"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:OGZlGlMzFHA.2652@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "VB6 User" <v**@love.com> schrieb:
> > Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are
some
> > things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier
people
> > used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>
> That's wrong.  You can still use "API calls", either by using VB.NET's
> 'Declare' statement or the 'DllImport' attribute.  .NET provides even more
> interoperability mechanisms than VB6 does.
>
> > Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
> > would they program?
>
> API = Application Programming Interface.  The .NET Framework's class
library
> is an API too.  I assume you are referring to the function-based APIs of
> Win16/Win32 (GDI, etc.).  These APIs still exist and will work on
Longhorn.
> In addition to that, I assume that many new APIs are still implemented in
> and exposed to unmanaged code, but there are wrappers for use in managed
> code available.  It simply doesn't make sense to implement certain things
in
> managed code because of .NET's runtime characteristics.
>
> An interesting article about Microsoft and APIs can be found here:
>
> How Microsoft Lost the API War
> <URL:http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html>
>
> > APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> > reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> > because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied
to
> > .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
> > development.
>
> I tend to agree with you.  .NET is great for Web development, but it's not
> very suitable for "desktop" development.  The main advantage of Windows
has
> always been the huge number of applications which were developed for this
> operating system.  With .NET, I see a decline in "desktop" applications
and
> an increasing number of Web applications, which are not necessarily bound
to
> the Windows operating system.
>
> > In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of
great
> > MS minds of late 90'.
>
> If you have not already done so and if you want to make Microsoft aware
that
> Classic VB should have a future, I encourage you to sign the petition at
> <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>.
>
> --
>  M S   Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P  <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
>  V B   <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
>

"Larry Serflaten" <serfla***@usinternet.com> schreef in bericht
news:%232L5RMZzFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote
>> If Hitler had won the war, than we would not have had *this* kind of
>> problems to discuss.
>>
>> Just my thought,
>
>
> ...And if the sun goes into a super nova, this VB/VB.Net argument would
> be the least of our troubles!
>
> <g>
> LFS

"Phill. W" <P.A.Ward@o-p-e-n-.-a-c-.-u-k> wrote in message
news:didb58$6lm$1@yarrow.open.ac.uk...
> "Abubakar" <abubak***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OF3ac4WzFHA.3660@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> > Is it not possible in vb.net to write desktop applications like vb6?
What
> I
> > think througth the petition, people want is that microsoft remove the
> > weeknesses of vb6, like object-orientation, threading, etc and maintain
> the
> > appliction development that is Win32 focused.
>
> What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
> and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the
> Framework.  OK, it would be less efficient than the pure "VB7"
> syntax, which could take advantage of /all/ the functionality of the
> CLR, but at least it would NOT mean having to rewrite millions
> upon millions of lines of existing, production code, just to "keep up"
> with technological platform that seems to be jumping about in an
> ever-increasingly random fashion.
>
> Real companies simply /don't/ have an endless, throw-away budget
> ear-marked for
>
> "Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
> changed (again)"
>
> > When every one knows that everything in Vista os will be available
> > in managed form
>
> Haven't you heard?  Much of the Managed Code hype has been
> "decoupled" from Vista (as has the Windows File System) just so
> that Our Friends in Redmond can get something to work and actually
> sell some units of "Vista".
>
> > I think the vb.net is a pretty natural evolution of vb 6 and earlier
> > versions.
>
> IMHO, Rubbish!
>
> VB*7* (and, yes, it did get written and /very/ nearly released) was
> the natural evolution of VB6 - almost identical syntax, simple (or,
> at least, extant) upgrade path.   "VB.Net" grew out of a desire not
> to waste all the effort Our Friends in Redmond made in their
> attempted (and failed) theft of Java.
>
> > We must accept it.  Its beautiful.
>
> Whatever you're taking must be Good Stuff ... ;-)
>
> Regards,
>     Phill  W.
>
>

"Abubakar" <abubak***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ulY8w%23XzFHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Phill,
> first of all thanks for the reply.
>
> > What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
> > and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the
>
> oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick to
win32.
>
> > "Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
> > changed (again)"
>
> what do u mean again? When did this last heppen other than the .net
change?
>

"Jonathan West" <jw***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eNazoAZzFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:O327FpYzFHA.1264@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> >
> > There is a lot of documentation, how to convert your vb6 program to Net.
>
> There shouldn't need to be! It should just work!
>
> >
> > Even with already for a very long time documentation for a first step,
to
> > recreate your old VB6 program first to a better to upgrade VB6 program
> > while you still can use it as VB6.
> >
> > Often the problem in this kind of situations is however that people did
> > not make their old programs in a good documented way and don't even
> > understand it themselves anymore.
>
> So, in changing the language, Microsoft makes in necessary for such code
to
> be rewritten in order that new platform features can be accessed. Hmmm. I
> wonder how that would have affected some of the more obscure corners of
the
> source code for Microsoft Word, some of which dates back to 16-bit days!
>
> >
> > In my opinion is it not a challenge to make a program with 1000000 lines
> > of code, the challenge is to make it in parts (which uses as less lines
as
> > possible) that can easily be recreated.
>
> Why? If it works as is, why should it have to be changed?
>
> Also, why are you making assumptions that his million line application is
> not already well-structured?
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Jonathan West - Word MVP
> www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
> Please reply to the newsgroup
> Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org
>

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:14:46 -0700, "Abubakar" <abubak***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> There shouldn't need to be! It should just work!
>
>But if the move is from COM/Win32 to .NET. Do we still think it should just
>work? Can it be that easy?
>
>-Ab.
>
>"Jonathan West" <jw***@mvps.org> wrote in message
>news:eNazoAZzFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:O327FpYzFHA.1264@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>
>> >
>> > There is a lot of documentation, how to convert your vb6 program to Net.
>>
>> There shouldn't need to be! It should just work!
>>
>> >
>> > Even with already for a very long time documentation for a first step,
>to
>> > recreate your old VB6 program first to a better to upgrade VB6 program
>> > while you still can use it as VB6.
>> >
>> > Often the problem in this kind of situations is however that people did
>> > not make their old programs in a good documented way and don't even
>> > understand it themselves anymore.
>>
>> So, in changing the language, Microsoft makes in necessary for such code
>to
>> be rewritten in order that new platform features can be accessed. Hmmm. I
>> wonder how that would have affected some of the more obscure corners of
>the
>> source code for Microsoft Word, some of which dates back to 16-bit days!
>>
>> >
>> > In my opinion is it not a challenge to make a program with 1000000 lines
>> > of code, the challenge is to make it in parts (which uses as less lines
>as
>> > possible) that can easily be recreated.
>>
>> Why? If it works as is, why should it have to be changed?
>>
>> Also, why are you making assumptions that his million line application is
>> not already well-structured?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> Jonathan West - Word MVP
>> www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>> Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org
>>
>

"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eCd%23RCgzFHA.3864@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Kevin Provance wrote:
> >>  See http://vb.mvps.org/vfred/unimess.asp for (deep) background. <
> >
> > Wow.  Very interesting.  And for as serious as that issue must have
> > been at the time, it pales in comparison to the .NET mess.  You'd
> > think M$ had learned their lesson the first time.
>
> The problem seems to be one of institutional memory.  The guys who *swore*
they "got
> it!" were gone by the time the later destruction was done.
>
> "Need a new type of data?  Create a new datatype!"  Duh.
> --
> Working Without a .NET?
> http://classicvb.org/petition
>

"Phill. W" <P.A.Ward@o-p-e-n-.-a-c-.-u-k> wrote in message
news:didham$9ot$1@yarrow.open.ac.uk...
> "Abubakar" <abubak***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ulY8w%23XzFHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Phill,
> > first of all thanks for the reply.
> >
> > > What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
> > > and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the
> >
> > oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick
> > to win32.
>
> No, we're not /that/ bad ... ;-)
>
> > > "Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
> > > changed (again)"
> >
> > what do u mean again? When did this last heppen other than the
> > .net change?
>
> It *hasn't* - that's my point - but now that it's happened /once/,
> who's to say it /won't/ happen again ... ?
>
> Regards,
>     Phill  W.
>
>

"Jonathan West" <jw***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:Ojh6yHZzFHA.2424@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> "Abubakar" <abubak***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ulY8w%23XzFHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Phill,
> > first of all thanks for the reply.
> >
> >> What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
> >> and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the
> >
> > oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick to
> > win32.
>
> No. The key point is that while there was a good reason for creating the
> .NET platform, there was no necessity for most of the changes to the
> *language*. The VB MVPs at the time had an extensive discussion with the
> VB.NET product group, and the fact is that a small number of the changes
> were justified (e.g. the change in handling object destruction, and the
loss
> of parameterless default properties). The great majority of language
changes
> were not necessary for compatibility with the platform and were made
because
> the product group thought that they would improve the language and gave
> entirely inadequate consideration to how VB6 projects would migrate.
>
> The whole idea of a high-level language is that its syntax can be made
> relatively independent of its platform. To address different platforms you
> modify the compiler, not the language!
>
> Note that criticism of the changes has nothing to to with the addition of
> new features - almost everyone approves of new features. It is changes
that
> break the operation of existing code that cause the trouble.
>
> >
> >> "Rewrite/retest and redeploy everything because the language has
> >> changed (again)"
> >
> > what do u mean again? When did this last heppen other than the .net
> > change?
>
> In the change from VB3 to VB4/32, a fundamental datatype - the String -
was
> changed from being 8-bit ASCII to 16-bit unicode characters. This messed
up
> code that used strings as byte arrays and broke the only available and
> documented way of handling binary file I/O. A great howl went up among the
> beta testers at the time. Afterwards, a pre-alpha meeting for VB5 was held
> by Microsoft to which various VB developers were invited, and the issue
was
> thoroughly discussed. Microsoft appeared to understand it and realise that
> changes of that sort ought not to happen again. Unfortunately, by the time
> VB.NET came out, the Microsoft participants in the meeting had moved on to
> other positions and their successors were not aware of the issue.
>
> The concern is that even if the Microsoft people responsible for VB.NET
> realise that they made a mistake and shouldn't make such changes again in
> future, who is to say whether their successors will have the same view.
The
> evidence is that there is currently something of a lack of institutional
> memory at Microsoft. That is why some people are concerned that VB.NET
might
> change all over again at the next major platform change.
>
> That said, part of Microsoft does seem to have taken the lessons on board.
> VBA is essentially the same language as VB6, but with a different Forms
> library and integrated access to the Office object models. The Office
group
> has already kept VBA in Office for 2 releases since VB.NET was launched,
and
> has publicly announced that it will be in at least the next two versions
as
> well. Maybe they looked at the VB.NET experience and didn't like what they
> saw?
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Jonathan West - Word MVP
> www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
> Please reply to the newsgroup
> Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org
>

