DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 196
  1. #136
    Thomas Eyde Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Mike didn't need to correct me, as I didn't demonstrate my Delphi syntax
    skills, but merely how Delphi define method signatures.


    "Cali LaFollett" <cali@please_no_spam_visionized.com> wrote in message
    > > Thomas not entirely correct (as you pointed out ;-)

    > Also note, Mike should have been able to of quickly correct you but I am
    > sure he is off supporting others in the Delphi news groups.
    > Cal

  2. #137
    Ian R Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    I have no problem with which way it's done. For example PowerBasic uses the
    form Sub MethodName() Private/Public etc.
    My point to Mike was that the new keywords are consistent with the way
    things are done in VB. His suggestions require mixing 2 styles and was
    obviously said for the sole purpose of *****ing. Unlike Mike I use more than
    1 language on a daily basis and I have no problem with it as long as the
    language is consistent.
    As far as Delphi developers go, I've met some good ones and some bad ones.
    I'm sure they have their share of Mikes as well.

    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
    > Delphi does it this way:
    > procedure Dispose(disposing: Boolean);protected;overridable;
    > (the syntax is not entirely correct, but you get the picture)
    > The Delphi'ers have no problem with this, are they smarter than us?
    > .Thomas

  3. #138
    Ian R Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Mike won't try anything. It's simply amazing that he makes into work each
    day and supposedly produces code.

    "Jason" <jason@creative_nospam_corp.com> wrote in message
    > >
    > >And a lot of it pretty good. I suppose you're adverse to DVDs as well too

    > ?
    > >

    > Don't forget Personal Video Recorders. They make things a lot easier, but
    > I'll bet Mike won't try one because "you can't rewind a hard drive."

  4. #139
    Ian R Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Agreed on the preference thing. Mine is to skip the is part..
    But in all fairness either way is readable.

    "Jason" <jason@creative_nospam_corp.com> wrote in message
    > I find the IsOnline to be preferrable to Online when you have a read-only
    > boolean property. This comes up quite often, and it reads better in if()
    > statements.
    > If Online were a boolean property, I would automatically assume that it

    > writable, just reading the code.
    > Again, it is a preferrence thing, but it does make some sense to use

    > in the right situations.

  5. #140
    Ian R Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Yep, though in this case Online is a property not a function. Personally I
    dislike using is as part of the name. But in cases like this I can see it
    making no difference except as a matter of preference.

    "Larry Serflaten" <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote in message
    > "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote
    > > I can see your point vis a vis a read only property. Just a matter of
    > > preference on my part.

    > FYI, I'd prefer the IsOnline name also. Reading down a member list it
    > would be easy to see that would be a boolean function, rather than some
    > Online object or method....
    > LFS

  6. #141
    Carl Caulkett Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    In article <3cadbd25$1@>, "Rob Teixeira"
    <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> says...
    > Then what are you still doing here?
    > Isn't there a Kylix newsgroup just dying for your input?
    > -Rob


    As a staunch Delphi user, can I just say that MM is such a complete
    embarressment that I would not want him anywhere near any Borland
    related newsgroups. So please direct him to somewhere else.

    Thanks for your cooperation in this matter <g>.


  7. #142
    Ian R Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > If User.IsOnline of course! "If User.Online" is just an abbreviated
    > (and thus unnecessarily obfuscatory) way of saying the same thing. I

    Fair enough. I disagree, but hey, what's new.

    > would *prefer* to read something like "Is the user online?", which
    > would be understandable to a lot more people, wouldn't it? Yes, the
    > parser would have to work overtime, but who cares with the mainframe
    > power we've got on our desks and aren't utilising, except for playing
    > games (except me)? Anyway, it was only a suggestion. I said so. I
    > could instead have suggested:

    Yes it was a suggestion which is ok. Now if you'd do that more often instead
    of ranting...

    > Sub Whatever ()
    > Protected
    > Overridable
    > End Sub

    Which is inconsistent with the VB way. Not wrong just inconsistent.

    > or:
    > Sub Whatever() Protected Overridable
    > End Sub

    PowerBasic does this. Again not wrong just inconsistent.

    > or:
    > Sub Protected Overridable Whatever()
    > End Sub

    Which is closer to what VB and VB.NET do. But again inconsistent.

    > There is more than one way of skinning a cat.

    Yes there is. But you're the one complaining about the changes. Why ask for
    more ?

    > It's certainly not ideal the way it is, but there are only four of
    > them (you forgot Static). But now there are a whole lot more in
    > VB.Net. And reading "Protected Overridable" in front of Sub just does
    > not make it *more* readable, but less.

    No less than Private or Public. You're seeing it as unreadable because you
    don't understand the keywords.
    If you don't understand the scope of Protected and don't understand
    inheritance then you shouldn't and probally won't be using these keywords.
    So how does that affect you ?

    > >Now you're just *****ing for *****ings sake. As usual.

    > More Personal Abuse! (MPA)

    Because you keep asking for it.

    > >> Yes! I *don't* want C with B.A.S.I.C. syntax! I want B.A.S.I.C.! Maybe

    > >
    > >You have it. You just refuse to see that.

    > No, I don't "have" it. It's different. Therefore I don't see what you
    > see. LotusScript is more like VB than VB.Net.

    It's also not as powerfull as VB. Mike the syntax of VB and VB.NET is the
    same. With the exception of new keywords which apparently you won't be
    using, it's the same language as far as you're concerned. If anything some
    of the new features (the new forms engine, ADO.NET etc) will help you. The
    rest it doesn't sound like you'll ever use. So don't. The IDE alone is a
    vast improvement.

