|
code
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
I used to use VB but...I think you'll find you can say that about almost any language. But thanks for sharing...I'm sure it wasn't at all intended to
start a flame war. Rob Show quoteHide quote <david.sm***@initi-mail.co.uk> wrote in message news:e6de658c-f36c-4cc5-b4c3-2bac3da5babf@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > Then I realised I didn't need to. Happy Days! <david.sm***@initi-mail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e6de658c-f36c-4cc5-b4c3-2bac3da5babf@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... I don't *need* to either. I *want* to. Very Happy Days!> Then I realised I didn't need to. Happy Days! "Bob Butler" <noway@nospam.ever> wrote in message Why would you *want* to use VB? There are newer languages with all the news:%23QGeW76KIHA.4948@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Then I realised I didn't need to. Happy Days! > > I don't *need* to either. I *want* to. Very Happy Days! features of VB6 and more. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Bob Butler" <noway@nospam.ever> wrote in message Why would someone *want* to fly an open-cockpit airplane?> news:%23QGeW76KIHA.4948@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> Then I realised I didn't need to. Happy Days! >> >> I don't *need* to either. I *want* to. Very Happy Days! > > Why would you *want* to use VB? "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message For the fun of it of course. But are you saying that VB6 is equivelant to a news:uMzPIf9KIHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Why would you *want* to use VB? > > Why would someone *want* to fly an open-cockpit airplane? WWI fighter? :-) I'm quite serious about this question, when another language has *many* more advanced features that are fun to learn and use why would you want to use VB6. Especially considering Bob is an experienced VB6er and probably used it for 10+ years. Certainly no one I've met who's moved on would say they want to use VB6, they all go way out of their way to avoid using it. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote ... In it's own way, sure. ASM would probably be the Wright Brothers in North Carolina, >>> Why would you *want* to use VB? >> >> Why would someone *want* to fly an open-cockpit airplane? > > For the fun of it of course. But are you saying that VB6 is equivelant to a > WWI fighter? :-) QB/PDS could be a WWI-era biplane, and ClassicVB picking up perhaps closer to the WWII era. A very natural progression. Each vehicle providing it's own special thrills. I think it's the best analogy I've found, so far. > I'm quite serious about this question, when another At which point, we're flying overburdened jumbojets. Boooooring...> language has *many* more advanced features that are fun to learn and use why > would you want to use VB6. You could probably do something similar with vintage cars. Ever driven a '60s muscle car? > Especially considering Bob is an experienced I know plenty of self-satisfied snobs, too. <g>> VB6er and probably used it for 10+ years. Certainly no one I've met who's > moved on would say they want to use VB6, they all go way out of their way to > avoid using it. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message I'd give it more than WWII era myself.news:u0bsc69KIHA.4808@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > In it's own way, sure. ASM would probably be the Wright Brothers in North > Carolina, QB/PDS could be a WWI-era biplane, and ClassicVB picking up > perhaps closer to the WWII era. A very natural progression. Each vehicle > providing it's own special thrills. > I think it's the best analogy I've found, so far. I'm not sure I'd say the same really. I can see why you'd want to fly a WW2 machine but I really can't see why you'd want to use an older language. Would you use VB4 on a regular basis? From an article I read many years ago this is a classic way of misusing analogies. You've equated vb6 with a WW2 plane then concluded that vb6 is fun to use because a ww2 plane is. > At which point, we're flying overburdened jumbojets. Boooooring... Not really. Dot net (which I presume you're talking about) has plenty of performance where needed. Try modifying a bitmap pixel by pixel in vb6. In dot net you can even do pixel by pixel manipulation on a video stream and keep up with it. (Not sure how it would go with large videos to be honest). > You could probably do something similar with vintage cars. Ever driven a I own a stock standard 1964 holden which I'm modifying with a more modern > '60s muscle car? engine/gearbox/diff/brakes/steering etc. To be honest I can't say I'd want to drive it in its standard form *especially* if I was a driving for a living. > I know plenty of self-satisfied snobs, too. <g> It's quite a pain because one of my projects is stuck in vb6 but I can see their pov. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote ... I wouldn't, really. I do have VB1-VB6 all installed on this machine, but I only >> In it's own way, sure. ASM would probably be the Wright Brothers in North >> Carolina, QB/PDS could be a WWI-era biplane, and ClassicVB picking up >> perhaps closer to the WWII era. A very natural progression. Each vehicle >> providing it's own special thrills. > > I'd give it more than WWII era myself. > >> I think it's the best analogy I've found, so far. > > I'm not sure I'd say the same really. I can see why you'd want to fly a WW2 > machine but I really can't see why you'd want to use an older language. > Would you use VB4 on a regular basis? open any of them in the 1-4 range for reference and such. I'm not much interested in using the old DOS dialects, either, but I might be had I not figured out how to build really slick console apps with VB5/6. Some folks still really get into ASM, too. Who am I to say that's just silly? (I certainly don't think it is!) > From an article I read many years ago No, it's fun to use, because it's closer to the metal. In an old airplane, like an > this is a classic way of misusing analogies. You've equated vb6 with a WW2 > plane then concluded that vb6 is fun to use because a ww2 plane is. old car, you are more at one with your environment. Same thing with the older programming languages. >> At which point, we're flying overburdened jumbojets. Boooooring... Someone else brought up power and manual screwdrivers... Another good axiom - the > > Not really. Dot net (which I presume you're talking about) has plenty of > performance where needed. Try modifying a bitmap pixel by pixel in vb6. In > dot net you can even do pixel by pixel manipulation on a video stream and > keep up with it. (Not sure how it would go with large videos to be honest). right tool for the job. I don't have any opinion one way or another on these particular tasks, so best I can do is leave it at that. >> You could probably do something similar with vintage cars. Ever driven a Sometimes, it's about having fun. To each his own!>> '60s muscle car? > > I own a stock standard 1964 holden which I'm modifying with a more modern > engine/gearbox/diff/brakes/steering etc. To be honest I can't say I'd want > to drive it in its standard form *especially* if I was a driving for a > living. >> I know plenty of self-satisfied snobs, too. <g> Don't envy the snob... That's their goal, and all they really have to live for. > > It's quite a pain because one of my projects is stuck in vb6 but I can see > their pov. :-) ..NET: It's About Trust!-- http://vfred.mvps.org "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message I never said it was silly to use vb4, I just said I can't understand why news:OsMOfN%23KIHA.5860@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > I wouldn't, really. I do have VB1-VB6 all installed on this machine, but > I only open any of them in the 1-4 range for reference and such. I'm not > much interested in using the old DOS dialects, either, but I might be had > I not figured out how to build really slick console apps with VB5/6. Some > folks still really get into ASM, too. Who am I to say that's just silly? > (I certainly don't think it is!) someone would want to use it regularly. > No, it's fun to use, because it's closer to the metal. In an old From the programmers pov VB isn't much 'closer to the metal' at all.> airplane, like an old car, you are more at one with your environment. > Same thing with the older programming languages. > Someone else brought up power and manual screwdrivers... Another good Sure, but I certainly don't want to use a manual screwdriver.> axiom - the right tool for the job. I don't have any opinion one way or > another on these particular tasks, so best I can do is leave it at that. > Sometimes, it's about having fun. To each his own! Each to their own I guess but someone who's been using VB5/6 for 10+ years and doesn't try something new is missing out IMO. >> It's quite a pain because one of my projects is stuck in vb6 but I can Where did I say I envy them? :-)>> see >> their pov. > > Don't envy the snob... That's their goal, and all they really have to > live for. :-) Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote ... Okay, I'll recalibrate, and take you to be honestly professing ignorance in future >> I wouldn't, really. I do have VB1-VB6 all installed on this machine, but >> I only open any of them in the 1-4 range for reference and such. I'm not >> much interested in using the old DOS dialects, either, but I might be had >> I not figured out how to build really slick console apps with VB5/6. Some >> folks still really get into ASM, too. Who am I to say that's just silly? >> (I certainly don't think it is!) > > I never said it was silly to use vb4, I just said I can't understand why > someone would want to use it regularly. such pronouncements. >> No, it's fun to use, because it's closer to the metal. In an old Sure is. Exhibit A: RtlMoveMemory>> airplane, like an old car, you are more at one with your environment. >> Same thing with the older programming languages. > > From the programmers pov VB isn't much 'closer to the metal' at all. >> Someone else brought up power and manual screwdrivers... Another good Gonna have a difficult time fixing your eyeglasses, or really any other sort of >> axiom - the right tool for the job. I don't have any opinion one way or >> another on these particular tasks, so best I can do is leave it at that. > > Sure, but I certainly don't want to use a manual screwdriver. precision work, then. >>> It's quite a pain because one of my projects is stuck in vb6 but I can You didn't have to. ;-)>>> see their pov. >> >> Don't envy the snob... That's their goal, and all they really have to >> live for. :-) > > Where did I say I envy them? :-) "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Do you actually have a point?news:umoiDbUMIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> I never said it was silly to use vb4, I just said I can't understand why >> someone would want to use it regularly. > > Okay, I'll recalibrate, and take you to be honestly professing ignorance > in future such pronouncements. > Sure is. Exhibit A: RtlMoveMemory And that doesn't work in dot net?> Gonna have a difficult time fixing your eyeglasses, or really any other No I won't, I'll just use a standard screwdriver, I just won't enjoy it as > sort of precision work, then. much. >> Where did I say I envy them? :-) I don't have to say anything for you to start inventing stuff at random.> > You didn't have to. ;-) Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote ... Thanks, but you already made it.>>> I never said it was silly to use vb4, I just said I can't understand why >>> someone would want to use it regularly. >> >> Okay, I'll recalibrate, and take you to be honestly professing ignorance >> in future such pronouncements. > > Do you actually have a point? >> Sure is. Exhibit A: RtlMoveMemory Not with "variables" - not the same.> > And that doesn't work in dot net? >> Gonna have a difficult time fixing your eyeglasses, or really any other Been watching too many "Home Improvement" reruns, methinks...>> sort of precision work, then. > > No I won't, I'll just use a standard screwdriver, I just won't enjoy it as > much. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Lucky I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to make a point.news:uwLLUEVMIHA.5172@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Do you actually have a point? > > Thanks, but you already made it. >> And that doesn't work in dot net? Minor differences.> > Not with "variables" - not the same. > Been watching too many "Home Improvement" reruns, methinks... I've pretty much never watched those shows. I'm lucky to watch tele one every 3 weeks. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote ... Perhaps.>>> Do you actually have a point? >> >> Thanks, but you already made it. > > Lucky I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to make a point. >>> And that doesn't work in dot net? That's all it takes.>> >> Not with "variables" - not the same. > > Minor differences. >> Been watching too many "Home Improvement" reruns, methinks... Me either. But usually "lucky" isn't the word I'd use for the end-result.> > I've pretty much never watched those shows. I'm lucky to watch tele one > every 3 weeks. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message There are differences however my point was that from the pov of the news:%23nVcfcVMIHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Minor differences. > > That's all it takes. programmer using either language one is not closer to the metal than the other. Both are quite similar to use and interop is quite similar. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message If that were true, there'd be no talk of "sandboxes"...> news:%23nVcfcVMIHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> Minor differences. >> >> That's all it takes. > > There are differences however my point was that from the pov of the > programmer using either language one is not closer to the metal than the > other. Both are quite similar to use and interop is quite similar. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Sandboxing is all done behind the scenes. I think the idea that VB is news:Owy4lrVMIHA.820@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> There are differences however my point was that from the pov of the >> programmer using either language one is not closer to the metal than the >> other. Both are quite similar to use and interop is quite similar. > > If that were true, there'd be no talk of "sandboxes"... "closer to the metal" just comes from lack of familiarity with dotnet. Certainly when you know how everything works under the hood with vb6 and not dotnet then you'll feel this way. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Uh huhhh...> news:Owy4lrVMIHA.820@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> There are differences however my point was that from the pov of the >>> programmer using either language one is not closer to the metal than the >>> other. Both are quite similar to use and interop is quite similar. >> >> If that were true, there'd be no talk of "sandboxes"... > > Sandboxing is all done behind the scenes. I think the idea that VB is > "closer to the metal" just comes from lack of familiarity with dotnet. > Certainly when you know how everything works under the hood with vb6 and not > dotnet then you'll feel this way. | I own a stock standard 1964 holden which I'm modifying with a more modern I wasn't going to chime in...but since you had to drag cars into it... <g>| engine/gearbox/diff/brakes/steering etc. To be honest I can't say I'd want | to drive it in its standard form *especially* if I was a driving for a | living. As your probably aware, I own a 1981 DeLorean, the 725 car off the line. I've done dozens of car shows and seen what other do with their dream cars. Some folks absoutely refuse to muscle out their classic with newer parts and performance items as it takes away from the car's charisma. On the other hand, some folks absolutely insisted on tricking out what would otherwise be a beautiful classic into some unrecognizable POS that one would only find in the inner city. Same could be said for our programming languages of choice. I would never in a million year, or for a million bucks yank out my DeLo's PRV engine so I could stuff some souped up oversized engine in it's place. It wouldn't be the same car anymore. Hell, the car still has it's original Craig tape deck even though it would sound a lot better if I replaced it with a top of the line CD player. To do so would take away from the magic that is the car as it is now. When curious folks who go to the car shows (or wherever I drive the thing) stop to see it, they expect to see the DeLorean as it was meant to be, in it's original form without all the modern trickery. I keep her preserved so that anyone would wanted to sit in it, or go for a ride would get the 1981 experience. Now, some DeLorean owners have had their cars painted (which is utter blashemphy to disrespect the stainless) or souped up with Turbo engines...and I find it offensive. It's not a true DeLorean anymore because painted versions of he car was not John Z.'s vision. Conversely, vFred I'm sure was not what the original VB dev team envisioned and those who were involved with it way back when would be turning over in their graves if they were dead. It's another case of live and let live. If someone wants to take a beautiful piece of work and soup it up to be something it was never meant to be, then more power to them...but when I see such a thing, I weep on the inside, because it's just unnatural, which is my opinion. You could say the same thing of VB6 and us die hard users of it. I'll never need to modify a bipmap pixel by pixel, so that example is moot to me. Somewhere a group of people thougth that using System.Interopibility. IO.Desktop.Icon.Pixel was easier than a few solid lines of VB6 code and maybe some API...but I am willing to bet it's the the group of visionaries who designed VB6 for the beautiful thing it is. Having to use vFred in the self contained bubble that is the .NET framework in not my idea of innovation. It's suffocation, because MS wants me to do it their .NET way instead of my way via the Win32 API. Bells and whistles does not necessarily better. So, there it is. :-)
Show quote
Hide quote
"Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message Interesting to see your biases there (describing the modified car as POS). I news:OA6flg%23KIHA.6108@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > As your probably aware, I own a 1981 DeLorean, the 725 car off the line. > I've done dozens of car shows and seen what other do with their dream > cars. > Some folks absoutely refuse to muscle out their classic with newer parts > and > performance items as it takes away from the car's charisma. On the other > hand, some folks absolutely insisted on tricking out what would otherwise > be > a beautiful classic into some unrecognizable POS that one would only find > in > the inner city. Same could be said for our programming languages of > choice. quite like original *and* modified cars and see each for what they are. The original is awesome because it's like looking back in time, where the modified can be a piece of artwork with much greater imagination and engineering skill. Granted the modified cars are quite often over the top and the owner generally fail to understand subtlety but you can get some very nice modified cars. Imagine how boring the world would be if everyone did up original cars? Show quoteHide quote > I would never in a million year, or for a million bucks yank out my DeLo's Well, it's still partially a Delorean, just with a turbo or paint job or > PRV engine so I could stuff some souped up oversized engine in it's place. > It wouldn't be the same car anymore. Hell, the car still has it's > original > Craig tape deck even though it would sound a lot better if I replaced it > with a top of the line CD player. To do so would take away from the magic > that is the car as it is now. When curious folks who go to the car shows > (or wherever I drive the thing) stop to see it, they expect to see the > DeLorean as it was meant to be, in it's original form without all the > modern > trickery. I keep her preserved so that anyone would wanted to sit in it, > or > go for a ride would get the 1981 experience. Now, some DeLorean owners > have > had their cars painted (which is utter blashemphy to disrespect the > stainless) or souped up with Turbo engines...and I find it offensive. > It's > not a true DeLorean anymore because painted versions of he car was not > John > Z.'s vision. whatever. > Conversely, vFred I'm sure was not what the original VB dev I doubt that. I'm sure they'd be *very* impressed with where it has gone. > team envisioned and those who were involved with it way back when would be > turning over in their graves if they were dead. Imagine your project turning into a multi-billion dollar concern! I bet you'd be as proud as punch. I think your analogy is all wrong anyway. It's not like a modified 80s car, it's like the actual car company making a new model. That is normal industry practice and I'm sure you're not suggesting that all manufacturers stop making new models. With VB5 and 6 they just bolted on a new grill and hubcabs but with dotnet they made much larger changes. > It's another case of live and let live. If someone wants to take a The thing with dot net is that it is what VB failed to be. VB should have > beautiful piece of work and soup it up to be something it was never meant > to > be, then more power to them...but when I see such a thing, I weep on the > inside, because it's just unnatural, which is my opinion. been a language without restrictions with features that most modern languages have. VB was designed for beginners originally and fell short of what it should or could have been. Finally with dot net we're allowed to have all the cool features like inheritance. > You could say the That's just one example though. VB is quite limited in many ways and many of > same thing of VB6 and us die hard users of it. I'll never need to modify > a > bipmap pixel by pixel, so that example is moot to me. those limitation have been removed. If you think none of them apply to you you're probably just restricting what you do to what vb can do. > Somewhere a group of That really doesn't make any sense. You do use a form right? Why don't you > people thougth that using System.Interopibility. IO.Desktop.Icon.Pixel was > easier than a few solid lines of VB6 code and maybe some API...but I am > willing to bet it's the the group of visionaries who designed VB6 for the > beautiful thing it is. Having to use vFred in the self contained bubble > that is the .NET framework in not my idea of innovation. It's > suffocation, > because MS wants me to do it their .NET way instead of my way via the > Win32 > API. Bells and whistles does not necessarily better. use CreateWindow instead? If the APIs are wrapped properly then it's much better to use that than using them directly. Your whole arguement there is moot anyway because dot net has *significantly* better API support and opens up a massive amount of APIs that are not callable from VB6. Large parts of the OS uses com interfaces that VB cannot implement. Michael "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message As Johnny used to say, "I did not know that."news:OA6flg%23KIHA.6108@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > As your probably aware, I own a 1981 DeLorean, the 725 car off the line. Show quoteHide quote > I do think that of all programming tools/IDEs/systems ever devised, VB5/6 (VB > It's another case of live and let live. If someone wants to take a > beautiful piece of work and soup it up to be something it was never meant to > be, then more power to them...but when I see such a thing, I weep on the > inside, because it's just unnatural, which is my opinion. You could say the > same thing of VB6 and us die hard users of it. I'll never need to modify a > bipmap pixel by pixel, so that example is moot to me. Somewhere a group of > people thougth that using System.Interopibility. IO.Desktop.Icon.Pixel was > easier than a few solid lines of VB6 code and maybe some API...but I am > willing to bet it's the the group of visionaries who designed VB6 for the > beautiful thing it is. Having to use vFred in the self contained bubble > that is the .NET framework in not my idea of innovation. It's suffocation, > because MS wants me to do it their .NET way instead of my way via the Win32 > API. Bells and whistles does not necessarily better. > with full COM capabilities) was the most brilliant in concept and execution. It's combination of power and ease of use is unmatched. Nothing in .Net is nearly so clean and elegant, no matter how many whiz-ards they throw at it. There are new things you can do in .Net, and it opens up areas that VB6 doesn't touch, but it will never be as sweet. ..Net is like a 2007 Mustang, with remote key entry and Bluetooth and GPS navigation - a slick modern car, but nothing like a 64 Mustang. "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message I disagree quite strongly with that. VB was not implemented well at all and news:176dnf8xvdcgNt7anZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com... > I do think that of all programming tools/IDEs/systems ever devised, VB5/6 > (VB with full COM capabilities) was the most brilliant in concept and > execution. was really never a fully professional tool. It was aimed at newbie programmers and suffered quite badly because of that. It's pretty much unusable for large projects due to IDE speed issues and is simply not designed towards large projects. It loads all code into memory which is a fundamental problem. > It's combination of power and ease of use is unmatched. Nothing in .Net is That is just complete rubbish. Pretty much everything in dot net is better > nearly so clean and elegant, implemented, cleaner, more elegant, more reusable and more consistant. Extra code is required in some cases because it has more features. Michael "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message That is just complete rubbish.news:OiVb%23Q$KIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > That is just complete rubbish. Pretty much everything in dot net is better > implemented, cleaner, more elegant, more reusable and more consistant. Extra > code is required in some cases because it has more features. > "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message Good reply Steve. Pretty much everything in dot net is *far far* better news:grudnVQ__8c1LN7anZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com... >> That is just complete rubbish. Pretty much everything in dot net is >> better implemented, cleaner, more elegant, more reusable and more >> consistant. Extra code is required in some cases because it has more >> features. > > That is just complete rubbish. implemented than in vb6. It's more consistant (eg VB has base 0 and base 1 at random!!!), it's more extensible (eg, you can gain access to additional image compressors if they are installed), more object orientated, more flexible etc etc. Show quoteHide quote > > "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message Know where I got it?news:OOQKPf$KIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:grudnVQ__8c1LN7anZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> That is just complete rubbish. Pretty much everything in dot net is better >>> implemented, cleaner, more elegant, more reusable and more consistant. Extra >>> code is required in some cases because it has more features. >> >> That is just complete rubbish. > > Good reply Steve. >Pretty much everything in dot net is *far far* better implemented than in vb6. Orientated is not a word.>It's more consistant (eg VB has base 0 and base 1 at random!!!), it's more >extensible (eg, you can gain access to additional image compressors if they are >installed), more object orientated, more flexible etc etc. >> If you haven't worked out how to establish the lower bound of a VB6 array, what can I say? "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message It wasn't that you said it was complete rubbish that I was commenting on. It news:ccydnR4HarfGKt7anZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> Good reply Steve. > > Know where I got it? was that you didn't back it up in *any way at all*, hence making it a completely useless reply. > Orientated is not a word. hehe, I lurv it when people start up about my grammer. It's usually done in the absence of a real response. :-) But according the the oxford dictionary it is a word http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/oriented?view=uk > If you haven't worked out how to establish the lower bound of a VB6 array, I wouldn't actually say the array is what is inconsistant, it's all the > what can I say? things that are 1 based. Show quoteHide quote > > "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message Ah, I see, your use of the identical phrase was substantiated. How could I have news:%23jBa7p$KIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:ccydnR4HarfGKt7anZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> Good reply Steve. >> >> Know where I got it? > > It wasn't that you said it was complete rubbish that I was commenting on. It > was that you didn't back it up in *any way at all*, hence making it a > completely useless reply. > missed that. "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message Again, good reply. What can I say, some things are open to debate but to say news:noSdnf9BSetvI97anZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@comcast.com... >> It wasn't that you said it was complete rubbish that I was commenting on. >> It was that you didn't back it up in *any way at all*, hence making it a >> completely useless reply. >> > > Ah, I see, your use of the identical phrase was substantiated. How could I > have missed that. that vb6 "was the most brilliant in concept and execution" is simply off the planet. Michael "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message Useful comment.news:eR%239O6$KIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > Again, good reply. > to say that vb6 "was the most brilliant in concept and execution" is simply Not at all.> off the planet. > "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message Are you going to make an actual point at any time in the future?news:os6dnRWG9s5TfN7anZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast.com... > Useful comment. > >> to say that vb6 "was the most brilliant in concept and execution" is >> simply off the planet. >> > > Not at all. Show quoteHide quote > >
Show quote
Hide quote
"Michael C" <nospam@nospams.com> wrote in message I made my VB point about 9 posts back, and the point that saying "that is just news:OZ8iyTDLIHA.5580@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:os6dnRWG9s5TfN7anZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast.com... >> Useful comment. >> >>> to say that vb6 "was the most brilliant in concept and execution" is simply >>> off the planet. >>> >> >> Not at all. > > Are you going to make an actual point at any time in the future? >> complete rubbish" is meaningless and rude about 7 posts back. Shall I post them again for you? "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message If that offends you then you should stop posting complete rubbish. To say news:Sr-dndYcKfACPtnanZ2dnUVZ_tKinZ2d@comcast.com... > I made my VB point about 9 posts back, and the point that saying "that is > just complete rubbish" is meaningless and rude about 7 posts back. Shall I > post them again for you? things are better implemented in VB6 than any other language in existance is complete and utter rubbish. Show quoteHide quote > > > "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message You should stop presuming to tell other people what they should do. And you news:OIhqt0JLIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > If that offends you then you should stop posting complete rubbish. To say > things are better implemented in VB6 than any other language in existance is > complete and utter rubbish. >> should not be so rude. "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message Didn't you just tell me not to tell others what they should do and in the news:fLidnUaMJrQSR9nanZ2dnUVZ_uevnZ2d@comcast.com... >> If that offends you then you should stop posting complete rubbish. To say >> things are better implemented in VB6 than any other language in existance >> is complete and utter rubbish. >>> > > You should stop presuming to tell other people what they should do. And > you should not be so rude. very next sentence tell me what I should do? If you post outrageous statements you shouldn't get suprised if they are called complete rubbish. Michael > I disagree quite strongly with that. VB was not implemented well at all Uhh, no it wasn't aimed at "newbies" or beginners. It was designed as a RADand > was really never a fully professional tool. It was aimed at newbie > programmers and suffered quite badly because of that. Winders progression from QB. MS knew that for MS OS based PCs to be viable in the business modal, it needed a programming language to provide the flexibility that out-of-box software couldn't... hence QB in the days of DOS. With the advent of Winders, they needed a RAD language for Winders programming or businesses that needed in-house programming solutions wouldn't update from DOS to Winders... hence VB (a natural Winders progression from QB). Just because VB is/was a language taught in schools and such doesn't mean its target was "newbies" or beginners or "not serious programmers", and thinking it was because of this reasoning is either a bit snobbish or a bit ignorant to what VB is/was intended for... a professional tool for in-house business programming solutions.
