Brain Washing

[John Hilliar]

Will there be a BrainWasing.Net ?


zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:55:54 -0500, "L.J. Johnson"
><LJJohnson@SlightlyTiltedSoftware.com> wrote:
>
>>And this post is for
>
>And this post is for ... oh, nevermind. :-)
>
>
>--
>The nice thing about standards is that
>there are so many of them to choose from.

[Jacob Grass]

"John Hilliar" <jmh1@clicks.co.za> wrote in message
news:3b8dde36$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Will there be a BrainWasing.Net ?
>
>

I doubt it. Microsoft does a pretty good job of spelling things correctly.
.. .

Jacob

[John Milton Hilliar]

Thanks
Everything's sooooooo green


"Jacob Grass" <JGrass@AbilitiSolutions.com> wrote:
>"John Hilliar" <jmh1@clicks.co.za> wrote in message
>news:3b8dde36$1@news.devx.com...
>>
>> Will there be a BrainWasing.Net ?
>>
>>
>
>I doubt it. Microsoft does a pretty good job of spelling things correctly.
>.. .
>
>Jacob
>
>

[Dan Barclay]

On 29 Aug 2001 17:01:48 -0700, "Patrick Troughton"
<Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:

>
>Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:
>>
>>He even goes into defending the changes as necessary to the
>>implementation of .net (which even MS denies).
>
>That's a total lie and you know it.

Nope. True fact. MS knows how to implement each of the language
changes and have said so. Only architecture changes in the
underpinnings are necessary, not compiler specific language changes.

>We've gone over this time and time again
>and each time we've proven you wrong.

No, each time you've whined and whined but never came up with anything
but volume. So, if you want to get specific, let's talk about
specifics. You contend that eliminating GoSub from the language was
required in order to implement .net or that MS doesn't know how to do
it??? Read again: The questions are:
1. Is eliminating GoSub from the language required in order to
implement .net.?
2. Does MS know how to implement GoSub within VB.net?

I'll gladly go through these in detail if you like, then we can look
at another language change. Wend maybe? Array bounds?

>I'm not going to waste my time by explaining
>it to you again because you can easily search this newsgroup's archives if
>you really wanted to know.

Again?

>This post is meant, more or less, for any newbies
>who stumble across this newsgroup and mistakenly think you know what you're
>talking about.

You're probably right, I don't know what I'm talking about. I suggest
you ask someone who does. You might start with MS.

>BTW, I can't help but notice how ironic it is for you to post to a thread
>called 'brain washing' considering all the misinformation you've been trying
>to spread over the past year or so.

Brainwashing? YeaRight. If you'll point to some *specific*
misinformation I'll be glad to "correct" it or clear it up.

>It's no shame that you haven't been able
>to win many converts. Remember that the future of computing will move forward
>with or without you.

Converts? Not looking for converts. As for moving forward, I always
move forward. We've moved from CP/M - TRSDOS to here without your
(useful) guidance and we'll move forward from here without it as well.
Now, it's not clear what is "forward" yet. We're looking at .net and
other avenues... we also looked (but didn't bite) on OS/2.

Thought it isn't clear whether we'll be moving to .net, it does look
like VB.net is a dangerous place to put your code assets.

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

[Craig Burkett]

Well I do not know about all of you, but as for me I plan on being one of
the "new experts" as well as continuing to be a "classic expert". As a
matter of fact, due to past experience in OO Design I already have a leg up.
So frankly I don't understand the big hullabaloo (ok maybe I do understand).
But seriously, if you have a good foundation from which to build your career
on you shouldn't feel threatened by something new. Of course it is in my
personality to be able to adapt to new situations, which usually translates
into a willingness to learn.


"Danny Bowman" <danbo@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3b89c869$1@news.devx.com...
>
> In his article "VB.NET Raises Hackles", Russel Jones is so full of
Microsoft
> propagandistic crap that it makes me want to vomit. It is amazing how the
> power-hungry, paranoid crooks in Redmond can entice such mindless idiots
> like this to pontificate such absolute nonsense. .NET does nothing to
advance
> our technology. It is purely another Microsoft ploy to maintain their
strangle-hold
> on the PC and software industry. This guy is just a puppet who hasn't a
> clue as to how his own thought process has been infested and controlled.
>
>

[Richard Curzon]

Well maybe this is a more acceptable viewpoint, even if you agree to
disagree.


