They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#? - Page 19


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 291

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

  1. #271
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

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

    In article <3c1692f5@147.208.176.211>,
    "Dave Lewis" <spammenot@nospam.antispam> writes:

    > > > I find it rather amazing that, while I am trying to present
    > > > my arguments in a rational and reasoned fashion,


    > > ...an attempt which has fallen somewhat short of the mark...


    > That is your opinion, to which you are entitiled. However, I
    > would say that my arguments have been presented in a somewhat
    > more coherent, reasoned and rational fashion that my "nay-sayers".


    Of course you would say that, because you agree with the arguments
    you are presenting and disagree with those of your "nay-sayers". It
    is not uncommon to mistake such agreement/disagreement with
    rationality/irrationality.

    > > > some of those who disagree with me can find no better position
    > > > for their arguments than to make personal attacks on me


    > > Are you sure you are not confusing us with Zane, Ian, etc.?


    > Oh, quite sure. In my dealings with most other people in this

    ^^^^
    > newsgroup I have received nothing but courtesy and politeness, even
    > when those people don't agree with my opinions or arguments. And
    > since I mentioned no names (and still don't), why do you think I
    > am necessarily talking about you???


    You specified "some of those who disagree with me", and I am among
    the group who have expressed such disagreement here (thus the "us").
    And using "some" and "most" in the way you did is not a hallmark of
    "reasoned and rational" argument - especially in response to a
    reference to specific individuals.

    > > > and try to quote me out of context.


    > > Actually, you do more to take your own statements out of context
    > > than any of your critics ever have. See below.


    > I have taken nothing out of context, neither what has been said to
    > me 'nor what I have already stated.


    Really? You are now attempting to deny that you falsely claimed that
    your "decade" comment was made in the context of "a rather spurious
    personal attack regarding how many applications I have written or
    maintained"? Or are you trying to say that such a false claim about
    to context of that statement is somehow "not taking it out of context"?
    Either way, not a hallmark of "reasoned and rational" argument.

    [...]

    > > > Well, I don't take kindly to the personal attacks


    > > Neither do those of us who have been under such attack from the
    > > time we entered this group.


    > OK, give me specific examples of when I have made personal attacks,


    Such a shift (from the broad "been under attack" to the narrow "I have
    made personal attacks") is not a hallmark of "reasoned and rational"
    argument.

    [...]

    > > > and will *not* be drawn to that level myself and as for
    > > > non-contextual quoting..... well, my earlier posts are here for
    > > > anyone who wishes to take the time to read them, so why bother
    > > > doing it?


    > > Good question...why did you?


    > Are you asking why I posted my original comments or are you just
    > being facetious???


    Neither. I was asking why you falsely claimed that your "decade"
    comment was in the context of "a rather spurious personal attack
    regarding how many applications I have written or maintained."

    [...]

    > > > > [...]


    > > *** Note the explicit indication of deleted material. Note also that
    > > such explicit indications are vanishingly rare among the posts of the
    > > pro-.NET zealots.


    > Again, provide me with specific instances of where *I* have deleted
    > material that is directly relevent to the argument.


    Such a shift is not a hallmark of "reasoned and rational" argument.
    Note that my statement said nothing about "directly relevant to the
    argument" - a judgment that can be (and often has been) argued in
    any specific case. The indicator is a specific courtesy to the readers,
    indicating that portions of the post have not been quoted (and that
    such portions can, if desired, be found in the relevant post). It
    avoids the false impression that the quoted portions were all that
    there was to the post - or to that part of the post. It is also a
    specific element of the usenet practices (of which the practices of
    this newsgroup are a derivative).

    However, there is a very good example in the post to which I am
    currently responding. You deleted the statement to which I had
    replied "Happens all the time." Or are you trying to claim that the
    issue of WHAT "Happens all the time" is not "directly relevant to the
    argument" in that exchange?

    [...]

    > > > But if you don't like that simile, lets try some more.


    > > Interesting that you have to resort to such similes to cover the
    > > weakness of your central argument.


    > Not at all. I was simply trying to put my case in terms you would
    > understand.


    I already understood your argument - especially the fallacies which
    formed a significant part of the basis of that argument - and I
    simply disagree with it.

    [...]

    [NOTE: the following was in response to "Would you hire somebody who
    had no experience in, let's say sales, and had worked for 20 years as
    an accountant, to be your sales manager?"]

    > > Happens all the time.


    > Really???


    Yes. It is really quite common for companies to hire people with no
    experience in sales as sales managers, or more generally to hire
    people with no direct experience in the specific departmental activity
    as departmental managers. They consider the skills and background which
    are necessary and useful for managing an activity to be separate from
    the skills and background necessary for carrying out that activity.

    > I don't think it happens nearly as often as you imagine


    It is not a matter of what I "imagine", but a matter of what I have
    *observed* in organizations ranging from small local companies to large
    multinational corporations.

    [...]

