none
Is Visual Basic Dead? RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • Hi, I have 2 or 3 questions I've been thinking of and wondered if you guys could give me some answers to those.

    I hear from people every now and then that Visual Basic is a dead language and no one never use it anymore and todays IT-workplaces prefer C# instead of VB.NET .

    So I was wondering if that's true?
    If not, where and when is Visual Basic used then? In desktop programming, in the ASP.NET-part etc.?

    And is it any idea to learn this language even if it isn't used as much as C#?


    Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:34 AM

All replies

  • No.

    Microsoft has deeply enhanced a lot of new features for VB.net, and if you take a close look at vb.net, you will find that there are still a lot of questions or discussions about that.

    VB.NET may be not very popular because of its "complicated syntax" (compared with C#), but it's still widely used everywhere in the world.

    Microsoft has developed vb.net to make those who need them. So there's no any conflictions or arguments between C# and VB.NET, you can take which you want to use.


    If you think one reply solves your problem, please mark it as An Answer, if you think someone's reply helps you, please mark it as a Proposed Answer

    Help by clicking:
    Click here to donate your rice to the poor
    Click to Donate
    Click to feed Dogs & Cats


    Found any spamming-senders? Please report at: Spam Report

    Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:37 AM
  • On 5/11/2013 11:34 PM, Dniproyvtr wrote:

    Hi, I have 2 or 3 questions I've been thinking of and wondered if you guys could give me some answers to those.

    I hear from people every now and then that Visual Basic is a dead language and no one never use it anymore and todays IT-workplaces prefer C# instead of VB.NET .

    That's not correct.


    So I was wondering if that's true?
    If not, where and when is Visual Basic used then? In desktop programming, in the ASP.NET-part etc.?

    VB.NET is used in Windows forms, WPF, Silverlight, Console, Windows service, ASP.NET, WCF and legacy Web service applications. It makes no difference if you are using VB or C#.NET.

    Why should a company spend money to train staff to know C# when the expertise is in VB? However companies are going to C# or have already converted over to C#, and other IT companies are not going to C# if they are a VB shop, because they know VB.NET can do everything the C#.NET can do.

    They key is does the .NET developer know how to use the .NET Framework with any of the two languages. The other key is does the developer know how to use OOP. There are some areas that the VB developer lags behind the C# developer, but it's not that much of a lag and that gap can be closed easily.


    And is it any idea to learn this language even if it isn't used as much as C#?

    I started out on C# and know it well. Now I am on VB with VB.NET after being a VB 6, 5, 4 and 3 programmer for many years in the 90's and up to 2001 or 2002. A lot of companies are using VB.NET,  and a lot of companies are now doing conversions of their old legacy VB 6 solutions to VB.NET. And they are not going to C#.

    I am a .NET contractor, and companies that need anyone of the two languages expertise are paying big money for the expertise.

    I am working on a contract right now for the State of NY that is in the conversion of its major IT solution that's in VB6 and Windows desktop over to VB.NET, WPF, MVVM and N-Tier with WCF Web services.

    So don't make a mistake and kid yourself that VB.NET is not being used, because it is being used more than you know.

    Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:43 AM
  • Actually, VB is about as popular as C#.  Developers who don't like VB tend to say it's not, but people who track this show that this isn't true:

    http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

    .NET languages have an influx of developers from other environments and those environments usually use a C-style syntax, so it's natural for those developers to use C# rather than VB.


    Convert between VB, C#, C++, & Java (http://www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com)
    Instant C# - VB to C# Converter
    Instant VB - C# to VB Converter

    Sunday, May 12, 2013 2:24 PM

  • I hear from people every now and then that Visual Basic is a dead language and no one never use it anymore and todays IT-workplaces prefer C# instead of VB.NET .


    Ah...

    VB is a very popular language. There is a debate whether it is more or less popular than C#, but it is certainly used all over the world. Just to make you able to sleep. VB.NET was used by Microsoft to produce Silverlight Java Script Compiler; moreover, the current version of VB.NET has been built using its previous version.

    https://www.simple-talk.com/blogs/2008/07/08/vb-net-the-ugly-duckling/

    Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:27 PM
  • If you ask this question in a VB forum the answer will invariably be no. Asking the same question in a c# forum may get a different result. Both results will have demonstrable biases.

    Renee


    "MODERN PROGRAMMING is deficient in elementary ways BECAUSE of problems INTRODUCED by MODERN PROGRAMMING." Me

    Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:52 AM
  • That's what happens when you ask C# developers a question such as this. ;-)

    I work in a VB shop. The only time we really use C# is for SharePoint development.


    Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

    Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:03 PM
  • Actually, VB is about as popular as C#.  Developers who don't like VB tend to say it's not, but people who track this show that this isn't true:

    http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

    .NET languages have an influx of developers from other environments and those environments usually use a C-style syntax, so it's natural for those developers to use C# rather than VB.


    Convert between VB, C#, C++, & Java (http://www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com)
    Instant C# - VB to C# Converter
    Instant VB - C# to VB Converter

    from the data from tiobe we can see:

    yes, vb.net is going dead. and c# is only a little better than vb6. c# even .net is going  dead too.

    If vb6 was not killed by microsoft 12 years ago, and vb6 was maintenanced until today and not invented vb.net, c# will only just a shit in front of vb6.
    • Edited by mjohnlq Tuesday, June 11, 2013 12:11 AM
    Monday, June 10, 2013 9:35 PM
  • Both VB and C# show at between 5 and 6 % on this index (note that they mistakenly have 2 VB entries - Visual Basic and Visual Basic.NET - these should be combined).  This is actually a pretty good popularity rating considering that the target platform is pretty much limited to Windows.  If you look at the comparison over the years a little lower on the page, you'll see that C# is higher than it was a few years ago, while VB is a little lower - both are respectable though.


    Convert between VB, C#, C++, & Java (http://www.tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com)
    Instant C# - VB to C# Converter
    Instant VB - C# to VB Converter

    Monday, June 10, 2013 10:04 PM
  • It's been a year since last someone posted in this conversation and I believe circumstances have changed. I would be very interested in other people's views in the topic as I currently see two main facts that could be considered as material evidence for people that believe Vb.net is phasing out:

    - Microsoft's new MVA website (Microsoft Virtual Academy) that offers an extensive list of courses, videos and help for people to get certified, and enhance their careers with microsoft technologies (development and it), does NOT have any single article about VB.NET

    - None of the newest certification exams available from the Microsoft Certification website offer VB.NET as an option to get a certification.

    So, I would like to ask this question again:

    - is VB.NET on it's way out? .

    - does Microsoft feel this is not a profitable tool anymore and is just having it there for the people that already know it, but it's really not into taking it further

    - as a developer that has the chance to progress their career using either C# or VB.net, will it not be wise for me to keep using VB.net? (i.e. should I switch now when I have a change rather than later when it'll be too late?)



    David

    Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:16 AM
  • It's been a year since last someone posted in this conversation and I believe circumstances have changed. I would be very interested in other people's views in the topic as I currently see two main facts that could be considered as material evidence for people that believe Vb.net is phasing out:

    - Microsoft's new MVA website (Microsoft Virtual Academy) that offers an extensive list of courses, videos and help for people to get certified, and enhance their careers with microsoft technologies (development and it), does NOT have any single article about VB.NET

    - None of the newest certification exams available from the Microsoft Certification website offer VB.NET as an option to get a certification.

    So, I would like to ask this question again:

    - is VB.NET on it's way out? .

    - does Microsoft feel this is not a profitable tool anymore and is just having it there for the people that already know it, but it's really not into taking it further

    - as a developer that has the chance to progress their career using either C# or VB.net, will it not be wise for me to keep using VB.net? (i.e. should I switch now when I have a change rather than later when it'll be too late?)



    David

    1. You didn't ask the question in the first place for this thread. So basically you are attempting to use someone elses thread to post a question in. Try starting a new thread.

    2. Although this particular thread may not have been posted in for a few years the topic has been brought up constantly in other threads.

    3. VB6 has been out for years (last release in 1998). Look at how many programs were written in VB6. I believe Microsoft extended Win8 support to 2024 for VB6 apps. After Win8 though only VB.Net apps for VB. Until whatever the next flavor of VB is that comes along. IMO if Microsoft decides to end VB there will be a 15 to 20 year period most likely till those apps will no longer be supported in an OS. By then programmers may be passe as new techniques may perform auto programming by a user speaking what they want an app to look like and do. Controls may no longer be used on apps. Possibly just visual and audio queues.

    Even Star Trek the Next Gen was unique in requiring all of the manned positions with the computer capability it supposedly had. Wouldn't it have been easier for the Captain to say "Computer set course Mark whatever, engage at Warp 8 to wherever" rather than having a helmsman and navigator. Or "Computer lock onto Borg Cube and fire all weapons with phasers using rotating frequencies while using sensors to determine most significant points of energy for target designations" or something rather than waiting all those seconds for others to perform the tasks at a slginificantly slower speed resulting in much more damage from return fire or whatever.


