They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#? - Page 13


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 291

Thread: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

  1. #181
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:44:35 -0800, "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan"
    <former_mvp@nospam.trigeminal.spamless.com> wrote:

    >This is not realistic in any way at all. They can remove NEITHER C nor C++.
    >C is required for device drivers and C++ is used in products throughout MS.
    >Not only do they both have to work, they both have to *keep* working.


    Nonsense. They can do anything they want. They proved it with their
    decision on Visual Basic.

    MM

  2. #182
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 20:50:30 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

    >Gee Mike, I guess you don't know that I wrote half of one of the best
    >selling VB books ever. Altogether I've written about 1200 pages about VB
    >and related topics - mostly in books about VB. Denigration? Nah,
    >education.


    God, how many more times are you going to put in a plug for that book,
    which you only collaborated on anyway? Sure, it was useful to newbies
    at the time. That was then; this is now.

    >>I have said on
    >>many occasions that I could not care less about whatever languages
    >>Microsoft chooses to introduce into .NET.

    >
    >So then why are you here?


    To try and reeducate all the misguided folk amongst you, of course!

    MM

  3. #183
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 14:07:06 -0800, "Dave Keighan"
    <dkeighan@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Balls Mike.


    I'll take that as a compliment! Regarding the rest of your statement,
    I don't agree. Sorry.

    MM

  4. #184
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 15:18:18 -0800, "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan"
    <former_mvp@nospam.trigeminal.spamless.com> wrote:

    >-- not because I think it will die in flames (it will not, though I do I
    >think it will splinter a community that I have been on the fringes of for
    >quite a while)


    Don't be too quick to cancel that call to the fire department. Here
    are a couple of extracts from a piece published last week in Computer
    Weekly:

    "Many [IT directors] do not bother much with the Web -- sometimes they
    will dive into their suppliers' sites or look up something on a search
    engine but they do not routinely surf."

    and...

    "All this goes to confirm that today's IT directors are not dazzled by
    technology -- they are looking for true, tangible, measurable
    business benefits -- now."

    I still reckon it will be SEVERAL YEARS before ANYone will be able to
    report whether .NET has been successful, and in the meantime so much
    could happen that these ballpark prognoses are of themselves
    impossibly vague. I get the feeling from the evangelists however that
    the corporate world will be beating a path to Microsoft's door,
    demanding .NET the very minute they open the gates (!) and let it out,
    but I think the world will greet the .NET launch with the same amount
    of mild curiosity that met XP.

    MM

  5. #185
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 17:39:01 -0800, "Dave Keighan"
    <dkeighan@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >> everything is a class,
    >> so everything can be an object?

    >Is there another way ?? <vbg>


    Are you trying to be funny or just winding me up?

    MM

  6. #186
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 17:47:20 -0800, "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan"
    <former_mvp@nospam.trigeminal.spamless.com> wrote:

    >They are scared of classes and if you ever told them that a form *was* a
    >class they might freak out and try to get rid of their forms, too! <g>


    Too right we are scared of classes! We've seen the heartache and havoc
    they can wreak. We know they are your passport to Obfuscators
    Anonymous, but we didn't dare inhale when the nasty man offered us the
    OOP drugs in the first place. Classes are, for the most part, totally
    obscure, unnecessary, and a waste of resources. You have more fun
    licking toads than writing classes. Why not just write some code, for
    God's sake, and stop all the buggering about with classes. Next you'll
    be telling me how we all need inheritance...!

    Yeah, like a hole in the head the toads can crawl into directly.

    MM

  7. #187
    Bob Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    In article <MPG.167e841897028b849896c6@news.devx.com>,
    rainsleyno@bodyspamsolutions.com says...
    > Dave,
    >
    > In article <3c11321d@147.208.176.211>, spammenot@nospam.antispam says...
    > > Bob,
    > >
    > > > > Personally, I think that VB.Net should be marketed as "VB.Net version

    > > 1"
    > > > > and NOT "VB 7"; because it really isn't.
    > > >
    > > > Who is marketing VB.NET as VB7? I hear a fair number of people complaining
    > > > that VB.NET is NOT VB7. Of course, judging from some of those folks
    > > > criteria, Visual Basic ceased to exist when VB4 came out, but they refuse

    > > to
    > > > admit it.

    > >
    > > MS is maketing it as Visual Studio 7 and the langauges as v7. But I really
    > > think that the current versioning should end with v6 and Visual Studio
    > > should be "VS1 for .Net".

