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.

g_h March 19th, 2009 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jminatel (Post 237351)
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.

I can't agree with you on that one at all. I am computer science student at a University. Programming is my life, so to speak, and the same goes for my fellow students. We all have knowledge of many languages like Java, C, C++, C#, ML and others. But VB is not anything that any of us have knowledge of or at most very few of us. It is not considered a serious language by neither students or professors. Again, as i stated in the thread before, i don't want to start at religious war over what language is better, but these are the facts - VB is not considered a serious language, neither at any university or the software industry. (at least here in Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia, UK, Germany and so on.)

The situation being like this, i only know C# and the same goes for as good as any computer science/software engineering student. It is these students who are going to do the programming of tomorrow and they are not going to do it in VB.

Even though the code is available in both languages, you don't get the same benefit from a book written for an entirely different language. It get tedious to read a book in this way. Having to stop up, translate the code for that chapter and then go on. I would rather be spending my time making some serious progress with my programming, than translating code from VB to C# as i read trough the chapters. Ohhh, i almost forgot, i also have to learn VB first.


Quote:

Originally Posted by jminatel (Post 237351)
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.

Of course it is important to get the best authors to write this book, but i hope wrox seriously will consider making the book available in C# also. I don't know how many books you have sold of the 2.0 version, but i have heard that it sold very well. I don't think that many of the C# programmers who bought the 2.0 version will buy the new book if it is made available only in VB. It should be financial wiable for wrox to make it available in both languages as there are so many C# programmers who love this 2.0 book, and would buy it if the 3.5 version was made available in C# also. I will certinately by the book if it also is made available in C#.

dparsons March 19th, 2009 11:43 PM

You make some valid points but, as Jim said, it is the Authors intent that the readership of this book will be at a level where they are fluent enough with the two prime .NET languages that they can comprehend somethign wrote in VB but very easily apply it to C#.

Personally I come from a VB 4 - 6 background and, like most other .NET developers made the move to C# because, to me, it feels more "logical". And really, the syntax conversion (outside of some silly keyword names MustInherit instead of abstract Shared instead of static, etc) from VB to C# is trivial.

I must make the argument though that if C# developers, typically, have more of a background in theory and computer science in general as you imply, then syntax differences really would be trivial wouldn't they? I mean, I don't know PASCAL but if you were to hand me a print out of some PASCAL script, while I might not know how to actually program it, I should be able to figure out what the application is doing to some degree, wouldn't you agree? I will give you that PASCAL is a C style lanaguage so they syntax wouldn't necessarily be overwhelming, but you catch my meaning (I hope!).

Time will tell on this as to whether or not it was the "right" decision.


-Doug

P.S.
I hope my meaning is not lost in translation via the board. I am not trying to attack your position in any way since, as I said, you make some valid points I am just trying to give you an alternative perspective on why the Author may have made the decision they made and some assumptions they may have made from the outset.

Lee Dumond March 19th, 2009 11:48 PM

Hi fellas,

As I pointed out both here and on my blog, I was not a big fan of the decision to go to VB on this book either. But of course, I’m no book-marketing expert -- and I know Jim is, so I am willing to defer to his better judgment on such matters.

First of all, I think Jim is absolutely right in pointing out that, quite frankly, the language barrier is not as big a deal as it may seem at first glance; at least not from a “groking the material” standpoint. The fact is that VB is by far the more widely understood language when you count all languages comprehended by most working developers. There are lots of devs (including many novices, to be sure) who only know VB, but almost every C# dev I know understands both C# and VB.

Maybe your average C# dev can’t wield VB with as much speed and dexterity, but they certainly aren’t turned off by a worthwhile read that happens to be presented in VB. On the other hand, many VB guys will simply avoid information presented in C#, period. That includes books, tutorials, blog posts, anything. Studies have actually borne this out.

That being said, it remains to be seen if there will be a marketing impact. I do find it interesting that Stephen Walther’s very popular ASP.NET Unleashed series switched the other way, and went to C# after two successful editions written in VB. I am pretty curious about on which criteria they based that decision, and how it’s worked out for them.

dparsons March 20th, 2009 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g_h (Post 237446)
I can't agree with you on that one at all. I am computer science student at a University.