    La vida loca



    Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:47 AM
  • I think you're trying to read the tea leaves (and not their web site). I found the following MVA courses:

    VB Fundamentals for Absolute Beginners (there is a C# version as well)

    Creating Windows Store Apps Using Visual Basic

    Can't see their learning site for certifications at the moment. It could be that they are in the process of updating it. Microsoft certifications for developers are not language specific.

    I would focus more on learning Visual Studio .NET rather than on a specific language, but there is no reason why you can't learn both languages. I use C# on occasion but I don't really care for the syntax. I wouldn't use it simply because some (C# developers) believed it was more popular.


    Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

    Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:48 PM
  • It's being actively developed by Microsoft, just as C# is.  Originally VB.NET had fewer features compared with C# but that bias has actually swung in VB's favor and remains there, albeit only by a few select features.

    I tend to be a bit distrustful of people who are fervently in one camp or the other when it comes to the C#/VB comparisons.  Learn the framework; these two languages are just semantic/syntactic variants on the core .NET language itself.  Experienced .NET developers seldom get away with learning just one.

    I'm with Paul - personally I prefer the syntax of VB because I can write code that reads like English, and when working with XML nothing else comes close to the ease and power of VB.  However, I also appreciate the concise elegance of C#, and sometimes the IDE toolset feels just that little bit more polished for it.

    tl;dr - get good at both and use the right tool for the job.

    Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:42 PM
  • If you look at Visual Studio 2012 there have been features added to VB.NET such as iterators and Async/AWait which shows that Microsoft has a solid commitment to VB.NET now and into the future. Visual Studio 2013 is a wash on both C# and VB.NET which is why I refer to VS2012.


    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help, this will help others who are looking for solutions to the same or similar problem.

    Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:52 PM
    Moderator
  • " between 5 and 6 % on this index (note that they mistakenly have 2 VB entries - Visual Basic and Visual Basic.NET - these should be combined)."

    No they should not. Visual Basic is an non-supported product due to product age.

    Renee


    "MODERN PROGRAMMING is deficient in elementary ways BECAUSE of problems INTRODUCED by MODERN PROGRAMMING." Me

    Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:59 AM
  • Mr MonkeyBoy,

    I'm a fan of yours but I disagree. Computer programming will be done for the next 150 years. I do not have the ability to predict beyond that.

    Renee


    "MODERN PROGRAMMING is deficient in elementary ways BECAUSE of problems INTRODUCED by MODERN PROGRAMMING." Me

    Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:07 AM
  • Even Star Trek the Next Gen was unique in requiring all of the manned positions with the computer capability it supposedly had. Wouldn't it have been easier for the Captain to say "Computer set course Mark whatever, engage at Warp 8 to wherever" rather than having a helmsman and navigator. Or "Computer lock onto Borg Cube and fire all weapons with phasers using rotating frequencies while using sensors to determine most significant points of energy for target designations" or something rather than waiting all those seconds for others to perform the tasks at a slginificantly slower speed resulting in much more damage from return fire or whatever.

    Because the Enterprise would never have been able to defeat the Borg if it was run by computer.  The point of Star Trek (and humanity in general) is that computers lack imagination.  Even when we program them with something resembling imagination (ANNs, general/special pattern recognition, etc) they're still just doing what they're told.  It's akin to telling a child "I want you to be creative... with this paint brush and some red and yellow paint." and monitoring them closely until they paint you a bowl of oranges.

    Even Voyager with its "best guess" bio-neural circuitry didn't seem particularly capable of much more than generating some interesting holodeck programs.

    I really don't think there will be a computerized substitute for human creativity, problem solving, good old fashioned "outside-the-box" thinking and originality for a long time - not in our lifetime anyway. 

    Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:02 PM
  • Even Star Trek the Next Gen was unique in requiring all of the manned positions with the computer capability it supposedly had. Wouldn't it have been easier for the Captain to say "Computer set course Mark whatever, engage at Warp 8 to wherever" rather than having a helmsman and navigator. Or "Computer lock onto Borg Cube and fire all weapons with phasers using rotating frequencies while using sensors to determine most significant points of energy for target designations" or something rather than waiting all those seconds for others to perform the tasks at a slginificantly slower speed resulting in much more damage from return fire or whatever.

