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


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 76 to 85 of 85

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

  1. #76
    Jon Ogden Guest

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


    "Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3a904b67.770763984@news.devx.com...
    > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:05:57 -0500, "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Now...here's the real question: Why did they do it _this_ way?

    >
    >
    > Without specific information I think it's fair to speculate that huge
    > compromises were made on all sides and that there is no single _why_ which
    > produced the final product.


    From the outside looking in, it appears as if these choices were made after
    a power struggle in which one group won and the other lost.

    > Wrt to vb.net you could speculate that the desire was to abandon existing
    > VB programmers - or at least as many as possible. However that doesn't
    > seem to make any sense at all and so probably should be excluded as an
    > explicit goal. And it seems unlikely that such an implicit (or
    > accidental) goal would hardly have gone unnoticed.


    The Law of Unintended Returns may have enforced itself here, or the time
    pressure of getting .NET out the door before any decisions were made about
    the breakup (pure speculation, but I cannot help but believe that the trial
    was not permeating the atmosphere in which all these decisions were made.)

    > We _can_ ask ourselves why MS made as many changes to VB as they did make.
    > Or we can rely on what we've heard from MS on the matter, which as I
    > recall includes goals such as putting vb.net on a par with c# and
    > preparing it for a long life in an evolving world of software development.


    When my son talks like that I ask him if my wallet is on fire cause there
    seems to be a lot of smoke being blown up my butt.

    > Obviously not everyone agrees with MS's choices, but to rely on simple
    > explanations which ignore the realities of the situation - apparently only
    > providing some feeling of rightness in the proponents - seems pointless to
    > me.


    I couldn't agree with you more, but the most simplistic of all explanations
    seem to me to be the one you just cited. On the other hand, spending too
    much time wondering about why MSFT made these errors in judgement takes the
    focus away from whether or not they'll make some attempt to serve their
    customers.

    Good Luck
    Jon



  2. #77
    Zane Thomas Guest

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

    "Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net> wrote:

    >From the outside looking in, it appears as if these choices were made after
    >a power struggle in which one group won and the other lost.


    There's always a struggle when something so significant is done, whether
    it was predominately technical or power-based is not known by either you
    or me.

    >When my son talks like that I ask him if my wallet is on fire cause there
    >seems to be a lot of smoke being blown up my butt.


    I'm tempted to say that's not the only thing up your butt - but I'll bite
    my tongue instead, showing remarkable restraint at resisting the obvious
    flame-bait.

    >On the other hand, spending too
    >much time wondering about why MSFT made these errors in judgement ...


    I'm finding little value these days in such obviously biased statements.
    VB.Net is, and it is what it is (and I hope there's no question about what
    the meaning of the word is is). This newsgroup has been laid to waste
    with constant carping on both (all?) sides of the issue. I'm inclined to
    think that those who feel there is no vb.net should go join the Borland
    ngs or something ... maybe then there would be something approaching
    signal in this ng for those of us who are actually interested in using
    vb.net.


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  3. #78
    Charles Ruether Guest

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


    Sorry, I responded earlier and did not realise that you are not so much discussing
    as pronouncing. Fiat Dei voluntas, Ice-Z?

  4. #79
    Dan Barclay Guest

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

    On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:21:06 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

    >Dan Barclay <dbarclay@ih2000.net> wrote:
    >
    >>>But there's the problem. Certainly there were assumptions other than
    >>>those, we just don't know what they were.

    >>
    >>Got any other assumptions that might make sense?

    >
    >I could probably come up with some, but I don't have the time or
    >inclination right now. I just wanted to make the point that too many
    >people have been presenting too simplistic a view, in their apparent haste
    >to punish MS for a perceived slight.


    OK, that makes two of us baffled.

    >>>The situation with .net is different. The .net apps which are written now
    >>>will run on an already widespread platform, and existing VB apps run on it
    >>>too.

    >>
    >>Not if you consider .net to be the platform. That's where they want
    >>us to go here. OS<>Platform.

    >
    >That's a point, which supports the fact that MS has a big push on to get
    >momentum behind beta1 - a much larger beta 1 than we've ever seen for any
    >previous MS language/dev-environment effort.
    >
    >>Short is a relative term, to be sure. But, they do have to reach
    >>critical mass for app delivery or it simply won't be deployed.

    >
    >I think it will happen. I already know of some upcoming developments on
    >the leading edge of things we can do with the net which are in the works
    >now.
    >
    >Porting existing apps isn't going to be good enough. The .net platform
    >makes it easy to do more, and new, interesting things. That, imo, is what
    >will make it work.