    > > He said *absolutely nothing* about how many applications you had
    > > written, and the only way you could justify taking his comment as
    > > addressing (much less attacking) how many applications you have
    > > maintained would be to add the claim that *every one* of those apps
    > > was such a nightmare (which was not "on the table" at the time).


    > Fine, he made no comment about the number of applications I have
    > written, however he did try to imply that I have not had to maintain
    > more than a handfull of legacy applications, which is simply not
    > true and most certainly *is* a personal attack.


    What he said was " Now, because *you* have experienced a few (how
    many, exactly? A dozen, maybe, 20, tops?) badly written VB programs
    you want to chuck it out". If you choose to infer some comment about
    the number of applications you have maintained, that is an issue
    within your own head rather than a personal attack on his part.

    > > Your response to him was to proclaim "I have been doing this for
    > > most of a decade" - most recently at IBM. That certainly does not
    > > address how many such "nightmares" you had seen, and appears to be
    > > nothing more than an assertion of authority based on length of
    > > experience.


    > No, my response was to point out that my former employer, IBM,
    > have hundreds (possibly thousands) of badly written, badly migrated
    > VB applications which still need to be supported, merged or further
    > migrated and for which I was, at least in part, required to
    > maintain. To quote myself <direct quote> "they have very many apps
    > written in VB, written by a great many contractors" </direct quote>,
    > which I beleive addresses the point in question.


    How do you claim that that sentence fragment addresses the question of
    *exactly* how many "badly written VB programs" *you* have *experienced*?

    But let's take a look at the full paragraph from which you exerpted
    that sentence fragment:

    : Were you not listening when I said that I have been doing this for
    : most of a decade???

    .... There is what I described as "Your response to him was to proclaim
    "I have been doing this for most of a decade"" ...

    : The former company that I refer to is in fact IBM

    ....and there is the part I described as "most recently at IBM" ...

    : and let me tell you, they have very many apps written in VB,
    : written by a great many contractors who it seems are more interested
    : in the money that they're earning than in actually producing
    : usefull/maintainable code.

    Now, there is *absolutely nothing* in that paragraph which answers his
    question of "(how many, exactly? A dozen, maybe, 20, tops?) badly
    written VB programs" *you* have experienced. Nor is there any direct
    mention of "hundreds (possibly thousands) of badly written, badly
    migrated VB applications" in that paragraph. Nor anything about your
    relationship to those applications. Not even a word about the actual
    nature of the code (as opposed to your inference concerning the
    motivations of the contractors). In short, the paragraph does not
    *say* what you claim it does. Now, if you intended to "imply" such
    things in that paragraph, that is another issue which lies solely
    within your head. Basing your arguments on what you see as "implied"
    rather than what is said is not a hallmark of "reasoned and rational"
    argument, however.

    [...]

    > I'm interested to know where people are getting these figures from:
    > I see lots and lots and lots of "70%"'s abounding all over the place
    > from the nay-sayers for subjects ranging from "the amount of untrained
    > VB 'users'" to "the amount of peple who don't use classes" to how many
    > people had eggs for breakfast this morning. OK, I made the last one
    > up, but isn't it easy to quote numbers when you want to make a
    > statment???.


    The 70+% figures come from two sources - both from Micro$oft itself.
    One is a survey of people who use VB, which showed (among other things)
    that more than 70% of those people have never coded a class in VB. The
    other was a summary of the Registered Licensees of VB, which shows that
    fewer than 30% of such licensees described themselves as software
    professionals (designers, programmers, CS students, etc.). The groups
    covered by those sources are not the same, since the former group
    includes both (separate) VB licensees and VS licensees who describe
    themselves as using VB. Both were released to the development and VAR
    communities, and both have been widely discussed in this group and
    others - to the extent that many people here simply assume that
    correspondents are aware of them and frame their arguments accordingly.

    > > > If you allow people who know nothing of what they are doing that
    > > > amount of power, you are very much asking for problems.


    > > Most often, the scope of that "danger" is limited to a single desktop
    > > (or laptop), and even that is mitigated by the very "lack of training"
    > > that you cite as dangerous. As with any other tool, there is an
    > > element of personal responsibility involved in such use.


    > Well, they should count themselves lucky.


    Luck has nothing to do with it. Such programs cannot have any real
    effect on machines which they are neither running on nor connected
    to (directly or indirectly).

    [...]

    > That's just one case, I know there must be others.


    Extrapolating from a single point like that is not a hallmark of
    "reasoned and rational" argument, however. An equally (in/)valid
    point can be made by similarly extrapolating from an opposite
    example (such as the first attempted Space Shuttle launch).

    > > > But most of those people you mention in those situations actually
    > > > use VBA,


    > > Wrong! Those are the people using VB. The ones using VBA are a
    > > separate group. Why are you so threatened by that fact?


    > Uhm, I think not, actually. The figure of "3.5 million"
    > *includes* those who use VBA.