    Because the Enterprise would never have been able to defeat the Borg if it was run by computer.  The point of Star Trek (and humanity in general) is that computers lack imagination.  Even when we program them with something resembling imagination (ANNs, general/special pattern recognition, etc) they're still just doing what they're told.  It's akin to telling a child "I want you to be creative... with this paint brush and some red and yellow paint." and monitoring them closely until they paint you a bowl of oranges.

    Even Voyager with its "best guess" bio-neural circuitry didn't seem particularly capable of much more than generating some interesting holodeck programs.

    I really don't think there will be a computerized substitute for human creativity, problem solving, good old fashioned "outside-the-box" thinking and originality for a long time - not in our lifetime anyway. 

    Perhaps for Star Trek designed in 2014. However in 2300 + I've no doubt with the technology available which should be far beyond what is available now, including quantum computing and neural networks or even past that, I believe whatever a computer is will be able to perform outside-the-box thinking.

    Perhaps at that point whatever a computer is will have an interface to the human brain or mind or every crew members brain or mind or all of the federations brains and minds and be able to use that ability in decision making.


    La vida loca




    Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:12 PM
  • Even Star Trek the Next Gen was unique in requiring all of the manned positions with the computer capability it supposedly had. Wouldn't it have been easier for the Captain to say "Computer set course Mark whatever, engage at Warp 8 to wherever" rather than having a helmsman and navigator. Or "Computer lock onto Borg Cube and fire all weapons with phasers using rotating frequencies while using sensors to determine most significant points of energy for target designations" or something rather than waiting all those seconds for others to perform the tasks at a slginificantly slower speed resulting in much more damage from return fire or whatever.

    Because the Enterprise would never have been able to defeat the Borg if it was run by computer.  The point of Star Trek (and humanity in general) is that computers lack imagination.  Even when we program them with something resembling imagination (ANNs, general/special pattern recognition, etc) they're still just doing what they're told.  It's akin to telling a child "I want you to be creative... with this paint brush and some red and yellow paint." and monitoring them closely until they paint you a bowl of oranges.

    Even Voyager with its "best guess" bio-neural circuitry didn't seem particularly capable of much more than generating some interesting holodeck programs.

    I really don't think there will be a computerized substitute for human creativity, problem solving, good old fashioned "outside-the-box" thinking and originality for a long time - not in our lifetime anyway. 

    Because you're all looking to the wrong shows...

    Its Cylons that you need to be worried about.  ;)

    There is a LOT of research going into machine learning and many people vying to be the first to make a thinking machine.

    It seems far off, but I do have to wonder... technology alone won't do it for centuries, that's for sure, but bio-mechanical science offers potential shortcuts, and some of it is more reality than science fiction anymore.

    Somehow though I have a funny feeling that no one has yet envisioned what the actual future will bring.  ;)


    Reed Kimble - "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"

    Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:36 PM
    Moderator
  • I wouldn't really say it won't happen for centuries. After all we went from land line phones to smart phones in a rather short time period. Tubes to semi-conductors. Etc.

    The more systems are created that have advanced technology like quantum computers the more likely they will design more advanced systems than they are. And possibly have the interfaces to build the more advanced systems. So maybe the more advanced system once built would do that again.  And so on. With all technology available for it to do so. I believe it will be alot faster than centuries. Possibly less than 100 yrs.

    Artificial neural network

    Successes in pattern recognition contests since 2009[edit]

    Between 2009 and 2012, the recurrent neural networks and deep feedforward neural networks developed in the research group of Jürgen Schmidhuber at the Swiss AI Lab IDSIA have won eight international competitions in pattern recognition and machine learning. For example, the bi-directional and multi-dimensional long short term memory (LSTM) of Alex Graves et al. won three competitions in connected handwriting recognition at the 2009 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), without any prior knowledge about the three different languages to be learned. Fast GPU-based implementations of this approach by Dan Ciresan and colleagues at IDSIA have won several pattern recognition contests, including the IJCNN 2011 Traffic Sign Recognition Competition, the ISBI 2012 Segmentation of Neuronal Structures in Electron Microscopy Stacks challenge, and others. Their neural networks also were the first artificial pattern recognizers to achieve human-competitive or even superhuman performance on important benchmarks such as traffic sign recognition (IJCNN 2012), or the MNIST handwritten digits problem of Yann LeCun at NYU. Deep, highly nonlinear neural architectures similar to the 1980 neocognitron by Kunihiko Fukushima and the "standard architecture of vision" can also be pre-trained by unsupervised methods of Geoff Hinton's lab at University of Toronto. A team from this lab won a 2012 contest sponsored by Merck to design software to help find molecules that might lead to new drugs.