Show quote
Hide quote
"BeastFish" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:fi0n07$ht6$1@aioe.org... Whatever the case they certainly designed it for less experienced > Uhh, no it wasn't aimed at "newbies" or beginners. It was designed as a > RAD > Winders progression from QB. MS knew that for MS OS based PCs to be > viable > in the business modal, it needed a programming language to provide the > flexibility that out-of-box software couldn't... hence QB in the days of > DOS. With the advent of Winders, they needed a RAD language for Winders > programming or businesses that needed in-house programming solutions > wouldn't update from DOS to Winders... hence VB (a natural Winders > progression from QB). > > Just because VB is/was a language taught in schools and such doesn't mean > its target was "newbies" or beginners or "not serious programmers", and > thinking it was because of this reasoning is either a bit snobbish or a > bit > ignorant to what VB is/was intended for... a professional tool for > in-house > business programming solutions. programmers. It's fairly obvious from the "newbie" features they put in and the professional features they left out. Show quoteHide quote > > Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "BeastFish" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:fi0n07$ht6$1@aioe.org... "Less experienced than what?" For a BASIC language moved from a DOS >> Uhh, no it wasn't aimed at "newbies" or beginners. It was designed as a >> RAD >> Winders progression from QB. MS knew that for MS OS based PCs to be >> viable >> in the business modal, it needed a programming language to provide the >> flexibility that out-of-box software couldn't... hence QB in the days of >> DOS. With the advent of Winders, they needed a RAD language for Winders >> programming or businesses that needed in-house programming solutions >> wouldn't update from DOS to Winders... hence VB (a natural Winders >> progression from QB). >> >> Just because VB is/was a language taught in schools and such doesn't mean >> its target was "newbies" or beginners or "not serious programmers", and >> thinking it was because of this reasoning is either a bit snobbish or a >> bit >> ignorant to what VB is/was intended for... a professional tool for >> in-house >> business programming solutions. > > Whatever the case they certainly designed it for less experienced > programmers. It's fairly obvious from the "newbie" features they put in and > the professional features they left out. environment to a new GUI environment, it pretty much had the language syntax and elements defined and added an abstracted UI designer and implementation that was simply far quicker than any other toolset I'm aware of that was available at the time. Pretty doggone good job, I'd say. I seems most of your criticism is from a "come-lately" viewpoint outside of any context. "Features" such as??? -- >> Just because VB is/was a language taught in schools and such doesn't Well, if you recall, BASIC has meant 'Beginners All-purpose Symbolic >> mean its target was "newbies" or beginners or "not serious >> programmers", and thinking it was because of this reasoning is either >> a bit snobbish or a bit >> ignorant to what VB is/was intended for... a professional tool for >> in-house >> business programming solutions. > > Whatever the case they certainly designed it for less experienced > programmers. It's fairly obvious from the "newbie" features they put > in and the professional features they left out. Instruction Code' since the term was coined......so maybe it is for beginners. But, for beginners means easy to learn syntax, not necessarily a sub-par tool. I still wonder what the definition and a couple examples of what 'professional features' would refer to. Bits are bits, and you can turn the same ones on and off in any language. I still have yet to find any programming task I was unable to accomplish using VB (other than the well-known global non-mouse or non-keyboard hook). Other than that though, bring it on. "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message There's always a trade off. Aiming a tool at beginners will make it lessnews:Xns99EFB54159683thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142... > But, for beginners means easy to learn syntax, not necessarily a sub-par > tool. desirable for professionals. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just where VB is aimed. Quite often though I think the authors of visual basic think they are making something easier but end up making it harder. > I still wonder what the definition and a couple examples of what The best example I can think of is the lack of strictness with data types.> 'professional features' would refer to. MS thought it would be easier to use a language where you could assign a string to an int. This will make it easier for beginners but professionals will prefer to have to explicitly cast so they make less errors. This is done very well in dot net and is a big improvement. There are many more examples I can think of. If you create an object heirachy you can make it much easier to use by dropping out features. THis is great for beginners but the professional willhave to resort to apis to get the features they need. > Bits are bits, and you can turn the same ones on and off in any language. I've come up against quite a few. I've mentioned this before in this threadI > still have yet to find any programming task I was unable to accomplish > using VB (other than the well-known global non-mouse or non-keyboard hook). but you can't get access to the vast array of com interfaces that are exposed by the OS. Examples of this are DirectX, Windows Image Aquisition (replacement for twain) and IMAPI (CD burning). If you want to use the windows XP zipped folders feature I'd imagine you'd also need to use these com interfaces. These simply cannot be used in VB because VB only supports a certain type of interface. You might be able to access them using a type lib or by purchasing a third party tool but both of those solutions are using another langauge to access the functionality. The other thing that I find a real impediment in VB is the amount of time and memory it take to create an instance of a class. In dot net you can create 1 million or 10 million instances of your class in a very short space of time and there is no delay destroying them as the garbage collector does that in the background. With VB6 it's slow to create 10,000 instances of an object. That might sound like a lot but a 100x100 grid has 10,000 cells. Show quoteHide quote > Other than that though, bring it on. > "Michael Culley" <mcul***@optushome.com.au> wrote in But it wasn't designed specifically for beginners. It was designed as a news:ucUyNWPLIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: > "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message > news:Xns99EFB54159683thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142... >> But, for beginners means easy to learn syntax, not necessarily a >> sub-par tool. > > There's always a trade off. Aiming a tool at beginners will make it > less desirable for professionals. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, > it's just where VB is aimed. Quite often though I think the authors of > visual basic think they are making something easier but end up making > it harder. RAD tool. > Hmmmm. When I Dim x as long and try to assign it "String", it throws a >> I still wonder what the definition and a couple examples of what >> 'professional features' would refer to. > > The best example I can think of is the lack of strictness with data > types. MS thought it would be easier to use a language where you > could assign a string to an int. This will make it easier for > beginners but professionals will prefer to have to explicitly cast so > they make less errors. This is done very well in dot net and is a big > improvement. type-mismatch error. Two words......Option Explicit. Show quoteHide quote > There are many more examples I can think of. If you Might be able to access them ? ...you CAN access all of those with > create an object heirachy you can make it much easier to use by > dropping out features. THis is great for beginners but the > professional willhave to resort to apis to get the features they need. > >> Bits are bits, and you can turn the same ones on and off in any >> language. > I >> still have yet to find any programming task I was unable to >> accomplish using VB (other than the well-known global non-mouse or >> non-keyboard > hook). > > I've come up against quite a few. I've mentioned this before in this > thread but you can't get access to the vast array of com interfaces > that are exposed by the OS. Examples of this are DirectX, Windows > Image Aquisition (replacement for twain) and IMAPI (CD burning). If > you want to use the windows XP zipped folders feature I'd imagine > you'd also need to use these com interfaces. These simply cannot be > used in VB because VB only supports a certain type of interface. You > might be able to access them using a type lib TypeLibs that are readily available in a 1000 places on the web. (And who in their right mind would ever want to use the extremely lame implementation of Zip Folders anyway. I know, it was just an example.) > or by purchasing a third Each one created as an individual instance of a class ?....(Maybe just > party tool but both of those solutions are using another langauge to > access the functionality. > > The other thing that I find a real impediment in VB is the amount of > time and memory it take to create an instance of a class. In dot net > you can create 1 million or 10 million instances of your class in a > very short space of time and there is no delay destroying them as the > garbage collector does that in the background. With VB6 it's slow to > create 10,000 instances of an object. That might sound like a lot but > a 100x100 grid has 10,000 cells. another bad example.) And some would say you couldn't use VB to write a full Windows shell replacement either, but ......... DanS wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Michael Culley" <mcul***@optushome.com.au> wrote in OTOH, of course, VB _will_ happily accept> news:ucUyNWPLIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: > >> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message >> news:Xns99EFB54159683thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142... >>> But, for beginners means easy to learn syntax, not necessarily a >>> sub-par tool. >> There's always a trade off. Aiming a tool at beginners will make it >> less desirable for professionals. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, >> it's just where VB is aimed. Quite often though I think the authors of >> visual basic think they are making something easier but end up making >> it harder. > > But it wasn't designed specifically for beginners. It was designed as a > RAD tool. > >>> I still wonder what the definition and a couple examples of what >>> 'professional features' would refer to. >> The best example I can think of is the lack of strictness with data >> types. MS thought it would be easier to use a language where you >> could assign a string to an int. This will make it easier for >> beginners but professionals will prefer to have to explicitly cast so >> they make less errors. This is done very well in dot net and is a big >> improvement. > > Hmmmm. When I Dim x as long and try to assign it "String", it throws a > type-mismatch error. > > Two words......Option Explicit. > .... Option Explicit Dim myInt As Integer myInt = "3.25E2" since the string can be deciphered as a valid numeric value. Whether this is "good" or not is in the eye of the beholder, but it is documented behavior so it should be no surprise. It is, of course, of some use for simple input text for numeric values. --
Show quote
Hide quote
dpb <n***@non.net> wrote in news:fi481c$e5m$1@aioe.org: This is true. But there appears to be no other way to use a _constant_ >> Two words......Option Explicit. >> > ... > > OTOH, of course, VB _will_ happily accept > > Option Explicit > Dim myInt As Integer > > myInt = "3.25E2" > > since the string can be deciphered as a valid numeric value. written in sci. not. since when you remove the quotes from it, the IDE replaces the number with 325#. (Constant not as in a CONST, but as a hard-coded number, not a return value of a function.) > Whether this is "good" or not is in the eye of the beholder, but it is I agree, no suprise.> documented behavior so it should be no surprise. DanS wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > dpb <n***@non.net> wrote in news:fi481c$e5m$1@aioe.org: Yes, as long as it is within roughly 10E+/-15 or (I don't know ottomh > >>> Two words......Option Explicit. >>> >> ... >> >> OTOH, of course, VB _will_ happily accept >> >> Option Explicit >> Dim myInt As Integer >> >> myInt = "3.25E2" >> >> since the string can be deciphered as a valid numeric value. > > This is true. But there appears to be no other way to use a _constant_ > written in sci. not. since when you remove the quotes from it, the IDE > replaces the number with 325#. > > (Constant not as in a CONST, but as a hard-coded number, not a return value > of a function.) and didn't test, but 3.25E-15, for example, won't be converted automagically until run time. Then, in this case it will underflow silently to zero, but that's nothing to be surprised about either, of course. I was only commenting on the silent cast/conversion, of course. I also really dislike some of the smart-editing features of the IDE; that is one of them. OTOH, there are some that are quite handy... :) -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi481c$e5m$1@aioe.org... I think it's fairly well established that it is not a good thing. The more > OTOH, of course, VB _will_ happily accept > > Option Explicit > Dim myInt As Integer > > myInt = "3.25E2" > > since the string can be deciphered as a valid numeric value. > > Whether this is "good" or not is in the eye of the beholder the compiler picks up the better. As another example, this is picked up by the compiler in dot net but not by VB: dim x as new class1 dim y as class2 set y = x This will also fail, can you guess why? Function AvoidNegative(ByVal V as Integer) As Integer if V >= 0 then return V End Function Michael C wrote:
> "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi481c$e5m$1@aioe.org... I think that's debatable (as the audience here would seem to attest)... :)>> OTOH, of course, VB _will_ happily accept >> >> Option Explicit >> Dim myInt As Integer >> >> myInt = "3.25E2" >> >> since the string can be deciphered as a valid numeric value. >> >> Whether this is "good" or not is in the eye of the beholder > > I think it's fairly well established that it is not a good thing. It's a design choice thing imo. I don't see it necessarily as "better" or "worse", just "different". There are more strongly-typed languages and less that are successful. Your background, at least from the postings here, seems extremely limited afaict. -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi4s1h$jn7$1@aioe.org... I think it used to be debatable but the industry has gone away from it. > I think that's debatable (as the audience here would seem to attest)... :) Certainly having the compiler pick things up for you at compile time is just better than you having to find such issues yourself. > It's a design choice thing imo. I don't see it necessarily as "better" or In one case the machine picks up errors for you instantly, in the other you > "worse", just "different". There are more strongly-typed languages and > less that are successful. might have to spend hours finding them (or end up getting them on the end users machine). The downside is that you often need to do a bit extra typing but I don't think that is much of an issue. > Your background, at least from the postings here, seems extremely limited Well it would if you're in a group that discusses one topic. :-) To be > afaict. honest my experience is more limited than I would like but I have been programming for 25+ years and have worked with a range of languages from assembler to C++ to VB to web. These are not things I did for a day, I have spend many months on assembler for hardware I designed myself and done quite a few projects in C++. Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi4s1h$jn7$1@aioe.org... Your comments don't seem to reflect a wide-ranging experience, however >> I think that's debatable (as the audience here would seem to attest)... :) > > I think it used to be debatable but the industry has gone away from it. > Certainly having the compiler pick things up for you at compile time is just > better than you having to find such issues yourself. > >> It's a design choice thing imo. I don't see it necessarily as "better" or >> "worse", just "different". There are more strongly-typed languages and >> less that are successful. > > In one case the machine picks up errors for you instantly, in the other you > might have to spend hours finding them (or end up getting them on the end > users machine). The downside is that you often need to do a bit extra typing > but I don't think that is much of an issue. > >> Your background, at least from the postings here, seems extremely limited >> afaict. > > Well it would if you're in a group that discusses one topic. :-) To be > honest my experience is more limited than I would like but I have been > programming for 25+ years and have worked with a range of languages from > assembler to C++ to VB to web. These are not things I did for a day, I have > spend many months on assembler for hardware I designed myself and done quite > a few projects in C++. much you may have. -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi587m$of6$1@aioe.org... Whatever. I presume you agree with everything else I said then.> Your comments don't seem to reflect a wide-ranging experience, however > much you may have. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi587m$of6$1@aioe.org... No, I pretty much disagree w/ everything you have said, but it's futile >> Your comments don't seem to reflect a wide-ranging experience, however >> much you may have. > > Whatever. I presume you agree with everything else I said then. to argue... -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi5dmg$887$1@aioe.org... When you're wrong it usually is.> No, I pretty much disagree w/ everything you have said, but it's futile to > argue... Michael Michael C wrote:
> "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi5dmg$887$1@aioe.org... At least you realize you are, then...>> No, I pretty much disagree w/ everything you have said, but it's futile to >> argue... > > When you're wrong it usually is. -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi5pvi$8cb$1@aioe.org... I'm not going to throw insults back but add another point. In VB you can >> When you're wrong it usually is. > > At least you realize you are, then... write code like this Dim X as Recordset Set X = Form1'assuming Form1 is actually a form or dim y as long y = "A" or Function GetSomething() As Long for i = 1 to whatever 'forget to return value we are after if Something(i) = 10 then exit function next end function or many other examples. All of these will fail at runtime and not warn the programmer until then. There is absolutely zero advantage to being able to do this because it will never work. It is *much* better for the compiler to give an error. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi5pvi$8cb$1@aioe.org... And I shouldn't have, either; normally I don't.>>> When you're wrong it usually is. >> At least you realize you are, then... > > I'm not going to throw insults back but ... The point of the previous was, however, that having a discussion w/ you is like debating strongly held religious views -- hence, futile. It's that dogmatic presentation that brooks no concept (apparently) of context, history, etc., that leads to the perception I outlined previously. The harping on one advantage as the end-all, be-all is simply non-productive and, unfortunately, I fell into the troll-trap this time. -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi6qji$g8n$1@aioe.org... You could be right. But this group does hold a lot of odd views though that > And I shouldn't have, either; normally I don't. > > The point of the previous was, however, that having a discussion w/ you is > like debating strongly held religious views -- hence, futile. It's that > dogmatic presentation that brooks no concept (apparently) of context, > history, etc., that leads to the perception I outlined previously. are pretty far out. VB has now been replaced for 6 years and has its roots in 20+ year old technology. To defend it in a lot of cases requires a lot of justification that is very much like religious view (ie find a conclusion, search for evidence to support it, ignore evidence that conflicts). > The harping on one advantage as the end-all, be-all is simply It might seem like a minor advantage to start with but after working with it > non-productive and, unfortunately, I fell into the troll-trap this time. for a while you'd see what a massive gain it really is. If you worked with a stricter language for a while you'd see there really is no question that stricter is better. Michael | You could be right. But this group does hold a lot of odd views though So by that logic, you would throw out something old and outdated like the that | are pretty far out. VB has now been replaced for 6 years and has its roots | in 20+ year old technology. To defend it in a lot of cases requires a lot of | justification that is very much like religious view (ie find a conclusion, | search for evidence to support it, ignore evidence that conflicts). Constitution just because of it's age because someone came up with something better, like martial law? Sorry, but age is irrelevant. "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message As I said, VB supporting VB requires some pretty far out thinking. To news:eSRF32iLIHA.5988@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > So by that logic, you would throw out something old and outdated like the > Constitution just because of it's age because someone came up with > something > better, like martial law? > > Sorry, but age is irrelevant. compare dot net with marshall law and even to compare computer with politics is pretty thin. Show quoteHide quote > > Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi6qji$g8n$1@aioe.org... "This group" holds no view -- there is no group, only a collection of >> And I shouldn't have, either; normally I don't. >> >> The point of the previous was, however, that having a discussion w/ you is >> like debating strongly held religious views -- hence, futile. It's that >> dogmatic presentation that brooks no concept (apparently) of context, >> history, etc., that leads to the perception I outlined previously. > > You could be right. But this group does hold a lot of odd views though that > are pretty far out. VB has now been replaced for 6 years and has its roots > in 20+ year old technology. To defend it in a lot of cases requires a lot of > justification that is very much like religious view (ie find a conclusion, > search for evidence to support it, ignore evidence that conflicts). > >> The harping on one advantage as the end-all, be-all is simply >> non-productive and, unfortunately, I fell into the troll-trap this time. > > It might seem like a minor advantage to start with but after working with it > for a while you'd see what a massive gain it really is. If you worked with a > stricter language for a while you'd see there really is no question that > stricter is better. individuals who have their own views. The key thing with many of those here is that they have longterm investment and their means of livelihood intimately bound up in VB and that investment was seriously jeopardized by the route MS chose. The adamant belief that these people are some wrong for continuing in what they see as their best interest is simply naive at best and infuriatingly condescending and uninformed at worst. I happen to basically be an observer who's used VB as an engineer for various purposes since moving a realtime instrument product of a former employee from old HP-BASIC on HP-85 hardware to the PC first w/ PB7, then when the first hardware was made that was Windows compatible to VB. Having now been retired for several years, I continue to monitor the group more for the questions that occasionally arise outside the core of VB itself as anything, but having such a long history w/ BASIC, I feel a significant kindred w/ the other long-timers here. Also, being as that I go back to even before BASIC was initially invented and am, fundamentally, a Fortran guy, I can relate to the progression of Fortran by way of a Standards process from its initial incarnation by IBM through FORTRAN I, -II, _IV, various other vendors' versions such as CDC and Digital to the first Standard (F66), then F77, then F90/95 and now '03. Through this progression of a 50+ -old "technology", there was great emphasis placed on making new features consonant w/ previous, deprecating and deleting only a very few specific items. Consequently, it is not at all unusual for 30+ yr-old tested numeric codes to be able to be compiled w/ modern Fortran compilers almost unchanged as long as there was a modicum of attention paid to modularizing system-specific code and reasonable restraint in using every vendor-specific extension was used. It is the absolute ignoring of the reality of such issues that is most offputting to myself and I'd venture has much to do w/ the others' reactions. -- On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:39:33 -0600, dpb <n***@non.net> wrote:
in <fi7vje$bf***@aioe.org> Show quoteHide quote >Michael C wrote: AMEN.>> "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi6qji$g8n$1@aioe.org... >>> And I shouldn't have, either; normally I don't. >>> >>> The point of the previous was, however, that having a discussion w/ you is >>> like debating strongly held religious views -- hence, futile. It's that >>> dogmatic presentation that brooks no concept (apparently) of context, >>> history, etc., that leads to the perception I outlined previously. >> >> You could be right. But this group does hold a lot of odd views though that >> are pretty far out. VB has now been replaced for 6 years and has its roots >> in 20+ year old technology. To defend it in a lot of cases requires a lot of >> justification that is very much like religious view (ie find a conclusion, >> search for evidence to support it, ignore evidence that conflicts). >> >>> The harping on one advantage as the end-all, be-all is simply >>> non-productive and, unfortunately, I fell into the troll-trap this time. >> >> It might seem like a minor advantage to start with but after working with it >> for a while you'd see what a massive gain it really is. If you worked with a >> stricter language for a while you'd see there really is no question that >> stricter is better. > >"This group" holds no view -- there is no group, only a collection of >individuals who have their own views. The key thing with many of those >here is that they have longterm investment and their means of livelihood >intimately bound up in VB and that investment was seriously jeopardized >by the route MS chose. The adamant belief that these people are some >wrong for continuing in what they see as their best interest is simply >naive at best and infuriatingly condescending and uninformed at worst. > >I happen to basically be an observer who's used VB as an engineer for >various purposes since moving a realtime instrument product of a former >employee from old HP-BASIC on HP-85 hardware to the PC first w/ PB7, >then when the first hardware was made that was Windows compatible to VB. > Having now been retired for several years, I continue to monitor >the group more for the questions that occasionally arise outside the >core of VB itself as anything, but having such a long history w/ BASIC, >I feel a significant kindred w/ the other long-timers here. > >Also, being as that I go back to even before BASIC was initially >invented and am, fundamentally, a Fortran guy, I can relate to the >progression of Fortran by way of a Standards process from its initial >incarnation by IBM through FORTRAN I, -II, _IV, various other vendors' >versions such as CDC and Digital to the first Standard (F66), then F77, >then F90/95 and now '03. Through this progression of a 50+ -old >"technology", there was great emphasis placed on making new features >consonant w/ previous, deprecating and deleting only a very few specific >items. Consequently, it is not at all unusual for 30+ yr-old tested >numeric codes to be able to be compiled w/ modern Fortran compilers >almost unchanged as long as there was a modicum of attention paid to >modularizing system-specific code and reasonable restraint in using >every vendor-specific extension was used. > >It is the absolute ignoring of the reality of such issues that is most >offputting to myself and I'd venture has much to do w/ the others' >reactions. --- Stefan Berglund
Show quote
Hide quote
"dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi7vje$bfv$1@aioe.org... Since I am now filtering out Michael C's invective because I find it > Michael C wrote: >> >> You could be right. But this group does hold a lot of odd views though that >> are pretty far out. VB has now been replaced for 6 years and has its roots in >> 20+ year old technology. To defend it in a lot of cases requires a lot of >> justification that is very much like religious view (ie find a conclusion, >> search for evidence to support it, ignore evidence that conflicts). >> >> It might seem like a minor advantage to start with but after working with it >> for a while you'd see what a massive gain it really is. If you worked with a >> stricter language for a while you'd see there really is no question that >> stricter is better. > > "This group" holds no view -- there is no group, only a collection of > individuals who have their own views. > It is the absolute ignoring of the reality of such issues that is most > offputting to myself and I'd venture has much to do w/ the others' reactions. distasteful, I am responding here to second hand comments by him, which have been edited down to the more readable parts. It would appear that as usual, the old "VB.Net vs VB6 - you must take sides" view is cropping up, a ridiculous idea, since you can simply use both as you see fit. Anyone who fails to see what a remarkable achievement in programming systems development VB5/6 represented when it was released has simply failed to grasp the accomplishments it represents. The before and after are night and day, and it will remain a high point in the history of MS programming tools for years to come. ..Net is bigger, has more features, has more doo-dads, covers more territory, blah-blah-blah, but it has none of the finesse of VB6, and it never will. In fact it owes many of its better features to the VB6 IDE (the ideas and concepts, Michael, not the laundry list of specific details). When the day comes that programs developed in .Net are 10 times better than anyone thought .Net could produce, the way many good VB6 apps are 10 times better than anyone thought VB6 could produce, .Net can step up to the table and claim the status of an exceptional system. Don't hold your breath, though. On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:04:07 -0800, "Steve Gerrard"
<mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote: in <GJqdnZYT5ptnVNXanZ2dnUVZ_ryqn***@comcast.com> > When that day comes then microsoft will have pulled off the biggest coup>"dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi7vje$bfv$1@aioe.org... >When the day comes that programs developed in .Net are 10 times better than >anyone thought .Net could produce, the way many good VB6 apps are 10 times >better than anyone thought VB6 could produce, .Net can step up to the table and >claim the status of an exceptional system. Don't hold your breath, though. in history by managing to proprietize the web and the entire world will have lost its innocence. --- Stefan Berglund | ...and the entire world will| have lost its innocence. The world still has innocence?You realize of course the only reason intelligent life in the universe has not visited us is because the Earth would be considered the ghetto of the universe. Paranoid, violent, angry, selfish, etc. Why would anyone want to visit a neighborhood like that? Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with your VB analogy...but the world lost it's innocense a long time ago. :( On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:13:16 -0500, "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> in <e17mAmxLIHA.4***@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> wrote: >| ...and the entire world will| have lost its innocence. And don't think for a moment that I disagree with you.> >The world still has innocence? > >You realize of course the only reason intelligent life in the universe has >not visited us is because the Earth would be considered the ghetto of the >universe. Paranoid, violent, angry, selfish, etc. Why would anyone want to >visit a neighborhood like that? > >Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with your VB analogy...but the world >lost it's innocense a long time ago. :( > --- Stefan Berglund Kevin Provance wrote:
> | ...and the entire world will| have lost its innocence. I think that was what Eve was about??? :)> > The world still has innocence? > > You realize of course the only reason intelligent life in the universe has > not visited us is because the Earth would be considered the ghetto of the > universe. Paranoid, violent, angry, selfish, etc. Why would anyone want to > visit a neighborhood like that? > > Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with your VB analogy...but the world > lost it's innocense a long time ago. :( -- > > Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with your VB analogy...but the That seems to be mainly the Catholic Church'sworld > > lost it's innocense a long time ago. :( > > I think that was what Eve was about??? :) > version, in order to propagate shame and convince the flock that the church's heavenly insurance policy is worth the investment. If there's Original Sin then we need a third party to save our necks. Joseph Campbell had an interesting version, saying that many mythologies have a similar story, in which the deity tempts humans into further "growth" by pretending to be adamant about denying that option. It makes sense in looking at the story. Adam and Eve didn't fall from a a vision that transcended good and evil. They rose to the level where they could perceive good and evil, as a result of following their curiosity. (After all, an Adam and Eve who just blindly obey in order to keep their cushy life would hardly be an admirable pair.) ... So maybe we're hoping that MS will eat the apple before they (and Apple, Google, etc.) ruin the Internet? mayayana wrote:
Show quoteHide quote >>> Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with your VB analogy...but the I wasn't really referring to the theology, only that the idea of a loss > world >>> lost it's innocense a long time ago. :( >> I think that was what Eve was about??? :) >> > That seems to be mainly the Catholic Church's > version, in order to propagate shame and convince > the flock that the church's heavenly insurance policy is > worth the investment. If there's Original Sin then > we need a third party to save our necks. > > Joseph Campbell had an interesting version, saying > that many mythologies have a similar story, in which > the deity tempts humans into further "growth" by > pretending to be adamant about denying that option. > It makes sense in looking at the story. Adam and Eve > didn't fall from a a vision that transcended good and > evil. They rose to the level where they could perceive > good and evil, as a result of following their curiosity. > (After all, an Adam and Eve who just blindly obey in order > to keep their cushy life would hardly be an admirable pair.) > > ... So maybe we're hoping that MS will eat the apple > before they (and Apple, Google, etc.) ruin the Internet? of innocence in the world is pretty much old hat... -- mayayana wrote:
>>> Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with your VB analogy...but the world Oh yeah?!? Well... Take this!>>> lost it's innocense a long time ago. :( >> >> I think that was what Eve was about??? :) >> > That seems to be mainly the Catholic Church's > version, in order to propagate shame and convince > the flock that the church's heavenly insurance policy is > worth the investment. If there's Original Sin then > we need a third party to save our necks. -- 419 Days, 18 Hours, 01 Minutes, and 34 Seconds > > That seems to be mainly the Catholic Church's I give up. Is that how long we've got 'til the> > version, in order to propagate shame and convince > > the flock that the church's heavenly insurance policy is > > worth the investment. If there's Original Sin then > > we need a third party to save our necks. > > Oh yeah?!? Well... Take this! > -- > 419 Days, 18 Hours, 01 Minutes, and 34 Seconds > end of the world? Or maybe the beginning of a new world? (It seems to fall somewhere around late Jan., 2009, which I guess might be inauguration day. ... Dare we hope...) mayayana wrote:
>>> That seems to be mainly the Catholic Church's The end of an error.>>> version, in order to propagate shame and convince >>> the flock that the church's heavenly insurance policy is >>> worth the investment. If there's Original Sin then >>> we need a third party to save our necks. >> >> Oh yeah?!? Well... Take this! >> >> 419 Days, 18 Hours, 01 Minutes, and 34 Seconds > > I give up. Is that how long we've got 'til the > end of the world? Or maybe the beginning of > a new world? > (It seems to fall somewhere around 20-Jan-2009 12:00pm EST, to be precise. :-)> late Jan., 2009, which I guess might be > inauguration day. ... Dare we hope...) -- 419 Days, 16 Hours, 19 Minutes, and 34 Seconds On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:30:02 -0500, "mayayana"
<mayaXXyan***@mindXXspring.com> wrote: in <#eC5BYVMIHA.5***@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> >> 419 Days, 18 Hours, 01 Minutes, and 34 Seconds Of course we hope!> I give up. Is that how long we've got 'til the >end of the world? Or maybe the beginning of >a new world? (It seems to fall somewhere around >late Jan., 2009, which I guess might be >inauguration day. ... Dare we hope...) --- Stefan Berglund "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message Why is it that everyone claims to not want to talk to me but in reality news:GJqdnZYT5ptnVNXanZ2dnUVZ_ryqnZ2d@comcast.com... > Since I am now filtering out Michael C's invective because I find it > distasteful, I am responding here to second hand comments by him, which > have been edited down to the more readable parts. does? I'm hardly going to reply, or even bother reading what you have to say Steve, if you aren't going to read what I have to say. Michael "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi7vje$bfv$1@aioe.org... While that's true there does seem to be a general consensus here that VB is > "This group" holds no view -- there is no group, only a collection of > individuals who have their own views. somehow better than anything else. Generally anyone who thinks otherwise has moved on. It's a filtering process. > The key thing with many of those here is that they have longterm Ok, so they should say exactly that. They should not jump through hoops > investment and their means of livelihood intimately bound up in VB and > that investment was seriously jeopardized by the route MS chose. The > adamant belief that these people are some wrong for continuing in what > they see as their best interest is simply naive at best and infuriatingly > condescending and uninformed at worst. trying to pretend VB is somehow better. > I happen to basically be an observer who's used VB as an engineer for Sounds like interesting work. I did similar stuff with labview and found it > various purposes since moving a realtime instrument product of a former > employee from old HP-BASIC on HP-85 hardware to the PC first w/ PB7, then > when the first hardware was made that was Windows compatible to VB. Having > now been retired for several years, I continue to monitor the group more > for the questions that occasionally arise outside the core of VB itself as > anything, but having such a long history w/ BASIC, I feel a significant > kindred w/ the other long-timers here. was probably the most interesting work i've ever done. Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi7vje$bfv$1@aioe.org... Well, otoh, you should not make wild assertions that somehow .net is >> "This group" holds no view -- there is no group, only a collection of >> individuals who have their own views. > > While that's true there does seem to be a general consensus here that VB is > somehow better than anything else. Generally anyone who thinks otherwise has > moved on. It's a filtering process. > >> The key thing with many of those here is that they have longterm >> investment and their means of livelihood intimately bound up in VB and >> that investment was seriously jeopardized by the route MS chose. The >> adamant belief that these people are some wrong for continuing in what >> they see as their best interest is simply naive at best and infuriatingly >> condescending and uninformed at worst. > > Ok, so they should say exactly that. They should not jump through hoops > trying to pretend VB is somehow better. better unequivocally, either. They're simply two separate environments and two languages sharing a manufacturer. >> I happen to basically be an observer who's used VB as an engineer for NI hardware? Pretty good, in general.>> various purposes since moving a realtime instrument product of a former >> employee from old HP-BASIC on HP-85 hardware to the PC first w/ PB7, then >> when the first hardware was made that was Windows compatible to VB. Having >> now been retired for several years, I continue to monitor the group more >> for the questions that occasionally arise outside the core of VB itself as >> anything, but having such a long history w/ BASIC, I feel a significant >> kindred w/ the other long-timers here. > > Sounds like interesting work. I did similar stuff with labview and found it > was probably the most interesting work i've ever done. NI software? Sucks, big time...I detested LavView, myself. :) Actually that was/is a very interesting product -- an online coal ash analyzer for mine, prep plant, etc., applications. A dual-energy gamma densitometer in a nutshell. Also had a online "sulfurmeter" and worked on generalized elemental analyzers... -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:ficra9$ff5$1@aioe.org... I have never said as such and am happy to discuss it's downsides which are > Well, otoh, you should not make wild assertions that somehow .net is > better unequivocally, either. They're simply two separate environments > and two languages sharing a manufacturer. fairly well know, eg size of framework, slower startup of apps. In pretty much every other way though it is superior to VB6. Why would it not be? MS took VB6 and spend over a billion making a ground up replacement for it. VB6ers should be stoked about it... > NI hardware? Pretty good, in general. Yes, and good service. We fed 240V into a 5v input and they replaced a $2500 board for free, twice! > NI software? Sucks, big time...I detested LavView, myself. :) I would never use labview again but I don't detest it. It was pretty cool imo but I find the graphical programming interface unnecessary. They should stick to creating addins for their boards for existing languages, they must have spent a fortune on labview for little gain for the end users. In fact it was probably at the detrement of the end user as they could have spent the time making more cool graphic stuff for existing languages. > Actually that was/is a very interesting product -- an online coal ash This stuff is so much more interesting than writing db apps :-)> analyzer for mine, prep plant, etc., applications. A dual-energy gamma > densitometer in a nutshell. Also had a online "sulfurmeter" and worked on > generalized elemental analyzers... Show quoteHide quote > > -- Michael C wrote:
> "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:ficra9$ff5$1@aioe.org... Well, you pretty much took the intro and contradicted yourself in two >> Well, otoh, you should not make wild assertions that somehow .net is >> better unequivocally, either. They're simply two separate environments >> and two languages sharing a manufacturer. > > I have never said as such and am happy to discuss it's downsides which are > fairly well know, eg size of framework, slower startup of apps. In pretty > much every other way though it is superior to VB6. Why would it not be? MS > took VB6 and spend over a billion making a ground up replacement for it. > VB6ers should be stoked about it... .... sentences... :) VB'ers _might_ have been if it had been done with some consideration for a realistic upgrade path -- hence the former comparison to the path of Fortran as a more enlightened manner in which to proceed. One always takes a risk when using _any_ single-vendor proprietary toolset, but in this case MS seemed to go out of their way to create havoc for no really discernible reason. Again, unless one has either a very large or expensive codebase, the magnitude of the issue is hard to comprehend. Everything you have written so far simply indicates a lack of ever having been in such an environment and therefore, simply an unawareness of the consequences. If it works for you and your employer, fine; but it doesn't fit others' needs or situations well at all. -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fid77q$imj$1@aioe.org... Really? You didn't point out where.> Well, you pretty much took the intro and contradicted yourself in two > sentences... :) > VB'ers _might_ have been if it had been done with some consideration for a All you've really done here is point out one of the downsides of VB and > realistic upgrade path -- hence the former comparison to the path of > Fortran as a more enlightened manner in which to proceed. > > One always takes a risk when using _any_ single-vendor proprietary > toolset, but in this case MS seemed to go out of their way to create havoc > for no really discernible reason. really haven't responded to my post at all. Yes, I know that the upgrade path was not very good from VB6 to dot net and have said so many times. This does not somehow make VB6 better than dotnet. > Again, unless one has either a very large or expensive codebase, the I think I've got one of the largest programs out of anyone here (well my > magnitude of the issue is hard to comprehend. Everything you have written > so far simply indicates a lack of ever having been in such an environment > and therefore, simply an unawareness of the consequences. > > If it works for you and your employer, fine; but it doesn't fit others' > needs or situations well at all. employer has). I have a little laugh to myself every time I see someone here describe a 100 form project as large. :-) Everything else they've converted or was written in power builder. Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fid77q$imj$1@aioe.org... You can only hope MS doesn't do something similar again in the future...>> Well, you pretty much took the intro and contradicted yourself in two >> sentences... :) > > Really? You didn't point out where. > >> VB'ers _might_ have been if it had been done with some consideration for a >> realistic upgrade path -- hence the former comparison to the path of >> Fortran as a more enlightened manner in which to proceed. >> >> One always takes a risk when using _any_ single-vendor proprietary >> toolset, but in this case MS seemed to go out of their way to create havoc >> for no really discernible reason. > > All you've really done here is point out one of the downsides of VB and > really haven't responded to my post at all. Yes, I know that the upgrade > path was not very good from VB6 to dot net and have said so many times. This > does not somehow make VB6 better than dotnet. > >> Again, unless one has either a very large or expensive codebase, the >> magnitude of the issue is hard to comprehend. Everything you have written >> so far simply indicates a lack of ever having been in such an environment >> and therefore, simply an unawareness of the consequences. >> >> If it works for you and your employer, fine; but it doesn't fit others' >> needs or situations well at all. > > I think I've got one of the largest programs out of anyone here (well my > employer has). I have a little laugh to myself every time I see someone here > describe a 100 form project as large. :-) Everything else they've converted > or was written in power builder. -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fid8fa$lh5$2@aioe.org... That's why I use C# and not vb.net :-)> You can only hope MS doesn't do something similar again in the future... Michael
Show quote
Hide quote
"dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fid8fa$lh5$2@aioe.org... MC: If your program has 100 forms or more, it is poorly designed. Ever hear of > Michael C wrote: >> >>> Again, unless one has either a very large or expensive codebase, the >>> magnitude of the issue is hard to comprehend. Everything you have written >>> so far simply indicates a lack of ever having been in such an environment >>> and therefore, simply an unawareness of the consequences. >>> >>> If it works for you and your employer, fine; but it doesn't fit others' >>> needs or situations well at all. >> >> I think I've got one of the largest programs out of anyone here (well my >> employer has). I have a little laugh to myself every time I see someone here >> describe a 100 form project as large. :-) Everything else they've converted >> or was written in power builder. > > You can only hope MS doesn't do something similar again in the future... > reuse? "Mine is bigger than yours" has to be the lamest programming argument ever. dpb: An interesting question for many companies with both older VB6 apps and newer .Net apps would be: If you had to give up one of them, which would you keep, and which would you throw away and re-write? I bet many would keep the VB6 apps, where they have a greater concentration of true intellectual property, and less of the "system integration - configuration - deployment" fiddle-foo that makes up half or more of their .Net apps. "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message They are all different forms with very different functions. Where I could news:T8adnWL6A9WItdfanZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > MC: If your program has 100 forms or more, it is poorly designed. Ever > hear of reuse? reuse I have but this is a big app. > "Mine is bigger than yours" has to be the lamest programming argument Hey I was just responding to the claim (guess) that I didn't have a big code > ever. base. > dpb: An interesting question for many companies with both older VB6 apps Anyone would choose to re-write the VB6 app of course. Being older it's much > and newer .Net apps would be: If you had to give up one of them, which > would you keep, and which would you throw away and re-write? I bet many > would keep the VB6 apps, where they have a greater concentration of true > intellectual property, and less of the "system integration - > configuration - deployment" fiddle-foo that makes up half or more of their > .Net apps. more likely to need a rewrite. Show quoteHide quote > > Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message Both of these are illogical responses -- while code as measured by > news:T8adnWL6A9WItdfanZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> MC: If your program has 100 forms or more, it is poorly designed. Ever >> hear of reuse? > > They are all different forms with very different functions. Where I could > reuse I have but this is a big app. > >> "Mine is bigger than yours" has to be the lamest programming argument >> ever. > > Hey I was just responding to the claim (guess) that I didn't have a big code > base. > >> dpb: An interesting question for many companies with both older VB6 apps >> and newer .Net apps would be: If you had to give up one of them, which >> would you keep, and which would you throw away and re-write? I bet many >> would keep the VB6 apps, where they have a greater concentration of true >> intellectual property, and less of the "system integration - >> configuration - deployment" fiddle-foo that makes up half or more of their >> .Net apps. > > Anyone would choose to re-write the VB6 app of course. Being older it's much > more likely to need a rewrite. number of lines or some other metric is one measure, it is surely not the only, nor even often very much related to, the true cost of redeployment. The assertion that "anyone" would choose "A" over "B" solely on the age is symptomatic of the shallowness of consideration of issues (recall the Fortran saga a few posts back--working code is working code no matter the age) in the argument which again convinces me of not having dealt with the issues on a truly large scale. -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fiekgc$ind$1@aioe.org... Still, the older the code the greater chance there is of needing/wanting to > Both of these are illogical responses -- while code as measured by number > of lines or some other metric is one measure, it is surely not the only, > nor even often very much related to, the true cost of redeployment. > > The assertion that "anyone" would choose "A" over "B" solely on the age is > symptomatic of the shallowness of consideration of issues (recall the > Fortran saga a few posts back--working code is working code no matter the > age) change it. I'm not suggesting this is a hard and fast rule but Steve was attempting to suggest that a company would be more likely to re-write a dot net app than a VB6 app, which is pretty silly. > in the argument which again convinces me of not having dealt with the I know you'd like to think that I have no ability, no experience, no > issues on a truly large scale. knowledge and only work on hobby programs but that is not true. Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fiekgc$ind$1@aioe.org... All I can go on is what you reveal here w/ your words and recommendations.>> Both of these are illogical responses -- while code as measured by number >> of lines or some other metric is one measure, it is surely not the only, >> nor even often very much related to, the true cost of redeployment. >> >> The assertion that "anyone" would choose "A" over "B" solely on the age is >> symptomatic of the shallowness of consideration of issues (recall the >> Fortran saga a few posts back--working code is working code no matter the >> age) > > Still, the older the code the greater chance there is of needing/wanting to > change it. I'm not suggesting this is a hard and fast rule but Steve was > attempting to suggest that a company would be more likely to re-write a dot > net app than a VB6 app, which is pretty silly. > >> in the argument which again convinces me of not having dealt with the >> issues on a truly large scale. > > I know you'd like to think that I have no ability, no experience, no > knowledge and only work on hobby programs but that is not true. The comparison is in general impossible -- I've seen people start to rewrite perfectly functional code in almost any number of languages to the popular "language du jour" simply on the basis of no more justification than you have made. It has, in every case, been a very poor choice nearly in once instance for a former client, bankrupting them. That particular choice was from Forth to C and took a group of bright, energetic and reasonably competent C-whizards something like 9-months to discover there were unable to make their code perform fast enough to maintain the communications link between the remote UI to the onboard processors to be able to run the control loops sufficiently near enough realtime to be able to control the robotics. I and one other fellow took the basic code of the previous developer and integrated the several separate robotics products of the client into the single multi-functional new beastie he had sold and banked the entire company on within a few weeks enough to pass an interim milestone that had a significant progress payment tied to it. W/O that, there wasn't money to meet payroll the next month. Those are the kinds of decisions that one should not make lightly on simply the basis of age or prejudice against/for some particular language/technology and are true irrespective of the language. I would no more recommend rewriting a .net app than any other if it is serving its purpose and there are not other compelling reasons for doing so. OTOH, the purposes for which .net exists are really pretty far removed from my general area of expertise so I would, frankly, go elsewhere for expertise in judging anything seriously having to do with it. Finis... --
Show quote
Hide quote
"dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fifcka$688$1@aioe.org... I'm not sure you are actually even reading the posts here. I said it is more > All I can go on is what you reveal here w/ your words and recommendations. > > The comparison is in general impossible -- I've seen people start to > rewrite perfectly functional code in almost any number of languages to the > popular "language du jour" simply on the basis of no more justification > than you have made. It has, in every case, been a very poor choice nearly > in once instance for a former client, bankrupting them. That particular > choice was from Forth to C and took a group of bright, energetic and > reasonably competent C-whizards something like 9-months to discover there > were unable to make their code perform fast enough to maintain the > communications link between the remote UI to the onboard processors to be > able to run the control loops sufficiently near enough realtime to be able > to control the robotics. I and one other fellow took the basic code of > the previous developer and integrated the several separate robotics > products of the client into the single multi-functional new beastie he had > sold and banked the entire company on within a few weeks enough to pass an > interim milestone that had a significant progress payment tied to it. W/O > that, there wasn't money to meet payroll the next month. Those are the > kinds of decisions that one should not make lightly on simply the basis of > age or prejudice against/for some particular language/technology and are > true irrespective of the language. > > I would no more recommend rewriting a .net app than any other if it is > serving its purpose and there are not other compelling reasons for doing > so. OTOH, the purposes for which .net exists are really pretty far > removed from my general area of expertise so I would, frankly, go > elsewhere for expertise in judging anything seriously having to do with > it. *likely* that a VB6 app will need to be rewritten than a dot net app simply because it will be older and the programming language is more out of date. This does not mean that all VB6 apps should be rewritten automatically or that there is no such thing as a dotnet app that needs a rewrite. Show quoteHide quote > Finis... > > -- Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fifcka$688$1@aioe.org... I did read that and I categorically reject it as a premise that the age >> All I can go on is what you reveal here w/ your words and recommendations. >> >> The comparison is in general impossible -- I've seen people start to >> rewrite perfectly functional code in almost any number of languages to the >> popular "language du jour" simply on the basis of no more justification >> than you have made. It has, in every case, been a very poor choice nearly >> in once instance for a former client, bankrupting them. That particular >> choice was from Forth to C and took a group of bright, energetic and >> reasonably competent C-whizards something like 9-months to discover there >> were unable to make their code perform fast enough to maintain the >> communications link between the remote UI to the onboard processors to be >> able to run the control loops sufficiently near enough realtime to be able >> to control the robotics. I and one other fellow took the basic code of >> the previous developer and integrated the several separate robotics >> products of the client into the single multi-functional new beastie he had >> sold and banked the entire company on within a few weeks enough to pass an >> interim milestone that had a significant progress payment tied to it. W/O >> that, there wasn't money to meet payroll the next month. Those are the >> kinds of decisions that one should not make lightly on simply the basis of >> age or prejudice against/for some particular language/technology and are >> true irrespective of the language. >> >> I would no more recommend rewriting a .net app than any other if it is >> serving its purpose and there are not other compelling reasons for doing >> so. OTOH, the purposes for which .net exists are really pretty far >> removed from my general area of expertise so I would, frankly, go >> elsewhere for expertise in judging anything seriously having to do with >> it. > > I'm not sure you are actually even reading the posts here. I said it is more > *likely* that a VB6 app will need to be rewritten than a dot net app simply > because it will be older and the programming language is more out of date. and language has any significant role, per se for a reason for _re_-writing. I gave a specific example of why... -- "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message I've put my reply at the bottom of this thread as am getting the old news:eEYARJHMIHA.5140@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fifcka$688$1@aioe.org... "illformed message id" error. Michael C wrote:
