Good Editorial by Russell Jones

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> Goodness, I shall have to Come To America, if you have such very nice
> things like cinnamon-sugar and maple frosting on your do(ugh)nuts!

Get in line for the Krispy Kreme!

(Won't see me there... maybe I'm still to European)

[Dan Barclay]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:41:43 -0800, "Sjoerd Verweij"
<nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote:

>> Being more productive means being lazy.
>
>A-freaking-men. For example, I put just about every query that took me more
>than ten minutes to write in a stored procedure. People constantly tell me
>"oh, I never do that... I'm too lazy for that".

Now there's a thinkin' man. As it should be. Are you an Engineer by
any chance? Job requirement.

>NO, IDIOT, you're _not_lazy_enough_! You're the sap that'll sit there at 7PM
>in about a month writing it all over again!

Bingo. Only now I've gotta rewrite a boatload 'o stuff I thought I
had down. I hope they don't change the way they handle stored
procedures on you!

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

[Daniel Anderson]

Joe,
In essence I agree with you about the migration effort that will be
required. BUT, (knew that was coming, huh?) at the same time, VB developers
need to quit treating VB7 like it is an upgrade from VB6, which it never has
been intended to be. VB7 represents a total rethink of the language, which
was sorely needed, as opposed to previous versions, which did nothing more
than offer kludges to known issues mixed with a sprinkling of new features.
One of the best (and funniest) examples of this was that Microsoft finally
stopped supporting the GOSUB statement. Uhhh...HELLO. Shouldn't developers
have stopped using that back in VB1, as Microsoft said?
Until VB7, every version of VB has done nothing more than "fix" what was
broken or missing before. But this was like a boat anchor around the
language, and prevented it from becoming a first class language. Now, VB7
is truly a "real" language in its own right, with enormous capabilities that
the development community is only beginning to see.
I don't like having to spend as much time learning a "new" language any more
than the next guy, but if the tradeoff is that by doing so I will be able to
produce more scalable, robust applications, so be it. It is a price worth
paying IMHO.
To me, what VS.NET means overall is that it will require developers to truly
know what they're doing, rather than supporting sloppy, poorly written code,
as VB has tended to allow in versions past. Developers will have to think
"outside the box" now, which isn't entirely a bad thing. And maybe now we
can focus on writing applications rather than lamenting on how limited the
language is.



"Joe Goodman" <goodmanja@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3a702fef@news.devx.com...
>
> You have a good point Robert, we all have to re-train constantly, but this
>
> release is a huge paradigm shift for some. It's going to require more
> code retooling than it should to bring the old stuff forward, ut that's
life.
> I like to tell myself that if this job was easy, anyone could do it.
Still,
> Mr. Jones
> editorial that bothers me just a little. He makes light of valid
developer
> concerns and then "moves on". He sounds remarkably like a
bought-and-paid-for
> Microsoft mouthpiece. I find that a little troubling. I can get the
company
> line
> straight from Microsoft. I joined DevX to get more...
>
>
> "Robert G" <robpg@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >I thought the editorial was right on the money. If you are a programmer
> and
> >you don't want to learn new technologies, it is probably time to start
looking
> >for a new profession. Once you get down the learning curve, the .NET
platform
> >actually simplifies things for developers.
> >
> >Some people are just too lazy to learn...
>

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Daniel --

> One of the best (and funniest) examples of this was that Microsoft finally
> stopped supporting the GOSUB statement. Uhhh...HELLO. Shouldn't developers
> have stopped using that back in VB1, as Microsoft said?

Hello? Couldn't have characterized an opinion as *utterly* uninformed faster than
making a silly-*** statement like that. Do you understand how programs work? Under
the hood? Wow.

Bonus points for finding the statement that would make Microsoft look equally asinine
"back in VB1" timeframe.

