They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#? - Page 4


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 291

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

  1. #46
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

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

    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote ...
    >
    > >Was that just marketing speak that
    > >he was spouting?

    >
    > I didn't read that article in 1992, nor do I know who Tom Button is.


    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/e...on/default.asp

    Heh, gotta love a guy for being consistent!

    Pull yer **** head out, Pat! <g>

    Later... Karl
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]



  2. #47
    Patrick Troughton Guest

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


    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    >>
    >> I didn't read that article in 1992, nor do I know who Tom Button is.

    >
    >http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/e...on/default.asp


    Hey, is that a contribution from Karl Peterson? How 'bout that!

    /Pat

  3. #48
    Patrick Troughton Guest

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


    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >LOL! See how much clearer the view is, out here? <g>


    I've contributed to this newsgroup for over a year, a stark constrast with
    the FUD and misinformation you've supplied....

    /Pat

  4. #49
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

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

    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
    news:3c0445ae@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> I didn't read that article in 1992, nor do I know who Tom Button is.

    > >
    > >http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/e...on/default.asp

    >
    > Hey, is that a contribution from Karl Peterson? How 'bout that!


    LOL! See how much clearer the view is, out here? <g>
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


  5. #50
    Patrick Troughton Guest

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


    I hear you. But it is worthwhile for those who are new to this newsgroup
    and don't know any better.

    /Pat

    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    >Uh huh. Ad nauseum back-and-forths with Mikey are now contributions, huh?

    <LOL>
    >--
    >[Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]
    >
    >
    >"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
    >news:3c052175$1@147.208.176.211...
    >>
    >> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >LOL! See how much clearer the view is, out here? <g>

    >>
    >> I've contributed to this newsgroup for over a year, a stark constrast

    with
    >> the FUD and misinformation you've supplied....
    >>
    >> /Pat

    >



  6. #51
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

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

    Uh huh. Ad nauseum back-and-forths with Mikey are now contributions, huh? <LOL>
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
    news:3c052175$1@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    > >
    > >LOL! See how much clearer the view is, out here? <g>

    >
    > I've contributed to this newsgroup for over a year, a stark constrast with
    > the FUD and misinformation you've supplied....
    >
    > /Pat



  7. #52
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On 28 Nov 2001 18:39:00 GMT, "Patrick Troughton"
    <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:

    >I hear you. But it is worthwhile for those who are new to this newsgroup
    >and don't know any better.


    Well, if my contributions were worthwhile to some, then I feel my job
    is almost done.

    MM

  8. #53
    Patrick Troughton Guest

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


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >
    >Well, if my contributions were worthwhile to some, then I feel my job
    >is almost done.


    Does that mean you're going to quit?

    /Pat

  9. #54
    Thomas Eyde Guest

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


    "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
    news:3c03f715@147.208.176.211...
    > Also, the method may not be overrideable. Since NotOverridable function
    > calls are faster*, people will then to use it.


    Only time will show. I don't do optimizations before the project shows it
    needs it. Then I have to profile for bottlenecks. Then, perhaps, in the
    largest loop ever the time difference between NotOverridable and Overridable
    have significance.

    /Thomas



  10. #55
    Jonathan Allen Guest

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

    > Only time will show.

    You only need one new method marked NotOverridable to justify Shadows (C#
    new).

    --
    Jonathan Allen



    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
    news:3c056faf@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
    > news:3c03f715@147.208.176.211...
    > > Also, the method may not be overrideable. Since NotOverridable function
    > > calls are faster*, people will then to use it.

    >
    > Only time will show. I don't do optimizations before the project shows it
    > needs it. Then I have to profile for bottlenecks. Then, perhaps, in the
    > largest loop ever the time difference between NotOverridable and

    Overridable
    > have significance.
    >
    > /Thomas
    >
    >



  11. #56
    Derek Mooney Guest

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


    Hey, you know, new Coke tasted alright and all that, but it wasn't the original.
    People clamored over the original, and they eventually brought it back as
    "Coke Classic". When's the last time you've seen just "Coke" on the shelves?

    There's a point to where you shouldn't mess with the original -- but there
    are some aspects of "classic" VB that seriously needed attention. In the
    long run, without reworking the tool, it would have been passed over for
    newer and better things. It's the nature of the game. And instead of trying
    to keep two RAD tools updated, they decided to place their bets on one.

    But if enough people make it known that they'd rather have the "classic",
    they'll bring it back. Personally, I've always loved VB for development,
    but hated it for it's limitations. .NET changes all of that for me, so you
    won't hear me complaining (much). I just wish they'd have done more in the
    way of compatibility -- which, I hope, they're planning on improving in the
    next round.

    In a lot of ways, it's like the process of upgrading operating systems.
    There are times where you can go through incremental changes, but there are
    also times where the whole system needs an overhaul.

    Derek

    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
    >J# is the Java language on the .Net engine. Why couldn't MS ship the
    >rumoured VB7 as VB#, instead of offending the VB community with VB.NET?
    >
    >VB.Net is powerful, no doubt, but it lacks the greatness of VB Classic.
    >VB.Net is so strikingly similar to C# that I wonder why they bothered.
    >Surely VB7 would be a better commersial decition?
    >
    >/Thomas
    >
    >



  12. #57
    John Lowry Guest

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


    VB 6 is pretty nice, but why would anyone not want to ditch COM? Man, I hate
    it! Also with VB 6 it is pretty funky to deal with many win32 API's. The
    fact that you don't have to deal with either of these issues in .Net is fantastic.


    Once you learn the classes you can write better, code much faster in .net.

    Come on Thomas, get with the program. Its time to move on!!!

    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
    >> They did. But they called it VB.NET instead.

    >
    >I don't think they did. There is a rumour about VB7 that was ditched in
    >favour of VB.Net
    >
    >/Thomas
    >
    >
    >



  13. #58
    Jay Glynn Guest

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

    For entertainment purposes only ;-).


    > Well, if my contributions were worthwhile to some, then I feel my job
    > is almost done.
    >
    > MM




  14. #59
    Jens Samson Guest

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

    Please Mike please, your job is done, we can move along on our own.

    Jens

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3c0554e2.15243780@news.devx.com...
    > On 28 Nov 2001 18:39:00 GMT, "Patrick Troughton"
    > <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
    >
    > >I hear you. But it is worthwhile for those who are new to this

    newsgroup
    > >and don't know any better.

    >
    > Well, if my contributions were worthwhile to some, then I feel my job
    > is almost done.
    >
    > MM




  15. #60
    Thomas Eyde Guest

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

    "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
    news:3c05799a@147.208.176.211...
    > You only need one new method marked NotOverridable to justify Shadows (C#
    > new).


    Why? Because without Shadows I can't define a new method in a derived class
    with the same name as the NotOverridable?

    If that't what you have in mind, I don't see that as a big problem. The base
    class is created to satisfy some intentions which are comunicated through
    class and member names.

    If I really want and need a method with a same name anyway, then my derived
    class at least will break the original intention. Maybe I shouldn't use
    inheritance in the first place, but use composition instead?

    /Thomas




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