    Not according to Micro$oft. And in issues such as that, I am more
    inclined to accept their word than yours.

    > What makes you think that *I* am threatened by anything you have
    > said.


    Because you keep trying to slide away with claims that they don't exist
    or that they must be using something else instead. Which is not a
    hallmark of "reasoned and rational" argument, but is consistent with a
    perception of threat.

    > > > which is not affected by the .Net stuff.


    > > And that is entirely irrelevant to the issue of the VB users in
    > > question.


    > No, it is entirely relevant.


    How? They are different people in a different situation.

    > These people are the"users" and since they will not be affected,
    > the portion of the argument that says "these people will be
    > dissafected by .Net" is entirely untrue.


    But they are not the "these people" who were described. Why do you
    find it so hard to accept that?

    > > > > > VB is a language and by it's very nature doesn't have users
    > > > > > (the IDE is a different matter) it has developers.


    > > > > Wrong. By its very nature it (as opposed to the rest of VS) has
    > > > > both users and developers. However, VB.NET will probably capture
    > > > > few (if any) of those users due to its increased "learning curve"
    > > > > etc.


    > > > See the point above. VBA has users, VB has developers.


    See above and below. VB has both developers and *users*, according to
    Micro$oft (and my own observations) Why are you so desperate to deny
    that fact?

    > > See above. Your VBA red herring has nothing to do with the issue.


    > The VBA issue is *only* an issue because somebody stated that VB has
    > "users".


    The "VBA issue" is *completely irrelevant* to the issue of VB users.
    It is only relevant to your increasingly futile attempts to avoid the
    reality of VB users.

    > My point concering VBA is as much a "red-herring" as VB users and
    > is intended only to address that falsehood.


    IOW, you contend that *you* have *absolute knowledge* that there are
    NO VB users such as those who have been described here and elsewhere,
    and that Micro$oft and others are *lying* about their existence? How
    long have you been claiming such omniscience?

    Your claim is categorically false. I personally know more than 200
    such users in one local office of one company alone, and I directly
    know of (but haven't met) thousands of others in other companies. I
    also know and know of several hundred people who are personally such
    users (hobbyists and the like). All of them are using VB (LE, Pro,
    or Enterprise, v3-6). None of them are using VBA. None of the ones in
    question are using the "working edition" crippleware, either.

    > > > Anyone who thinks otherwise is either fooling themselves or are
    > > > in the camp of "VB is just a toy langauge".


    > > Big talk from someone who keeps trying to dodge the fact that
    > > millions of non-programmers use VB (rather than VBA) for their
    > > noncommercial applications. No matter how much you bluster, the
    > > fact remains that VB has both developers AND users. And the change
    > > to VB.NET will have a significant negative impact on those users.


    > I am not trying to dodge anything.


    That is not what your statements indicate.

    > I couldn't be plainer in fact.


    Yes, you are plainly trying to dodge the fact that those VB users exist.

    > Where do you get "millions of non-programmers" from???


    Micro$oft.

    > you would seem to imply that virtualy everyone who owns a copy of
    > VB is a "non-programmer" (since there are apparently 3.5 millions
    > of us who own a copy).


    No, just the 70%+ who have declared themselves "non-programmers" when
    registering their copies of VB. BTW, Micro$oft is going to great pains
    to declare that you do not "own a copy" of ANY M$ software - you merely
    hold a temporary license to use it under limited circumstances.

    > In my experience, only people who rate the expense of a VB licence
    > (ie, programmers) actually *get* a copy of VB.


    That says more about the limitations of your experience than about the
    reality of the situation. In my experience, companies with a "site
    license" often give VB to any manager or executive who asks. And many
    do not even have to ask. And whether on a site basis or individually,
    the cost per person of such a license is not all that much.

    > Anyone who wants to write non-commercial apps has to use something
    > cheaper (usually VBA because it's 'free').


    Why "has to"? Individual copies of VB (LE or Pro) have been as low as
    US $79.00 retail around here, and even less on ebay and the like. Far
    less than Office and other tools. Hardly a crippling expense. VS is
    somewhat more expensive, but not outrageously so. As is Enterprise
    Edition. And such "purchases" allow them to choose to "go commercial"
    with their app if they so choose.

    > Those who really do think they need VB end up (one way or another)
    > with a cheaper and less powerfull version of VB, like the Learning
    > Edition.


    LE is no less "powerful" than Pro or Enterprise - it just comes with
    fewer included "extras" (controls, wizards, etc.). And with the
    availability of free and/or inexpensive third-party versions, such
    a "lack" is barely bothersome.

    Perhaps you are thinking of the "Working Edition" crippleware that
    is used in some Academic environments?

    > As things stand right now, they will probably not be able to justify
    > the expense of moving to .Net anyhow,


    The ones who are paying out of their own pockets don't have to "justify"
    anything. The rest probably won't notice any difference in that regard.
    The killers are the steeper learning curve and the .NET lock-in.

