G
Guest
Kevin Provance said:
Yeah, I've heard that too. But, man are they useful for creating generic
utilities.
Yeah, I've heard that too. But, man are they useful for creating generic
utilities.
G
Guest
Karl, this is my last response to you. I'm not reading your post quoted below.
Elsewhere in this thread are posts where at least one other person in this
group understands my position, and I feel content to leave it at that. I
have all the answers I need.
I will not be reading any more of your posts.
Have a good one, Karl.
Steve
Elsewhere in this thread are posts where at least one other person in this
group understands my position, and I feel content to leave it at that. I
have all the answers I need.
I will not be reading any more of your posts.
Have a good one, Karl.
Steve
G
Guest
alpine said:
Wow.
I get paid most of the time to do new software development. The people who
pay for my services are the same people who usually decide what language and
platform to use.
If I do software maintenance, then I will use whatever language the software
is written in.
As far as "selling out", I don't get this -- I don't understand your
sentiment. Programming is my living, a way to make an income. I do what I
have to do. I have no control over the market. I not only have VB6 and
VB.NET, but also some C#, and some Java, some PHP for smaller projects,
Oracle PL/SQL. I'll learn what I have to in order to make a living.
I'm not sure what kind of forest you live in, but the forest I've been
plugging through has involved starting with punch cards, ecstatic with the
first CRT screens so I didn't have to listen to those damned noisy teletypes,
saving files on paper tape. I've had to learn so many languages the one
thing I know about programming is change.
B
Bob O`Bob
mobilemobile said:
That's ... an interesting view.
But, having my own 30+ years and 30+ languages behind me, my opinion is
almost the opposite. Without 10+ years of VB1-2-3-4-5-6 expectations,
learning VFred would probably have been a little easier.
It is, after all, with a few exceptions, mechanically translatable to/from C#.
Bob
B
Bob O`Bob
mobilemobile said:
You "miss" Variants?
Wow.
That's, um ... surprising.
But at the same time, in a specifically newsgroup-oriented way, I find it liberating.
bye!
Bob
--
T
Tom Shelton
["Followup-To:" header set to microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb.]
..NET has better facilities for that then Variant. Especially in 2005.
Hint:
Generics
..NET has better facilities for that then Variant. Especially in 2005.
Hint:
Generics
J
J French
True, but the problem with Fred.Net posts is that sometimes one can't
tell what language they are really using.
T
Tom Shelton
Maybe because they are so similar
J
J French
Maybe because they are so similar
LOL !
B
Bob O`Bob
Tom said:Maybe because they are so similar
similar LOOKING.
Q.E.D.
--
A
alpine
And I suppose you're going to say that you have no influence what so
ever on the choice of language. It's been my experience that those
who have no influence in this regard just aren't very good at what
they do. Is this the case with you?
This is where you're 100% wrong. If you refuse to use a language
because it is not in the long term best interest you're exerting all
the control in the world. If you'll starve because you won't work in
VB# then you really aren't very good at what you do.
I've written code in pretty much every language that made sense to
write code in. I've done my own 30+ years including the teletype AND
the punch cards AND ASM AND COBOL AND T-SQL AND C/C++/C# and many more
so stop trying to pass yourself off as some sort of sage in this
regard.
If you really have the best interest of your employer/clients and
industry as a whole at heart, you'll exert your influence by letting
the ignorant folks who are asking you to work in VB# know that using a
proprietary MS language that MS doesn't write any of their own code in
is a bad idea because MS has proven that they can't be trusted to
protect any code invested in such language. Or you can just continue
with the Baaaaaa, baaaaaa, baaaaaa.... If you act like a sheep then
you'll be treated like a sheep and be herded around shorn and
slaughtered at someone else's whim.
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)
P
Paul Clement
¤ > 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.
I've already dispelled the "different language" nonsense here on several occasions.
The problem is that several of them refer to the "core language" (absent of language extensions)
only when it suits their argument. If you tell them that Microsoft has routinely broken code over
the years with changes to the language extensions then they'll chime on about how the "core
language" is what's truly important because it drives the "business logic" of their applications.
