|
code
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Multithreadingso I have many years in it. I believe .NET had just came out, but it I heard many bad things about it. For one, I heard it didn't allow you to "step through" code. Sure, that's been fixed, but there was no way I was going to switch back then in that state. VB.NET has matured I suppose, so it may be something I could switch to for the main app. But it would take over a year to re-write much of the code I have now, not to mention the learning curve. I'm used to working with events, which I don't think VB.NET had until recently? I dunno, but I'm not ready for VB.NET, that's all there is to it. You hear about the thousands of VB6 coders who complain about having to re-write large software because VB.NET is so different. There's a reason they complain. Many have choosen to move to other languages because they'd have to re-write their software anyway. But this isn't a .NET newsgroup, so I'll end it there. There's no use to argue about it, because I see it all over the place. We're just rehashing what 10 others already have. Show quoteHide quote On 10-Jun-2009, "Bill McCarthy" <TPASoft.com Are Identity Thieves> wrote: > Well, if you started it three years ago, you should have been well aware > of > .NET then and could and should have worked towards making your code > suitable > for the move to .NET. Clearly if you want multi-threading, VB.NET would > have been the correct way to go. In fact you can still do that today by > writing the multithreaded parts of your app in VB.NET and call on your > VB.NET dll from your existing code. Hi SupaFly,
"SupaFly" <superfly9***@hotmail.com> wrote in message Actually you have always been abel to step through code in VB.NET. I'm news:u3dy2Mh6JHA.4404@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Like I said, I shouldn't have brought up .NET. My code was started in > 2002, > so I have many years in it. I believe .NET had just came out, but it I > heard many bad things about it. For one, I heard it didn't allow you to > "step through" code. Sure, that's been fixed, but there was no way I was > going to switch back then in that state. > guessing you were misled by some of the anti .ENt trolls in here in regards to that. What wasn't available until 2005 was "Edit and Continue", which is the ability to edit,as in modify, the code whilst debugging. > VB.NET has matured I suppose, so it may be something I could switch to for You don't need to port the entire application at once. The best approach it > the main app. But it would take over a year to re-write much of the code > I > have now, not to mention the learning curve. to write new parts in .NET and use COM interop, then eventually move the entire app to .NET. > I'm used to working with Again, I think that's just FUD you've been hearing from those name calling > events, which I don't think VB.NET had until recently? trolls that try to squash any *honest* discussion about VB .NET. VB .NEt has always had events. In fact from the 2002, (VB7) it had events, and their implementation was and is vastly more powerful and flexible than in VB6, as you can dynamically wire up events as well as decleratively. > I dunno, but I'm not Vastly more have moved to .Net than those who haven't. There's a reason > ready for VB.NET, that's all there is to it. You hear about the thousands > of VB6 coders who complain about having to re-write large software because > VB.NET is so different. There's a reason they complain. Many have > choosen > to move to other languages because they'd have to re-write their software > anyway. > there's a few hostile people in here who resort to personal attacks; who post anti .Net posts then complain when anyone dares actually correct that with the truth; and that is simply they don't want to learn all the enhancements .Net brings to the table. I think if you actually survey real businesses, you'll find that most of have moved their VB6 code to .NET, or they use itnerop from .NET to the VB6 code. Some have moved to C#, some to VB.NET. Very few have gone to other languages like Delphi (despite the loud claims by one or two folks here), and even less have goen to Java for any Ui based application (which the majority of VB6 code was). > But this isn't a .NET newsgroup, so I'll end it there. There's no use to Ths is a VB "general discussion" newsgroup.> argue about it, because I see it all over the place. We're just rehashing > what 10 others already have. > Show quoteHide quote > > On 10-Jun-2009, "Bill McCarthy" <TPASoft.com Are Identity Thieves> wrote: > >> Well, if you started it three years ago, you should have been well aware >> of >> .NET then and could and should have worked towards making your code >> suitable >> for the move to .NET. Clearly if you want multi-threading, VB.NET would >> have been the correct way to go. In fact you can still do that today by >> writing the multithreaded parts of your app in VB.NET and call on your >> VB.NET dll from your existing code. On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:53:03 +1000, "Bill McCarthy" <TPASoft.com Are
