They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#? - Page 5


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 291

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

  1. #61
    Thomas Eyde Guest

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

    "John Lowry" <johnl@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:3c05a65c@147.208.176.211...
    > 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.

    I never said I will keep COM. I believe what was VB7 would be very similar
    to VB6 + OO. I want VB.Net to be like that

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


    Yes, it's good to leave the win32 API. The .Net framework classes really
    rocks, don't get me wrong here.

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


    It doesn't matter whether it's time or not. If I want to continue
    programming for Windows using Microsoft's tools, I have to follow.

    /Thomas



  2. #62
    Thomas Eyde Guest

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

    These are all good and valid arguments. I don't think too many would
    disagree in VB Classic needing an overhaul. But they did a lot more than
    that in VB.Net

    /Thomas

    "Derek Mooney" <derek@brownstone.net> wrote in message
    news:3c05a242$1@147.208.176.211...
    > 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.





  3. #63
    Ian R Guest

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

    Out of curiousity, apart from the OOP features, what is it about VB.NET do
    you find 'un-VB6-like' ?

    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
    news:3c05f9a6$1@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > I never said I will keep COM. I believe what was VB7 would be very similar
    > to VB6 + OO. I want VB.Net to be like that
    >
    > > Once you learn the classes you can write better, code much faster in

    ..net.
    >




  4. #64
    Ian Drake Guest

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


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On 26 Nov 2001 17:25:11 GMT, "Ian Drake" <ian@dotnetnut.com> wrote:
    >
    >>....., but in general, the VB programmers I've had to deal with plug their
    >>ears when it comes to OO, god forbid they have to stop writing global functions
    >>in modules.

    >
    >Too darn right we plug 'em! Who do you think you are to demand that we
    >do not write global functions?!! You've got a **** nerve, if you ask
    >me. Just accept it for once that over three million computer users
    >make use of classic Visual Basic in all its myriad ways if there are
    >some who don't want to use OOP, why the heck should they? This
    >implicit denigration of classic VB users has all the hysterical
    >overtones of Joe McCarthy's witch-hunt for Communists in the 1950s.
    >

    Mike :

    Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner on this one. I was not demanding anything,
    nor are all global function bad. As to your question of why developers should
    use OO methods to program applications... I would have to say that in larger
    applications it is easier to maintain, debug, code, and design. It is not,
    however, easier than proceural programming if you don't know anthing about
    OO, which you obviously don't. Maybe that's why you hate .net so much, because
    it is all about OO. This is exactly why I like .net, because is confuses
    the **** out of people like you, who have no interest in anything beyond
    coding in modules. This is great because, in the future, I'll have less
    compition for jobs/contracts when .net is mainstream, and your still b*tching
    about not having modules to code in.

    I'm not on Microsoft's payroll, but .NET makes me MONEY, so you can call
    me a .NET advocate, because I am. But I wonder... just what are you an advocate
    of?

    Ian Drake

  5. #65
    decrypted Guest

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


    Even MS says 'please dear god don't build services with VB Classic.' You ever
    thought about why that is? I hear that you love your simplistic, resource
    costing way of doing things, many VB coders do, but the bottom line is....go
    read a book. VB won't be around forever, and sooner or later you either need
    to expand your skill set, or join the un-employment line. OOP is not that
    difficult, so stop being so affraid (and or lazzy) and start with 'The Object-Oreinted
    Thought Process' by Weifield on SAMS. It's very easy reading, and introduces
    you to the 'whys' and 'hows' of OOP.

    Good Luck.
    -decrypted

  6. #66
    Jay Glynn Guest

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


    >
    >Let me answer this, too. What I find un-VB6-like about VB.NET is that
    >VB.NET is almost wholly incompatible, very different in concept and
    >execution (see: IL), requires a massive .NET framework to run in, on
    >top of what Windows already provides, has very little practical
    >examples, hasn't been thought through, the designers are so fickle
    >they change their minds about And and Or half-way through the beta
    >testing period, and all in all I want absolutely nothing to do with
    >it.


    Just to set the record straight, the reason the And Or MAybe stuff changed
    was not fickle designers. It was the result of a group of MVP's that went
    to MSFT campus in Feb or so. There was so much whining and crying that MSFT
    looked at everything they *****ed about, picked half a dozen of the easiest
    things to change and "rolled back" the changes. So you can thank your fellow
    .NOTTERs for that mess.

    >
    >In my opinion it sets back the RAD movement by several years instead
    >of building upon the excellent RAD features of classic VB. Hint:
    >Solution-building needs to be accessible to users, not just
    >programmers. Classic VB was very much a user's tool; VB.NET is a
    >programmer's tool.


    How would you know if you've never used it?

  7. #67
    Rob Teixeira Guest

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



    Great. You have a right to your opinions.
    So run along to a language you do like.

    -Rob

    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On 29 Nov 2001 17:16:58 GMT, "Ian Drake" <ian@dotnetnut.com> wrote:
    >
    >But what I don't want to do is write VB.NET
    >software. I think the language just sucks, plain and simple, and
    >that's NOT just down to the more OOPy features. The entire concept of
    >it plus Microsoft's arrogant attitude towards classic VB have just
    >about done it for me as far as programming computers for Windows is
    >concerned. I tell ya, I am THIS angry with Billy Boy, you just can't
    >believe.
    >
    >MM



  8. #68
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:54:03 +0100, "Thomas Eyde"
    <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:

    >I never said I will keep COM. I believe what was VB7 would be very similar
    >to VB6 + OO. I want VB.Net to be like that


    So do I, but without the OO. <g>

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

    >
    >Yes, it's good to leave the win32 API. The .Net framework classes really
    >rocks, don't get me wrong here.


