Pointer to String in VB2005

[Guest]

It happens all the time here, yes, so it is a source of irritation to many.

That's life, eh? It doesn't take much for some to get irritated I guess.

Had you not cross-posted inappropriately, that's very true.

Not sure what you mean by that.

That, however, is not true. All the .NET groups actually contain the word
".dotnet." in their names.

True -- the .NET groups are clearly marked. It's the non-.NET groups that
are not clearly marked. I was happy that Ken's response spelled it out for
me -- now that was a reasonable response.

No problem. As I said, the response wasn't solely to you. Hopefully, others may
take it into consideration before making similarly uninformed guesses in the future.

The only reason that other VB.NET users may gain any knowledge about the
Classic VB forums from this exchange would be that I cross-posted. Angry
responses to simple mistakes will normally only be seen by the individual
poster.

Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever. You
can either get angry or just let it go.

Bite me.

I sort of expected this level of conversation ...

Poor indeed. But characterizing the quotes found there as "complaints" as opposed
to "statements of reality" definitely positions _you_ as the one with a bias.

To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft. And I consider constructions like
"Visual Basic.not" to be childish.

Putting that Psych101 class to its highest use, are ya? Impressive.

(.NOT! <g>)

It seems you avoided a direct response here. Let's put it to you directly
-- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET users wander into the VB forums,
and that it's because you can't stand .NET? Come on, Karl, open up! Tell me
what you really think!

Perhaps you misspelled "ironic" there? The general sense is that only Microsoft
sees this situation as humorous.

My point was that you were attacking not only a .NET user, but a VB6 user.
I thought that was funny, given how it seems you have divided the world into
Classic vs .NET, like one of those fake wrestling matches.

If you're not evangelizing, you're just attempting to get by, like the rest of us.
Your obvious defensiveness aside.

True, I see any particular programming language as a mere tool to provide a
solution -- that would qualify as "getting by", I suppose.

I'm not sure why I would be evangelizing or defensive, given that I use both
VB6 and .NET. Perhaps this particular response of yours was just filler --
it doesn't make much sense.

What on earth led you to believe that's what you'd find on usenet? <LOL>

I appreciate your being truthful, at least here!!

 

[Bob Butler]

To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft.

and yet you decide to use VB.Net thereby practically begging them to give
you the shaft again when VB.Next comes along

 

[Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]]

Although this thread has already gone long, I'll toss my two cents in.
Posting to five or six groups is too much. If you're programming in VB or
VB.NET and you're talking to SQL server, it might make sense to post a
single message to the appropriate VB or VB.NET group and the SQL server
group, but it never makes sense to post to that many groups. It's annoying
to people to read many groups on a daily basis in exactly the same way
people sitting in a coffee shop might be annoyed by someone shouting his
order at the top of his lungs, blocking our their conversations. If you're
not sure which group should get the post, pick *one*. If you don't get a
reply in a day or if the reply indicates that you've picked a group that's
off-target, send to another.

Paul T.

It happens all the time here, yes, so it is a source of irritation to
many.

That's life, eh? It doesn't take much for some to get irritated I guess.

Had you not cross-posted inappropriately, that's very true.

Not sure what you mean by that.

That, however, is not true. All the .NET groups actually contain the
word
".dotnet." in their names.

True -- the .NET groups are clearly marked. It's the non-.NET groups that
are not clearly marked. I was happy that Ken's response spelled it out
for
me -- now that was a reasonable response.

No problem. As I said, the response wasn't solely to you. Hopefully,
others may
take it into consideration before making similarly uninformed guesses in
the future.

The only reason that other VB.NET users may gain any knowledge about the
Classic VB forums from this exchange would be that I cross-posted. Angry
responses to simple mistakes will normally only be seen by the individual
poster.

Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever. You
can either get angry or just let it go.

Bite me.

I sort of expected this level of conversation ...

Poor indeed. But characterizing the quotes found there as "complaints"
as opposed
to "statements of reality" definitely positions _you_ as the one with a
bias.

To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft. And I consider constructions
like
"Visual Basic.not" to be childish.

Putting that Psych101 class to its highest use, are ya? Impressive.

(.NOT! <g>)

It seems you avoided a direct response here. Let's put it to you directly
-- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET users wander into the VB forums,
and that it's because you can't stand .NET? Come on, Karl, open up! Tell
me
what you really think!

Perhaps you misspelled "ironic" there? The general sense is that only
Microsoft
sees this situation as humorous.

