Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps - Page 3


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 85

Thread: Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

  1. #31
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    "Sjoerd Verweij" <nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote in message <news:3a6c9912$1@news.devx.com>...

    > > But VB *is* easier to use. After all, I once managed to whip out a
    > > live demo that exceeded capacity and responsiveness requirements
    > > even on the old Dauphin DTR-1 I scrounged up on a lark (or maybe
    > > just to be "arrogant"?) while the MFC gurus were still chasing GPFs
    > > and wondering why populating list boxes was taking 90 seconds plus!

    >
    > Erm, that's because you know how to *program*. We're talking users trying to
    > program (and defaming the language because of it), not programmers using VB
    > as the extremely productive programming language it is.


    Huh? Many more wannabes use C++ because it's K3WL, so why doesn't C++
    have a worse reputation than VB? It seems to me that VB's biggest
    flaw is its name! It would be good marketing to rename VB.Nyet to
    VFred.

    --
    Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Got Thetans? <http://www.xenu.net/>
    WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
    because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!



  2. #32
    mrfelis Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:3a6caf51@news.devx.com...
    > That isn't Boolean Arithmetic as defined in mathematics. If it was, the +
    > would mean the same as Or and the resulting i could only equal 1 or 0.

    Not true.

    1 + 1 = 0 with a 1 carry.

    FYI, Addition is very similar to Or. (Much as And is similar to
    Subtraction.) An adder circuit in fact uses an Or gate to produce the
    output. If the bit-width will premit the carry is feed to the next highest
    bit. Otherwise, it is stored in the carry flag.

    --
    ~~~
    !ti timda I ,KO
    ..em deppals nocaeB sivaM
    !draH
    ~~
    C'Ya,
    mrfelis@yahoo!com
    > --
    > Jonathan Allen
    >
    >
    >
    >




  3. #33
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    Hi Patrick --

    > > environments indefinitely and not screw up somewhere because of the
    > > almost-similarities?

    >
    > You always have a choice. I believe someone once mentioned that apps are
    > still being written (and maintained) in VB3 and VB4. Why should VB.NET
    > signal the imminent end of VB6, but VB4 didn't end VB3 and VB5 didn't end
    > VB4, etc...


    Well, not to cast a negative light on anything, but... One obvious difference would
    be that no keywords were deleted in those migrations, and only one (the fundamental
    String datatype) was redefined. New keywords were added, sure. But their use wasn't
    mandated for most purposes, and unless you were handling binary data in Strings (the
    only way, prior to VB4) such code moved backwards gracefully. In fact, most of the
    VB5/6 code on my site will run just fine in VB4/32, and it would go back quite a bit
    further if not for the heavy API use. Not sure that lends credence to the notion
    that VB6 wouldn't be viable at some point in the future, nor whether dotnet
    accelerates its decline or forever establishes it as a benchmark. Just one glaring
    difference between this migration and those you compare it to. Gotta be careful
    what's compared to what, lest you want the comparison to be considered meaningless.

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



  4. #34
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Yes, but "provide more functionality" to whom? You're hardly likely to sell
    >any .NET components in volume for at least a couple of years, because until
    >then there *will* be no corporates interested.


    There has already been considerable interest in my FTP/NET component.

    >The .NET platform itself isn't
    >going to be out until much later this year, so corporates aren't going to
    >be looking at it with any conviction until middle of 2002.


    You seem to have it in your mind that all corporations are as stagnant as
    the one you apparently work at.

    >Kylix is going to be available in quarter 2.


    Yawn.


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  5. #35
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    On 22 Jan 2001 14:59:30 -0800, "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >It was supposed to demonstrate that anyone who does not accept
    >that the changes from VB6 to VB.NET do not make the latter incompatible with
    >the former is being obstinate in the face of obvious evidence


    Of course that relies upon your stubborn and obstinate instance that any
    changes in a language render it entirely incompatible with the previous
    version. As an alternative you incessantly babble on about a language
    which is 100% incompatible, a fact I find endlessly amusing.


