A moderate view. - Page 11


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 215

Thread: A moderate view.

  1. #151
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: A moderate view.

    Bill,

    I won't be replying to you again. Silence, as the old saying goes, is the
    best answer for a fool.

    Kunle



  2. #152
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: A moderate view.


    "Bill McCarthy" <bill_mcc@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
    news:3b0dfa68@news.devx.com...

    > Kunle, you have not presented any case for the redefining of Integer. You
    > have not present one single reason to do it, not any benifit to anyone.
    > Instead you have tried to ignore the disadvantages and have posted soooo
    > many posts trying to spread FUD about this issue, an issue which you seem

    to
    > have failed to understand or are unwilling to look at honestly.


    Bill, last time I checked, I didn't redefine Integer.

    I do however support the redefinition and would have like it to have been
    taken even further and be redefined as the native integer. If you want to
    know my reasons, read through my many other posts, the problem with
    communicating with you over the past few days is clear now....

    > So, clearly and concisely , try to state why Integer shoudl be redefined

    to
    > 32 bit in VB.NET then Kunle. Let's hear your facts. And then also state
    > why you believe thosebenifits outweight the disadvantages especially when
    > given the other naming alternatives.


    Read my previous numerous posts on the matter. It might help when you came
    back with more FUD (as we know you *will*).

    Kunle



  3. #153
    Bill McCarthy Guest

    Re: A moderate view.


    "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
    message news:3b0e39ac$1@news.devx.com...
    > Bill,
    >
    > I won't be replying to you again. Silence, as the old saying goes, is the
    > best answer for a fool.
    >


    ROFLMAO !! At least you admitted you are a fool. (BTW: the old saying is
    that fools should be silent)

    Oh, and your silence is appreciated. Please continue to remain silent at
    least until you are willing to discuss things rationally. You were given
    the opportunity to present facts, instead you played a silly childish game
    of dodgeball, refusing to look at any of the issues. Your silence is the
    defense of the guilty.





  4. #154
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: A moderate view.


    "Bill McCarthy" <bill_mcc@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
    news:3b0e05e9@news.devx.com...

    > > VB.NET fully supports IntXX. VS.NET has outstanding issues.

    >
    > VB.NET does not fully support IntXX. And yes VS.NET does have issues due

    to
    > VB.NET's overriding the IntXX keywords.


    VB.NET does not override anything. Please ask a friendly MSFT employee to
    teach you the basics.
    VB on the .NET platform is not VS.NET.

    > It is not a seperate issue. The failure to be able to use IntXX for Enms

    is
    > a direct result of them mapping Int32 to Integer etc.


    <*sigh*>
    A little knowledge...

    > > I believe Integer should be redefined as the native integer.


    > You have got to be joking. If you want native integer support then you
    > should ask them for a SysInt type you can use. Redefining the meaning of
    > Integer would jsut cause more problems.


    No, I am not joking. That is my opinion.
    And Bill, Integer *has* already being redefined. I just want the
    redefinition to be as a native int.

    > And as has already been pointed otu to you, the SysInt is of little
    > realistic use. If used in Math operations it runs the risk of giving
    > different results on different platforms. If used to access array items

    it
    > would require truncating to 32 bit as defined by the CLI docs for vector
    > instructions, so it would be less efficient as overflow checking needs to

    be
    > done converting I8 to I4. IOW: the sysInt is only of any real use when
    > accessing pointers, and that's what the IntPtr class is for.


    You do not understand the utility of a native int datatype.
    Nor do you understand the criteria for choosing between variable and fixed
    size integer datatypes.
    The restriction of array and vector indices to 32-bit is an issue for 64-bit
    and larger architectures.
    The compiler can recognise loop counters, array indices etc and apply
    appropriate optimizations.

    > This is somethign you clearly fail to understand. You don't seem to know
    > what you are askign for, and further to that, you ask for it to redefine
    > Integer thus causing more problems wiht compatibility with existing code
    > bases. This request of yours Kunle, hasgot to be one of the most idiotic
    > ever posted here. If you want a new type then name it SysInt or use the
    > IntPtr, as you have yet to provide any example when a SysInt would be of

    any
    > benifit at all. And you have also ignored the potential problems,* again*
    > !!


