They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#? - Page 18


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 291

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

  1. #256
    Ian R Guest

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


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3c1696f1.17017916@news.devx.com...
    >
    > Well, I've tried a *bit* of it, but went back to procedural because I
    > felt I was just wasting time. A colleague of mine, very bright chap,


    A bit qualifies you huh ?

    > took it upon himself to write his next project as a pure OOP model.
    > After a few days he said, this is just crap, I spend all my time
    > writing code to support the code -- I haven't written a line yet
    > toward solving the customer's actual requirement, and I can't see the
    > wood for the trees with all the objects/balls I have to keep in the
    > air at once.
    >


    The project may or may not have required an OOP approach. If it did and that
    was the result then who's fault is that ?

    > Some other people I worked with were thorough-going aficionados of
    > OOP. They could bore one to tears with all the great things about OOP.
    > Without exception, the code emanating from these OOP folks was buggy,
    > largely unmaintainable except by them, slow, convoluted and complex.
    > One guy actually left the company because he was fed up with having to


    I've seen many cases with procedural code, as well as OOP code. In all cases
    it was badly designed or badly written code. Very rarely was it a case of
    one approach being used over another.

    > sort out their mess. Even I cannot blame OOP entirely for all the woes
    > there, but the fact is, if you are out to get the best results from
    > OOP you need to spend a heck of a long time studying it and working on
    > many projects that use OOP. You shouldn't need to think about whether
    > to inherit an object or write a new class, it should be just second
    > nature. And that kind of experience comes after a very long gestation
    > period in the case of OOP.
    >


    How long it takes will depend on the particular person. Once understood it
    can be a great tool. Are you saying that because something takes a while it
    should be ignored no matter what the benefits ? Following that logic, what
    are you doing programming ?

    > How many would-be OOP developers are out there who think writing OOP
    > is as easy as writing procedural? They read a couple of books and get
    > stuck in. Perhaps they're lucky and it works this time. But often OOP
    > will prove to be a lot more complex than they expected and that is
    > their downfall, and the project's as well, with the result that the
    > simpler, cleaner, procedural design can be better for the customer in
    > the long run....


    That's the fault of the developer not the tool. If a procedural approach is
    better then use it. Off hand I can't think of a case when that would be
    anymore.

    >... If you have access to experienced OOP designers, fine,
    > go ahead and make use of their expertise, but VB was always a


    Or learn both.

    > "BEGINNER'S ALL-PURPOSE" language, a language designed to facilitate
    > quick results in the days when many people still wrote in Assembler.


    And has progressed whether you like it or not.

    > And it's with VB programmers who have never gotten into OOP who will
    > find learning, or trying to learn, VB.NET a pain in the ***. They will


    Any VB programmer will be able to use VB.NET. Not to it's full potentiel (if
    they're not used to objects) but at least to the same extent as with VB5/6.
    Those who do will be more productive. Saying otherwise without at least
    seeing for yourself is pretty ignorant.

    > not become productive unless they stick with it over several projects,
    > and who is going to carry them while they're doing that? Maybe they
    > are keen enough to spend time at home studying the intricacies of
    > those 5,000 namespaces. ...


    You don't have to use every object in the namespace. Any developer who can
    understand the VB6 forms design can understand the .NET WinForms design. Any
    developer who can use DAO or ADO objects will be able to use ADO.NET
    objects. Any developer who can drop controls on a form in VB6 can drop
    controls on a form in VS.NET. There may very well be a couple of exceptions
    but I would seriously question the ability of any VB6 developer who couldn't
    do this. Got the point yet ?

    >... But genuine, actual, projects can only really


    Define genuine and actual.

    > be done in the normal working environment where the project may need
    > fast web access, SQL Server, IIS, etc etc. All manner of supporting
    > stuff that just isn't going to be available at home.


    VS.NET ships with all that. Whether you need or use it is up to you.

    >
    > If, however, the transition to VB.NET had been made as (relatively)
    > painless as the move from VB3 to VB4/5/6, then they could have picked


    The migration might have been made better but I suspect that unless it hit a
    100% which is pretty impossible considering the changes there'd still be
    some people *****ing.

