Is VB.Net difficult or not?

[Mike Mitchell]

I was just browsing an article, an interview, actually, from which the
following quotes have been extracted:

<quote>
It [.Net] largely is Java, with a couple of different languages that
support it, but fundamentally those languages are actually Java.
VB.Net and C# are nearly identical, and they're almost identical to
Java.
</quote>

and

<quote>
At the same time, it is a much more complex model for scripting level
developers. It is quite a big intellectual leap.
</quote>

(See http://www.itwriting.com/mxinterview2.php for the full article.)

But, in addition to those quotes, the interviewee also reckons that
ASP.Net "is too difficult for a large number of web professionals and
scripting level developers. I think it is attractive to Java
programmers."

Again, this reinforces my take on .Net: It's just too darn arcane and
long-winded for most classic VB programmers to get their heads around!
So if *I* think this, and obviously others do as well, how come
certain folks here often say things like "...VB.Net is as easy as
VB6..."? (I'm paraphrasing, but pretty much accurate sense-wise, I
think you'll agree.) I really don't think anyone is doing traditional
non-OOP-thinking programmers a favour by intimating that their work is
going to be so much easier, when the general consensus is that it will
be more difficult.

MM

[Zane Thomas]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 17:14:22 GMT, kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell)
wrote:

>Again, this reinforces my take on .Net

Naturally, since you only believe things that do reinforce your
preconceived notions.


--
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane@mvps.org

[Patrick Troughton]

You do realize that VB6 is programming language, not a scripting language,
right?

/Pat

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>I was just browsing an article, an interview, actually, from which the
>following quotes have been extracted:
>
><quote>
>It [.Net] largely is Java, with a couple of different languages that
>support it, but fundamentally those languages are actually Java.
>VB.Net and C# are nearly identical, and they're almost identical to
>Java.
></quote>
>
>and
>
><quote>
>At the same time, it is a much more complex model for scripting level
>developers. It is quite a big intellectual leap.
></quote>
>
>(See http://www.itwriting.com/mxinterview2.php for the full article.)
>
>But, in addition to those quotes, the interviewee also reckons that
>ASP.Net "is too difficult for a large number of web professionals and
>scripting level developers. I think it is attractive to Java
>programmers."
>
>Again, this reinforces my take on .Net: It's just too darn arcane and
>long-winded for most classic VB programmers to get their heads around!
>So if *I* think this, and obviously others do as well, how come
>certain folks here often say things like "...VB.Net is as easy as
>VB6..."? (I'm paraphrasing, but pretty much accurate sense-wise, I
>think you'll agree.) I really don't think anyone is doing traditional
>non-OOP-thinking programmers a favour by intimating that their work is
>going to be so much easier, when the general consensus is that it will
>be more difficult.
>
>MM

[Zane Thomas]

On 16 Jun 2002 10:42:33 -0800, "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com>
wrote:

>This post reinforces my take on the .NOTters inability (or refusal) to read
>or think logically.

ROFL :-)


--
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane@mvps.org

[Patrick Troughton]

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>
>Again, this reinforces my take on .Net:

This post reinforces my take on the .NOTters inability (or refusal) to read
or think logically.

/Pat

[Michael Q. Gautier]

I am sure that if all you've done is write Active Server Pages with vbscript
with a little client side javascript here and a some jpegs and gifs there,
then yes, I could see how things could be more difficult. PHP may be for
you.

But if you routinely used COM components, modularized your ASPs (trying to
make them more maintainable and structured) and basically took a more object
oriented approach to how you developed web applications, then I think .NET
is more natural than what went before. .NET or J2EE may definately be for
you.

If you were somewhere in between these two then success may be more a matter
of how far on the spectrum you lean.

[Michael Q. Gautier]

I think the section entitled "Why Cold Fusion MX?" is particularly key.
I think it is an accurate harbinger or the real .NET adoption issue.

If the impression that most scripting level developers deliver poorer
quality, then one could make an argument for favoring web applications developed
by system level developers.

