, who's doing the attacking?

You. By refusing to accept my statements at face value, you accuse me of
lying and thus are attacking me, and in a much worse way than had you just
called me a jerk. I can readily accept that I can be a jerk sometimes,
but when you tell me I'm a liar, you've crossed the line and I'm not going
to just sit here and put up with it.

Pete

 

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Peter,

I shall be the last to attack Scott on his English, however you do.

This is written in your original reply to the OP

It can be an especially difficult leap for a VB.NET programmer to grasp

What would you tell us what was meant as was written:

It can be an especially difficult leap for a person from (the country you
are living in whatever it is) to be honest.

Cor

 

[Peter Duniho]

Peter,

I shall be the last to attack Scott on his English, however you do.

No, it's _my_ English that is under attack. They are my words, and I am
being told that I meant something other than what I meant when I wrote
them.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: this is _not_ about the meaning of the words
themselves. It's about what I _meant_ when I wrote them. You can debate
the semantic, literal meaning of the words I wrote all day long if you
like, it has absolutely _nothing_ to do with the question at hand.

I've already acknowledged the possibility that the words did not mean what
I intended them to mean, but Scott has rejected that as a possible
scenario.

This is written in your original reply to the OP


What would you tell us what was meant as was written:

It can be an especially difficult leap for a person from (the country
you are living in whatever it is) to be honest.

What was _meant_? No, I can't. You'd have to ask the author of the words
to find out for sure what was _meant_. Out of context, it's not really
possible to judge the meaning even just looking at the words, but
regardless you cannot determine the _intent_ of the author without hearing
from the author.

Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone -- you or Scott -- could possibly take
issue with what I've written. At _most_ there should only be a
misunderstanding due to a poor choice of words, but since I offered that
possibility right at the beginning and it was immediately rejected, the
only thing that's left is people accusing me of being a liar.

I made a good-faith effort to try to resolve the misunderstanding, but
Scott would not accept that. Instead, he insisted on continuing his
attack on my statement, and transitively on me as well. You have chosen
to support that attack, which IMHO puts you in just as bad a light as
Scott has already put himself.

Are you really sure that's where you want to be?

Pete

 

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

I've already acknowledged the possibility that the words did not mean what
I intended them to mean, but Scott has rejected that as a possible
scenario.

OK, missed that, Sorry than for my reply.

Cor

 

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

No, it's _my_ English that is under attack. They are my words, and I am
being told that I meant something other than what I meant when I wrote
them.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: this is _not_ about the meaning of the words
themselves. It's about what I _meant_ when I wrote them. You can debate
the semantic, literal meaning of the words I wrote all day long if you
like, it has absolutely _nothing_ to do with the question at hand.

I've already acknowledged the possibility that the words did not mean what
I intended them to mean, but Scott has rejected that as a possible
scenario.

The interesting thing here is that Peter's original statement is perfectly
fine, it doesn't make the broad-sweeping claim that Scott took issue with.

However Peter, you did directly attack Scott on his English, as Cor said. I
quote:

"If you're having trouble understanding what I wrote, you might want to
review the grammatical rules regarding the article "a"."

 

[Peter Duniho]

[...]
However Peter, you did directly attack Scott on his English, as Cor
said. I
quote:

"If you're having trouble understanding what I wrote, you might want to
review the grammatical rules regarding the article "a"."

Really? That's an attack?

Given your statement that my original statement was perfectly clear, are
you saying that for someone having trouble understanding it, it would
_not_ be helpful to review the grammatical rules regarding the article "a"?

It seems to me that if every time someone offers a suggestion as to how
they might rectify an apparent gap in their knowledge, that this newsgroup
is chock full of attacks.

Pete

 

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

[...]
However Peter, you did directly attack Scott on his English, as Cor
said. I
quote:

"If you're having trouble understanding what I wrote, you might want to
review the grammatical rules regarding the article "a"."

Really? That's an attack?

I can't quite explain why, but my gut feel as a native English speaker is
that the particular phrasing you had chosen there is a tad on the insulting
side. Moreso than, for example, "That's not the right way to use
pass-by-reference, Jon Skeet has written up an excellent explanation at

Given your statement that my original statement was perfectly clear, are
you saying that for someone having trouble understanding it, it would
_not_ be helpful to review the grammatical rules regarding the article
"a"?

I didn't say it was clear. I said it was correct.

Certainly it should have been clear after your explanation.

It seems to me that if every time someone offers a suggestion as to how
they might rectify an apparent gap in their knowledge, that this newsgroup
is chock full of attacks.

Well I'm certainly not wanting to get into a spat here. I'm just trying to
share the connotations I get from a particular sentence, especially since
you said "For my own benefit, please point out the "ad-hominem attacks" to
which you refer." After all, as members of the tech community we have to
deal with a lot of different cultures and thus have to try and learn what
other people might take as an affront. I know I've been quite obnoxious at
times and I'm just trying to learn better myself.

I surely do think that this whole issue has been blown WAAAAY out of
proportion, and the only real cause I can think of is that you might have
hit a sore spot with someone who secretly codes in VB. <sarcasm>Of course,
you (and I) are all lamers for not writing everything in

 

[Peter Duniho]

[...]
Well I'm certainly not wanting to get into a spat here. I'm just trying
to
share the connotations I get from a particular sentence, especially since
you said "For my own benefit, please point out the "ad-hominem attacks"
to
which you refer."

Fair enough. My own interpretation of "ad-hominem" wouldn't include
something like what you quoted -- that statement was a) factually correct,
and b) not exactly a direct insult in the way that I view actual
ad-hominems to be -- but perhaps it was taken as more of an attack than
was intended. I appreciate you pointing it out, and in fact it's just
this sort of thing -- something that makes me say "huh? someone was
offended by that?" -- that I can probably use help with.

Of course, to some extent I'm less worried about a particular instance of
something like that. It's hard to get very apologetic about a perceived
glancing blow like that one, when a direct accusation of lying is being
leveled at me.

[...]
I surely do think that this whole issue has been blown WAAAAY out of
proportion, and the only real cause I can think of is that you might have
hit a sore spot with someone who secretly codes in VB.

Maybe. Which is ironic, as I have never expressed or held the opinion
that the language one codes in is reflective of their abilities as a
programmer. Some languages may be easier, and thus allow _some_ of the
users of the language to get by with sub-par skills, but you can't tell
anything about a particular person by what language they use.

For someone to think that I was saying they are a lesser programmer just
because they use a particular language is laughable, and would in fact
been a moment of great hilarity had it not been for Scott's obstinate
insistence that he knew not only exactly the meaning of the words I wrote,
but my own intent behind them, when in fact it was clear to me that he
knew neither.

Pete