p2p.wrox.com Forums

p2p.wrox.com Forums (http://p2p.wrox.com/index.php)
-   BOOK: ASP.NET 2.0 Website Programming Problem Design Solution ISBN: 978-0-7645-8464-0 (http://p2p.wrox.com/forumdisplay.php?f=264)
-   -   WHY only in VB:( - - - ASP.NET 3.5 Website Programming: Problem - Design - Solution (http://p2p.wrox.com/showthread.php?t=73375)

g_h March 16th, 2009 10:17 PM

WHY only in VB:( - - - ASP.NET 3.5 Website Programming: Problem - Design - Solution
 
Hi there

First of all, I just wont to mention that I simply love this book :)

Could not find any thread with this topic, so i decided to make a new thread.

My question is to the publishers/editors/writer of the update of this book which is called: ASP.NET 3.5 Website Programming: Problem - Design - Solution

On this thread:

http://leedumond.com/blog/asp-net-3-...n-coming-soon/

It says that the new book is only going to be available in VB, but code is going to be available in C# also.

Why is that? What is the logic behind making a new book in VB.net when C# is the language of choice of professional asp.net developers?

I had been looking forward to this new book but i can't see any point in buying a book written for VB.

Hopefully the publishers/editors/writer will change their mind and also make the book available in c#.

/ G_H

dparsons March 17th, 2009 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g_h (Post 237215)
Why is that? What is the logic behind making a new book in VB.net when C# is the language of choice of professional asp.net developers?

O.o Really? I guess I should call up the guys working on DotNetNuke and tell them that they aren't really "professional" since that entire CMS is wrote in VB, eh? While it may be your opinion that C# is the choice of "professionals" the fact of the matter is that you gain nothing by using C# over VB.NET since, at the end of the day, it all compiles down into IL and so forth.

As far as the logic goes in only providing VB.NET examples in the book my guess would be that it ultimately came down to a page count issue with the book. Since the code examples in this book tend to be extensive it seems silly to duplicate the code again in C# when it is a trivial task to convert VB.NET to C# and vice versa.

-Doug

jimibt March 18th, 2009 04:37 AM

Doug,

I don't think the original post was a sideways slant on VB as such, purely a headscratch moment pondering the merits of 'following up' a highly succesful title (based in c#) with one leaning twds VB. I too question whether i'd buy into it as eagerly as i did the original. Of course, that is based on my language bias as all my projects are c# based (ironic really as i came from a vb6 background!).

I don't know what the 'audience' stats are re language division, but i'm sure these guys will have researched that and found that for the target audience, over 50% are VB users (at least that's what i expect has happened). It's kinda weird (and maybe a UK thing) but 90% of the job ads here for .net devs are targetting c# as the requirement, so quite interesting to see that in the US it's the other way around - i hadn't appreciated that until now.

anyway, good luck with the sales (in the uk at least [:D]), tho' i'm sure the actual paragraph text and content will be language agnostic.

Steve S March 18th, 2009 12:16 PM

I too would have thought that the follow up decedent of of a C# book would be in C#. Like Jimi, my background is VB (3 thru 6) and I started .NET with VB.NET, but it was Marco's book that finally got me to make the change and I haven't looked back.

Syntactically there isn't enough difference between the two languages to prevent anyone knowing one language to not be able to figure out code samples in the other, but it can slow you down.

I wonder if the choice of using VB was really the authors' choice for reasons of comfort anf familiarity, or a choice by Wrox because of the purported larger market, especially for a book targeting an intermediate to beginner audience?

I will also echo Jimi's observation about more job postings looking for C# skills than VB.NET skills, at least in the Pacific NW and west coast in general.

Avraham Nahir March 18th, 2009 02:28 PM

For me too VB is a turn-off. I'll have to try reading the book to see if it really kills it for me.

To say that VB and C# are the same since they both translate to IL implies that both VB and C# are redundant - Write directly with IL [:)]

This does not, of course, imply that VB is in any way inferior, and especially not that VB programmers are inferior. Just a matter of personal taste.

dparsons March 18th, 2009 02:44 PM

Ok, I should probably head this off at the pass before it turns into the C# vs VB.NET debate! =]

I did not imply that C# and VB.NET were the same, I simply said that you gain nothing by using one language over the other since they both ultimately compile down to IL. Now I would whole heartedly agree that C# enjoys much more market penetration (thus more job openings for C# developers) than VB.NET since, in .NET's infancy, recuriters, IT Mangers, and so forth likened C# to C++ and VB.NET to Classic VB which will all know to be false.

The reason I disagree with your statement of it being the choice of "professionals" is because it implies that VB.NET is something of a "hobby" language which it isn't. As was the case with jimi's and Steve's locale, the number of C# job openings in my area (NE US) far out weigh VB.NET job openings.

