Why did they even bother making this? Why not just have C#?

>>58231850
Like it or not, there were tons of VB6 developers.

Microsoft wanted to give these people a stepping stone.

Because it runs on CLR you retard and MS Office Suite uses it heavily

>>58231874
But they pissed people off anyway when they switched to .NET. They may as well have gone all the way and phased out VB completely

Not sure but im working in VB.Net and its been nothing short of a pain in the ass lately

>>58232094
Why? There is literally zero reason to use it over C#.

File: JDII-Bill-G-Reveal-3.png (968KB, 1024x414px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 1024x414px

>>58231850
Because the original selling point of .NET was that you could run any language on it. Microsoft went to great lengths to ensure that every fucking language under the sun had its own special version that compiled to the .NET CLR. Of course it was all just a scheme to get people familiar with .NET so they would switch to C#. In that sense, VB.NET has probably done more to kill the language than help it. But there are still a ridiculous amount of VB developers out there these days. Don't kid yourself about it.

>>58232115
Except the "all our shit already uses it" reason that drives many business decisions

>>58231850
>implying there's a difference

You probably have an ego and think you're a C programmer because you use C#.

I have news for you: you are not a "C programmer" if you use C#.

C# is VB.NET but with a C syntax. VB.NET is C# but with a BASIC syntax. Same framework, same CLR, same design patterns, same fucking everything except minor syntax differences. There are other languages that compile to the CLR that are legitimately different. But VB and C# are twins.

And you should be able to switch between them without skipping a beat.

>>58233050
No unsafe u VB.NET. Other than that, minor differences.

>>58231850
So that VBfags like myself could get paid big buckaroos