Another Good .Net Day

[Zane Thomas]

Yeah, 6 hours to write a nice pop component which supports both synchronous
and asynchronous methods with timeouts. Another productive day in .net
land.

Coming soon to a webstore near you:

socket/net
smtp/net
pop3/net
mime/net
ftp/net

:-)

Zane

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message <news:3baa7e2c@news.devx.com>...

> Yeah, 6 hours to write a nice pop component which supports both synchronous
> and asynchronous methods with timeouts. Another productive day in .net
> land.
>
> Coming soon to a webstore near you:
>
> socket/net
> smtp/net
> pop3/net
> mime/net
> ftp/net

Which, of course, have been converted from the equivalent /X components,
right? Which, of course, were written in August and earlier this month,
specifically with such a conversion in mind, right? So, of course, you
could claim the ActiveX/COM components took you much longer to develop
than "yeah, 6 hours", as it was in developing these that you spent the
time needed to learn the protocols you were implementing, right? You,
of course, are a fraud, right?

--
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!

[Zane Thomas]

Joe,

Aw, what's the matter, can tolerate a little joyful exhuberance by someone
who is having fun writing .net code? And what did you do today?

> Which, of course, have been converted from the equivalent /X components,
> right?

Wrong. As I've said before the new components were written from scratch to
take advantage of the new environment.


> Which, of course, were written in August and earlier this month,
> specifically with such a conversion in mind, right?

Wrong again, but at least you're consistent.


> So, of course, you
> could claim the ActiveX/COM components took you much longer to develop
> than "yeah, 6 hours", as it was in developing these that you spent the
> time needed to learn the protocols you were implementing, right?

Wrong again, but at least you're consistent.

I was intimately familiar with the protocol before I wrote the /X version so
that's not a factor.


> You, of course, are a fraud, right?

LOL - keep it up Joe, if anyone has failed to see through your charade so
far you're only helping.

Zane

[Mark Jerde]

<BG>

Joe -- I think you have many valuable things to say, but in this case you
are swinging by your ankles from Zane's trap... <g> Game, Set, Match!

Zane -- Sometime in the OR I need you to explain to me how the senses of
sight and hearing evolved, since while all the subsystems were coming
on-line and synchronizing over the millions of years the ancestors of humans
were blind & deaf... <g>

-- Mark (Just doing what I can do to keep the discussion
interesting...)

<BG>

[Zane Thomas]

Mark,

> Zane -- Sometime in the OR I need you to explain to me how the senses of
> sight and hearing evolved, since while all the subsystems were coming
> on-line and synchronizing over the millions of years the ancestors of
humans
> were blind & deaf... <g>

I think the very best book you could read about that is Climbing Mount
Improbable by Richard Dawkins. Very interesting reading.

Zane

[John]

Hey!whats wrong with this Joe guy.He is more are less like MM.
Shut up Joe.

later...

John

[Zane Thomas]

John,

> Hey!whats wrong with this Joe guy.He is more are less like MM.

Yeah, reminds me of the grinch who stole xmas too. :-)

Zane

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"John" <John@hotmail.com> wrote in message <news:3baac4eb$1@news.devx.com>...

> Hey!whats wrong with this Joe guy.He is more are less like MM.
> Shut up Joe.

Show me how wrong I am, and I'll gladly shut up.

> later...

Don't you have some more code to rewrite today, slacker?

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

[Ian R]

That would probally require cutting and pasting just about every post you've
made Joe. I don't think anyone is that interested.

"Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
news:3baadb9b@news.devx.com...
> "John" <John@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<news:3baac4eb$1@news.devx.com>...
>
> > Hey!whats wrong with this Joe guy.He is more are less like MM.
> > Shut up Joe.
>
> Show me how wrong I am, and I'll gladly shut up.
>
> > later...
>
> Don't you have some more code to rewrite today, slacker?
>
> --
> Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Sign the Check!
<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!
>
>

> That would probally require cutting and pasting just about every post you've
> made Joe. I don't think anyone is that interested.

The only thing that I would be interested in is that Joe an MM would shut up and go away to somewhere else so I don't have to read
through 100 messages of crap just not to miss the interesting ones.
They are wasting a lot of my time and my boss his money.

Jens

[Larry Linson]

<jens@esalar.be> wrote:

> The only thing that I would be interested
> in is that Joe an MM would shut up and go
> away to somewhere else so I don't have to
> read through 100 messages of crap just not
> to miss the interesting ones.

Ah, you want to be reading the "vb.dotnet.praisetotheheavens" forum, not
this "vb.dotnet.discussions" forum where there could be no meaningful discussion
without differences of opinion and viewpoint.

> They are wasting a lot of my time and my
> boss his money.

Oh, no, if you are reading a non-technical forum (as this one is defined
to be) it is _you_ who are wasting your boss' money. Perhaps some might put
it even stronger -- I've heard that kind of thing described as "theft of
services".

[David Rothgery]

"Larry Linson" <larry.linson@ntpcug.org> wrote in message
news:3bab542c$1@news.devx.com...
>
> <jens@esalar.be> wrote:
>
> > The only thing that I would be interested
> > in is that Joe an MM would shut up and go
> > away to somewhere else so I don't have to
> > read through 100 messages of crap just not
> > to miss the interesting ones.
>
> Ah, you want to be reading the "vb.dotnet.praisetotheheavens" forum, not
> this "vb.dotnet.discussions" forum where there could be no meaningful
discussion
> without differences of opinion and viewpoint.

Differences of opinion are good.
Arguments about the technical merits of X over Y are fine.
Endless repetition of the exact same personal attacks is neither informative
nor amusing.


--
Dave Rothgery
drothgery@alum.wpi.edu

[Patrick Steele]

In article <3baac4eb$1@news.devx.com> (from John <John@hotmail.com>),
> Shut up Joe.

While I could see a definite advantage to his silence, I would settle
for a little more objectivity in his posts -- and a lot less of his
"quoted" words he's so fond of using. If you want to debate the merits
of VB.NET, at least call it VB.NET instead of B# or teo..<something>.NET

--
Patrick Steele

[Phil Weber]

> Ah, you want to be reading the "vb.dotnet.praisetotheheavens"
> forum, not this "vb.dotnet.discussions" forum where there could
> be no meaningful discussion without differences of opinion and
> viewpoint.

Larry: Expressing differences of opinion does not require uninformed rants
or inflammatory language.

For example, if you look at Bill McCarthy's posts in this and other
newsgroups over the past year, you'll see that he's been far from a
"cheerleader" for VB.NET. On the contrary, he's been quite outspoken about
what he considers Microsoft's boneheaded design decisions, such as
redefining the size of the Integer and Long data types. But I have nothing
but respect for Bill and his opinions; he has actually taken the time to
install and study VB.NET, and he has not, as a rule, resorted to insulting
those who disagree with him.

Calling people "Cheerleaders.NET" and "Deluded.NET" who merely correct
inaccuracies in .NET detractors' posts does nothing to strengthen your
argument.
---
Phil Weber

[Patrick Steele]

In article <3bab542c$1@news.devx.com> (from Larry Linson
<larry.linson@ntpcug.org>),
> meaningful discussion
> without differences of opinion and viewpoint.

Meaningful discussions have gone on in the past without name calling,
hyperbole ("B#", "Cheerleading.NET", "TEO(something).NET", etc...) and
other distractions to useful discussion. It can happen again -- but it
takes a bit of patience and professionalism when you're dealing with
such a "hot" topic as .NET and VB.NET.

I think the last thing we need is censorship, but there's a definite
lack of meaningful content here. I'm not sure how to fix that...

--
Patrick Steele