    > up the new bits they'd need gradually, while still being able to rely
    > on REUSING their knowledge and experience gained within the
    > VB1/2/3/4/5/6 world.


    They can use their existing skills as it stands now with .NET.




  2. #257
    Ian R Guest

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


    "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
    news:3c169f56@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > It's too bad, really, that VB.NOT takes away one of the most useful ways
    > to use classes, the "resource acquisition is initialization" idiom:
    >


    But in most cases this isn't a problem. Where it is, one can dispose of the
    object. Admittedly this leaves the onus on the developer but it's our job to
    write proper code... maybe guilds should be brought back... grin...



  3. #258
    Markn Guest

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


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On 11 Dec 2001 19:19:02 GMT, "MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>So you don't use ADO, MSXML, .... ?
    >>

    >
    >Of course I use ADO. I use Microsoft's object model, Dim object
    >variables for connections, recordsets and so on, and just use those
    >darn objects. This is practically the same as dropping a button
    >control on to a form and hooking it up to some functionality. But as
    >for writing my own classes (apart from when I'm developing an add-in),
    >I'm not interested, since all I want or need to do I can do without
    >classes. Maybe the day will come when there is something that I want
    >to do that absolutely mandates the writing of a class.
    >
    >But I doubt it.
    >
    >MM


    Wow. Another flash of light. I see your point. No one would have gotten
    this from your other posts. Can some things be glued together? Yes. If
    you can get away with it. But most of the things I do need to have classes
    created. I think you could be shown (assuming you are willing to see) that
    a least some of your projects could be better served if you created some
    classes.

    Mark


  4. #259
    MarkN Guest

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


    "Phil Weber" <pweberonline@fawcette.com> wrote:
    > > Genuine, actual, projects can only really be done in the normal
    > > working environment where the project may need fast Web access,
    > > SQL Server, IIS, etc. etc. All manner of supporting stuff that just
    > > isn't going to be available at home.

    >
    >Uh, Mike, I hate to break it to you, but all you need to are two Windows
    >NT/2K/XP machines networked together (I have a desktop and a laptop) and

    a
    >copy of Visual Studio Enterprise. WinNT/2K/XP includes IIS, the LAN provides
    >fast "Web" access, and VS includes a development edition of SQL Server.
    >---
    >Phil Weber
    >
    >


    I do it with one. Can anyone with 1/2 machine?


  5. #260
    Craig Burkett Guest

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


    Zane,

    Just curious, you mention RC1 of VS.Net. Did they just release that? I
    just recently renewed my subscription (DVD format) and I only received CD-ROM's
    for Beta2 (I do not know why they didn't send it on a DVD) and I did not
    see any reference to RC1 on Microsoft's website. Hopefully I'll see it soon.
    I am really psyched about .Net (C#, VB.Net, etc.).

    Regards,
    Craig Burkett

    zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
    >On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 00:23:29 GMT, kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell)
    >wrote:
    >
    >>.NET isn't here yet.

    >
    >That's news to me, people are already buying internet components for .net
    >from us. See: www.mabry.com/dotnet - both Beta2 and RC1 versions are
    >available.
    >
    >>The denigration came from the C++ guys, didn't it? The VB'ers
    >>were always flying high.

    >
    >Times have changed. Now c++ and java developers have a RAD tool to use
    >when creating windows apps. Sucks to have competition eh, especially
    >talented competition.
    >
    >>So what do I have to apologise for?

    >
    >Uhm, let's see:
    >
    >Lack of technical expertise
    >Failure to make a meaningful contribution to anything
    >Daily rants
    >Bad breathe
    >
    >I'm sure I missed some, but that'll do for a start.
    >
    >
    >
    >--
    >It's never too late to have
    >a happy childhood.



  6. #261
    Patrick Steele Guest

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

    In article <3c1696f1.17017916@news.devx.com> (from Mike Mitchell
    <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk>),
    > >Randy summed up the obvious problem here -- you haven't actually *tried*
    > >OOP programming, yet you're willing to bash it?

    >
    > Well, I've tried a *bit* of it, but went back to procedural because I
    > felt I was just wasting time.


