Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pro Silverlight 4 In VB

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the read-all-about-it dept.

Book Reviews 181

jddp writes "MacDonald is a programmer's programmer, and Pro Silverlight 4 in VB is a model of what a programmer's guide should be. He explains a mass of technical information in considerable detail without losing the big-picture. His clear and concise exposition of concepts and functionality is never confusing or needlessly repetitive. The book's organization is logical, yet the chapters can be read in isolation, as the need or interest arises." Keep reading for the rest of jddp's review.One thing this book doesn't provide is an overview of the subject for a novice trying to get the big-picture. After the briefest of introductions (10 pages), the author leaps right into building applications. Nor does it provide every technical detail you will need to complete your application. (That's why we have the web). However, if you want a book that can take you from having a rough map of the territory to being a self-sufficient Silverlight developer, I highly recommend this one.

Starting from the fundamentals of Silverlight such as XAML, Layout and Elements, McDonald rarely puts a step wrong as he winds through the technical details, progressing to specific functional areas such as such as Animation, Data Binding and Web services. Each chapter provides a brief overview of the functionality addressed before stepping through the programming details. His code examples are concise, but also convey the significance and use of the features very clearly. The examples do not sprawl across pages and pages, as in weaker tutorials, but they do build upon one another when necessary. Working code implementing the examples from the text is available at MacDonald's personal site for anyone to download — but apparently only in C# (as far as I could see. The VB version may be coming later, just as the VB book lagged the C# version). Due to the intelligent choice, structuring and clear implementation of his examples, I have found them a useful jumping-off point for "real-life" applications on several occasions. The author has gone beyond the scope of the book in at least one case, implemented an "advanced" capability (support for large file up/downloads via a Web Service) that I was specifically interested in.

As mentioned, the book does not contain an extensive technology overview and this is reflected by the absence of many of the buzzwords associated with Silverlight from the index. You will find no mention of RIA services. MVVM is only touched upon in the context of the new SL 4 support for the Command pattern. (Even so, his brief explanation is a great example of MacDonald's lucid and economical expository style. You could trawl the web for a long time without finding such a straightforward explanation.) However, while MacDonald does not attempt to convey any over-arching architectural vision, he is perfectly capable of clarifying some abstract design concepts. In Chapter 4 of the book he is already tackling the intimidating-sounding topics of Dependency Properties, Attached Properties and Routed Events. By the time you've read a few pages you're wondering what all the fuss was about. After less than six pages, MacDonald is working through a meaningful application of attached properties (a custom layout panel). Most of the chapter is devoted a detailed explanation and illustration of Mouse and Keyboard event handling, and to the new Commanding support in SL 4.

A final caveat: This is not a book for someone wanting to catch up on what's new in Silverlight 4. The information is there, but it is dispersed among the relevant sections of the old book, and there is no helpful index. Contrary to the impression given by the back-cover, the very occasional "What's New" boxes don't help much in homing in on new features. In fact, the organization of the material and most of the content is unchanged from the SL 3 edition, so I wouldn't buy this if you already have that book.

While reading this book, I sometimes wished for a wider view: discussions of the merits of different architectures; comparisons to design patterns used in other technologies, and so forth. This book will not be much help in defining the architecture for your next mega-app. This is a book to seize on when you need to get a handle on programming specific Silverlight features fast. You won't learn about every possible shortcut or dead-end on the trail, but you will never have to wonder where the heck you are.

While this book it isn't all things to all developers, it is hard to overstate its consistent intelligence and clarity, or its sheer usefulness (to programmers). Programmers just aren't supposed to be so articulate – are they?

You can purchase Pro Silverlight 4 in VB from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×

181 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fpfpfpfpfp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931376)

pfpfpfpfpfpsdpfspdfpasfoawiertkgwerchgcsdhs vdghs ch
sdfghsdf

Re:fpfpfpfpfp (4, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931406)

pfpfpfpfpfpsdpfspdfpasfoawiertkgwerchgcsdhs vdghs ch
sdfghsdf

No, thats Perl. This is a book about "silverlight"

Re:fpfpfpfpfp (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931464)

Looked like JUSTIF to me, but to be honest, both of those languages look like gibberish to me.