>> > What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
>> > and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the
>>
>> oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick to
>win32.
>>
>
>   Some of us do. What's wrong with Win32?
>Underneath your .Net classes, somewhere, is
>an equivalent to Win32 level.
>
> > Is it not possible in vb.net to write desktop applications like vb6?
>
>    Not very. It strikes me that this point just doesn't
>seem to come up in the minds of most .Net users.
>If it were not for Microsoft's strategy and tactics then
>it would not even occur to anyone to discuss VB vs.
>.Net. They're not for the same thing. This whole argument
>is happening out of context.
>
>
>For one good explanation of why .Net doesn't fit well
>on the Desktop see Mark Russinovich's article:
>http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/04/coming-net-world-im-scared.html
>]
>
>    My own situation: I taught myself VB, starting
>out leaning heavily on OCXs and gradually
>learned better, leaner coding. I write "shareware".
>I don't make a lot of money at it but I enjoy coding
>and I like making something that's useful to others.
>My main program is an HTML and script editor
>that's quick, light, free of dependencies (other
>than the VB6 runtime) and has an installer of
>about 800 KB. To my mind it's progress to cut
>out the OCX middleman where that's feasible.
>VB6 gives me the ability to do that, while still providing
>easy methods where and when I want them.
>
>     What do I get if I move to .Net? First I lose
>about half of my potential customer base right
>off the bat, because dial-up users are not going to
>download 25 MB runtimes and 12MB specialty
>programs. Then I lose another 25% because many
>people won't deal with the added complexity of
>needing to download and install a runtime. I also lose
>any ability to write for Windows 95. So now I've
>got maybe 20% of my possible base left.
>
>   Beyond that, I'm
>getting back into the bloat and inefficiency of objects
>that are twice- or thrice-removed from the API. Why
>would I want to do that? I like using the API. I like
>using Windows. I don't want to be led gradually to some
>sort of future X-Box/Vista crap hybrid that won't let me
>access the system directly.
>
>(And all of these reasons not to move to .Net don't even
>address the common complaints, such as the issue
>of easily decompiled code and poor speed, the
>problem of continual changes that require new, giant
>runtimes, and the question of how .Net will weather
>the changes of Avalon, WinFX, etc. The thing is already
>in its third rendition and now MS has plans for more
>big changes with Vista.)
>
>  To my mind it borders on bizarre that so many people
>using .Net keep hanging around here like religious
>converts (or maybe MS plants) doing a .Net sales
>pitch. I wish that people would try to just think for
>themselves a bit, do what's best for their own case,
>and not worry so much about what everyone else
>is up to.
>
>     To anyone who says that the Desktop is old
>hat and that I should be thinking about web-based
>software: Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Either
>way, I have no intention of following such a path using
>Microsoft software.

"mayayana" <mayayanaX***@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message
news:dfv2f.11843$vw6.3683@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
> > > and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the
> >
> > oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick to
> win32.
> >
>
>    Some of us do. What's wrong with Win32?
> Underneath your .Net classes, somewhere, is
> an equivalent to Win32 level.
>
>  > Is it not possible in vb.net to write desktop applications like vb6?
>
>     Not very. It strikes me that this point just doesn't
> seem to come up in the minds of most .Net users.
> If it were not for Microsoft's strategy and tactics then
> it would not even occur to anyone to discuss VB vs.
> .Net. They're not for the same thing. This whole argument
> is happening out of context.
>
>
> For one good explanation of why .Net doesn't fit well
> on the Desktop see Mark Russinovich's article:
> http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/04/coming-net-world-im-scared.html
> ]
>
>     My own situation: I taught myself VB, starting
> out leaning heavily on OCXs and gradually
> learned better, leaner coding. I write "shareware".
> I don't make a lot of money at it but I enjoy coding
> and I like making something that's useful to others.
> My main program is an HTML and script editor
> that's quick, light, free of dependencies (other
> than the VB6 runtime) and has an installer of
> about 800 KB. To my mind it's progress to cut
> out the OCX middleman where that's feasible.
> VB6 gives me the ability to do that, while still providing
> easy methods where and when I want them.
>
>      What do I get if I move to .Net? First I lose
> about half of my potential customer base right
> off the bat, because dial-up users are not going to
> download 25 MB runtimes and 12MB specialty
> programs. Then I lose another 25% because many
> people won't deal with the added complexity of
> needing to download and install a runtime. I also lose
> any ability to write for Windows 95. So now I've
> got maybe 20% of my possible base left.
>
>    Beyond that, I'm
> getting back into the bloat and inefficiency of objects
> that are twice- or thrice-removed from the API. Why
> would I want to do that? I like using the API. I like
> using Windows. I don't want to be led gradually to some
> sort of future X-Box/Vista crap hybrid that won't let me
> access the system directly.
>
> (And all of these reasons not to move to .Net don't even
> address the common complaints, such as the issue
> of easily decompiled code and poor speed, the
> problem of continual changes that require new, giant
> runtimes, and the question of how .Net will weather
> the changes of Avalon, WinFX, etc. The thing is already
> in its third rendition and now MS has plans for more
> big changes with Vista.)
>
>   To my mind it borders on bizarre that so many people
> using .Net keep hanging around here like religious
> converts (or maybe MS plants) doing a .Net sales
> pitch. I wish that people would try to just think for
> themselves a bit, do what's best for their own case,
> and not worry so much about what everyone else
> is up to.
>
>      To anyone who says that the Desktop is old
> hat and that I should be thinking about web-based
> software: Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Either
> way, I have no intention of following such a path using
> Microsoft software.
>
>

> > For one good explanation of why .Net doesn't fit well
> > on the Desktop see Mark Russinovich's article:
> > http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/04/coming-net-world-im-scared.html
>
> I have seen the Mono project and the applications that are being made on
it.
> They never compaint on how slow the windows forms are or what features it
> lacks so that it becomes absolutely rediculous to make any serious
> appliction in windows forms. They are doing everything. Novell now uses
> there own made .net (mono). I'm not talking about speed but the greate
> obbject-oriented framework and executiong engine .net offers that make any
> kind of application development (web or desk) extremely rad and easy.
There
> are project on sourceforge of desk apps made in windows forms and also
made
> in short time.
>

> >     My own situation: I taught myself VB, starting
> > out leaning heavily on OCXs and gradually
> > learned better, leaner coding. I write "shareware".
>
> >      What do I get if I move to .Net? First I lose
> > about half of my potential customer base right
>
> what u said about the OCX. When you move to .net, you get absolutely
amazing
> component based framework. Seriously there is no comparison with COM. Arnt
> you happy that every one can learn to write there own components with out
> learning how the heck IUnknown and IDispatch works. VB6 did make the
> components writing easy but still the power of c++ on com could beat the
> crap out of vb (i hope i used the english here correctly!!!!!!).

:)  Yes, you seem to have a good grasp of English slang!

>   I enjoy the craft of perfecting code and I think that it
> pays off in the long run. For instance, in VB, if
> I want to send an email, at one extreme I could
> automate Outlook. If I want to go deeper I can
> use MAPI. Deeper still, I can use a winsock
> OCX and code the whole operation. Or I can
> use the system sockets library directly and skip the
> OCX. Each step down requires more work to write
> the code. But each step down is also more efficient,
> with less dependencies and a smaller memory
> footprint. I can load 40 MB(?) of libraries to use
> Outlook, with 1 KB of code, or I can load the 40 KB
> wsock32.dll and write 30 KB of code. There are tradeoffs
> both ways, so it's nice to have the choice. Some
> people would say that my 30 KB of code is sloppy,
> but that's only because they don't see the millions
> of operations that are running invisibly, and the
> multiple megabytes worth of libraries being loaded,
> when they run something like:
>    "System.Mail.SendAnEmail".

"mayayana" <mayayanaX***@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message
news:aBT2f.13371$q1.6650@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > i remember when I was in college using very old versions of c++, some
> > changes could be made by just directly accessing (writing to) the
memory.
> > Than operating systems introduced proper apis, and now we couldnt do
> things
> > through direct memory access and there was an api for everything. Now
> there
> > is .net. I think its there system and they can dictate us how to use it.
> >
>
>    That's an interesting point of view. Why so
> passive? I have a Toyota pickup truck. If Toyota
> announced that they would no longer sell parts
> because their pickup truck model is "outdated"
> and was being "End of lifed" then I wouldn't say,
> "Well, it's Toyota's system. It's their decision."
> That would be my last Toyota.
>
> > > off the bat, because dial-up users are not going to
> > > download 25 MB runtimes and 12MB specialty
> > > programs. Then I lose another 25% because many
> >
> > but people all over the world are installing service packs for windows
> 2000
> > and windows xp for security reasons which already contain the runtimes.
> >
>    That sounds like a quote from some kind of wacky
> .Net recruiting propaganda. As I recall, the last XP SP
> was about 275 MB. A dial-up user can't download
> something like that. Do you really think that people
> send away for the service pack CDs? I don't know
> anyone (among non-tech friends) who has ever
> installed any service pack. I don't even know anyone
> who has ever deliberately "upgraded" their Windows
> version.
>
> > > For one good explanation of why .Net doesn't fit well
> > > on the Desktop see Mark Russinovich's article:
> > >

> >
> > I have seen the Mono project and the applications that are being made on
> it.
> > They never compaint on how slow the windows forms are or what features
it
> > lacks so that it becomes absolutely rediculous to make any serious
> > appliction in windows forms. They are doing everything. Novell now uses
> > there own made .net (mono). I'm not talking about speed but the greate
> > obbject-oriented framework and executiong engine .net offers that make
any
> > kind of application development (web or desk) extremely rad and easy.
> There
> > are project on sourceforge of desk apps made in windows forms and also
> made
> > in short time.
> >
>    Did you read the article? Mark Russinovich is a
> Windows programming expert. He's not saying
> that .Net lacks features. He's saying that it's sloppy
> with resources, especially in terms of RAM
> requirements; so much so that trying to run the typical
> number programs at the same time, on current hardware,
> if they were all written in .Net, would be undoable.
>
> > >     My own situation: I taught myself VB, starting
> > > out leaning heavily on OCXs and gradually
> > > learned better, leaner coding. I write "shareware".
> >
> > >      What do I get if I move to .Net? First I lose
> > > about half of my potential customer base right
> >
> > what u said about the OCX. When you move to .net, you get absolutely
> amazing
> > component based framework. Seriously there is no comparison with COM.
Arnt
> > you happy that every one can learn to write there own components with
out
> > learning how the heck IUnknown and IDispatch works. VB6 did make the
> > components writing easy but still the power of c++ on com could beat the
> > crap out of vb (i hope i used the english here correctly!!!!!!).
>
> :)  Yes, you seem to have a good grasp of English slang!
> It is a crude usage, like one might hear in a bar between two
> arguing drunks, but you used it correctly.
>
> > Now in .net
> > its not that about you write components inC# or vb.net, its just the
same
> > for every language.
> >
>     I think you might have misunderstood me there.
> Again, I'm not questioning that .Net may have lots
> of good components. And maybe .Net is good for
> writing components. But I'm saying that I think
> components are best avoided when possible in
> desktop software because they create dependencies,
> inefficiency and bloat. External components are
> great to ease the "learning curve", but to a great extent
> they are just training wheels pasted on top of the code
> that actually does the work.
>
>    Part of that is also personal preference on my
> part:
>   I enjoy the craft of perfecting code and I think that it
> pays off in the long run. For instance, in VB, if
> I want to send an email, at one extreme I could
> automate Outlook. If I want to go deeper I can
> use MAPI. Deeper still, I can use a winsock
> OCX and code the whole operation. Or I can
> use the system sockets library directly and skip the
> OCX. Each step down requires more work to write
> the code. But each step down is also more efficient,
> with less dependencies and a smaller memory
> footprint. I can load 40 MB(?) of libraries to use
> Outlook, with 1 KB of code, or I can load the 40 KB
> wsock32.dll and write 30 KB of code. There are tradeoffs
> both ways, so it's nice to have the choice. Some
> people would say that my 30 KB of code is sloppy,
> but that's only because they don't see the millions
> of operations that are running invisibly, and the
> multiple megabytes worth of libraries being loaded,
> when they run something like:
>    "System.Mail.SendAnEmail".
>
> >
> > > using .Net keep hanging around here like religious
> > > converts (or maybe MS plants) doing a .Net sales
> > > pitch. I wish that people would try to just think for
> >
> > nothing like that, (i'm not even an mvp!). For me, .net is just amazing.
> >
>   :)  I didn't mean to accuse you of that. This thread
> is posting in the VB6 group and the .Net group at
> the same time. I made that comment because in the
> VB6 group we continually get visiting .Net fanatics who
> want to argue whenever anything critical is said about
> .Net.
>
>
>
>

