A
Andreas Håkansson
Jimi,
I suppose the bagagde would be an extra assembly being loaded into your
application domain, when all you need is one small function. Most likely a
very
trivial size increase, but non the less, excess bagage
And no worries on the thread, I, personnaly, enjoy when we get a thread
which
has a longer life then QA posts. This is where people get a chance to learn
and
to take part of other (some times more skilled) developers share thier
thoughts.
//Andreas
I suppose the bagagde would be an extra assembly being loaded into your
application domain, when all you need is one small function. Most likely a
very
trivial size increase, but non the less, excess bagage

And no worries on the thread, I, personnaly, enjoy when we get a thread
which
has a longer life then QA posts. This is where people get a chance to learn
and
to take part of other (some times more skilled) developers share thier
thoughts.
//Andreas
Jimi said:Sorry about the tone of my last post, but all I'm trying to say is
that if there's a VB method you're used to, then by all means just
keep using it - no fuss, no muss. Personally, I've replaced some
with my own versions, but I began to realize I was just doing it for
purity's sake, not because it made financial sense to recode what was
there already. There's no extra baggage - Microsoft.VisualBasic is
part of the framework.
If the VB methods were from another namespace, called say
"System.SuperDuper", then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.