My humble and siple wishes for VB7

[Eric]

My humble wishes for VB7:

If only VB7 would come with the ability to create:

normal Windows DLL (No more @#$%$@ OLE DLL's)
and normal Windows Executables (No more @#@&(*#&^@ Runtime DLL's)

If that would be the only difference from VB6 I even am willing
to pay big for an upgrade!
What is happening at Microsoft
looks like an inheritance (little joke) problem:
Adding numerous features allong with forgetting/ignoring the long
existing misfortunes from previous versions...

Thanks for listening to my humble opinion, it makes my day
a little better :-))

Eric Kelderman

[Zane Thomas]

On 18 May 2000 00:46:08 -0700, "Eric" <Kelderman@euronet.nl> wrote:

>normal Windows DLL

I'm curious to know why you think writing creating non-ole DLLs is a good thing.





---
Z

You're just mad because the voices don't talk to you.

[James Curran]

Actually, I'd be against OLE DLLs also, but I really doubt VB insists on
them. I'm assuming that he really means ActiveX/COM DLLs. I don't why he's
want a non-COM DLL. Does he plan on a vast market of C++ programmers who'd
are willing to use a DLL that's has the extra overhead of being writing in
VB, but are unwilling to put up with the (trivial) overhead of COM?

I was also under the impression that with a compile option, he could get
a (large) EXE which didn't need a runtime DLL.......

--
Truth,
James Curran
http://www.NJTheater.com
http://www.NJTheater.com/JamesCurran



"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
news:392cb977.962840821@news.devx.com...
> On 18 May 2000 00:46:08 -0700, "Eric" <Kelderman@euronet.nl> wrote:
>
> >normal Windows DLL
>
> I'm curious to know why you think writing creating non-ole DLLs is a good
thing.

[Craig Clearman]

Hi James,

> I was also under the impression that with a compile option, he could get
>a (large) EXE which didn't need a runtime DLL.......

Nope. No matter what, he still needs kernel32.dll.

Sorry, I'll be serious. VB can compile to native code, which means it
doesn't need a runtime for the interpretation of the code, but it
still does need several runtime DLLs, including msvbvm60.dll for basic
functionality. It does not have any static linking options.

Ciao, Craig

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Zane --

> >normal Windows DLL
>
> I'm curious to know why you think writing creating non-ole DLLs is a good thing.

Best argument I've heard for them is control panel applets. Small, indeed *very*
small, market, but it's one of the extremely few things you can do with Delphi that
you can't do with VB (without bowing before Appleman). NT Services would also be
orders of magnitude simpler if the OLE crud were tossed and normal entry points
exposed.

Later... Karl
--
http://www.mvps.org/vb

[Zane Thomas]

On Thu, 18 May 2000 15:04:43 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:

>NT Services would also be
>orders of magnitude simpler if the OLE crud were tossed and normal entry points
>exposed.

Or if someone provided a component to handle the details. :-)



---
Z

You're just mad because the voices don't talk to you.

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Zane --

> >NT Services would also be
> >orders of magnitude simpler if the OLE crud were tossed and normal entry points
> >exposed.
>
> Or if someone provided a component to handle the details. :-)

AFAIK, that's a wide-open market. Probably because NT services are an area best keep
free and clear of OLE. At least that's what I've heard. <g> There's sure tremendous
interest in them lately, though.

But the key piece of missing functionality is export tables. Provide that, and
you'll have something similar to MsgHook in popularity!

Later... Karl

[Phil Weber]

> Or if someone provided a component to handle the details. :-)

Zane/Karl:

http://www.desaware.com/NTToolkitL2.htm

---
Phil Weber

[Matthew Cromer]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@teleport.com> wrote:
> > Or if someone provided a component to handle the details. :-)
>
>Zane/Karl:
>
> http://www.desaware.com/NTToolkitL2.htm
>
>---
>Phil Weber
>
>

There is a free (unsupported) C++ written activeX control that lets you create
a VB app as an NT service. The source is available from Microsoft. I'm
using it and it is working for now.

Matthew Cromer

[Ray Mercer]

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:39246895$1@news.devx.com...
> Hi Zane --
>
> > >normal Windows DLL
> >
> > I'm curious to know why you think writing creating non-ole DLLs is a
good thing.
>
> Best argument I've heard for them is control panel applets. Small, indeed
*very*

Another is 3rd-party plug-in APIs (PhotoShop, WinAmp, etc...).

Another is global hooks, although that is not something that should be done
very often. And the ability to create a standard exported function lib DLL
would be useful for those who want to provide tools to programmers using
standard C or other languages where the COM overhead is not desirable.

Now statically linked EXEs are also important. There are tons of uses for
these and I have been wishing for them in VB ever since I started
programming in it (VB2J and VB3 timetable). This is the last demarcation
point for those who insist that VB is a toy language. Maybe MS wants to
protect it's VC++ market, that's why it hasn't added this? <g>

Ray Mercer

[Zane Thomas]

On 22 May 2000 07:50:54 -0700, "Matthew Cromer" <matthew@sdaconsulting.com>
wrote:

>There is a free (unsupported) C++ written activeX control that lets you create
>a VB app as an NT service. The source is available from Microsoft. I'm
>using it and it is working for now.

I've heard it was a pita and have been asked by more than one customer to
provide a decent component. Hmm, also it uses MFC as I recall.



---
Z

You're just mad because the voices don't talk to you.

[Klaus H. Probst]

Hi Zane,

> >There is a free (unsupported) C++ written activeX control that lets you
create
> >a VB app as an NT service. The source is available from Microsoft. I'm
> >using it and it is working for now.
>
> I've heard it was a pita and have been asked by more than one customer to
> provide a decent component. Hmm, also it uses MFC as I recall.

There's a decent one made with ATL (although it's an OCX), code provided.
It's at http://www.backupreport.com/pub/ntsvocx/ntservice_downl.htm

I've never used it, but the code looks solid enough.

____________
Klaus