"mayayana" <mayayanaX***@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message
news:rM93f.13623$QE1.3386@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > You
> > can order a free windows xp sp2 cd from microsoft.com and it'll be
> delivered
> > to you anywhere in the world. It does not even require the delivery
> charges.
>
> > And it even says that once you install it, you can just pass the cd to
> > someone else.
> >
>   Oooh. Mr. Bill is turning into a generous softie in his
> old age. It might be fun to order a CD just so that I
> can have the pleasure of legally giving Microsoft
> software to someone who uses XP. :)
>
>     That reminds me of another reason I don't move to
> .Net: The IDE won't run on Win98SE and I don't want
> to switch to Windows Xtra Problems. I find it ironic
> that most Java and .Net developer software runs only
> in very limited environments. Yet both systems aim to
> be thoroughly cross-platform.
>
> >
> > (still havnt read the article) Mark is an expert. No problem with that.
> What
> he says, he definitely is talking with all his knowledge and worried about
> all the resources that .net creates and the way it works currently. But is
> he the only expert? What about all the great guys writing on msdn mag?
Jeff
> Richter, Don Box, etc.,. Are they not experts. Ofcourse u n me know that
> they are. Are they not worried about .net consuming all these resources?
I'm
> > sure some of them maybe. But they dont quit .net for this reason.
> >
>
>   This all started with you asking why there might be
> a problem writing dekstop software on .Net, but you
> keep bringing it back to a question of whether .Net is
> good out of that context. The whole point of Mark's article
> is that there is a difference. He thinks .Net is fine for
> web-based software. The point he's making is that
> it's basically Microsoft's version of Java and doesn't
> belong on the desktop. It may be true that new hardware
> will solve the resource problem, but it's hard for me to see
>  that as progress. Needing 4 GB of RAM to write letters
> and send email is a pitiful state of affairs.
>
> > Well said. You must be a very good dev. And I assure you that you can do
> all
> > this in .net too. There is a greate place for devs like you in the .net
> > community. You can play with wsock32.dll or anyother you like, and the
> > quality of debugging that you'll get with vs.net...
>
>    That's kind of you to say, but there wouldn't be much
> value in using .Net if I'm just going to do it all unmanaged.
> I'm surprised  that I could write an email sender
> using wsock32.dll without problems. That's good to know.
> But then, I don't need the runtime or .Net if I do it that
> way. I'd have a 50 KB program, with no dependencies,
> if I do it in VB6. If I write the same thing in .Net it will
> require the 25 MB runtime and probably compile
> to about 10 MB!
>     Can you see how different that is from the point of
> view of people writing desktop software? Maybe you're
> doing ASP.Net on a corporate server, or something like
> that. That is very different from someone writing small,
> downloaded software to be used on all versions of
> Windows. Avoiding an extra 500 KB of installer size
> or an extra dependency that might cause incompatibility
> problems on some systems is a significant improvement for
> me. And since I can do what I want with a pre-installed
> API that's on all Windows versions, it would be crazy
> to switch. It would be like getting an 18-wheel truck to
> transport my car to where I'm going. It makes much more
> sense to just drive the car.  :)
>
>

"mayayana" <mayayanaX***@mindXXspring.com> wrote in message
news:wvw3f.14312$q1.2262@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > is that there is a difference. He thinks .Net is fine for
> > > web-based software. The point he's making is that
> > > it's basically Microsoft's version of Java and doesn't
> > > belong on the desktop. It may be true that new hardware
> >
> > "Microsoft's version of Java" have heard this a lot. If this is what he
> > says, I'm sure its not worth reading.
> >
>
>     That reminds me of a famous story about
> Galileo. As the story goes, Galileo had found
> craters on the moon by looking through his
> telescope. At the time, the Catholic church had
> a monopoly on knowledge and truth in Europe,
> and they didn't like Galileo coming up with new
> discoveries and ideas because that could lead to
> the development of a whole new truth franchise in
> Europe, which could threaten Catholic power.
>     So a Catholic bishop was
> sent to see what Galileo was up to. Galileo
> offered to demonstrate his claim about craters on
> the moon by letting the bishop see for himself
> through the telescope. The bishop responded
> something like, "I don't need to look through
> your telescope because I already know that
> God would not make the moon as anything other
> than a perfect sphere."
>

"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uDvien3zFHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Abubakar wrote:
> > (still havnt read the article)
>
> Seems clear that you really owe that much to yourself.
>
> > Mark is an expert. No problem with
> > that. What he says, he definitely is talking with all his knowledge
> > and worried about all the resources that .net creates and the way it
> > works currently. But is he the only expert? What about all the great
> > guys writing on msdn mag? Jeff Richter, Don Box, etc.,. Are they not
> > experts. Ofcourse u n me know that they are. Are they not worried
> > about .net consuming all these resources? I'm sure some of them
> > maybe. But they dont quit .net for this reason. They know that
> > hardware is getting better and .net is also getting better and what
> > they do, .net is going to allow them do it better.
>
> Whoa!  Think about that.  What _do_ Richter, Box, et al, actually _do_,

> Good Thing!
> --
> Working Without a .NET?
> http://classicvb.org/petition
>
>

"VB6 User" <v**@love.com> schreef in bericht
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all devies!
>
>
>
> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>
>
>
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>
>
>
> I also have these questions to ask:
>
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
> would they program?
>
>
>
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
> development.
>
>
>
> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
> yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.
>
>
>
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great
> MS minds of late 90'.
>
>
>
> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
> internal MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million
> Developers, 3 million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to
> channel nine, and see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb
> version videos, like they have invented something great. more messy lang
> with more less code, lol
>
>
>
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>
> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
> also upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the
> chip will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>
>
>
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
> biggest no of developers happy?
>
>
>
> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> everything.
>
>
>
> sorry for bad, English.
>
> T K
>
>

"VB6 User" <v**@love.com> wrote in message
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all devies!
>
>
>
> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>
>
>
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>

>
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>
> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
also
> upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the chip
> will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>
>

>
> sorry for bad, English.
>
> T K
>
>

"VB6 User" <v**@love.com> schreef in bericht
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all devies!
>
>
>
> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>
>
>
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>
>
>
> I also have these questions to ask:
>
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
> would they program?
>
>
>
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
> development.
>
>
>
> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
> yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.
>
>
>
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great
> MS minds of late 90'.
>
>
>
> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
> internal MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million
> Developers, 3 million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to
> channel nine, and see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb
> version videos, like they have invented something great. more messy lang
> with more less code, lol
>
>
>
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>
> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
> also upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the
> chip will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>
>
>
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
> biggest no of developers happy?
>
>
>
> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> everything.
>
>
>
> sorry for bad, English.
>
> T K
>
>

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:OW8yG2NzFHA.3000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> Is it not a little bit late for this Dos interface versus Windows
interface
> battle.
>
> I thought that that was won already by the Windows interface.
>
> For me it is silly that you come back with this.
>
> I hope that I don't understand you wrong?
>
> Cor
>
>

> "VB6 User" <v**@love.com> schreef in bericht
> news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hi all devies!
> >
> >
> >
> > Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
> >
> >
> >
> > Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are
some
> > things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier
people
> > used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
> >
> >
> >
> > I also have these questions to ask:
> >
> > Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
> > would they program?
> >
> >
> >
> > APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> > reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> > because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied
to
> > .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
> > development.
> >
> >
> >
> > And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it.
O!,
> > yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly
too.
> >
> >
> >
> > In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of
great
> > MS minds of late 90'.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> > versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
> > internal MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million
> > Developers, 3 million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to
> > channel nine, and see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb
> > version videos, like they have invented something great. more messy lang
> > with more less code, lol
> >
> >
> >
> > lol
> >
> > vb6: 10 lines of code
> >
> > vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
> >
> > vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
> >
> > vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
> >
> > vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> > cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
> > also upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the
> > chip will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
> >
> >
> >
> > Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep
its
> > biggest no of developers happy?
> >
> >
> >
> > the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> > everything.
> >
> >
> >
> > sorry for bad, English.
> >
> > T K
> >
> >
>
>

"VB6 User" <v**@love.com> wrote in message
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all devies!
>
>
>
> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>
>
>
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>
>
>
> I also have these questions to ask:
>
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
would
> they program?
>
>
>
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
development.
>
>
>
> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
> yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.
>
>
>
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great
MS
> minds of late 90'.
>
>
>
> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
internal
> MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million Developers, 3
> million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to channel nine,
and
> see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb version videos, like
> they have invented something great. more messy lang with more less code,
lol
>
>
>
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>
> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
also
> upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the chip
> will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>
>
>
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
> biggest no of developers happy?
>
>
>
> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> everything.
>
>
>
> sorry for bad, English.
>
> T K
>
>

"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23iRNoffzFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
> > "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> schrieb:
> >>> VB6 Code To Call API
> >>> ----------------------------
> >>> PlaySound "chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT Or SND_ASYNC
> >>>
> >>> VB.Net Code To Call Same API
> >>> -------------------------------------
> >>> PlaySound("chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT + SND_ASYNC)
> >>
> >> Are you suggesting that "best practices" in VB.NET regressed to using
> >> addition for combining bitflags?
> >
> > Using '+' to combine bitflags is not a "best practice" in VB.NET :-).
>
> Jest checking...   ;-)
> --
> Working Without a .NET?
> http://classicvb.org/petition
>
>