(A) VB.net could have hidden the .net framework details, padded everything
in the framework over so it looks pretty much like VB6. At least from
inside the special padded IDE.

Simulating VB6 within dotnot would be akin to:

Other dotnet languages put the programmer is in the driver's seat. In VB,
the programmer is tied up in the trunk. <g>. Okay, let's say he's on the
holodeck simulating that he's in VB6, and burning inefficient chunks of
computing resources to twist reality and preserve the illusion.

Note: this might hide syntax changes (aka "improvements") effectively. Is
that all there is? I think not....

It'd still lose in all kinds of ways not mentioned: the .vbp file wouldn't
be the same. The product distribution would be completely different. While
we're arguing syntax, we haven't even got to dozens of other things would
still throw people off seriously. Ultimately, it'd be a freak waste of time
IMO, but that's my opinion.



OR......

(B) or the obvious, best solution: two Basics from MS.

** Give us a REAL dot net language, call it BASIC.NET. Let it even create
generic types in V2, why not?

** Give the people who need the world not to change, whose environments
possibly even are BETTER for the old architecture, yes, give them the VB6+1
option.

In other words two products. Why just one?

As if the market share of Basic didn't permit two implementations! MS has
the talent pool already and needs to hardly change VB6 at all to issue a
credible VB7 that is NOT-DOT.

Probably, even less expensive to do than the days they supported DOS basic
and VB. But that's not the point. The point is the boost it will give to
competitive products, if old style VB is scrapped at the height of it's
market domination. The foes have called MS stupid before, but that was just
bias... this would be 24 carat stupidity, the real deal.

regards
Richard.
--
-----
Live without dead time - Raoul Vaneigem
May I borrow your towel, my car just hit a water buffalo - Chevy Chase
Hate spam? Do what you can: www.spamcop.net customer

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Richard Curzon" <rcurzon@spamcop.net> wrote in message <news:3b90eddc$1@news.devx.com>...

> Well maybe this is a more acceptable viewpoint, even if you agree to
> disagree.

> (B) or the obvious, best solution: two Basics from MS.
>
> ** Give us a REAL dot net language, call it BASIC.NET. Let it even create
> generic types in V2, why not?
>
> ** Give the people who need the world not to change, whose environments
> possibly even are BETTER for the old architecture, yes, give them the VB6+1
> option.
>
> In other words two products. Why just one?

Been there, done that, saved the Flames.NET. Stop "looking in the wrong
direction"!

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> 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!

[Jeff Pipes]

Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:
>No, each time you've whined and whined but never came up with anything
>but volume.

ROTFLMAO! Have you lost all leave of your senses? Dan, you've been whining
in this newsgroup day after day for I don't know how long. I mean, I've heard
of the pot calling the kettle black, but you take the cake.

-Jeff

[Gregor R. Peisker]

Hi Danny,

you gotta calm a little. Sure, poor Russell has done disservice to us
cheerleaders with his "Hackles" yellow-press-style editorial. But he's trying to
make up for it. Recently, he took to actually discussing technical issues in
another article. OK, he he forgot to close a file properly in the Finally
clause, but he did get the variable increment right:

http://www.vb-zone.com/free/articles...rj070801-1.asp

Regards,
Gregor

> In his article "VB.NET Raises Hackles", Russel Jones is so full of Microsoft
> propagandistic crap that it makes me want to vomit. It is amazing how the
> power-hungry, paranoid crooks in Redmond can entice such mindless idiots
> like this to pontificate such absolute nonsense. .NET does nothing to advance
> our technology. It is purely another Microsoft ploy to maintain their
strangle-hold
> on the PC and software industry. This guy is just a puppet who hasn't a
> clue as to how his own thought process has been infested and controlled.

[L.J. Johnson]

Jeff,

> ROTFLMAO! Have you lost all leave of your senses? Dan, you've been whining
> in this newsgroup day after day for I don't know how long. I mean, I've
heard
> of the pot calling the kettle black, but you take the cake.

Definition (new): Whining -- Discussing and/or defending points of view
which you (collective) don't agree with.