I've met more than my share of Mainframe Programmers (they are not called
developers) who think that web applications, VB, Microsoft, etc., is less
stable, not really rapid, etc. If J2EE and .NET can help remove that perception,
then who really needs scripting?

On the other hand, many people wouldn't have a career or get in, if
it wasn't for scripting, so the real question would be how do you balance
the need for technical resources with the issues of quality and stability?
I wouldn't be doing systems level work today if some C++, Electrical Engineer
hadn't given this former ASP scripter a chance a few years ago. I was able
to grow, and continue learning and branch off into software engineering,
but I was willing too. I haven't met more than two scripters with the same
ambition.

VB6, Cold Fusion, ASP, PHP, etc., may be good for getting the job done
quickly and economically, but do they make you more into a commodity rather
than a valuable asset?

[Robert Lantry]

<quote>
We actually think there's an opportunity to attract many of those customers,
who may have been traditional ASP developers, and who in some respects are
intimidated by that model.
</quote>

read: We think we can push FUD to scare mere mortals to use our product.

<quote>
I think it is too difficult for a large number of web professionals and
scripting level developers. I think it is attractive to Java programmers.
</quote>

read: We have absolutely no respect for programmers who actually have to do
work for a living and think our compelling product will help them make
splashing/annoying web-pages much easier.


Please. These idiots are selling a product. A product that builds really
brittle, totally annoying web-pages. I've seen lots of companies adopt
flash (and dreamweaver) and then dump it after a few months after the
gee-wiz factor drops off when it's realized that it's an untenable
applications platform for building any kind of business application. Yay.
It does menus. Rats, now we want to change our menus. :P

--

-Robert

Have a cow, man:
http://www.riddleme.com/html/cow.html


"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d0cc477.23171060@news.devx.com...
> I was just browsing an article, an interview, actually, from which the
> following quotes have been extracted:
>
> <quote>
> It [.Net] largely is Java, with a couple of different languages that
> support it, but fundamentally those languages are actually Java.
> VB.Net and C# are nearly identical, and they're almost identical to
> Java.
> </quote>
>
> and
>
> <quote>
> At the same time, it is a much more complex model for scripting level
> developers. It is quite a big intellectual leap.
> </quote>
>
> (See http://www.itwriting.com/mxinterview2.php for the full article.)
>
> But, in addition to those quotes, the interviewee also reckons that
> ASP.Net "is too difficult for a large number of web professionals and
> scripting level developers. I think it is attractive to Java
> programmers."
>
> Again, this reinforces my take on .Net: It's just too darn arcane and
> long-winded for most classic VB programmers to get their heads around!
> So if *I* think this, and obviously others do as well, how come
> certain folks here often say things like "...VB.Net is as easy as
> VB6..."? (I'm paraphrasing, but pretty much accurate sense-wise, I
> think you'll agree.) I really don't think anyone is doing traditional
> non-OOP-thinking programmers a favour by intimating that their work is
> going to be so much easier, when the general consensus is that it will
> be more difficult.
>
> MM

[Kunle Odutola]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d0cc477.23171060@news.devx.com...

> But, in addition to those quotes, the interviewee also reckons that
> ASP.Net "is too difficult for a large number of web professionals and
> scripting level developers. I think it is attractive to Java
> programmers."

He is selling a product Mike. One that presumably "isn't too difficult" and
irons your skirt too!

> Again, this reinforces my take on .Net:

Your "take" isn't negotiable is it Mike?.

> So if *I* think this, and obviously others do as well, how come
> certain folks here often say things like "...VB.Net is as easy as
> VB6..."?

So if I think, Braizil's footballers are aliens in disguise and I can find
others that "obviously do as well".....well it must be true then!

Kunle

[Phil Weber]

> This reinforces my take on .NET: It's just too darn arcane
> and long-winded for most classic VB programmers to get
> their heads around! So if *I* think this, and obviously others
> do as well, how come certain folks here often say things like,
> "...VB.NET is as easy as VB6...?"

