midget1500

hi everybody (hi dr. nick..)

i'm going on a training course in .net next week. i'm already familiar with java (j2ee and all that). this training is to enable us to build .net applications (asp.net et al) to create an intranet front end, to access MS SQL server.

which version of .net should we buy? looking on dabs and they have 2 that seem suitable;

Visual Studio .Net Enterprise Developer 2003 @ £1225
Visual Studio .Net Enterprise Architect 2003 @ £1699

Anywhere do better prices?

I take it that we can develop applications using either and release them to clients, i.e. no licensing issues here? and is one copy sufficient for a few developers or do we need a copy each?

Another issue that has been brought to my attention is that of reporting. Crystal Reports has been mentioned. I've never seen or used it and I've seen a training course that lasts 2 days. Is this something we could easily pick up on or would training be required? (I can't see it being that difficult?)

Cheers
Steven

jjones

muhahahahahah

crystal reports is the work of satan

milo

you'd be better off learning c# than vb.net to be honest.


the cheapest one that you need. if you need the architect version components (visio etc), go for that. if you don't, go for developer.

you can get better prices if you have an agreement with microsoft. speak to whomever normally orders software at your company.

correct - you can release any .net applications without having to pay licensing (the .net platform is free).

HOWEVER, you will need licenses for the following:
* visual studio (this is NOT a requirement to develop software)
* any windows licenses (this should be the clients' responsibility but you'll need to inform them)
* any sql server / database licenses (as above)


one copy EACH.


re: crystal reports... consider sql reporting instead. it uses .net, and is free, whereas you have to pay for crystal reports (usually on a per-user basis).

milo

oh yeah, and this should have been in computer related

OllyK

If you are focusing on web apps then look at Web Matrix, a freebie MS Offering, similar to the concept behind the VB Component edition etc. You can produce Web Services and Apps on this and works fine for MOST things.

If you are starting from scratch then I would agree, if you have experienced VB developers they may find VB easier although it is significantly different to previous versions so there is still a learning curve. For most things there is little difference in functionality between VB and C# although C# will do some things VB won't and vice versa.

You can mix and match VB and C# (and other languages) within a solution (not a project) and they will work quite happily. C# does "force" you to right better code off the bat as it is more "strict", VB lets you "get away" with a lot of things and so things will still work, they just work badly. If the VB code is well written and structured then it will perform fine. The trouble is that if you take the time to learn this, many would argue you may as well have learnt C# anyway.

SiDHEaD

You can get other development front-ends for vb .net, some of them a hell of a lot cheaper - even free. Seem to have some better functionality - and as it isn't made by microshat it shouldn't crash every hour.


Andy

OllyK

Yup - web matrix is free (still MS though) www.asp.net and I think it supports c# as well

milo

exactly... add to that the fact that the vast majority of code samples (including sample applications) are written in c#... and if u want to learn anything from them, you'll probably need to learn a fair chunk of c# anyway.

needless to say, java developers will find c# less of a learning curve than vb.net

my reasons for picking c#:
* it is developed for .net, not a port from a different platform
* it enables you to do a few things that you cannot do in vb.net
* from a personal (non-company) point of view, there are more jobs out there for c# developers than other .net languages, and there always will be
* millions (billions?) of lines of microsoft code are in c#. almost none (comparitively) are in vb.net. if ms are to discontinue support of a language, it WONT be c#.
* more people will be happier with the syntax (everyone from the java world, c++ world etc).
* a company will (generally) get better technical staff if hiring someone with c# skills than vb.net (a HUGE generalisation i know.. but not far from the truth)

milo

yes it does

milo

for instance what?

also, are you genuinely having problems with visual studio .net crashing?? or .net in general crashing??

OllyK

Just to fill in a couple of gaps, I am a consultant rather than a developer although I do have C, Java, VB, C#, Smalltalk (and a few others) background.

The fact the code examples are in C# is neither here nor there, there are plenty of very good (and free) translators out there that will take C# and translate to VB and vice versa.

Mmm, VB .NET isn't really just a port. Try importing a VB6 app in to .NET and see how much re-work you have to do. Add to that the approaches that worked well in VB6 are no longer the best way to do them in .NET. The name is the same, the syntax is the same, but it has moved on significantly (and for the better). You could argue that C# is just messed about with C or C++ in a similar vein, there are similarities between them but they are different beasts.

Yes and VB also does a few things that C# can't do as well. To be honest the ability to overload operators in C# is not going to be something that you use on a daily basis, likewise the ability to late bind in VB isn't massively useful either.

This is perception I think. Seen plenty for VB and for C#, but seeing more and more just ".NET". i.e. don't care what lanuage as long as it is in the .NET fold, again the nice thing about .NET being able to pick and choose.

That discounts an awful lot of people from the VB and ASP worlds, which are not inconsiderable either!

If the truth be known, most .NET developers can develop in C# or VB. Either way they need to understand the underlying concepts and architecture, the language on top used to implement the solution is down to personal preference.

