Re: One word to **** the language to ****....


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Re: One word to **** the language to ****....

  1. #1
    Steve Guest

    Re: One word to **** the language to ****....


    "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com> wrote in message
    news:3c75adcc$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    > >On 21 Feb 2002 14:18:07 -0800, "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com>
    > >wrote:


    <cut for brevity>

    >> And that's how it should be. VB encouraged
    > >>slobby code

    > >


    <cut for brevity>

    > Oh yes it did. One word is all I need to prove it. One word is all the
    > terrible evils. One word to **** the language to ****. One word is it's
    > fatal flaw. One word, the most abused word in visual basic:
    >
    > Variants.
    >


    <reformat the rant>

    Replace every instance of "visual basic" or "vb" with the letter "C".
    Replace the instance of "variant" with the word "pointer".

    </reformat>

    Now we have an example of a rant as old as programming.

    The idiom of the language doesn't encourage "slobby" usage.
    Not understanding the language does.

    > Ya know, if VB had died out and gone completely away and you had to

    actually
    > program in any other language on the planet (except for maybe logo) you'd
    > wail and whimper and moan just as loudly. I suppose you could write

    procedural
    > C code but the strict typing would kill ya.
    >


    Doubt it. If you understand the language....................

    > >
    > >How did the threading model affect your programs? Made not one iota of
    > >difference to any of ours. We simply took a VB5, loaded it into VB6,
    > >recompiled. Job done.

    >
    > Well, since you're a programmer who doesn't actually know what threading
    > is, I don't expect you to understand.
    >


    Maybe, just maybe, some Visual Basic programmers write programs that don't
    require any knowledge of threading?
    But what is your real point?

    Steve



  2. #2
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: One word to **** the language to ****....


    "Steve" <steve@spam.me.not.ruraltechnologies.net> wrote in message
    news:3c76477e@10.1.10.29...

    > Replace every instance of "visual basic" or "vb" with the letter "C".
    > Replace the instance of "variant" with the word "pointer".


    Except pointers didn't encourage sloppy programming. You could blow your
    head off (along with your foot of course) if you didn't grok pointers and
    tried to use them anyways. Variants however are more [over]forgiving.

    Kunle

    If you'd said "void*" you may have a tiny point but even that requires
    grokking pointers first....



  3. #3
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: One word to **** the language to ****....


    "Steve" <steve@spam.me.not.ruraltechnologies.net> wrote:
    >
    >"Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com> wrote in message
    >news:3c75adcc$1@10.1.10.29...
    >>
    >> kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >> >On 21 Feb 2002 14:18:07 -0800, "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com>
    >> >wrote:

    >
    ><cut for brevity>
    >
    >>> And that's how it should be. VB encouraged
    >> >>slobby code
    >> >

    >
    ><cut for brevity>
    >
    >> Oh yes it did. One word is all I need to prove it. One word is all the
    >> terrible evils. One word to **** the language to ****. One word is it's
    >> fatal flaw. One word, the most abused word in visual basic:
    >>
    >> Variants.
    >>

    >
    ><reformat the rant>
    >
    >Replace every instance of "visual basic" or "vb" with the letter "C".
    >Replace the instance of "variant" with the word "pointer".
    >
    ></reformat>
    >
    >Now we have an example of a rant as old as programming.


    Disagree. But it's just my experience vs yours and that's hardly helpful.

    >The idiom of the language doesn't encourage "slobby" usage.
    >Not understanding the language does.


    We will have to disagree about this. While I can understand what you're
    saying, I say VB has "idioms" that aid slobbyness and few that encourage
    proper programming practices. Even error handling in VB is so obtuse that
    people usually don't even like to try to use it.


    >> Ya know, if VB had died out and gone completely away and you had to

    >actually
    >> program in any other language on the planet (except for maybe logo) you'd
    >> wail and whimper and moan just as loudly. I suppose you could write

    >procedural
    >> C code but the strict typing would kill ya.
    >>

    >
    >Doubt it. If you understand the language....................


    My point was that Mike doesn't understand...anything.

    >
    >> >
    >> >How did the threading model affect your programs? Made not one iota of
    >> >difference to any of ours. We simply took a VB5, loaded it into VB6,
    >> >recompiled. Job done.

    >>
    >> Well, since you're a programmer who doesn't actually know what threading
    >> is, I don't expect you to understand.
    >>

    >
    >Maybe, just maybe, some Visual Basic programmers write programs that don't
    >require any knowledge of threading?
    >But what is your real point?