"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23PnrD3fzFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Ken Dopierala Jr. wrote:
> > Sorry, sorry.
> >
> > To any new programmers out there *always* use OR unless you know what
> > you are doing.                                   ^^^^^^
>
> I feel like you misspelled "even if"...  Hard to buy the rationale there,
except in
> *very* limited circumstances not at all like those demonstrated here.
>
> > Unlike VB6, VB.Net
> > addition & subtraction operations are extremely fast.  In fact, a
> > quick search will point you to a white paper showing that the VB.Net
> > compiled runtime is faster in addition & subtraction than not only
> > VB6 but also C#, C++ (pick your flavor), and of course Java
>
> And that sounds like a license violation against publishing benchmarks.
Hmmm...  ;-)
>
> I really must wonder, though, how IL could possibly compete with ASM for
such basic
> operations.  Smells rather fishy.  This paper wasn't published by
Microsoft, per
> chance, was it?
>
> > While the PlaySound API call won't benefit much, even in a loop,
>                                              ^^^^
> And again, you seem to have misspelled "at all" -- HTH!  :-)
> --
> Working Without a .NET?
> http://classicvb.org/petition
>
>

"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23PnrD3fzFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Ken Dopierala Jr. wrote:
> > Sorry, sorry.
> >
> > To any new programmers out there *always* use OR unless you know what
> > you are doing.                                   ^^^^^^
>
> I feel like you misspelled "even if"...  Hard to buy the rationale there,
except in
> *very* limited circumstances not at all like those demonstrated here.
>
> > Unlike VB6, VB.Net
> > addition & subtraction operations are extremely fast.  In fact, a
> > quick search will point you to a white paper showing that the VB.Net
> > compiled runtime is faster in addition & subtraction than not only
> > VB6 but also C#, C++ (pick your flavor), and of course Java
>
> And that sounds like a license violation against publishing benchmarks.
Hmmm...  ;-)
>
> I really must wonder, though, how IL could possibly compete with ASM for
such basic
> operations.  Smells rather fishy.  This paper wasn't published by
Microsoft, per
> chance, was it?
>
> > While the PlaySound API call won't benefit much, even in a loop,
>                                              ^^^^
> And again, you seem to have misspelled "at all" -- HTH!  :-)
> --
> Working Without a .NET?
> http://classicvb.org/petition
>
>

"Ken Dopierala Jr." <kdopiera***@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%23t8cowfzFHA.908@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Sorry, sorry.
>
> To any new programmers out there *always* use OR unless you know what you
> are doing.  In this case the code was ripped from a game programming API I
> wrote in both VB6 and VB.Net.  Unlike VB6, VB.Net addition & subtraction
> operations are extremely fast.  In fact, a quick search will point you to
a
> white paper showing that the VB.Net compiled runtime is faster in addition
&
> subtraction than not only VB6 but also C#, C++ (pick your flavor), and of
> course Java *note this holds true for .Net 1.0 & 1.1 - I havn't tested 2.0
> yet but I would imagine the C# & C++ compilers are now using the same
> optimizations*.  I ORed in VB6 because there is no net gain to using
> addition, I added in VB.Net because the gain is quite substantial.  While
> the PlaySound API call won't benefit much, even in a loop, it is just a
> force of habit I have to help my compiler along into creating the most
> optimized runtime possible.
>
> Of course the whole point of this is that codewise, calling API functions
> requires no additional code in VB.Net and is actually easier and more
> straight forward than in VB6.  Ken.
>
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%23iRNoffzFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
> > > "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> schrieb:
> > >>> VB6 Code To Call API
> > >>> ----------------------------
> > >>> PlaySound "chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT Or SND_ASYNC
> > >>>
> > >>> VB.Net Code To Call Same API
> > >>> -------------------------------------
> > >>> PlaySound("chime.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT + SND_ASYNC)
> > >>
> > >> Are you suggesting that "best practices" in VB.NET regressed to using
> > >> addition for combining bitflags?
> > >
> > > Using '+' to combine bitflags is not a "best practice" in VB.NET :-).
> >
> > Jest checking...   ;-)
> > --
> > Working Without a .NET?
> > http://classicvb.org/petition
> >
> >
>
>

"VB6 User" <v**@love.com> wrote in message
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all devies!
>
>
>
> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>
>
>
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>
>
>
> I also have these questions to ask:
>
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
> would they program?
>
>
>
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
> development.
>
>
>
> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
> yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.
>
>
>
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great
> MS minds of late 90'.
>
>
>
> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
> internal MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million
> Developers, 3 million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to
> channel nine, and see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb
> version videos, like they have invented something great. more messy lang
> with more less code, lol
>
>
>
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>
> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
> also upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the
> chip will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>
>
>
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
> biggest no of developers happy?
>
>
>
> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> everything.
>
>
>
> sorry for bad, English.
>
> T K
>
>

"Brian Henry" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23ZUGMbVzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> you really need to do research before talking... all programs can be
> decompiled... its not something new with .NET VB6 apps could be too VB4
> was the easiest thing in the world to decompile it was all Pcode... java
> is decompilable C++ is decompilable...
>
> .NET has everything all the other languages have too you just have to know
> how to access them... not everything is PInvoke... there is a reason we
> have DLLImport commands... I suggest actually learning the framework
> before ranting on it... because your precious VB6 has major flaws in it
> also... everything on a computer does...
>
>
>
>
> "VB6 User" <v**@love.com> wrote in message
> news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Hi all devies!
>>
>>
>>
>> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>>
>>
>>
>> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are
>> some things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier
>> people used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in
>> .NET"
>>
>>
>>
>> I also have these questions to ask:
>>
>> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
>> would they program?
>>
>>
>>
>> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
>> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
>> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
>> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
>> development.
>>
>>
>>
>> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it.
>> O!, yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly
>> too.
>>
>>
>>
>> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great
>> MS minds of late 90'.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
>> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
>> internal MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million
>> Developers, 3 million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to
>> channel nine, and see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb
>> version videos, like they have invented something great. more messy lang
>> with more less code, lol
>>
>>
>>
>> lol
>>
>> vb6: 10 lines of code
>>
>> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>>
>> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>>
>> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>>
>> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
>> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
>> also upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the
>> chip will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep
>> its biggest no of developers happy?
>>
>>
>>
>> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
>> everything.
>>
>>
>>
>> sorry for bad, English.
>>
>> T K
>>
>>
>
>

"VB6 User" <v**@love.com> wrote in message
news:Oz6VXcMzFHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi all devies!
>
>
>
> Many (.NUT, .NOT or whatever), APIs, VB6, Views & Questions
>
>
>
> Your can not call APIs directly in .NET, only via P/Invoke. There are some
> things that cannot be done in .NET, and that requires APIs. Earlier people
> used to say "you can do this in VB" and now. "You can't do this in .NET"
>
>
>
> I also have these questions to ask:
>
> Is MS stopping APIs altogether? If yes, what about CPP developer, how
would
> they program?
>
>
>
> APIs are more powerful and faster than foolish class, this is one of the
> reason Java is not considered a local application development languages,
> because it's not powerful for app dev, only for web. That same applied to
> .NET, its great for web, especially ASP.NET. But not for local
development.
>
>
>
> And anybody can disassemble your source code and claims they wrote it. O!,
> yeah, dotfukcator, who has the money to buy a $2500 anti-disassembly too.
>
>
>
> In my view, one of the reasons, classic VB is/was great, because of great
MS
> minds of late 90'.
>
>
>
> Now they just hire, cheap people, to "get the job done". Today's VB/.NET
> versions are developed on the internal views, offshore R&D, foolish
internal
> MVPs and offshoring minds. And not by views of 3 Million Developers, 3
> million is not "3 Million", its 3000000 people. just go to channel nine,
and
> see, how the vb team member shows us the futures vb version videos, like
> they have invented something great. more messy lang with more less code,
lol
>
>
>
> lol
>
> vb6: 10 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2002 : 6 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2003: 3 lines of code
>
> vb.net 2005: 1 line of code
>
> vb.net 2007: throw some water on your pc or spray a deodorant can in the
> cpu, because MS will invent AI that will write code automatically, and
also
> upload to your website. all u have to do is implant a chip, and the chip
> will convert vb6 codes in your mind, via satellite.
>
>
>
> Wtf, a company with an annual, budget of 8 Billion dollars, can't keep its
> biggest no of developers happy?
>
>
>
> the only things vb6 is lacking is Unicode support, except that it has
> everything.
>
>
>
> sorry for bad, English.
>
> T K
>
>

"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OAkRE4fzFHA.2652@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Roger Rabbit wrote:
> > How many lines of VB6 code would it takes to do this? And what would
> > that nasty ass bit of code look like?
> >
> > contents = My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile.txt")
>
> If you don't know, why would you put yourself in the position of
criticizing the
> language in this thread?  Isn't that one of the things your kind has most
frequently
> railed against?
> --
> Working Without a .NET?
> http://classicvb.org/petition
>
>

"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23Lzw4arzFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Roger Rabbit wrote:
> > My kind? Get a grip Karl.
>
> Yeah, y'know, guys who can't attach their name to their views. ;-)
>
> > It was a rhetorical question not meant to illicit a "how-to" response
> > but rather to demonstrate how simple developing in a .Net environment
> > has become..."out of the box".
>
> And mine was a tongue in cheek response, meant to demonstrate how silly
such rhetoric
> is.
>
> Objects simply are not the end-all/be-all you seem to believe.  But hey,

>
> I've been using virtually the same file i/o code structure for 30 years.
Nothing
> about your sample even *begins* to approach something I'd personally term
"simple".
> Rhetorically speaking. <g>
>
> Later...   Karl
> --
> Working Without a .NET?
> http://classicvb.org/petition
>
>

> >
> > Just like a VB6er to be quoting something someone said about
> > technology 13 years ago.
>
>  "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
> --George Santayana
>
> You'll understand it someday.  Until then, good luck.  You'll need it.
>
> --
> Reply to the group so all can participate
> VB.Net: "Fool me once..."
>

"Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in message news:uSnec7fzFHA.2880@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> How many lines of VB6 code would it takes to do this? And what
> would that
>> nasty ass bit of code look like?
>>
>> contents =
> My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile.txt")
>
> If I understand its purpose, this is a VB6 solution...
>
> Dim FileNum As Long
> Dim Contents As String
> FileNum = FreeFile
> Open "c:\mytextfile.txt" For Binary As #FileNum
>  Contents = Space(LOF(FileNum))
>  Get #FileNum, , Contents
> Close #FileNum
>
> Rick
>
>

> Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
>
> Dim FileNum As Long
> Dim Contents As String
> FileNum = FreeFile
> Open "c:\mytextfile.txt" For Binary As #FileNum
>   Contents = Space(LOF(FileNum))
>   Get #FileNum, , Contents
> Close #FileNum
>
> as opposed to this:
>
> Dim contents as string =
> My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile.txt")
>
> then we're never going to agree.