    I have always found the Windows API (16 bit and 32 bit) to be dead
    easy to get on with. I don't know what all the fuss is about.

    MM

  9. #69
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:19:22 -0500, "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote:

    >Out of curiousity, apart from the OOP features, what is it about VB.NET do
    >you find 'un-VB6-like' ?


    Let me answer this, too. What I find un-VB6-like about VB.NET is that
    VB.NET is almost wholly incompatible, very different in concept and
    execution (see: IL), requires a massive .NET framework to run in, on
    top of what Windows already provides, has very little practical
    examples, hasn't been thought through, the designers are so fickle
    they change their minds about And and Or half-way through the beta
    testing period, and all in all I want absolutely nothing to do with
    it.

    In my opinion it sets back the RAD movement by several years instead
    of building upon the excellent RAD features of classic VB. Hint:
    Solution-building needs to be accessible to users, not just
    programmers. Classic VB was very much a user's tool; VB.NET is a
    programmer's tool.

    MM

  10. #70
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On 28 Nov 2001 22:28:48 GMT, "Patrick Troughton"
    <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:

    >
    >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?


    No.

    MM

  11. #71
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On 29 Nov 2001 18:48:42 GMT, "decrypted" <decrypted@earthlink.net>
    wrote:

    >Even MS says 'please dear god don't build services with VB Classic.' You ever
    >thought about why that is? I hear that you love your simplistic, resource
    >costing way of doing things, many VB coders do, but the bottom line is....go
    >read a book. VB won't be around forever, and sooner or later you either need
    >to expand your skill set, or join the un-employment line. OOP is not that
    >difficult, so stop being so affraid (and or lazzy) and start with 'The Object-Oreinted
    >Thought Process' by Weifield on SAMS. It's very easy reading, and introduces
    >you to the 'whys' and 'hows' of OOP.


    No, thanks.

    MM

  12. #72
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On 29 Nov 2001 17:16:58 GMT, "Ian Drake" <ian@dotnetnut.com> wrote:

    >I'm not on Microsoft's payroll, but .NET makes me MONEY, so you can call
    >me a .NET advocate, because I am. But I wonder... just what are you an advocate
    >of?


    Oh, I'm not interested in money. I can always earn enough to keep body
    and soul together. But what I don't want to do is write VB.NET
    software. I think the language just sucks, plain and simple, and
    that's NOT just down to the more OOPy features. The entire concept of
    it plus Microsoft's arrogant attitude towards classic VB have just
    about done it for me as far as programming computers for Windows is
    concerned. I tell ya, I am THIS angry with Billy Boy, you just can't
    believe.

    MM

  13. #73
    Jonathan Allen Guest

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

    > If I really want and need a method with a same name anyway, then my
    derived
    > class at least will break the original intention.


    Again, you missed the point. Your new method is fine with the "original
    intention". The problem is someone went back and changed the original
    version.

    Here is how it goes down...

    1. I create a base class.
    2. Your create a subclass for it. It is called X.
    3. I add a method called X to the base class. It has nothing to do with your
    method X.
    4. You mark you version of X as Shadows so that things using it won't break.



    --
    Jonathan Allen



    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
    news:3c05f4ba@147.208.176.211...
    > "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
    >
    >
    >



  14. #74
    Patrick Troughton Guest

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


    "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote:
    >But
    >then again, I am also on a crusade to make people stop using Integers as

    bit
    >fields.


    Integers as bit fields? That's not so bad...I've seen people who use *strings*
    for bit fields.

    /Pat

  15. #75
    Jonathan Allen Guest

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

    > Just to set the record straight, the reason the And Or MAybe stuff changed
    > was not fickle designers. It was the result of a group of MVP's that went
    > to MSFT campus in Feb or so.


    Actually, the AndAlso change was done because it had the potential to cause
    too much confusion. Even I agreed that a change was needed, and I was one of
    the most vocal of the "we like the changes" group at the conference. And
    while the name sucks, it is better than the suggest brought up at the
    conference, "SAnd and SOr". (A suggestion I am glad they ignored.)

    What I do regret is the loss of BitAnd and BitOr. I wish they would have
    stayed with their decision to make And and Or Boolean-only operators. But
    then again, I am also on a crusade to make people stop using Integers as bit
    fields.

    > So you can thank your fellow
    > NOTTERs for that mess.


    Please do not put MM in the same group as the "NOTTERs ". While I do not
    agree with their position, at least they are civilized people with real
    reasons for their views. MM is just a troll, something people keep
    forgetting.


    --
    Jonathan Allen



    "Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3c0694e3$1@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > >
    > >Let me answer this, too. What I find un-VB6-like about VB.NET is that
    > >VB.NET is almost wholly incompatible, very different in concept and
    > >execution (see: IL), requires a massive .NET framework to run in, on
    > >top of what Windows already provides, has very little practical
    > >examples, hasn't been thought through, the designers are so fickle
    > >they change their minds about And and Or half-way through the beta
    > >testing period, and all in all I want absolutely nothing to do with
    > >it.

    >
    > Just to set the record straight, the reason the And Or MAybe stuff changed
    > was not fickle designers. It was the result of a group of MVP's that went
    > to MSFT campus in Feb or so. There was so much whining and crying that

    MSFT
    > looked at everything they *****ed about, picked half a dozen of the

    easiest
    > things to change and "rolled back" the changes. So you can thank your

    fellow
    > NOTTERs for that mess.
    >
    > >
    > >In my opinion it sets back the RAD movement by several years instead
    > >of building upon the excellent RAD features of classic VB. Hint:
    > >Solution-building needs to be accessible to users, not just
    > >programmers. Classic VB was very much a user's tool; VB.NET is a
    > >programmer's tool.

    >
    > How would you know if you've never used it?



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