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

[Daniel Anderson]

Karl,
I was merely pointing out the fact that through VB6, Microsoft continued to
support some functionality that should have died long ago, but it was done
for the sake of allowing relatively simple migration to the next version,
and because there were many VB developers who argued for its inclusion. The
point is that VB7, good or bad, represents a major departure from
Microsoft's support of prior VB versions. Personally, I do not see this as
a necessarily bad thing. Microsoft has tried to create in VB7 everything
its critics said has been wrong with prior versions that many felt have kept
VB from becoming what would be considered a "first class" language like C++.
Could this have been accomplished without a major rethink of the language?
Maybe, maybe not. I can understand the point that people are making about
the difficulty of migration, and it will make many companies think twice
about making the move to .NET. Within our own organization we are debating
the merits of moving to .NET with our existing apps, as opposed to leaving
them alone ("If it aint broke don't fix it") and evaluating the use of .NET
in future projects. Some companies prefer to live on the "bleeding edge" in
order to maintain what they see as a competitive edge, while others, like
ours, are more conservative, only moving to newer technologies when the time
is more appropriate. Better to wait and see what the experience of others
is than to risk serious repercussions of unstable apps. But for companies
willing to spend the money, time, and effort to make the migration, I
believe that in the long run the benefits of .NET will outweigh those costs.
Yes, it will be an enormously difficult undertaking to justify the move to
..NET if you have applications that you spent a large amount of money
developing. Many companies may choose to wait until they can no longer
stave off the inevitable (i.e. Microsoft stops supporting prior versions of
VB, but that will be a LONG Time down the road), and it might be the best
decision for them. But for companies which have not yet invested much in
their development efforts, or who feel that they must make the move to
remain competitive, the move might be easier to make.

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:3a71ffd3$1@news.devx.com...
> Hi Daniel --
>
> > One of the best (and funniest) examples of this was that Microsoft
finally
> > stopped supporting the GOSUB statement. Uhhh...HELLO. Shouldn't
developers
> > have stopped using that back in VB1, as Microsoft said?
>
> Hello? Couldn't have characterized an opinion as *utterly* uninformed
faster than
> making a silly-*** statement like that. Do you understand how programs
work? Under
> the hood? Wow.
>
> Bonus points for finding the statement that would make Microsoft look
equally asinine
> "back in VB1" timeframe.
>
> Later... Karl
> --
> http://www.mvps.org/vb
>
>

[Randy Birch]

Funniest thing I've seen in a movie for a while ...

guys standing with a half dozen jelly doughnuts clutched in his hand and
fitted between his fingers. Sticking up out of the jelly-fill hole on each
doughnut is a straw. A bunch of other guys are talking ... he speaks up: "If
anyone wants a doughnut without jelly, they're ready now".

Wish I could remember the movie title.

--

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.



"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a71d35c.36322050@news.devx.com...
: On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:04:06 -0800, "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org>
: wrote:
:
: >> shaddup and pass me a donut!....no, not that one, one of those
: >> cinnamon-sugar ones...<g>
: >
: >Yeah, that one, with maple frosting...!
: >
:
: Goodness, I shall have to Come To America, if you have such very nice
: things like cinnamon-sugar and maple frosting on your do(ugh)nuts!
: (There's no ugh in front of *your* nuts?)
:
: We only ever get jam in the middle and a bit of granulated round the
: outside. Still pretty nice, though.
:
: MM

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Daniel --

> I was merely pointing out the fact that through VB6, Microsoft continued to
> support some functionality that should have died long ago,

Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be the best
answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.

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

[Patrick Troughton Patrick]

Hi Karl,

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be
the best
>answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.

Always critical, rarely helpful....

/Pat

[Patrick Troughton Patrick]

I take that back. Condescending is much more appropriate word.

/Pat

"Patrick Troughton" Patrick wrote:
>
>Hi Karl,
>
>"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
>>
>>Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be
>the best
>>answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.
>
>Always critical, rarely helpful....
>
>/Pat
>

[Karl E. Peterson]

Path: news.devx.com!news.devx.com!208.186.167.65
Xref: news.devx.com vb.dotnet.discussion:16205

Only towards those who ~earn~ it. :-)
--
http://www.mvps.org/vb


<Patrick Troughton Patrick> wrote in message news:3a7225df$1@news.devx.com...
>
> I take that back. Condescending is much more appropriate word.
>
> /Pat
>
> "Patrick Troughton" Patrick wrote:
> >
> >Hi Karl,
> >
> >"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be
> >the best
> >>answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.
> >
> >Always critical, rarely helpful....
> >
> >/Pat
> >
>

[Steve Dee]

> Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be
the best
> answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.