    As I keep pointing out, Integer has been redefined already Bill.

    You would do well to learn the facts, understand others opinion and offer
    fact and/or opinions of your own in support of your arguments rather than
    repeat incorrect assertions ad nauseum. You might disagree with my opinions
    as I do with yours. That's fine. You may not however present incorrect
    assertions as fact and expect to get anywhere.

    Kunle


  5. #155
    Bill McCarthy Guest

    Re: A moderate view.


    "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
    message news:3b0e4257@news.devx.com...
    >
    > Bill, last time I checked, I didn't redefine Integer.
    >


    Kunle, will you grow up and stop this nonsense. No-one accused you of
    redefining Integer. What I did say, is as your posts indicates, you are
    requesting it be changed again evne further. Making it incompatible with any
    version of VB.

    > I do however support the redefinition and would have like it to have been
    > taken even further and be redefined as the native integer. If you want to
    > know my reasons, read through my many other posts, the problem with
    > communicating with you over the past few days is clear now....
    >


    I have read your other posts and as I indicated you clearly did not show any
    reason, or any clear understanding of the broader issues. All you
    demonstrated was your complete ignorance of the issue.

    >
    > Read my previous numerous posts on the matter. It might help when you came
    > back with more FUD (as we know you *will*).
    >


    Kunle, I have asked you present your reasons. To present your case. You
    refuse to. Instead, once again you play dodgeball. The defense of the weak,
    the guilty, the defense of a fool.










  6. #156
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: A moderate view.


    "Bill McCarthy" <bill_mcc@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
    news:3b0df4b4@news.devx.com...

    > Hi Klueless,


    Cute <g>

    > You are the one making a big deal over "that guy". It was given as just
    > one example. The ambiguity is what increases the risk of making the

    error.
    > And yes you should fix the error of course. The issue Klueless Kunle is

    the
    > extrea time and the difficulty in trackign down those kind of bugs.


    So we are agreed that is mistake is just that?. A mistake?

    > ROFL ! You contradict yourself. (see below) No-onesaid Beta 2, jsut

    VB.NET
    > as it stands today.


    VB.NET "as it stands today"??. When only VB.NET Beta 1 has been publicly
    released?.
    Perhaps you will want me to run it on Windows 2000 "as it stands today" too
    (in it's post XP Beta 2 form) and ensure I have IE "as it stands today" too?
    FUD by any other name smells as bad...

    > "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote

    in
    > message news:3b0d841e@news.devx.com...
    >
    > >
    > > Incidentally, you may find this interesting:
    > >

    >

    http://discuss.develop.com/archives/...t&F=&S=&P=1400
    1

    > That's right Kunle, you post a link to a reference to later builds than

    Beta
    > 1. And guess whatKunle, your interpetation of that code was wrong based on
    > those builds and also if based on VB5/6. Get over it Kunle. You were
    > wrong. Just admit it and fix your error, k ?


    Incredible, now you've changed your tune to "as it stands today".

    Do you remember calling VB.NET Beta 1 "...a flash in the pan Beta product, a
    product *never* designed for production code".
    I suppose the interim builds you refer to are better than VB.NET especially
    as they were never released in the first place!!.

    Bill you ARE a fool. If Andrew's comment that Beta 2 does not yet exist is
    not enough to tell you something about your ridiculous "as it stands today"
    argument in a *public* forum, I can only conclude you are a waste of time.

    > You don't know. You, sir, are clueless. You cannot do a search and replace
    > once the code is in VB.NET. Can you spell Enums Kunle ?


    Oh?. The declarations of Enums As Integer in VB6 would break right?

    > > No the issue in that last excerpt was that you made a fool of yourself
    > > again. You accused me of falsely assuming it was a VB.NET program. I

    > proved
    > > you wrong by referring to your earlier comment. As always for you, on to

    > the
    > > next bullshit without regard for the facts...


