March 7, 2005
As a complement to my C# to VB.NET cheat sheet links, here's a comparative list of programming language equivalents in VB, J#, C++, C#, JScript, and even Visual FoxPro.
Since .NET is just a thin wrapper over Win32 (or so I've been told), you may also enjoy this Win32 to Microsoft .NET API Map.
Posted by Jeff Atwood
I just looked over the Hanselman article. He seems to confuse library with VM. If you look at the VMs I think Java and .NET ARE very similar. The libraries are different in that Microsoft intended to tie the .NET framework to Windows.
It's an interesting set of comparisons.
What I see as interesting is your intro to it saying: " and even Visual FoxPro"?
Why not VFP? It's a Microsoft language, it's visual, it's object oriented, it's current (its latest version 9.0 came out in December 2004). In short it is a viable language, probably the best in its class, bar none. Why wouldn't it be included in a labguage comparison set?
I think I'm just amazed that a product I last used in 1993, under DOS, is still somehow viable.
What do you mean "...is still somehow viable"? It's the easiest to learn language to develop DB based applications, and I mean real DB, a lot of people here in Peru develops amazing applications. Most of all, it seems that lately there is a "renaissance" of the VFP'ers. I guess it has its own place in the developers comunity.
Let's see. Implementation inheritance, visual designer, integrated SQL, COM, anchorable controls, background compile... nope, doesn't sound at all like a viable language.
Note to self: avoid angering VPF enthusiasts.
I did like it in 1992/3, although the initial Windows version circa 1994 wasn't so hot. I hear it has improved since then?
This comparison chart seriously needs updating, at least related to Visual Foxpro. It does not seem to include the new features added in VFP8 or VFP9, such as TRY...CATCH.
And, yes, VFP is quite a different product than the FoxPro you last used under DOS over 10 years ago! Yet, amazingly, even with all its new (starting with VFP3) OOP features, client/server capabilities, ability to use ActiveX controls, bind to Windows OS events, create COM MTDLLs, create and consume Web Services, create and consume .NET DataSets via its XMLAdapter, and much, much more... it will still run your old DOS code!
Another note: Try to get at least a TLA like "VFP" correct (No, it's not "VPF" )
As for a viable language: In contrast to the dead VB, VFP is still very alive and kicking. A lot of first-class companies are relying on it, and the benefit of a mature language like VFP is, that its bug-count is alot lower than any other MS product (which gives you a lot nicer development-experience)
In that mentioned comparison, a lot of newer VFP features are missing (Try/Catch, EventBinding etc), and the main difference between VFP and the rest of the gang is completely ignored: Data-Handling. This is where VFP is really showing off...
Didn't MS announce plans to drop VFP?
Scott, in fact there have been rumors of FoxPro's demise proliferated by the "respected?" Gartner group back in 1994. Somehow this backward compatible OO language with its built in local data engine just keeps on going.
VFP 9 was only recently released (Dec 04) and will be supported thru at least 2014.
Even bg chart on MSDN site has incomplete info on VFP column unless I'm wrong about that n/a means "Not Available". What a source.
Many things mentioned about the feature/functions of VFP, but we can't forget the built in report writer in all versions. Beats the heck out of having to have a third party tool.
Christopher - you lost me, where did I confuse library with VM?
Didn't MS announce plans to drop VFP?
Posted by Scott at March 10, 2005 10:10 AM
Not only tthere were never plans, just rumours but VFP is doing fine. The newest release 9.0 cameout in Dec 04 and it is supported until at least 2014.
Microsoft just released this Press Release. Take a look.
Regarding the language comparison page on MSDN, on the Universal Thread, Ken Levy just responded to me with this comment:
Actually, the person who wrote this in UE (user education) on the VB team talked to Alan Griver yesterday and they both ended up in my office and I was asked to review 5 pages they have on language like this on the msdn.com web site and add the proper and up to date VFP information so they can update those pages. I'll post a blog entry when they are updated. I'm glad VFP is not case sensitive also (like VB). :)