Identity Thieves> wrote: > What wasn't available until 2005 was "Edit and Continue", which is Huh, kind of a key feature, that! And has it *really* been reinstated>the ability to edit,as in modify, the code whilst debugging. like it is in classic VB? Or just a watered-down sop to the concept only so that MS could get the journos of its back? (Of course, I shall never find out because I'd rather eat donkey poo than use VB.NET.) MM MM wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:53:03 +1000, "Bill McCarthy" <TPASoft.com Are You've got to be kidding. I've used (all versions of) VB since 1992. I > Identity Thieves> wrote: > >> What wasn't available until 2005 was "Edit and Continue", which is >> the ability to edit,as in modify, the code whilst debugging. > > Huh, kind of a key feature, that! And has it *really* been reinstated > like it is in classic VB? Or just a watered-down sop to the concept > only so that MS could get the journos of its back? (Of course, I shall > never find out because I'd rather eat donkey poo than use VB.NET.) > > MM rarely step through my code and have never used Edit and Continue. I can't see the point, and have never felt the need. On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:21:20 +1000, Jason Keats
<jke***@melbpcDeleteThis.org.au> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >MM wrote: Like a celibate priest, you don't know what you're missing!>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:53:03 +1000, "Bill McCarthy" <TPASoft.com Are >> Identity Thieves> wrote: >> >>> What wasn't available until 2005 was "Edit and Continue", which is >>> the ability to edit,as in modify, the code whilst debugging. >> >> Huh, kind of a key feature, that! And has it *really* been reinstated >> like it is in classic VB? Or just a watered-down sop to the concept >> only so that MS could get the journos of its back? (Of course, I shall >> never find out because I'd rather eat donkey poo than use VB.NET.) >> >> MM > >You've got to be kidding. I've used (all versions of) VB since 1992. I >rarely step through my code and have never used Edit and Continue. I >can't see the point, and have never felt the need. E&C is my North, my South, my East and West, My working week and my Sunday rest, My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song; I knew this love would last forever: I wasn't wrong. MM OMG, I use Edit and Continue daily. The ability to step through code, look
at variables, etc. and then edit them and continue is awesome. Or like, let's say there's a runtime error. VB6 breaks in and shows you the problem. Many times you can go in and fix it and the program can continue, instead of having to start the app. from scratch. Of course VB.NET has that now, so it's a moot point. On 11-Jun-2009, Jason Keats <jke***@melbpcDeleteThis.org.au> wrote: Show quoteHide quote > You've got to be kidding. I've used (all versions of) VB since 1992. I > rarely step through my code and have never used Edit and Continue. I > can't see the point, and have never felt the need.
Show quote
Hide quote
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:46:16 GMT, "SupaFly" <superfly9***@hotmail.com> Yes, just imagine always stopping execution because of a bug, thenwrote: >OMG, I use Edit and Continue daily. The ability to step through code, look >at variables, etc. and then edit them and continue is awesome. Or like, >let's say there's a runtime error. VB6 breaks in and shows you the problem. > Many times you can go in and fix it and the program can continue, instead >of having to start the app. from scratch. > >Of course VB.NET has that now, so it's a moot point. > >On 11-Jun-2009, Jason Keats <jke***@melbpcDeleteThis.org.au> wrote: > >> You've got to be kidding. I've used (all versions of) VB since 1992. I >> rarely step through my code and have never used Edit and Continue. I >> can't see the point, and have never felt the need. scratching one's head as to what the bug means. That would be such a nonsensical scenario, given the power of E&C, that I simply do not begin to comprehend where Jason is coming from. And then there's also the use of E&C to fine-tune a form