I am not making a case for either VB or C#, I think both are valid and I have used both. I personally prefer VB, for comfort more than anything else. I think too much emphasis is made on the top level language used to get the result, with .NET this is largely irrelvant as the compiled code that goes through the CLR is ALMOST identical regardless of the language, that is one of .NET's big selling points.

I agree that you will in general get better quality code from c#, not because it is a "better" language, but because it forces you to write better code, VB allows you to be lazy (which for some things is actually useful), but if you write the VB code properly then it is just as valid as the c#

midget1500

I'm reading your replies with interest. This isn't an IT company I work for but an accountacy firm that have some staff trained using VB.A so to undertake this project going to .NET is a big enough leap*, never mind changing language!!!

* possibly the biggest understatement EVER made. You read it here first!

OllyK

Meant to say you get better C# code because it forces you to write better code rather than it being down to the quality of the developer. A good VB developer can produce the same thing that will perform as well as a good developer in C# will produce.

OllyK

midget1500 - don't think for one moment that because people are good with VBA that they will be good with .NET, VB or otherwise. There are big enough differences between VBA and VB6. VB .NET is a very different beastie and if you try and code it like you did with VBA or VB6 you are going to end up with a major mess on your hands!!

TopBanana

As said, VB.net and C# are both very similar - just different syntax. C# just looks more scary to the uninitiated due to the use of curly brackets everywhere!

Don't mess around with any of the free IDE's unless you're very skint. VS.net is very good - the debugging facilities are excellent. You'd be better off getting an MSDN Subsciption though as it's similarly priced to Visual Studio, and includes Visual Studio and basically every other microsoft package available. You get monthly updates sent on DVD-ROM and can download new releases from a secure site. You used to get 5 free tech support incidents too, not sure if you still do.

midget1500

Olly, yes but (sweeping generalisation mode on) it should/will be more familiar to them than C# but obviously they are being trained with regard to how to program and structures/concepts rather than just knock together a few subroutines in VB.A.

As above, choice of language is almost irrelevant - they just need to get familiar with the .NET architecture and more importantly, how to program!

OllyK

At a glance the content of methods will look much the same, but Includes, Inherits, Implements, Overloads, Overrides etc etc will all be different and anybody used to Properies is in for a shock as well!

Good luck though!

SiDHEaD

My crashing refrence was just the usual pop at the way microsoft stuff likes to die. ok ok the recent stuff is ok, but I still have to modify apps made in VB6 and the IDE will sometimes just bugger off and die.

As for functionality it may just be the layout - but I find a lot of the MS stuff to be tucked away too much. You need a course on the use of the app, not just the language.

Andy

TopBanana

How's that then?

milo

these are not particular good. try translating a large c# project to vb.net and see what happens.

besides, a developer will be able to develop a lot faster if s/he can find a source sample quickly WITHOUT having to put it thru a translator.


vb.net is exactly that - a port. it's a port of vb onto the .net platform. just like cobol.net is a port of cobol onto the .net platform. vb.net was NOT written from the ground up... it was vb converted to the .net platform.

microsoft TRIED to develop bits of vb.net from the ground up, but were (shockingly and unfortunately) met with a LOT of comments from the vb community wanting it to stay essentially the same.


not very well you couldn't. c++ is hugely based on explicit pointers and memory handling.

it would be fairer to say "c# is just messed about with java"... even then that's not strictly true. they both share elements... because those elements make up a GOOD programming language.


disagree, and here's proof. do a search on somewhere like jobserve and you'll get way more than twice as many c# jobs as vb.net.


rubbish! why would they? they'd pick a language and develop all their stuff in it. if not, they're wasting their employers' time.

a company will pick a language and stick to it for faster development and lower time to market. it would be TOTALLY illogical to say "we need you to be able to develop in c# and vb.net for some arbitrary reason". likewise a good developer would not say "hmmm i think i'll develop in language x instead of language y today just for the hell of it!".

the ONLY type of person who would need to know both languages are consultants/contractors who want to open up more of the market share. even then, i would rather hire a c# specialist than someone who's done "a bit of both".

agree with the first part of that sentence, but the second part should NOT be down to personal preference. it should be corporate strategy to ensure development could be maintained. if i were running a company and someone wrote a huge system in eiffel.net just because it was their "personal preference", and as such it couldn't be maintained, they'd be fired on the stop.


the fact that you say "ALMOST" is important. in reality, the c# compiler is BETTER than the vb.net compiler. as such, c# will get better IL generated. and as such, you'll get better performance with c#. this is a HUGE advantage of c#, due to the fact that microsoft better supports the language and spent more time on csc.exe than the vb (and other language) equivalents.
[/QUOTE]

OllyK

Just have done - put in ".NET" and it was coming back 6:4 VB to C#. And they were 50:50 Specific (C# or VB) to general ASP.NET developer / VS .NET Developer where NO language was specified.

So we can both find job web sites to prove our case which goes to prove what? There is bugger all in it.

