You really felt productive doing anything with Visual Basic 6, at least until things slowed to a crawl because it wasn't so performant or it was held back by the typical Access database. You didn't need 200 hours of YouTube tutorials about the front-ed UI framework du jour to get going.
VB.NET and C# was treated as equals for a long time. I believe MS initially expected VB.NET to be the mainstream .net language, while C# was a compromise to attract Java and Delphi users.
But the transition from VB to VB.NET was not handled well. VB was very well liked by its users (even if non-users looked down on it) but VB.NET was worst of both worlds. Too different from VB to be smooth upgrade, and still nok considered as professional a language as C#
You really felt productive doing anything with Visual Basic 6, at least until things slowed to a crawl because it wasn't so performant or it was held back by the typical Access database. You didn't need 200 hours of YouTube tutorials about the front-ed UI framework du jour to get going.
VB.NET was always second class to c#.
Unfortunately it was a one-to-one match to C#.
It would have been much netter if it was based on Visual Basic 6
> VB.NET was always second class to c#
VB.NET and C# was treated as equals for a long time. I believe MS initially expected VB.NET to be the mainstream .net language, while C# was a compromise to attract Java and Delphi users.
But the transition from VB to VB.NET was not handled well. VB was very well liked by its users (even if non-users looked down on it) but VB.NET was worst of both worlds. Too different from VB to be smooth upgrade, and still nok considered as professional a language as C#
.NET 2.0 introduced a few things back.
VB 6 way to do COM still wins out, though.
Second class? Maybe in the perception of some C-loving programmers.
VB.NET can do everything what you can do with C#. Saying that C# is better than VB.NET is like saying that French is better than Spanish.