My point was that you were attacking not only a .NET user, but a VB6 user.
I thought that was funny, given how it seems you have divided the world
into
Classic vs .NET, like one of those fake wrestling matches.

If you're not evangelizing, you're just attempting to get by, like the
rest of us.
Your obvious defensiveness aside.

True, I see any particular programming language as a mere tool to provide
a
solution -- that would qualify as "getting by", I suppose.

I'm not sure why I would be evangelizing or defensive, given that I use
both
VB6 and .NET. Perhaps this particular response of yours was just
filler --
it doesn't make much sense.

What on earth led you to believe that's what you'd find on usenet? <LOL>

I appreciate your being truthful, at least here!!

 

[Karl E. Peterson]

That's life, eh? It doesn't take much for some to get irritated I guess.
Apparently.


Not sure what you mean by that.

Hence, the tediousness of this thread. When you understand that, this can die.

True -- the .NET groups are clearly marked. It's the non-.NET groups that
are not clearly marked.

They are, in that they deal with *VB*. VFred is definitely NOT VB, and as long as
you keep that in mind there is some hope, despite Microsoft's best efforts to
confuse their customers.

I was happy that Ken's response spelled it out for
me -- now that was a reasonable response.

Uh huh.

The only reason that other VB.NET users may gain any knowledge about the
Classic VB forums from this exchange would be that I cross-posted.

And continue to.

Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever.

You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their direction(s), and
incapable of independent discovery?

I sort of expected this level of conversation ...

Yeah, I could tell. You're welcome.

To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
however, reserve my anger for Microsoft.

And now we've distinguished *you* as the angry one...

And I consider constructions like "Visual Basic.not" to be childish.

Although, yes, we'd already established your superiority complex.

It seems you avoided a direct response here. Let's put it to you directly
-- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET users wander into the VB forums,
and that it's because you can't stand .NET? Come on, Karl, open up! Tell me
what you really think!

What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe, attempting
to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.

My point was that you were attacking not only a .NET user, but a VB6 user.

I thought that was funny, given how it seems you have divided the world into
Classic vs .NET, like one of those fake wrestling matches.

Reminds me of a joke I heard recently. "Next time George Bush tells folks 'God told
me to...' or 'Last time I talked to God...", would someone please take the mirror
out of his hand?!?"

True, I see any particular programming language as a mere tool to provide a
solution -- that would qualify as "getting by", I suppose.
Yep.

I'm not sure why I would be evangelizing or defensive,

I'm not sure, either, though a seemingly high percentage of VFred users seem to fall
into both categories. I think there's a relationship there, myself. Fwiw, my point
was that you didn't seem to be evangelizing, just overly defensive. Either that, or
prudishly childlike, in that you took some sort of personal offense at the word
"crap."

I appreciate your being truthful, at least here!!

There ya go.

 

[Guest]

If you two want to continue to rant about which versiuon of VB sucks less
and how usenet works that's fine, but please remove the pocketpc.developer
and compactframework groups from the continued banter. It's even more
off-topic for those groups that the faux pas of the .NET question in a VB6
group appears to have been.

 

[Karl E. Peterson]

If you two want to continue to rant about which versiuon of VB sucks less
and how usenet works that's fine, but please remove the pocketpc.developer
and compactframework groups from the continued banter. It's even more
off-topic for those groups that the faux pas of the .NET question in a VB6
group appears to have been.

Point taken. Trimmed those two from the FU2. Thanks!

 

[Guest]

and yet you decide to use VB.Net thereby practically begging them to give
you the shaft again when VB.Next comes along

Hey, I can't disagree with you.

I do a lot of contracting work -- I see a lot more for .NET than Classic VB,
so I felt I had to learn it.

It's sort of the life of the programmer nowadays -- have to keep learning
stuff.

 

[Guest]

Apparently.


Hence, the tediousness of this thread. When you understand that, this can die.

Hey, it's a respect issue. Your response was nasty, and intentionally so.
That's why I'll beat this into the ground until you apologize or at least
admit the source of your rudeness.

They are, in that they deal with *VB*. VFred is definitely NOT VB, and as long as
you keep that in mind there is some hope, despite Microsoft's best efforts to
confuse their customers.

In your world, VB.NET is not VB. In the rest of the world, VB.NET is a
newer flavor of VB. VB.NET looks a lot like Classic VB -- without my
background in VB5/6 it would have been a lot harder to learn VB.NET.

Uh huh.

It's good to be reasonable.

And continue to.

Hey, you can always stop posting to this thread.