> ¤ But if I bundle the code I posted up into a Function like this
> ¤
> ¤ Public Function ReadAllText(FileName As String) As String
> ¤   Dim FileNum As Long
> ¤   Dim Contents As String
> ¤   FileNum = FreeFile
> ¤   Open FileName For Binary As #FileNum
> ¤     ReadAllText = Space(LOF(FileNum))
> ¤     Get #FileNum, , ReadAllText
> ¤   Close #FileNum
> ¤ End Function
> ¤
> ¤ and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
> ¤ manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add
that
> ¤ Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call
to
> ¤ this...
> ¤
> ¤ Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
> ¤
> ¤ That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
> ¤
> ¤ Rick
>
> No, just totally unnecessary in comparison. ;-)
>
> Now just repeat that for every instance where one or two lines

> > Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
> >
> > Dim FileNum As Long
> > Dim Contents As String
> > FileNum = FreeFile
> > Open "c:\mytextfile.txt" For Binary As #FileNum
> >   Contents = Space(LOF(FileNum))
> >   Get #FileNum, , Contents
> > Close #FileNum
> >
> > as opposed to this:
> >
> > Dim contents as string =
> > My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile.txt")

"Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in message news:ee9PbQjzFHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
> >
> > Dim FileNum As Long
> > Dim Contents As String
> > FileNum = FreeFile
> > Open "c:\mytextfile.txt" For Binary As #FileNum
> >   Contents = Space(LOF(FileNum))
> >   Get #FileNum, , Contents
> > Close #FileNum
> >
> > as opposed to this:
> >
> > Dim contents as string =
> > My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile.txt")
> >
> > then we're never going to agree.
>
> But if I bundle the code I posted up into a Function like this
>
> Public Function ReadAllText(FileName As String) As String
>   Dim FileNum As Long
>   Dim Contents As String
>   FileNum = FreeFile
>   Open FileName For Binary As #FileNum
>     ReadAllText = Space(LOF(FileNum))
>     Get #FileNum, , ReadAllText
>   Close #FileNum
> End Function
>
> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
> this...
>
> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
>
> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
>
> Rick
>
>

> > and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
> > manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add
that
> > Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call
to
> > this...
> >
> > Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
> >
> > That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
>
> but how much of the functionality are you going to surround with
function
> calls and classes?

> Off topic...
>
> Abubakar,
>
> Please adjust your time zone. Your computer seems to be set to Bill Gates'
> time zone, PST, which is the default in Windows. While your local time
> appears correct, your posts appear on the top in newsgroups(in the future)
> and would cause time zone differences when you exchange files with a
> computer that is set to a different time zone. Files dates and times are
> adjusted when you copy files back and forth...
>
> Thank you...
>
>

"Abubakar" <abubak***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uv5eVZjzFHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
>> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
>> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
>> this...
>>
>> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
>>
>> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
>
> but how much of the functionality are you going to surround with function
> calls and classes? And its you who is doing that, how are you going to
> make
> this utility code available to all the vb6 devs? .Net that makes it
> available for everyone.
>
> Ab.
>
>
>
> "Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
> wrote in message news:ee9PbQjzFHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> > Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
>> >
>> > Dim FileNum As Long
>> > Dim Contents As String
>> > FileNum = FreeFile
>> > Open "c:\mytextfile.txt" For Binary As #FileNum
>> >   Contents = Space(LOF(FileNum))
>> >   Get #FileNum, , Contents
>> > Close #FileNum
>> >
>> > as opposed to this:
>> >
>> > Dim contents as string =
>> > My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile.txt")
>> >
>> > then we're never going to agree.
>>
>> But if I bundle the code I posted up into a Function like this
>>
>> Public Function ReadAllText(FileName As String) As String
>>   Dim FileNum As Long
>>   Dim Contents As String
>>   FileNum = FreeFile
>>   Open FileName For Binary As #FileNum
>>     ReadAllText = Space(LOF(FileNum))
>>     Get #FileNum, , ReadAllText
>>   Close #FileNum
>> End Function
>>
>> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
>> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
>> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
>> this...
>>
>> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
>>
>> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>
>

"Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23J3KlUqzFHA.3180@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> If you want another analogy, consider the programs I've developed with my
> marriage to VB 6 my "children".  Now M$ has suggested I divorce from VB6
> to enter into another marriage with .NET.  Good marriages take time and
> work and don't always work out for the better.  I don't want a new
> marriage, I am happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't
> appreciate being told my "children" are obsolete, along with my "wife"
> because they think the new marriage would be better for me.  What made my
> marriage to VB 6 won't work for .NET.  Plain and simple.
>
> So, there it is.  ;-)
>
> - Kev

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eynl%23nqzFHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%23J3KlUqzFHA.3180@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>
>> If you want another analogy, consider the programs I've developed with my
>> marriage to VB 6 my "children".  Now M$ has suggested I divorce from VB6
>> to enter into another marriage with .NET.  Good marriages take time and
>> work and don't always work out for the better.  I don't want a new
>> marriage, I am happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't
>> appreciate being told my "children" are obsolete, along with my "wife"
>> because they think the new marriage would be better for me.  What made my
>> marriage to VB 6 won't work for .NET.  Plain and simple.
>>
>> So, there it is.  ;-)
>>
>> - Kev
>
> Especially considering that feeling in the back of your head that it's
> just going to happen again when the next crew takes over at MS <g>
>
> OT, your "children are obsolete" statement reminded me of the movie
> Soldier (Kurt Russell...
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0790740443/103-7242165-6257459?v=glance&n=130&v=glance).
> He was one of the "old soldiers", assumed dead after a fight with one of
> the new guys and dumped on a remote planet with other "waste".. when the
> new guys came in, the commander says "your soldiers are obsolete", the
> remaining older guys were told "only soldiers get guns... heck, you don't
> even have to salute anymore"... Guess they were wrong eh? Kurt Russell,
> whooped'um real good <g> Maybe good old Kurt should be a VB6 spokesman eh?
> ;-) (you'd have to have seen the movie to know what I'm talking about)
>
> --
> Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
> DLL Hell problems? Try ComGuard - http://www.vbsight.com/ComGuard.htm
> Please keep all discussions in the groups..
>

"Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23J3KlUqzFHA.3180@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Well, the way I see it is thus:  I would rather have my handy dandy class
> files and bas files which I know work (and yes, I will give you that .NET
> can do it in one lines, once all the new syntax has been learned,
understood
> and remembered)...BUT, when I compile my project and create my setup files
> which include the VB runtimes...the download for the end user is still
much
> smaller than shipping out some .NET nightmare.  The problem is this, and
has
> been mentioned:  The .NET runtime is massive. In my 10+ years of dealing
> with end users and their fickle systems, it was always to my advantage to
> include the VB runtimes in my setup files, because when VB six was first
> introduced, DLL Hell plauged my life with "OLE files out of date"
messages.
> I could not depend on my end users to have the current VB runtimes on
their
> computer...and I certianly could not depend on them always haveing the
> latest SP's or Windows updates installed.  And when I say I've dealt with
> tens of thousands of people over the last ten years, I am not
exaggerating.
> I managed to curb the problem by always shipping the VB runtimes in my
> setups with the versions instlled with VS6 and some competent version
> checking in my setups.  Problems mostly solved.
>
> Now, taking all that into consideration with .NET, I would have to include
> the .NET runtimes in my setup packages, which would create 20+ MB files
for
> the end user to download.  Otherwise if I assumed the end users already
had
> the .NET runtimes installed, I would be spending ever waking hour with
> support tickets over an installation process that should manage itself.
>
> So, between having to learn a new lanaguage for all intents and purposes,
> and then ensuring the end users have all the proper runtimes by including
> those massive .NET runtime files...and not even mentioning how sluggish
and
> slow .NET compiled programs run in general...it just not worth it.  M$ did
> me a great disservice by throwing away VB classic along with everything
I've
> worked so hard for over the last ten years including code and protocols
and
> giving me .NET in return.  And for what reason?  Because they think it's
> better?  Again, I would rather have my BAS files with code I know works
than
> the so called convenience of only needing to type one line in .NET.  It's
> not a trade off I am willing to make, citing everything I've just
explained.
>
> If you want another analogy, consider the programs I've developed with my
> marriage to VB 6 my "children".  Now M$ has suggested I divorce from VB6
to
> enter into another marriage with .NET.  Good marriages take time and work
> and don't always work out for the better.  I don't want a new marriage, I
am
> happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't appreciate being told
my
> "children" are obsolete, along with my "wife" because they think the new
> marriage would be better for me.  What made my marriage to VB 6 won't work
> for .NET.  Plain and simple.
>
> So, there it is.  ;-)
>
> - Kev
>
> "Abubakar" <abubak***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uv5eVZjzFHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
> >> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
> >> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
> >> this...
> >>
> >> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
> >>
> >> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
> >
> > but how much of the functionality are you going to surround with
function
> > calls and classes? And its you who is doing that, how are you going to
> > make
> > this utility code available to all the vb6 devs? .Net that makes it
> > available for everyone.
> >
> > Ab.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
> > wrote in message news:ee9PbQjzFHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> > Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
> >> >
> >> > Dim FileNum As Long
> >> > Dim Contents As String
> >> > FileNum = FreeFile
> >> > Open "c:\mytextfile.txt" For Binary As #FileNum
> >> >   Contents = Space(LOF(FileNum))
> >> >   Get #FileNum, , Contents
> >> > Close #FileNum
> >> >
> >> > as opposed to this:
> >> >
> >> > Dim contents as string =
> >> > My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile.txt")
> >> >
> >> > then we're never going to agree.
> >>
> >> But if I bundle the code I posted up into a Function like this
> >>
> >> Public Function ReadAllText(FileName As String) As String
> >>   Dim FileNum As Long
> >>   Dim Contents As String
> >>   FileNum = FreeFile
> >>   Open FileName For Binary As #FileNum
> >>     ReadAllText = Space(LOF(FileNum))
> >>     Get #FileNum, , ReadAllText
> >>   Close #FileNum
> >> End Function
> >>
> >> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
> >> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
> >> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
> >> this...
> >>
> >> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
> >>
> >> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
> >>
> >> Rick
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

"Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in message news:eVgVwsrzFHA.4032@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > So in a nutshell your resistant to change and just want things
> > to be the way they were.
>
> No, I think you have completely misread the non-.NET desire. We
> are not resistant to change, we just don't want to lose what we
> had for the sake of that change. For VB's entire existence (the
> non-VB.NET versions of VB that is), some 10 years of existence,
> Microsoft managed to add functionalities and technologies to the
> language without destroying old code from functioning (with maybe
> one or two notable exceptions) and when code changes were
> required, the changes were not huge and project destroying. Old
> code could be brought forward into the newer versions of VB as
> they were released. And trust me, I was delighted with all of the
> new things added to VB with each version change (again, I am
> talking of non-VB.NET here).
>
> Rick
>
>