    > Wrong again Kunle. Still in denial huh ?? I wrote that code in VB6

    Kunle.
    > Something you seem to fai lto realise. It was I who wrote that code and I
    > who posted that code. You cannot tell if I wrote it in VB6 or a later

    build
    > of VB.NET. You presumed it wasfor Beta 1 and you were wrong. I don't even
    > have Beta 1 installed on this machine. Admit you were/are wrong Kunle and
    > get over it. Stop your denial and deciept.


    I don't have to tell you what tool you used to write your code snippet. That
    is your job stupid!!
    If I need to use the code, I'll test it with whatever tool I need to use it
    with. Since we are talking VB.NET, I used the only publicly available
    version of VB.NET.
    I did not presume anything, I declared what version I was going to test it
    with and presented the results.

    > If only you would listen to your own words. The issue Kunle is about
    > ewrrors that are impossible to detect without knowing more than what the
    > code shows. That amounts to bugs that are harder to locate.


    Errors are *always* hard to detect if you don't know what the code is
    supposed to do. Code can't always show you that.
    So do what I did, test the code in your tool!!

    > > Bill, you are clueless. You have no concept of what an enumeration is.
    > > That VB.NET allows you to change the underlying type of an enumeration

    is
    > a
    > > new feature that is possible due to the .NET platform.


    > Kunle, you are wrong. You need to use Integer/Long/short for Enum
    > declarations. In fact you even admitted this in another post. (see below)
    > Why don't you do us all a favour and admit you are wrong. Just stop your
    > FUD. Your lies are nowing beginning to appear to contradict themselves.

    Oh
    > what a terrible web you weave when first you set out to decieve huh ???


    Bill, while you *can* specify an optional type as the underlying type for
    Enums in VB.NET, you don't *have* to. Please indicate where I said you "need
    to use Integer/Long/short for Enum declarations".

    Your lack of knowledge shows. A little knowledge....

    > "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote

    in
    > message news:3b0dc263@news.devx.com...
    >
    > > > As it stands, we can use
    > > >IntXX
    > > > syntax anywhere, except here. There should be no exceptions IMO - do

    you
    > > > disagree?

    > >
    > > Yes. I believe it should only be possible to specify the IntXX types and
    > > _not_ Short/Integer/Long.


    > so in which case were/are you lying Kunle ???


    Can you say "Kunle expressed an opinion"?


    > Klueless Kunle, read your own posts. You claim code out there is

    compatible
    > with Beta 2, yet when you saw code posted here you said it could not be
    > compatible with Beta 2. You contradict yourself again, sir. Kunle, you

    are
    > beginnign to make a liar out of yourself.


    How can I tell what is compatible with Beta 2 Clueless Bill, Beta 2 in not
    out yet!!. Of course, you probably believe I paid Andrew Jenks to make that
    statement. After all, we know about those interim builds with the Beta 2
    splash....

    > even more reason not to change the behaviour or And and Or on them then,

    as
    > they would never understand.


    Bill, they already *assume* it is logical. Which is logical and intuitive if
    you see what I mean.

    > > "In Beta 1, And was a logical operator - given boolean
    > > operands.....semantics nit performance.


    > Wrong again. See above.


    In VB.NET Beta 1, And is a logical operator.
    TRUE or FALSE?


    > Logical operators do not *have* to shortcircuit Kunle. As for Beta 2
    > behaviour, see your other post about interim builds. Get a Klue Klueless
    > Kunle.


    Logical operators shortcircuit Bill. And Bill, an interim build is just
    that, it is not Beta 2.

    > Wrong again. How many times do I have to tell you. It was I who wrote that
    > code. Remember Kunle ?? And it was not written in beta 1.
    > The fact that using Beta 1 semantics gives you a totally different answer
    > from VB.NET as it is today and VB5 and Vb6 highlights how bad it was in

    Beta
    > 1. Thankfully that has been fixed.


    It was I who analysed that code. And present the behaviour under the latest
    public release, the only public release of VB.NET.
    If you get another answer from that release please post them here or shut
    up.