Care to give an example of why you think GoSub is the best answer to a
situation? I'm really curious....

[Steve Dee]

> NO, IDIOT, you're _not_lazy_enough_! You're the sap that'll sit there at
7PM
> in about a month writing it all over again!

Then again...you could use something like SourceSafe and write a reusable
object and NOT do it all over again!

"Sjoerd Verweij" <nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote in message
news:3a71b5b0$1@news.devx.com...
> > Being more productive means being lazy.
>
> A-freaking-men. For example, I put just about every query that took me
more
> than ten minutes to write in a stored procedure. People constantly tell me
> "oh, I never do that... I'm too lazy for that".
>
> NO, IDIOT, you're _not_lazy_enough_! You're the sap that'll sit there at
7PM
> in about a month writing it all over again!
>
>
>

[Mike Mitchell]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 00:10:33 -0500, "Steve Dee"
<Steve_Dee@md.prestige.net> wrote:

>> Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be
>the best
>> answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.
>
>Care to give an example of why you think GoSub is the best answer to a
>situation? I'm really curious....
>
You can stop being curious. because I have the answer! Suppose you
have a subroutine (Function or Sub, and by the way, I'm talking
Classic VB here; none of that VB.NET OOP bloat stuff). In the
subroutine you have some inline code duplicated in various places
throughout the sub. You have a choice. You can either call out to a
new subroutine/function to execute the code and pass several
arguments, or you can place the code at the bottom of your routine and
call it with GoSub. That way, instead of executing the same code in,
say, a dozen different places in the main bofy of the subroutine, you
only need the code once, in the GoSub block, thus having only one
place to change if changes become necessary, and also enjoying the
added benefit of a more compact main body of the subroutine, which is
thereby rendered easier to read, debug and enhance.

And, actually, there is no downside to this. If you decide to leave
all those dozen executions in the main body, well, you haven't made
the change anyway. If you *do* decide to go for a GoSub, then if
anything the code is simplified since it is reduced to just one
instance. And if the code fragment in question does not need any
passed-in arguments, a new routine is likely to be the better choice.

You have to weigh up the pros and cons of doing it the embedded way,
the GoSub way, or the new routine way, but weighing up pros and cons
is what programmers do all the time, given the choice.

However, now Microsoft have taken one more choice away. So, let's hear
it with one almighty cheer...

"Thanks a bunch, Microsoft!"

MM

[Karl E. Peterson]

"Steve Dee" <Steve_Dee@md.prestige.net> wrote in message
news:3a7257aa$1@news.devx.com...
> > Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be
> the best
> > answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.
>
> Care to give an example of why you think GoSub is the best answer to a
> situation? I'm really curious....

Jeeez, I can't believe I'm saying this, but "What Mike said", (in a nutshell). It
was a good option, when used appropriately. Unfortunately, they hosed it in VB4, and
it never really did recover fully. This made the potential pay-off much less, and
the justification requirements much more rigorous. But if you (generic "you") don't
know *why* it might be useful, then you obviously shouldn't be commenting on whether
this is a construct that's outlived its usefulness.

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

[James D. Foxall]

Karl and Mike are right, but I'd like to point out that the biggest payoff
is when that shared piece of code has LOTS of data elements that would have
to be passed as parameters. For instance, a dozen field values from a
table...

I avoid GoSubs as much as I possibly can, but there are a few cases where
they are simply the best option for the situation. I agree that choice is
the best. Anyone who thinks that bad developers will write better code
because of language restrictions is slightly misguided. It may help, but
people will still write lots of bad code.

--

James D. Foxall
Microsoft Certified Solution Developer

"Steve Dee" <Steve_Dee@md.prestige.net> wrote in message
news:3a7257aa$1@news.devx.com...
> > Coming from a guy who apparently doesn't understand when a GoSub may be
> the best
> > answer to a given problem, that certainly means a lot.
>
> Care to give an example of why you think GoSub is the best answer to a
> situation? I'm really curious....
>
>