VS.NET 2005: Why VB's IDE is better than C#'s IDE ??

[Stefano]

Dear Friends,
i have had a preview of the new VS.NET 2005 version that has showed to
me a lot of improvment in C# and VB language.
But i have notice that the VB's IDE is better than C#'s IDE.
Could someone explain to me why ?
Are VB programmers more lazy (or stupid) than C# programmers and needs
more help??
Or are C# programmers has been ignore as developers so is stupid to
give them a valid IDE ???
If the IDE is one and only one (VS.NET) for VB and C# why don't give
to everyone the same set of rich funcionality?
By
Stefano

 

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

Dear Friends,
i have had a preview of the new VS.NET 2005 version that has showed to
me a lot of improvment in C# and VB language.
But i have notice that the VB's IDE is better than C#'s IDE.
Could someone explain to me why ?
Are VB programmers more lazy (or stupid) than C# programmers and needs
more help??
Or are C# programmers has been ignore as developers so is stupid to
give them a valid IDE ???
If the IDE is one and only one (VS.NET) for VB and C# why don't give
to everyone the same set of rich funcionality?
By

The simpliest explination is that VB is generally more IDE focused while C#
is more code focused, but that isn't nessecerily a completly true one.
I for one don't like overly intrusive, complex IDE's. A code editor and a
form designer is pretty much all I need.

What paritcularly is it about the C# editor that you think is "worse" than
the vb one?

 

[Cor Ligthert]

The simpliest explination is that VB is generally more IDE focused while
C#

is more code focused, but that isn't nessecerily a completly true one.
I for one don't like overly intrusive, complex IDE's. A code editor and a
form designer is pretty much all I need.

I assume this is nothing more than a very personal opinion?

Cor

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Hi Stefano,

If it is the reason I do not know, however one of them can be that C# needs
a much simpler development computer than VB, I have read in this newsgroup
that that was stated as an advantage from C#.

Cor

 

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

I assume this is nothing more than a very personal opinion?

Yes, it is entirely personal. However I think it is slightly related to the
choices made for each IDE. The VB IDE does lean towards more IDE centric
coding. Its not a bad thing, just not a "me" thing. I can't say that
editor\code centirc is the best for C# developers, just that I prefer it
over the VB experiance(for the most part, there are a few VB behaviours I'd
like, like automatic switch case generation) and that *I* prefer an IDE that
focuses on the code and doesn't require me to move my hands. Because I want
to use the keyboard most of hte time, the majority of IDE features that
seperates them has little bearing on me.

Of course, there are language issues that differentiate the IDE's. For
example, I don't think it'd be anywhere as easy in C# to determine all event
handlers as it is in VB, simply due to the differences in the declaration of
the handler(handles keyword vs manual delegate attachment).

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Hi Daniel,

Do not forget that most programmers are not native English speakers. An IDE,
which helps you to show your typing errors, is very helpful for those.

When I see in the dotNet newsgroups, the ones who are the most for C# above
VBNet than it are mostly the native English-speaking persons and some
Benelux and Scandinavians.

(I hope I make no mistake in that last sentence)

Just my thought,

Cor

 

[Stefano]

OK,
but i think that the Edit&Continue feature would be usefull for C#
programmers too.
I think that the IDE should be offers to me all capabilities and give
me the chance of use it or not.
By
Stefano

 

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

OK,
but i think that the Edit&Continue feature would be usefull for C#
programmers too.
I think that the IDE should be offers to me all capabilities and give
me the chance of use it or not.'

That is somewhat disagreed upon. I personally think E&C is a waste of
resources. Remember that we aren't talking about a company with infinate
resources, let alone a team with it. All features would simply mean that the
IDE would probably never come out.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Hi Stefano,

The Edit&Control part is as part I do not miss at all.

However told is that it will not effect the results, so when it helps people
why not.

Cor

 

[Guest]

I can't believe anyone would knock the Edit & Continue feature! This
modality is highly beneficial when debugging highly complex code. MSFT
wouldn't have worked so hard to reimplement this feature if the case were
otherwise. The ability to abstract and keep many things juggling in the
human mind is easily disrupted. Having to stop a debugging session when the
execution of the code is deep into the program can be a killer. Bravo to
MSFT for bringing this feature back in .NET 2005! And kudos to those that
can live without it. They're obviously not affected by interruptions in the
thought process or don't work on very complex code.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

can live without it. They're obviously not affected by interruptions in
the

thought process or don't work on very complex code.

What is complex code?

Programs have to be written in a structural way where a method exist in
or/and as small parts easy to debug and easy to reuse where an unexpected
interruption is of course impossible because that class is tested before on
every thing that even cannot expected.

Just my thought about your message.

Cor

 

[Geir Holme]

Hi all.
I just had to reply on this one since I agree totally.

Working trough your code an not just fixing problems, but also looking for
behaviour changing values as you debug is usefull. Just yesterday I spend
some time to think about the time I use to stop, change start and klick back
to the point of testing. This is actually a matter of cost ineffective
workprosess. It really cost us money during e.g. a week. Multiply it with
the number of developers and it is a matter of money. Mabe our programming
routines are wrong, but it really hurts to stop everything just to change a
value in a variable to check it out.

I am not gonna salute anyone for putting this back since it should not have
been taken out in the first place.

I am looking forward to get this back.

-gh

 

[Lloyd Sheen]

My 2 cents. I have used this feature since the beginning of VB. I am glad
it is back. I consistantly work on IDE type applications. This means in VS
2003 if I find a problem, I stop the app, fix the problem and go thru all
the steps to get back to where I was a couple of minutes ago. Add that
couple of minutes by the number of tests in a day , then by the number of
days or work and it does not take too long to make this a money item.

Any tool which helps should be available. Elite thinking (no tools , no
help etc) is an outdated way of thinking. We now run very powerful
workstations so why should the development software and its devleopment
tools be any different.

Lloyd Sheen

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Lloyd,

I agree that it can be a powerfull tool, however when I read in this thread
that people are talking about complex code I see the use before me.

When it is used as it should it can be it can be a good tool.

However when used to make a program by trying and go and keeping the code,
than it is in my opinion a terrible tool which creates complex code which is
not the best, however it runs (but do not ask how).

VBNet does already a lot on helping before by background compiling
especially when you have option strict On which was not on the first
versions of VB. I think that that is unknown by a lot of people who are
telling that not implementing E&C it is a big miss in VBNet.

However I always say that when it not does bring the performance down while
debugging and running, than why would it not be implemented.

Just my 2 cent.

Cor

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Shapy,

The problem with games is that you probably have to debug a lot of captures,
that can in my opinion not good be done using the current debugger.

I have not seen any solution for that and would not have an idea myself how
that could be good implemented in the debugger.

So although I just made my message to give some contraweight, is find your
example not a very good one.

Cor