Is VB.Not still a BEGINNERS' language?

[Ian Lowe]

Well, I'll just continue posting the same ol' way until somebody using Linux
LynxNews v.0.2q complains, shall I? <g>

Ian.

[Ian Lowe]

Karl said:
> Careful there, Larry! We're coming perilously close to agreement, here!
:-)

Because Larry said:
> > Someone is simply going to HAVE to find a way to present all those
objects in
> > a neat and concise manner. There are simply too many, with too many sub
objects
> > to even know where to begin....

Which is another side of the documentation question, I suppose. 150 items in
my IntelliSense window isn't very intelligent. And if its not backed up by a
concise and clear manual, your in for a long night of research. The docs
should contain topic guides to help you find what you need (e.g., "String
Manipulation", "Working with Arrays", "Drawing and Sizing", etc.).

Ian.

[Larry Serflaten]

"Ian Lowe" <idlowe@home.com> wrote
>
> Karl said:
> > Careful there, Larry! We're coming perilously close to agreement, here!
> :-)
>
> Because Larry said:
> > > Someone is simply going to HAVE to find a way to present all those
> objects in
> > > a neat and concise manner. There are simply too many, with too many sub
> objects
> > > to even know where to begin....
>

Was that it? I thought he agrreed with my statement:

> MS knew what they were shoveling at us, they gave us a garbage collector to help
> tidy up...

As most authors will tell you, there isn't a lot of profit in writting technical books.
Perhaps MS can be persuaded to re-institute the 'Programmers Guide' and 'Language
Reference' manuals to be shipped with VB.Net... I know I have already told them that
looking at the SDK help files is too fragmented (and in some cases too detailed) to be
a source for learning to program on that platform.

LFS

[John Proffitt]

"Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
>
>modify a string whose reference count is greater than one. Most of
>the time, when I declare a parameter ByVal, I don't actually change
>it within the routine. Instead, it's usually just to tell the caller
>(and COM) what my intentions are. I wonder just how much of VB's
>reputation for slowness really comes from gratuitous string copying.
>

Why not just pass by reference and write a comment?
' ByRef Parameter String Key is not modified by this function.

John

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"John Proffitt" <bogon@earthlink.net> wrote in message <news:3aaa60ee$1@news.devx.com>...

> "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
> >
> >modify a string whose reference count is greater than one. Most of
> >the time, when I declare a parameter ByVal, I don't actually change
> >it within the routine. Instead, it's usually just to tell the caller
> >(and COM) what my intentions are. I wonder just how much of VB's
> >reputation for slowness really comes from gratuitous string copying.
> >
>
> Why not just pass by reference and write a comment?
> ' ByRef Parameter String Key is not modified by this function.

So much for self-documenting interfaces.

--
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!

[Rune Bivrin]

How about a ByAccident? That would catch the gist of ByRef with a comment.

Rune Bivrin

"John Proffitt" <bogon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3aaa60ee$1@news.devx.com...
>
> "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
> >
> >modify a string whose reference count is greater than one. Most of
> >the time, when I declare a parameter ByVal, I don't actually change
> >it within the routine. Instead, it's usually just to tell the caller
> >(and COM) what my intentions are. I wonder just how much of VB's
> >reputation for slowness really comes from gratuitous string copying.
> >
>
> Why not just pass by reference and write a comment?
> ' ByRef Parameter String Key is not modified by this function.
>
> John
>

[Mike Mitchell]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:49:16 -0600, "Jacob Grass"
<JGrass@abilitisolutions.com> wrote:

>Back to your example, did you learn to drive strictly from the vehicle's
>manual? Didn't think so. . . .

Not to become distracted by your refusal to see the simple sense of
your own reponse, this is part of what you originally wrote, referring
to the help docs: "...You cannot dump that much info into someone's
lap and expect them to be abvle [sic] to find anything."

Well, I say that a help file from which any first-time user cannot be
expected to find any information is useless. It has failed as a help
file.

MM

[Richard Curzon]

>Seems to me that just about every programming language has some OO variant
> to it nowadays. My beef with OOP languages is that by themselves they
don't
> bring much to table. The biggest hurdle most accomplished legacy
programmers
> seem to be encountering nowadays is that they cannot find a job where they
> must use something like Java or C++ on a daily basis.

Hard to generalize as always.

Sure, there are a ton of "new young turks" who still think OO is magic. And
makes design passe...

And yes they will be "Trouble Personified" til they learn what Deborah K.
said. It has been true forever, and will be true forever, regardless of the
hype about the latest silver bullet.

But also.... a ton of old legacy programmers never were that great either.

Today it's OO, but hype isn't new... in the 80's it was the ADT (abstract
data type). If the our legacy programmer didn't pick up on that back then,
it's a good sign they just aren't very good coders anyway. Probably content
to repeat the same coding assignment over and over.

For those who DID care back then, there WAS a wealth of wisdom out there
about encapsulation (e.g. ADT), information hiding vs exposure in good
design. And put into your own designs, pretty much regardless of what tools
you were using.

Having done that, these folks come to dot-net and Java, and see see not much
difference between these objects and the ADT they used already.

They will see those OO compiler features and understand "why" they are
there, how they help do what they were doing anyway. And also that they
don't guarantee a thing, leaving the big part called "design" left to be
done. In other words, they SHOULD be just what today's project manger
needs.

But if this old timer goes for a new tech job interview, planning to say "No
OO, cuz my boss never sent me on the training"... don't bother.