Mike: I can't speak for others, but what I've often said is that I don't
think VB.NET is much more difficult than VB6 for a beginner to learn (I say
"much more difficult" only because VB.NET lacks Edit and Continue, which is
a valuable learning aid. When VB.NET gets E&C, it will be just as easy to
learn as VB6, if not easier, IMO).

Both products have learning curves: to this day, after more than 25 years of
programming in MS BASIC, I still have to look up the syntax for VB6's Input$
statement (which parameter comes first: the file handle, or the number of
characters to read?), the Line statement, and the various file sharing modes
of the Open statement. VB.NET only seems "arcane" to you because it's
unfamiliar; judging by the frequently-asked questions in various newsgroups
("How do I make a form stay always on top?", "How can I use the Enter key to
move between fields, without that annoying beep?", "How can I prevent the
menu on an MDI child form from replacing the parent form's menu?", etc.),
VB6 can seem just as arcane to its newbies, too.
---
Phil Weber

[Patrice Scribe]

It's largely depend on your background.
- If you already worked with several languages, there is nothing that new in
..NET
- If you never saw some OOP features and you need to use them, learning this
will be a bit more complex
- If you ever saw only a particular bare bone scripting language, it will be
more complex to learn .NET
etc...

For someone who already used VB6 and doesn't intend to write extensible
classes, there is no revolutionary concepts to learn in .NET... Non OOP
programmers should be able to use Modules or even classes with shared
members without too much problems. After all a VB6 module is nothing else
than methods accessible through a globally available module name...

Patrice

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> a écrit dans le message news:
3d0cc477.23171060@news.devx.com...
> I was just browsing an article, an interview, actually, from which the
> following quotes have been extracted:
>
> <quote>
> It [.Net] largely is Java, with a couple of different languages that
> support it, but fundamentally those languages are actually Java.
> VB.Net and C# are nearly identical, and they're almost identical to
> Java.
> </quote>
>
> and
>
> <quote>
> At the same time, it is a much more complex model for scripting level
> developers. It is quite a big intellectual leap.
> </quote>
>
> (See http://www.itwriting.com/mxinterview2.php for the full article.)
>
> But, in addition to those quotes, the interviewee also reckons that
> ASP.Net "is too difficult for a large number of web professionals and
> scripting level developers. I think it is attractive to Java
> programmers."
>
> Again, this reinforces my take on .Net: It's just too darn arcane and
> long-winded for most classic VB programmers to get their heads around!
> So if *I* think this, and obviously others do as well, how come
> certain folks here often say things like "...VB.Net is as easy as
> VB6..."? (I'm paraphrasing, but pretty much accurate sense-wise, I
> think you'll agree.) I really don't think anyone is doing traditional
> non-OOP-thinking programmers a favour by intimating that their work is
> going to be so much easier, when the general consensus is that it will
> be more difficult.
>
> MM

[Mark Powell]

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
><quote>
>At the same time, it is a much more complex model for scripting level
>developers. It is quite a big intellectual leap.
></quote>
>Again, this reinforces my take on .Net

Mike,
the fact that in the same sentence he says "The other thing is that the tools
that we're doing around .Net, in Dreamweaver MX, encapsulate a lot of that
complexity." make me think that perhaps he's somewhat biased. The fact that
one of the points that he's selling DreamWeaver on is its ability to 'encapsulate
a lot of that complexity' means that he's got a vested interested in making
potential customers fear the complexity of .NET. The fact that, as pointed
out by someone else, they're talking about the comparison to scripting languages
means that it's to some extent an invalid comparison. VB6 is much more complex
than JavaScript as well but it doesn't mean that it's not a better tool in
specific circumstances - likewise VB.NET surely?

Mark.

[Mark Powell]

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>So if I think, Braizil's footballers are aliens in disguise and I can find
>others that "obviously do as well".....well it must be true then!

Of course it's true! I've been saying this for years - at last someone else
has realised. And don't anyone try telling me otherwise either - my mind's
made up! ;-)

Mark.

