Talk:Visual Basic (.NET)

message: No consensus reached above.  How about an alternative:
#Rename "Visual Basic" to "Visual Basic (classic)".
#Rename "Visual Basic .NET" to "Visual Basic (.NET)".
#Change the "Visual Basic" redirect to point to "Visual Basic (.NET)".
#Adjust the  templates at the top of each page.
I don't think a disambiguation page is necessary.  While I'm sure there is still a significant level of interest in classic, I believe the .NET page should be the main target for a bare "Visual Basic" lookup.  -- Tcncv (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would merge The VB6 and VB.NET articles into one article called "Visual Basic." Otherwise, you'll make it into a maze.--Djnghfg (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that would be a good idea.  Although marketed under the same brand name and have many similarities, there are significant differences in areas such as core language syntax, data types, memory model, run-time-library, and many other aspects.  However, If you'd like to take on the task, you can start by creating a merge proposal (preferably using the procedure outlined here) and see what kind of response you get.  -- Tcncv (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point I was making is that breaking up the articles into many smaller ones is not the way to go. You could leave it the way it is (being less fragmented) or you could integrate them into a single article (the least fragmented). Most encyclopedias would include them in a single entry, and I actually found this article by typing the words "Visual Basic" into the search box. You suggest that I start a proposal, but I do not believe in such bureaucratic prodigalities. I am perfectly willing to let you do whatever you want to the article, even if I think it's a bad idea. It's not as if this is being sent to a publisher or anything, so do whatever you want.--Djnghfg (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't anyone is advocating splitting 2001-2003 from 2005-and-later.  It was mainly the VB6 to VB.NET (VB7) where one product was essentially replaced with a new one, which is why we currently have two articles.  And I support keeping it that way.  My proposal was to adjust the naming to better match current usage, not the content.  -- Tcncv (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I think we should merge everything into one article.  We don't really have enough content to justify having more than one article.  There's a lot of duplication between the articles we already have.  Merging them together into a single narrative would be a good starting point for future expansion, too.   Warren -talk- 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this new proposal is better than the previous one.  Second, I would not merge the articles together.  VB.NET is a complete from the ground-up rewrite.  They really are two separate languages have almost no relationship to each other.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  They are two different products.  -- Tcncv (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated proposal 

message: The article has a large part comparing VB.Net to VB 6. I think that should all be removed apart from may be a small reference to the origin of BASIC itself. Nobody would consider "upgrading" a VB 6 project (after being amazed that they still exist) to a .Net version without completely rewriting it as the languages are further apart than the difference between a T-Ford and a Ford Mondeo. At the start of the ".Net-era", programmers might have been interested in the differences between the new language and the one they were using, but now a rewrite of a VB 6 project resembles rewriting a COBOL project. 
If any comparison should be made, it should of course be to C#. I hate C# because it shows it was meant to be shorthand for assembly and by now combines that with LINQ. I'm not the one who should change this article, but someone should. Joepnl (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons between VB.NET to VB6 are outdated 

message: The .NET suffix has not been used for a long time.  The language is simply called "Visual Basic" nowadays, not "VB.NET".  86.150.195.140 (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally. Even on MSDN, the language is referred to as Visual Basic, not Visual Basic.NET. JoeWang4 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. There is already a Visual Basic article. What are we supposed to do with that? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people seem to refer to it as Classic VB but its not a name which sits well with me. Particularly since there are still other venders of Visual Basic. Its just that Microsoft is the most popular.SaintGerbil (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

text: The above, if correct, means THIS article is WRONG. I don't understand WHY it has been allowed to stand for so long. In addition, the article on Visual Basic is also WRONG. To give the OBVIOUS answer to the question "what do we call the other article?", we call it Visual Basic 6.0 (and its predecessors). VB6 is 16 years old and is a curiosity for the vast majority of coders - just like Fortran or Cobol. Visual Basic is Microsoft's adaptation of BASIC to handle the GUI/mouse programming for simple Windows programs in the early 1990's. With the introduction of Windows 3.0, Microsoft finally had a fairly robust entry into GUI Operating Systems and  providing entry-level programmers the ability to code with Windows reinforced the different business model compared to Apple's insular vertically integrated approach. I view VB6.0 as an ancestor, or earlier version, of what VB is today. Clearly to be consistent with reality, the MAIN article on VB should be about the CURRENT version and shouldn't be qualified as .NET specific.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.77.81 (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. You didn't answer my question: Supposing that you are right, what exactly are we supposed to do now? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How about merging the current "Visual Basic" one into the History subsection of this one? And then either renaming this one "Visual Basic" or leaving the name and redirecting the name "Visual Basic" into the History subsection. Eykeklos Omnia (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: Visual Studio 2012 has been released--time to update? kazu (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated - 2012 

