The official word


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 72

Thread: The official word

  1. #1
    Jacob Grass Guest

    The official word

    The following message was posted on Microsoft.Public.DotNet.Languages.VB by
    Ari Bixhorn:

    *********Message Begins********

    I wanted to clear some of the confusion surrounding recent posts and
    articles that discuss changes back to the VB.NET language. We've spent the
    past month or so reviewing the changes we made to Visual Basic.NET to ensure
    that we are shipping a version of VB that would provide power and
    cross-language interop as well as familiarity with VB6. We reviewed change
    requests from Visual Basic programmers around the world and while we
    reaffirmed many of the changes that we decided upon more than a year and a
    half ago, there were several changes - reverting to VB6 semantics - that we
    felt would really help ease the transition from VB6. The goal of these
    changes is to minimize *semantic* inconsistencies between VB6 and Visual
    Basic.NET. This is particularly crucial in going from VB6 to VB.NET, since
    many developers will be working with both VB6 and VB.NET code bases. The
    ability for these developers to look at a single line of VB code and not
    think about whether that line represents VB6 vs. VB.NET semantics is a key
    element to making the knowledge upgrade to VB.NET.


    The changes to the language include:

    1. The value of True: When Visual Basic developers coerce "True" into a
    numeric value, the value they receive will be -1 (as VB has always done) ,
    not 1. This applies to both explicit conversions, using CInt(), CDec(),
    etc., as well as implicit conversions:

    Dim b As Boolean = True
    Dim i As Integer = b ' i = -1

    It is important to note, that when a Boolean in VB is passed to the .NET
    Framework or to another .NET language, it will be treated as 1 to maintain
    interoperability between languages. This change offers the best of both
    worlds - VB developers get expected behavior when working within VB and
    developers working with multiple .NET languages get seamless behavior across
    languages.


    2. Behavior of And/Or/Not/XOr - The functionality of these operators will
    be returned to bitwise operations instead of purely logical (meaning they
    will work as they always have in VB). As a result, there is no need to keep
    the BitAnd, BitOr, and BitNot operators that were planned for VB.NET. In
    addition, the operator precedence will be restored to these operators as it
    was in Visual Basic 6. Finally, these operators will not short-circuit.
    Instead, to enable developers to show explicit intent in their code, we will
    introduce two new operators, "AndAlso" and "OrElse" that will provide
    short-circuiting behavior. This request was consistent with our initial
    usability findings on short-circuiting "And" and "Or," which resulted in
    bugs that were hard for VB devs to track down. Again, these changes provide
    consistency with VB6 without sacrificing functionality in VB.NET.


    3. The declaration of Arrays - When arrays are declared in Visual
    Basic.NET, they will be declared by specifying the upper bound (as has
    always been the case in VB), not the size.

    Dim a(5) As Integer ' produces a 6 element array, 0 through 5


    Do any of these changes break language interoperability with other .NET
    languages or the Framework? No.

    Will these changes delay the ship of Visual Studio.NET? No. The changes
    are currently being implemented and will be part of Beta 2 (due out this
    summer). From the start, we had planned for feedback during the beta
    program and had expected to make changes like these prior to releasing the
    product. If anything, these changes are a testament to the success of the
    beta program - We've spoken to literally thousands of VB programmers around
    the world who are engaged in the beta program and who want these changes
    made.

    Are these *major* changes to the language? No. Will they keep VB.NET
    developers from taking advantage of the .NET Framework, Web Services,
    ASP.NET, cross-language inheritance and debugging, etc, etc, etc? No, but
    they do provide benefits to the existing VB developer base who are either
    upgrading existing code to VB.NET, or who will be maintaining both VB6 and
    VB.NET code bases.

    Finally, I think it's important to call out the difference between wanting
    cross-language interoperability and cross-language consistency. Interop is
    what we're really looking for with .NET - the ability to pass information
    between languages without confusion, and with these changes, we'll still
    have seamless language interop. At the same time, these changes will make
    the knowledge upgrade easier for VB developers. Language consistency, on
    the other hand, implies that there is a *right* way and a *wrong* way to
    declare arrays, coerce the value of True, etc. Neither C++ nor VB are
    "wrong." They are simply different.

    - Bix

    Ari Bixhorn
    Product Manager, Visual Basic

    **************Message Ends***************




  2. #2
    Jeff Pipes Guest

    Re: The official word


    It's a good thing Microsoft didn't announce this five days ago or else everyone
    would have written it off as a bad April Fool's Day joke.