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message news:%23KyrAbyzFHA.2792@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Roger Rabbit" <ro***@rabbit.com> schrieb:
> > Deprecations and code breakages are a good thing.
>
> LOL!  It really seems that you don't have any assets in Classic VB code.
> Deprecations and code breakages are the /worst/ thing that can happen, both
> from a technical and economical perspective.  The fewer deprecations and
> code breakages happen in a certain system, the better it has been designed.
> Take the 'System.Web.Mail' namespace of the .NET Framework for example.
> This namespace is four years old and has been deprecated, which shows that
> it has been designed in a sloppy manner.  There are thousands of
> applications which rely on this namespace, and customers have invested in
> code which is based on this namespace.  It's legitimate to suspect that
> development of a certain feature is not cancelled after a few years.
>
> --
>  M S   Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P  <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
>  V B   <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
>

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message news:%23fDXlS0zFHA.3256@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Al,
>
> You point on one of the biggest problem in the use of all symbolic language
> design.
>
> The use of lower language parts in symbolic languages.
>
> This is not new, it has been a problem in every symbolic program-language
> when there were big upgrades.
>
> This is one of the reason that I try to avoid those as hell and only use
> them as they are really needed, not because of VB, just because of earlier
> expiriences with that. (I know that it is often much nicer and customers
> want that so it was almost impossible to completly avoid them in languages
> before the Net languages)
>
> I don't know how your programs are, however I have seen in past programs in
> so called symbolic languages which where only the concatinating of lower
> program calls.
>
> Often those lower languages parts make it completely impossible to upgrade
> (not only with VB again).
>
> Probably will we all once have that lesson.
>
> Very pretty is, that in VBNet there is much less need for Api's and in the
> next 2005 version even much less.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/win32map.asp
>
> (The call the Net and VisualBasic namespace classes here Api's probably to
> make it regonizable I have it never seen done on another place).
>
> It does not help you much with the problem, however I have never seen a
> solution for that.
>
> Why do you think that so many companies are still on Cobol?
>
> The upgrade tools warns you how to do that in VV6-> VBNet by the way
>
> However it stays a hell of a job.
>
> Just my thougth,
>
> Cor
>
>

"Sheldon Rosenfeld" <V**@DotNyet.com> wrote in message
news:uOCsaFzzFHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:%23KyrAbyzFHA.2792@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > "Roger Rabbit" <ro***@rabbit.com> schrieb:
> >> Deprecations and code breakages are a good thing.
> >
> > LOL!  It really seems that you don't have any assets in Classic VB code.
>
> Still searching for "Deprecations and code breakages" to C++.
>
> What??? MS wouldn't do it as it would *BREAK* Office?
> Come on!!! Re-write & re-test like the VB'ers!
>

"Roger Rabbit" <ro***@rabbit.com> wrote in message
news:OPEPjirzFHA.2008@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> So in a nutshell your resistant to change and just want things to be the
> way
> they were.
>
> That's fine. But its not realistic. I expect to turn my skillset over
> every
> 5 years. That's the world we live in. Maybe last century you could get
> away
> with the same skillset for 20 plus years but that's not the case anymore.
>
> I don't want a new marriage, I am
>> happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't appreciate being told
> my
>> "children" are obsolete, along with my "wife" because they think the new
>> marriage would be better for me.
>
> Well taking the emotive language out it I'm sure your actual wife and kids
> are lovely...your programmatic wife and kids however are outdated and they
> are obsolete. Monogamy in a technical sense is an outdated concept.
>
> To survive in 21st Century development requires that you be a serial
> polygamist. Its requires that you be a veritable Casanova of the
> technological spectrum, that you bed many and wed none. While whispering
> sweet nothings in the ear of your current Bo you are constantly looking
> over
> her shoulder for what's coming through the door. You need to stay virile
> and
> have a hunger and a passion for new conquests.
>
> At the end of the day you don't slump on the couch with a bag of Cheetos
> but
> rather see this as the moment where the real work begins as you delve into
> a
> study of the fine art of tantric seduction.
>
> The longer this thread runs the more obvious it becomes that the
> dontNetter
> crowd have are professionally jealous of us dotNetters. As we dotNetters
> forge energetically on ahead, going where no VB developer has gone before,
> you dontNetters are stuck on some lonely hill on a cold dark night staring
> up at the stars with your short, nearsighted telescopes in your hands.
>
> You dontNetters sound like you fell for your code base and now 10-15 years
> later you're all frustrated that she's grown fat and ugly and no longer
> puts
> the way she used too. Meanwhile us dotNetters are gallivanting about the
> Universe in our sleek new space ship, discovering all manner of strange
> and
> interesting alien lifeforms and gently putting them to work for us as we
> deliver one stellar performance after another..... at warp speed i might
> add.
>
> The fact is the technological chicks really dig us dotNetters and our
> flashy
> Intergalactic ways and you dontNetters are more than just a little
> scornful
> about being trapped raking out the muck from your earth bound trenches.
> Your
> all something akin to the poor people who desperately try to convince
> themselves that while the rich might be wealthy they aren't happy. Well
> the
> truth is for all the dontNetters out there and their moaning and griping
> about their archaic platform, the fact remains that us dotNetters are the
> future. And the future is bright.
>
> RR
>
>
> "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%23J3KlUqzFHA.3180@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Well, the way I see it is thus:  I would rather have my handy dandy class
>> files and bas files which I know work (and yes, I will give you that .NET
>> can do it in one lines, once all the new syntax has been learned,
> understood
>> and remembered)...BUT, when I compile my project and create my setup
>> files
>> which include the VB runtimes...the download for the end user is still
> much
>> smaller than shipping out some .NET nightmare.  The problem is this, and
> has
>> been mentioned:  The .NET runtime is massive. In my 10+ years of dealing
>> with end users and their fickle systems, it was always to my advantage to
>> include the VB runtimes in my setup files, because when VB six was first
>> introduced, DLL Hell plauged my life with "OLE files out of date"
> messages.
>> I could not depend on my end users to have the current VB runtimes on
> their
>> computer...and I certianly could not depend on them always haveing the
>> latest SP's or Windows updates installed.  And when I say I've dealt with
>> tens of thousands of people over the last ten years, I am not
> exaggerating.
>> I managed to curb the problem by always shipping the VB runtimes in my
>> setups with the versions instlled with VS6 and some competent version
>> checking in my setups.  Problems mostly solved.
>>
>> Now, taking all that into consideration with .NET, I would have to
>> include
>> the .NET runtimes in my setup packages, which would create 20+ MB files
> for
>> the end user to download.  Otherwise if I assumed the end users already
> had
>> the .NET runtimes installed, I would be spending ever waking hour with
>> support tickets over an installation process that should manage itself.
>>
>> So, between having to learn a new lanaguage for all intents and purposes,
>> and then ensuring the end users have all the proper runtimes by including
>> those massive .NET runtime files...and not even mentioning how sluggish
> and
>> slow .NET compiled programs run in general...it just not worth it.  M$
>> did
>> me a great disservice by throwing away VB classic along with everything
> I've
>> worked so hard for over the last ten years including code and protocols
> and
>> giving me .NET in return.  And for what reason?  Because they think it's
>> better?  Again, I would rather have my BAS files with code I know works
> than
>> the so called convenience of only needing to type one line in .NET.  It's
>> not a trade off I am willing to make, citing everything I've just
> explained.
>>
>> If you want another analogy, consider the programs I've developed with my
>> marriage to VB 6 my "children".  Now M$ has suggested I divorce from VB6
> to
>> enter into another marriage with .NET.  Good marriages take time and work
>> and don't always work out for the better.  I don't want a new marriage, I
> am
>> happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't appreciate being told
> my
>> "children" are obsolete, along with my "wife" because they think the new
>> marriage would be better for me.  What made my marriage to VB 6 won't
>> work
>> for .NET.  Plain and simple.
>>
>> So, there it is.  ;-)
>>
>> - Kev
>>
>> "Abubakar" <abubak***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uv5eVZjzFHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
>> >> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
>> >> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
>> >> this...
>> >>
>> >> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
>> >>
>> >> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
>> >
>> > but how much of the functionality are you going to surround with
> function
>> > calls and classes? And its you who is doing that, how are you going to
>> > make
>> > this utility code available to all the vb6 devs? .Net that makes it
>> > available for everyone.
>> >
>> > Ab.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]"
>> > <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
>> > wrote in message news:ee9PbQjzFHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
>> >> >
>> >> > Dim FileNum As Long
>> >> > Dim Contents As String
>> >> > FileNum = FreeFile
>> >> > Open "c:\mytextfile.txt" For Binary As #FileNum
>> >> >   Contents = Space(LOF(FileNum))
>> >> >   Get #FileNum, , Contents
>> >> > Close #FileNum
>> >> >
>> >> > as opposed to this:
>> >> >
>> >> > Dim contents as string =
>> >> > My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile.txt")
>> >> >
>> >> > then we're never going to agree.
>> >>
>> >> But if I bundle the code I posted up into a Function like this
>> >>
>> >> Public Function ReadAllText(FileName As String) As String
>> >>   Dim FileNum As Long
>> >>   Dim Contents As String
>> >>   FileNum = FreeFile
>> >>   Open FileName For Binary As #FileNum
>> >>     ReadAllText = Space(LOF(FileNum))
>> >>     Get #FileNum, , ReadAllText
>> >>   Close #FileNum
>> >> End Function
>> >>
>> >> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
>> >> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
>> >> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
>> >> this...
>> >>
>> >> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
>> >>
>> >> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
>> >>
>> >> Rick
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

