VB.NET Dropped in Universal Apps

[Ali El]

I have checked and I see no sign of VB.NET (Language) anywhere for the universal app templates.

This might come as bummer to some, just thought I would share if anyone was interested.

Anything else, let me now, and I'll check :wink:

 

[BIGPADDY]

Thanks for the information!

 

[Woknox]

Well I guess VB.Net is a dying programming language, seen that most of Microsoft's code samples are written in C#,.. most of the forums (like stackoverflow) code snippets are C#. The use of VB.Net will fade away in time I think.

 

[MrWolfPST]

The reason is simple, the vast majority of programmers VB.NET, can read C # code without problems, but the opposite is not true. Why create twice of the examples when a VB.NET programmer translates in his language the C# code while reading it?

 

[SoloXCRacer]

I still find it amazing that there are some "developers" who still do not understand that VB.Net and C# are just a syntax around the .NET Framework. You're using the same base class library, you're using the same classes, functions, methods, etc etc etc. Granted there are some "Syntax Features" that one has, and not the other, but for the most part, there is virtually no difference (besides syntax) between the two. If you take one one VB.NET program, and it's equivalent C# version, the IL it generates when compiled are almost identical, and they get JIT'd identically. If you don't believe me, try it yourself. Use ILDASM and look at the generated IL between the two. You'll notice there is very little difference between the two.

I once knew a VB6 developer who eventually migrated to VB.Net (kicking and screaming I might add). He eventually picked up VB.Net and, to his credit, was actually a capable developer. However, he would just completely freeze up every time he tried to read C# syntax. Granted, C# and VB syntax do differ, but it's not hard to understand either one if you are proficient with the other. If you're proficient in VB (which he was), following C# syntax is not hard at all as you're using the same base class library in VB. But for some reason, curly braces and semicolons just turned him into a complete imbecile. Smart guy, and a capable developer, but wow, something about a different syntax for using the same classes and libraries just made his head explode.

I haven't dug too deep into Universal Apps, but if VB.NET support really is dropped, it won't be a big deal to me or many others (I don't think). The small population of those who exclusively use VB is small (relatively speaking), but they are a loud and passionate bunch. They just need to realize C# and VB.Net are not that much different. Once you get passed the syntax, there's really no difference. It still generates the same IL.

 

[Juro]

I think this is good.

I got my start with VB, and most of my initial work with .NET was with VB.NET. Still, with all due respect to people who have a preference for VB.NET -- C# is, objectively, a superior language.

I'd rather have them using the resources to build out F# and C#, which serve two distinctly different purposes, rather than maintain parallel two branches that essentially do the same thing.