    Hmmm... did Bro Bill get PC-DOS started by pumping up a bunch of new
    apps, or by making it easy to port CP/M stuff? Heck, it was easier to
    move to PC-DOS than it was to move to CP/M-86. *Then* come the new
    apps.

    >>The beta had better get a bunch of useful apps on the ground.

    >
    >See previous comment. :-)


    Uh huh. So, a new major killer app is gonna be created in 9 months?
    OK.

    <snip>
    >
    >>Why would I choose VB.net over C#.net?

    >
    >Beats me - you like IF ELSE ENDIF instead of { } else { }?


    My thoughts, pretty much.

    >
    >>>I can view the situation from that perspective and see VB as being
    >>>threatened by competition from c#.

    >>
    >>Competition? FWIW, I don't care if C# blows the doors off VB. I *do*
    >>care that I be able to implement my apps in a new environment with the
    >>least pain.

    >
    >Have you actually tried writing apps with vs.net? I've found both c# and
    >vb.net to be less painful (and more productive) than vb6 (or c++/atl - you
    >will not be missed!).


    I already *have* an app. It's already written. I'm not interested in
    writing a new app. Dunno how many times that has to be said. One
    day, when I have to convert to something else I'll dig in for more
    detail.

    At this point, for folks with existing apps, strategy is more
    important than the detail. If MS has a behavior that causes VB to be
    changed on a regular basis, causing rewrites, it may be smarter to
    find some other way to do it.

    THEN, and only then, does it become necessary to dig into much more
    depth. I'm certain I can convert to VB.net if I had to. I'm
    confident of the approximate time frame for that as well. What more
    do I need to know about that?

    >Recently I heard that one of the more vocal vb.not people hereabouts
    >hasn't even installed it yet. I find it hard to believe that people can
    >be so vehemently against something they haven't even tried. Not
    >interested in is one thing, but dead-set _against_is something entirely
    >different.


    I've installed only for the purpose of documentation. Moving my app
    to vb.net is not reasonable at all, based on the documentation. If I
    had any clue the docs were off base I'd go further, but info here, in
    other ng's, and on developmentor indicate the doc is correct (or
    mostly so).

    As for anyone not installing it, it doesn't bother me in the least
    provided they're criticising the documented issues and are going from
    that.

    In fact, the point that they see installation of such a cool
    environment not to be worth the effort indicates what a problem this
    is.

    >>The key to MS should be covering the most ground with the two
    >>different languages. When they spend all their time covering the same
    >>ground what sense does *that* make?

    >
    >It seems that you think one or the other (or both) of the languages should
    >be crippled so that they don't cover the same ground? Where's the sense
    >in that?


    No, not crippled. How would, for example, returning GoSub to VB
    cripple it? Nothing says *you* have to use it. How would leaving
    behavior of logicals alone cripple it? Calling UDT's Types instead of
    Structs? Implementing Basic array boundary behavior? Well, you know
    the list.

    What would cripple VB? Certainly none of what they changed.

    >Also, it seems implicit in your statement that you don't think that VB
    >did, can, or should cover more-or-less the equivalent ground as c#. I
    >don't understand that perspective either. If the differences between
    >programming tools come down to esthetic differences, for the most part,
    >and they can be equally well used to solve almost all programming problems
    >within a single large domain, then where's the problem?


    If they want to cover more ground I see no problem with that. Why
    should VB loose ground, just to be able to cover the ground C# covers?
    And then not cover all of that?

    >>Can't tell about favoring C# in the marketplace, but it is clear
    >>(sourcing the runtime) that C# is (and will be) favored from a support
    >>standpoint.

    >
    >That remains to be seen - speaking only of the MS authored languages. If
    >vb.net is popular then it will be supported, if not ... well you know how
    >it goes.


    If C# is popular then it will be supported. if not... then it will be
    supported because they use it internally.

    >>It was supposed to be a language we could count on.

    >
    >I musta mist that in the contract's fine print.


    Really fine print. I believed when they were lying to me. Can you
    tell when they mean what they say? Thought I could.

    >>It's not left over, it's left out.

    >
    >
    >We have a fundamental disagreement there. I think MS has given VB a
    >_potential_ future, instead of just plopping it more or less untouched
    >into the IDE as they did with VFP. (Before you VFPers out there start
    >replying please know that I have some sense of the power of VFP's data
    >engine, and some understanding of how porting VFP to .net proper would
    >have risked the loss of that engine)


    Well, for what so-called experts considered a piece of crap it sure
    seemed to draw a pile of users.