> "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message LOL! Owned. No app I've ever used, from MS Office to Corel Draw to ArcGIS to > news:T8adnWL6A9WItdfanZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> MC: If your program has 100 forms or more, it is poorly designed. Ever >> hear of reuse? > > They are all different forms with very different functions. Where I could > reuse I have but this is a big app. AutoCAD to [younameit] has required more than a dozen or two dialogs. Those aren't exactly wussyassed apps, either. >> "Mine is bigger than yours" has to be the lamest programming argument You don't. You have a unmanagable buttload of files that are largely non-reusable.>> ever. > > Hey I was just responding to the claim (guess) that I didn't have a big code > base. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message I don't know about excel but my app is certainly not excel. Naturally you news:%23NlXBnUMIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > LOL! Owned. No app I've ever used, from MS Office to Corel Draw to > ArcGIS to AutoCAD to [younameit] has required more than a dozen or two > dialogs. Those aren't exactly wussyassed apps, either. have not seen my app but not having a clue has never stopped you drawing conclusions before. This is all beside the point anyway, maybe I'm the worst programmer in the world and have duplicated forms 100 times when I only needed 1 but the point is I do in fact have a lot of VB6 code. >> Hey I was just responding to the claim (guess) that I didn't have a big Again, you don't have the slightest clue of what I have. And yet again being >> code >> base. > > You don't. You have a unmanagable buttload of files that are largely > non-reusable. clueless has never stopped you drawing conclusions. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi7vje$bfv$1@aioe.org... It's your wont to overgeneralize everything that causes *so* much friction.>> "This group" holds no view -- there is no group, only a collection of >> individuals who have their own views. > > While that's true there does seem to be a general consensus here that VB is > somehow better than anything else. Generally anyone who thinks otherwise has > moved on. It's a filtering process. Classic VB *is* better than anything else *for* certain purposes! "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message That purpose isn't writing windows apps :-)news:eDkP$kUMIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > It's your wont to overgeneralize everything that causes *so* much > friction. > > Classic VB *is* better than anything else *for* certain purposes! Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message I know you are, but what am I?> news:eDkP$kUMIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> It's your wont to overgeneralize everything that causes *so* much >> friction. >> >> Classic VB *is* better than anything else *for* certain purposes! > > That purpose isn't writing windows apps :-)
Show quote
Hide quote
"Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in So we have finally found out the real problem you have with VB.news:eHcPwjZLIHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi5pvi$8cb$1@aioe.org... >>> When you're wrong it usually is. >> >> At least you realize you are, then... > > I'm not going to throw insults back but add another point. In VB you > can write code like this > > Dim X as Recordset > Set X = Form1'assuming Form1 is actually a form > > or > > dim y as long > y = "A" > > or > > Function GetSomething() As Long > for i = 1 to whatever > 'forget to return value we are after > if Something(i) = 10 then exit function > next > end function > > or many other examples. All of these will fail at runtime and not warn > the programmer until then. There is absolutely zero advantage to being > able to do this because it will never work. It is *much* better for > the compiler to give an error. The problem is YOU. YOU are relying on the compiler to pick up on mistakes that YOU have made. A few days ago I spent a couple hours debugging 2 problems in a DynamicC embedded application. Both were typos. One was a compare, which I only had a single = instead of a double ==. And the other was a line setting an output bit with another typo. The compiler didn't pick them up, but I'm not going to cry about it. I'm going to blame myself for making the stupid mistakes in the first place. And honestly, all of the ones you are citing are pretty stupid mistakes, expected to be made by beginners, or just bad programmers. What was it I heard......'The worst part of .Net is it allows bad programmers to write bad code faster.' "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message LOL!news:Xns99F16DB35E558thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142... > "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in > news:eHcPwjZLIHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: > > <snipped> > > And honestly, all of the ones you are citing are pretty stupid mistakes, > expected to be made by beginners, or just bad programmers. > > What was it I heard......'The worst part of .Net is it allows bad > programmers to write bad code faster.' > That's hilarious to me because I remember the *exact same thing* being said about VB by C programmers back in the day of that particular religious war. Perhaps even said by someone about every RAD tool ever devised. <g> -ralph
Show quote
Hide quote
"Ralph" <nt_consultin***@yahoo.com> wrote in message It is largely true for VB though. The thing the detractors never understood news:%23XqfUHfLIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message > news:Xns99F16DB35E558thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142... >> "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in >> news:eHcPwjZLIHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: >> >> <snipped> >> >> And honestly, all of the ones you are citing are pretty stupid mistakes, >> expected to be made by beginners, or just bad programmers. >> >> What was it I heard......'The worst part of .Net is it allows bad >> programmers to write bad code faster.' >> > > LOL! > > That's hilarious to me because I remember the *exact same thing* being > said > about VB by C programmers back in the day of that particular religious > war. > Perhaps even said by someone about every RAD tool ever devised. <g> is that it being easy to write very bad code never meant that it wasn't also possible to write good code. It takes discipline to avoid the pitfalls and a good understanding of the underpinings to know when to relax a bit and take advantage of the flexibility. I have some projects now for which C# is required. It's like wearing a straitjacket. Coding in it is an annoying chore and I'm always looking for small side projects that I can do in VB to actually have some fun with. That's totally subjective, certainly, and I can understand that some may prefer the rigid guidelines but it still grates that VB was given to people who didn't use and appreciate it and who completely killed the essence of the language. "Bob Butler" <noway@nospam.ever> wrote in message news:% Heh ... interesting that you should put it that way!> I have some projects now for which C# is required. It's like wearing a > straitjacket. Coding in it is an annoying chore and I'm always looking > for small side projects that I can do in VB to actually have some fun > with. That's totally subjective, certainly, and I can understand that some > may prefer the rigid guidelines but it still grates that VB was given to > people who didn't use and appreciate it and who completely killed the > essence of the language. I work with a large time & attendance application which has been gradually migrating to the .Net platform. I've got a project or two that were written in C#, some of the data transport code also in C# and my Rules Engine in VB.Net with it's configuration program in classic VB6. An interesting mix. So ... as a result I wind up working in all 3 - VB6, VB.Net and C#. Of all three I find VB6 the most enjoyable (free?) to work with, followed by VB.Net which is really OK - last-of-all, C#. When working in the C# code it feels slightly more restrictive as you have described. I hate the fact that most of the time I have to recompile to find out that I left a ":" off on a switch case where in VB.Net you find out right away due to the incremental compiler. There's a lot of other reasons I could go into but I concur with the way you feel about it. So far I've found absolutely nothing (in the context of my work) that I could not accomplish more quickly, more elegantly and more pleasantly with the VB's. Regards, -b ;-)
Show quote
Hide quote
"Bruce W. Roeser" <broe***@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message Dot net has inheritance, generics, lots of consistancy, better use of news:ObqjN0KMIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Heh ... interesting that you should put it that way! > > I work with a large time & attendance application which has been gradually > migrating to the .Net platform. I've got a project or two that were > written in C#, some of the data transport code also in C# and my Rules > Engine in VB.Net with it's configuration program in classic VB6. An > interesting mix. > > So ... as a result I wind up working in all 3 - VB6, VB.Net and C#. Of > all three I find VB6 the most enjoyable (free?) to work with, followed by > VB.Net which is really OK - last-of-all, C#. When working in the C# code > it feels slightly more restrictive as you have described. I hate the fact > that most of the time I have to recompile to find out that I left a ":" > off on a switch case where in VB.Net you find out right away due to the > incremental compiler. There's a lot of other reasons I could go into but > I concur with the way you feel about it. So far I've found absolutely > nothing (in the context of my work) that I could not accomplish more > quickly, more elegantly and more pleasantly with the VB's. events, *much* better interop support, objects that you can actually use properly because they are light enough to create 100,000 instances. It's forms and controls are better implemented and usercontrols are far better. ASP is properly compiled and we've got webservices. You can subclass with a simple dropdown, menus work better, there's a wider range of controls that work better. Bitmap support actually exists and GDI+ is supported. Functionality has been extended in pretty much every area. The list is endless. It's like VB but with all of VBs stupid restrictions removed. How can you possibly describe VB as being free?!? Dot net is *significantly* more free than VB6. Michael
Show quote
Hide quote
> > I concur with the way you feel about it. So far I've found absolutely How do you expect anyone to listen to you when> > nothing (in the context of my work) that I could not accomplish more > > quickly, more elegantly and more pleasantly with the VB's. > > Dot net has inheritance, generics, lots of consistancy, better use of > events, *much* better interop support, objects that you can actually use > properly because they are light enough to create 100,000 instances. It's > forms and controls are better implemented and usercontrols are far better. > ASP is properly compiled and we've got webservices. You can subclass with a > simple dropdown, menus work better, there's a wider range of controls that > work better. Bitmap support actually exists and GDI+ is supported. > Functionality has been extended in pretty much every area. The list is > endless. It's like VB but with all of VBs stupid restrictions removed. How > can you possibly describe VB as being free?!? Dot net is *significantly* > more free than VB6. > you tell them bluntly that their personal experience and opinion is just plain wrong? Do you care if people listen? Is it possible that you're really arguing mostly with yourself? Certainly no one is going to try to have a rational discussion with you when you turn a programming tool into religious dogma. "mayayana" <mayaXXyan***@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message Borrowing your post to nitpick Michael's... :)news:eMon1%23PMIHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> Dot net has inheritance, A good thing.>> generics, An overrated non-VB thing.>> lots of consistancy, Meaningless (and spelled wrong).>> better use of events, What? COM Interop allows dot net to do what VB6 does effortlessly.Meaningless. >> *much* better interop support, >> objects that you can actually use properly because they are light enough to Light enough? An object's size is determined by the data it stores.>> create 100,000 instances. Maybe you are being fooled by the delayed garbage collector? >> It's forms and controls are better implemented Meaningless. Having inheritance for user controls is nice, though.Meaningless. >> and usercontrols are far better. >> ASP is properly compiled and we've got webservices. ASP.Net is good, but compares to ASP, not VB6.>> You can subclass with a simple dropdown, What? Shouldn't need to in dotnet.>> menus work better, Meaningless. Menus are menus.>> there's a wider range of controls that work better. Wrappers to API calls. Nothing more than that.Meaningless. >> Bitmap support actually exists and GDI+ is supported. >> It's like VB but with all of VBs stupid restrictions removed. Such as? 15,000 API calls are ready when you are.>> Dot net is *significantly* more free than VB6. No idea at all what that means."Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message Just wanted to add... I have done quite a bit with GDI+ in VB5 (yup, I stillnews:9LmdnVcaI85PptHanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "mayayana" <mayaXXyan***@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message > news:eMon1%23PMIHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > > > Borrowing your post to nitpick Michael's... :) > >> Bitmap support actually exists and GDI+ is supported. > Wrappers to API calls. Nothing more than that. use "5" for many things), as have others with VB5/6. So it's not like GDI+ is some sort of mysterious .net thing that shouldn't be ventured by ol' VB'ers. Just because MS didn't provide a GDI+ class or wrapper for classic VB doesn't mean it can't be utilized. > >> Dot net is *significantly* more free than VB6. You can download it for free from the MS website while it costs a bit to> > No idea at all what that means. obtain even a used copy of VB6? <g> BeastFish wrote:
>>>> Dot net is *significantly* more free than VB6. ROTFLMAO! Nailed it!>> >> No idea at all what that means. > > You can download it for free from the MS website "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message Hardly.news:9LmdnVcaI85PptHanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> Dot net has inheritance, > A good thing. > >>> generics, > An overrated non-VB thing. >>> lots of consistancy, Rubbish. Consistancy is king.> Meaningless (and spelled wrong). >>> better use of events, Rubbish. If something is better then it's better.> Meaningless. >>> *much* better interop support, VB has *very* poor COM support, that's the funny thing as it's meant to be a > What? COM Interop allows dot net to do what VB6 does effortlessly. COM language. It can only use com interfaces of a certain type that require a much greater amount of effort to program. Most of the interfaces supported by the OS are not supported by VB. >>> objects that you can actually use properly because they are light enough No, an empty class in VB takes 100 bytes per instance (how they managed this >>> to create 100,000 instances. > > Light enough? An object's size is determined by the data it stores. > Maybe you are being fooled by the delayed garbage collector? I don't know). Creating and destroying these classes is comparitively slow. >>> It's forms and controls are better implemented Rubbish!!!> Meaningless. >>> and usercontrols are far better. Rubbish.> Meaningless. >>> ASP is properly compiled and we've got webservices. Fair enough.> ASP.Net is good, but compares to ASP, not VB6. >>> You can subclass with a simple dropdown, You still do unfortunately.> What? Shouldn't need to in dotnet. >>> menus work better, Rubbish.> Meaningless. Menus are menus. >>> there's a wider range of controls that work better. Rubbish.> Meaningless. >>> Bitmap support actually exists and GDI+ is supported. There is still very good support for image functions in dot net.> Wrappers to API calls. Nothing more than that. >>> It's like VB but with all of VBs stupid restrictions removed. Where do I start? I could list 100 VB restrictions that have been removed.> Such as? 15,000 API calls are ready when you are. >>> Dot net is *significantly* more free than VB6. Try to keep up.> > No idea at all what that means. Show quoteHide quote > > > Where do I start? I could list 100 VB restrictions that have been removed.
I'm calling that bluff. Please provide a list of exactly 100 removed VB restrictions please. Or was that more rubbish? <g> "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message I'm harldy going to start doing your work for you but will list a few.news:%23qvFCoVMIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Where do I start? I could list 100 VB restrictions that have been removed. > > I'm calling that bluff. > > Please provide a list of exactly 100 removed VB restrictions please. > > Or was that more rubbish? <g> - objects are much 'lighter' in dot net so can be used much more often - cannot call anything except stdcall apis in vb6 - cannot use pointers in vb6 - cannot use events properly from control arrays in vb6 - no unsigned ints in vb6 - most com interfaces cannot be called by vb6 - VERY poor imaging support in vb6. I could easily list 1000 items by looking at the functionality in individual classes. Show quoteHide quote > > 1000 now huh? Okay, put up or shut up.
Show quoteHide quote "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message news:e0F53NWMIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... | "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message | news:%23qvFCoVMIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | > Where do I start? I could list 100 VB restrictions that have been removed. | > | > I'm calling that bluff. | > | > Please provide a list of exactly 100 removed VB restrictions please. | > | > Or was that more rubbish? <g> | | I'm harldy going to start doing your work for you but will list a few. | - objects are much 'lighter' in dot net so can be used much more often | - cannot call anything except stdcall apis in vb6 | - cannot use pointers in vb6 | - cannot use events properly from control arrays in vb6 | - no unsigned ints in vb6 | - most com interfaces cannot be called by vb6 | - VERY poor imaging support in vb6. | | I could easily list 1000 items by looking at the functionality in individual | classes. | | | | > | > | | "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message I would really like to know what 'lighter' means. Less memory for the same news:%237Viy%23WMIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > 1000 now huh? Okay, put up or shut up. > > "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message > | - objects are much 'lighter' in dot net so can be used much more often amount of data? It is a puzzling claim... "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message An instance of a class in VB6 wastes 100 bytes approx, so if you have a news:xbGdnbMTjr16e9HanZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@comcast.com... >> "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> | - objects are much 'lighter' in dot net so can be used much more often > > I would really like to know what 'lighter' means. Less memory for the same > amount of data? It is a puzzling claim... class which has just 2 longs defined as module level vars it will use 108 bytes per instance. It also needs to call a function to increment/decrement the ref count several times when creating an object, eg for x = 1 to 100,000 set y = new something Y.SetSomething = SomethingElse SomeCollection.Add y next In this code the ref count will get incremented to at least 2 on the new instance of the class and then decremented at least once. I would suggest it would happen at least 3 to 4 times because the refcount would get incremented when calling SomeCollection.Add. All of this makes creating/destroying instances of classes relatively slow. In dotnet an instance of a class uses only 8 bytes + module level var memory and doesn't have any reference counting. Four of these 8 bytes is for the variable that points to the object so the object itself only uses 4 bytes I believe. This opens up a great deal of functionality in that a class can be used for a much wider range of items and a larger number of objects can be loaded into memory. As an example, when you add something to a listbox you add an object. This is quite cool because you can add any item you like and you tell the listbox which function to call to get the text (this defaults to ToString which is what I usually use). Here's an example (I know this might seem minor but it is just one example) MyListBox.Items.Clear() For each Person in People MyListBox.Items.Add Person Next then when someone clicks a person in the listbox Sub MyListBox_Click() Dim p as person p = MyListBox.SelectedItem MsgBox p.Name End Sub Michael "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message 100s of 1000s, literally. If you consider every small piece of functionality news:%237Viy%23WMIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > 1000 now huh? Okay, put up or shut up. they added as an improvement and then add in all the improvements in the IDE you get a lot of improvements. Just to give you an idea of the detail they've gone to have a look at this line of code if x < 0 then x = 0 In dot net you can put a breakpoint on the "if x< 0" part OR you can put a breakpoint on the "x = 0" part. In VB6 you'd have to turn it into 3 lines of code and put the breakpoint in the middle. And no, I'm not going to list the other 99,999 improvements :-) Michael Because there are not that many. Words are nothing, actions are
everything...so unless you can back up what you claim, then you're full of sh...err, rubbish. Don't make claims you cannot fulfill...it kills your Show quoteHide quote ::ehem:: credibility. "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eLnByUXMIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message | news:%237Viy%23WMIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... | > 1000 now huh? Okay, put up or shut up. | | 100s of 1000s, literally. If you consider every small piece of functionality | they added as an improvement and then add in all the improvements in the IDE | you get a lot of improvements. Just to give you an idea of the detail | they've gone to have a look at this line of code | | if x < 0 then x = 0 | | In dot net you can put a breakpoint on the "if x< 0" part OR you can put a | breakpoint on the "x = 0" part. In VB6 you'd have to turn it into 3 lines of | code and put the breakpoint in the middle. | | And no, I'm not going to list the other 99,999 improvements :-) | | Michael | | "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message Holy smokes!news:exDNPTcMIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > | Just to give you an idea of the detail > | they've gone to have a look at this line of code > | > | if x < 0 then x = 0 > | > | In dot net you can put a breakpoint on the "if x< 0" part OR you can put a > | breakpoint on the "x = 0" part. In VB6 you'd have to turn it into 3 lines > of > | code and put the breakpoint in the middle. > | That is so awesome! What an incredible improvement that is! How in the world have I survived this far without it! What an excellent example of the vast improvements in dot net!
Show quote
Hide quote
"Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message and if you really want to put a breakpoint in the middle of a one-line IF news:Fv-dnX5SaogeF9DanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message > news:exDNPTcMIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> | Just to give you an idea of the detail >> | they've gone to have a look at this line of code >> | >> | if x < 0 then x = 0 >> | >> | In dot net you can put a breakpoint on the "if x< 0" part OR you can >> put a >> | breakpoint on the "x = 0" part. In VB6 you'd have to turn it into 3 >> lines >> of >> | code and put the breakpoint in the middle. >> | > > Holy smokes! > That is so awesome! > What an incredible improvement that is! > How in the world have I survived this far without it! > What an excellent example of the vast improvements in dot net! using VB6 it's possible anyway... if x < 0 then debug.assert false: x = 0 "Bob Butler" <noway@nospam.ever> wrote in message Yipes!news:%23vWiHddMIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:Fv-dnX5SaogeF9DanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > <snipped> > > and if you really want to put a breakpoint in the middle of a one-line IF > using VB6 it's possible anyway... > > if x < 0 then debug.assert false: x = 0 > The Old Man of the Mountain suggested the colon operator? Methinks a denizen of Hell just felt a cool draft. -ralph <g>
Show quote
Hide quote
"Ralph" <nt_consultin***@yahoo.com> wrote in message This whole thread is way too ridiculous to take seriously. He's either a news:uQSqyjdMIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > "Bob Butler" <noway@nospam.ever> wrote in message > news:%23vWiHddMIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:Fv-dnX5SaogeF9DanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > <snipped> >> >> and if you really want to put a breakpoint in the middle of a one-line IF >> using VB6 it's possible anyway... >> >> if x < 0 then debug.assert false: x = 0 >> > > Yipes! > > The Old Man of the Mountain suggested the colon operator? > > Methinks a denizen of Hell just felt a cool draft. troll or a fool, possibly both, and if people would stop feeding him maybe he'd go away and let those of us who still like and use VB get on with it.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Bob Butler" <noway@nospam.ever> wrote in message I assumed you were only having a bit of fun.news:O$8C2vdMIHA.1296@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Ralph" <nt_consultin***@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:uQSqyjdMIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > > > "Bob Butler" <noway@nospam.ever> wrote in message > > news:%23vWiHddMIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > >> "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message > >> news:Fv-dnX5SaogeF9DanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > > >> > <snipped> > >> > >> and if you really want to put a breakpoint in the middle of a one-line IF > >> using VB6 it's possible anyway... > >> > >> if x < 0 then debug.assert false: x = 0 > >> > > > > Yipes! > > > > The Old Man of the Mountain suggested the colon operator? > > > > Methinks a denizen of Hell just felt a cool draft. > > This whole thread is way too ridiculous to take seriously. He's either a > troll or a fool, possibly both, and if people would stop feeding him maybe > he'd go away and let those of us who still like and use VB get on with it. > It is rather silly. Ok ridiculous. But people have to be able to vent occasionally and better here than on a street corner with a hair shirt and placard. The latter tends to frighten dogs and children. I actually kind of enjoy it. There was a time when I would have been smack in the middle so I can't take a lofty position now. <g> -ralph "Bob Butler" <noway@nospam.ever> wrote in message You're reply 2 posts up was one of the more stupid replies I've seen in a news:O$8C2vdMIHA.1296@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > This whole thread is way too ridiculous to take seriously. He's either a > troll or a fool, possibly both, and if people would stop feeding him maybe > he'd go away and let those of us who still like and use VB get on with it. while. I pointed out a minor improvement and you made fun of it because the feature was minor. Well, dah! Then 2 posts later *you* say this thread is way too ridiculous and the *you* call me a troll and a fool. Michael > The Old Man of the Mountain suggested the colon operator? That sentence seems a bit, uhh... naughty <g>I didn't write that code...I'm not sure how my name became attached to it.