    It's not something you learn overnight. It takes time to learn the
    concepts and more to become proficient in them.

    > A colleague of mine, very bright chap,
    > took it upon himself to write his next project as a pure OOP model.


    Why? OOP does not dictate an entire project must be done that way.

    > After a few days he said, this is just crap, I spend all my time
    > writing code to support the code -- I haven't written a line yet
    > toward solving the customer's actual requirement, and I can't see the
    > wood for the trees with all the objects/balls I have to keep in the
    > air at once.


    I'm not knocking this guy, but just because he failed to succeed with an
    OOP approach does not reduce the benefits of OOP in general. You're
    using a single example or two of failed OOP implementations to criticize
    the concept.

    > Some other people I worked with were thorough-going aficionados of
    > OOP. They could bore one to tears with all the great things about OOP.
    > Without exception, the code emanating from these OOP folks was buggy,
    > largely unmaintainable except by them, slow, convoluted and complex.


    Ok, here's another example. A bunch of programmers produce buggy "OOP"
    code and that means the entire OOP approach is bad? I've seen some very
    buggy VB5 code. Since you use VB5 I must assume your code is very
    buggy. Fair assumption?

    > if you are out to get the best results from
    > OOP you need to spend a heck of a long time studying it and working on
    > many projects that use OOP.


    That's a generally accurate statement, but the time will vary from
    person to person. However, to fully master just about any programming
    concept requires an investment of time and research.

    > You shouldn't need to think about whether
    > to inherit an object or write a new class, it should be just second
    > nature. And that kind of experience comes after a very long gestation
    > period in the case of OOP.


    Ok, let's forget the bad experiences you've had with OOP and concentrate
    on that last point. Are you now saying OOP is flawed and useless
    because it takes time to master?

    > How many would-be OOP developers are out there who think writing OOP
    > is as easy as writing procedural? They read a couple of books and get
    > stuck in. Perhaps they're lucky and it works this time.


    Wait a minute! OOP *can* work? Are we changing our tune Mike?

    > But often OOP
    > will prove to be a lot more complex than they expected and that is
    > their downfall, and the project's as well, with the result that the
    > simpler, cleaner, procedural design can be better for the customer in
    > the long run.


    Poorly implemented OOP can derail an entire project.
    Poorly implemented structural programming can detail an entire project.

    What's your point?

    > Anyway, that's my take on OOP, so take it or leave it!


    Definitely leave it.

    --
    Patrick Steele
    Microsoft .NET MVP

  7. #262
    MarkN Guest

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


    I got a flyer in the mail last week inviting me to get it. Not sure if it
    was because I'm a MCP or have VS6.


    "Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Craig,
    >
    >They distro'd it at PDC. If your an MSDN subscriber you can download it

    from
    >Subscriber Downloads as well.
    >
    >> Just curious, you mention RC1 of VS.Net. Did they just release that?

    I
    >> just recently renewed my subscription (DVD format) and I only received

    >CD-ROM's
    >> for Beta2 (I do not know why they didn't send it on a DVD) and I did not
    >> see any reference to RC1 on Microsoft's website. Hopefully I'll see it

    >soon.
    >> I am really psyched about .Net (C#, VB.Net, etc.).

    >
    >
    >



  8. #263
    Jay Glynn Guest

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

    Craig,

    They distro'd it at PDC. If your an MSDN subscriber you can download it from
    Subscriber Downloads as well.

    > Just curious, you mention RC1 of VS.Net. Did they just release that? I
    > just recently renewed my subscription (DVD format) and I only received

    CD-ROM's
    > for Beta2 (I do not know why they didn't send it on a DVD) and I did not
    > see any reference to RC1 on Microsoft's website. Hopefully I'll see it

    soon.
    > I am really psyched about .Net (C#, VB.Net, etc.).





  9. #264
    markn Guest

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


    "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
    >"Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote in message <news:3c16a482$1@147.208.176.211>...
    >
    >> "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
    >> news:3c169f56@147.208.176.211...
    >> >
    >> > It's too bad, really, that VB.NOT takes away one of the most useful

    ways
    >> > to use classes, the "resource acquisition is initialization" idiom:

    >
    >> But in most cases this isn't a problem. Where it is, one can dispose of

    the
    >> object. Admittedly this leaves the onus on the developer but it's our

    job to
    >> write proper code... maybe guilds should be brought back... grin...