    >>It is up to MS to position the language where it can be used by
    >>existing VB programmers.

    >
    >They made their choices - you can disagree but you can't change that fact.
    >:-)
    >
    >>It's not VB.

    >
    >Looks like we're off-track again, subjective evaluations being asserted as
    >if they are The Truth.


    You are right, of course. They decide what's VB. They own it, they
    do with it what they want. Time to remember that.

    Dan
    Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
    (#6)

  5. #80
    Zane Thomas Guest

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

    Dan Barclay <dbarclay@ih2000.net> wrote:

    Been interesting, catch ya next time. :-)


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  6. #81
    mrfelis Guest

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

    Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:3a6f403b@news.devx.com...
    > > Wouldn't that mean MS set out to
    > > break code?

    >
    > Either that or they set out to do it right for a change. All the other
    > languages have a way to differentiate between BitAnd and BooleanAnd, why
    > should we?


    Assembly doesn't. Everything is bit wise there. But logical is easy enough
    to do:


    CMP AX,0
    JNZ ITSTRUE
    ;It's false
    ....
    JMP ENDIF
    ITSTRUE:
    ;It's true
    ....
    ENDIF:

    The same was true of VB6. The logical isn't required. BooleanAnd would save
    a lot of people a lot of headaches.
    --
    ~~~
    !ti timda I ,KO
    ..em deppals nocaeB sivaM
    !draH
    ~~
    C'Ya,
    mrfelis@yahoo!com
    Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:3a6f403b@news.devx.com...
    > > Wouldn't that mean MS set out to
    > > break code?

    >
    > Either that or they set out to do it right for a change. All the other
    > languages have a way to differentiate between BitAnd and BooleanAnd, why
    > should we?
    >
    > As to which version gets to use And, the logical choice is the one we

    expect
    > to use the most in the future.
    >
    > --
    > Jonathan Allen
    >
    >
    > "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    > news:3a6f3869$1@news.devx.com...
    > > Are you telling me that the bitwise operator was renamed to BitAnd, and

    a
    > > Logical version replaced the original. Wouldn't that mean MS set out to
    > > break code?
    > >
    > > Reminds me of a song:
    > > Take 1 step forward
    > > Take 5 steps back
    > > That's how to do
    > > The Microsoft Up-Grade
    > >
    > > All sarcasm aside, breaking source code is a poor way to encourrage
    > > upgrading.
    > >
    > > --
    > > ~~~
    > > !ti timda I ,KO
    > > .em deppals nocaeB sivaM
    > > !draH
    > > ~~
    > > C'Ya,
    > > mrfelis@yahoo!com
    > > Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > > news:3a6e73af@news.devx.com...
    > > > > In VB6 And's are bitwise. Fred is bitdumb. I'll stick with the

    smarter
    > > > > language.
    > > >
    > > > Don't forget about BitAnd.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Jonathan Allen
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:3a6dd044@news.devx.com...
    > > > >
    > > > > Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > > > > news:3a6ccbe5@news.devx.com...
    > > > >
    > > > > > I said Boolean math, not Binary math. They are not the same thing.

    > The
    > > > > > Boolean vector space is defined as such.
    > > > > >
    > > > > Point taken. The addition isn't boolean, it's integeral. So lets

    back
    > > up.
    > > > > The And is a boolean operation that the CPU processes across 16 (or

    > 32)
    > > > bits
    > > > > in parallel. These bits never have a value other than 1 or 0.

    > Together,
    > > > they
    > > > > represent values greater than 2. But, of course, you know this.
    > > > >
    > > > > In VB6 And's are bitwise. Fred is bitdumb. I'll stick with the

    smarter
    > > > > language.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >




  7. #82
    mrfelis Guest

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

    Mark Burns <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote in message
    news:3a6f428e@news.devx.com...
    > > All sarcasm aside, breaking source code is a poor way to encourrage
    > > upgrading.

    >
    > Awww... now you've done gone and deciphered the truth behind MS' moves
    > here.<g>
    >
    > Now...here's the real question: Why did they do it _this_ way?
    >

    Possible to kill COM, since COM wasn't taking over the Internet as fast as
    MS wanted it too? Just my distrust of power hungry organizations showing
    here.



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




  8. #83
    Jonathan Allen Guest

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

    > Assembly doesn't. Everything is bit wise there. But logical is easy enough
    > to do:


    Assembly doesn't have If-Then either. Should we also ditch that?