[Kevin Moore]

Pat,

Far be it from me to defend MM, but I feel that I must defend you inclusion
of .NOTters into the MM philosphy. I have been working with .Net for the
last 5 months on an ASP.Net application and I feel that it is a great environment,
BUT, for legacy code and migration from VB6 -> VB.Net I feel that it has
some serious issues. If you would like to discuss them I would be more than
happy to, but please don't group all .NOTters into the MM fantasy world.

Kevin

"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>
>kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>>
>>Again, this reinforces my take on .Net:
>
>This post reinforces my take on the .NOTters inability (or refusal) to read
>or think logically.
>
>/Pat

[Michael Culley]

> Mike: I can't speak for others, but what I've often said is that I don't
> think VB.NET is much more difficult than VB6 for a beginner to learn (I
say
> "much more difficult" only because VB.NET lacks Edit and Continue, which
is
> a valuable learning aid. When VB.NET gets E&C, it will be just as easy to
> learn as VB6, if not easier, IMO).

I think you are right but i'd include ADO.net in the harder basket.

> Both products have learning curves: to this day, after more than 25 years
of
> programming in MS BASIC, I still have to look up the syntax for VB6's
Input$

This is absolutely right, the file handling functions in vb6 are a pain in
the butt and they seem to hide them really well in the help file :)

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com


"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote in message
news:3d0d82e9$1@10.1.10.29...
> > This reinforces my take on .NET: It's just too darn arcane
> > and long-winded for most classic VB programmers to get
> > their heads around! So if *I* think this, and obviously others
> > do as well, how come certain folks here often say things like,
> > "...VB.NET is as easy as VB6...?"
>
> Mike: I can't speak for others, but what I've often said is that I don't
> think VB.NET is much more difficult than VB6 for a beginner to learn (I
say
> "much more difficult" only because VB.NET lacks Edit and Continue, which
is
> a valuable learning aid. When VB.NET gets E&C, it will be just as easy to
> learn as VB6, if not easier, IMO).
>
> Both products have learning curves: to this day, after more than 25 years
of
> programming in MS BASIC, I still have to look up the syntax for VB6's
Input$
> statement (which parameter comes first: the file handle, or the number of
> characters to read?), the Line statement, and the various file sharing
modes
> of the Open statement. VB.NET only seems "arcane" to you because it's
> unfamiliar; judging by the frequently-asked questions in various
newsgroups
> ("How do I make a form stay always on top?", "How can I use the Enter key
to
> move between fields, without that annoying beep?", "How can I prevent the
> menu on an MDI child form from replacing the parent form's menu?", etc.),
> VB6 can seem just as arcane to its newbies, too.
> ---
> Phil Weber
>
>

[Phil Weber]

> I think you are right but I'd include ADO.NET in the
> harder basket.

Michael: I haven't found ADO.NET any more difficult than ADO, just
different. Admittedly, however, I haven't used it extensively: mostly just
returning DataReaders from stored procedures. I suppose if you're making
heavy use of DataSets with multiple DataTables and Relations, sending
disconnected updategrams back to the server and resolving collisions, etc.,
that's a bit more difficult. ;-) But look at all the additional capability
you get relative to ADO!
---
Phil Weber

[Michael Culley]

I'm a big fan of ado.net. The way it works with using seperate command
objects to insert/delete/update data is awesome. But I think it is harder to
use and I think it could be a bit of a hurdle for beginners.

> I suppose if you're making
> heavy use of DataSets with multiple DataTables and Relations, sending
> disconnected updategrams back to the server and resolving collisions,
etc.,
> that's a bit more difficult. ;-)

I don't think you need to do anything too complicated, just saving data
wasn't too easy (compared to vb6 where you just did Recordset.Update).

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com

[Phil Weber]

> I don't think you need to do anything too complicated,
> just saving data wasn't too easy (compared to VB6 where
> you just did Recordset.Update).

Michael: I guess it depends on what you're used to. I've always used
read-only recordsets and INSERT and UPDATE queries to perform updates with
ADO, so ADO.NET seems no more difficult to me. But I can see how, if one is
accustomed to using the .AddNew and .Update methods of the ADO Recordset
object, ADO.NET would seem more difficult.
---
Phil Weber

[John Butler]

"Michael Culley" <mculley@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d103072$1@10.1.10.29...
> I'm a big fan of ado.net. The way it works with using seperate command
> objects to insert/delete/update data is awesome. But I think it is harder
to
> use and I think it could be a bit of a hurdle for beginners.