    > Wrong again Kunle. See

    http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=hack
    > for definition of hack.


    Thank you Bill, this is what I found:

    hack [very common] 1. n. Originally, a quick job that produces what is
    needed, but not well.

    You are truly an idiot. <*sigh*>


    Kunle



  7. #157
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: A moderate view.

    Bill, please, please, please, GO AWAY!!

    You're trolling.

    "Bill McCarthy" <bill_mcc@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
    news:3b0df94e@news.devx.com...
    >
    > "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote

    in
    > message news:3b0dc263@news.devx.com...
    > >
    > > Yes. I believe it should only be possible to specify the IntXX types and
    > > _not_ Short/Integer/Long.


    > Exactly!! And that is not supported in VB.NET as it stands !!


    Exactly what??
    I expressed an opinion. My opinion. Why the exclamation marks about the lack
    of support in VB.NET?
    If I also expressed an opinion that Integer should be redefined as native
    int, would you be similarly enthusiastic??
    I thought not. Now go away pls!!

    > > I'll setlle for just adding the IntXX types to the current list of
    > > Short/Integer/Long though ;-)


    > No, that is unnecssary. If you have full support for Int16, Int32 and

    Int64,
    > you do not need Integer and Long to be redefined. Instead Integer and Long
    > can be kept purely for compatibility wiht VB5 and VB6.


    Fool. Read what I said above. <*sigh*>

    Kunle



  8. #158
    Bill McCarthy Guest

    Re: A moderate view.

    Hi Klueless,

    "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
    message news:3b0e52bc@news.devx.com...
    >
    > Exactly what??
    > I expressed an opinion. My opinion. Why the exclamation marks about the

    lack
    > of support in VB.NET?
    > If I also expressed an opinion that Integer should be redefined as native
    > int, would you be similarly enthusiastic??


    Exactly that you have proved once again you are a liar. You have repeatedly
    said that Int16 is fully supported then you say it is not. You sir are a
    liar !!

    > I thought not. Now go away pls!!
    >


    Once again you prove you are a lair. You said you would keep silent. Tsk,
    tsk !!


    > > > I'll setlle for just adding the IntXX types to the current list of
    > > > Short/Integer/Long though ;-)

    >
    > > No, that is unnecssary. If you have full support for Int16, Int32 and

    > Int64,
    > > you do not need Integer and Long to be redefined. Instead Integer and

    Long
    > > can be kept purely for compatibility wiht VB5 and VB6.

    >
    > Fool. Read what I said above. <*sigh*>
    >


    Hey fool, if you want to play childish insults move it somewhere else or
    STFU, k ??

    You haven't provided one reason for your stupid request. Only displayed
    your lies and ignorance.









  9. #159
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: A moderate view.

    Bill,

    GO AWAY!!



  10. #160
    Bill McCarthy Guest

    Re: A moderate view.

    Klueless,

    "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
    message news:3b0e52b9@news.devx.com...
    ..
    >
    > VB.NET "as it stands today"??. When only VB.NET Beta 1 has been publicly
    > released?.
    > Perhaps you will want me to run it on Windows 2000 "as it stands today"

    too
    > (in it's post XP Beta 2 form) and ensure I have IE "as it stands today"

    too?
    > FUD by any other name smells as bad...
    >


    what is up with you. Haven't been laid in a while or what ?? How many
    times do you need to hear the facts Klueless:

    (i) There are interim builds later than Beta 1
    (ii) MS has publicly stated the behaviour of And post Beta 1



    >
    > Incredible, now you've changed your tune to "as it stands today".
    >


    No moron ! You missed the whole point. The issue of ambiguity !! Geez you
    are really thick !!!!! The question, if you remember was to tell me what
    version(s) of VB it was and what the result was.

    > Do you remember calling VB.NET Beta 1 "...a flash in the pan Beta product,

    a
    > product *never* designed for production code".
    > I suppose the interim builds you refer to are better than VB.NET

    especially
    > as they were never released in the first place!!.
    >


    Moron, fool !! (see I too can throw insults)
    The facts are Klueless that MS has stated what the behaviour is. It's not
    my fault you aren't with the times.