Hmm. As Jim said, the Authors intent for the book going in is that the reader is fluent in both VB.NET and C#. I will give you that C# developers are in higher demand than VB.NET developers but you can't pursecute VB.NET as a language because of the dibolical that was Classic VB. Again, this might be a disconnect since we are on different sides of the world, and that is ok, but I feel that it is incorrect to say that VB.NET is not a "serious" language (there are many serious applications wrote by quality shops that use VB.NET. e.g. DotNetNuke). Knowing VB.NET for me, personally, has come in handy a few times because the fact remains, the company I work for who purchases XYZ software (with source available) or a project I might inherit from another developer might be in VB.NET or the company I am working for purchases another company outright and thus assumes their systems which might very well be wrote in VB.NET.

I think it is an error to ignore the need to understand VB.NET to some degree on the grounds that it is not a "serious" language because, the fact of the matter is, it is the secondary language of the .NET framework and, IMHO, Microsoft will be hard pressed to remove support for it.

This industry is all about being able to market yourself. Consider the following secnario: you and another potential candidate have made the final cut for a C# position at a prestegious company. During your final interview the Director of IT informs you that they have some systems that they aquired through a merger with another company that are wrote completely in VB.NET and, while their is not active development associated with these systems they do have to be supported and that this support is part of the job description for the position you have applied. Assume that you and the other applicatian are equally good at interviewing and also that your qualifications are identical EXCEPT that the other applicant knows VB.NET. Who gets the job?

This is obviously a rhetorical question since the outcome is a toss up really but it could very likely swing in favor of the other applicant on the grounds that they know VB.NET. I have been programming a long time and knowing both C# and VB.NET has proved to be a great advantage for me, it makes me versitle which is attractive for companies.

Just some food for thought i suppose.

-Doug

Avraham Nahir March 20th, 2009 05:57 AM

[quote=g_h;237446]I Programming is my life, so to speak, and the same goes for my fellow students. We all have knowledge of many languages like Java, C, C++, C#, ML and others. But VB is not anything that any of us have knowledge of or at most very few of us. It is not considered a serious language by neither students or professors. quote]
Same here in Israel. VB is not considered a serious language here at the industry, the army or the academy. Again, not my feelings, just a state description: I personally worked with VB (6.0, that is)

Avraham Nahir March 20th, 2009 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dparsons (Post 237447)
You I should be able to figure out what the application is doing to some degree, wouldn't you agree? I.

!yrrow on, siht dnatsrednu osla dluoc uoy, esruoc fO

[}:)][:D]

jimibt March 20th, 2009 06:18 AM

hoping this debate stays on track but would add my concerns about the follow-up readership for this title. given that it is (and jim may correct me on this) one of wrox's best selling titles to date, it does seem a bit risky to rock the boat by putting a vb.net version out as a series follow-up to what was a big buy-in by serious c# readers (a readership that has actually used this architecture in industry standard apps).

now as i mentioned earlier on in the piece, i too come from a vb background so should be able to deal with the book just fine but the fact that i'll have to envision the scenarios and translate the concepts into c# is going to be a put off for me (yes, i know there will be c# code examples but i'm talking about the book content and it's ease of access). I just don't see me buying the book for that simple reason (this is not about having any superior feelings of one language over the other - just that my time is so limited that anything that doesn't tick the box will get ignored)

more often than not i just get on with things but this issue just seems to be a killer for me. i also know that personally when i browse for new titles i only ever look at those that are c# based for the very reasons stated above.

anyway, i hope i'm wrong and i know there are many more intelligent folk out there than me that will be able to juggle the text and still keep the flow but my suspicions are that piggy-backing the success of the 1st book with a follow-up in a different language is going to cause massive dissent. but then again, there's no such thing as 'bad' publicity [:D].

again - hope it all goes well...

nakori March 25th, 2009 08:25 AM

I've been programming in vb.net through work for 3 years, but C# have been my preferred leisure language since net 1.0. Recently I switched to a job using C#, and even if I can easily translate the code from vb.net to C#, I will personally avoid this overhead at all costs. In this case looking elsewhere for a pure C# book.