    >
    >So you propose patching one Great Leap Backward with another? Anyway,
    >I wonder just why the Mujahidin.NET must chant, "in most cases this
    >isn't a problem", as if it's a holy mantra revealed by Billah to his
    >prophets. Sure, today resource management typically isn't a problem,
    >precisely because of the "resource acquisition is initialization" idiom
    >that TEOVBAWKI will prevent us from using! Do you Finally see the
    >problem?
    >
    >--
    >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!
    >
    >


    Which way is Redmond so I can point my rug? "I believe that Billah is the
    one true Coder and Balmer is his prophet." Hurry it is almost noon there.


  10. #265
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

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

    "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote in message <news:3c16a482$1@147.208.176.211>...

    > "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
    > news:3c169f56@147.208.176.211...
    > >
    > > It's too bad, really, that VB.NOT takes away one of the most useful ways
    > > to use classes, the "resource acquisition is initialization" idiom:


    > But in most cases this isn't a problem. Where it is, one can dispose of the
    > object. Admittedly this leaves the onus on the developer but it's our job to
    > write proper code... maybe guilds should be brought back... grin...


    So you propose patching one Great Leap Backward with another? Anyway,
    I wonder just why the Mujahidin.NET must chant, "in most cases this
    isn't a problem", as if it's a holy mantra revealed by Billah to his
    prophets. Sure, today resource management typically isn't a problem,
    precisely because of the "resource acquisition is initialization" idiom
    that TEOVBAWKI will prevent us from using! Do you Finally see the
    problem?

    --
    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!



  11. #266
    Dave Lewis Guest

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

    > > As someone very famous (but I forget who) said: "There
    > > are lies, damned lies and statistics!!!"
    > >

    > I don't know about the numbers but Samuel Clemens said that.
    > AKA Mark Twain.
    >
    > Michael


    Aha. I thought that it might be W.G. Grace who said it, but Samuel Clemens
    will very easily do. <g>

    --
    Dave Lewis
    "Nothing is foolproof to a talented fool"



  12. #267
    MarkN Guest

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



    >
    >And so my discussion about components just went....whoosh!
    >
    >MM


    More than likely it was the air out of your logic that made that sound.
    If you had pinched it, it would have sounded more like 'Weeeeeeee'.

  13. #268
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 19:55:31 -0500, "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote:

    >This is like talking to a brick wall.
    >I know little about cars or trains compared to a mechanic. One of the
    >reasons I don't talk about cars or trains much.
    >You on the other hand know very little about object oriented programming and
    >objects in general yet you insist on making remarks and comments about it.
    >The same applies to .NET. If you were to say "I don't see the need or use
    >OOP in my line of work", that would be fine. OOP is a tool and may not
    >always be appropriate in certain situations. But to insist on making
    >uniformed comments about topics you know absolutely nothing about is
    >assinine.


    And so my discussion about components just went....whoosh!

    MM

  14. #269
    Ian R Guest

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

    No, your previous comments on objects, VB.NET and .NET in general.

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3c173d6e.6448385@news.devx.com...
    >
    > And so my discussion about components just went....whoosh!
    >
    > MM




  15. #270
    Ian R Guest

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


    "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
    news:3c179958@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > So you propose patching one Great Leap Backward with another? Anyway,


    I don't view guilds as a step backwards if they perform their goal of proper
    teaching, something the educational system today is somewhat lacking.

    > I wonder just why the Mujahidin.NET must chant, "in most cases this
    > isn't a problem", as if it's a holy mantra revealed by Billah to his


    Because in most cases the points brought up aren't a problem.

    > prophets. Sure, today resource management typically isn't a problem,
    > precisely because of the "resource acquisition is initialization" idiom
    > that TEOVBAWKI will prevent us from using! Do you Finally see the
    > problem?
    >


    Who said resource management isn't a problem ? I said for NDF, most times
    this isn't an issue. I should have clarified it further. For most
    programmers, most times this isn't an issue.




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