However, if you point out that over 90% of the core language is still intact, then they'll challenge
you run a Classic Visual Basic app through the upgrade wizard and then tell them that the
"languages" are the same.
The argument is essentially a fraud since they use the incompatibility of the language extensions to
demonstrate that the actual "languages" are different.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
¤ > 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.
I've already dispelled the "different language" nonsense here on several occasions.
The problem is that several of them refer to the "core language" (absent of language extensions)
only when it suits their argument. If you tell them that Microsoft has routinely broken code over
the years with changes to the language extensions then they'll chime on about how the "core
language" is what's truly important because it drives the "business logic" of their applications.
However, if you point out that over 90% of the core language is still intact, then they'll challenge
you run a Classic Visual Basic app through the upgrade wizard and then tell them that the
"languages" are the same.
The argument is essentially a fraud since they use the incompatibility of the language extensions to
demonstrate that the actual "languages" are different.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
G
Guest
Tom Shelton said:
Yes, good point, Tom -- I just used generics for the first time to create a
pretty flexible utility to centralize our web service call exception
handling, very nice. And easy to use -- I went from a little knowledge to
done in about a day and a half, even used generics in delegates. I guess
generics have covered most of the things I would have used Variants for.
One of the things I used Variants for in my VB6 apps was to pass arrays
containing both strings and numbers, especially useful for passing around DB
record data. I guess I'd still have to use Object for that.
Steve
P
Paul Clement
¤ >> 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.
Yes, but they're they only thing that ASP or the scripting languages understand if you're
passing/returning arguments to/from an ActiveX DLL ByRef.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
¤
¤ Dude, you just opened the door to another Pandora's Box. Variants by nature
¤ are evil. Or so I've been taught.
Yes, but they're they only thing that ASP or the scripting languages understand if you're
passing/returning arguments to/from an ActiveX DLL ByRef.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
J
J French
To me it is obvious that Anders Hejlsberg's variation of Delphi in
VB'ish format is ... well not exactly VB7
L
Larry Serflaten
Considering the language's Statements and Functions make up the lion's share of
the 'core language', I just did a quick tally of VB5 against VB 2005:
VB5 Net Both
Statements 95 51 33
Functions 140 128 116
Of VB5's 95 statements, only 33 were also found as statements in VB2005.
Of VB5's 140 functions, only 116 were found listed under functions for VB2005.
That makes for 149 out of 235 possible commands where you'd find they
were the same. That was a rough count, but on the surface they appear to
be only about 65% the same....
And that does not take into account the difference in methodology of typical
VB code compared to VB2005, such as; Event handling, Variable declarations,
creating Objects, and of course 'Deterministic Finalization'....
You have got to admit there is a significant gap when the simplest of programs
need a complete rewrite to do the same task:
Private Sub Form_Load()
AutoRedraw = True
Print "Hello World"
End Sub
!!!
LFS
K
Karl E. Peterson
mobilemobile said:
It's your contentedness to view the thread you started here as being to "this group"
that's at issue. Good thing you got a really thick skull, 'cause I think it's
impending encounter with The Cluestick will almost certainly test its limits!
K
Karl E. Peterson
mobilemobile said:
So you draw *no* lines?
That same argument applies, of course, to *any* illegal/immoral activity.
R
Rick Rothstein \(MVP - VB\)
Elsewhere in this thread are posts where at least one other person in
What always amazes me about people like the OP for this thread is that after
one visit to this group, they think they understand everything about it and
feel free to reject the advice and counsel of those who have spent years
volunteering their time here. It just boggles the mind that someone could
have such a high opinion of themselves as to think they could not possibly
be wrong.
Rick
What always amazes me about people like the OP for this thread is that after
one visit to this group, they think they understand everything about it and
feel free to reject the advice and counsel of those who have spent years
volunteering their time here. It just boggles the mind that someone could
have such a high opinion of themselves as to think they could not possibly
be wrong.
Rick
K
Karl E. Peterson
Larry Serflaten said:
Not sure whether you intended "you would" or "you could" there? One of those is
incorrect, of course, given they actually changed behavior (recycled) some commands.