    -Jeff

    "Jacob Grass" <JGrass@abilitisolutions.com> wrote:
    >The following message was posted on Microsoft.Public.DotNet.Languages.VB

    by
    >Ari Bixhorn:
    >
    >*********Message Begins********
    >
    >I wanted to clear some of the confusion surrounding recent posts and
    >articles that discuss changes back to the VB.NET language. We've spent

    the
    >past month or so reviewing the changes we made to Visual Basic.NET to ensure
    >that we are shipping a version of VB that would provide power and
    >cross-language interop as well as familiarity with VB6. We reviewed change
    >requests from Visual Basic programmers around the world and while we
    >reaffirmed many of the changes that we decided upon more than a year and

    a
    >half ago, there were several changes - reverting to VB6 semantics - that

    we
    >felt would really help ease the transition from VB6. The goal of these
    >changes is to minimize *semantic* inconsistencies between VB6 and Visual
    >Basic.NET. This is particularly crucial in going from VB6 to VB.NET, since
    >many developers will be working with both VB6 and VB.NET code bases. The
    >ability for these developers to look at a single line of VB code and not
    >think about whether that line represents VB6 vs. VB.NET semantics is a key
    >element to making the knowledge upgrade to VB.NET.
    >
    >
    >The changes to the language include:
    >
    >1. The value of True: When Visual Basic developers coerce "True" into

    a
    >numeric value, the value they receive will be -1 (as VB has always done)

    ,
    >not 1. This applies to both explicit conversions, using CInt(), CDec(),
    >etc., as well as implicit conversions:
    >
    > Dim b As Boolean = True
    > Dim i As Integer = b ' i = -1
    >
    >It is important to note, that when a Boolean in VB is passed to the .NET
    >Framework or to another .NET language, it will be treated as 1 to maintain
    >interoperability between languages. This change offers the best of both
    >worlds - VB developers get expected behavior when working within VB and
    >developers working with multiple .NET languages get seamless behavior across
    >languages.
    >
    >
    >2. Behavior of And/Or/Not/XOr - The functionality of these operators will
    >be returned to bitwise operations instead of purely logical (meaning they
    >will work as they always have in VB). As a result, there is no need to

    keep
    >the BitAnd, BitOr, and BitNot operators that were planned for VB.NET. In
    >addition, the operator precedence will be restored to these operators as

    it
    >was in Visual Basic 6. Finally, these operators will not short-circuit.
    >Instead, to enable developers to show explicit intent in their code, we

    will
    >introduce two new operators, "AndAlso" and "OrElse" that will provide
    >short-circuiting behavior. This request was consistent with our initial
    >usability findings on short-circuiting "And" and "Or," which resulted in
    >bugs that were hard for VB devs to track down. Again, these changes provide
    >consistency with VB6 without sacrificing functionality in VB.NET.
    >
    >
    >3. The declaration of Arrays - When arrays are declared in Visual
    >Basic.NET, they will be declared by specifying the upper bound (as has
    >always been the case in VB), not the size.
    >
    > Dim a(5) As Integer ' produces a 6 element array, 0 through 5
    >
    >
    >Do any of these changes break language interoperability with other .NET
    >languages or the Framework? No.
    >
    >Will these changes delay the ship of Visual Studio.NET? No. The changes
    >are currently being implemented and will be part of Beta 2 (due out this
    >summer). From the start, we had planned for feedback during the beta
    >program and had expected to make changes like these prior to releasing the
    >product. If anything, these changes are a testament to the success of the
    >beta program - We've spoken to literally thousands of VB programmers around
    >the world who are engaged in the beta program and who want these changes
    >made.
    >
    >Are these *major* changes to the language? No. Will they keep VB.NET
    >developers from taking advantage of the .NET Framework, Web Services,
    >ASP.NET, cross-language inheritance and debugging, etc, etc, etc? No, but
    >they do provide benefits to the existing VB developer base who are either
    >upgrading existing code to VB.NET, or who will be maintaining both VB6 and
    >VB.NET code bases.
    >
    >Finally, I think it's important to call out the difference between wanting
    >cross-language interoperability and cross-language consistency. Interop

    is
    >what we're really looking for with .NET - the ability to pass information
    >between languages without confusion, and with these changes, we'll still
    >have seamless language interop. At the same time, these changes will make
    >the knowledge upgrade easier for VB developers. Language consistency, on
    >the other hand, implies that there is a *right* way and a *wrong* way to
    >declare arrays, coerce the value of True, etc. Neither C++ nor VB are
    >"wrong." They are simply different.
    >
    >- Bix
    >
    >Ari Bixhorn
    >Product Manager, Visual Basic
    >
    >**************Message Ends***************
    >
    >
    >