    > Bill you ARE a fool. If Andrew's comment that Beta 2 does not yet exist is
    > not enough to tell you something about your ridiculous "as it stands

    today"
    > argument in a *public* forum, I can only conclude you are a waste of time.
    >


    Geez... read above will you you idiot!! How many times do we have to go
    over this ??


    > > You don't know. You, sir, are clueless. You cannot do a search and

    replace
    > > once the code is in VB.NET. Can you spell Enums Kunle ?

    >
    > Oh?. The declarations of Enums As Integer in VB6 would break right?
    >


    Moron !! Fool !! Try thinking. If you declare an Enum in VB.NET and it has
    Long or Integer as the type, search and replace would change that to the
    wrong one, and code that won't compile.


    >
    > I don't have to tell you what tool you used to write your code snippet.

    That
    > is your job stupid!!


    more irrelevant FUD from Klueless.

    > If I need to use the code, I'll test it with whatever tool I need to use

    it
    > with. Since we are talking VB.NET, I used the only publicly available
    > version of VB.NET.


    idiot. It was VB6 code anyway. How many times do you have to be told that
    ?? You have totally missed the point. You had to make an assumption and you
    made the wrong one !!!

    > I did not presume anything, I declared what version I was going to test it
    > with and presented the results.
    >


    see above idiot !!

    >
    > Errors are *always* hard to detect if you don't know what the code is
    > supposed to do. Code can't always show you that.
    > So do what I did, test the code in your tool!!
    >


    Fool !! Those errors are only detectable at runtime. It is bad language
    design !!


    >
    > Bill, while you *can* specify an optional type as the underlying type for
    > Enums in VB.NET, you don't *have* to. Please indicate where I said you

    "need
    > to use Integer/Long/short for Enum declarations".
    >


    Idiot. You said Int16 is *fully* supported. It is not !!!


    > Your lack of knowledge shows. A little knowledge....
    >


    oh another cheap insult. Wake up and face facts will ya Klueless !!


    >
    > Can you say "Kunle expressed an opinion"?
    >


    Kunle contradicted himself and proved he is a liar !



    >
    > How can I tell what is compatible with Beta 2 Clueless Bill, Beta 2 in not
    > out yet!!.


    Moron, if you would listen, you would learn !! MS has publicly stated how it
    will behave.

    Oh, if you are talkign about you saying soem code out there is compatible
    with Beta 2, well moronic liar, that was your statement in the first place,
    so it seems once again you contradict yourself.

    >Of course, you probably believe I paid Andrew Jenks to make that
    > statement. After all, we know about those interim builds with the Beta 2
    > splash....
    >


    Stop the nonsense fool. Just more FUD, trying to distract the issue that
    you were wrong. You are just entangling yourself into more lies and more
    FUD trying to cover up your foolishness.


    >
    > Bill, they already *assume* it is logical. Which is logical and intuitive

    if
    > you see what I mean.
    >


    They do not know their language. Must be friends of your hey ?? Birds of a
    feather ....

    > > > "In Beta 1, And was a logical operator - given boolean
    > > > operands.....semantics nit performance.

    >
    > > Wrong again. See above.

    >
    > In VB.NET Beta 1, And is a logical operator.
    > TRUE or FALSE?
    >


    idiot ! "performance" . Geez, you really jsut want to make a lot of noise
    don't you, instead of facing facts.

    >
    > Logical operators shortcircuit Bill. And Bill, an interim build is just
    > that, it is not Beta 2.
    >


    says who ?? You are contradicting yourself again. Before you said your
    friends think VB6's And is logical operation. It doesn't short-circuit.
    There is *no* requiremnt for logical operations to short-circuit.

    >
    > It was I who analysed that code. And present the behaviour under the

    latest
    > public release, the only public release of VB.NET.


    And what a terible job you did. You missed the whole point of the question
    which was asking you to identify what language it was in. It was VB6.