    >
    > I obviously don't know how to search the MS site properly because when I
    > told it to search for visual+basic+7, I got 100 results and a quick look at
    > the first 10 actually were VB6 and SQL7. One that referenced the MSDN
    > download site said Visual Basic 6 and Visual Basic .NET.
    >
    > The same thing happened when I told it to search for visual+studio+7.
    >
    > So, I guess I'll have to take your word for it, but I'll have to admit I've
    > never seen anything marketed as Visual Basic 7 or Visual Studio 7.
    >
    > Bob
    >

    Dave,

    I just read in another post that you are in London. I'm across the pond in
    the U.S.. I wonder if we are seeing things differently because MS U.K. and
    MS U.S. are spinning them differently?

    Bob

  8. #188
    MarkN Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


    >Too right we are scared of classes! We've seen the heartache and havoc
    >they can wreak. We know they are your passport to Obfuscators
    >Anonymous, but we didn't dare inhale when the nasty man offered us the
    >OOP drugs in the first place. Classes are, for the most part, totally
    >obscure, unnecessary, and a waste of resources. You have more fun
    >licking toads than writing classes. Why not just write some code, for
    >God's sake, and stop all the buggering about with classes. Next you'll
    >be telling me how we all need inheritance...!
    >
    >Yeah, like a hole in the head the toads can crawl into directly.
    >
    >MM


    Yeah, those flying machines and motorized horse buggys are pretty scary too.
    You know what kind of havoc they can wreak. Scare the horses, crash into
    houses ...

    Mike is right. And you shouldn't give guns to babies either.



  9. #189
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    Mike,

    >God, how many more times are you going to put in a plug for that book


    Just pointing out that despite your innuedos I actually do know something
    about VB.

    >which you only collaborated on anyway?


    As usual you don't know what you're talking about. All of the work in the
    2nd edition of the vb-how to was mine. I ripped a bunch of pages and added
    400 of my own. And for the vb4 how-to I was the principal author, and
    wrote more of it than anyone else (with Karl on my heals all the time!).

    Yeah that was a long time ago. And what have you ever done except babble
    incessantly here?

    >>So then why are you here?

    >
    >To try and reeducate all the misguided folk amongst you, of course!


    I'd think that after all these months you'd see that you are making zero
    converts.


    --
    When freedom is outlawed
    only outlaws will be free.

  10. #190
    Larry Serflaten Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

    > Classes are, for the most part, totally
    > obscure, unnecessary, and a waste of resources.


    I cannot believe anyone who has had any significant experience
    with VB ever reaching that conclusion.... Classes serve an important
    part in encapsulation, one of the pillars of OOD/OOP. But even for
    'non-OOP' code, classes can offer a means of code-reuse, that is
    very convenient.

    LFS



  11. #191
    Patrick Steele Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    In article <3c14d18f.1403313@news.devx.com> (from Mike Mitchell
    <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk>),
    > To try and reeducate all the misguided folk amongst you, of course!


    Why not spend a little time to educate yourself? And I'm not talking
    ..NET -- If you're really into Kylix, I would think you could get up to
    speed much quicker if you spent more time reading about Kylix than
    "discussing" your misgivings about .NET.

    Are you really here simply to be a "savior"?

    --
    Patrick Steele
    Microsoft .NET MVP

  12. #192
    Patrick Steele Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    In article <3c14d5c1.2476718@news.devx.com> (from Mike Mitchell
    <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk>),
    > Classes are, for the most part, totally
    > obscure, unnecessary, and a waste of resources.


    Cite please? Can you show me a study that supports this?

    > You have more fun
    > licking toads than writing classes.


    I won't ask why you know that...

    --
    Patrick Steele
    Microsoft .NET MVP

  13. #193
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


    zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
    >>To try and reeducate all the misguided folk amongst you, of course!

    >
    >I'd think that after all these months you'd see that you are making zero
    >converts.


    If anything, he's hurting his cause. If there are any legitimate complaints
    about .NET (and there are!) you wouldn't know it from this newsgroup.

    /Pat

  14. #194
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <former_mvp@nospam.trigeminal.spamless.com> wrote in message <news:3c14ea28$1@147.208.176.211>...

    > Microsoft is not foolish enough to do such athing with any product they
    > depend on for their own products.
    >
    > THINK for a moment.


    Why don't you "THINK for a moment" about the implications of these, hmmm?

    news://news.devx.com/3b66ef69$1@news.devx.com

    news://news.devx.com/3b670ff7@news.devx.com

    "no you can't."

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



  15. #195
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    In article <3c14ea28$1@147.208.176.211>,
    "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan"
    <former_mvp@nospam.trigeminal.spamless.com> writes:

    > Microsoft is not foolish enough to do such athing with any product
    > they depend on for their own products.


    > THINK for a moment.


    Now that you think about it, are you really all that certain that
    they sell to the public *all* of the tools that they use internally
    for software development? Given their historical pattern of keeping
    significant OS details and tools for "in-house use only", the argument
    that they would not withdraw tools that they use from their "for sale
    to the public (and potential competitors)" offerings loses much of its
    authority.


    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

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