  3. #3
    Roberto Martinez-Brunet Guest

    Re: The official word

    > It is important to note, that when a Boolean in VB is passed to the .NET
    > Framework or to another .NET language, it will be treated as 1 to maintain
    > interoperability between languages.


    Horrendous!

    > "AndAlso" and "OrElse" that will provide


    Hilarious!


    R-o




  4. #4
    Phil Weber Guest

    Re: The official word

    > It's a good thing Microsoft didn't announce this five days
    > ago or else everyone would have written it off as a bad
    > April Fool's Day joke.


    Jeff: Was it really necessary to quote Ari's entire message just to add the
    above remark? (THINK, people! :-)
    ---
    Phil Weber
    DevX Newsgroup Admin



  5. #5
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: The official word

    I wish they had said that in the first place. Oh well, time to move on.

    --
    Jonathan Allen


    "Jacob Grass" <JGrass@abilitisolutions.com> wrote in message
    news:3acded35@news.devx.com...
    > The following message was posted on Microsoft.Public.DotNet.Languages.VB

    by
    > Ari Bixhorn:
    >
    > *********Message Begins********
    >
    > I wanted to clear some of the confusion surrounding recent posts and
    > articles that discuss changes back to the VB.NET language.






  6. #6
    Jeff Pipes Guest

    Re: The official word


    Sorry.

    -Jeff

  7. #7
    Tom Barnaby Guest

    Re: The official word


    Actually that's not the whole interview ... here's the rest:

    Will these changes hasten the demise of the Basic syntax as a language?

    Well that is the plan. These changes will reinforce the perception of VB
    as a "toy" language. With C# now having many of the same RAD characteristics,
    we believe that this will slowly eat away at the BASIC developer base until
    we can finally rid ourselves of supporting this dialect at all.

    Did you expect the VB community to be so helpful in this regard?

    We were hoping that the entrenched conservative base of VB developers would
    raise a big stink. Then we could cripple the language with their blessing,
    and free ourselves of any blame 5 years from now. We could just say "Don't
    blame us! We were just giving you what you asked for!".

    What drugs is the VB development community on?

    I don't know, but they must be good ones!


    Tom Barnaby
    www.intertech-inc.com


  8. #8
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: The official word


    ROFL

    OK, maybe that was a bit extreme, but it's funny hearing a .NETster being
    that sarcastic. It's usually the .NOTsters

    -Rob

    "Tom Barnaby" <tbarnaby@intertech-inc.com> wrote:
    >
    >Actually that's not the whole interview ... here's the rest:
    >



  9. #9
    Randy Birch Guest

    Re: The official word


    You missed the most important word in the post ...

    "The changes to the language _include_: ..."


    --

    Randy Birch
    MVP Visual Basic

    Take the vb.net poll at:
    http://www.mvps.org/vbnet/
    http://www.mvps.org/ccrp/

    Please respond only to the newsgroups so all can benefit.



    "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
    news:3ace09e0@news.devx.com...
    : I wish they had said that in the first place. Oh well, time to move on.
    :
    : --
    : Jonathan Allen
    :
    :
    : "Jacob Grass" <JGrass@abilitisolutions.com> wrote in message
    : news:3acded35@news.devx.com...
    : > The following message was posted on Microsoft.Public.DotNet.Languages.VB
    : by
    : > Ari Bixhorn:
    : >
    : > *********Message Begins********
    : >
    : > I wanted to clear some of the confusion surrounding recent posts and
    : > articles that discuss changes back to the VB.NET language.
    :
    :
    :
    :



  10. #10
    Bill McCarthy Guest

    Re: The official word


    well it also would have probably been better if some people had of just
    waited instead of trying to start histeria and making false accusations to
    hey jonathan ??


    "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
    news:3ace09e0@news.devx.com...
    > I wish they had said that in the first place. Oh well, time to move on.
    >





  11. #11
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: The official word

    What can I say, I was bored. I felt like seeing what kind of effect a few
    choice rants could have, and boy did it work. It always amazes me how
    gullible people are.