    > > Wrong again Kunle. See

    > http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=hack
    > > for definition of hack.

    >
    > Thank you Bill, this is what I found:
    >
    > hack [very common] 1. n. Originally, a quick job that produces what is
    > needed, but not well.
    >
    > You are truly an idiot. <*sigh*>
    >


    ROFL !! You really are an idiot. That page said :

    -------------------
    <jargon> 1. Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not
    well.
    2. An incredibly good, and perhaps very time-consuming, piece of work that
    produces exactly what is needed.
    -----------------------

    So must be 2 you are talkign about when you say AndAlso is a hack. Glad
    you like it, Fool !!!!!
















  11. #161
    Bill McCarthy Guest

    Re: A moderate view.


    "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
    message news:3b0e57fe$1@news.devx.com...
    > Bill,
    >
    > GO AWAY!!
    >



    Not until you stop posting lies, inaccuracies, deciept, and FUD !



  12. #162
    Bill McCarthy Guest

    Re: A moderate view.

    Hi Klueless,

    "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
    message news:3b0e52b6@news.devx.com...
    >

    ..
    >
    > VB.NET does not override anything. Please ask a friendly MSFT employee to
    > teach you the basics.
    > VB on the .NET platform is not VS.NET.
    >



    you really have no idea have you ?? The object browser is context sensitive
    to the developing language. VB.NET provides map instructions that make it
    display "Int32" as "Integer"


    >
    > <*sigh*>
    > A little knowledge...
    >


    something you don't have any of ......

    >
    > No, I am not joking. That is my opinion.
    > And Bill, Integer *has* already being redefined. I just want the
    > redefinition to be as a native int.
    >


    yeh, more of your FUD logic. Instead of fixing the problem you want to
    break it more.

    >
    > You do not understand the utility of a native int datatype.


    ROFL !! You have no provided *one* exampel where you would use them. Idiot
    !!

    > Nor do you understand the criteria for choosing between variable and fixed
    > size integer datatypes.
    > The restriction of array and vector indices to 32-bit is an issue for

    64-bit
    > and larger architectures.


    oh yeh?? You going to load arrays larger than 2000 million elements ? Yo
    ureally shoudl rethink your design if that is the case.

    > The compiler can recognise loop counters, array indices etc and apply
    > appropriate optimizations.


    exactly that's why you don't need to use sysInt for them. Fool !!!


    >
    > As I keep pointing out, Integer has been redefined already Bill.
    >


    well derr.... That idiot is not a reason not to fix it. You seem to think
    it is a reason to break it even further. Fool !

    > You would do well to learn the facts, understand others opinion and offer
    > fact and/or opinions of your own in support of your arguments rather than
    > repeat incorrect assertions ad nauseum. You might disagree with my

    opinions
    > as I do with yours. That's fine. You may not however present incorrect
    > assertions as fact and expect to get anywhere.
    >


    I have asked you to present the facts as to why you think redefining Integer
    to SysInt makes any sense. You haven't. You have not even showed one
    example of where you would use it.










  13. #163
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: A moderate view.


    > what is up with you. Haven't been laid in a while or what ?? How many
    > times do you need to hear the facts Klueless:
    >
    > (i) There are interim builds later than Beta 1
    > (ii) MS has publicly stated the behaviour of And post Beta 1


    Bill, MS has announced the Beta 2 behaviour of VB.NET. From Ari's post in
    the microsoft vb.net newsgroup:

    "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). "


    <*deleted moronic, baseless name-calling*>

    > > Do you remember calling VB.NET Beta 1 "...a flash in the pan Beta

    product,
    > a
    > > product *never* designed for production code".
    > > I suppose the interim builds you refer to are better than VB.NET

    > especially
    > > as they were never released in the first place!!.


    > Moron, fool !! (see I too can throw insults)


    That's *all* you can do Bill.

    > The facts are Klueless that MS has stated what the behaviour is. It's not
    > my fault you aren't with the times.


    See Ari's post in the MS vb.NET newsgroup, I did.