One should always get their definitions straight.

--
L.J. Johnson, Slightly Tilted Software
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
LJJohnson@SlightlyTiltedSoftware.com or LJJohnson@mvps.org
<http://www.SlightlyTiltedSoftware.com>
Ask The NT Pro at <http://www.devx.com/gethelp>

[Jeff Pipes]

Actually,

Whine -
1) To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear,
supplication, or complaint.
2) To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
3) To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.

-Jeff

"L.J. Johnson" <LJJohnson@SlightlyTiltedSoftware.com> wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>> ROTFLMAO! Have you lost all leave of your senses? Dan, you've been whining
>> in this newsgroup day after day for I don't know how long. I mean, I've
>heard
>> of the pot calling the kettle black, but you take the cake.
>
>Definition (new): Whining -- Discussing and/or defending points of view
>which you (collective) don't agree with.
>
>One should always get their definitions straight.
>
>--
>L.J. Johnson

[L.J. Johnson]

Jeff,

Actually, you didn't read closely enough:

> >Definition (new): Whining
^^^^^^^^^^

The new definition was based on purely empirical evidence, with your post
being one of the data points.

--
L.J. Johnson, Slightly Tilted Software
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
LJJohnson@SlightlyTiltedSoftware.com or LJJohnson@mvps.org
<http://www.SlightlyTiltedSoftware.com>
Ask The NT Pro at <http://www.devx.com/gethelp>

[Jeff Pipes]

I'm sorry, I thought we were speaking English.

-Jeff

"L.J. Johnson" <LJJohnson@SlightlyTiltedSoftware.com> wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>Actually, you didn't read closely enough:
>
>> >Definition (new): Whining
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>The new definition was based on purely empirical evidence, with your post
>being one of the data points.
>
>--
>L.J. Johnson

[Mike Mitchell]

On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 10:17:57 -0400, "Richard Curzon"
<rcurzon@spamcop.net> wrote:

>Probably, even less expensive to do than the days they supported DOS basic
>and VB. But that's not the point. The point is the boost it will give to
>competitive products, if old style VB is scrapped at the height of it's
>market domination. The foes have called MS stupid before, but that was just
>bias... this would be 24 carat stupidity, the real deal.

Totally agree. Fact is, I never used to call MS stupid. I always
thought the sun shone out of their collective ***, but times have
changed. The way they have screwed over classic VB and its
millions-strong following just shows they don't give a tuppeny ****
for their customers.

However, if they ate a morsel of crow and backed down on the
VB6/VB.NET issues, I would maybe start liking them again.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On 1 Sep 2001 13:43:31 -0700, "Jeff Pipes" <JeffP622@msn.com> wrote:

>
>Actually,
>
>Whine -
>1) To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear,
>supplication, or complaint.
>2) To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
>3) To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.

So, you've never complained about bad service? You've never had to
engage in loud argument with some jobsworth who refuses to acknowledge
your problem even when it's staring him in the face? Never had to
write a complaining letter or engage a solicitor? Always remained
cool, calm, and collected as the juggernauts of this world ride their
empty promises, their broken service packs, their rip-off offers over
your once-willing corpse?

Some of us don't like it when we're screwed over, and some of us
actually go to the bother of complaining. It does get results. Some
while ago our local mini-market was refurbished and under new
management. Their price labels on the shelves were often lower than
the price rung up at the till. I got sick and tired of making them
walk back to the shelf to see what the advertised price was.

So I complained to their head office. Initially, I got fobbed off by
some minion, so I found out the address of the CEO and sent an e-mail
to him. Now the store is under new management (again) and the price
labels are correct.

Now think of all the old folks who went into that store to buy goods
and think how many of them must have been ripped off, probably for
months. They probably aren't the sort who complain much, but equally
they are of the generation when people took it for granted that the
shop staff would go out of their way to ensure that business was
conducted fairly. In the case of this mini-market that was patently
not the case. In short, no one gave a **** whether the prices were
right or not. The general attitude was: who cares?

Well, I do. Call it whining, call it whingeing, call it what ever you
like, but don't come to me the next time your insurance company
refuses to pay out, or Microsoft revamps VB.NET, or you get bitten in
some other way.

MM