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  6. #36
    mrfelis Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    Zane Thomas <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3a7a98ac.593937250@news.devx.com...
    > Actually in both cases, x and x(), the expression you started with was an
    > integer which you then converted to boolean, then to bitwise boolean, and

    x is a variable. while you can consider it an expression I tend not to. You
    can also consider x<5 an expression. This was the expression was refering
    to.

    as defined by MSDN:

    expression
    Any combination of variables, operators, constants, functions, and names of
    fields, controls, and properties that evaluates to a single value. You can
    use expressions as settings for many properties, and to set criteria or
    define calculated fields in queries.

    > then to an arithmetic expression. It's that mixing of boolean and integer
    > operations that I cannot recall having ever seen the need for.
    >
    > >I'm converting them. The function feeds a state machine (select case)
    > >based on the conditions provided.

    >
    > Having done a fair amount of realtime programming I'm very familiar with
    > state machines. You rejected, prima facie apparently, the use of
    > intermediate variables to hold results such as x() < 5. I wouldn't do

    Nope. Look back at me original post. I said you could cache x<5.


    > I might be very happy if some class of problems could be better solved
    > with such a redefinition. But I probably wouldn't use it for balancing my
    > checkbook.


    I fail to see any problems resolved by redefining True = 1. Unless, you can
    point them out, I'm stuck ballancing a checkbook.


    > expressions seems unnecessary and odd. As I described above I prefer to
    > make the distinction clear to the reader by making the transition from
    > integer to booleans explicit in the code.


    Is there something more explicit than CInt()?

    --
    ~~~
    !ti timda I ,KO
    ..em deppals nocaeB sivaM
    !draH
    ~~
    C'Ya,
    mrfelis@yahoo!com



  7. #37
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    > > That isn't Boolean Arithmetic as defined in mathematics. If it was, the
    +
    > > would mean the same as Or and the resulting i could only equal 1 or 0.

    > Not true.
    >
    > 1 + 1 = 0 with a 1 carry.


    I said Boolean math, not Binary math. They are not the same thing. The
    Boolean vector space is defined as such.

    Addition(a, b) = 0, a=b=0
    1, a=1 or b=1

    Multiplication(a, b) = 1, a=b=1
    0, a=0 or b=0

    Not(a) = 0, a=1
    1, a=0

    --
    Jonathan Allen




  8. #38
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote:

    >as defined by MSDN:
    >
    >expression


    I fail to see how that sort of nit-picking is important.

    >Nope. Look back at me original post. I said you could cache x<5.


    You mean this:

    >cache the calculations in extra
    >variables or repeat the expressions in each if (yuck!)


    Given that you, apparently, have chosen not to use the cache-in-variable
    approach I assumed that the (yuck!) applied to it as well.

    >I fail to see any problems resolved by redefining True = 1. Unless, you can
    >point them out, I'm stuck ballancing a checkbook.


    Having avoided relying on True being anything other than a Boolean it
    really doesn't matter to me.

    >Is there something more explicit than CInt()?


    Yes, I thought I gave a clear enough description of how using
    appropriately named intermediate variables was much more explicit.


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  9. #39
    David Bayley Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    > What would have been death for VB would have been to port it
    > directly onto dotnet, where the competition from c# would have killed it
    > for sure.


    Nothing much to add apart from the J word. Just thought that was worth
    repeating.

    From a business perspective, gratuitous incompatibilities are the least of
    my worries. If new platforms are what it takes to put an end to the HTML
    "Web App" crap, then so be it.

    --
    David.




  10. #40
    Patrick Steele Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    In article <3a6ccae3@news.devx.com>, karl@mvps.org says...
    > Hi Patrick --
    >
    > > You always have a choice. I believe someone once mentioned that apps are
    > > still being written (and maintained) in VB3 and VB4. Why should VB.NET
    > > signal the imminent end of VB6, but VB4 didn't end VB3 and VB5 didn't end
    > > VB4, etc...

    >
    > Well, not to cast a negative light on anything, but... One obvious difference would
    > be that no keywords were deleted in those migrations, and only one (the fundamental
    > String datatype) was redefined. New keywords were added, sure. But their use wasn't
    > mandated for most purposes, and unless you were handling binary data in Strings (the
    > only way, prior to VB4) such code moved backwards gracefully.


    Ahhh... Was Mike's opinion about being "forced" to move to VB.NET based
    on it's lack of backwards compatibility? If so, I didn't read it that
    way. I thought he meant he would be forced to move his code forward.