    > but if they do and they like it then good. If they don't, they
    > still have their VB 6 or 5 and they can carry on using that.


    Until Micro$oft does something to render them inoperable. Not "unless"
    they do - *until* they do.

    > I really cannot see that that amounts to "millions of non-programmers".


    Then open your eyes, and take a look outside the programming staffs.

    [...]

    > > There's your VBA red herring again. The people in question are using
    > > VB rather than VBA, your attempts to dodge that issue notwithstanding.
    > > Now, if you are so threatened by those VB users that you cannot even
    > > acknowledge their existence, I don't see how you can expect anyone to
    > > take the remaining shreds of your argument seriously.


    > Why do you insist that the truth is a "red-herring"???


    I don't. I insist that your blatantly false claim that the
    non-programmer VB users are instead using VBA is a red herring.

    > Probably because it hurts your argument and so you don't want to
    > listen.


    No, that seems to be your approach. Micro$oft says there are such VB
    users, US companies and US offices of multinational corporations have
    large numbers of such users, and there are even "Users Groups" for the
    Hobbyist users across the US. But you claim they don't exist. Rather
    sad, that.

    > Again, you think that I am threatened by a particular group.


    You certainly act like you are. You go to great lengths to deny their
    existence, despite the available evidence that they do. You keep
    trying to find excuses to claim that they aren't "really" what they
    are. Those are the actions of someone feeling threatened.

    > Which mystifies me somewhat, since I have actually publicly stated
    > that I actively dislike them.


    No, you have publicly (repeatedly) stated that they do not exist.
    You have publicly stated that you dislike a different group:
    untrained or undertrained VB *developers*.

    > I'm not threatened by them at all.


    Which - the VB *users*, or the undertrained VB developers?

    > I do acknowledge their existence,


    Which - the VB *users*, or the undertrained VB developers?

    > but I say that they are nowhere near as numerous as you'd like to
    > think.


    Based on nothing more than your limited personal experience? I say
    that the VB users are FAR more numerous than you claim, based on
    statements from Micro$oft, my direct personal experiences with such
    people, and my less direct knowledge of large groups of such people.

    > > > They will still be able to use VB 6 if they have it.


    > > For how long? And how long will their peers be able to buy their
    > > own copies?


    > That's not my concern is it???


    It is when your answer to the issue is based on it (as yours is).

    > Ask MS.


    They are waffling on the issue.

    > > > IMO, they will be more concerned about the extra power and
    > > > flexibility that their development staff will have.


    > > One moment you can't even acknowledge they (the VB users) exist,
    > > the next you are telling us what they will think. Right. Of course,
    > > the fact that many of them do not even *have* a software
    > > "development staff" in the first place. But you won't let a little
    > > thing like that stop you.


    > Tell me then, how does that staement deny anyone's existence???


    "There are no VB users"; "You seem to persist in this notion that VB
    has "users". Not true,"; "VB is a language and by it's very nature
    doesn't have users"; "VBA has users, VB has developers."; etc. Those
    statements quite clearly deny the existence of the VB users.

    > And those comapnies that don't have a development staff


    I didn't refer to companies that "don't have a development staff" - I
    referred to individuals who do not have a personal (or responsibility
    for a) development staff.

    > (even a staff of 1) won't get much development done will they???


    That rather depends on what business they are in. But the issue was
    the individuals, not the companies. The salesman who does not have a
    personal development staff. The HR executive with no development staff.
    The hobbyist with no development staff.

    [...]

    > > > The point is, having parallel version of VB would be impossible
    > > > to maintain.


    > > Ohmygod! How did Micro$oft EVER manage to maintain parallel versions
    > > of (the much larger) Windows for all of those years? Which was the
    > > "impossible" one, the NT derivatives or the 9x derivatives?


    > Well, it goes like this: First there was Windows.


    Rubbish. The issue goes back to before CP/M - long before MSDOS/PCDOS
    and even longer before windows.

    > then came an NOS that had to be compatible with Windows, but was
    > aimed only at businesses.


    Not "only" - there were other targets as well (such as government).

    > These were sperate products that had seperate code-bases and
    > seperate development teams.


    Like the .NET suite and the non-.NET versions of the languages? So
    far, so good.

    > As the two came to look more alike and act more alike the developers
    > of each team tried to ensure that each was as compatible with the
    > other as possible.


    No, that was a mandate "from above" from the beginning.

    > This often wasn't the case and is understandable since they were
    > two *seperate* products. Now, since they were (are) core products,
    > what you might call MS's "meal-ticket", they had to maintain both
    > versions for economic reasons if nothing else.


    But you were claiming that it would be "impossible" to do so.

    > Windows 95 weighed in at between 80-150 mbs on a clean install.
    > WinNT 4 wieghed in at about 200-220 mbs in a vanilla install.
    > Win98 was not much bigger. WinME and Win2000 were much larger
    > animals and much harder to keep in sync so MS took the desicision
    > to do what??? Oh yes, make XP a "merged" code-base which was as
    > much for ease of development as any other reason you could quote.


