I actually prefer the different words in the different languages. As an old C++ hack, virtual makes more sense to me...but if I had come from a VB world virtual wouldn't. Except for those of us who straddle the line and have to produce code in both languages, I think it's a better fit for most dev's. The mere fact that this is discussed on the "Advanced" list means that we're more likely not to be the "in the trench" developer where I think the names actually make more sense.
"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong..." Thanks, Shawn Wildermuth Wildermuth Consulting Services, LLC http://adoguy.com C# MVP, MCSD.NET, Author and Speaker > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. Merrill > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:48 PM > To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Virtual methods in .NET - was > Implementing an Interface - C# vs. VB.NET > > Are you annoyed that they used different keywords > (Overridable vs Virtual, NotOverridable vs Sealed), or are > you annoyed at the default they chose for VB.Net (when > overriding a virtual method, it defaults to the method being > virtual, while declaring a new method defaults to Sealed)? > > It's true that they might have chosen the same keywords that > C# has, given that it's a new language with new concepts; but > one could argue that they chose "more meaningful" or "more > English-like" or "less computer-sciencey" names for VB.Net > because of the "less geeky" nature of many old-VB programmers. > > At 10:51 AM 7/8/2006, Stoyan Damov wrote > >[ranting] > > > >Never used VB.NET and I'm pretty sure I'll never use it. > Microsoft had > >the unique chance to design it right this time (as they scrapped the > >old VB anyway) and still managed to fubar it with all these new > >keywords, "features" and silent defaults. No offence here to > any VB.NET > >programmers and I don't want to start any religious wars here, but > >IMVHO VB.NET is the dumbest (and not needed) programming language on > >earth. While I still think VB (6) was really useful for > quick testing > >C++ COM components and for building semi-complex UI-intensive apps, > >VB.NET is useless when there's C#. > > > >On 7/8/06, David Lanouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Just looked in the SDK docs. From the VB Language > Reference section > >>on the Function keyword > >> > >>... > >> > >>Overridable > >>Optional. Indicates that this Function procedure can be > overridden by > >>an identically named procedure in a derived class. > Overridable is the > >>default setting for a procedure that itself overrides a > base class procedure. > >> > >>NotOverridable > >>Optional. Indicates that this Function procedure cannot be > overridden > >>in a derived class. NotOverridable is the default setting for a > >>procedure that does not itself override a base class procedure. > >> > >>... > >> > >> > >>So it seems that VB doesn't default to virtual, unless it's > overriding > >>an existing method. > >> > >> > >> > >>______________________________ > >>- David Lanouette > >>- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >>"Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit" - Aristotle > > > J. Merrill / Analytical Software Corp > > =================================== > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor. http://www.develop.com > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at > http://discuss.develop.com =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