You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their direction(s), and
incapable of independent discovery?

Is this an admission that you think poorly of .NET users?

Yeah, I could tell. You're welcome.

Please note that I have not utilized the type of invective you've lowered
yourself to.

And now we've distinguished *you* as the angry one...

That was lame. Although I suppose your behavior can be understood -- it's
easier to be angry at some anonymous poster. It certainly won't do any good
to get mad at Microsoft. It's not like they're going to change what they're
doing.

Although, yes, we'd already established your superiority complex.

I suppose I could recycle your Psych 101 line here (right back at ya), but
I'll just say I don't think I'm superior, I just think you're rude.

What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe, attempting
to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.

This is the one part of our little discussion that you seem unwilling to
answer directly. So I'll ask again -- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET
users wander into the VB forums, and that it's because you can't stand .NET?

Attacking? <LOL>

Yes, attacking. Perhaps you think you can lash out at others due to some
frustration, but I find it unacceptable.

Reminds me of a joke I heard recently. "Next time George Bush tells folks 'God told
me to...' or 'Last time I talked to God...", would someone please take the mirror
out of his hand?!?"

It's funny you mention a politician here -- it's a classic political ploy to
accuse your opponents of the exact behavior you yourself are exhibiting.

Yep.

So, are you saying that there might be cases where VB.NET might be a better
solution than Classic VB?

I'm not sure, either, though a seemingly high percentage of VFred users seem to fall
into both categories. I think there's a relationship there, myself. Fwiw, my point
was that you didn't seem to be evangelizing, just overly defensive. Either that, or
prudishly childlike, in that you took some sort of personal offense at the word
"crap."

It wasn't the word, it was the content. You were being nasty on purpose.

 

[Robert Morley]

In your world, VB.NET is not VB. In the rest of the world, VB.NET is a

newer flavor of VB. VB.NET looks a lot like Classic VB -- without my
background in VB5/6 it would have been a lot harder to learn VB.NET.

I think that's like saying that Delphi is a newer flavour of Pascal...the
difference is that the makers of Delphi had the sense to realize that they
were departing from the standard Pascal framework and so they named the
language something else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly in either camp in terms of which
language is "better", but I do think that Microsoft made a big mistake in
using a similar name...not to mention allowing VC++ users to migrate
seamlessly without offering a similar path to VB users.



Rob

 

[Guest]

I didn't fully understand Chris' response, and I got no response to my
request for clarification. The VB.NET response was more explicit. So to me
the VB.NET response was valuable.

No, Chris replied to you to the effect of using a string, not an IntPtr, as
the type of the name field in the structure. So, you got two, nearly
identical replies, one from the Compact Framework group and one from the
VB.NET group.

Paul T.

There doesn't seem to be many VB users in the NETCF or PPC groups -- hence
the VB posts.

The only response I've gotten on my issue (i.e., not cross-posting or this
nonsense with Karl) is from the VB.NET group.

Multi-post, yes. That wouldn't have been the right thing to do here,
either. A single post to the Compact Framework group would have gotten
an
answer and no second post would have been required.

Paul T.

What are you talking about Paul, you and I complain all the time when
people multi-post instead of cross posting.

-Chris


"Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]" <p space tobey no spam AT no instrument no spam
DOT
com> wrote in message message
When I have done what you suggest (posting to one group, waiting for
a
response, post to another group), I've gotten yelled at for not
cross-posting.


Not by anyone I've ever seen! I can't recall a single event in the
several years I've been a MVP and replied to thousands of posts that
anyone in any of the groups I read has complained that someone
*hasn't*
cross-posted... You might have gotten hit for posting to an off-topic
group, as I mentioned, but your second post should have been
on-target,
if that was the case.

It's funny, all these responses seem to be complaining about the time
spent
viewing a post, when the responses most certainly take more time to
write
than it would to skim a post and ignore it.


Believe me, I ignored it to begin with. You have to think a bit about
contaminating the archives, too. Now you've got a post that's
completely
off-topic in various groups that someone will find with GoogleGroups
during a search and will have to read to make sure it's not an answer
to
a question they have. By posting to five groups, you've done that in
five different places.

Paul T.

 

[Bob O`Bob]

That's life, eh? It doesn't take much for some to get irritated I guess.

"not much"

repeated

several times

every day

for more than six years.


Yeah, that's done it to me, too.


Bob
--

 

[Bob O`Bob]

It's sort of the life of the programmer nowadays -- have to keep learning
stuff.

What makes you think "nowadays" could have any bearing whatsoever?



