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

[Steve]

"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

[Kunle Odutola]

"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....

[Robert Lantry]

"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.

[Steve]

"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

[Robert Lantry]

"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.

[Steve]

"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