MacDonald is a programmer's programmer, (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931666)

MacDonald is a programmer's programmer,

I thought it was the beginning of an SAT question.

Re:MacDonald is a programmer's programmer, (5, Funny)

berwiki (989827) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931988)

I thought it was a Trick Question!
Professional and VB in the same sentence is incorrect grammar, right?

Re:MacDonald is a programmer's programmer, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34932242)

lulz!

Re:MacDonald is a programmer's programmer, (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932568)

No, that's a full on syntax error, I can't implicitly convert between those two.

Re:MacDonald is a programmer's programmer, (2)

Massacrifice (249974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932732)

I can't implicitly convert between those two.

If you were using VB, you could! Especially if it wasn't what you wanted!

Re:MacDonald is a programmer's programmer, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34932920)

Hardy har har. These slights against VB are so funny and original.

Re:MacDonald is a programmer's programmer, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34933038)

Awww, someone has an associates degree!

Re:MacDonald is a programmer's programmer, (1)

iplayfast (166447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932642)

MacDonald is a programmer's programmer,

To know recursion you must first know recursion.
To know MacDonald is a programmer, you must first know a programmer's programmer.

Re:fpfpfpfpfp (1)

wallyh010 (1736650) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932390)

There's no better language than the one you know.

whyishewritingaboutvb? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931454)

I dunno, I think Virginia Beach is a pretty nice place.

Re:whyishewritingaboutvb? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931496)

I dunno, I think Virginia Beach is a pretty nice place.

Have you actually been there? The place sucks donkey balls.

Re:whyishewritingaboutvb? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931570)

Stationed there for 3.5 years in the Marine Corps, so yeah, a few times. Been stationed in worse places, so I think it's pretty nice. YMMV.

Re:whyishewritingaboutvb? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931696)

Yes, it's a better place than Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's not saying much.

VB is really a dump as far as US-based beach towns go. There's a billion draconian rules about what you can and can't do, there's cops everywhere (it's a virtual police state), and the beach is tiny and crowded. You're not allowed to throw frisbees on the beach for god's sake. The town is just a shitty tourist trap.

Not only that, the surrounding cities in the Hampton-Roads area are shit too: Norfolk, Newport News, and worst of all, Hampton. That area is the armpit of the state of Virginia.

If you want beaches, there's dozens of better places in the US to go, including pretty much the entire state of Florida (which isn't exactly a great state either, but it's better than VB).

Re:whyishewritingaboutvb? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932010)

If you want beaches, there's dozens of better places in the US to go, including pretty much the entire state of Florida (which isn't exactly a great state either, but it's better than VB).

You missed the obvious .. the Outer Banks

Re:whyishewritingaboutvb? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932108)

Of North Carolina? Yes, those are pretty nice, and a short distance from VB. But you do need to be very careful of the undertow there.

Re:whyishewritingaboutvb? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931960)

Stationed there for 3.5 years

As per Grishnakh .. VB sucks as a town and/or beach in general. If you were there for 3.5 years and didn't get to the outer banks then shame on you.

Re:whyishewritingaboutvb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34932504)

Stationed there for 3.5 years

As per Grishnakh .. VB sucks as a town and/or beach in general. If you were there for 3.5 years and didn't get to the outer banks then shame on you.

because you have so much free time and self-determination when you're in the military and that makes traveling from base to another town so easy to do. didn't think of that, did you? dumbass.

Re:whyishewritingaboutvb? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932710)

You do. As an army brat for the first 16 years of my life my military father always had time for stuff like that.

Pro VB?? (1, Insightful)

TeRanEX (916440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931470)

How on earth can you justify using 'Pro' and 'VB' in one sentence??