    Not according to the M$ docs, or my conversations with relevant M$
    personnel.

    > VS.Net weighs in at about 600 mbs on my machine (and that's because
    > I didn't install the C/C++ stuff yet) and it can be quite a bit
    > bigger. Now, lets be conservative and say that VB.Net takes about
    > half of that - 300 mbs.


    That is far from conservative. A separate VB.NET - if it were ever to
    become available - would likely be considerably smaller.

    > So to create a paralell version of VB would take about the same
    > amount of code,


    BZZZZ! Logic error! A parallel, non-.NET version of VB - such as the
    strangled-in-the-womb VB7 - would take little more than the current
    size of VB6, and would use much of the existing code base. You are
    postulating creation of some entirely new, parallel product from the
    ground up, which is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand was and
    is that of maintaining and upgrading the VB6 derivatives while also
    supporting The .NET specific language that they have chosen (for
    marketing reasons) to call VB.

    > which as you can see is bigger than either Win95 or WinNT 4 were.


    Yes, and with such "logic" one can prove that a female dog has 5 legs,
    as well. Your base assumptions are false, as is your conclusion.

    > I think that constitutes a very large, unweildy code base.


    Yes, but an irrelevant one.

    > While I may have been hasty in saying "impossible", who would
    > willingly ask for that???


    Someone with solid business reasons for having it. Such as supporting
    a large existing base of users and applications while introducing a
    new set to tools specialized for a particular market segment.

    > > But that is not any part of the issue. There is no question
    > > whatsoever that the so-called VB.NET is a different product than
    > > VB 1-6 were. It has an incompatible syntax, different "mission",
    > > and a different projected user base. And a different code base.
    > > Maintaining both VB.NET and the (strangled in the womb) VB7
    > > (and later) would be no more difficult than maintaining VC and VB.
    > > OTOH, maintaining the significant commonality between VB.NET and C#...


    > I have never denied that VB.Net was a different product. You should
    > read the rest of the threads I've posted. I make it quite clear that
    > I think that VB.Net should be VB 1 for .Net. *Some* syntax is
    > incompatible,


    .... Enough to cause even hard-core .NET advocated like Zane opt to
    redesign and rewrite VB components in C# rather than attempt to
    migrate them to VB.NET...

    > yes but most is intact. The "mission" has not changed,


    Baloney. You just mean that it has not changed in ways that
    you don't like.

    > merely expanded. Yes, the projected user-base has changed, but
    > you already know why I don't think that's a bad thing.


    And therein lies the *major* shift in the VB mission - a shift of
    which I greatly disapprove.

    > and I have explained, at great length, why it would be very
    > difficult to maintain two version of VB.


    No, you have explained why it would be difficult to maintain a mythical,
    gigantic, created-from-nothing monstrosity along with VB.NET. You have
    not addressed the level of difficulty in maintaining and upgrading a
    line of VB6 derivatives while producing and maintaining the separate,
    quite different VB.NET line.

    [...]

    > > > Well, that won't be a problem for me and other like-minded
    > > > individuals who (as I might have mentioned before) actually know a
    > > > thing or two about programming and could switch to another language.


    > > But as you have so emphatically declared, you are a VB "developer"
    > > rather than one of the VB "users" in question (whose very existence
    > > you keep trying to deny). So the "lack of a problem" for you and your
    > > "other like-minded individuals" is entirely irrelevant to the issue at
    > > hand.


    > Yes, I am a VB developer and proud to say so.


    And therefore you are not relevant to the issue of the impact on the
    VB users under discussion.

    [...]

    > Again, I'm not trying to deny anybodies existence,


    So you now recant your earlier statements that the VB users in
    question do not exist? Or are you trying to slide away from the issue
    again?

    > merely stating that I don't beleive they are as numerous as you think.
    > It's not at all irrelevant to me. In fact it's highly relevant to me.
    > But to state thing a little more clearly, I don't care who gets left
    > behind, because my would will almost certainly benefit from that.


    Until enough of those "left behind" decision makers continue the trend
    (already becoming evident) of turning away from M$ tools (and consultants
    who use them).

    [...]

    > As for abandoning .Net, well the second MS do that VB will die as
    > a language.


    As far as many are concerned, it died as a language when M$ abandoned
    the VB1-6 derivatives in favor of the misnamed VB.NET. And if they
    return to such derivatives when they abandon .NET, they would likely
    reclaim much of that base.

    > C# will suffer a similar fate as will any next generation of
    > <otherlanguages>.Net.


    Absolutely true. Just as M$ killed J++, QB, and a variety of other
    languages and related products. So?