layout, adjusting a grid height to get the best size, changing a colour somewhere to see the effect immediately, hiding something, making something visible, checking the Enabled state of stuff -- so many, many uses, apart from merely fixing bugs, that, well, really, words fail me! MM On 2009-06-12, MM <kylix***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:46:16 GMT, "SupaFly" <superfly9***@hotmail.com> Add me to the list of E&C haters - I didn't use it in VB5/6, and I don't use> wrote: > >>OMG, I use Edit and Continue daily. The ability to step through code, look >>at variables, etc. and then edit them and continue is awesome. Or like, >>let's say there's a runtime error. VB6 breaks in and shows you the problem. >> Many times you can go in and fix it and the program can continue, instead >>of having to start the app. from scratch. >> >>Of course VB.NET has that now, so it's a moot point. >> >>On 11-Jun-2009, Jason Keats <jke***@melbpcDeleteThis.org.au> wrote: >> >>> You've got to be kidding. I've used (all versions of) VB since 1992. I >>> rarely step through my code and have never used Edit and Continue. I >>> can't see the point, and have never felt the need. > > Yes, just imagine always stopping execution because of a bug, then > scratching one's head as to what the bug means. That would be such a > nonsensical scenario, given the power of E&C, that I simply do not > begin to comprehend where Jason is coming from. > it today in VB.NET or C# (which is my primary development language now). -- Tom Shelton On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:27:03 -0700, Tom Shelton
<tom_shel***@comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >On 2009-06-12, MM <kylix***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Such a reaction is reminiscent of cutting nose off to spite face! How>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:46:16 GMT, "SupaFly" <superfly9***@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>OMG, I use Edit and Continue daily. The ability to step through code, look >>>at variables, etc. and then edit them and continue is awesome. Or like, >>>let's say there's a runtime error. VB6 breaks in and shows you the problem. >>> Many times you can go in and fix it and the program can continue, instead >>>of having to start the app. from scratch. >>> >>>Of course VB.NET has that now, so it's a moot point. >>> >>>On 11-Jun-2009, Jason Keats <jke***@melbpcDeleteThis.org.au> wrote: >>> >>>> You've got to be kidding. I've used (all versions of) VB since 1992. I >>>> rarely step through my code and have never used Edit and Continue. I >>>> can't see the point, and have never felt the need. >> >> Yes, just imagine always stopping execution because of a bug, then >> scratching one's head as to what the bug means. That would be such a >> nonsensical scenario, given the power of E&C, that I simply do not >> begin to comprehend where Jason is coming from. >> > >Add me to the list of E&C haters - I didn't use it in VB5/6, and I don't use >it today in VB.NET or C# (which is my primary development language now). can ANYone not have used E&C and loved it immediately? It makes less sense than calling the earth flat -- which many continued to do long after they'd received contrary proof. MM MM wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:46:16 GMT, "SupaFly" <superfly9***@hotmail.com> You really find that stuff useful? Wow, I might have to reconsider. <g>> wrote: > >> OMG, I use Edit and Continue daily. The ability to step through code, look >> at variables, etc. and then edit them and continue is awesome. Or like, >> let's say there's a runtime error. VB6 breaks in and shows you the problem. >> Many times you can go in and fix it and the program can continue, instead >> of having to start the app. from scratch. >> >> Of course VB.NET has that now, so it's a moot point. >> >> On 11-Jun-2009, Jason Keats <jke***@melbpcDeleteThis.org.au> wrote: >> >>> You've got to be kidding. I've used (all versions of) VB since 1992. I >>> rarely step through my code and have never used Edit and Continue. I >>> can't see the point, and have never felt the need. > > Yes, just imagine always stopping execution because of a bug, then > scratching one's head as to what the bug means. That would be such a > nonsensical scenario, given the power of E&C, that I simply do not > begin to comprehend where Jason is coming from. > > And then there's also the use of E&C to fine-tune a form layout, > adjusting a grid height to get the best size, changing a colour > somewhere to see the effect immediately, hiding something, making > something visible, checking