I will add that nearly all job postings in my country (Norway) is for C#.

vantoko March 25th, 2009 11:08 AM

I don't see the issue of the book being published in VB.net while I'm using C# for most of my projects.
1) I understood the code will be made available in C# too ?
2) I look at the book as a guide on "how you could develop a CMS like The Beerhouse" and not as a copy/paste book to start your apps. When I vuilt my site I read the book chapter by chapter but almost typed every line of code myself (even though is was available in C#). Every project is different in my opinion, so code needs to be adapted to specific needs.

just my 2 cnts

koen

Lee Dumond March 30th, 2009 10:04 AM

Interesting take...
 
Don't know how many of you read Jeff Atwood's blog, but in today's post he talks about a Polish developer who decided to learn English so that he could read Microsoft's documentation in its original language.

Jeff goes on to compare the rationale for this to his long-ago switch from Visual Basic to C#:

Quote:

Consciously choosing to switch from Polish to English reminds me why I gave up Visual Basic for C#, as painful as that was. These languages do exactly the same things -- and the friction of choosing the minority language was severe. I found reams of code and answers in C# whenever I searched, and almost nothing at all in VB.NET. I spent so much time converting code into VB.NET and introducing new bugs and errors in the process, along with countless language-only forks. This eventually stopped making sense to me -- as it would to any good programmer.
Man, this hits the nail right on the head for me. This is exactly the same reason I switched too, and I'll bet a lot of you could say the same.

Like many, I started out in Visual Basic. And I stayed with it as long as I could, UNTIL I finally realized how much it was holding back my progress as a developer. Once it became imperative for me to start groking advanced concepts, it was apparent to me that I had two choices -- learn C#, or remain ignorant.

This is why I think you'll find that there are very few intermediate/advanced developers working in VB as a matter of course - simply because it's very, very difficult to even reach beyond the beginner stage without knowing C#. It's kind of like learning how to program without knowing English.

jminatel March 30th, 2009 10:20 AM

I think there's something to be said for the "original language" argument. One of the (many) reasons I wasn't accepted to an "elite" physics PhD program was my total inability to learn German (beyond bier). But, there were plenty of good US physics programs without that original language requirement and I went to a good but not elite big school. So while there are "must be C#" shops I see evidence that there are still many more that are are C#/VB agnostic.

Lee Dumond March 30th, 2009 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jminatel (Post 238293)
So while there are "must be C#" shops I see evidence that there are still many more that are are C#/VB agnostic.

Oh, I don't know about that... I see many advetisements that say "must know C#", and some that say "must know VB". I can't remember the last time I saw one that said "must know one or the other, we don't care which." [:)]

The seemingly-never-ending consulting project I am finishing up right now is for an insurance company, and all their stuff is in VB. This is apparently because the project leader feels more comfortable in that language, and as he told me, "it's easier to find VB devs who will work for cheap." Which I guess is why the project now requires the hiring of outside consultants to fix it...

Steve S March 30th, 2009 02:03 PM

I try to read Jeff Atwood's Coding Horror blog as fast as he posts them (3-5 times a week).

I also agree with Lee about VB and the switch to C#; and did so myself after many years for much the same reason. For many years Microsoft touted VB as the most used language with some 5 million users world wide, of course this included hobbyists and probably VBA as well; and was prior to the release of .NET 1.1, since then I've never heard them mention VB in this manner.

Yes, there is still projects being done in VB and VB.NET, but they are becoming fewer and fewer all the time, while those done in C# are becoming the standard. When I first got into database programming it was with Foxbase on a Macintosh 20 years ago. I quickly realized that Windows was becoming the standard so made the switch from Mac to Windows. Now that C# is becoming the standard I've made that switch too. It isn't religious fervor, it's economic reality.

Which I think leads back to the original question of this thread, why bring out the TBH MVC book in VB rather than C#. While it's been stated that the author is "more comfortable" in VB Wrox also has many good C# authors available and could have made C# a requirement. That this did not happen, I think, is more a business decsion than anything else; and only they, and maybe Amazon, know the sales numbers of their VB vs C# books.