- Kev Show quoteHide quote "Bob Butler" <noway@nospam.ever> wrote in message news:%23vWiHddMIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... | "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message | news:Fv-dnX5SaogeF9DanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@comcast.com... | > | > "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message | > news:exDNPTcMIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... | > | >> | Just to give you an idea of the detail | >> | they've gone to have a look at this line of code | >> | | >> | if x < 0 then x = 0 | >> | | >> | In dot net you can put a breakpoint on the "if x< 0" part OR you can | >> put a | >> | breakpoint on the "x = 0" part. In VB6 you'd have to turn it into 3 | >> lines | >> of | >> | code and put the breakpoint in the middle. | >> | | > | > Holy smokes! | > That is so awesome! | > What an incredible improvement that is! | > How in the world have I survived this far without it! | > What an excellent example of the vast improvements in dot net! | | and if you really want to put a breakpoint in the middle of a one-line IF | using VB6 it's possible anyway... | | if x < 0 then debug.assert false: x = 0 | | "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message That was my fault. I have blocked MC's posts, so I replied to your reply to him, news:uyIc6$dMIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >I didn't write that code...I'm not sure how my name became attached to it. > > - Kev > > and edited it down to some of his remarks. Sorry about the bogus implication that it was yours. "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message I'm constantly amazed at the stupid things people write here. My whole point news:Fv-dnX5SaogeF9DanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@comcast.com... > Holy smokes! > That is so awesome! > What an incredible improvement that is! > How in the world have I survived this far without it! > What an excellent example of the vast improvements in dot net! was that this was a minor change. It was an example of one of the 1000s of small changes they've made and shows the detail to which they've gone. Try reading before replying. Michael
Show quote
Hide quote
"Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in Not true. I just wrote a standard DLL in PowerBasic that is simply a news:e0F53NWMIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl: > "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message > news:%23qvFCoVMIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Where do I start? I could list 100 VB restrictions that have been >> removed. >> >> I'm calling that bluff. >> >> Please provide a list of exactly 100 removed VB restrictions please. >> >> Or was that more rubbish? <g> > > I'm harldy going to start doing your work for you but will list a few. > - objects are much 'lighter' in dot net so can be used much more often > - cannot call anything except stdcall apis in vb6 > - cannot use pointers in vb6 wrapper for a CRC16 algorithm. Exported: makeCRC16msg(ByVal lpBytAr as Long, ByVal cbLen as long) as Integer You create a byte array to hold the framed data message, plus 3 bytes, call makeCRC16msg passing the lp using VarPtr(bytAr(0)), and the length of the msg minus the 3 extra bytes. The DLL function then creates the 2 byte CRC16 checksum, adds them to the array back in VB using CopyMemory and adds an ETX as the third and last extra byte, End Function. > - cannot use events properly from control arrays in vb6 Why not ? Because you need to use the index property ?> - no unsigned ints in vb6 Don't most use Longs for everything ? . My function above returns an integer, but it's not numerical as it's being used as hex data. Hell, many API calls use Longs when all they will ever return is 1 or 0. "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message That's not VB6.news:Xns99F6C6CB54AD8thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142... > Not true. I just wrote a standard DLL in PowerBasic that is simply a > wrapper for a CRC16 algorithm. >> - cannot use events properly from control arrays in vb6 Sorry, I meant to say you cannot use WithEvents.> > Why not ? Because you need to use the index property ? >> - no unsigned ints in vb6 Still vb6 does not have unsigned ints which can be handy from time to time.> > Don't most use Longs for everything ? . My function above returns an > integer, but it's not numerical as it's being used as hex data. > > Hell, many API calls use Longs when all they will ever return is 1 or 0. Michael "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in The DLL is called from VB passing a VarPtr(bytAr(0)). It is a standard DLL, news:OClHBMiMIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl: > "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message > news:Xns99F6C6CB54AD8thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142... >> Not true. I just wrote a standard DLL in PowerBasic that is simply a >> wrapper for a CRC16 algorithm. > > That's not VB6. so is simply uses long pointers. (And the DLL copies it back using simple pointers, but you're right, _that_ part isn't VB.) Michael C wrote:
> Still vb6 does not have unsigned ints which can be handy from time to time. For the numerically-challenged, perhaps."mayayana" <mayaXXyan***@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message When people make outrageous statement I will point them out as such.news:eMon1%23PMIHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > How do you expect anyone to listen to you when > you tell them bluntly that their personal experience > and opinion is just plain wrong? > Do you care if people It's not me who is turning this into religious dogma. To make statements > listen? Is it possible that you're really arguing mostly > with yourself? > Certainly no one is going to try to have a rational > discussion with you when you turn a programming tool > into religious dogma. like "vb is the best implemented programming tool ever" requires a lot of religious style thinking (start with a conclusion, ignore any counter evidence). Michael Michael C wrote:
> objects that you can actually use Given all variables are objects, I do wonder how you live with such a limitation?> properly because they are light enough to create 100,000 instances. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Have you used dot net karl? There are reference types and value types. Value news:%23XmK6oUMIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Michael C wrote: >> objects that you can actually use >> properly because they are light enough to create 100,000 instances. > > Given all variables are objects, I do wonder how you live with such a > limitation? types are not objects, they are value types just like a long or udt in vb6. They do do a trick to make it appear they inherit from object but they don't. Michael Michael C wrote:
> Have you used dot net karl? Honestly, the betrayal of trust was patently obvious at beta 1, so I did bail on it many, many years ago. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Fair enough, although a bit of a pity. It would have been good to have your news:%23L1V5QVMIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Michael C wrote: >> Have you used dot net karl? > > Honestly, the betrayal of trust was patently obvious at beta 1, so I did > bail on it many, many years ago. expertise there. My original point was that in VB6 you have to be careful where you use an object, for example I wrote a grid usercontrol in VB6 where each cell was an object. This was a mistake because with something as small as a 100x100 grid you start to get slowdowns populating and clearing the grid. Similar problems occurred if you tried to write oop code and load too many objects into memory. In dot net you can use objects almost anywhere which really frees up a lot of functionality. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote ... Appreciated, but I don't work with those I can't trust. What's the point in >> Michael C wrote: >>> Have you used dot net karl? >> >> Honestly, the betrayal of trust was patently obvious at beta 1, so I did >> bail on it many, many years ago. > > Fair enough, although a bit of a pity. It would have been good to have your > expertise there. becoming an expert in disposability, anyway? > My original point was that in VB6 you have to be careful Grids are a classic problem, and always bog down if/when fully populated, unless you > where you use an object, for example I wrote a grid usercontrol in VB6 where > each cell was an object. This was a mistake because with something as small > as a 100x100 grid you start to get slowdowns populating and clearing the > grid. go with some sort of virtualization. I can *scream* through instantly "fully-populated" grids of several-thousand square in ClassicVB. Just a matter of good design from the get-go. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message There is not going to be a repeat of the VB6 to dotnet fiasco. Dot net has a news:ef4JUgVMIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Appreciated, but I don't work with those I can't trust. What's the point > in becoming an expert in disposability, anyway? C syntax, MS likes C. > Grids are a classic problem, and always bog down if/when fully populated, I admit my design was flawed but that is my original point, using objects in > unless you go with some sort of virtualization. I can *scream* through > instantly "fully-populated" grids of several-thousand square in ClassicVB. > Just a matter of good design from the get-go. VB6 is restrictive. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Doesn't matter. MS *uses* C.> news:ef4JUgVMIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Appreciated, but I don't work with those I can't trust. What's the point >> in becoming an expert in disposability, anyway? > > There is not going to be a repeat of the VB6 to dotnet fiasco. Dot net has a > C syntax, MS likes C. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message MS also use C#, they even use it for some fairly significant projects. eg news:OgL6DsVMIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> There is not going to be a repeat of the VB6 to dotnet fiasco. Dot net >> has a >> C syntax, MS likes C. > > Doesn't matter. MS *uses* C. enterprise manager 2005. Michael On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:07:28 +1100, "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote: in <#l3dOvWMIHA.6***@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl> >MS also use C#, they even use it for some fairly significant projects. eg Do you actually use that? It's a big piece o' crap just like every>enterprise manager 2005. >Michael other piece of .NET desktop software. --- Stefan Berglund "Stefan Berglund" <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote in message I haven't used it that much but if it is a poc then that would be because news:cvspk3d3vml0d9ln6usec3aohne3i0mkeb@4ax.com... > Do you actually use that? It's a big piece o' crap just like every > other piece of .NET desktop software. they wrote it badly. Are you suggesting that because they wrote EM badly that all .net apps are badly written? Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Yep, further reinforcing my point.> news:OgL6DsVMIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> There is not going to be a repeat of the VB6 to dotnet fiasco. Dot net >>> has a C syntax, MS likes C. >> >> Doesn't matter. MS *uses* C. > > MS also use C#, they even use it for some fairly significant projects. eg > enterprise manager 2005. On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:07:14 -0800, "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> in <OgL6DsVMIHA.1***@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> wrote: >Michael C wrote: At any rate it's all so comforting, isn't it? Ah, so little, so late...>> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message >> news:ef4JUgVMIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> Appreciated, but I don't work with those I can't trust. What's the point >>> in becoming an expert in disposability, anyway? >> >> There is not going to be a repeat of the VB6 to dotnet fiasco. Dot net has a >> C syntax, MS likes C. > >Doesn't matter. MS *uses* C. --- Stefan Berglund "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message To Michael C:news:%23L1V5QVMIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Michael C wrote: >> Have you used dot net karl? > Perhaps a counter question is in order here: have you used VB6, Michael? It occurs to me that no one I know ever denigrates a tool set that they have used with great success. I have used VB6 with great success; it essentially bought me a house. The most important program I did is a significant asset to the company as intellectual property; one lawsuit over an infringement issue settled in 7 figures. I can screw up at work for quite a while now, before they would consider chasing me away. Others on this forum have also had great success with VB. Karl's success is legendary. Many other of the "VB6'ers" have had commercial or business success, spanning a wide range of programming categories. So what about you? If you were truly successful in VB6, I can't believe you would put it down as you do. Maybe the real issue is that you never quite mastered VB6, never worked out how to get it to do whatever you wanted with good performance; were not clever enough to overcome the apparent obstacles; never discovered its power and elegance and finesse. That is nothing to be ashamed of, and if VB.Net is getting you somewhere, and you are having success with it, then more power to you, and I wish you well. I am having reasonable success with a VB.Net project myself. But the chance of you convincing any of the successful VB6 developers on this forum that VB6 sucks is exactly zero, as you can probably tell by now. "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message You've got me all wrong (seriously). I don't hate VB6 and think it was a news:Avydndrk3Y4fRtHanZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com... > To Michael C: > > Perhaps a counter question is in order here: have you used VB6, Michael? > > It occurs to me that no one I know ever denigrates a tool set that they > have used with great success. pretty reasonable tool for it's time. I used to think it was the best thing since sliced bread but see it more objectively now. It had a lot of faults and I think was not aimed at professionals as much as it could have been. You would get the impression that I dislike it more than I do because I'm responding to what I consider fairly far out statements. MS took VB6 and spent over a billion dollars making literally 10s of 1000s of improvements. When I see someone trying to say VB6 is better I can't help but reply with "you've gotta kidding!!!" :-) > So what about you? If you were truly successful in VB6, I can't believe You've got me all wrong here too. The first programming job I got I was the > you would put it down as you do. Maybe the real issue is that you never > quite mastered VB6, never worked out how to get it to do whatever you > wanted with good performance; were not clever enough to overcome the > apparent obstacles; never discovered its power and elegance and finesse. junior to someone who seriously didn't have a clue. I was so far down the tree I wasn't even considered a programmer (more support and hardware tech). It didn't take them long to work out I knew a lot more than this guy so they sacked him and gave me the job. In a few months I had rewritten his POS app (no, I don't mean point of sale:-) with great success. People are still using it today with only minor changes in the last 5+ years and they are having trouble getting people to upgrade still. For my first commercial app it was a pretty good success, it was simple but did what it was meant to do with very little bugs. After that I had a fairly lackluster inhouse job that lasted 8 months. Then I moved to my current position where I rewrote a couple of dos apps in vb6. I think there were 3 failed attempts to rewrite the 2 apps before I started. I can't claim i'm happy with the first one I did but it's still in service and working well enough. The second one is going very well and has 80% of our local market. This app I really enjoyed writing at the start because I had 3 people working for me, progress was very good and it was more professionally done than my previous apps. > That is nothing to be ashamed of, and if VB.Net is getting you somewhere, The problem I have now is that I have redone my original VB app in C# but am > and you are having success with it, then more power to you, and I wish you > well. I am having reasonable success with a VB.Net project myself. But the > chance of you convincing any of the successful VB6 developers on this > forum that VB6 sucks is exactly zero, as you can probably tell by now. stuck doing vb6 for most of my work. I find vb6 quite frustrating to work in now because the IDE is slow and it lacks most of the cool features I've become accustomed to. Michael "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in So why would you try to disguise a variable to make it look like an object news:uTvZ3FVMIHA.4136@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: > Have you used dot net karl? There are reference types and value types. > Value types are not objects, they are value types just like a long or > udt in vb6. They do do a trick to make it appear they inherit from > object but they don't. when, as you claim, they are not ? Would it not have been wise to just leave it as a variable, present it as a variable, and use it as a variable and not do some other mumbo jumbo to make it look like something else, when it's not, and when everyone else knows it's just another variable and used in the same way ? "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message The way they've done it is pretty good. You can't have an int truly inherit news:Xns99F6C3CC5B0B3thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142... > So why would you try to disguise a variable to make it look like an object > when, as you claim, they are not ? > > Would it not have been wise to just leave it as a variable, present it as > a > variable, and use it as a variable and not do some other mumbo jumbo to > make it look like something else, when it's not, and when everyone else > knows it's just another variable and used in the same way ? from object because it would waste memory. But it needs to inherit from object otherwise you can't assign an int to an object variable. So they faked it. It's a better solution than having to have an object and a variant type. Michael Michael,
OK, whatever. Your diatribe isn't worth arguing with. How 'bout this. I LIKE VB6 BETTER and GET RESULTS WITH IT. Good enough? -bwr- Show quoteHide quote "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message news:euMAI7KMIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > "Bruce W. Roeser" <broe***@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message > news:ObqjN0KMIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Heh ... interesting that you should put it that way! >> >> I work with a large time & attendance application which has been >> gradually migrating to the .Net platform. I've got a project or two that >> were written in C#, some of the data transport code also in C# and my >> Rules Engine in VB.Net with it's configuration program in classic VB6. >> An interesting mix. >> >> So ... as a result I wind up working in all 3 - VB6, VB.Net and C#. Of >> all three I find VB6 the most enjoyable (free?) to work with, followed by >> VB.Net which is really OK - last-of-all, C#. When working in the C# code >> it feels slightly more restrictive as you have described. I hate the >> fact that most of the time I have to recompile to find out that I left a >> ":" off on a switch case where in VB.Net you find out right away due to >> the incremental compiler. There's a lot of other reasons I could go into >> but I concur with the way you feel about it. So far I've found >> absolutely nothing (in the context of my work) that I could not >> accomplish more quickly, more elegantly and more pleasantly with the >> VB's. > > Dot net has inheritance, generics, lots of consistancy, better use of > events, *much* better interop support, objects that you can actually use > properly because they are light enough to create 100,000 instances. It's > forms and controls are better implemented and usercontrols are far better. > ASP is properly compiled and we've got webservices. You can subclass with > a simple dropdown, menus work better, there's a wider range of controls > that work better. Bitmap support actually exists and GDI+ is supported. > Functionality has been extended in pretty much every area. The list is > endless. It's like VB but with all of VBs stupid restrictions removed. How > can you possibly describe VB as being free?!? Dot net is *significantly* > more free than VB6. > > Michael > "Bruce W. Roeser" <broe***@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message Yes, very good. Finally an actual valid point.news:%23QIJgmVMIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Michael, > > OK, whatever. Your diatribe isn't worth arguing with. How 'bout this. I > LIKE VB6 BETTER and GET RESULTS WITH IT. Good enough? Michael "Ralph" <nt_consultin***@yahoo.com> wrote in message Yep. That's probably true. In contrast, it takes bad programmers quite a bit news:%23XqfUHfLIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> What was it I heard......'The worst part of .Net is it allows bad >> programmers to write bad code faster.' > > LOL! > That's hilarious to me because I remember the *exact same thing* > being said about VB by C programmers back in the day of that > particular religious war. Perhaps even said by someone about > every RAD tool ever devised. <g> longer to write bad C++ or bad ASM, so the purchaser ends up paying a lot more for crap code ;-) Mike
Show quote
Hide quote
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message I think the reason it took so long for tools to become stricter in their news:Xns99F16DB35E558thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142... > So we have finally found out the real problem you have with VB. > > The problem is YOU. YOU are relying on the compiler to pick up on > mistakes that YOU have made. > > A few days ago I spent a couple hours debugging 2 problems in a DynamicC > embedded application. > > Both were typos. > > One was a compare, which I only had a single = instead of a double ==. > > And the other was a line setting an output bit with another typo. > > The compiler didn't pick them up, but I'm not going to cry about it. I'm > going to blame myself for making the stupid mistakes in the first place. > > And honestly, all of the ones you are citing are pretty stupid mistakes, > expected to be made by beginners, or just bad programmers. > > What was it I heard......'The worst part of .Net is it allows bad > programmers to write bad code faster.' compile is because of gung-ho attitudes such as yours. Having the compiler pick up your typos is somehow seen as giving in, or weak or somehow makes you less of a man. I'm not sure about you but I recognise that I am human and make mistakes. That does not make me a bad programmer. Given that people make mistakes it is better to have the compiler pick up those errors. I really don't see what is so over the top about that. The more errors the compiler picks up the better. You spent 2 hours finding typos yourself, how can you say it wouldn't be better to have instant notification instead? When designing C# they recognised that most bugs come from failing to initialize variables, failing to use break statements in cases, using = instead of == and buffer underruns. Failing to return a value from a function in VB was another. They fixed it so these are now not possible. Show quoteHide quote > > > > > "Michael C" <nospam@nospams.com> wrote in I'm not saying it wouldn't have been a good thing.news:uYVyrBiLIHA.4808@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl: > You spent 2 hours finding typos yourself, how can you say it wouldn't > be better to have instant notification instead? But, I use the tools I use because those are the tools I have. In the long run, it *should* make me pay more attention to detail and getting things right the first time through. But the whole story was, the 2 hours was more like 2 hours and 3 minutes. The 2 hours was at the end of a 10 hour day which ended in me storming out all ticked off saying WTF!!! Then the next morning, I sat down, stepped thru the code the first time, and immediately spotted both errors. I'm sure we've all had days like that. "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message Really that is what you're implying, at least to some degree.news:Xns99F1C8F4F527Bthisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142... > I'm not saying it wouldn't have been a good thing. > But, I use the tools I use because those are the tools I have. So why not have VB work more like asp script then? Wouldn't that make you > > In the long run, it *should* make me pay more attention to detail and > getting things right the first time through. *really* pay attention. > But the whole story was, the 2 hours was more like 2 hours and 3 minutes. Certainly have. A percentage of bugs will be caused by common issues that > The 2 hours was at the end of a 10 hour day which ended in me storming out > all ticked off saying WTF!!! Then the next morning, I sat down, stepped > thru the code the first time, and immediately spotted both errors. > > I'm sure we've all had days like that. the compiler now picks up. Michael Michael C wrote:
> This will also fail, can you guess why? Err.Number = 3> > Function AvoidNegative(ByVal V as Integer) As Integer > if V >= 0 then return V > End Function http://vb.mvps.org/BadReturn.asp HTH! ;-) "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message No.news:Oy6BlhUMIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Michael C wrote: >> This will also fail, can you guess why? >> >> Function AvoidNegative(ByVal V as Integer) As Integer >> if V >= 0 then return V >> End Function > > Err.Number = 3 > > http://vb.mvps.org/BadReturn.asp Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Well, duh. It's a syntax error. You're no fun at all, know that? <G>> news:Oy6BlhUMIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Michael C wrote: >>> This will also fail, can you guess why? >>> >>> Function AvoidNegative(ByVal V as Integer) As Integer >>> if V >= 0 then return V >>> End Function >> >> Err.Number = 3 >> >> http://vb.mvps.org/BadReturn.asp > > No. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message No, it vb.net code and doesn't produce a syntax error.news:uksOkRVMIHA.5300@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> No. > > Well, duh. It's a syntax error. > You're no fun at all, know that? <G> Fair enough, I did miss what you were trying to say with the return from gosub. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message It does in ClassicVB, which is, of course, the context in which the question was > news:uksOkRVMIHA.5300@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> No. >> >> Well, duh. It's a syntax error. > > No, it vb.net code and doesn't produce a syntax error. posed. <g> >> You're no fun at all, know that? <G> I thought so. <g> Starting to understand my sig a bit better?> > Fair enough, I did miss what you were trying to say with the return from > gosub.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message I can understand where you are coming from but I'm quite happy they made news:eYjs7gVMIHA.6100@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Michael C wrote: >> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message >> news:uksOkRVMIHA.5300@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> No. >>> >>> Well, duh. It's a syntax error. >> >> No, it vb.net code and doesn't produce a syntax error. > > It does in ClassicVB, which is, of course, the context in which the > question was posed. <g> > >>> You're no fun at all, know that? <G> >> >> Fair enough, I did miss what you were trying to say with the return from >> gosub. > > I thought so. <g> Starting to understand my sig a bit better? such radical changes. Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message What can I say? Some guys just like to BOGU. <shrug>> news:eYjs7gVMIHA.6100@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Michael C wrote: >>> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message >>> news:uksOkRVMIHA.5300@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>> No. >>>> >>>> Well, duh. It's a syntax error. >>> >>> No, it vb.net code and doesn't produce a syntax error. >> >> It does in ClassicVB, which is, of course, the context in which the >> question was posed. <g> >> >>>> You're no fun at all, know that? <G> >>> >>> Fair enough, I did miss what you were trying to say with the return from >>> gosub. >> >> I thought so. <g> Starting to understand my sig a bit better? > > I can understand where you are coming from but I'm quite happy they made > such radical changes. "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message It might have been designed as a RAD tools but it was ALSO designed for less news:Xns99F06840F890Dthisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142... > But it wasn't designed specifically for beginners. It was designed as a > RAD tool. experienced programmers. > Hmmmm. When I Dim x as long and try to assign it "String", it throws a Right, but try assigning it "1" and it works. The point is this is something > type-mismatch error. > > Two words......Option Explicit. the compiler should pick up. > Might be able to access them ? ...you CAN access all of those with You might be able to, if you're lucky and it works, but these things are > TypeLibs that are readily available in a 1000 places on the web. generally free and either have problems or restrictions or require much hoop jumping to get them to work. It's also not technically writing something in VB. > (And who in their right mind would ever want to use the extremely lame Just one example, there's hundreds of others.> implementation of Zip Folders anyway. I know, it was just an example.) > Each one created as an individual instance of a class ?....(Maybe just Interesting that seems so strange to you. In dot net this sort of thing is > another bad example.) very commonplace and programmers wouldn't think twice about making the cell of a grid into a class. Every item in a listbox is a class. Without reference counting an instance of a class is only 8 bytes (+ whatever data the class stores of course). > And some would say you couldn't use VB to write a full Windows shell You'd have a lot of trouble with that I would suggest. To do so properly > replacement either, but ......... would require many of the com interfaces not available to VB. If you use a typelib you are using more than VB. Michael "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message You can do it pretty fast in VB6 using GetDIBits to dump it into an array news:%23UomQE%23KIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Dot net (which I presume you're talking about) has > plenty of performance where needed. Try modifying > a bitmap pixel by pixel in vb6. and working on the array, and you can do it even faster still by getting the address of the existing bitmap in memory and pointing a SAFEARRAY structure at it so that you are working directly on the bitmap data in memory without needing to move it anywhere. Using the latter method in VB6 I can (for example) modify either the R, G or B component of a 1024 x 768 pixel 24 bit bitmap on a pixel by pixel basis in about 27 milliseconds on my fairly standard (and slow by today's standards) AMD 2.2Ghz machine. That's almost 40 such bitmaps per second, or about 28 megapixels per second. What sort of "pixel by pixel" speed are you talking about in Dot net? Mike
Show quote
Hide quote
"Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message I haven't got an exact speed but will give it a try. With C# at least (not news:eDsi0PALIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > You can do it pretty fast in VB6 using GetDIBits to dump it into an array > and working on the array, and you can do it even faster still by getting > the address of the existing bitmap in memory and pointing a SAFEARRAY > structure at it so that you are working directly on the bitmap data in > memory without needing to move it anywhere. > > Using the latter method in VB6 I can (for example) modify either the R, G > or B component of a 1024 x 768 pixel 24 bit bitmap on a pixel by pixel > basis in about 27 milliseconds on my fairly standard (and slow by today's > standards) AMD 2.2Ghz machine. That's almost 40 such bitmaps per second, > or about 28 megapixels per second. What sort of "pixel by pixel" speed > are you talking about in Dot net? vb.net) you can do pointer manipulation directly so I believe you will get similar speed to C++. With VB6 and GetDIBits you are doing a copy of the bitmap (according to help on GetDIBits) so C# should be around twice as fast. Michael "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message I'm not using GetDIBits. I'm referencing the bitmap data directly using news:edoNpUALIHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > With VB6 and GetDIBits you are doing a copy of the bitmap (according to > help on GetDIBits) so C# should > be around twice as fast. SAFEARRAY, without moving or copying the bitmap data anywhere, as I said in my previous response. And why are we talking about C#? I thought you were comparing VB6 to its equivalent dotnet language (or what Microsoft claim to be its equivalent) which would be VB.Net, or whatever they are calling it now, would it not? How does the pixel by pixel manipulation speed in VB.Net compare to the VB6 figures I've quoted? Mike "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message ok, I thought you meant you were doing both.news:ecSQYdALIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > I'm not using GetDIBits. I'm referencing the bitmap data directly using > SAFEARRAY, without moving or copying the bitmap data anywhere, as I said > in my previous response. > And why are we talking about C#? I thought you were comparing VB6 to its I'm comparing C# to VB6, you do as you like. In C# it will be quicker than > equivalent dotnet language (or what Microsoft claim to be its equivalent) > which would be VB.Net, or whatever they are calling it now, would it not? > How does the pixel by pixel manipulation speed in VB.Net compare to the > VB6 figures I've quoted? vb6 because the code in the array getter will have to calculate an offset into memory + call a function with all the associated push, pop and ret asm statements. In C# it's a direct pointer manipulation so will be significantly faster. Eg code to set all bitmap bits to wacky colors: int* ptr = GetPointer(); for(int i = 0; i < whatever; i++, ptr++) { ptr* = i; } Michael "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag Thought we had this discussion some time ago.news:uKKJslALIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > I'm comparing C# to VB6, you do as you like. In C# it will > be quicker than vb6 ... I asked you to come up with an implemented Image- Processing-Algo of your choice, wich does something more than an empty loop, so that we can compare that "real world" piece of code with the VB6-pendant. But you don't have delivered anything - you (Paul Clement too) are just talking ... when do you come up with something that you really *produced* within your great new environment - something that "beats the s**t out of us" ...? This would keep the discussion short - I'd think about it. Olaf Schmidt wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag Very short indeed. Looks like he's too petrified to even respond.> news:uKKJslALIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > >> I'm comparing C# to VB6, you do as you like. In C# it will >> be quicker than vb6 ... > Thought we had this discussion some time ago. > I asked you to come up with an implemented Image- > Processing-Algo of your choice, wich does something > more than an empty loop, so that we can compare that > "real world" piece of code with the VB6-pendant. > > But you don't have delivered anything - you (Paul Clement > too) are just talking ... when do you come up with something > that you really *produced* within your great new environment - > something that "beats the s**t out of us" ...? > > This would keep the discussion short - I'd think about it. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Hardly. I tell you what, when someone writes something in VB that inverts news:ea11drUMIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> This would keep the discussion short - I'd think about it. > > Very short indeed. Looks like he's too petrified to even respond. every pixel in a bitmp then I'll write something equivelant in dot net and we can compare the speed. The person who originally set down this challenge claims to have disappeared (mike williams) so there is little point me write a comparison to nothing. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote ... Olaf invited *you* to name the challenge, and he'd match it.>>> This would keep the discussion short - I'd think about it. >> >> Very short indeed. Looks like he's too petrified to even respond. > > Hardly. I tell you what, when someone writes something in VB that inverts > every pixel in a bitmp then I'll write something equivelant in dot net and > we can compare the speed. The person who originally set down this challenge > claims to have disappeared (mike williams) so there is little point me write > a comparison to nothing. Is _that_ your challenge? Seems only fair to me, that you both agree on the goal, before either invests time in it. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message There's so many posts here I can't even see Olaf in this thread at all. I news:upIcYeVMIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Olaf invited *you* to name the challenge, and he'd match it. thought it was M.W. talking about Bitblt and modifying bitmaps. > Is _that_ your challenge? Sounds reasonable.> Seems only fair to me, that you both agree on the goal, before either Code should load a bitmap of say 1024x768x24bit and invert every pixel 1001 > invests time in it. times. On each iteration whatever is used to modify the bitmap must be created again (eg if an array is used to modify the bitmap then the array must be destroyed and recreated 1001 times). Code must iterate through the bitmap, using an API to flip the bits on mass is out. Code must not invert the padding at the end of each line. Sound fair? Who's going to write the VB6 code? Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message His was the one to which I responded, and you then replied to me. IOW, "four-up."> news:upIcYeVMIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Olaf invited *you* to name the challenge, and he'd match it. > > There's so many posts here I can't even see Olaf in this thread at all. Show quoteHide quote >> Is _that_ your challenge? I'm not a graphics wiz, like some here, so I'll sit back and enjoy the show. Maybe > > Sounds reasonable. > >> Seems only fair to me, that you both agree on the goal, before either >> invests time in it. > > Code should load a bitmap of say 1024x768x24bit and invert every pixel 1001 > times. On each iteration whatever is used to modify the bitmap must be > created again (eg if an array is used to modify the bitmap then the array > must be destroyed and recreated 1001 times). Code must iterate through the > bitmap, using an API to flip the bits on mass is out. Code must not invert > the padding at the end of each line. Sound fair? Who's going to write the > VB6 code? open a popcorn concession, or something. <g> I do believe it won't take long for someone to agree to either this, or very similar terms. >> bitmap, using an API to flip the bits on mass is out. Code must not invert (Using Karl's post to respond to Michael C, since I'm blessedly blocking his posts.)That would be "en masse", not "on mass". Rob "Robert Morley" <rmor***@magma.ca.N0.Freak1n.sparn> wrote in message And I assume just en passant?news:OQ6gn9XMIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> bitmap, using an API to flip the bits on mass is out. Code must not invert > > (Using Karl's post to respond to Michael C, since I'm blessedly blocking his posts.) > > That would be "en masse", not "on mass". > -ralph <g> "Ralph" <nt_consultin***@yahoo.com> wrote in message We're playing chess now? :-)news:egxBxTYMIHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> (Using Karl's post to respond to Michael C, since I'm blessedly blocking > his posts.) >> >> That would be "en masse", not "on mass". >> > > And I assume just en passant? Michael > And I assume just en passant? Hehehe...first thing I thir thatwhen I hear that is "pawn takes pawn". :)Rob "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message What have you been drinking? There is no padding at the end of each line on news:eX5fjxVMIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Code must not invert the padding at the end of each line. a 1024x768x24bit bitmap! > Code should load a bitmap of 1024x768x24bit and Okay. So the routine inverts every pixel in the bitmap once, one by one, so > invert every pixel 1001 times. On each iteration whatever > is used to modify the bitmap must be created again (eg if > an array is used to modify the bitmap then the array must be destroyed and > recreated 1001 times). that the entire image is inverted, and then returns, destroying any arrays that were used in the process. And we call that routine 1001 times. Is that what you're saying? > Code must iterate through the bitmap, using an API Okay. We use nothing that operates on more than one pixel at a time.> to flip the bits on mass is out. > Sound fair? Yep. Sounds fair enough to me.> Who's going to write the VB6 code? I reckon we all have a go. Could be good fun. In fact I've written mine already. It's fairly fast, although the speed can almost certainly be improved and I'm sure there will be some issues with it, but it's early days yet. The total time to invert the entire 1024 x 768 x 24 bit bitmap and to do it 1001 times is . . . no . . . wait . . . let's have a look at your times first :-) By the way, this is just a temporary reprieve. Don't think I'm your best friend again ;-) Mike "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message Unfortunately, nothing.news:uKEN2BZMIHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:eX5fjxVMIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> Code must not invert the padding at the end of each line. > > What have you been drinking? > There is no padding at the end of each line on a 1024x768x24bit bitmap! Good point. I should rephrase that then, the code should take into account padding. The code should certainly not be hard coded to work with only a 1024x768 bitmap. Sound fair? Although I guess being hard coded to 24 bits is ok. > Okay. So the routine inverts every pixel in the bitmap once, one by one, Yes.> so that the entire image is inverted, and then returns, destroying any > arrays that were used in the process. And we call that routine 1001 times. > Is that what you're saying? > Okay. We use nothing that operates on more than one pixel at a time. Yes.> I reckon we all have a go. Could be good fun. In fact I've written mine Soon, i'm going for a run before it gets dark here.> already. It's fairly fast, although the speed can almost certainly be > improved and I'm sure there will be some issues with it, but it's early > days yet. The total time to invert the entire 1024 x 768 x 24 bit bitmap > and to do it 1001 times is . . . no . . . wait . . . let's have a look at > your times first :-) > By the way, this is just a temporary reprieve. Don't think I'm your best You know it's no fun without you mike ;-)> friend again ;-) Michael "Michael C" <nospam@nospams.com> wrote in message Okay. Hurry up though. Rattle your Dags ;-)news:%23NTzT9ZMIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Soon, i'm going for a run before it gets dark here. Mike "Michael C" <nospam@nospams.com> wrote in message Yep. Okay. But since you've been setting all the restrictions so far let's news:%23NTzT9ZMIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > The code should certainly not be hard coded to work > with only a 1024x768 bitmap. Although I guess being > hard coded to 24 bits is ok. Sound fair? set one of my own. I don't know how broadly you are going to interpret "Visual Basic Net" (or whatever they are calling it these days) but if it is possible to link C# or ASM routines into it then you aren't allowed to do that. Otherwise we might as well just write a dll in ASM and call it from our VB6 programs. So, no C# or ASM. Sound fair? Mike "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message I said right at the start I was doing C#. VB.net has no pointers afaik.news:evdDM0aMIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Yep. Okay. But since you've been setting all the restrictions so far let's > set one of my own. I don't know how broadly you are going to interpret > "Visual Basic Net" (or whatever they are calling it these days) but if it > is possible to link C# or ASM routines into it then you aren't allowed to > do that. Otherwise we might as well just write a dll in ASM and call it > from our VB6 programs. So, no C# or ASM. Sound fair? Michael "Michael C" <nospam@nospams.com> wrote in message On 21st November in response to a post by Bob Butler and others who said news:%2342$%23kbMIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > I said right at the start I was doing C#. VB.net > has no pointers afaik. they were happy to continue using VB6 you said, "There are newer languages with all the features of VB6 and more". I believe that most of us naturally assumed you were referring to VB.Net or whatever they are calling it these days, an impression which it was obviously your intention to give. That is definitely what I assumed myself, and I believe it is the truth. You went on to say: "Dot net has plenty of performance where needed. Try modifying a bitmap pixel by pixel in vb6. In dot net you can even do pixel by pixel manipulation on a video stream and keep up with it". Again, I believe that most of us here assumed that you were referring to VB.Net and for my own part I am absolutely sure that is the impression you intended to give in order to defend your beloved "new Basic" language against the claims that some people had made saying that it was slow and bloated and various other things. We were clearly talking about the respective merits of the two Microsoft languages that are currently using the word BASIC in their name. Regardless of anything else, one thing that is absolutely certain is that you were implying that VB6 would be very slow at modifying bitmaps when you said, "Try modifying a bitmap pixel by pixel in vb6". That statement clearly tells us that you personally think VB6 would be slow at that task. Have you changed your mind now that you have been challenged to prove your point? It certainly looks as though you have. I personally believe that, completely contrary to your own opinion, VB6 would be able to perform that task extremely quickly, and that your beloved VB.Net would run like a pig in treacle when doing it! Why will you not accept the challenge? This thread is far too long now for me to bother looking all the way through it to discover exactly when you got frightened and changed your mind, but throughout the last twelve months or so you've been banging on about how much better VB.Net is and every time we told you that it was slow and bloated and cumbersome you refused to believe us and you told us that it is just as fast and often faster than VB6. Now it appears that you have changed your mind and are admitting that VB.Net is as slow as a pig in treacle! WTF! Are you a coward, Michael C? Have you not got the guts to pit your beloved VB.Net against VB6? Go on. Give it a stab. You know you want to. You're supposed to be a capable programmer, and your beloved VB.Net is supposed to be the "bees knees" of modern languages. Surely you can squeeze a bit of speed out of it. The reputation of your beloved VB.Net is at stake here. Do you give in, or are you prepared to take on the challenge? Mike
Show quote
Hide quote
"Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message Give it a rest Mike. I never said I intended to use vb.net. Any impression news:eXuvAOcMIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > On 21st November in response to a post by Bob Butler and others who said > they were happy to continue using VB6 you said, "There are newer languages > with all the features of VB6 and more". I believe that most of us > naturally assumed you were referring to VB.Net or whatever they are > calling it these days, an impression which it was obviously your intention > to give. That is definitely what I assumed myself, and I believe it is the > truth. You went on to say: > > "Dot net has plenty of performance where needed. Try modifying > a bitmap pixel by pixel in vb6. In dot net you can even do pixel by > pixel manipulation on a video stream and keep up with it". > > Again, I believe that most of us here assumed that you were referring to > VB.Net and for my own part I am absolutely sure that is the impression you > intended to give in order to defend your beloved "new Basic" language > against the claims that some people had made saying that it was slow and > bloated and various other things. We were clearly talking about the > respective merits of the two Microsoft languages that are currently using > the word BASIC in their name. > > Regardless of anything else, one thing that is absolutely certain is that > you were implying that VB6 would be very slow at modifying bitmaps when > you said, "Try modifying a bitmap pixel by pixel in vb6". That statement > clearly tells us that you personally think VB6 would be slow at that task. > Have you changed your mind now that you have been challenged to prove your > point? It certainly looks as though you have. I personally believe that, > completely contrary to your own opinion, VB6 would be able to perform that > task extremely quickly, and that your beloved VB.Net would run like a pig > in treacle when doing it! Why will you not accept the challenge? > > This thread is far too long now for me to bother looking all the way > through it to discover exactly when you got frightened and changed your > mind, but throughout the last twelve months or so you've been banging on > about how much better VB.Net is and every time we told you that it was > slow and bloated and cumbersome you refused to believe us and you told us > that it is just as fast and often faster than VB6. Now it appears that you > have changed your mind and are admitting that VB.Net is as slow as a pig > in treacle! > > WTF! Are you a coward, Michael C? Have you not got the guts to pit your > beloved VB.Net against VB6? Go on. Give it a stab. You know you want to. > You're supposed to be a capable programmer, and your beloved VB.Net is > supposed to be the "bees knees" of modern languages. Surely you can > squeeze a bit of speed out of it. The reputation of your beloved VB.Net is > at stake here. Do you give in, or are you prepared to take on the > challenge? you got in that direction was in your head, not mine. I haven't used vb.net except right at the start in 2001 for 1 month only for some test projects. As far as I'm concerned we're comparing vb6 to dotnet. If I wanted to be as pedantic as you are being I would insist that we cannot use APIs because dotnet can do it all natively and I know vb6 cannot. Michael Waffle: It's not just a breakfast food anymore.
Show quoteHide quote "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uSbLx3gMIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... | "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message | news:eXuvAOcMIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... | > On 21st November in response to a post by Bob Butler and others who said | > they were happy to continue using VB6 you said, "There are newer languages | > with all the features of VB6 and more". I believe that most of us | > naturally assumed you were referring to VB.Net or whatever they are | > calling it these days, an impression which it was obviously your intention | > to give. That is definitely what I assumed myself, and I believe it is the | > truth. You went on to say: | > | > "Dot net has plenty of performance where needed. Try modifying | > a bitmap pixel by pixel in vb6. In dot net you can even do pixel by | > pixel manipulation on a video stream and keep up with it". | > | > Again, I believe that most of us here assumed that you were referring to | > VB.Net and for my own part I am absolutely sure that is the impression you | > intended to give in order to defend your beloved "new Basic" language | > against the claims that some people had made saying that it was slow and | > bloated and various other things. We were clearly talking about the | > respective merits of the two Microsoft languages that are currently using | > the word BASIC in their name. | > | > Regardless of anything else, one thing that is absolutely certain is that | > you were implying that VB6 would be very slow at modifying bitmaps when | > you said, "Try modifying a bitmap pixel by pixel in vb6". That statement | > clearly tells us that you personally think VB6 would be slow at that task. | > Have you changed your mind now that you have been challenged to prove your | > point? It certainly looks as though you have. I personally believe that, | > completely contrary to your own opinion, VB6 would be able to perform that | > task extremely quickly, and that your beloved VB.Net would run like a pig | > in treacle when doing it! Why will you not accept the challenge? | > | > This thread is far too long now for me to bother looking all the way | > through it to discover exactly when you got frightened and changed your | > mind, but throughout the last twelve months or so you've been banging on | > about how much better VB.Net is and every time we told you that it was | > slow and bloated and cumbersome you refused to believe us and you told us | > that it is just as fast and often faster than VB6. Now it appears that you | > have changed your mind and are admitting that VB.Net is as slow as a pig | > in treacle! | > | > WTF! Are you a coward, Michael C? Have you not got the guts to pit your | > beloved VB.Net against VB6? Go on. Give it a stab. You know you want to. | > You're supposed to be a capable programmer, and your beloved VB.Net is | > supposed to be the "bees knees" of modern languages. Surely you can | > squeeze a bit of speed out of it. The reputation of your beloved VB.Net is | > at stake here. Do you give in, or are you prepared to take on the | > challenge? | | Give it a rest Mike. I never said I intended to use vb.net. Any impression | you got in that direction was in your head, not mine. I haven't used vb.net | except right at the start in 2001 for 1 month only for some test projects. | As far as I'm concerned we're comparing vb6 to dotnet. If I wanted to be as | pedantic as you are being I would insist that we cannot use APIs because | dotnet can do it all natively and I know vb6 cannot. | | Michael | | "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message Actually when I first mentioned the idea of modifying a bitmap I well and news:ONbXZTiMIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Waffle: It's not just a breakfast food anymore. truly had a C# in mind because I know full well that it cannot be done as well in vb.net. Mike is just inventing stuff as usual. Michael I see...so by that logic, the challenge you laid out could be done in a
superior way by VB6 and not by VB.NET? That's what I am seeing here. Instead of backpeddeling with semantics, I think it's obvious by now that when .NET is brought up in this particular newsgroup (as it is a VB newsgroup, not a C# newsgroup) it's in reference to VB.NET, not C#, C++ or another other flavour of .NET. C# is a different animal entirely and any challenge proposed should be VB.NET versus VB6. Period. The End. Do you wish to reword your challenge? Otherwise I will then take this as an admission that the challenge you proposed cannot be done as efficiently in VB.NET as it can be done in VB COM. Thanks. Show quoteHide quote "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:OWzpvriMIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... | "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message | news:ONbXZTiMIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... | > Waffle: It's not just a breakfast food anymore. | | Actually when I first mentioned the idea of modifying a bitmap I well and | truly had a C# in mind because I know full well that it cannot be done as | well in vb.net. Mike is just inventing stuff as usual. | | Michael | | "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message Backpeddling?!? I knew VB.net does not do pointers. The whole reason I chose news:eIl3xDjMIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >I see...so by that logic, the challenge you laid out could be done in a > superior way by VB6 and not by VB.NET? That's what I am seeing here. > Instead of backpeddeling with semantics, this very example was to test the pointers in C#!!! > I think it's obvious by now that It's actually pretty much exactly the same thing with a syntax change and > when .NET is brought up in this particular newsgroup (as it is a VB > newsgroup, not a C# newsgroup) it's in reference to VB.NET, not C#, C++ or > another other flavour of .NET. C# is a different animal entirely other minor differences. I CHOSE one of the differences on PURPOSE!! > and any Show me the stone where that is written. You and mike are just trying to > challenge proposed should be VB.NET versus VB6. Period. The End. wiggle your way out of this. > Do you wish to reword your challenge? Otherwise I will then take this as No, vb.net would just need to use similar hacks that vb6 does. For all I > an > admission that the challenge you proposed cannot be done as efficiently in > VB.NET as it can be done in VB COM. know they've introduced some functionality in vb 2005 to cater for this. It's been 6 years since i've used it. Michael I'm not trying to wiggle my way out of anything. You have *yet* to provide
that list of 100 improvements. Until you can back up your claims, your credibility is ziltch. All bark no bite. Seems the only one here who won't back up any of what they claim is you. So, again...put up or shut up. Show quoteHide quote "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:u8kDrRjMIHA.280@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... | "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message | news:eIl3xDjMIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... | >I see...so by that logic, the challenge you laid out could be done in a | > superior way by VB6 and not by VB.NET? That's what I am seeing here. | > Instead of backpeddeling with semantics, | | Backpeddling?!? I knew VB.net does not do pointers. The whole reason I chose | this very example was to test the pointers in C#!!! | | > I think it's obvious by now that | > when .NET is brought up in this particular newsgroup (as it is a VB | > newsgroup, not a C# newsgroup) it's in reference to VB.NET, not C#, C++ or | > another other flavour of .NET. C# is a different animal entirely | | It's actually pretty much exactly the same thing with a syntax change and | other minor differences. I CHOSE one of the differences on PURPOSE!! | | > and any | > challenge proposed should be VB.NET versus VB6. Period. The End. | | Show me the stone where that is written. You and mike are just trying to | wiggle your way out of this. | | > Do you wish to reword your challenge? Otherwise I will then take this as | > an | > admission that the challenge you proposed cannot be done as efficiently in | > VB.NET as it can be done in VB COM. | | No, vb.net would just need to use similar hacks that vb6 does. For all I | know they've introduced some functionality in vb 2005 to cater for this. | It's been 6 years since i've used it. | | Michael | | "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message You didn't reply to my post at all (can you think of a reason someone would news:epeZX5jMIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > I'm not trying to wiggle my way out of anything. You have *yet* to > provide > that list of 100 improvements. Until you can back up your claims, your > credibility is ziltch. All bark no bite. Seems the only one here who > won't > back up any of what they claim is you. So, again...put up or shut up. do that?). I've already answered the above 2 or 3 times so am not going to again. Michael "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message But that's not what you said. You said .NET, and since this is a Visual news:u8kDrRjMIHA.280@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Backpeddling?!? I knew VB.net does not do pointers. > The whole reason I chose this very example was to test > the pointers in C#!!! Basic newsgroup I think we are all perfectly entitled to assume that you meant VB.Net. If you want to compare the C# component of your "total Net package" to other equivalents then you should be making your .NET challenge on a C or C++ group! Why don't you do that? Are you scared? Not that I'm frightened of your C# .NET stuff, you understand. I'm quite prepared to take it on at this specific task. I do of course expect VB6 to be beaten by any flavour of C or ASM or anything similar, but I expect you will be surprised at just how quickly we can do these things in VB6 and you will see that it is very much faster than you implied when you said, "Try modifying a bitmap pixel by pixel in vb6". So, since you are using a much lower level language and since it is you who made the challenge, I shall expect you to go first. I don't need to see your code. Just create and test your C# program and post the results of the timing test, telling us the details of the machine on which you ran your test. All I ask is that before you do so you should email your code to a couple of people we can both trust. Then when I have seen the posted result of your own timing test I shall either give up gracefully or I shall attempt to see how close I can come to your result in VB6. How about that? Mike "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message It's seems you're petrified of this comparison before it even starts.news:OKWsX9kMIHA.4948@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > But that's not what you said. You said .NET, and since this is a Visual > Basic newsgroup I think we are all perfectly entitled to assume that you > meant VB.Net. If you want to compare the C# component of your "total Net > package" to other equivalents then you should be making your .NET > challenge on a C or C++ group! Why don't you do that? Are you scared? > Not that I'm frightened of your C# .NET stuff, you understand. I'm quite You do realise I was talking about native vb6 code.> prepared to take it on at this specific task. I do of course expect VB6 to > be beaten by any flavour of C or ASM or anything similar, but I expect you > will be surprised at just how quickly we can do these things in VB6 and > you will see that it is very much faster than you implied when you said, > "Try modifying a bitmap pixel by pixel in vb6". > So, since you are using a much lower level language C# is not a lower level language at all. I've said many times here before that C# is the language they used to trick C++ programmers into using what is essentially Visual Basic. > and since it is you who made the challenge, I shall expect you to go I think you should post your code and results regardless.> first. I don't need to see your code. Just create and test your C# program > and post the results of the timing test, telling us the details of the > machine on which you ran your test. All I ask is that before you do so you > should email your code to a couple of people we can both trust. Then when > I have seen the posted result of your own timing test I shall either give > up gracefully or I shall attempt to see how close I can come to your > result in VB6. How about that? Michael "Michael C" <nospam@nospams.com> wrote in message Certainly not! In fact you're too late. It's not only started but it's news:udfBc6mMIHA.5988@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > It's seems you're petrified of this comparison before it even starts. finished! And all three lots of code (my own VB6 code and Tom Shelton's VB.Net and C# code) have been posted. The VB6 code is, as expected and as I knew in advance, slower than the C# code, but it is considerably faster than the VB.Net code and it is certainly not the "slouch" you implied it was! So you don't need to bother now. The job's been done by somebody else. You are surplus to requirements. You can go back to trolling somewhere else, or perhaps guarding a bridge somewhere, and also back onto my "blocked" list, effective immediately :-) Mike "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message Looks like I am. I didn't have time to do it last night and I have to work news:uKxNgXnMIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Certainly not! In fact you're too late. It's not only started but it's > finished! And all three lots of code (my own VB6 code and Tom Shelton's > VB.Net and C# code) have been posted. The VB6 code is, as expected and as > I knew in advance, slower than the C# code, but it is considerably faster > than the VB.Net code and it is certainly not the "slouch" you implied it > was! So you don't need to bother now. The job's been done by somebody > else. You are surplus to requirements. You can go back to trolling > somewhere else, or perhaps guarding a bridge somewhere, and also back onto > my "blocked" list, effective immediately :-) on thursdays so didn't get the chance until now. Certainly Tom's VB code could be optimised significantly. I've started a new thread with my results anyway. Michael "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message I've started a new thread because this one is getting a bit long in the news:OKWsX9kMIHA.4948@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Not that I'm frightened of your C# .NET stuff, you understand. I'm quite > prepared to take it on at this specific task. I do of course expect VB6 to > be beaten by any flavour of C or ASM or anything similar, but I expect you > will be surprised at just how quickly we can do these things in VB6 and > you will see that it is very much faster than you implied when you said, > "Try modifying a bitmap pixel by pixel in vb6". tooth. Results for my test have been posted. Michael "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message Right. So you admit after all that VB.Net is not up to the job! Not such the news:uSbLx3gMIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Give it a rest Mike. I never said I intended to use vb.net. "vast improvement on VB6" that you have said it is! Mike "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message This is daft. MC has not used VB.Net since 2001. Assuming he hasn't used VB6 news:Oiv067kMIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:uSbLx3gMIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > >> Give it a rest Mike. I never said I intended to use vb.net. Any impression >> you got in that direction was in your head, not mine. I haven't used vb.net >> except right at the start in 2001 for 1 month only for some test projects. > > Right. So you admit after all that VB.Net is not up to the job! Not such the > "vast improvement on VB6" that you have said it is! > either, that would be 6 years since he has done anything in VB at all. The only question left is why has he been doggedly posting on a VB newsgroup all this time? There can't be any good reasons for that. Now it is getting a bit more interesting!