    > The same was true of VB6. The logical isn't required. BooleanAnd would

    save
    > a lot of people a lot of headaches.


    Only for the short term. In the long run, it would be an unnecessary
    annoyance.

    --
    Jonathan Allen


    "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    news:3a730fef$2@news.devx.com...
    > Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > news:3a6f403b@news.devx.com...
    > > > Wouldn't that mean MS set out to
    > > > break code?

    > >
    > > Either that or they set out to do it right for a change. All the other
    > > languages have a way to differentiate between BitAnd and BooleanAnd, why
    > > should we?

    >
    > Assembly doesn't. Everything is bit wise there. But logical is easy enough
    > to do:
    >
    >
    > CMP AX,0
    > JNZ ITSTRUE
    > ;It's false
    > ...
    > JMP ENDIF
    > ITSTRUE:
    > ;It's true
    > ...
    > ENDIF:
    >
    > The same was true of VB6. The logical isn't required. BooleanAnd would

    save
    > a lot of people a lot of headaches.
    > --
    > ~~~
    > !ti timda I ,KO
    > .em deppals nocaeB sivaM
    > !draH
    > ~~
    > C'Ya,
    > mrfelis@yahoo!com
    > Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > news:3a6f403b@news.devx.com...
    > > > Wouldn't that mean MS set out to
    > > > break code?

    > >
    > > Either that or they set out to do it right for a change. All the other
    > > languages have a way to differentiate between BitAnd and BooleanAnd, why
    > > should we?
    > >
    > > As to which version gets to use And, the logical choice is the one we

    > expect
    > > to use the most in the future.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Jonathan Allen
    > >
    > >
    > > "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    > > news:3a6f3869$1@news.devx.com...
    > > > Are you telling me that the bitwise operator was renamed to BitAnd,

    and
    > a
    > > > Logical version replaced the original. Wouldn't that mean MS set out

    to
    > > > break code?
    > > >
    > > > Reminds me of a song:
    > > > Take 1 step forward
    > > > Take 5 steps back
    > > > That's how to do
    > > > The Microsoft Up-Grade
    > > >
    > > > All sarcasm aside, breaking source code is a poor way to encourrage
    > > > upgrading.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > ~~~
    > > > !ti timda I ,KO
    > > > .em deppals nocaeB sivaM
    > > > !draH
    > > > ~~
    > > > C'Ya,
    > > > mrfelis@yahoo!com
    > > > Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:3a6e73af@news.devx.com...
    > > > > > In VB6 And's are bitwise. Fred is bitdumb. I'll stick with the

    > smarter
    > > > > > language.
    > > > >
    > > > > Don't forget about BitAnd.
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > Jonathan Allen
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    > > > > news:3a6dd044@news.devx.com...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:3a6ccbe5@news.devx.com...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > I said Boolean math, not Binary math. They are not the same

    thing.
    > > The
    > > > > > > Boolean vector space is defined as such.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > Point taken. The addition isn't boolean, it's integeral. So lets

    > back
    > > > up.
    > > > > > The And is a boolean operation that the CPU processes across 16

    (or
    > > 32)
    > > > > bits
    > > > > > in parallel. These bits never have a value other than 1 or 0.

    > > Together,
    > > > > they
    > > > > > represent values greater than 2. But, of course, you know this.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > In VB6 And's are bitwise. Fred is bitdumb. I'll stick with the

    > smarter
    > > > > > language.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >




  9. #84
    Who Cares? Guest

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

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3a6ca988$1@news.devx.com...
    > Either it's new or it's a quick kludge to hit Linux and Java where the

    sun don't
    > shine.



    Yeah, that's what it looks like to me, too.

    .Net is a quickie-*** kludge to save MS
    from losing the development / network
    services market.

    My previous employer has decided to
    jump whole-heartedly into .Net. Which
    doesn't mean much, considering that the
    last four projects have failed to the tune
    of $30 million or so, with "DNA",
    "DNA 2000", etc.

    You'd think they'd learn.

    BTW, as a former Delphi programmer,
    who started with a beta version of 1.0
    before the first formal release,
    I think you're seriously wrong about the
    future prospects of Delphi.

    I've been tracking job listings for several
    years and Delphi has been declining
    steadily for over two years now.




  10. #85
    mrfelis Guest

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

    Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:3a738029@news.devx.com...
    > > Assembly doesn't. Everything is bit wise there. But logical is easy

    enough
    > > to do:

    >
    > Assembly doesn't have If-Then either. Should we also ditch that?
    >

    "Also ditch"?