Bob
--

 

[Guest]

not to mention allowing VC++ users to migrate
seamlessly without offering a similar path to VB users.

Amen to that.

 

[Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]]

And...? Yes, the response was valuable and you might decide, based on that,
to post to the VB.NET group first from now on. Since you clearly knew that
what the Compact Framework group was like, I find it hard to believe that
you consciously thought that cross-posting to five or six groups was the
right thing to do for the community...

Paul T.

 

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hey, it's a respect issue. Your response was nasty, and intentionally so.
That's why I'll beat this into the ground until you apologize or at least
admit the source of your rudeness.

That is an indefensible position. Translation: "Bite me!"

In your world, VB.NET is not VB. In the rest of the world, VB.NET is a
newer flavor of VB. VB.NET looks a lot like Classic VB -- without my
background in VB5/6 it would have been a lot harder to learn VB.NET.

Regardless, the same source code can produce different results. Hence, it *is* a
different language. It's really that simple.

It's good to be reasonable.

Is this an admission that you think poorly of .NET users?

As a group, no. There are, that said, those who fall naturally into that category.

Please note that I have not utilized the type of invective you've lowered
yourself to.

Masochism at its finest.

That was lame.

I understand you're having issues understanding your own motives and practices.

It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.

Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?

This is the one part of our little discussion that you seem unwilling to
answer directly. So I'll ask again -- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET
users wander into the VB forums, and that it's because you can't stand .NET?

Actually, I welcome anyone who comes here to learn, share, and generally
participate. You seem to be a taker, without much of anything positive to offer,
mostly.

Yes, attacking. Perhaps you think you can lash out at others due to some
frustration, but I find it unacceptable.
"Wah!"


It's funny you mention a politician here -- it's a classic political ploy to
accuse your opponents of the exact behavior you yourself are exhibiting.

Put down the mirror.

So, are you saying that there might be cases where VB.NET might be a better
solution than Classic VB?

I would never deny such a patently silly generalization.

It wasn't the word, it was the content. You were being nasty on purpose.

"Wah!"

 

[Guest]

That is an indefensible position. Translation: "Bite me!"

I'm responding to your initial rude response. You did not apologize for it.
My position is perfectly defensible. What was indefensible was your initial
(and continuing) rudeness.

Regardless, the same source code can produce different results. Hence, it *is* a
different language. It's really that simple.

Give me an example of this. The code is very similar: loops, control
structures etc etc. They took things away that were in VB6 that I really
miss, like Variants, so I'll agree with you there. But, again, Microsoft
owns VB -- in their viewpoint, Classic VB has been deprecated, and VB.NET is
now VB. No matter if you agree with the "advancements" in the language, the
language is still VB.

Says the guy kicking the sand on the picnikers and demanding an apology. <LOL>

An apology would be reasonable. I apologized to Ken for posting to the
wrong group for instance. If you apologize for your over-the-top response,
then I will apologize to you for posting to the wrong group. Until then, I'm
withholding that apology.

Apologies are useful devices in a civilized world.

As a group, no. There are, that said, those who fall naturally into that category.

That's good to know. Although your comment below that going to .NET from
VB6 is "selling out" seems to contradict this.

Masochism at its finest.

Your comment doesn't fit here -- please rephrase.

I understand you're having issues understanding your own motives and practices.

My only motive here is to attempt to get you to admit that you were being
rude.

Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?

Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!

There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.
It's like me crying over the demise of DEC. I remember when there was no VB
-- what would the religion of a pre-VB programmer be? I've been through so
many languages over 30 years of programming, I don't see the point of any
type of allegiance.

Clearly you and I will not have a meeting of the minds on this point. I
can't quite comprehend why a VB6 programmer wouldn't check out VB.NET
thoroughly, if anything because it's newer technology, and I'm always
interested in new tech. OTOH, I can certainly understand the frustration of
VB6 users not being able to migrate to .NET easily etc. And I am still not
nearly as comfortable with VB.NET as I was with VB6.

But thanks for your response here -- it felt honest and I appreciate that.

Actually, I welcome anyone who comes here to learn, share, and generally
participate. You seem to be a taker, without much of anything positive to offer,
mostly.

You didn't know anything about me when I made my first post. You had no
idea what kind of personality or behavior I had. And yet you fired away.

"Wah!"

From your response, it seems you now agree you were attacking me.

BTW, if "Wah!" is your only available response, perhaps it would be better
for you if you just didn't respond at all.

Put down the mirror.

Stop acting like a politician.