Re:Pro VB?? (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931914)

I don't see anything wrong with that. A lot of professional software engineers use it.

Re:Pro VB?? (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932016)

Translation: A lot of talentless hacks are saddling their organizations with badly written code.

Same as it ever was.

Re:Pro VB?? (2)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932326)

I think you're confusing VB1-6 with VB.Net. In it's current iteration, it's a fairly nice OO language.

I don't use it because I'm a fan of curly brackets, but your writing it off suggests not having used or seen VB.Net in action.

Re:Pro VB?? (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932652)

Now, now. They aren't all like that. Take me for instance. I program in VB.NET.

Granted, the only reason I do is because when I took my current job everything was already done in VB.NET.

One of my goals for this year is to rewrite the system in C# (learning about MVC for this too).

Re:Pro VB?? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932314)

If you call Excel macros "professional software" then yes. How many of Microsoft's commercial applications are written in VB?

Re:Pro VB?? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932440)

I've never called Excel macros professional software, although I don't see anything stopping anyone from making professional software using Excel macros, do you?

And for the question, I don't know. How is that important?

Re:Pro VB?? (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34933380)

Your own dogfood. Eat it.

Re:Pro VB?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34932506)

If you call Excel macros "professional software" then yes. How many of Microsoft's commercial applications are written in VB?

yep... you are confusing vbscript (not even vb 6) with vb net.

Pro .Net (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932542)

In the .Net world, it's not quite that straight forward. For instance, Visual Studio 2010 is almost fully a .Net application (some parts are legacy C++ libraries/controls that just didn't get converted before launch). But being .Net just means that it was compiled to the .Net intermediate language. It could have been written in VB.Net, C#, J#, F#, PHP.Net, or any of the other high level .Net languages.

That's the awesome part of .Net. You can write in what ever language you are familiar with, against the same framework that everyone else uses. The majority of difference between C# and VB at this point are due to there having been 2 teams at MS working on the VB.Net and C# editors for Visual Studio. Now, those teams have been merged. VB.Net has single line parameters, C# has XML Literals, and they are continuing to become more and more similar functionally speaking. The only big difference left now is multi-line lambdas and that C# is case sensitive.

-Rick

Re:Pro .Net (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932736)

And then have it only run on one platform. Amazing, vendor lock-in of many languages at once!

Re:Pro .Net (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34933186)

Ever heard of Mono?

Re:Pro VB?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34932438)

I don't know why anyone would use VB if they can use C#. With VB.NET, it's all the same libraries, but C# is much nicer to read and write. Also, I'd rather be sharp than dim...
As for the old VB? No, thanks.

Re:Pro VB?? (1)

zombiechan (1979698) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932672)

That's still a matter of opinion. While I agree with you about C# looks much better, but I know people who thinks VB.NET is easier to read and write. It's all up to the developer.

Re:Pro VB?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34932162)

Easy.

Every pro should avoid VB.

See? It's easy to use "Pro" and "VB" in the same sentence.

Re:Pro VB?? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932950)

I hope you have a similar attitude towards Java, because VB, as of today, has more advanced language features compared to it. For example, it has first-class functions and closures.

This entire story... (1)

QuantumBeep (748940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931484)

This entire story is a troll.

Re:This entire story... (1)

jdastrup (1075795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931654)

Actually, it's a response the story a few days ago on why is it OK to pay the younger devs more than the older ones. Hey Old People, buy this to enhance your VB skills and make more money.

Re:This entire story... (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932062)

I thought the only people who still used any variation of VB were the "oldtimers" who picked up coding in the 90s while dreaming of making lots of money. At least those are the only people I see still coding in VB.NET and the like these days, pretty much all the real geeks I know tend to have pet languages that they're not allowed to use at work (Python, Ruby, asm for some arcane old CPU or something completely different) and code C#.NET or Java for a living...