    I wasn't talking about ditching anything. I was questioning the necessity of
    the logical. I'm writting this from the prespective of a VB 6 app being
    ported to .Net. From this perspective the logical operator is being added.

    > > The same was true of VB6. The logical isn't required. BooleanAnd would

    > save
    > > a lot of people a lot of headaches.

    >
    > Only for the short term. In the long run, it would be an unnecessary
    > annoyance.


    What annoyance? A bitwise And on a boolean results in a logical operation.

    --
    ~~~
    !ti timda I ,KO
    ..em deppals nocaeB sivaM
    !draH
    ~~
    C'Ya,
    mrfelis@yahoo!com
    Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:3a738029@news.devx.com...
    > > Assembly doesn't. Everything is bit wise there. But logical is easy

    enough
    > > to do:

    >
    > Assembly doesn't have If-Then either. Should we also ditch that?
    >
    > > The same was true of VB6. The logical isn't required. BooleanAnd would

    > save
    > > a lot of people a lot of headaches.

    >
    > Only for the short term. In the long run, it would be an unnecessary
    > annoyance.
    >
    > --
    > Jonathan Allen
    >
    >
    > "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    > news:3a730fef$2@news.devx.com...
    > > Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > > news:3a6f403b@news.devx.com...
    > > > > Wouldn't that mean MS set out to
    > > > > break code?
    > > >
    > > > Either that or they set out to do it right for a change. All the other
    > > > languages have a way to differentiate between BitAnd and BooleanAnd,

    why
    > > > should we?

    > >
    > > Assembly doesn't. Everything is bit wise there. But logical is easy

    enough
    > > to do:
    > >
    > >
    > > CMP AX,0
    > > JNZ ITSTRUE
    > > ;It's false
    > > ...
    > > JMP ENDIF
    > > ITSTRUE:
    > > ;It's true
    > > ...
    > > ENDIF:
    > >
    > > The same was true of VB6. The logical isn't required. BooleanAnd would

    > save
    > > a lot of people a lot of headaches.
    > > --
    > > ~~~
    > > !ti timda I ,KO
    > > .em deppals nocaeB sivaM
    > > !draH
    > > ~~
    > > C'Ya,
    > > mrfelis@yahoo!com
    > > Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > > news:3a6f403b@news.devx.com...
    > > > > Wouldn't that mean MS set out to
    > > > > break code?
    > > >
    > > > Either that or they set out to do it right for a change. All the other
    > > > languages have a way to differentiate between BitAnd and BooleanAnd,

    why
    > > > should we?
    > > >
    > > > As to which version gets to use And, the logical choice is the one we

    > > expect
    > > > to use the most in the future.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Jonathan Allen
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:3a6f3869$1@news.devx.com...
    > > > > Are you telling me that the bitwise operator was renamed to BitAnd,

    > and
    > > a
    > > > > Logical version replaced the original. Wouldn't that mean MS set out

    > to
    > > > > break code?
    > > > >
    > > > > Reminds me of a song:
    > > > > Take 1 step forward
    > > > > Take 5 steps back
    > > > > That's how to do
    > > > > The Microsoft Up-Grade
    > > > >
    > > > > All sarcasm aside, breaking source code is a poor way to encourrage
    > > > > upgrading.
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > ~~~
    > > > > !ti timda I ,KO
    > > > > .em deppals nocaeB sivaM
    > > > > !draH
    > > > > ~~
    > > > > C'Ya,
    > > > > mrfelis@yahoo!com
    > > > > Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > > > > news:3a6e73af@news.devx.com...
    > > > > > > In VB6 And's are bitwise. Fred is bitdumb. I'll stick with the

    > > smarter
    > > > > > > language.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Don't forget about BitAnd.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > --
    > > > > > Jonathan Allen
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:3a6dd044@news.devx.com...
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Jonathan Allen <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    > > > > > > news:3a6ccbe5@news.devx.com...
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > I said Boolean math, not Binary math. They are not the same

    > thing.
    > > > The
    > > > > > > > Boolean vector space is defined as such.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Point taken. The addition isn't boolean, it's integeral. So lets

    > > back
    > > > > up.
    > > > > > > The And is a boolean operation that the CPU processes across 16

    > (or
    > > > 32)
    > > > > > bits
    > > > > > > in parallel. These bits never have a value other than 1 or 0.
    > > > Together,
    > > > > > they
    > > > > > > represent values greater than 2. But, of course, you know this.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > In VB6 And's are bitwise. Fred is bitdumb. I'll stick with the

    > > smarter
    > > > > > > language.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >




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