Clearly your comment about "selling out" has proven my assumption about your
feelings.

I would never deny such a patently silly generalization.

An example of a generalization would be: "VB.NET is better than VB6 in all
cases". See how that works? The key phrase is "all cases". My question was
not a generalization.

But I'm gathering from your response that you would consider VB.NET superior
to VB6 in certain cases.

"Wah!"

So, can I take from this that you are acknowledging that your behavior was
nasty?

 

[Kevin Provance]

They took things away that were in VB6 that I really miss, like Variants,

Dude, you just opened the door to another Pandora's Box. Variants by nature
are evil. Or so I've been taught.

- Kev

 

[Karl E. Peterson]

I'm responding to your initial rude response. You did not apologize for it.

You can rot, waiting, too.

Give me an example of this.

Query the net for any CRC32 example code.

They took things away that were in VB6 that I really
miss, like Variants, so I'll agree with you there.

It's been called many things, including a "Death by a 1000 cuts." Everyone bled.

But, again, Microsoft
owns VB -- in their viewpoint, Classic VB has been deprecated,

They don't know the meaning of the word!

Apologies are useful devices in a civilized world.

Again, I'll remind you, you're NOT in a civilized world. HTH!

That's good to know. Although your comment below that going to .NET from
VB6 is "selling out" seems to contradict this.
Hardly.


Your comment doesn't fit here -- please rephrase.

You just beg others to do so, so you can "feel the pain."

Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!

There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.

Obviously, there's *something* to "believe in" or you wouldn't be mad at Microsoft.
Perhaps you believe a customer ought be treated with some shred of respect? Dig
deep. I'm sure you can find the words. Where would you be if you treated your
customers the same way Microsoft does? Or, do you feel that "Anything For A Buck!"
is an appropriate business motto? As the tagline says -- "It's About Trust!" --
nothing more.

Clearly you and I will not have a meeting of the minds on this point.

Then you're a moron, and my initial assessment only underestimated the degree. I
actually disagree with that, though, and think you couldn't possibly be that daft.
That you're only jumping to conclusions here, and actually can come around to
understanding.

can't quite comprehend why a VB6 programmer wouldn't check out VB.NET
thoroughly, if anything because it's newer technology,

And as such, it's indeed interesting. Not worth investing in, from my perspective,
as I don't "do" disposable code and am not willing to be at the mercy of someone
else telling me when it's time for a rewrite (again).

OTOH, I can certainly understand the frustration of
VB6 users not being able to migrate to .NET easily etc.

Repeat after me: "It's About Trust!", "It's About Trust!", "It's About Trust!", ...

You didn't know anything about me when I made my first post.
Wrong.


An example of a generalization would be: "VB.NET is better than VB6 in all
cases". See how that works? The key phrase is "all cases". My question was
not a generalization.

"Better" is a generalization. Arguments could be made, but what's the point?

But I'm gathering from your response that you would consider VB.NET superior
to VB6 in certain cases.

It's far from inconceivable, yeah.

 

[alpine]

Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!

There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.
It's like me crying over the demise of DEC. I remember when there was no VB
-- what would the religion of a pre-VB programmer be? I've been through so
many languages over 30 years of programming, I don't see the point of any
type of allegiance.

Apparently, your view is so myopic that you can't see the forrest for
the trees.

The point is that MS's move to VB.NET is change for change's sake and
nothing more. The part you somehow seem to be missing is that every
line of code that you re-write/re-test/re-deploy is costing *someone*
(your employer, the end user, whomever) money that they should not
have had to spend. Unless you're working for free, your attitude of
"I'm getting paid so who cares." is *indeed* selling out, given the
statements you've made in this thread. You're (the collective you)
willingness to grease up and bend over will just make it worse the
next time around.

Get some backbone and tell MS to, "Go pound sand." There are plenty
of alternatives to VB.NET so pick one and move on.

Bryan
_________________________________________________________
Bryan Stafford "Don't need no more lies"
New Vision Software - Neil Young -
www.mvps.org/vbvision Living With War : The Restless Consumer
alpineDon'(e-mail address removed)

 

[Bob Butler]

But I'm gathering from your response that you would consider VB.NET
superior to VB6 in certain cases.

Free clue: the technical merits of a given language are only part of what
needs to go into the decision to use it for anything more than throw-away
apps. Nothing MS can do with "VB" at this point would ever convince me that
they truly understand how badly the screwed up and that they won't do it
again. Anybody committing resources to VB.Net deserves whatever happens
to them.