    > > Bill you ARE a fool. If Andrew's comment that Beta 2 does not yet exist

    is
    > > not enough to tell you something about your ridiculous "as it stands

    > today"
    > > argument in a *public* forum, I can only conclude you are a waste of

    time.

    > Geez... read above will you you idiot!! How many times do we have to go
    > over this ??


    Zero times. You too stupid to understand the facts.

    > > > You don't know. You, sir, are clueless. You cannot do a search and

    > replace
    > > > once the code is in VB.NET. Can you spell Enums Kunle ?

    > >
    > > Oh?. The declarations of Enums As Integer in VB6 would break right?


    > Moron !! Fool !! Try thinking. If you declare an Enum in VB.NET and it

    has
    > Long or Integer as the type, search and replace would change that to the
    > wrong one, and code that won't compile.


    How does this affect upgrading VB6 code to VB.NET?

    > Fool !! Those errors are only detectable at runtime. It is bad language
    > design !!


    Yes no good language would allow run-time errors.....

    > > Bill, while you *can* specify an optional type as the underlying type

    for
    > > Enums in VB.NET, you don't *have* to. Please indicate where I said you

    > "need
    > > to use Integer/Long/short for Enum declarations".


    > Idiot. You said Int16 is *fully* supported. It is not !!!


    And we change our tune again....from what I'm supposed to have said to
    whatever suits clueless Bill.

    > > Your lack of knowledge shows. A little knowledge....


    > oh another cheap insult. Wake up and face facts will ya Klueless !!


    No Bill not an insult. Just a simple fact.
    Your lack of knowledge shows. I hope your employers/clients are not reading
    this thread...

    > > Can you say "Kunle expressed an opinion"?


    > Kunle contradicted himself and proved he is a liar !


    OK. So you can't say "Kunle expressed an opinion". Figures....

    > > How can I tell what is compatible with Beta 2 Clueless Bill, Beta 2 in

    not
    > > out yet!!.


    > Moron, if you would listen, you would learn !! MS has publicly stated how

    it
    > will behave.


    MS also announced VB.NET as the next version of VB. From your comments, it
    would seem you disagree....

    > Oh, if you are talkign about you saying soem code out there is compatible
    > with Beta 2, well moronic liar, that was your statement in the first

    place,
    > so it seems once again you contradict yourself.
    >
    > >Of course, you probably believe I paid Andrew Jenks to make that
    > > statement. After all, we know about those interim builds with the Beta 2
    > > splash....


    > Stop the nonsense fool. Just more FUD, trying to distract the issue that
    > you were wrong. You are just entangling yourself into more lies and more
    > FUD trying to cover up your foolishness.


    Bill you *are* a fool.

    > > Bill, they already *assume* it is logical. Which is logical and

    intuitive
    > > if you see what I mean.


    > They do not know their language. Must be friends of your hey ?? Birds of

    a
    > feather ....


    <*sigh*>
    So people who do not know that Integer is now 32-bits are my friends too?
    They too do not know their language it would seem.

    > > > > "In Beta 1, And was a logical operator - given boolean
    > > > > operands.....semantics nit performance.

    > >
    > > > Wrong again. See above.

    > >
    > > In VB.NET Beta 1, And is a logical operator.
    > > TRUE or FALSE?


    > idiot ! "performance" . Geez, you really jsut want to make a lot of noise
    > don't you, instead of facing facts.


    "TRUE or FALSE?" and your answer is "idiot ! performance" ?
    You exhibit more of the the FOOL in yourself.

    > says who ?? You are contradicting yourself again. Before you said your
    > friends think VB6's And is logical operation. It doesn't short-circuit.
    > There is *no* requiremnt for logical operations to short-circuit.


    Perhaps you would like to point to example of logical operators in modern
    imperative languages that do not shortcircuit?.

    > > It was I who analysed that code. And present the behaviour under the

    > latest
    > > public release, the only public release of VB.NET.


    > And what a terible job you did. You missed the whole point of the question
    > which was asking you to identify what language it was in. It was VB6.