There is a small initial learning curve while you try and get through the
ADO -> ADO.NET barrier (like what the **** does a data adapter do!..Thanks
Anders/Delphi) but after that..I've found it pretty simple to use.

The only area where we've bumped into issues, is with any type of remotely
complex relationships. The VS docs and MSDN site (and books) are full of
trivial parent-child basic relationship examples...but try and implement
anything more complex like in-memory parent-child-grandchild/sibling
relationships and it does get hairy.

Other than that...the only thing to add is that I find it easier NOT to use
the drag-and-drop data objects, but rather to do what you need to do
yourself, in code. But then VB6 was the same in similar respects, except in
VB6 you didn't use things like the data aware grids and stuff because they
sucked, horribly!

rgds
John Butler

[Mike Mitchell]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 00:54:30 +0100, "John Butler"
<nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Other than that...the only thing to add is that I find it easier NOT to use
>the drag-and-drop data objects, but rather to do what you need to do
>yourself, in code. But then VB6 was the same in similar respects, except in
>VB6 you didn't use things like the data aware grids and stuff because they
>sucked, horribly!

Maybe the intrinsic ones did, but VideoSoft's (ComponentOne)
replacement FlexGrid is excellent.

MM

[Michael Culley]

Wasn't the built in grid a cut down flexgrid? It can't suck and be excellent
at the same time.

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com


"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d130ff0.1890082@news.devx.com...
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 00:54:30 +0100, "John Butler"
> <nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Other than that...the only thing to add is that I find it easier NOT to
use
> >the drag-and-drop data objects, but rather to do what you need to do
> >yourself, in code. But then VB6 was the same in similar respects, except
in
> >VB6 you didn't use things like the data aware grids and stuff because
they
> >sucked, horribly!
>
> Maybe the intrinsic ones did, but VideoSoft's (ComponentOne)
> replacement FlexGrid is excellent.
>
> MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 07:05:22 +1000, "Michael Culley"
<mculley@optushome.com.au> wrote:

>Wasn't the built in grid a cut down flexgrid? It can't suck and be excellent
>at the same time.

They are two separate products. Maybe the intrinisc one wasn't as good
as the full version, and thus was considered to suck?

MM

[Michael Culley]

But I think the built in flexgrid was considered to suck for the features it
had, not the features it was missing. Personally, I thought they both
sucked, the combobox in a cell really sucked, who on earth came up with the
idea of making a pipe delimited string to define all of the items in the
dropdown? And to get the bloody thing to actually drop required up to three
clicks in the cell. The grid i'm using now shows the dropdown arrow on mouse
over and a single click shows the dropdown.

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com


"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d16466f.450087@news.devx.com...
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 07:05:22 +1000, "Michael Culley"
> <mculley@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Wasn't the built in grid a cut down flexgrid? It can't suck and be
excellent
> >at the same time.
>
> They are two separate products. Maybe the intrinisc one wasn't as good
> as the full version, and thus was considered to suck?
>
> MM

[John Butler]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d16466f.450087@news.devx.com...
> They are two separate products. Maybe the intrinisc one wasn't as good
> as the full version, and thus was considered to suck?

My point is getting lost here.....MM's super VB6 had data components which
were not usable for any serious projects. Every book you ever read on VB6
advised you to stay well away from any of them and write the code
yourself/use third party components...which we all dutifully did. VB.NET's
controls are pretty usable....the grid is quite good actually. There's still
plenty of room for vendors to offer better controls...but then there always
will be (thankfully).

rgds
John Butler

[Mike Mitchell]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:08:50 +1000, "Michael Culley"
<mculley@optushome.com.au> wrote:

>But I think the built in flexgrid was considered to suck for the features it
>had, not the features it was missing. Personally, I thought they both
>sucked, the combobox in a cell really sucked, who on earth came up with the
>idea of making a pipe delimited string to define all of the items in the
>dropdown? And to get the bloody thing to actually drop required up to three
>clicks in the cell. The grid i'm using now shows the dropdown arrow on mouse
>over and a single click shows the dropdown.