Re:This entire story... (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932200)

Us young guys still have to use VB for some shops, but I don't know of anybody who likes it. Most of the guys I know are big into C# if they really like programming for Windows. Personally, I am a fan of D and Vala. Unfortunately, these languages aren't quite where they need to be, so most of my personal projects tend to focus around C++ or Java.

Re:This entire story... (3, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932256)

The hip new generation of programmers are all using Visual COBAL [microfocus.com] !

Re:This entire story... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34933010)

Some places still teach VB as the main language in IS programming courses. Perhaps because its syntax is more self-explanatory - e.g. compare C# keyword "abstract" vs VB "MustInherit" (on classes) and "MustOverride" (on methods), or "sealed" vs "NotOverridable", or "static" vs "Shared".

Re:This entire story... (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932166)

Actually, it's a response the story a few days ago on why is it OK to pay the younger devs more than the older ones. Hey Old People, buy this to enhance your VB skills and make more money.

Your entire post is a troll. Not only are you ageist but you seem to think that VB is somehow better than languages like Java, C/C++ or C#.

If you already know C/C++, Java, Objective C or some other variety of C and you want to learn .NET then you are better off learning C#.

VB.NET is a waste of time for anyone except for those who might be charged with porting over some legacy VB code. In a lot of cases, you are probably better off translating parts of that code to pseudo code and rewriting it from scratch in C#.

Re:This entire story... (4, Insightful)

murdocj (543661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932272)

C# and VB.Net are two different syntaxes for using the same common runtime library. Arguing about whether C# is better or worse than VB.Net is the height of language snobbery. What matters is the .Net library underneath. The only reason to prefer one over the other is because you happen to prefer one syntax over the other.

Re:This entire story... (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932498)

C# and VB.Net are two different syntaxes for using the same common runtime library. Arguing about whether C# is better or worse than VB.Net is the height of language snobbery. What matters is the .Net library underneath. The only reason to prefer one over the other is because you happen to prefer one syntax over the other.

Sorry but if are going to call yourself a "professional" developer then you should know the syntax of Java and/or C#. Once you know one of those languages then you should be able to move between the two fairly easily as the job/project requires. If you go from knowing VB and learn only VB.NET then you will be limiting yourself considerably.

There are a number of languages which you can access Cocoa from on OS X but I would hardly consider all of them equal to each other.

Re:This entire story... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932978)

What GP said is essentially correct - VB and C# are so close in terms of language features that if you know one, learning the other pretty much boils down to learning the syntactic differences, and those are for the most part one-to-one mappings or close to it. All C# programmers I knew could read VB code without much effort.

Re:This entire story... (1)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 3 years ago | (#34933128)

I agree with you.. by the way.. But I admit I am partial to C#... Bad taste left by old legacy VB6 customers...

However, with the current .NET framework it really does not matter. Yes, VB.NET classes definitions are an eye sore (too verbose in my opinion), but it doesnt take long to swap between one or the other... Meaning it really does not matter.

On the Silverlight... Never been there because I personally feel as a consultant that Silverlight died when Android and iOS came on the scene... Meaning, moving forward it makes more sense to push a rich enviroment to client devices than on a browser.

Re:This entire story... (1)

murdocj (543661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34933474)

C# and VB.Net are two different syntaxes for using the same common runtime library. Arguing about whether C# is better or worse than VB.Net is the height of language snobbery. What matters is the .Net library underneath. The only reason to prefer one over the other is because you happen to prefer one syntax over the other.

Sorry but if are going to call yourself a "professional" developer then you should know the syntax of Java and/or C#. Once you know one of those languages then you should be able to move between the two fairly easily as the job/project requires. If you go from knowing VB and learn only VB.NET then you will be limiting yourself considerably.

There are a number of languages which you can access Cocoa from on OS X but I would hardly consider all of them equal to each other.

Where in my post did you see anything about not knowing Java or C#? And what does Cocoa have to do with .Net development?