message: From the article:
"The 'cmd' prefix is replaced by the 'btn' prefix, conforming to the new convention previously mentioned."
Hungarian notation is discouraged by Microsoft
Rather than get into what we should and should not be doing with standard why not follow the other examples and use the default values i.e. "Button1" rather than btnClose.
It avoids new developers starting bad habits and avoids the issues around standards.
SaintGerbil (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian Notation 

message: This article is just a stub, right? WHY is Syntax the first section after the lede? Using the C++ article as a template, its first section is "History". Its obvious that spending a bit of time on (historical) context is NECESSARY for any good encyclopedia article, isn't it? Isn't it also obvious that this should come sooner rather than later? I also have some concrete suggestions to expand the contents of the section:
1."Groups of statements are terminated with keywords such as "End If", or "End Sub", instead of using braces. Braces are also known as curly brackets "{}"s and are the convention used by languages such as C and C++."
This is terrible. Let me give you an example:
Dim a As Long
 If TRUE Then
   a = 1+1/3
 End If
So, what is the "group" of statements which "End If" terminates? Specifically, are we claiming that "If True Then" is a statement?!? We are certainly implying that the Dim statement, as part of the "group", needs a keyword to be terminated, right? Also, please explain to me how the (implicit) Namespace is (explicitly) terminated when writing code? It is not. This statement ONLY makes sense to those programmers who understand what a compound statement is. How useful is this? In C & C++, I can toss { and } around a bunch of statements and create a block or compound statement, there IS no equivalent in VB. VB has single (logical) line statements which are "terminated" by the end-of-line (new line) (eg. Dim A As Integer)(eg. A = A + 3) OR compound statements ( or enclosing language structures such as Class, Module, Function, Namespace) which begin with a line containing a keyword (possibly preceded by modifiers) and are terminated with a line with another keyword. For...Next; If...Then...End If; Class...End Class are examples of compound statements. In C++ the end of a line of code has no importance and is generally ignored.
2."Statements are terminated with a new line, instead of semicolons - the convention used by languages such as Pascal and C." See above. It is just NOT TRUE. eg If Then End If is NOT terminated by a end-of-line.
3."Variables are both assigned and compared using an equals sign." How about: The "=" symbol is used to both assign and to compare.
(compare this to Pascal use of := to assign and = to compare, or to C which assigns with = and compares with ==).
4."Round Brackets are used with arrays, both to declare them and to get a value at a given index in one of them, as compared to languages such as C which use Square Brackets for array declaration and access." This is NOT the only use of ( and ) and is such a minor point that it does NOT BELONG HERE, imho. Perhaps in a table comparing various language features in C, C++, BASIC, Pascal,...?
5. Comments are single line and are started with the single quote character '. Replace with: "Comments must occupy an entire line, and begin with a single quote character, '. This means that comments can NOT added to a line of code. Most other modern languages allow insertion of comments on the line they are applicable to, which can make the code easier to follow. Also, multiline comments must have each line begun with a '. This doesn't allow blocks of code to be quickly "commented out" (and so ignored by compiler) which can be a great aid to debugging.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.77.81 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Visual Basic .NET →  – The page was recently moved to Visual Basic (.NET), but the move has since been reverted. Should the page be left as "Visual Basic .NET", or should it be moved to "Visual Basic (.NET)" (like A Sharp (.NET))? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Support, Microsoft's docs  specifically says "Using Visual Basic makes it fast and easy to create type-safe .NET apps.". Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 23:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Support as per official Microsoft documentation. It is officially just called "Visual Basic". Félix An (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 December 2022