Again, as far as the VideoSoft grids go, they won plaudits for their
products! "Who on earth... ?" well, probably the designers who put
together a very well-received product at a good price. Many
alternative grids were far too complex, treating rows as objects, for
goodness' sake! Just. Plain. Nutz. The DataWidgets grid comes to mind
here, although I must confess to having used it for a help desk
system.

MM

[Michael Culley]

> Again, as far as the VideoSoft grids go, they won plaudits for their
> products! "Who on earth... ?"

Are you saying that the combobox in flexgrid didn't suck? And the textbox?
Gimme a break.

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:59:34 +1000, "Michael Culley"
<mculley@optushome.com.au> wrote:

>Are you saying that the combobox in flexgrid didn't suck? And the textbox?
>Gimme a break.

Yes.

MM

[Michael Culley]

Um, ok, you really shot me down in flames there mike, the points you brought
up were amazing and very well thought out. Do you have a reason why you
think they don't suck?

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com


"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d189aca.6700882@news.devx.com...
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:59:34 +1000, "Michael Culley"
> <mculley@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Are you saying that the combobox in flexgrid didn't suck? And the
textbox?
> >Gimme a break.
>
> Yes.
>
> MM

[Randy Jackson]

"Michael Culley" <m_culley@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d19971d$1@10.1.10.29...
> Um, ok, you really shot me down in flames there mike, the points you
brought
> up were amazing and very well thought out. Do you have a reason why you
> think they don't suck?

They DO suck, and Mike is just Mike.

--
RJ

[Mike Mitchell]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:52:14 +1000, "Michael Culley"
<m_culley@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Um, ok, you really shot me down in flames there mike, the points you brought
>up were amazing and very well thought out. Do you have a reason why you
>think they don't suck?

Easy to implement, simple to learn, flexible and powerful (especially
ADO version), responsive support team, good help file and
documentation.

MM

[Michael Culley]

Not the bloody flexgrid, mike, specifically the combobox and textbox in the
flexgrid.

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com


"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d1a15db.311671@news.devx.com...
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:52:14 +1000, "Michael Culley"
> <m_culley@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Um, ok, you really shot me down in flames there mike, the points you
brought
> >up were amazing and very well thought out. Do you have a reason why you
> >think they don't suck?
>
> Easy to implement, simple to learn, flexible and powerful (especially
> ADO version), responsive support team, good help file and
> documentation.
>
> MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 07:24:27 +1000, "Michael Culley"
<mculley@optushome.com.au> wrote:

>Not the bloody flexgrid, mike, specifically the combobox and textbox in the
>flexgrid.

I don't understand what you find lacking in those features. I found
them to be easy to use. Quoting from the help file: "The VSFlexGrid
control has extensive support for drop-down lists and combo-lists when
editing cells. This support includes multi-column drop-down lists,
automatic value translation, and default field highlighting ..."

Did you never try the BuildComboList method? That allows you to build
a combo from a recordset automatically.

MM

[Michael Culley]

I haven't used the flexgrid for a while so maybe they have improved it, but
this is what really sucked about the textbox/combobox and button-in-a-cell.
If you were editting in one textbox and wanted to edit a different cell you
had to click the second cell 3 times before focus would move to it. The same
applied to combobox and the button. There was no indication when you moused
over a cell that it was a combobox or textbox, the user had to experiment by
clicking different cells. On the grid I'm using, the cursor changes to an I
beam for a textbox, a dropdown array appears for the combobox and a button
appears for the button. This way the user can tell what a cell does just by
moving the mouse over it.

And the way you have to program the combobox is just
u-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-e, making up a pipe delimeted string to represent the
items in the dropdown, who would have thought of such an idea. What is wrong
with the good ol' AddItem function?

Basically, I see the flexgrid as great if you want a readonly grid.

--
Michael Culley
www.vbdotcom.com