> Some of the smartest and clever fellows I've met here, who could
undoubtedly
> pick up .NET in a fair amount of time simply refuse to do so because they
> know it's pointless.  They know MS's track record of rendering a perfectly
> good language obsolete simply because they think the new way is better.
New
> does not equate to better, nor does all "change".
>
> - Kev (a.k.a Yosemite Sam)
>
>
> "Roger Rabbit" <ro***@rabbit.com> wrote in message
> news:OPEPjirzFHA.2008@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > So in a nutshell your resistant to change and just want things to be the
> > way
> > they were.
> >
> > That's fine. But its not realistic. I expect to turn my skillset over
> > every
> > 5 years. That's the world we live in. Maybe last century you could get
> > away
> > with the same skillset for 20 plus years but that's not the case
anymore.
> >
> > I don't want a new marriage, I am
> >> happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't appreciate being
told
> > my
> >> "children" are obsolete, along with my "wife" because they think the
new
> >> marriage would be better for me.
> >
> > Well taking the emotive language out it I'm sure your actual wife and
kids
> > are lovely...your programmatic wife and kids however are outdated and
they
> > are obsolete. Monogamy in a technical sense is an outdated concept.
> >
> > To survive in 21st Century development requires that you be a serial
> > polygamist. Its requires that you be a veritable Casanova of the
> > technological spectrum, that you bed many and wed none. While whispering
> > sweet nothings in the ear of your current Bo you are constantly looking
> > over
> > her shoulder for what's coming through the door. You need to stay virile
> > and
> > have a hunger and a passion for new conquests.
> >
> > At the end of the day you don't slump on the couch with a bag of Cheetos
> > but
> > rather see this as the moment where the real work begins as you delve
into
> > a
> > study of the fine art of tantric seduction.
> >
> > The longer this thread runs the more obvious it becomes that the
> > dontNetter
> > crowd have are professionally jealous of us dotNetters. As we dotNetters
> > forge energetically on ahead, going where no VB developer has gone
before,
> > you dontNetters are stuck on some lonely hill on a cold dark night
staring
> > up at the stars with your short, nearsighted telescopes in your hands.
> >
> > You dontNetters sound like you fell for your code base and now 10-15
years
> > later you're all frustrated that she's grown fat and ugly and no longer
> > puts
> > the way she used too. Meanwhile us dotNetters are gallivanting about the
> > Universe in our sleek new space ship, discovering all manner of strange
> > and
> > interesting alien lifeforms and gently putting them to work for us as we
> > deliver one stellar performance after another..... at warp speed i might
> > add.
> >
> > The fact is the technological chicks really dig us dotNetters and our
> > flashy
> > Intergalactic ways and you dontNetters are more than just a little
> > scornful
> > about being trapped raking out the muck from your earth bound trenches.
> > Your
> > all something akin to the poor people who desperately try to convince
> > themselves that while the rich might be wealthy they aren't happy. Well
> > the
> > truth is for all the dontNetters out there and their moaning and griping
> > about their archaic platform, the fact remains that us dotNetters are
the
> > future. And the future is bright.
> >
> > RR
> >
> >
> > "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23J3KlUqzFHA.3180@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >> Well, the way I see it is thus:  I would rather have my handy dandy
class
> >> files and bas files which I know work (and yes, I will give you that
..NET
> >> can do it in one lines, once all the new syntax has been learned,
> > understood
> >> and remembered)...BUT, when I compile my project and create my setup
> >> files
> >> which include the VB runtimes...the download for the end user is still
> > much
> >> smaller than shipping out some .NET nightmare.  The problem is this,
and
> > has
> >> been mentioned:  The .NET runtime is massive. In my 10+ years of
dealing
> >> with end users and their fickle systems, it was always to my advantage
to
> >> include the VB runtimes in my setup files, because when VB six was
first
> >> introduced, DLL Hell plauged my life with "OLE files out of date"
> > messages.
> >> I could not depend on my end users to have the current VB runtimes on
> > their
> >> computer...and I certianly could not depend on them always haveing the
> >> latest SP's or Windows updates installed.  And when I say I've dealt
with
> >> tens of thousands of people over the last ten years, I am not
> > exaggerating.
> >> I managed to curb the problem by always shipping the VB runtimes in my
> >> setups with the versions instlled with VS6 and some competent version
> >> checking in my setups.  Problems mostly solved.
> >>
> >> Now, taking all that into consideration with .NET, I would have to
> >> include
> >> the .NET runtimes in my setup packages, which would create 20+ MB files
> > for
> >> the end user to download.  Otherwise if I assumed the end users already
> > had
> >> the .NET runtimes installed, I would be spending ever waking hour with
> >> support tickets over an installation process that should manage itself.
> >>
> >> So, between having to learn a new lanaguage for all intents and
purposes,
> >> and then ensuring the end users have all the proper runtimes by
including
> >> those massive .NET runtime files...and not even mentioning how sluggish
> > and
> >> slow .NET compiled programs run in general...it just not worth it.  M$
> >> did
> >> me a great disservice by throwing away VB classic along with everything
> > I've
> >> worked so hard for over the last ten years including code and protocols
> > and
> >> giving me .NET in return.  And for what reason?  Because they think
it's
> >> better?  Again, I would rather have my BAS files with code I know works
> > than
> >> the so called convenience of only needing to type one line in .NET.
It's
> >> not a trade off I am willing to make, citing everything I've just
> > explained.
> >>
> >> If you want another analogy, consider the programs I've developed with
my
> >> marriage to VB 6 my "children".  Now M$ has suggested I divorce from
VB6
> > to
> >> enter into another marriage with .NET.  Good marriages take time and
work
> >> and don't always work out for the better.  I don't want a new marriage,
I
> > am
> >> happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't appreciate being
told
> > my
> >> "children" are obsolete, along with my "wife" because they think the
new
> >> marriage would be better for me.  What made my marriage to VB 6 won't
> >> work
> >> for .NET.  Plain and simple.
> >>
> >> So, there it is.  ;-)
> >>
> >> - Kev
> >>
> >> "Abubakar" <abubak***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:uv5eVZjzFHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> >> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
> >> >> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
> >> >> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
> >> >> this...
> >> >>
> >> >> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
> >> >>
> >> >> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
> >> >
> >> > but how much of the functionality are you going to surround with
> > function
> >> > calls and classes? And its you who is doing that, how are you going
to
> >> > make
> >> > this utility code available to all the vb6 devs? .Net that makes it
> >> > available for everyone.
> >> >
> >> > Ab.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]"
> >> > <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
> >> > wrote in message news:ee9PbQjzFHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> >> > Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dim FileNum As Long
> >> >> > Dim Contents As String
> >> >> > FileNum = FreeFile
> >> >> > Open "c:\mytextfile.txt" For Binary As #FileNum
> >> >> >   Contents = Space(LOF(FileNum))
> >> >> >   Get #FileNum, , Contents
> >> >> > Close #FileNum
> >> >> >
> >> >> > as opposed to this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dim contents as string =
> >> >> > My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile.txt")
> >> >> >
> >> >> > then we're never going to agree.
> >> >>
> >> >> But if I bundle the code I posted up into a Function like this
> >> >>
> >> >> Public Function ReadAllText(FileName As String) As String
> >> >>   Dim FileNum As Long
> >> >>   Dim Contents As String
> >> >>   FileNum = FreeFile
> >> >>   Open FileName For Binary As #FileNum
> >> >>     ReadAllText = Space(LOF(FileNum))
> >> >>     Get #FileNum, , ReadAllText
> >> >>   Close #FileNum
> >> >> End Function
> >> >>
> >> >> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
> >> >> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
> >> >> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
> >> >> this...
> >> >>
> >> >> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
> >> >>
> >> >> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
> >> >>
> >> >> Rick
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

"Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message
news:efKDz1rzFHA.3812@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I am not restistant to change, however not all change is good.  Look at
what
> happened when Hitler came to power, look at what happened to America when
> Bush came into the White House.
>
> Sounds to me, based on this rather none-sensical reply that you are
another
> automaton that follows the crowd versus thinking for yourself.  Hell, you
> have to hide behind the name of a cartoon character rather than attaching
a
> real name to your persona (and consequently, earning the same reputation
of
> a cartoon character).  Merely spewing back the same propoganda that MS has
> installed into you under a false name does not an argument make.  I am
sure
> you believe exactly what you are are saying, and more power to you.  it
> doesn't make you right.  I'll concede the same thing and perhaps ion the
end
> we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
>
> I am curious though, if you are married (or intend to marry) what will
> happen to your wife when she gets old?  Render her obsolete and get a
newer
> model?  What is she gets fat and unattractive?  Will you just throw her
> away?  What if you have kids and they turn out to be punks who embrace a
> life of crime?  Would you then render them obsolete?  Based on your
previous
> post, it sounds exactly  like something you would do.  If after another
few
> years MS dumps .NET and forces you to move on to a new platform will you
> simply toss away all your prior work simply to be part of the what you
> perceive to be the "in" crowd to avoid being labeled obsolete?
>
> I would rather be good at what I do even if it considered obsolete then be
> half-assed at what whever "change" is thrust upon me...and could care less
> what the in crowd thinks of me.  Simply diving into the latest and
greatest
> offering does not make you intelligent, nor does it make you
irreplaceable.
> Some of the smartest and clever fellows I've met here, who could
undoubtedly
> pick up .NET in a fair amount of time simply refuse to do so because they
> know it's pointless.  They know MS's track record of rendering a perfectly
> good language obsolete simply because they think the new way is better.
New
> does not equate to better, nor does all "change".
>
> - Kev (a.k.a Yosemite Sam)
>
>
> "Roger Rabbit" <ro***@rabbit.com> wrote in message
> news:OPEPjirzFHA.2008@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > So in a nutshell your resistant to change and just want things to be the
> > way
> > they were.
> >
> > That's fine. But its not realistic. I expect to turn my skillset over
> > every
> > 5 years. That's the world we live in. Maybe last century you could get
> > away
> > with the same skillset for 20 plus years but that's not the case
anymore.
> >
> > I don't want a new marriage, I am
> >> happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't appreciate being
told
> > my
> >> "children" are obsolete, along with my "wife" because they think the
new
> >> marriage would be better for me.
> >
> > Well taking the emotive language out it I'm sure your actual wife and
kids
> > are lovely...your programmatic wife and kids however are outdated and
they
> > are obsolete. Monogamy in a technical sense is an outdated concept.
> >
> > To survive in 21st Century development requires that you be a serial
> > polygamist. Its requires that you be a veritable Casanova of the
> > technological spectrum, that you bed many and wed none. While whispering
> > sweet nothings in the ear of your current Bo you are constantly looking
> > over
> > her shoulder for what's coming through the door. You need to stay virile
> > and
> > have a hunger and a passion for new conquests.
> >
> > At the end of the day you don't slump on the couch with a bag of Cheetos
> > but
> > rather see this as the moment where the real work begins as you delve
into
> > a
> > study of the fine art of tantric seduction.
> >
> > The longer this thread runs the more obvious it becomes that the
> > dontNetter
> > crowd have are professionally jealous of us dotNetters. As we dotNetters
> > forge energetically on ahead, going where no VB developer has gone
before,
> > you dontNetters are stuck on some lonely hill on a cold dark night
staring
> > up at the stars with your short, nearsighted telescopes in your hands.
> >
> > You dontNetters sound like you fell for your code base and now 10-15
years
> > later you're all frustrated that she's grown fat and ugly and no longer
> > puts
> > the way she used too. Meanwhile us dotNetters are gallivanting about the
> > Universe in our sleek new space ship, discovering all manner of strange
> > and
> > interesting alien lifeforms and gently putting them to work for us as we
> > deliver one stellar performance after another..... at warp speed i might
> > add.
> >
> > The fact is the technological chicks really dig us dotNetters and our
> > flashy
> > Intergalactic ways and you dontNetters are more than just a little
> > scornful
> > about being trapped raking out the muck from your earth bound trenches.
> > Your
> > all something akin to the poor people who desperately try to convince
> > themselves that while the rich might be wealthy they aren't happy. Well
> > the
> > truth is for all the dontNetters out there and their moaning and griping
> > about their archaic platform, the fact remains that us dotNetters are
the
> > future. And the future is bright.
> >
> > RR
> >
> >
> > "Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23J3KlUqzFHA.3180@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >> Well, the way I see it is thus:  I would rather have my handy dandy
class
> >> files and bas files which I know work (and yes, I will give you that
..NET
> >> can do it in one lines, once all the new syntax has been learned,
> > understood
> >> and remembered)...BUT, when I compile my project and create my setup
> >> files
> >> which include the VB runtimes...the download for the end user is still
> > much
> >> smaller than shipping out some .NET nightmare.  The problem is this,
and
> > has
> >> been mentioned:  The .NET runtime is massive. In my 10+ years of
dealing
> >> with end users and their fickle systems, it was always to my advantage
to
> >> include the VB runtimes in my setup files, because when VB six was
first
> >> introduced, DLL Hell plauged my life with "OLE files out of date"
> > messages.
> >> I could not depend on my end users to have the current VB runtimes on
> > their
> >> computer...and I certianly could not depend on them always haveing the
> >> latest SP's or Windows updates installed.  And when I say I've dealt
with
> >> tens of thousands of people over the last ten years, I am not
> > exaggerating.
> >> I managed to curb the problem by always shipping the VB runtimes in my
> >> setups with the versions instlled with VS6 and some competent version
> >> checking in my setups.  Problems mostly solved.
> >>
> >> Now, taking all that into consideration with .NET, I would have to
> >> include
> >> the .NET runtimes in my setup packages, which would create 20+ MB files
> > for
> >> the end user to download.  Otherwise if I assumed the end users already
> > had
> >> the .NET runtimes installed, I would be spending ever waking hour with
> >> support tickets over an installation process that should manage itself.
> >>
> >> So, between having to learn a new lanaguage for all intents and
purposes,
> >> and then ensuring the end users have all the proper runtimes by
including
> >> those massive .NET runtime files...and not even mentioning how sluggish
> > and
> >> slow .NET compiled programs run in general...it just not worth it.  M$
> >> did
> >> me a great disservice by throwing away VB classic along with everything
> > I've
> >> worked so hard for over the last ten years including code and protocols
> > and
> >> giving me .NET in return.  And for what reason?  Because they think
it's
> >> better?  Again, I would rather have my BAS files with code I know works
> > than
> >> the so called convenience of only needing to type one line in .NET.
It's
> >> not a trade off I am willing to make, citing everything I've just
> > explained.
> >>
> >> If you want another analogy, consider the programs I've developed with
my
> >> marriage to VB 6 my "children".  Now M$ has suggested I divorce from
VB6
> > to
> >> enter into another marriage with .NET.  Good marriages take time and
work
> >> and don't always work out for the better.  I don't want a new marriage,
I
> > am
> >> happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't appreciate being
told
> > my
> >> "children" are obsolete, along with my "wife" because they think the
new
> >> marriage would be better for me.  What made my marriage to VB 6 won't
> >> work
> >> for .NET.  Plain and simple.
> >>
> >> So, there it is.  ;-)
> >>
> >> - Kev
> >>
> >> "Abubakar" <abubak***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:uv5eVZjzFHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> >> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
> >> >> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
> >> >> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
> >> >> this...
> >> >>
> >> >> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
> >> >>
> >> >> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
> >> >
> >> > but how much of the functionality are you going to surround with
> > function
> >> > calls and classes? And its you who is doing that, how are you going
to
> >> > make
> >> > this utility code available to all the vb6 devs? .Net that makes it
> >> > available for everyone.
> >> >
> >> > Ab.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]"
> >> > <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
> >> > wrote in message news:ee9PbQjzFHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> >> > Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dim FileNum As Long
> >> >> > Dim Contents As String
> >> >> > FileNum = FreeFile
> >> >> > Open "c:\mytextfile.txt" For Binary As #FileNum
> >> >> >   Contents = Space(LOF(FileNum))
> >> >> >   Get #FileNum, , Contents
> >> >> > Close #FileNum
> >> >> >
> >> >> > as opposed to this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dim contents as string =
> >> >> > My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile.txt")
> >> >> >
> >> >> > then we're never going to agree.
> >> >>
> >> >> But if I bundle the code I posted up into a Function like this
> >> >>
> >> >> Public Function ReadAllText(FileName As String) As String
> >> >>   Dim FileNum As Long
> >> >>   Dim Contents As String
> >> >>   FileNum = FreeFile
> >> >>   Open FileName For Binary As #FileNum
> >> >>     ReadAllText = Space(LOF(FileNum))
> >> >>     Get #FileNum, , ReadAllText
> >> >>   Close #FileNum
> >> >> End Function
> >> >>
> >> >> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
> >> >> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
> >> >> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
> >> >> this...
> >> >>
> >> >> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
> >> >>
> >> >> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
> >> >>
> >> >> Rick
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

"Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
wrote in message news:uECUiutzFHA.3180@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Hell, you
> > > have to hide behind the name of a cartoon character rather
> than attaching
> > a
> > > real name to your persona
> >
> > The irony of course is that my real name is Thomas Jerry.
>
> Please tell me your middle initial is "N". <g>
>
> Rick
>
>

"Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23%23aYR8rzFHA.3256@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> The fact is the technological chicks really dig us dotNetters and our
>>> flashy
> Intergalactic ways and you dontNetters are more than just a little
> scornful
> about being trapped raking out the muck from your earth bound trenches. <<
>
> For what it's worth, I still drive around in a 1981 DeLorean, which by
> your standards would be old and obsolete.  However, it still get's me the
> chicks and way more attention that the new and improved gas guzzling SUVs
> that were once considered the future of automobiles.
>
> Again, new is not always better.  They call it "classic" for a reason.
> <g>
>
> - Kev (who can do without the Back To The Future jokes)

"Kevin Provance" <ca***@tpasoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23J3KlUqzFHA.3180@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Well, the way I see it is thus:  I would rather have my handy dandy class
> files and bas files which I know work (and yes, I will give you that .NET
> can do it in one lines, once all the new syntax has been learned,
understood
> and remembered)...BUT, when I compile my project and create my setup files
> which include the VB runtimes...the download for the end user is still
much
> smaller than shipping out some .NET nightmare.  The problem is this, and
has
> been mentioned:  The .NET runtime is massive. In my 10+ years of dealing
> with end users and their fickle systems, it was always to my advantage to
> include the VB runtimes in my setup files, because when VB six was first
> introduced, DLL Hell plauged my life with "OLE files out of date"
messages.
> I could not depend on my end users to have the current VB runtimes on
their
> computer...and I certianly could not depend on them always haveing the
> latest SP's or Windows updates installed.  And when I say I've dealt with
> tens of thousands of people over the last ten years, I am not
exaggerating.
> I managed to curb the problem by always shipping the VB runtimes in my
> setups with the versions instlled with VS6 and some competent version
> checking in my setups.  Problems mostly solved.
>
> Now, taking all that into consideration with .NET, I would have to include
> the .NET runtimes in my setup packages, which would create 20+ MB files
for
> the end user to download.  Otherwise if I assumed the end users already
had
> the .NET runtimes installed, I would be spending ever waking hour with
> support tickets over an installation process that should manage itself.
>
> So, between having to learn a new lanaguage for all intents and purposes,
> and then ensuring the end users have all the proper runtimes by including
> those massive .NET runtime files...and not even mentioning how sluggish
and
> slow .NET compiled programs run in general...it just not worth it.  M$ did
> me a great disservice by throwing away VB classic along with everything
I've
> worked so hard for over the last ten years including code and protocols
and
> giving me .NET in return.  And for what reason?  Because they think it's
> better?  Again, I would rather have my BAS files with code I know works
than
> the so called convenience of only needing to type one line in .NET.  It's
> not a trade off I am willing to make, citing everything I've just
explained.
>
> If you want another analogy, consider the programs I've developed with my
> marriage to VB 6 my "children".  Now M$ has suggested I divorce from VB6
to
> enter into another marriage with .NET.  Good marriages take time and work
> and don't always work out for the better.  I don't want a new marriage, I
am
> happy with the one I am in...and I certainly don't appreciate being told
my
> "children" are obsolete, along with my "wife" because they think the new
> marriage would be better for me.  What made my marriage to VB 6 won't work
> for .NET.  Plain and simple.
>
> So, there it is.  ;-)
>
> - Kev
>
> "Abubakar" <abubak***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uv5eVZjzFHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
> >> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
> >> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
> >> this...
> >>
> >> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
> >>
> >> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
> >
> > but how much of the functionality are you going to surround with
function
> > calls and classes? And its you who is doing that, how are you going to
> > make
> > this utility code available to all the vb6 devs? .Net that makes it
> > available for everyone.
> >
> > Ab.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]" <rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net>
> > wrote in message news:ee9PbQjzFHA.2212@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> > Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
> >> >
> >> > Dim FileNum As Long
> >> > Dim Contents As String
> >> > FileNum = FreeFile
> >> > Open "c:\mytextfile.txt" For Binary As #FileNum
> >> >   Contents = Space(LOF(FileNum))
> >> >   Get #FileNum, , Contents
> >> > Close #FileNum
> >> >
> >> > as opposed to this:
> >> >
> >> > Dim contents as string =
> >> > My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile.txt")
> >> >
> >> > then we're never going to agree.
> >>
> >> But if I bundle the code I posted up into a Function like this
> >>
> >> Public Function ReadAllText(FileName As String) As String
> >>   Dim FileNum As Long
> >>   Dim Contents As String
> >>   FileNum = FreeFile
> >>   Open FileName For Binary As #FileNum
> >>     ReadAllText = Space(LOF(FileNum))
> >>     Get #FileNum, , ReadAllText
> >>   Close #FileNum
> >> End Function
> >>
> >> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
> >> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
> >> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
> >> this...
> >>
> >> Content = ReadAllText("c:\temp\test.txt")
> >>
> >> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
> >>
> >> Rick
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

"Roger Rabbit" <ro***@rabbit.com> wrote in message
news:exv%234iizFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
>
> Dim FileNum As Long
> Dim Contents As String
> FileNum = FreeFile
> Open "c:\mytextfile.txt" For Binary As #FileNum
>  Contents = Space(LOF(FileNum))
>  Get #FileNum, , Contents
> Close #FileNum
>
> as opposed to this:
>
> Dim contents as string =
> My.Computer.FileSystem.ReadAllText("c:\mytextfile.txt")
>
> then we're never going to agree.
>
> :-)
>
> RR
>
>

"Gary Nelson" <gn@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eIqdlHlzFHA.612@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> RR,
>
> > VB6 just cant compete with this kind of power "out of the box". Every
> > fresh
> > line of VB6 code you write is just digging yourself a deeper and deeper
> > hole. For your customers sake just "stop" already.
>
> You either:
>
> 1) don't have many customers
> 2) don't have much code
>
> If you have hundreds of thousands of lines of legacy code and thousands of
> customers, what you say is not posible for the following reasons:
>
> Will customers who are demanding, and in cases have already paid for,
> certain funcionality, be willing to wait for a year or two while you
upgrade
> to VB.Net?
>
> Do you have deep enough pockets to pay wages to the employees while the
> company brings out no new products and does no repair on the old as all of
> the work force is converting to .net?
>
> Gary
>
>