    > Somebody like IBM will make a killing selling VisualAge products


    Maybe, maybe not. It rather depends what products come to the fore in
    the move. There are many speculations that the move to VB.NET will
    result in a killing for any who produce a good "VB Classic"-like
    product.

    > (and set back IDE development by years) and lots and lots of companies
    > will start to question whether Windows is actually worth all the cost
    > and bother if they can't do RAD on it.


    Many already are. They see .NET as a giant step backwards, and a
    potential trap.

    > Simply stated, scrapping or significantly changing .Net (and
    > consequently the langauges that rely on it) will be the death of MS.


    Such predictions have been made before - with just as little validity.

    --

    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 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  2. #272
    Jay Glynn Guest

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

    Amazing. Look at how litttle you really said in such a looooonnnnggg post. A
    paragraph on the context of decade. 2 paragraphs on quoting and snipping.
    The whole VB-VBA programmer/user thing lost me after the 4th or 5th
    paragraph. Not sure where that 's going.

    FWIW the comment regarding Zane not migrating his components to VB.NET. The
    reason would probably be that they were writen in C++ to begin with. Zane
    can correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

    Dave, see what you started....

    And yes Dr Bill I [...]ed the whole post because even with my DSL connection
    it would have taken an hour to send the reply ;-)

    Amazing.



  3. #273
    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:3c17fa99@147.208.176.211>...

    > "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.


    History shows us that that's one damned big "if"...

    > > 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.


    However, as even Brian Harry [MSFT] had to admit, when it's a problem,
    it's a big 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 ?


    Zane, actually:

    http://www.devx.com/upload/free/feat...2/sidebar4.asp

    Oops, looks like it got yanked. Gee, I wonder why...?

    > 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.


    That's mere smoke and mirrors, since I've been claiming all along that
    resource management *is* the problem with NDF. One of the most useful
    aspects of Classic VB's classes has been torn from us. And do most
    programmers, most times really not work with such resources as files?
    Anyone might try to write to a disk file, get an error, and try again,
    only to get another error if there's been no intervening GC! Also,
    I'd sure like to see Phil's stateless CHourglass:

    http://devx.com/free/press/2000/102500.asp

    --
    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!



  4. #274
    Phil Weber Guest

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

    > Dave, see what you started....

    Yes, Dave, I implore you to be the bigger man and let Dr. Bill have the last
    word on this one.

    Some people seem to enjoy arguing for the sake of argument. In my
    experience, the best way to deal with such people is to ignore them.
    ---
    Phil Weber



  5. #275
    Phil Weber Guest

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

    >
    http://www.devx.com/upload/free/feat...102/sidebar4.a
    sp
    > Oops, looks like it got yanked. Gee, I wonder why...?


    Joe "Conspiracy Theory" Foster: Moved, not yanked:
    http://www.devx.com/premier/mgznarch...2/sidebar4.asp
    ---
    Phil Weber



  6. #276
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:46:34 -0800, "Phil Weber"
    <pweberonline@fawcette.com> wrote:

    >Joe "Conspiracy Theory" Foster: Moved, not yanked:
    >http://www.devx.com/premier/mgznarch...2/sidebar4.asp


    So what's with redirection. then? Doesn't it work where you live?

    MM

  7. #277
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:41:40 -0800, "Phil Weber"
    <pweberonline@fawcette.com> wrote:

    > > Dave, see what you started....

    >
    >Yes, Dave, I implore you to be the bigger man and let Dr. Bill have the last
    >word on this one.
    >
    >Some people seem to enjoy arguing for the sake of argument. In my
    >experience, the best way to deal with such people is to ignore them.


    I think you are taking this position because you agree with Dave's
    view and disagree with Bill's view. So much for disinterested comment!
    So easy to write off an entire response as simply enjoying argument
    for the sake of it.

    MM

  8. #278
    Phil Weber Guest

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

    > I think you are taking this position because you agree
    > with Dave's view and disagree with Bill's view.


    Mike: Not in this instance. In fact, I skipped most of both Dave's and
    Bill's posts: frankly, I don't care how long British motorists have been
    required to be licensed, and I choose not to waste my time reading > 25K
    posts arguing about it.

    I have read most of Bill's other posts, however, and while he is often
    technically correct, he tends to argue ad nauseam to defend his correctness
    on the most irrelevant of details. This smacks of insecurity (as does his
    repeated crowing about the fact that he was right and I was wrong about the
    behavior of the .NET JIT compiler), or of one who enjoys arguing for
    arguments' sake.
    ---
    Phil Weber



  9. #279
    Phil Weber Guest

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

    > So what's with redirection then? Doesn't it work where
    > you live?


    Mike: Many Web sites reorganize content without providing redirects from the
    old location to the new. I haven't worked for DevX since April, but when I
    did, its policy was to feature certain articles in the Free area of the site
    for a limited time, then archive them in the Premier area, which was
    available only to paid subscribers. If you'd like to discuss DevX' editorial
    policy in more detail, please post a message to the talk.editors.devx
    newsgroup.
    ---
    Phil Weber



  10. #280
    Dave Lewis Guest

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

    Jay,
    <snip>

    > Dave, see what you started....
    >
    > And yes Dr Bill I [...]ed the whole post because even with my DSL

    connection
    > it would have taken an hour to send the reply ;-)
    >
    > Amazing.