C# and VB.Net are two "skins" on the same underlying framework. If you are a language snob, you may not like it, but VB.Net developers can do EXACTLY the same functions that C# developers do. This kind of snobbery is what limits you from being a "professional" developer.

Re:This entire story... (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34933400)

It's not snobbery if one of the two makes about 10-15k more per year on average. C# is a better choice career-wise IMHO.

And of course I prefer c# syntax. I'm not half a retard. Just kidding. ;-) But not at all...

Re:This entire story... (0, Troll)

cognoscentus (1628459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931670)

It does seem a trifle odd to post something about using a proprietary API (and rival to open standards such as HTML5), designed with a proprietary (and much ridiculed) language on such an open-source oriented site. I suppose in theory one should be able to run said VB-Silverlight with Moonlight, so perhaps it isn't quite as monumentally bizarre as it seems.

Regardless, the combination of VB and Silverlight in the same breath gives me the heebie jeebies.

Re:This entire story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931818)

Silverlight is not a rival to HTML5. This has been stated several times already.

Re:This entire story... (1)

cognoscentus (1628459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931828)

Sorry, I meant former rival :)

Re:This entire story... (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932030)

Silverlight isn't a rival to anything. This is like publishing a book "Fortran-77 For The 21st Century."

Re:This entire story... (1)

cognoscentus (1628459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932300)

Well, of course not. Plugin-based browser graphics are obsolete, and Flash can hold up the legacy end. But that's how Silverlight was pitched originally...

McDonalds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931494)

Yes, VB is the McDonalds of programming. And Silverlight is a big clown ...

Very appropriate book in that regards :)

Why won't VB go away ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931512)

Every time I work in VB a piece of me dies.

Re:Why won't VB go away ? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931944)

Oh yeah, good 'ol Me.dies()

Re:Why won't VB go away ? (1)

Orne (144925) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932660)

Protected Overrides Sub Finalize()
    MyBase.Finalize()
End Sub

Mod article flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931522)

Why post this, here of all places? My guess would be about 70% of Slashdot visitors hate Silverlight and 85% hate VB. Combine the two and you have a Slashdot article?

Re:Mod article flamebait (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931728)

I'm a big Microsoft-hater, but I don't really see how Silverlight is any worse than Flash, so I can't hate on it too much. VB, however, is another story.

Re:Mod article flamebait (1)

zombiechan (1979698) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931940)

Latest version of VB(VB.NET) isn't as bad is it once was(VB6). I still prefer languages that have a C-style to them, but I can put up with VB.NET if I have to.

Re:Mod article flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34932266)

I don't really see how Silverlight is any worse than Flash, so I can't hate on it too much

That's because you're not looking at the right comparison: how Silverlight and Flash is worse than Flash.

If it was either/or, you might have an argument, but I don't see myself uninstalling Flash anytime soon.

Re:Mod article flamebait (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932716)

I don't think I quite understand. No, I'm not uninstalling Flash either, because it's needed for far too many things (most notably YouTube). I'd be happy to replace it with Gnash or other FOSS alternative if it worked as well.

But I don't really see how Silverlight makes the situation any worse. Of course, SL doesn't have nearly as much penetration as Flash, so it's not like there's a bunch of sites where I require it.

Re:Mod article flamebait (4, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932888)

SL had the potential to be better than Flash.

But Microsoft is pulling the same shit Adobe is with Flash. Claiming it's "open" but gaming the spec release schedule in such a manner that it is impossible for anything but their implementation to actually work - By the time someone has implemented to the open spec, MS and Adobe have released new versions and content providers are using those new versions.

For example, there was hope that Monolight combined with Netflix transitioning to Silverlight would bring Netflix streaming to Linux. However, Netflix tracks Microsoft's Silverlight releases pretty quickly, meaning that on a consistent basis, by the time Monolight has caught up to wherever Netflix might have been, Netflix has moved on to the next Silverlight release. Same for nearly all other SL content out there.