    > In fact, most of the
    > VB5/6 code on my site will run just fine in VB4/32, and it would go back quite a bit
    > further if not for the heavy API use. Not sure that lends credence to the notion
    > that VB6 wouldn't be viable at some point in the future, nor whether dotnet
    > accelerates its decline or forever establishes it as a benchmark. Just one glaring
    > difference between this migration and those you compare it to. Gotta be careful
    > what's compared to what, lest you want the comparison to be considered meaningless.


    Agreed. I didn't want to bring the migration issue up. I hope we can
    all accept it will be painful.

    And your post got more to the point of what I was talking about. You
    have VB 5/6 code that will mostly work in VB4 and (except for the API
    usage) would probably move back further.

    For whatever reasons (management policies, target deployment machines,
    budget, etc...) some developers are still using VB3 and VB4. Mike has
    noted to me on more than one occasion that he will *have* to upgrade to
    stay current. I just don't see a strong case for that given the current
    usage of older VB versions (oops, I almost typed "older VB dialects"...)
    :O

    That would have opened a can of worms! <bg>

    --
    Patrick Steele
    (psteele@ipdsolution.com)
    Lead Software Architect

  11. #41
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3a6cab28$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Correction: It's what we do <by default?> when we're too
    > >stupid/arrogant/prideful to understand there's a better way, then find

    that
    > >better way, and use it.

    >
    > No, we're humans. We're stupid, arrogant, prideful, and many, many other
    > things. The only better way is not to be human, and that would be a worse
    > way.


    Mike, if that's _really_ your view of humans, remind me never to ask you to
    be bart of a business deal negotiation, k?<g> ...but enough of this drift or
    we'll have to move further duscussion on this to the off.ramp.




  12. #42
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    Michael,

    >
    > But people ahve been rationalizing this one with each version, so its
    > unsurprising that people such as yourself would rationalize now....
    >


    "People such as youself" ...hhmmmm. I'm not sure, but I have this feeling I
    should be insulted. Just out of curiosity, what is it about me that makes me
    different then yourself, besides about 120 lbs <g>.

    --
    Jay Glynn
    Intoducing .NET
    ISBN: 1861004893
    Wrox Press Ltd.




  13. #43
    Jason Kaczor Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    "Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net> wrote in message
    news:3a6c2b45@news.devx.com...
    >
    > "Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    > > "Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net> wrote:
    > >
    > > >What is your guess as to which dotnet language you will use the most?

    > >
    > > C#

    >
    > I am beginning to believe that answer holds for me, too.


    sigh, and me. been fighting the curly-braces, but the lack of code
    documentation comments in VB.NET and no response from my MS contacts, the
    develop Mentor discussion lists (http://discuss.develop.com) where many MS
    people answer .NET questions makes me lean towards it.

    Regards
    Jason Kaczor



  14. #44
    Jason Kaczor Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    >"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3a7fc8c4.606249109@news.devx.com...
    >
    > Kylix is going to be available in quarter 2.


    Have you seen it at a demo? tested a beta? Again, I love Borland, and
    Kylix, but right now it's far more vaporous than .NET.

    Regards
    Jason Kaczor



  15. #45
    mrfelis Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    Zane Thomas <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3a81d195.608506265@news.devx.com...
    > "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
    >
    > >as defined by MSDN:
    > >
    > >expression

    >
    > I fail to see how that sort of nit-picking is important.
    >

    Wasn't nit-picking. Just explaining my stance of the expression I was
    refering to as clearly as possible.

    > >Nope. Look back at me original post. I said you could cache x<5.

    >
    > You mean this:
    >
    > >cache the calculations in extra
    > >variables or repeat the expressions in each if (yuck!)

    >
    > Given that you, apparently, have chosen not to use the cache-in-variable
    > approach I assumed that the (yuck!) applied to it as well.


    Read it again. Had I been against caching the expression in an extra
    variable I would have placed the (yuck!) on left side of the "or". As it
    stands the "yuck" modifies the final phrase.

    I didn't put this simple expression in a variable simply because it clutters
    the code and waists stack space.

    > >Is there something more explicit than CInt()?

    >
    > Yes, I thought I gave a clear enough description of how using
    > appropriately named intermediate variables was much more explicit.
    >

    OK. You can be more explicit.



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