    Well, I can't say that you didn't warn me, huh??? <bg>

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



  11. #281
    Dave Lewis Guest

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

    Phil,

    > Yes, Dave, I implore you to be the bigger man and let Dr. Bill have the

    last
    > word on this one.
    >
    > Some people seem to enjoy arguing for the sake of argument. In my
    > experience, the best way to deal with such people is to ignore them.


    I had decided when I posted my last reply to Dr Bill that it would be just
    that..... my *last* reply (most especially 'cos it took *far* too much of
    my precious time). In fact I only replied 'cos he made me angry, which was
    probably exactly what he wanted. No imploring needed, I have uttered my
    last on that thread.

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



  12. #282
    Dave Lewis Guest

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

    > > I think you are taking this position because you agree
    > > with Dave's view and disagree with Bill's view.

    >
    > Mike: Not in this instance. In fact, I skipped most of both Dave's and
    > Bill's posts: frankly, I don't care how long British motorists have been
    > required to be licensed, and I choose not to waste my time reading > 25K
    > posts arguing about it.


    Frankly, I don't blame you (or anyone else, for that matter). I wish I'd
    bloody well skipped it now, too. I actually don't care about the licencing
    thing either, but it's sometimes far too easy to put a bee in my bonnet.
    <g>
    How on earth did that thread get so big in the first place???

    > I have read most of Bill's other posts, however, and while he is often
    > technically correct, he tends to argue ad nauseam to defend his

    correctness
    > on the most irrelevant of details. This smacks of insecurity (as does his
    > repeated crowing about the fact that he was right and I was wrong about

    the
    > behavior of the .NET JIT compiler), or of one who enjoys arguing for
    > arguments' sake.


    Oh boy, definitely agree!!!!!

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



  13. #283
    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:3c166be1@147.208.176.211>...

    > "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
    > news:3c165e02@147.208.176.211...
    > >
    > > "Intelligent encapsulated objects" = "only a few objects", right? After

    >
    > What are you rambling on about now ? Where did I say that ?


    So your "What overhead?" cack wasn't merely rhetorical misdirection?
    You really aren't familiar with the additional overhead of objects,
    either in Classic VB or B#? What's a little extra heap thrash between
    friends, eh?

    > > all, one of the things the Evangelists.NET bleat about is how Microsoft
    > > sabotaged Classic VB by imposing "unacceptable" overhead on its classes!

    >
    > What , no cite this time ?


    You want some?

    > I believe COM may have imposed some overhead but not the actual concept of
    > classes.


    Most "concepts" don't.

    > > Or do you claim that it takes as long to Erase an array of UDTs as an
    > > array of unique object references, hmmmm?


    > One of the disadvantages of DF. In this case you can't compare value types
    > to reference types.


    So something like Pooler is totally impossible, a mere med-fueled drug
    dream, eh? I must be hallucinating the overall performance gains to be
    had by doing my own object pooling for certain sets of objects, hmmmm?

    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40tkmsftngp03

    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm....supernews.com

    Here's what Pooler looks like these days:

    ----class Pooler----
    Private Me_InUse() As Pooled, Me_Idled() As Pooled
    Private Me_InUseCount As Long, Me_IdledCount As Long
    Private Me_LastCall As Long

    Private Declare Sub RtlMoveMemory Lib "Kernel32" ( _
    ByRef Destination As Any, ByRef Source As Any, ByVal ByteCount As Long)

    ' this is egregiously plagiarized and/or stolen Stolen STOLEN from
    ' "Hardcore VB" at URL:http://mvps.org/vb/hardcore/html/comraqs.htm
    Public Function VB5GetRefCount(ByVal Object As IUnknown) As Long
    If Object Is Nothing Then Exit Function
    ' Get count from magic offset in object
    RtlMoveMemory VB5GetRefCount, ByVal ObjPtr(Object) + 4, 4
    ' Adjust to account for references to parameter
    VB5GetRefCount = VB5GetRefCount - 3
    End Function

    Public Function GetOne(ByVal Value As String) As Pooled
    Dim p As Pooled

    If Me_IdledCount = 0 Then
    ' don't collect too soon after a previous unsuccessful collection
    If Me_LastCall <> timeGetTime Then
    Collect
    If Me_IdledCount = 0 Then Me_LastCall = timeGetTime
    End If
    End If

    If Me_IdledCount = 0 Then
    Set p = New Pooled
    Else
    ' get a recycled object from the "idled" array
    Me_IdledCount = Me_IdledCount - 1
    Set p = Me_Idled(Me_IdledCount)
    Set Me_Idled(Me_IdledCount) = Nothing
    End If