Let's have a shoot out and settle this. One task won't be enough though. RBS Show quoteHide quote "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ehmolSVMIHA.5300@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message > news:ea11drUMIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> This would keep the discussion short - I'd think about it. >> >> Very short indeed. Looks like he's too petrified to even respond. > > Hardly. I tell you what, when someone writes something in VB that inverts > every pixel in a bitmp then I'll write something equivelant in dot net and > we can compare the speed. The person who originally set down this > challenge claims to have disappeared (mike williams) so there is little > point me write a comparison to nothing. > > Michael > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:33:37 +0100, "Schmidt" <s**@online.de> wrote: ¤ > I'm comparing C# to VB6, you do as you like. In C# it will¤ > be quicker than vb6 ... ¤ Thought we had this discussion some time ago. ¤ I asked you to come up with an implemented Image- ¤ Processing-Algo of your choice, wich does something ¤ more than an empty loop, so that we can compare that ¤ "real world" piece of code with the VB6-pendant. ¤ ¤ But you don't have delivered anything - you (Paul Clement ¤ too) are just talking ... when do you come up with something ¤ that you really *produced* within your great new environment - ¤ something that "beats the s**t out of us" ...? ¤ ¤ This would keep the discussion short - I'd think about it. LOL! Yeah right. I'm still waiting for that Classic VB Web Service. ;-) Or, maybe you have a better method for remote data access that I haven't seen yet? Of course we already know that attempting to develop any web based application or component in Classic Visual Basic is pretty much a waste of time. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:47:18 -0600, Paul Clement
<UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote: in <1u9rk3l5a59vks63huof7pjvgfogdmu***@4ax.com> Show quoteHide quote >On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:33:37 +0100, "Schmidt" <s**@online.de> wrote: What is a waste of time is attempting to respond or engage you in any> > >¤ > I'm comparing C# to VB6, you do as you like. In C# it will >¤ > be quicker than vb6 ... >¤ Thought we had this discussion some time ago. >¤ I asked you to come up with an implemented Image- >¤ Processing-Algo of your choice, wich does something >¤ more than an empty loop, so that we can compare that >¤ "real world" piece of code with the VB6-pendant. >¤ >¤ But you don't have delivered anything - you (Paul Clement >¤ too) are just talking ... when do you come up with something >¤ that you really *produced* within your great new environment - >¤ something that "beats the s**t out of us" ...? >¤ >¤ This would keep the discussion short - I'd think about it. > >LOL! Yeah right. I'm still waiting for that Classic VB Web Service. ;-) > >Or, maybe you have a better method for remote data access that I haven't seen yet? > >Of course we already know that attempting to develop any web based application or component in >Classic Visual Basic is pretty much a waste of time. > > >Paul >~~~~ >Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) sort of meaningful dialog but I'd hardly call my enterprise a waste of time and it was built from the ground up using Classic Visual Basic. I have built nine web services spread over two commercially hosted web sites serving a million page views a week all written in classic ASP . The coolest one by far is the one that automates QuickBooks to print PDFs of all my weekly invoices, then uploads them to a web service which emails them from my domain. I guess if you want to call a quarter million dollars a year a waste of time, then you must be much bigger potatoes then me and my little old Classic Visual Basic enterprise but I'm very happy with my hobby. --- Stefan Berglund On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:33:46 -0800, Stefan Berglund <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote:
¤ What is a waste of time is attempting to respond or engage you in any ¤ sort of meaningful dialog but I'd hardly call my enterprise a waste of ¤ time and it was built from the ground up using Classic Visual Basic. I ¤ have built nine web services spread over two commercially hosted web ¤ sites serving a million page views a week all written in classic ASP . ¤ ¤ The coolest one by far is the one that automates QuickBooks to print ¤ PDFs of all my weekly invoices, then uploads them to a web service which ¤ emails them from my domain. ¤ ¤ I guess if you want to call a quarter million dollars a year a waste of ¤ time, then you must be much bigger potatoes then me and my little old ¤ Classic Visual Basic enterprise but I'm very happy with my hobby. If you had actually written a web service using Classic VB then I'm sure you would have provided an example, or at least documented how you accomplished this task. They're not supported natively so you either used third-party software or SDK extensions to the development environment, something that is not required by .NET. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote in message Well judging by Michael's C's reluctance (and your own reluctance, news:1u9rk3l5a59vks63huof7pjvgfogdmufmm@4ax.com... > Classic Visual Basic is pretty much a waste of time. incidentally) to put his money where his mouth is regarding the challenge to write VB.Net code to perform the exact challenge he detailed himself (the pixel by pixel invertion of a 1024x768x24 bmp) it looks as though VB.Net is a waste of time! Are you also scared to write and post the results of VB.Net code to perform that task? Come on, Paul, write some VB.Net code and post your results. Surely you're not as frightened as Michael C seems to be? Mike ~~~ Microsoft LVP (Visual Basic) On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:55:58 -0000, "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote: ¤ > Classic Visual Basic is pretty much a waste of time.¤ "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote in message ¤ news:1u9rk3l5a59vks63huof7pjvgfogdmufmm@4ax.com... ¤ ¤ ¤ Well judging by Michael's C's reluctance (and your own reluctance, ¤ incidentally) to put his money where his mouth is regarding the challenge to ¤ write VB.Net code to perform the exact challenge he detailed himself (the ¤ pixel by pixel invertion of a 1024x768x24 bmp) it looks as though VB.Net is ¤ a waste of time! Are you also scared to write and post the results of VB.Net ¤ code to perform that task? Come on, Paul, write some VB.Net code and post ¤ your results. Surely you're not as frightened as Michael C seems to be? Try to keep up. A link to web service example in .NET has been previously posted. No such example has been provided in Classic VB. I had no interest in getting involved in this thread until my name was brought up. But it's obvious you guys have once again fallen for the thread bait. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote in message If it used ASP.Net, then it obviously doesn't count, as that should be compared news:unftk3dd763p4l6hscjs97937d058ajgov@4ax.com... > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:55:58 -0000, "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> > wrote: > > > Try to keep up. A link to web service example in .NET has been previously > posted. No such example > has been provided in Classic VB. > to ASP, not VB6. Duh. "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message Well go ahead. But I'm not at all interested in the result of such a news:uKKJslALIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > I'm comparing C# to VB6, you do as you like. comparison, and I suspect lots of others here are not interested in it either. But you're welcome to do it if it makes you happy and if it helps with your Microsoft wet dreams. You have a long history of comparing VB6 to what you have said is its dotnet equivalent (which you keep telling us is VB.Net or whatever they are calling it these days) and which you have told us repeatedly is the "new version" of Visual Basic. Now it seems you have been caught out in your false claims and so you have decided to compare VB6 with something else instead! You're a weirdo! You're just a Microsoft stooge and a troll, which reminds me of why I decided ages ago to stop communicating with you. As it happens I've let that decision slip a little on a number of occasions, but now that you've reminded me of your troll status I'll go back to totally ignoring you, starting here and now! Mike "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message Give it a rest mike. I've mentioned that I use C# on many occassions.news:Odj21OELIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Well go ahead. But I'm not at all interested in the result of such a > comparison, and I suspect lots of others here are not interested in it > either. But you're welcome to do it if it makes you happy and if it helps > with your Microsoft wet dreams. You have a long history of comparing VB6 > to what you have said is its dotnet equivalent (which you keep telling us > is VB.Net or whatever they are calling it these days) and which you have > told us repeatedly is the "new version" of Visual Basic. Now it seems you > have been caught out in your false claims and so you have decided to > compare VB6 with something else instead! > You're a weirdo! Interesting that *you* should say that.> You're just a Microsoft stooge I'd suggest a stooge is someone who continues to use an outdated product yet thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread. > and a troll, which reminds me of why I decided ages ago to stop That is a pity, I do enjoy your replies, no matter how wacky :-)> communicating with you. As it happens I've let that decision slip a little > on a number of occasions, but now that you've reminded me of your troll > status I'll go back to totally ignoring you, starting here and now! Michael "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message <news:u8QFi%23KLIHA.5***@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>... Don't worry, Windows 9.0 will destroy VB for once and for all!> I'd suggest a stooge is someone who continues to use an outdated product yet > thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread. No program written in a non-.NET language will even run! Not to worry, by the time Windows 9 comes out, VM will be standard and any
average user can run whatever OS they want. VB will still be around in one shape or another. And I would not hold your breath for .NET compatibility either. MS will yank support for your language at any time. When they finish working on their .ORG operating system, the programming language will actually be part of the OS. No room for .NET. Sorry. Show quoteHide quote ".NET Uber Alles" <dotnet.rules@everything.everywhere> wrote in message news:uqWoKcLLIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... | "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message <news:u8QFi%23KLIHA.5***@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>... | | > I'd suggest a stooge is someone who continues to use an outdated product yet | > thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread. | | Don't worry, Windows 9.0 will destroy VB for once and for all! | No program written in a non-.NET language will even run! | | ".NET Uber Alles" <dotnet.rules@everything.everywhere> wrote in message ..NET will eventually suffer the same fate.news:uqWoKcLLIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Don't worry, Windows 9.0 will destroy VB for once and > for all! No program written in a non-.NET language will > even run! "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag Not to mention the Wine-environment, wich already isnews:uoJDPlOLIHA.2432@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > ".NET Uber Alles" <dotnet.rules@everything.everywhere> wrote in message > news:uqWoKcLLIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > > Don't worry, Windows 9.0 will destroy VB for once and > > for all! No program written in a non-.NET language will > > even run! > > .NET will eventually suffer the same fate. mature enough to host most VB-Apps (COM+WinApi) right now - so if MS decides, to cripple their next OS regarding COM- and/or classic WinAPI-Support, they will shoot themselves in the foot I'd think. Olaf On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:23:01 -0000, "Mike Williams"
<mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote: in <uoJDPlOLIHA.2***@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> >".NET Uber Alles" <dotnet.rules@everything.everywhere> wrote in message Yes, but for other more socially conscionable reasons - the most>news:uqWoKcLLIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > >> Don't worry, Windows 9.0 will destroy VB for once and >> for all! No program written in a non-.NET language will >> even run! > >.NET will eventually suffer the same fate. striking of which is the fact that .NET is actually microsoft's attempt to proprietize the web and that will ~NEVER~ happen. The world will simply not allow that to happen. --- Stefan Berglund "Stefan Berglund" <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote in message Agreed. Microsoft would like nothing better than for all computer users to news:05nbk351j8ajleuohk8p6f00gd13pancqp@4ax.com... >>.NET will eventually suffer the same fate. > > Yes, but for other more socially conscionable reasons - the > most striking of which is the fact that .NET is actually > microsoft's attempt to proprietize the web and that will > ~NEVER~ happen. The world will simply not allow > that to happen. have no installed mainstream applications at all and for everyone to use web based applications (such as word processors and other things) on a "pay per document" basis. They would love that, and it is what they are aiming for. VB6 particularly gets up their nose because it allows companies to effectively produce "in house" software which does whatever the company wishes and Microsoft really cannot come to terms with the fact that somebody else (the VB6 programmers) are making money out of it! Mike ".NET Uber Alles" <dotnet.rules@everything.everywhere> wrote in message I really don't see that happening. VB is compiled code and if they stoppednews:uqWoKcLLIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message <news:u8QFi%23KLIHA.5***@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>... > > > I'd suggest a stooge is someone who continues to use an outdated product yet > > thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread. > > Don't worry, Windows 9.0 will destroy VB for once and for all! > No program written in a non-.NET language will even run! that working then they'd be stopping a HUGE amount of other apps and really would be linched. Show quoteHide quote > > "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message Yup, caught myself slipping up on that as well. Ah well, all fixed again now.news:Odj21OELIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:uKKJslALIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > >> I'm comparing C# to VB6, you do as you like. > > You're a weirdo! You're just a Microsoft stooge and a troll, which reminds me > of why I decided ages ago to stop communicating with you. As it happens I've > let that decision slip a little on a number of occasions, but now that you've > reminded me of your troll status I'll go back to totally ignoring you, > starting here and now! >
Show quote
Hide quote
"Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message Not that it matter much but one should be wary of the thinking that justnews:edoNpUALIHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message > news:eDsi0PALIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > You can do it pretty fast in VB6 using GetDIBits to dump it into an array > > and working on the array, and you can do it even faster still by getting > > the address of the existing bitmap in memory and pointing a SAFEARRAY > > structure at it so that you are working directly on the bitmap data in > > memory without needing to move it anywhere. > > > > Using the latter method in VB6 I can (for example) modify either the R, G > > or B component of a 1024 x 768 pixel 24 bit bitmap on a pixel by pixel > > basis in about 27 milliseconds on my fairly standard (and slow by today's > > standards) AMD 2.2Ghz machine. That's almost 40 such bitmaps per second, > > or about 28 megapixels per second. What sort of "pixel by pixel" speed > > are you talking about in Dot net? > > I haven't got an exact speed but will give it a try. With C# at least (not > vb.net) you can do pointer manipulation directly so I believe you will get > similar speed to C++. With VB6 and GetDIBits you are doing a copy of the > bitmap (according to help on GetDIBits) so C# should be around twice as > fast. > because C# allows pointer arithmetic it is somehow "faster" or worse is some how more "low-level" because it using pointers. In order to allow this the block gets removed from managed space. Whether it means the memory in question gets locked or copied depends on what's going on. For obvious reasons GC is also suspended for items of interest and a whole host of other things. In otherwords in actual practice you may or may not achieve an advantage. Remember with dotNet you are always one or two levels removed from what you think you are chewing on. <g> -ralph
Show quote
Hide quote
"Ralph" <nt_consultin***@yahoo.com> wrote in message That's quite possible although I know it doesn't create a copy of the datanews:ulNUy8HLIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Not that it matter much but one should be wary of the thinking that just > because C# allows pointer arithmetic it is somehow "faster" or worse is some > how more "low-level" because it using pointers. In order to allow this the > block gets removed from managed space. Whether it means the memory in > question gets locked or copied depends on what's going on. For obvious > reasons GC is also suspended for items of interest and a whole host of other > things. > > In otherwords in actual practice you may or may not achieve an advantage. > Remember with dotNet you are always one or two levels removed from what you > think you are chewing on. <g> because I checked that a while ago. It just locks that block of memory somehow so the GC won't move it. It is possible the code that manipulates the pointers doesn't translate to very efficient machine code though. I'd write something to test C# against mike's claims for VB but it appears those who were requesting this code have run off. Michael "Michael Culley" <mcul***@optushome.com.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag As said, I'd like to see this type of a small C#-Demo in action.news:O3E8jYPLIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > I'd write something to test C# against mike's claims for VB > but it appears those who were requesting this code have run off. A simple Form, wich loads a (let's say) 640x480 Bitmap into memory, performs a Contrast- or Brightness- or Alphablend-Algo on it and draws the result to the forms surface (stopping the needed time in ms). Stop "talking about" - simply do it, post a link and wait for responses. Olaf "Michael Culley" <mcul***@optushome.com.au> wrote in message Personally I wasn't asking for C# code, and I'm not sure that anyone else news:O3E8jYPLIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > I'd write something to test C# against mike's claims > for VB but it appears those who were requesting > this code have run off. was either (although I haven't read back through the many posts in this thread to check). I was more interested in seeing how the speed of VB.Net code (or Visual Basic.Net or whatever it is currently called) stacks up against the many claims that Michael C has made in respect of it over a long period, and I would particularly like to see code in VB.Net that performs some kind of operation or analysis on a bitmap on a pixel by pixel basis to see whether Michael C was correct when he suggested that VB6 would be crap at such pixel by pixel analysis. Perhaps you or someone else might like to write some Visual Basic.Net code to count the number of unique colours used in a 1600 x 1200 24 typical bit bitmap, perhaps a photo that we can all access on the net somewhere? How fast can Visual Basic.Net perform such a task? In light of what Michael C has said in this thread I assume that VB.Net will be blindingly fast compared to VB6! (timing only the part that performs the pixel by pixel analysis and ignoring the time taken to initially load the bmp file from disk so that we're all timing the same thing). Mike | How fast can Visual Basic.Net perform such a Forget the time it takes to load the BMP. By the time a .NET written EXE | task? In light of what Michael C has said in this thread I assume that | VB.Net will be blindingly fast compared to VB6! (timing only the part that | performs the pixel by pixel analysis and ignoring the time taken to | initially load the bmp file from disk so that we're all timing the same | thing). has loaded and completely started, the VB6 EXE has already started, loaded the BMP, performed the caluculations and shut off. Every .NET app I've ever had the displeasure to have to workk with takes for bloody ever to start. Let's not even talk about the slowness of the IDE...uuuugghhhhhh. "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message Yep. It's like a pig in treacle! Not quite the "wonder language" that news:uuiPK0RLIHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Every .NET app I've ever had the displeasure to have to work > with takes for bloody ever to start. Let's not even talk about > the slowness of the IDE...uuuugghhhhhh. Micro$oft has led us to believe. Mind you, anyone who trusts Micro$oft is in serious need of medical treatment! http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Microsoft-updates-Windows-without-users-consent http://news.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=34425&page=1658&catID=1633 Mike "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message While load times of the exe are a little longer the IDE is news:uuiPK0RLIHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Forget the time it takes to load the BMP. By the time a .NET written EXE > has loaded and completely started, the VB6 EXE has already started, loaded > the BMP, performed the caluculations and shut off. > > Every .NET app I've ever had the displeasure to have to workk with takes > for > bloody ever to start. Let's not even talk about the slowness of the > IDE...uuuugghhhhhh. ***SIGNIFICANTLY*** faster than the slug that the VB IDE is. On my machine it takes a full 2 minutes to stop and start my application and probably 5 minutes to close the IDE completely, open it and run my app. Show quoteHide quote > > A *little* longer? That's like saying Slowpoke Rodriguez is a little slower
than Speedy. For fun I opened up a blank VB6 project in less than a second. A blank VB 2005 Express project took over ten second (I stopped counting after that because it was starting to lock up my box). Significantly faster indeed. Show quoteHide quote "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message news:uWy0LPVLIHA.3992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... | "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message | news:uuiPK0RLIHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... | > Forget the time it takes to load the BMP. By the time a .NET written EXE | > has loaded and completely started, the VB6 EXE has already started, loaded | > the BMP, performed the caluculations and shut off. | > | > Every .NET app I've ever had the displeasure to have to workk with takes | > for | > bloody ever to start. Let's not even talk about the slowness of the | > IDE...uuuugghhhhhh. | | While load times of the exe are a little longer the IDE is | ***SIGNIFICANTLY*** faster than the slug that the VB IDE is. On my machine | it takes a full 2 minutes to stop and start my application and probably 5 | minutes to close the IDE completely, open it and run my app. | | > | > | | "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message Next time I need to work on a blank project I'll remember that. I think news:OwABAbVLIHA.5860@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >A *little* longer? That's like saying Slowpoke Rodriguez is a little >slower > than Speedy. > > For fun I opened up a blank VB6 project in less than a second. A blank VB > 2005 Express project took over ten second (I stopped counting after that > because it was starting to lock up my box). > > Significantly faster indeed. you'd have to agree that load times on a 100,000+ line app are what is more important. In dotnet it will still be close to 10 seconds. VB loads all code into memory, dot net does not. Michael "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message What are you running on? On my machine a blank dot net project loaded in 1 news:OwABAbVLIHA.5860@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >A *little* longer? That's like saying Slowpoke Rodriguez is a little >slower > than Speedy. > > For fun I opened up a blank VB6 project in less than a second. A blank VB > 2005 Express project took over ten second (I stopped counting after that > because it was starting to lock up my box). to 2 seconds and I hadn't even run it today so it wasn't cached. VB was less than a second but it was in the cache. Michael "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message Yep. VB.Net is as slow as a pig in treacle. And, referring to his response news:OwABAbVLIHA.5860@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >A *little* longer? That's like saying Slowpoke Rodriguez > is a little slower than Speedy. to your post, does that silly Michael C really believe users of his application give a fig about how quickly or how slowly the project took to load into his IDE! They couldn't give a monkey's toss about that! They paid the money for the app that he wrote for them, and all they care about (and quite rightly too) is how long it takes his VB.Not app to load and run on their machine! What a stupid troll Michael C is! No sense at all! Mike "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message I'm detecting a little anger their mike, you should see someone about that. news:%23g28ouVLIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Yep. VB.Net is as slow as a pig in treacle. And, referring to his response > to your post, does that silly Michael C really believe users of his > application give a fig about how quickly or how slowly the project took to > load into his IDE! They couldn't give a monkey's toss about that! They > paid the money for the app that he wrote for them, and all they care about > (and quite rightly too) is how long it takes his VB.Not app to load and > run on their machine! Naturally the speed of the IDE doesn't directly effect the users but it does effect me. However it does indirectly effect them because if I don't spend half my day waiting for the IDE then I get more done. At 2 minutes to start and stop my app that is a lot of time wasted in a day. While dot net apps are a little slower there are valid reasons for this and most of the slowdowns in an app are due to database lookup or other issues so the speed at which a form loads is less significantly. Because dot net is a managed environment it is going to be slower for good reason. We're moving away from exes these days (remember when jokes in emails were exes?). Now installers are MSI and animations are swfs. Dotnet is slower so that it can compile on the local machine and restrict what the application has access to. The fact that they've made it managed yet compile to native code is a very good thing. It's a lot faster than java apparently. > What a stupid troll Michael C is! No sense at all! Just reply to me directly mike, you know you want to. You just said you're going to ignore me yet 10 minutes later you're certainly not ignoring me. Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message lol, there are times, when I'm bored and looking for distraction, that > news:%23g28ouVLIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Yep. VB.Net is as slow as a pig in treacle. And, referring to his >> response to your post, does that silly Michael C really believe >> users of his application give a fig about how quickly or how slowly >> the project took to load into his IDE! They couldn't give a monkey's >> toss about that! They paid the money for the app that he wrote for >> them, and all they care about (and quite rightly too) is how long it >> takes his VB.Not app to load and run on their machine! > > I'm detecting a little anger their mike, you should see someone about > that. Naturally the speed of the IDE doesn't directly effect the > users but it does effect me. However it does indirectly effect them > because if I don't spend half my day waiting for the IDE then I get > more done. At 2 minutes to start and stop my app that is a lot of > time wasted in a day. While dot net apps are a little slower there > are valid reasons for this and most of the slowdowns in an app are > due to database lookup or other issues so the speed at which a form > loads is less significantly. > Because dot net is a managed environment it is going to be slower for > good reason. We're moving away from exes these days (remember when > jokes in emails were exes?). Now installers are MSI and animations > are swfs. Dotnet is slower so that it can compile on the local > machine and restrict what the application has access to. The fact > that they've made it managed yet compile to native code is a very > good thing. It's a lot faster than java apparently. >> What a stupid troll Michael C is! No sense at all! > > Just reply to me directly mike, you know you want to. You just said > you're going to ignore me yet 10 minutes later you're certainly not > ignoring me. > Michael reading this site equates very closely to most any teeny-bopper site or ego-wars site. Many of the posts are thoughtful of course, but several others sound more like 3rd graders unattended by their substitute teacher at 2:30 PM on the day before the Christmas holiday, right after Santa's visit. Sheesh! On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:36:26 GMT, "Pop`" <nodoby@devnull.spamcop.net> in <egp1j.21143$Xg.18128@trnddc06> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >Michael C wrote: Heh. But ~we~ have a significant development here since ~Michael C~>> "Mike Williams" <mi***@whiskyandCoke.com> wrote in message >> news:%23g28ouVLIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> Yep. VB.Net is as slow as a pig in treacle. And, referring to his >>> response to your post, does that silly Michael C really believe >>> users of his application give a fig about how quickly or how slowly >>> the project took to load into his IDE! They couldn't give a monkey's >>> toss about that! They paid the money for the app that he wrote for >>> them, and all they care about (and quite rightly too) is how long it >>> takes his VB.Not app to load and run on their machine! >> >> I'm detecting a little anger their mike, you should see someone about >> that. Naturally the speed of the IDE doesn't directly effect the >> users but it does effect me. However it does indirectly effect them >> because if I don't spend half my day waiting for the IDE then I get >> more done. At 2 minutes to start and stop my app that is a lot of >> time wasted in a day. While dot net apps are a little slower there >> are valid reasons for this and most of the slowdowns in an app are >> due to database lookup or other issues so the speed at which a form >> loads is less significantly. >> Because dot net is a managed environment it is going to be slower for >> good reason. We're moving away from exes these days (remember when >> jokes in emails were exes?). Now installers are MSI and animations >> are swfs. Dotnet is slower so that it can compile on the local >> machine and restrict what the application has access to. The fact >> that they've made it managed yet compile to native code is a very >> good thing. It's a lot faster than java apparently. >>> What a stupid troll Michael C is! No sense at all! >> >> Just reply to me directly mike, you know you want to. You just said >> you're going to ignore me yet 10 minutes later you're certainly not >> ignoring me. >> Michael > >lol, there are times, when I'm bored and looking for distraction, that >reading this site equates very closely to most any teeny-bopper site or >ego-wars site. Many of the posts are thoughtful of course, but several >others sound more like 3rd graders unattended by their substitute teacher at >2:30 PM on the day before the Christmas holiday, right after Santa's visit. >Sheesh! > > dropped the pronoun ~we~ into the sentence ~We're moving away from exes these days...~ I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that ~Michael C~ is really a microsoftie. --- Stefan Berglund "Stefan Berglund" <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote in message Are you saying we are not moving away from exes? We're at least getting news:c5ack3d6ua67pjs6d5q6u9nnelooj88ug4@4ax.com... > Heh. But ~we~ have a significant development here since ~Michael C~ > dropped the pronoun ~we~ into the sentence ~We're moving away from exes > these days...~ closer to the day when a company will not be given permission to run an exe on a user's machine. > I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that ~Michael C~ is really a Generally I use MS dev tools if that's what you mean but that is mainly due > microsoftie. to the direction of the company I work for. Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message Psssst... Intel *did* offer to replace to Pentium 90s some time ago, y'know?> news:uuiPK0RLIHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Forget the time it takes to load the BMP. By the time a .NET written EXE >> has loaded and completely started, the VB6 EXE has already started, loaded >> the BMP, performed the caluculations and shut off. >> >> Every .NET app I've ever had the displeasure to have to workk with takes >> for >> bloody ever to start. Let's not even talk about the slowness of the >> IDE...uuuugghhhhhh. > > While load times of the exe are a little longer the IDE is > ***SIGNIFICANTLY*** faster than the slug that the VB IDE is. On my machine > it takes a full 2 minutes to stop and start my application and probably 5 > minutes to close the IDE completely, open it and run my app.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message That 2 minutes is while using dotNet <g> Talk about "bloat-ware"...news:eXNjPtUMIHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> While load times of the exe are a little longer the IDE is >> ***SIGNIFICANTLY*** faster than the slug that the VB IDE is. On my >> machine >> it takes a full 2 minutes to stop and start my application and probably 5 >> minutes to close the IDE completely, open it and run my app. > > Psssst... Intel *did* offer to replace to Pentium 90s some time ago, > y'know? > -- > .NET: It's About Trust! > http://vfred.mvps.org -- Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - Please keep all discussions in the groups.. In Loving Memory - http://www.vbsight.com/Remembrance.htm "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message I actually upgraded to a p4 3.4 with 2gigs of dual channel ram which was the news:eXNjPtUMIHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> While load times of the exe are a little longer the IDE is >> ***SIGNIFICANTLY*** faster than the slug that the VB IDE is. On my >> machine >> it takes a full 2 minutes to stop and start my application and probably 5 >> minutes to close the IDE completely, open it and run my app. > > Psssst... Intel *did* offer to replace to Pentium 90s some time ago, > y'know? fastest available at the time that I could convince my work to buy. Start/stop time for the app came down to 2 minutes. I should be getting a quad core soon. :-) Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Oh yeah?!? Well, /I/ got a quad last week! HA! ;-P> news:eXNjPtUMIHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> While load times of the exe are a little longer the IDE is >>> ***SIGNIFICANTLY*** faster than the slug that the VB IDE is. On my >>> machine >>> it takes a full 2 minutes to stop and start my application and probably 5 >>> minutes to close the IDE completely, open it and run my app. >> >> Psssst... Intel *did* offer to replace to Pentium 90s some time ago, >> y'know? > > I actually upgraded to a p4 3.4 with 2gigs of dual channel ram which was the > fastest available at the time that I could convince my work to buy. > Start/stop time for the app came down to 2 minutes. I should be getting a > quad core soon. :-) "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Damn you! I'm still on a p4 2.4 at homenews:eY54zsVMIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Oh yeah?!? Well, /I/ got a quad last week! HA! ;-P Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote ... My day-to-day is a dual-Xeon (dual-core) 2.33 /w 2Gb. But I did get the dual-Xeon >> Oh yeah?!? Well, /I/ got a quad last week! HA! ;-P > > Damn you! I'm still on a p4 2.4 at home (quad-core) 2.0 /w 4Gb to use as a server. You do the math. <bSEg> or actually, the overburdened jet is doing the flying itself, and the pilot
is only there so there's a reason for a funeral if it goes down. Show quoteHide quote "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:u0bsc69KIHA.4808@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Michael C wrote: >> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote ... >>>> Why would you *want* to use VB? >>> >>> Why would someone *want* to fly an open-cockpit airplane? >> >> For the fun of it of course. But are you saying that VB6 is equivelant to >> a >> WWI fighter? :-) > > In it's own way, sure. ASM would probably be the Wright Brothers in North > Carolina, QB/PDS could be a WWI-era biplane, and ClassicVB picking up > perhaps closer to the WWII era. A very natural progression. Each vehicle > providing it's own special thrills. I think it's the best analogy I've > found, so far. > >> I'm quite serious about this question, when another >> language has *many* more advanced features that are fun to learn and use >> why >> would you want to use VB6. > > At which point, we're flying overburdened jumbojets. Boooooring... > > You could probably do something similar with vintage cars. Ever driven a > '60s muscle car? > >> Especially considering Bob is an experienced >> VB6er and probably used it for 10+ years. Certainly no one I've met who's >> moved on would say they want to use VB6, they all go way out of their way >> to >> avoid using it. > > I know plenty of self-satisfied snobs, too. <g> > -- > .NET: It's About Trust! > http://vfred.mvps.org > > You could probably do something similar with vintage cars. Ever driven a How Bout this one http://www.byerley.net/miketbolt2.jpg - I was 20> '60s muscle car? "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message Get out much? :)news:%23T1Xvm9KIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > Certainly no one I've met who's moved on would say they want to use VB6, they > all go way out of their way to avoid using it. > For any task that VB6 can do well, it will do it better, faster, and more compactly than .Net. You can decide to own only a manual screwdriver, or only a power screwdriver, or you can be sensible and own both, and then choose the tool appropriate to the task. There is no need at all to pick a side to be on, the whole argument is just a huge hand waving exercise. Agreed! Not to mention the fact I made about $200,000 last year, primarily
with VB6. Show quoteHide quote On 20-Nov-2007, "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote: > For any task that VB6 can do well, it will do it better, faster, and more > compactly than .Net. > Why would you *want* to use VB? There are newer languages with all the Oh boy. I'm afraid that I didn't properly savor> features of VB6 and more. > the last couple of months of peace and quiet when you and the other dog in the manger, Paul Clement, were off enjoying garbage-collected objects. Please... I hope you're not going to tell him that we're still here? "mayayana" <mayaXXyan***@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message Glad you missed me, although I have been here all along.news:e8Rb$1$KIHA.5116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Oh boy. I'm afraid that I didn't properly savor > the last couple of months of peace and quiet when > you and the other dog in the manger, Paul Clement, > were off enjoying garbage-collected objects. Please... > I hope you're not going to tell him that we're still here? Show quoteHide quote > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:13:48 -0500, "mayayana" <mayaXXyan***@mindXXspring.com> wrote: ¤ > Why would you *want* to use VB? There are newer languages with all the¤ > features of VB6 and more. ¤ > ¤ ¤ Oh boy. I'm afraid that I didn't properly savor ¤ the last couple of months of peace and quiet when ¤ you and the other dog in the manger, Paul Clement, ¤ were off enjoying garbage-collected objects. Please... ¤ I hope you're not going to tell him that we're still here? ¤ Don't worry I typically only stop by for the amusement. The same old nonsense continues whether I'm present or not. Perhaps you'll grasp the true meaning of that fact...and then again I sincerely doubt it. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) <david.sm***@initi-mail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e6de658c-f36c-4cc5-b4c3-2bac3da5babf@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... You have never needed to use VB. In fact you don't need to use any > Then I realised I didn't need to. Happy Days! programming language. <david.sm***@initi-mail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e6de658c-f36c-4cc5-b4c3-2bac3da5babf@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... Troll, troll, troll your boat....> Then I realised I didn't need to. Happy Days! Congratulations on a job well done; you incited a debate without even needing to participate beyond the first line.
Rob Show quoteHide quote <david.sm***@initi-mail.co.uk> wrote in message news:e6de658c-f36c-4cc5-b4c3-2bac3da5babf@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > Then I realised I didn't need to. Happy Days! "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fifegf$bi0$2@aioe.org... Clearly it is going to be a factor. Apps written in older languages are >> I'm not sure you are actually even reading the posts here. I said it is >> more *likely* that a VB6 app will need to be rewritten than a dot net app >> simply because it will be older and the programming language is more out >> of date. > > I did read that and I categorically reject it as a premise that the age > and language has any significant role, going to more likely need a rewrite. They will have the oldest features and be most out of date. It can't not be a factory. It's also got to be fairly significant. > per se for a reason for _re_-writing. I gave a specific example of why... You should know that one example means nothing. These guys must have been doing something pretty wrong not to get the needed speed out of C++. Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fifegf$bi0$2@aioe.org... Actually, one counter example is all it takes to disprove a hypothesis...>>> I'm not sure you are actually even reading the posts here. I said it is >>> more *likely* that a VB6 app will need to be rewritten than a dot net app >>> simply because it will be older and the programming language is more out >>> of date. >> I did read that and I categorically reject it as a premise that the age >> and language has any significant role, > > Clearly it is going to be a factor. Apps written in older languages are > going to more likely need a rewrite. They will have the oldest features and > be most out of date. It can't not be a factory. It's also got to be fairly > significant. > >> per se for a reason for _re_-writing. I gave a specific example of why... > > You should know that one example means nothing. These guys must have been > doing something pretty wrong not to get the needed speed out of C++. It was C, not C++, and yes they were doing something terribly wrong. What it was, however, was not at all obvious and almost entirely unrelated to the language they chose, but _very_ much related to the fact they chose to rewrite rather than adapt. The point is, however, they nearly bankrupted a company by trotting out the same argument that you're making -- that the need to add a few features to an old, working code required rewriting that code. -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fifnob$cgq$1@aioe.org... That's not true at all.> Actually, one counter example is all it takes to disprove a hypothesis... > It was C, not C++, and yes they were doing something terribly wrong. What So one rewrite went wrong so all rewrites are wrong?> it was, however, was not at all obvious and almost entirely unrelated to > the language they chose, but _very_ much related to the fact they chose to > rewrite rather than adapt. > The point is, however, they nearly bankrupted a company by trotting out That is NOT the arguement I am putting forward at all (are you not listening > the same argument that you're making -- that the need to add a few > features to an old, working code required rewriting that code. or just plain making stuff up!?!?). I said it is *more likely* an older app will need a re-write than a newer one. Michael Michael C wrote:
> "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fifnob$cgq$1@aioe.org... Au contraire, good buddy... :)>> Actually, one counter example is all it takes to disprove a hypothesis... > > That's not true at all. All it takes is one negative experiment in which some aspect of, say, Newton's Laws are violated and the edifice has to be reworked. All the positives can't make up for that negative that has to be somehow worked into the theory or the theory cast aside in favor of a new one... Just as in the case of recoding vs revising, in all likelihood there will be some new little tidbit tacked onto the existing framework that makes all come out in the end again. Show quoteHide quote >> It was C, not C++, and yes they were doing something terribly wrong. What And I'm saying that's not necessarily so on the basis of the age--there >> it was, however, was not at all obvious and almost entirely unrelated to >> the language they chose, but _very_ much related to the fact they chose to >> rewrite rather than adapt. > > So one rewrite went wrong so all rewrites are wrong? > >> The point is, however, they nearly bankrupted a company by trotting out >> the same argument that you're making -- that the need to add a few >> features to an old, working code required rewriting that code. > > That is NOT the arguement I am putting forward at all (are you not listening > or just plain making stuff up!?!?). I said it is *more likely* an older app > will need a re-write than a newer one. may be other reasons, but age alone is not a significant one. The bits are still bits and don't degrade or wear out w/ time as with mechanical systems. IME, the age argument is a bogus one which is brought out primarily by consultants or programmers looking to make work for themselves or who are inexperienced or unaware of the technology of an existing system and therefore are more comfortable in selling what _they_ know rather than trying to compete on unfamiliar ground. (Spoken from the perspective of a 30-some-year consultant. :( ( :) ) ). In the end analysis, that's where the guys before went wrong, fundamentally. They had never heard of Forth, new C (some of them, pretty well), had little realtime experience, and were hungry. They could talk a lot, but didn't understand the problems they were delving into didn't really have a lot to do with the programming itself but thought it was a software problem. While there _was_ a lot of code involved, when looking at the big picture of where the project was and needed to go, that was a minor piece. It's that same lack of focus on the end objective I keep hearing from your reiteration of the same old mantra of "newer is better". Maybe, often not. -- -- -- dpb wrote:
.... Enough typos I'll fix them and add one final thought... >> So one rewrite went wrong so all rewrites are wrong? No, but there is a sufficiently large lore of rewrites that _have_ gone wrong to make any client with a modicum of sense question very carefully the recommendation before committing to that as the path... .... > In the end analysis, that's where the guys before went wrong, That of course, would read more cogently if it were> fundamentally. They had never heard of Forth, new C (some of them, In the end analysis, that's where the guys before went wrong, fundamentally. They had never heard of Forth, knew C (some of them, pretty well), had little realtime experience, and were _primarily_, hungry. -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fihd2n$f25$1@aioe.org... What you fail to understand is that this does not apply when we are talking > Au contraire, good buddy... :) > > All it takes is one negative experiment in which some aspect of, say, > Newton's Laws are violated and the edifice has to be reworked. All the > positives can't make up for that negative that has to be somehow worked > into the theory or the theory cast aside in favor of a new one... about a probability. If the probability that I will win tattslotto is very low, nothing is proved or disproved if I win or lose. The probability still remains the same. Similarly one example of yours proves absolutely didly squat. > And I'm saying that's not necessarily so on the basis of the age--there Still, the code most certainly ages. I agree age is not going to be the > may be other reasons, but age alone is not a significant one. The bits > are still bits and don't degrade or wear out w/ time as with mechanical > systems. deciding factor but it's certainly got to be a significant one. Maybe for backend servers it's less significant because the GUI is what's received most of the changes over recent years (database systems still seams to be lagging behind imo, no inheritance etc). > IME, the age argument is a bogus one which is brought out primarily by Maybe it is misused but that does not mean it is invalid. I'm not suggesting > consultants or programmers looking to make work for themselves or who are > inexperienced or unaware of the technology of an existing system and > therefore are more comfortable in selling what _they_ know rather than > trying to compete on unfamiliar ground. (Spoken from the perspective of a > 30-some-year consultant. :( ( :) ) ). all old systems need a rewrite, just they are more likely to. Think of a dos app vs a vb6 app. > It's that same lack of focus on the end objective I keep hearing from your All I said was an older system is more likely to need a rewrite. This was a > reiteration of the same old mantra of "newer is better". Maybe, often > not. reply to someone who seem to think that a dot net app is more likely to need a rewrite. Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fihd2n$f25$1@aioe.org... Again, you're changing your tune to suit. _Way_ back in the thread I >> Au contraire, good buddy... :) >> >> All it takes is one negative experiment in which some aspect of, say, >> Newton's Laws are violated and the edifice has to be reworked. All the >> positives can't make up for that negative that has to be somehow worked >> into the theory or the theory cast aside in favor of a new one... > > What you fail to understand is that this does not apply when we are talking > about a probability. If the probability that I will win tattslotto is very > low, nothing is proved or disproved if I win or lose. The probability still > remains the same. Similarly one example of yours proves absolutely didly > squat. > >> And I'm saying that's not necessarily so on the basis of the age--there >> may be other reasons, but age alone is not a significant one. The bits >> are still bits and don't degrade or wear out w/ time as with mechanical >> systems. > > Still, the code most certainly ages. I agree age is not going to be the > deciding factor but it's certainly got to be a significant one. Maybe for > backend servers it's less significant because the GUI is what's received > most of the changes over recent years (database systems still seams to be > lagging behind imo, no inheritance etc). > >> IME, the age argument is a bogus one which is brought out primarily by >> consultants or programmers looking to make work for themselves or who are >> inexperienced or unaware of the technology of an existing system and >> therefore are more comfortable in selling what _they_ know rather than >> trying to compete on unfamiliar ground. (Spoken from the perspective of a >> 30-some-year consultant. :( ( :) ) ). > > Maybe it is misused but that does not mean it is invalid. I'm not suggesting > all old systems need a rewrite, just they are more likely to. Think of a dos > app vs a vb6 app. > >> It's that same lack of focus on the end objective I keep hearing from your >> reiteration of the same old mantra of "newer is better". Maybe, often >> not. > > All I said was an older system is more likely to need a rewrite. This was a > reply to someone who seem to think that a dot net app is more likely to need > a rewrite. allowed as how it's an impossibility to create such a generalization that has any meaning whatsoever except on an evaluation of a case-by-case basis. You continued to yammer on about the age factor as being significant, thereby apparently making it a tenet of your philosophy. Hence, it is an testable tenet which is easily shown to be not universally true. Again, I repeat -- the age alone is inconsequential, if any, significance to the functionality or ability to add functionality of an application. That it is a marketing gimmick of the outside contractor/consultant or a scare tactic of the employee used in an attempt to justify additional work or a continuing position is unquestioned, however, as are any number of other "newest and greatest" pseudo-arguments. I'm now going to kill-mark this thread so I no longer have to bite my tongue...it's starting to bleed. :) -- "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fijuvb$g6a$1@aioe.org... You did a lot of snipping there.> Again, you're changing your tune to suit. _Way_ back in the thread I > allowed as how it's an impossibility to create such a generalization that > has any meaning whatsoever except on an evaluation of a case-by-case > basis. You continued to yammer on about the age factor as being > significant, thereby apparently making it a tenet of your philosophy. > Hence, it is an testable tenet which is easily shown to be not universally > true. > Again, I repeat -- the age alone is inconsequential, if any, significance So a DOS app is just as likely to need a rewrite as a windows app that got > to the functionality or ability to add functionality of an application. > That it is a marketing gimmick of the outside contractor/consultant or a > scare tactic of the employee used in an attempt to justify additional work > or a continuing position is unquestioned, however, as are any number of > other "newest and greatest" pseudo-arguments. completed last week? I don't think so. > I'm now going to kill-mark this thread so I no longer have to bite my You're bailing? Not much of a suprise :-)> tongue...it's starting to bleed. :) Show quoteHide quote > > -- 
Other interesting topics
Log file access
Unknown error 50003 DDE Problem problems with packaging and deploying VB6 Some Trouble with SSTAB and ComboBoxes List proceedure names all files Program 'hangs' on password protected screensaver..... Problems creating a recordset with a Command-Object Question in exe size..RESOLVED How to call an event when the "Delete" button is pressed? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