the Enabled state of stuff -- so many, > many uses, apart from merely fixing bugs, that, well, really, words > fail me! > > MM Seriously, I find most errors are caused somewhere up the call stack or are logical rather than syntactical - so aren't going to be found by a debugger. My error handlers provide a stack trace displaying the line number of any error. In most cases that's all that's necessary for me to realise what's gone wrong - usually just an oversight. I use defensive programming - lot's of asserts, etc, and generally test new functions in the Immediate window. Maybe my code's just not as buggy as yours? <g> Next you'll be telling me you find watch points useful too! <g> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:18:24 +1000, Jason Keats
<jke***@melbpcDeleteThis.org.au> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >MM wrote: My code isn't buggy because when I discover a bug (I use line numbers>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:46:16 GMT, "SupaFly" <superfly9***@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> OMG, I use Edit and Continue daily. The ability to step through code, look >>> at variables, etc. and then edit them and continue is awesome. Or like, >>> let's say there's a runtime error. VB6 breaks in and shows you the problem. >>> Many times you can go in and fix it and the program can continue, instead >>> of having to start the app. from scratch. >>> >>> Of course VB.NET has that now, so it's a moot point. >>> >>> On 11-Jun-2009, Jason Keats <jke***@melbpcDeleteThis.org.au> wrote: >>> >>>> You've got to be kidding. I've used (all versions of) VB since 1992. I >>>> rarely step through my code and have never used Edit and Continue. I >>>> can't see the point, and have never felt the need. >> >> Yes, just imagine always stopping execution because of a bug, then >> scratching one's head as to what the bug means. That would be such a >> nonsensical scenario, given the power of E&C, that I simply do not >> begin to comprehend where Jason is coming from. >> >> And then there's also the use of E&C to fine-tune a form layout, >> adjusting a grid height to get the best size, changing a colour >> somewhere to see the effect immediately, hiding something, making >> something visible, checking the Enabled state of stuff -- so many, >> many uses, apart from merely fixing bugs, that, well, really, words >> fail me! >> >> MM > >You really find that stuff useful? Wow, I might have to reconsider. <g> > >Seriously, I find most errors are caused somewhere up the call stack or >are logical rather than syntactical - so aren't going to be found by a >debugger. > >My error handlers provide a stack trace displaying the line number of >any error. In most cases that's all that's necessary for me to realise >what's gone wrong - usually just an oversight. > >I use defensive programming - lot's of asserts, etc, and generally test >new functions in the Immediate window. Maybe my code's just not as buggy >as yours? <g> and Erl) I set a breakpoint, then inspect variables with E&C. >Next you'll be telling me you find watch points useful too! <g> Well, NATURALLY! I don't buy a toolbox then leave 90% of the toolsuntouched. I'll use anything that is useful, including E&C, Watch, whatever. MM > Maybe I'm missing something here. I never have> Seriously, I find most errors are caused somewhere up the call stack or > are logical rather than syntactical - so aren't going to be found by a > debugger. > used watch points or stepping through myself. (I'm surprised by how many people seem to think they're indispensible even in the VBScript group!) But... have I misunderstood the terminology? Isn't E&C just the ability to pause at runtime and fix an error? I use that all the time. For me most errors are just typos or dumb oversights -- neglecting to declare a variable, leaving a paramter off of a sub call, using the wrong variable, etc. They're quick and easy to clean up with E&C. What's not to like? On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:53:03 +1000, "Bill McCarthy" <TPASoft.com Are