    On a side note, none of these changes really affects me in the slightest. In
    fact, I was partially responsible for the special keywords for short
    circuiting. I called them SAnd and SOr in the MVP conference, but I the
    concept was the same.

    --
    Jonathan Allen


    "Bill McCarthy" <bill_mcc@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
    news:3ace965b@news.devx.com...
    >
    > well it also would have probably been better if some people had of just
    > waited instead of trying to start histeria and making false accusations to
    > hey jonathan ??
    >
    >
    > "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
    > news:3ace09e0@news.devx.com...
    > > I wish they had said that in the first place. Oh well, time to move on.
    > >

    >
    >
    >




  12. #12
    Bill McCarthy Guest

    Re: The official word

    Hi JA,

    "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
    news:3acf5439@news.devx.com...
    > What can I say, I was bored. I felt like seeing what kind of effect a few
    > choice rants could have, and boy did it work. It always amazes me how
    > gullible people are.
    >


    I see, so you are saying your intent was clearly mailicous.
    It really amazes me the disrespect you display to fellow developers.


    > On a side note, none of these changes really affects me in the slightest.

    In
    > fact, I was partially responsible for the special keywords for short
    > circuiting. I called them SAnd and SOr in the MVP conference, but I the
    > concept was the same.
    >


    don't flatter yourself Jonatahn. As tempting as itwould be to blame you for
    these changes, theonly thing we can be sure to blame you for, is , as by
    your own admission, your malicious attempts to cause confussion and
    unsettling the VB community as well as your inability to apologise.











  13. #13
    David Bayley Guest

    Re: The official word

    Bill,

    > don't flatter yourself Jonatahn. As tempting as itwould be to blame you

    for
    > these changes, theonly thing we can be sure to blame you for, is , as by
    > your own admission, your malicious attempts to cause confussion and
    > unsettling the VB community as well as your inability to apologise.


    I don't even believe that "I was bored" nonsense (who knows what to believe
    with this guy, he's just playing games right!?!). His arguments have been
    consistently against all 3 of the proposed changes in Beta 2, and now he's
    trying to take credit for them! FunnyGuy.NOT.

    --
    David.





  14. #14
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: The official word

    > His arguments have been
    > consistently against all 3 of the proposed changes in Beta 2


    Either I was drunk when brought up new keywords at the conference, or I was
    drunk when I said they were a bad idea. Or maybe I just changed my mind, it
    was over a month ago.

    As for my current position (subject to change for no reason), here it is...

    AndAlso/EitherOr. Though I wish they had better names, but I can live with
    them.

    BitAnd, BitOr: I still think these were a good idea, as I am against mixing
    Booleans and Integers.

    True=-1: I don't like it because it encourages mixing Boolean's and
    Integers. I had other reasons, but other changes made them moot. Thus it is
    mainly a religious object and thus I will no longer be arguing it.

    myArray(X): If they are going to say X is the upper bound, then they should
    allow us to specify a lower bound, even if it is just 0. Otherwise it just
    doesn't read well.

    --
    Jonathan Allen


    "David Bayley" <davidb@aebacus.another.spam.filter.com> wrote in message
    news:3acfd9af$1@news.devx.com...
    > Bill,
    >
    > > don't flatter yourself Jonatahn. As tempting as itwould be to blame you

    > for
    > > these changes, theonly thing we can be sure to blame you for, is , as by
    > > your own admission, your malicious attempts to cause confussion and
    > > unsettling the VB community as well as your inability to apologise.

    >
    > I don't even believe that "I was bored" nonsense (who knows what to

    believe
    > with this guy, he's just playing games right!?!). His arguments have been
    > consistently against all 3 of the proposed changes in Beta 2, and now he's
    > trying to take credit for them! FunnyGuy.NOT.
    >
    > --
    > David.
    >
    >
    >
    >




  15. #15
    Rick Barnett Guest

    Re: The official word

    "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
    news:3ad097eb@news.devx.com...
    > > His arguments have been
    > > consistently against all 3 of the proposed changes in Beta 2

    >
    > Either I was drunk when brought up new keywords at the conference, or I

    was
    > drunk when I said they were a bad idea. Or maybe I just changed my mind,

    it
    > was over a month ago.


    Or it could just be that you're always a jackass.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center