It's the same sad situation for any of the alternative Flash players - They continue to remain novelties because Adobe never seems to update the spec until they have released the next version of Flash, meaning Gnash et al are always at least a generation behind. Let's not forget the fact that the Flash spec is missing critical stuff such as RTMPE documentation. (The only public RTMPE documentation out there was obtained via reverse engineering Adobe's implementation.)

Worst of two worlds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931546)

It's like having AIDS and cancer.

a programmer's programmer using VB (2)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931574)

is like a gourmand's gourmand eating at mcdonald's.

Re:a programmer's programmer using VB (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931702)

Yo, dawg. I herd you liked to program, so I put VB in your Silverlight so you can program while you program.

Wait, what?

Re:a programmer's programmer using VB (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931748)

Or a mechanic's mechanic working on a lawnmower.

This is fun. We should do this more often.

Re:a programmer's programmer using VB (1)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931974)

No, a mechanic's mechanic working on a Yugo.
This is Slashdot, remember? We use car analogies here.

Re:a programmer's programmer using VB (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932036)

Yeah, but even a mechanic working on a Yugo sounds more legit than a programmer in VB.

Re:a programmer's programmer using VB (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932208)

A womanizer's womanizer with a blow-up doll?

Re:a programmer's programmer using VB (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932238)

I love .NET, love C#, and love Silverlight. But I agree, I don't understand why anyone would ever use VB. It's shit.

Gourmand vs. Gourmet (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932952)

[a programmer's programmer using VB] is like a gourmand's gourmand eating at mcdonald's.

That analogy does not suggest what you probably mean to suggest. You are probably confusing "gourmand" (glutton) with "gourmet" (connoisseur of fine food).

Re:Gourmand vs. Gourmet (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34933480)

ah, yes, like an analogist's analogist fucking up on slashdot.

VB is dead. (0)

el_jake (22335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931610)

Nuff said..

Re:VB is dead. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931646)

Yet I still see job openings for VB developers.

Re:VB is dead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931840)

It's called turn over.

Re:VB is dead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34932544)

Office 2003 automation porting to 2007. That's about the last part that's left. After it's in .Net, it doesn't take too long to rewrite in C# while having mixed-language code in the interim. The real PITA would be in porting a GUI with a lot of forms.

Re:VB is dead. (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932602)

You do realise that VB.Net != VB, correct?

Saying VB.Net is dead is akin to saying that C# is dead. Which makes virtually no sense.

So long as Microsoft continues developing the .Net framework, there will be a VB.Net and C#, along with all the other .Net languages.

-Rick

Advance shill notice (3, Insightful)

sirdude (578412) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931674)

While I don't know if this review is a "paid" review or not, I do know (from personal experience) that a lot of them are. Could /. consider adding a rule or guideline requesting the reviewer to state if he/she was given the book for free or otherwise compensated for the review?

Re:Advance shill notice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34931934)

But slashdot would run out of articles! We have to prop up shill posters or the slashconomy will collapse.

What? (1)

Attack DAWWG (997171) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931946)

Did someone actually just mention /. and editorial guidelines in the same sentence?

Re:Advance shill notice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34932566)

MacDonald is one of the better authors on Microsoft tech, better than the average bear. So I would guess that this submission is not a shill job from the publisher or author, although of course that's possible.

Really /. ? (1)

thewebsiteisdown (1397957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34931998)

This is about as flamebait as they get... dropping an review on VB, the most Microsoft of Microsoft languages, in this place is like dropping off your son to sell lemonade at a NAMBLA convention.

yeah really (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34932184)

if slashdot wanted a review of a retarded language book, "php for complete drooling dumbasses" would have been better.

Here we go (0)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932024)

A book review (which we all think is just free publicity/compensated review) about a competitor to Flash (which most of us don't like) from Microsoft (which most of us hate) in VB (which is a joke to most programmers, which comes from Microsoft).