You are not going to find a new technology job and you don't deserve one.
You have to take the initiative, make your resume say what you need it to
say... train YOURSELF, you be the one that does the "VB6 OO GUI or middle
tier layer" on your next COBOL project. But sadly, chances are if you
haven't already done that, you aren't the type who will do it.

regards
Richard.

[John Proffitt]

"Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
>"John Proffitt" <bogon@earthlink.net> wrote in message <news:3aaa60ee$1@news.devx.com>...
>
>> Why not just pass by reference and write a comment?
>> ' ByRef Parameter String Key is not modified by this function.
>
>So much for self-documenting interfaces.
>

Surely documentation is a secondary function of an interface. The primary
function is to Run Real Good.

In VB you can use the wonderful ClassWizard doodad (or an external editor
and Special Magic) to apply comments that show up in the Class Browser.
Documentation _is_ a primary function of comments.

JBP

[Jacob Grass]

> this is part of what you originally wrote, referring
> to the help docs: "...You cannot dump that much info into someone's
> lap and expect them to be abvle [sic] to find anything."

Actually, Jonathan wrote that, not me. . . However, I do agree with him to a
certain extent.

>
> Well, I say that a help file from which any first-time user cannot be
> expected to find any information is useless. It has failed as a help
> file.
>

A first-time user can find information, however, it may not be the
information that they were looking for. Using a vast tool requires
assistance, plain and simple. The help files should not be a tutorial on
how to program if you have no experience. If someone needs that, then they
need a mentor, a class, or a book. However, if you need to find syntax or a
class hierarchy, then the help files work just fine. Keep in mind, though,
the help files are currently incomplete.

Jacob

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"John Proffitt" <bogon@earthlink.net> wrote in message <news:3aac5291$1@news.devx.com>...

> "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
> >"John Proffitt" <bogon@earthlink.net> wrote in message <news:3aaa60ee$1@news.devx.com>...
> >
> >> Why not just pass by reference and write a comment?
> >> ' ByRef Parameter String Key is not modified by this function.
> >
> >So much for self-documenting interfaces.
> >
>
> Surely documentation is a secondary function of an interface. The primary
> function is to Run Real Good.

Then ByValInByRefsClothing is butt****ed, since it would not Run Real
Good anyway. I like the ByAccident or ByBlindFaith proposal, which
might act like ByRef when no marshaling is needed and ByVal across
marshaling boundaries. This still isn't as good as "magic memory"
however, but MS screwed that particular pooch over ten years ago...

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> "Regged" again? <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!

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Larry --

> Was that it? I thought he agrreed with my statement:
>
> > MS knew what they were shoveling at us, they gave us a garbage collector to help
> > tidy up...

I liked that one, too. :-)

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

[John Proffitt]

"Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
>"John Proffitt" <bogon@earthlink.net> wrote in message <news:3aac5291$1@news.devx.com>...
>
>> "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
>> >"John Proffitt" <bogon@earthlink.net> wrote in message <news:3aaa60ee$1@news.devx.com>...
>> >
>> >> Why not just pass by reference and write a comment?
>> >> ' ByRef Parameter String Key is not modified by this function.
>> >
>> >So much for self-documenting interfaces.
>> >
>>
>> Surely documentation is a secondary function of an interface. The primary
>> function is to Run Real Good.
>
>Then ByValInByRefsClothing is butt****ed, since it would not Run Real
>Good anyway. I like the ByAccident or ByBlindFaith proposal, which
>might act like ByRef when no marshaling is needed and ByVal across
>marshaling boundaries. This still isn't as good as "magic memory"
>however, but MS screwed that particular pooch over ten years ago...
>

Uh, is this about programming, or pederasty, or animal husbandry?

JBP

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"John Proffitt" <bogon@earthlink.net> wrote in message <news:3aae0aee$1@news.devx.com>...

> "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:

> >Then ByValInByRefsClothing is butt****ed, since it would not Run Real
> >Good anyway. I like the ByAccident or ByBlindFaith proposal, which
> >might act like ByRef when no marshaling is needed and ByVal across
> >marshaling boundaries. This still isn't as good as "magic memory"
> >however, but MS screwed that particular pooch over ten years ago...
> >
>
> Uh, is this about programming, or pederasty, or animal husbandry?

Programming, but it often seems like something else altogether. I
know, VB needs to reuse Const like C++ does. Parameters might be
declared Const ByRef, so there's no gratuitous copying, yet callers
(and marshaling) can be assured that the routine isn't going to
stomp them. What about objects? Methods would have to be marked
Const to indicate that they don't stomp their owners and would thus
be OK to use with a Const object. What next, multiple inheritance?
Aargh...

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Space Cooties! <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!

[John Proffitt]

"Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
>
>... VB needs to reuse Const like C++ does. Parameters might be
>declared Const ByRef, so there's no gratuitous copying, yet callers
>(and marshaling) can be assured that the routine isn't going to
>stomp them. What about objects? Methods would have to be marked
>Const to indicate that they don't stomp their owners and would thus
>be OK to use with a Const object. What next, multiple inheritance?
>Aargh...
>

Yes, I think the keyword Const used that way would satisfy both of us, especially
in a public interface that you're going to sell somebody. When I first wrote
I was thinking more along the lines of code written by myself for myself
within an application where it would not be subject to external manipulation
or misconstrual.

As far as nifty language features go, Microsoft seems loath to implement
templates. They talk up inheritance, but for a lot of problems type-safe
parameterization by type would be nice. Variants are not the same.

John