Next, and this is an assumption since I have no involvement in this particular iteration of the book (check out the MVC version though!), I would imagine that the authors will call out and major differences between the languages when necessary.

Finally, as Avraham pointed out, its all about personal taste and what you are comfortable with. Personally if I am reading an article that uses VB.NET as the language throughout but need to apply the theory to C# I have no problem with this and don't feel there is a loss of comprehension just because the language is different. Again, this is my personal style and what I am comfortable with but it surely varies from developer to developer.

I will bring this thread to Jim's attention so he can provide some feedback from the Wrox side of things.

-Doug

jminatel March 18th, 2009 02:56 PM

I'm trying to listen to an ASP.NEt 4.0 presentation here at Mix09, sorry for not jumping on this sooner or longer.
The bottom line for us is, we think most ASP.NET developers at this level are fluent in both Vb and C# at some level, or at least can understand, get past if they don't code one or the other. So C# v VB was not a big criteria for us here, especially since the code will be available for both.
The big criteria was a great author (Chris Love, an ASP.NET MVP) with a dedication to doing a good job with the 3.5 and Entity Framework updates. Since his preference was to work first in VB, we are fine with that.

dparsons March 18th, 2009 02:59 PM

Thanks Jim!

g_h March 19th, 2009 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dparsons (Post 237288)
O.o Really? I guess I should call up the guys working on DotNetNuke and tell them that they aren't really "professional" since that entire CMS is wrote in VB, eh? While it may be your opinion that C# is the choice of "professionals" the fact of the matter is that you gain nothing by using C# over VB.NET since, at the end of the day, it all compiles down into IL and so forth.

As far as the logic goes in only providing VB.NET examples in the book my guess would be that it ultimately came down to a page count issue with the book. Since the code examples in this book tend to be extensive it seems silly to duplicate the code again in C# when it is a trivial task to convert VB.NET to C# and vice versa.

-Doug

Hi dParsons

I haven't been writing anything here on this forum before, but have been an very active reader. The decision to not make the new book available in c# was the main reason for making a post - out of frustration i guess [:confused:]

Perhaps I should not have come with such a strong argument, that "C# is the language of choice of professional asp.net developers" as I did not intend to start a religious war over which language is better [:D], but reality here where i am based(Denmark) is that if you want a job in the asp.net field you have to have advanced skills in C#. There are almost no job offers for people with VB skills compared to C#.

Sure there are plenty of VB programmers here, but they are almost entirely "self learned" programmers with no theoretical education in programming. Every person that i know programming for asp.net, which has the slightest theoretical education in computer science/software engineering do not use VB.

The situation is to the best of my knowledge the same in the rest of Europe. Not sure if the same applies for USA where i can see you are based.

The 2.0 book is fairly advanced, and as such a great help for people working with asp.net on a daily basis and especially people intending to do so in the future (that's me [:)] ).

By only making this book available in VB, you are writing off a large part of the original audience for this book, who were looking forward to extend their knowledge even further, and gain some experience with asp.net 3.5. The hard fact's are, that we still have to use C#, as it is the language of choice by the software industry where i am based(not going to say professionals this time [;)]), and in my case also by choice because i prefer C#.

In my case, i also do not have very good knowledge of VB, and even though it should be relative simple to learn it, i don't want to spend(waste) time learning VB, just so that i can read the new book. I got the feeling that a lot of the other readers of the asp.net 2.0 book feel the same way. In a sense i think many of us feel that wrox is letting the buyers of this version of the book down - or that is at least what i feel.

g_h March 19th, 2009 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimibt (Post 237303)
Doug,

I don't think the original post was a sideways slant on VB as such, purely a headscratch moment pondering the merits of 'following up' a highly succesful title (based in c#) with one leaning twds VB. I too question whether i'd buy into it as eagerly as i did the original. Of course, that is based on my language bias as all my projects are c# based (ironic really as i came from a vb6 background!).

I don't know what the 'audience' stats are re language division, but i'm sure these guys will have researched that and found that for the target audience, over 50% are VB users (at least that's what i expect has happened).

It was not at all intended as a punch at the VB language. I can't see why they don't just make it available in two versions. Of course i am aware of that it all comes down to money. But i think it would bee a profit maximizing thing to do for wrox, because as i stated in my earlier post, i don't believe that C# people will by this book if it is only made available in VB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimibt (Post 237303)
It's kinda weird (and maybe a UK thing) but 90% of the job ads here for .net devs are targetting c# as the requirement, so quite interesting to see that in the US it's the other way around - i hadn't appreciated that until now.

anyway, good luck with the sales (in the uk at least [:D]), tho' i'm sure the actual paragraph text and content will be language agnostic.

It's certinately not only a UK thing. The same applies here in Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia as well.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.