And as for:
This is a common mis-conception and wrong. The compilers have many different settings and if the settings are not comparable then what you have said is true, if they are comparable then...from Microsoft MDSN:
With "Visual Basic .NET code performs identically to C# code" being the key point!

milo

no, because you've put in ".net", which will pull back all "vb.net" jobs. you'll only pull back c# jobs if they ALSO have .net in the spec... which most of them don't. do you see what i mean?

now change your search to c# and a seperate one for vb.net and see what you get.


what it's saying is that IDENTICAL IL performs the same.

it also says that different compilers generate different il.

just because those code samples generated the same il, it does NOT mean ALL code samples will generate the same il.

OllyK

c# = 299 jobs
vb .net = over 500 jobs

Nope looks to me like there are significantly more vb .net jobs out there than c# even by your revised search criteria, atleast 5:3 if not more...so my previous point stands, there is more likely little or nothing in it.

No...it is saying that comparable VB code when compiled with comparable compiler options will generate IL that performs equally well, read it again...it says "Visual Basic .NET code performs identically to C# code" it doesn't mention IL at this stage.

As we know, there are different ways to loop and branch, if you use comparable c# and vb methods you will end up with comparable IL and comparable performance. If you choose the best VB option and the worst C# option in a given situation, VB will perform better and vice versa. Have a look on MSDN, they are numerous articles where performance is compared in great detail and time and time again the results are the same, comparable VB & C# code with comparable compiler setting results in IL that will perform the same.

milo

what site is that on then? you've actually searched for "vb.net", NOT "vb .net" the latter of which will pull back ALL vb jobs AND all vb.net jobs? i notice the space between the two words which makes the difference.

furthermore, whenever computer or computer weekly put out a list of skills, c# ALWAYS appears higher than vb.net in the number of jobs advertised (vb.net often doesn't even appear).


no this is just not right. i can happily provide you with a very simple example of different IL being produced by the same compiler options.

in particular, for example, the vb.net and c# compilers manage stack space differently (in a different order) and as such produce DIFFERENT il. furthermore, even simple string comparison is done differently in c# and vb.net behind the scenes.

SCOSaltire

'allo

ive just done the 70-305 exam and passed with 843/1000.
Basically Developing ASP.Net Web Applications with VB.Net and VS.Net

Most of the questions were not related to the language. Any coding examples were related to the use of the .Net Framework base class library.

To a developer generating solutions in .Net, the majority of the knowledge needed is related the workings of the cls associated base classes, understanding the life of web forms (events and such), manipulating controls and structuring applications taking advantage of inheritence and reusability.

None of this is Language specific. Ok, the synatax is - but the knowledge of the above comes before the knowledge of the language used to implement the designs.

People always get snotty about 'c is better than vb'.
Whether is C, Turbo c, C++, Java, C#, VB, VBA, VBScript, VB.Net.
But at last, it doesnt matter.

Of course, businesses make decisions on strategy of training for continuing product development - and will typically stick to the majority language skills available. However, with .Net, a developer should easily be able to swap between the big two with minimum effort as the effort lies in other areas now.

I cant wait till Whidbey comes out (late 2004 I hopes).
A big enhancement to ASP.Net.

OllyK

C# is easy to find, just put that in and there is little chance of there being a mix up. But look at the following ad:

Now it is a crap ad, but by .NET do they mean VB or C# or not fussed. There are many many others that show as VB/ASP.NET and so on.

Many organisations just don't care what the language is as long as they have .NET exposure. Once you have .NET you can cross train between languages very easily, it is just learning new syntax, all the underlying stuff remains constant.

A few examples:
These were the first few that came back when I used "c# .net" so we should get anything .NET and all the C# as well.

milo

most of the time thats the agency writing up the job badly and not knowing what they're advertising for.

ive been asked if i have any "adoonet" (pronounced like that) experience by agencies more than once. they meant ADO.NET of course.

incidently (having now looked more closely at exactly what jobs are around), all the REALLY good jobs (permanent > 70-80k/year) tend to be c# with no mention of vb.net whatsoever. in fact, even as low as 40-50k plus, the mention of vb.net goes completely and it's only c#. yes, companies that are advertising at < 30-35k don't care what you have - probably because they are hardly able to be too choosy. but when the salary starts getting serious, the focus is on c#.

igratton

Its an interesting debate.

I personally use c# to develop on .net purely because I think its a more elegant language to code in, plus it helps because I tend to switch and swap between java and (still - but not that often) c stuff on windows.

I haven't done anything yet in vb.net, but i've seen the odd bit in reading - just doesn't seem as clean. I did a lot of vb stuff years ago and from time to time have to revisit code - a task I hate.

I still think the microsoft IDE is a long way behind in some aspects of its abilities - the eclipse environment used with java (and with c# for that matter in a quite primative way) is very very good. I often wondered if borlands c# builder was a little like Jbuilder - also a pretty good IDE

I'm not saying vb.net is bad - it just helps 'my' fragile brain to have 3 very similar syntactical languages at my disposal.

milo

specifically, what do u think it's missing?

vs.net to me is missing one thing... support for page templating for asp.net. this is only temporary however.

TopBanana

Yep, I agree. If they do it properly, master pages should be really neat. Have you tried declaring controls in an abstract base page before? The IDE adds clashing variable declarations in the child class whenever you open the child page's designer - crap!

BTW - I landed a new C# contract yesterday - good money too. The market's picking up chaps!