    You display even more of the FOOL you are. Identify the version of the
    compiler that you wrote your code in?
    The language is Visual Basic fool. That's all you can say by looking at the
    code. As for what it does, pop it into your VB tool of choice and find
    out...

    > > Thank you Bill, this is what I found:
    > >
    > > hack [very common] 1. n. Originally, a quick job that produces what is
    > > needed, but not well.
    > >
    > > You are truly an idiot. <*sigh*>


    > ROFL !! You really are an idiot. That page said :


    Bill, the correct phrase is: "That page *ALSO* said:"
    But a fool like you wouldn't know that.

    > So must be 2 you are talkign about when you say AndAlso is a hack. Glad
    > you like it, Fool !!!!!


    "So must be 2 you are talking about..."
    You now presume to speak for me too fool? <*sigh*>

    Kunle




  14. #164
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: A moderate view.


    "Bill McCarthy" <bill_mcc@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
    news:3b0e5c48@news.devx.com...
    > Hi Klueless,
    >
    > "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote

    in
    > message news:3b0e52b6@news.devx.com...
    > >

    > .
    > >
    > > VB.NET does not override anything. Please ask a friendly MSFT employee

    to
    > > teach you the basics.
    > > VB on the .NET platform is not VS.NET.


    > you really have no idea have you ?? The object browser is context

    sensitive
    > to the developing language. VB.NET provides map instructions that make it
    > display "Int32" as "Integer"


    The object browser is NOT VB on the .NET platform either!

    > > You do not understand the utility of a native int datatype.


    > ROFL !! You have no provided *one* exampel where you would use them.

    Idiot
    > !!


    I would but I already know that you would be incapable of understanding
    them....

    > > Nor do you understand the criteria for choosing between variable and

    fixed
    > > size integer datatypes.
    > > The restriction of array and vector indices to 32-bit is an issue for

    > 64-bit
    > > and larger architectures.


    > oh yeh?? You going to load arrays larger than 2000 million elements ? Yo
    > ureally shoudl rethink your design if that is the case.


    <*sigh*>, It is an issue because 32-bit is not the native datasize on a
    64-bit computer.
    Nothing to do with the number of elements I can stuff into an array.

    > > The compiler can recognise loop counters, array indices etc and apply
    > > appropriate optimizations.


    > exactly that's why you don't need to use sysInt for them. Fool !!!


    <*sigh*>, With a native int, it doesn't need to do any special optimizations
    and for other uses besides loop counters and indices, it usually can't do
    anything in any case.


    > > You would do well to learn the facts, understand others opinion and

    offer
    > > fact and/or opinions of your own in support of your arguments rather

    than
    > > repeat incorrect assertions ad nauseum. You might disagree with my

    > opinions
    > > as I do with yours. That's fine. You may not however present incorrect
    > > assertions as fact and expect to get anywhere.


    > I have asked you to present the facts as to why you think redefining

    Integer
    > to SysInt makes any sense. You haven't. You have not even showed one
    > example of where you would use it.


    You don't have the capacity to understand Bill and you've demonstrated that
    amply. I would be wating my time. Learn to accept your limitations and you
    may even one day find a solution. (Hint: education)

    Kunle



  15. #165
    Bill McCarthy Guest

    Re: A moderate view.

    Hi Klueless,

    "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
    message news:3b0e641b@news.devx.com...
    >
    > > what is up with you. Haven't been laid in a while or what ?? How many
    > > times do you need to hear the facts Klueless:
    > >
    > > (i) There are interim builds later than Beta 1
    > > (ii) MS has publicly stated the behaviour of And post Beta 1

    >
    > Bill, MS has announced the Beta 2 behaviour of VB.NET. From Ari's post in
    > the microsoft vb.net newsgroup:
    >
    > "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). "
    >



    Now read that carefully Kunle. It says "The changes are *currently* being
    implemented". And how long ago was that ?? Those changes are in VB.NET
    already as it stands today. Ari spoke the truth about those changes not
    delaying VS.NET.

    Thankyou for proving my point.







    <snip the rest of your drivel>




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