I will more than likely buy the MVC book when it comes out, but I will also be buying Pro ASP.NET MVC 1.0 too, which is in C#. If you want you can download the first chapter by Scott Guthrie as a PDF and work through a simple step by step MVC project (code also available on line). That's what I started late last night.

Good Luck

Steve

Lee Dumond March 30th, 2009 02:19 PM

Steve, just to clarify... there are TWO books coming out that are being considered "sequels" to Marco's book.

The MVC one you refer to is being written by Nick Berardi and Al Katawazi, and is indeed being written in C# as far as I know.

The 3.5 WebForms/EF one is being written by Chris Love in VB.NET. That's actually the book that we're talking about in this thread.

Hope that clears things up a little.

dparsons March 30th, 2009 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Dumond (Post 238315)
The MVC one you refer to is being written by Nick Berardi and Al Katawazi, and is indeed being written in C# as far as I know.

Yes it is. =]

Steve S March 30th, 2009 02:29 PM

Lee,
Yes, I did cross my wires a bit on that one; I'll blame it on staying up last night working my way through the MVC stuff so have MVC on the brain. I think my basic points about Wrox, or should we now say Wiley; and the decision to have VB instead of C# are still valid. Possibly a hail mary pa$$ to appeal to those millions of VB holdouts at the expense of the hundreds of thousands of C#ers.

I wonder, getting back to your Coding Horror reference, How many of the Wrox/Wiley books do get translated and published into non English languages; and what those other languages are?


Steve

Lee Dumond March 30th, 2009 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve S (Post 238319)
Possibly a hail mary pa$$ to appeal to those millions of VB holdouts at the expense of the hundreds of thousands of C#ers.

I may be whistling in the dark here, but based on my knowledge of the project, I honestly do not think this was a monetary ($$) decision. I think it was a "you're the author, do it the best way you know how" decision. Chris's strong preference for Basic (and disdain of C#) is well known; he's written about it on his blog more than once. I just think they figured they'd get a better book out of him if they let him write the book the way he wanted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve S (Post 238319)
I wonder, getting back to your Coding Horror reference, How many of the Wrox/Wiley books do get translated and published into non English languages; and what those other languages are?

I don't know, but I believe the Polish gentleman in the blog post was referring to Microsoft documentation in particular. The MSDN is already published in many languages, including Polish, but many of the localization efforts have been somewhat spotty, and in many cases important things have been lost in translation. I think this is why this person, and many like him, prefer to bypass those pitfalls and read the MSDN in its original language.

Avraham Nahir March 30th, 2009 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Dumond (Post 238322)
I don't know, but I believe the Polish gentleman in the blog post was referring to Microsoft documentation in particular. The MSDN is already published in many languages, including Polish, but many of the localization efforts have been somewhat spotty, and in many cases important things have been lost in translation. I think this is why this person, and many like him, prefer to bypass those pitfalls and read the MSDN in its original language.

The main problem is that the MSDN folks insist on using reverse Polish notation...

Lee Dumond April 9th, 2009 11:21 AM

Hey, speaking of this book... is it just me, or is anyone else having trouble accessing the author's blog?

http://www.professionalaspnet.com/

The feed has been throwing errors for days, and the actual site has been down since Monday as far as I can tell.

(Either that, or he's blocking my IP? [:confused:])

dparsons April 9th, 2009 11:36 AM

The site loads for me (albeit very slowly) but the UI is blown out. The last post he made was on 04/06 it looks like.

john77 October 23rd, 2009 04:11 PM

I agree - Also disappointed to see VB used

I just got Chris's book today (pre-ordered with Amazon back in April) - Amazon gave me the impression that it

was co-authored with Marco.

I think most people who have read Marco's book will be disappointed to see VB used instead of C#.

So far have just read the first 2 chapters of Chris's book.

First impressions are very good and I too like inclusion of photo gallery and calendar of events - an article search

feature would have been nice.

Not so impressed with installing Chris's download file as it seems no sample database is included - I can't open

solution file in VWDE 2008, should sort out soon - some install instructions should have been included in book.

looking forward to getting to grips with LINQ - this was the main reason for purchasing new book.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:08 PM.

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