    How Quantum Computers Work

    If functional quantum computers can be built, they will be valuable in factoring large numbers, and therefore extremely useful for decoding and encoding secret information. If one were to be built today, no information on the Internet would be safe. Our current methods of encryption are simple compared to the complicated methods possible in quantum computers. Quantum computers could also be used to search large databases in a fraction of the time that it would take a conventional computer. Other applications could include using quantum computers to study quantum mechanics, or even to design other quantum computers.


    La vida loca




    Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:56 PM
  • All of which is impressive, but they're still only doing what we tell them to do, albeit at ever faster and more impressive speeds and with greater accuracy.

    A quantum computer can factor through combinations at unthinkably fast speeds, but that doesn't make it good at poetry, or art, or imagining fantastic solutions.  A large QBit quantum CPU running the most advanced neural network software might come up with the most efficient course for a water pipeline across Africa, for instance, but it won't turn around and say "a better solution would be to trade water with neighboring territories" or "if we changed the giant steel pipes to be made from this new flexible material that was invented last month it would be much faster to build" or "that one mountain could probably be bored through instead of routed around".  It was told to find a best fit for a specific problem and that's all it will do.

    They're all getting very good, but they're still only good at the specific tasks for which humans program them for.  Handwriting & speech recognition, image analysis, traffic sign recognition - it's all impressive but only in its very limited, specific way.

    I'll grant you none of us know what's coming, but it would take such a monumental shift in every facet of computer science to create something with true imagination (a Lt Cmdr Data, for instance) that I just don't see it happening in the next 50-100 years.

    Besides which, Starfleet would've whipped the Cylons in about 2 weeks. ;)


    • Edited by Quanta Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:04 AM .
    Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:02 AM
  • Well said Quanta.

    Just keep in mind that Starfleet would be hundreds of years more advanced than Cylons; that's the key... they represent the shortcut.

    Its the future of stuff like this that makes me wonder:

    http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/biology/default.aspx


    Reed Kimble - "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"

    Thursday, June 19, 2014 4:25 AM
    Moderator
  • Hmmmm. If this "For example, the bi-directional and multi-dimensional long short term memory (LSTM) of Alex Graves et al. won three competitions in connected handwriting recognition at the 2009 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), without any prior knowledge about the three different languages to be learned" can happen in 2009.

    Then I expect before 3009 that a computer or whatever there is that represents a computer, at some place, will have locally stored all knowledge recorded on the planet with instantaneous access to it at speeds inconceivable by todays standard for making decisions.

    After all if in 2009 a system can do something with no knowledge of information it needs to learn then with all known knowledge available I suspect it will be able to learn things never thought of before. Especially with the sensors available that it should be able to access at any given moment. Such as radio telescopes, weather stations, satellite imagery, sonar, seismometers, whatever is available at the time. Possibly including retrieving information from Tachyons which supposedly can travel through time.

    Tachyon

    Because a tachyon would always move faster than light, it would not be possible to see it approaching. After a tachyon has passed nearby, we would be able to see two images of it, appearing and departing in opposite directions. The black line is the shock wave of Cherenkov radiation, shown only in one moment of time.


    La vida loca





    Thursday, June 19, 2014 4:41 AM
  • I have a somewhat similar experience. Our entire code base is in VB.Net. Uniformity offers a lot of advantages for searching and replacing over the code base, as we rely upon portions of VB.net key words to serve as an anchor for our regular expression-based searching and replacing within Visual Studio. My point here is that it is good to have a standard. I am sure that using C# in the same way would work fine. But doing searching and replacing in a mixed language environment is harder.

    In any case, we use Dynamics CRM heavily, and, apparently, it is much easier to publish CRM plug-ins if you code the plug-ins in C#. This is annoying. Therefore, we are considering 3 options:

    1) Converting the plug-in code to C#.

    2) Writing a small C# wrapper project that will wrap around our vb.net plug-in code and which will over the above-mentioned  C# plug-in release benefits, but also allow most of our plug-in code to remain in vb.net.

    3) Migrating our entire code base to C#. This would have some disadvantages because we have lots of Office add-ins.

    Overall, we are attempting 1) without particular success at the moment. Therefore, we may implement 2).

    Just my experience, FWIW...

    Keith


    R K Howard

    Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:44 PM