Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news2 From: Michael Wojcik Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Android---Why_Dalvik=3F?= Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 13:43:03 -0400 Organization: Micro Focus Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: pbc7e28323e60b83caec007449e5f8d592ee520a554f6cfd8.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5213 Stefan Ram wrote: > Michael Wojcik writes: >> VB.NET is in many ways closer to C# than it is to historical BASIC. >> It's trivial to compile VB.NET into MSIL and then decompile it back >> into C#, or vice versa (if you avoid newer C# features that aren't >> supported in VB.NET yet). > > VB is not called »VB.NET« anymore. It certainly is by many people, regardless of what Microsoft choose to call it. And the term is useful to distinguish it from pre-.NET versions of VB. > When one writes code in VB, then compiles it into IL, one > can't but avoid newer C# features that aren't supported in > VB yet! Obviously my parenthetical applied to "vice versa", which would involve writing code in C#, compiling it, and decompiling into VB. As for Erik Meijer - well, he's welcome to his opinion about what languages are "interesting". -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University