Identity Thieves> wrote: >Vastly more have moved to .Net than those who haven't. Where's the evidence for this?MM "MM" <kylix***@yahoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag The evidence, that it is presumably the other way round,news:jh813554dkvhd4b5aabnkdg56emf5kr905@4ax.com... > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:53:03 +1000, "Bill McCarthy" <TPASoft.com Are > Identity Thieves> wrote: > > >Vastly more have moved to .Net than those who haven't. > > Where's the evidence for this? is the sheer presence of guys like Mc-Carthy in this group. SCNR Olaf "MM" <kylix***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message Open your eyes up man. Have a look at job adverts for starters.news:jh813554dkvhd4b5aabnkdg56emf5kr905@4ax.com... > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:53:03 +1000, "Bill McCarthy" <TPASoft.com Are > Identity Thieves> wrote: > >>Vastly more have moved to .Net than those who haven't. > > Where's the evidence for this? > "Bill McCarthy" <TPASoft.com Are Identity Thieves> wrote in news: #iUHDqm6JHA.6***@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:> So I go to Dice.com, enter my Zip Code, (14225), then on the left hand > "MM" <kylix***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:jh813554dkvhd4b5aabnkdg56emf5kr905@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:53:03 +1000, "Bill McCarthy" <TPASoft.com Are >> Identity Thieves> wrote: >> >>>Vastly more have moved to .Net than those who haven't. >> >> Where's the evidence for this? >> > > Open your eyes up man. Have a look at job adverts for starters. side, expand 'Skill'. This gives me the items below. Looks like there's more ads for 'C' programmers than .Net developers. * .Net (4) * ASP (4) * Access (7) * Application development (4) * C (6) * C# (3) * Design (23) * Developer (6) * Development (25) * Director (4) * Engineer (8) * Engineering (18) * Excel (7) * HTML (3) * HTTP (15) * Implementation (15) * Information technology (6) * Integration (10) * Internet (5) * Linux (3) * MBA (4) * Mechanical (8) * Microsoft office (5) * Network (6) * Networking (3) * Oracle (8) * Planning (11) * Powerpoint (4) * Programming (6) * Project management (6) * Reporting (9) * Research (9) * SAP (4) * SQL (9) * SQL Server (4) * Sales (8) * Security (12) * Software development (5) * Testing (9) * Training (11) * Troubleshooting (4) * Unix (4) * Windows (5) * Word (7) Hi Dan,
Show quoteHide quote "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message LOL. And according to that there are no VB, Delphi or Java developers !!news:Xns9C29693D29124thisnthatroadrunnern@85.214.105.209... > "Bill McCarthy" <TPASoft.com Are Identity Thieves> wrote in news: > #iUHDqm6JHA.6***@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > >> >> "MM" <kylix***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:jh813554dkvhd4b5aabnkdg56emf5kr905@4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:53:03 +1000, "Bill McCarthy" <TPASoft.com Are >>> Identity Thieves> wrote: >>> >>>>Vastly more have moved to .Net than those who haven't. >>> >>> Where's the evidence for this? >>> >> >> Open your eyes up man. Have a look at job adverts for starters. > > So I go to Dice.com, enter my Zip Code, (14225), then on the left hand > side, expand 'Skill'. This gives me the items below. > > Looks like there's more ads for 'C' programmers than .Net developers. > Maybe you should try looking on a site like monster.com ;) Show quoteHide quote > > * .Net (4) > * ASP (4) > * Access (7) > * Application development (4) > * C (6) > * C# (3) > * Design (23) > * Developer (6) > * Development (25) > * Director (4) > * Engineer (8) > * Engineering (18) > * Excel (7) > * HTML (3) > * HTTP (15) > * Implementation (15) > * Information technology (6) > * Integration (10) > * Internet (5) > * Linux (3) > * MBA (4) > * Mechanical (8) > * Microsoft office (5) > * Network (6) > * Networking (3) > * Oracle (8) > * Planning (11) > * Powerpoint (4) > * Programming (6) > * Project management (6) > * Reporting (9) > * Research (9) > * SAP (4) > * SQL (9) > * SQL Server (4) > * Sales (8) > * Security (12) > * Software development (5) > * Testing (9) > * Training (11) > * Troubleshooting (4) > * Unix (4) > * Windows (5) > * Word (7) > > >Vastly more have moved to .Net than those who haven't. Funny, I read that and thought it was one> > Where's the evidence for this? > of his worst sales pitches yet. He's generally semi-coherent to begin with, but in this case he just comes out clearly and says that the reason to use .Net is "because everyone is using it". So apparently .Net is the #1 programming tool among discerning lemmings. Or to put it in Mr. Bill's teen-speak dialect: "Yes, suh, you loser! Everyone who's not a loser uses .Net, you loser." Show quoteHide quote :) 
Other interesting topics
vb memory layout
Walkthrough Instruction Error Re: Multithreading Multithreading Vista SP2 Being "offered" dhRichClient3 Thread Classes Issues VB6 on Vista Home Premium problem Excel Execution from VB Fails on 2nd Attempt Moving .exe somtimes works In High Density Mode - Looking for previous control counting post |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