Just because Microsoft offers Silverlight for Mac doesn't mean people are going to install it. I bought a Mac to get away from Microsoft. I wouldn't install anything from them on my computer even if they paid me. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I predict 90% troll/flamebait and 0.01% insightful comments. The rest, 9.99%, is the usual pointless comments such as this one.

Re:Here we go (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34932180)

I bought a Mac to get away from Microsoft. I wouldn't install anything from them on my computer even if they paid me.

I'll bet you did, when you weren't generating smug with your Prius & sniffing your own farts. San Francisco is calling, my little hipster friend.

Re:Here we go (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932374)

Another stupid AC who thinks everyone buys a Mac because it's "trendy". Believe me, it has nothing to do with it. If they hadn't switched to a Unix core (or a BeOS core) I wouldn't use it. The classic Mac OS wasn't much better than Windows 98SE.

Plus, I couldn't afford a Prius to begin with, not to mention that most new diesel Volkswagen models have better kilometerage than a Prius. And they cost less.

And forget about San Francisco. Earthquakes.

Re:Here we go (1)

thewebsiteisdown (1397957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932202)

My only defense of VB in general is this.... if you are programming for Windows and the .NET framework anyway, then its tomato/tomato (pronounce the latter like a french douche). I write for and maintain several enterprise level apps in VB, and others in C#. It does not matter one damn bit which you use, they are equivalent in every way. Anything you can do in C#, I can do in VB... and C#. People that bash one over the other usually cant code in either, or very well in any language.

Re:Here we go (4, Funny)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932276)

What is so horrible about Microsoft?

Re:Here we go (1)

Massacrifice (249974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932820)

What is so horrible about Microsoft?

To start, the company's name is soooo lame. You can figure out the guys that started this weren't really into originality. I mean, I know this was the 70's and all, but c'mon : Micro. Soft. Microsoft. That's so duh, I dont know what else to say.

Re:Here we go (1)

zombiechan (1979698) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932322)

It doesn't mean that this book is useless. I know Microsoft shops that have developers who prefer VB.NET over C#. I could see this skill could come in handy for someone in that position.

Re:Here we go (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932426)

*sigh*

VB is a programming language that's definitely in use. Why the rush to write it off?

I hate Perl and Lisp, but I don't drag them through the mud. They're tools people use to accomplish tasks like any other language.

Or closer to home, I hate Macs (I have 2, and only the Mac Mini is in use, and that's just so I can compile iDevice apps... talk about proprietary) but they're a tool people use. So why drag them through the mud?

And people will install it if they want to use the app written in Silverlight. Or they'll find an alternative and use it. Platform agnosticism... choice is good.

Either way, your post is a troll.

lol mac users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34933280)

they bought macs because multiple mouse buttons confuse them.

Dijkstra's response (0)

bongey (974911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932396)

"the teaching of BASIC should be rated as a criminal offence: it mutilates the mind beyond recovery. '"Edsger W. Dijkstra
Can we please let basic die? We don't need another book about a horrible language.

Re:Dijkstra's response (1)

zombiechan (1979698) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932492)

except this book is about VB.Net BASIC != VB.Net

Re:Dijkstra's response (1)

thedudethedude (1462877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932560)

except this book is about VB.Net BASIC != VB.Net

Guilty by association

Silverlight? Born a dinosaur, always a dinosaur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34932466)

http://www.downarchive.com/ebooks/330070-pro-silverlight-4-in-vb.html - but if you're still interested.

Not a quick buck book (2)

feddas (1979736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34933426)

Matthew MacDonald has been doing Silverlight books since version 1.0. I own his C# flavor of this 4.0 book. He's one of those authors that waits until a new technology has soaked in a bit, his book reflects that (as opposed to getting the book out their as soon as 4.0 was released). This book came out about 4 or 5 months after Silverlight 4.0 was released.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>