    ' add the new/recycled object to the "in use" array
    If Me_InUseCount > UBound(Me_InUse) Then
    ReDim Preserve Me_InUse(0 To Me_InUseCount * 2) As Pooled
    End If
    Set Me_InUse(Me_InUseCount) = p
    Me_InUseCount = Me_InUseCount + 1

    p.Initialize Value
    Set GetOne = p
    End Function

    Public Sub Collect()
    Dim i As Long: i = Me_InUseCount ' any seed will do
    Dim Threshold As Long: Threshold = 1000
    While Me_InUseCount > 0 And Threshold > 0
    i = ((i And &HFFFFF) * 1821 + 1) Mod Me_InUseCount
    If VB5GetRefCount(Me_InUse(i)) < 2 Then

    ' move the object out of the "in use" array
    Dim Temp As Pooled: Set Temp = Me_InUse(i)
    Me_InUseCount = Me_InUseCount - 1
    Set Me_InUse(i) = Me_InUse(Me_InUseCount)
    Set Me_InUse(Me_InUseCount) = Nothing

    Temp.Cleanup

    ' add the object to the "idled" array
    If Me_IdledCount > UBound(Me_Idled) Then
    ReDim Preserve Me_Idled(0 To Me_IdledCount * 2) As Pooled
    End If
    Set Me_Idled(Me_IdledCount) = Temp
    Me_IdledCount = Me_IdledCount + 1

    Threshold = Threshold - 1
    Else
    Threshold = Threshold - 50 ' give up quickly if no idle objects found
    End If
    Wend

    ' perhaps shorten the me_idled and/or me_inuse arrays here?
    End Sub

    Public Property Get Count() As Long
    Count = Me_IdledCount + Me_InUseCount
    End Property

    Private Sub Class_Initialize()
    ReDim Me_Idled(0 To 4) As Pooled
    ReDim Me_InUse(0 To 4) As Pooled
    End Sub

    Private Sub Class_Terminate()
    'Debug.Print "buh-bye"
    End Sub
    ----end class----

    --
    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!



  14. #284
    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:3c180783@147.208.176.211...
    > >
    > > Because in most cases the points brought up aren't a problem.

    >
    > However, as even Brian Harry [MSFT] had to admit, when it's a problem,
    > it's a big problem!
    >


    I haven't used a tool yet that didn't have some sort of problem.

    >
    > > Who said resource management isn't a problem ?

    >
    > Zane, actually:
    >
    >

    http://www.devx.com/upload/free/feat...102/sidebar4.a
    sp
    >
    > Oops, looks like it got yanked. Gee, I wonder why...?
    >


    I'll have to look at the article, however knowing you I suspect it's been
    taken out of context.

    > > 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.

    >
    > That's mere smoke and mirrors, since I've been claiming all along that
    > resource management *is* the problem with NDF. One of the most useful
    > aspects of Classic VB's classes has been torn from us. And do most
    > programmers, most times really not work with such resources as files?
    > Anyone might try to write to a disk file, get an error, and try again,
    > only to get another error if there's been no intervening GC! Also,


    Joe, this issue has already been discussed to death.
    If the object contains scarce resources you dispose of it once you're done.
    End of story.
    Whether you like it or not .NET uses NDF and your endless *****ing is going
    to change anything.




  15. #285
    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:3c19a429@147.208.176.211...
    > > >
    > > > "Intelligent encapsulated objects" = "only a few objects", right?

    After
    > >
    > > What are you rambling on about now ? Where did I say that ?

    >
    > So your "What overhead?" cack wasn't merely rhetorical misdirection?
    > You really aren't familiar with the additional overhead of objects,
    > either in Classic VB or B#? What's a little extra heap thrash between
    > friends, eh?
    >


    The encapsulation of objects does not necessarily have anything to do with
    the number of objects.
    I'm familiar with objects. What I'm not familiar with is how your brain
    manages to take separate points and form them into totally off the wall
    rants.

    > > > all, one of the things the Evangelists.NET bleat about is how

    Microsoft
    > > > sabotaged Classic VB by imposing "unacceptable" overhead on its

    classes!
    > >
    > > What , no cite this time ?

    >
    > You want some?
    >


    I'll have to remember to insert sarcasm tags when replying to you.

    >
    > > > Or do you claim that it takes as long to Erase an array of UDTs as an
    > > > array of unique object references, hmmmm?

    >
    > > One of the disadvantages of DF. In this case you can't compare value

    types
    > > to reference types.

    >
    > So something like Pooler is totally impossible, a mere med-fueled drug
    > dream, eh? I must be hallucinating the overall performance gains to be
    > had by doing my own object pooling for certain sets of objects, hmmmm?
    >


    I haven't run a benchmark on your code and probally won't. Are you claiming
    that in VB6 erasing an array of value types is just as fast as erasing an
    array of COM object types ?



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