    Well, my point WAS that flexibility in the threading model was necessary
    in order to solve some real-world problems that I'd faced on a couple of
    my projects. Approaches that I had to completely rework in VB6 because of
    the threading changes.



  4. #4
    Steve Guest

    Re: One word to **** the language to ****....


    "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com> wrote in message
    news:3c765007$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > "Steve" <steve@spam.me.not.ruraltechnologies.net> wrote:
    > >
    > >"Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com> wrote in message
    > >news:3c75adcc$1@10.1.10.29...
    > >>

    >
    > Disagree. But it's just my experience vs yours and that's hardly helpful.


    Ok, that's reasonable.

    >
    > >The idiom of the language doesn't encourage "slobby" usage.
    > >Not understanding the language does.

    >
    > We will have to disagree about this. While I can understand what you're
    > saying, I say VB has "idioms" that aid slobbyness and few that encourage
    > proper programming practices. Even error handling in VB is so obtuse that
    > people usually don't even like to try to use it.
    >


    Yeah, we disagree. My view: for what Visual Basic was, it got the job done.
    It's level of difficulty (to first time users) was low. I thought that was
    by design.

    I have to ask a question, and based on the nature of this ng, I'll try to
    word it as
    carefully as possible. :-)

    If Visual Basic was not getting the job done, for you, why did you continue
    to
    use it?

    > >> Ya know, if VB had died out and gone completely away and you had to

    > >actually
    > >> program in any other language on the planet (except for maybe logo)

    you'd
    > >> wail and whimper and moan just as loudly. I suppose you could write

    > >procedural
    > >> C code but the strict typing would kill ya.
    > >>

    > >
    > >Doubt it. If you understand the language....................

    >
    > My point was that Mike doesn't understand...anything.


    Have to disagree. Maybe Mike doesn't understand why Visual Basic
    had to be changed to something other than Visual Basic?
    His posts are frequently humourous and he's well below the average level
    of pomposity in this place. But then I like the shows on BBC America. Each
    to his own, ay?

    >
    > >
    > >> >
    > >> >How did the threading model affect your programs? Made not one iota of
    > >> >difference to any of ours. We simply took a VB5, loaded it into VB6,
    > >> >recompiled. Job done.
    > >>
    > >> Well, since you're a programmer who doesn't actually know what

    threading
    > >> is, I don't expect you to understand.
    > >>

    > >
    > >Maybe, just maybe, some Visual Basic programmers write programs that

    don't
    > >require any knowledge of threading?
    > >But what is your real point?

    >
    > Well, my point WAS that flexibility in the threading model was necessary
    > in order to solve some real-world problems that I'd faced on a couple of
    > my projects. Approaches that I had to completely rework in VB6 because of
    > the threading changes.
    >


    I have to refer you back to my question above. And I'm really interested in
    the
    answer.

    Steve



  5. #5
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: One word to **** the language to ****....


    "Steve" <steve@spam.me.not.ruraltechnologies.net> wrote:
    >


    >
    >I have to ask a question, and based on the nature of this ng, I'll try to
    >word it as
    >carefully as possible. :-)
    >
    >If Visual Basic was not getting the job done, for you, why did you continue
    >to
    >use it?
    >

    VB gets MOST of the job done. I like VB and find it a practical choice for
    most development needs, but not all. I can't say that VB has provided a
    100% solution to every project I've worked on. It usually arrives a few
    percentage points short and then that remaining bit has to be covered either
    by 3rd party or by external development such as C++. It is my sincere hope
    that VB.NET, or .NET in general will help cover a few more of those percentage
    points. Having "grown" into the language since VB1, I accepted it's limitations.



  6. #6
    Steve Guest

    Re: One word to **** the language to ****....


    "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com> wrote in message
    news:3c7667ec$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > "Steve" <steve@spam.me.not.ruraltechnologies.net> wrote:
    > >

    >
    > >
    > >I have to ask a question, and based on the nature of this ng, I'll try to
    > >word it as
    > >carefully as possible. :-)
    > >
    > >If Visual Basic was not getting the job done, for you, why did you

    continue
    > >to
    > >use it?
    > >

    > VB gets MOST of the job done. I like VB and find it a practical choice

    for
    > most development needs, but not all. I can't say that VB has provided a
    > 100% solution to every project I've worked on. It usually arrives a few
    > percentage points short and then that remaining bit has to be covered

    either
    > by 3rd party or by external development such as C++. It is my sincere

    hope
    > that VB.NET, or .NET in general will help cover a few more of those

    percentage
    > points. Having "grown" into the language since VB1, I accepted it's

    limitations.
    >
    >


    Thanks for the insight.

    Steve



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