|
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 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
"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 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 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$KIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > That is just complete rubbish. Pretty much everything in dot net is better > implemented, cleaner, more elegant, more reusable and more consistant. Extra > code is required in some cases because it has more features. > "Steve Gerrard" <mynameh***@comcast.net> wrote in message Good reply Steve. Pretty much everything in dot net is *far far* better news:grudnVQ__8c1LN7anZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com... >> That is just complete rubbish. Pretty much everything in dot net is >> better implemented, cleaner, more elegant, more reusable and more >> consistant. Extra code is required in some cases because it has more >> features. > > That is just complete rubbish. implemented than in vb6. It's more consistant (eg VB has base 0 and base 1 at random!!!), it's more extensible (eg, you can gain access to additional image compressors if they are installed), more object orientated, more flexible etc etc. Show quote > > "Michael C" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message Know where I got it?news:OOQKPf$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 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 quote > >
Show 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 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
"BeastFish" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:fi0n07$ht6$1@aioe.org... Whatever the case they certainly designed it for less experienced > Uhh, no it wasn't aimed at "newbies" or beginners. It was designed as a > RAD > Winders progression from QB. MS knew that for MS OS based PCs to be > viable > in the business modal, it needed a programming language to provide the > flexibility that out-of-box software couldn't... hence QB in the days of > DOS. With the advent of Winders, they needed a RAD language for Winders > programming or businesses that needed in-house programming solutions > wouldn't update from DOS to Winders... hence VB (a natural Winders > progression from QB). > > Just because VB is/was a language taught in schools and such doesn't mean > its target was "newbies" or beginners or "not serious programmers", and > thinking it was because of this reasoning is either a bit snobbish or a > bit > ignorant to what VB is/was intended for... a professional tool for > in-house > business programming solutions. programmers. It's fairly obvious from the "newbie" features they put in and the professional features they left out. Show quote > > Michael C wrote:
Show quote > "BeastFish" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:fi0n07$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 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 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 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
dpb <n***@non.net> wrote in news:fi481c$e5m$1@aioe.org: This is true. But there appears to be no other way to use a _constant_ >> Two words......Option Explicit. >> > ... > > OTOH, of course, VB _will_ happily accept > > Option Explicit > Dim myInt As Integer > > myInt = "3.25E2" > > since the string can be deciphered as a valid numeric value. written in sci. not. since when you remove the quotes from it, the IDE replaces the number with 325#. (Constant not as in a CONST, but as a hard-coded number, not a return value of a function.) > Whether this is "good" or not is in the eye of the beholder, but it is I agree, no suprise.> documented behavior so it should be no surprise. DanS wrote:
Show quote > dpb <n***@non.net> wrote in news:fi481c$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$1@aioe.org... I think it used to be debatable but the industry has gone away from it. > I think that's debatable (as the audience here would seem to attest)... :) Certainly having the compiler pick things up for you at compile time is just better than you having to find such issues yourself. > It's a design choice thing imo. I don't see it necessarily as "better" or In one case the machine picks up errors for you instantly, in the other you > "worse", just "different". There are more strongly-typed languages and > less that are successful. might have to spend hours finding them (or end up getting them on the end users machine). The downside is that you often need to do a bit extra typing but I don't think that is much of an issue. > Your background, at least from the postings here, seems extremely limited Well it would if you're in a group that discusses one topic. :-) To be > afaict. honest my experience is more limited than I would like but I have been programming for 25+ years and have worked with a range of languages from assembler to C++ to VB to web. These are not things I did for a day, I have spend many months on assembler for hardware I designed myself and done quite a few projects in C++. Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quote > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi4s1h$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 quote > > Michael C wrote:
Show 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 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
"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 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$1@aioe.org... While that's true there does seem to be a general consensus here that VB is > "This group" holds no view -- there is no group, only a collection of > individuals who have their own views. somehow better than anything else. Generally anyone who thinks otherwise has moved on. It's a filtering process. > The key thing with many of those here is that they have longterm Ok, so they should say exactly that. They should not jump through hoops > investment and their means of livelihood intimately bound up in VB and > that investment was seriously jeopardized by the route MS chose. The > adamant belief that these people are some wrong for continuing in what > they see as their best interest is simply naive at best and infuriatingly > condescending and uninformed at worst. trying to pretend VB is somehow better. > I happen to basically be an observer who's used VB as an engineer for Sounds like interesting work. I did similar stuff with labview and found it > various purposes since moving a realtime instrument product of a former > employee from old HP-BASIC on HP-85 hardware to the PC first w/ PB7, then > when the first hardware was made that was Windows compatible to VB. Having > now been retired for several years, I continue to monitor the group more > for the questions that occasionally arise outside the core of VB itself as > anything, but having such a long history w/ BASIC, I feel a significant > kindred w/ the other long-timers here. was probably the most interesting work i've ever done. Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quote > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:fi7vje$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 $2500 board for free, twice! > NI software? Sucks, big time...I detested LavView, myself. :) I would never use labview again but I don't detest it. It was pretty cool imo but I find the graphical programming interface unnecessary. They should stick to creating addins for their boards for existing languages, they must have spent a fortune on labview for little gain for the end users. In fact it was probably at the detrement of the end user as they could have spent the time making more cool graphic stuff for existing languages. > Actually that was/is a very interesting product -- an online coal ash This stuff is so much more interesting than writing db apps :-)> analyzer for mine, prep plant, etc., applications. A dual-energy gamma > densitometer in a nutshell. Also had a online "sulfurmeter" and worked on > generalized elemental analyzers... Show quote > > -- Michael C wrote: > "dpb" <n***@non.net> wrote in message news:ficra9$ff5$1@aioe.org... We>> 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... .... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