    > Dunno about RPG, but ticking boxes and pulling down lists seem like
    > good ideas to me! Kinda, sorta RAD-like, don't you agree? Why all this
    > fetish with writing reams of code, more code, and yet more code? It's

    Again for the nth time, Most of my projects I've converted use less code,
    not more. In some cases it looks like about half. How do you get more ?
    Again for the nth time, maybe you should try it then critisize it.

    > VB strings with and after VB4-32 had *everything* to do with Unicode!
    > There was *no* other choice! VB could have supported Unicode in
    > numerous ways, like Dim MyString As Unicode or Dim MyString As String.
    > Spot the difference? The latter would not have broken any existing
    > apps that happened to use strings for file buffers, i.e. all of them!

    Now you're adding more complexity and keywords. I thought you were against
    For simple stuff like strings stored in files, you'd think you would have
    done a quick little upgrade utility to convert your files instead of
    changing your code.

    > It was not done, because the designers didn't want to. And then they
    > had to introduce the Byte array (and therefore the Byte variable

    We needed the Byte data type regardless of Unicode.

    > type), and LenB, and so on. Just because someone took the decision
    > that all strings would henceforth be Unicode ones.

    LenB is more usefull with types.

    > So how many VB apps need Unicode compared with the ones that don't?
    > What d'you reckon? 10:90? 20:80? Even it was 50:50 that still leaves
    > 50% of the already-written apps requiring potential changes in the way
    > they handled strings.

    Mine do. Why should I suffer because yours don't ? There are workarounds for
    having Unicode, there are none for not having it. Spot the difference ?

    > Oh, I used Byte arrays all right! And StrConv, too. That's not the
    > point. They were necessary because Unicode strings can't hold odd
    > numbers of bytes.

    But they can hold odd number of characters. Which is what strings are for.

    > p/invoke? I believe you meant to say P-Invoke. At least use the
    > correct syntax so that newbies will understand! I use the Windows API

    You're telling me what term to use for p/invoke ? Now that's a good one. I
    may not be a .NET guru but I've at least installed it and written code for
    it. You on the other hand ....

    > extensively, thanks to reading Dan Appleman's excellent books on the
    > subject. Dead simple. But P-Invoke sounds suspiciously like more
    > arcane jargon borrowed from the nether world of C++. "Declare
    > Function" sounds much more like comprehensible English, doesn't it?

    Again you're showing your ignorance. VB.NET still uses the Declare syntax.
    At least read up on something before you open your trap.

    > What "large amount of hacks"? What is the problem with "Declare Sub"?

    Threading, Marshalling data, Subclassing to name a few. If typing Declare
    something is what you call using the API then you're obviously less advanced
    than you claim to be.

    > Moreover, the API was needed *only* when more advanced stuff was

    No using the API was only needed if it couldn't be done in pure VB. Getting
    the computer name for example is not something I consider advanced but you
    need the API or third party control to do it.

    > necessary. The namespaces in VB.Net on the other hand are part and
    > parcel of the whole caboose. You can't get away from namespaces in
    > VB.Net. Dan Appleman writes: "Namespaces determine the structure of a
    > VB.NET program from the perspective of scoping. Every type of object
    > in VB.NET has a name and is part of a namespace." So, the VBc

    You obviously haven't written anything outside of a standard exe Mike and
    you obviously haven't used more than a couple of references at a time. The
    40 character limit of prog id's and single level hierarchies suck big time
    if you're trying to organize things.

    > programmer who didn't need to use API calls could just ignore the
    > entire API thing, yet VB.Net programmers have to "know" their
    > namespaces! Sounds like a lot of additional baggage to accompany the
    > OOPification of VB.Net.

    You're confusing namespaces with the api. How is beyond me. But you're doing
    VB programmers have to know the objects they reference in order to use it,
    so what's your point ?

    > > What drugs are you taking Mike ?

    > Er, ibuprofen, actually -- you lot give me a pounding headache!
    > > You are seriously whacked in the head.

    > Yep. I just said so! By you lot! But it comes across yet again as MPA.

    Because you keep asking for it.

    > >Do you use every control and library that's available for VB ? No. Sounds
    > >like you don't use any actually.

    > Jeez, with sounds like that, I'd get a new CD player.

    Do you actually own one ? I thought you were still using the cassette player
    from your car.

    > > Same thing in the framework. If you don't
    > >need it don't use it. What's the problem ?
    > > Other than you're a whining blockhead ?

    > MPA!

    Because you keep asking for it.

    > >> I want to *build upon* past experience! That would seem to me to be
    > >> the most sensible means of "reuse". What you're advocating is

    > >
    > >Get some experience first.

    > Implied MPA!

    No. Simple fact.

    > >No. Taking advantage of .NET *might* (in your case most likely) require
    > >re-coding depending on how you coded things in the first place.
    > >Using VB.NET like VB6 doesn't require much more on your part.

    > I think it does.

    But how would you know. You haven't even tried it let alone installed it.

    > You're right about the crap, certainly. Ask *most* VB programmers what
    > they understand by "deterministic finalization" and they'll likely
    > respond with "***?"

    And very few will worry about it. For good or bad we now have NDF. For the
    majority of developers it's not something they will worry about. I do a lot
    of networking and communications code and I have yet to see NDF be a problem
    for me.

    > It is *different* from VB.Net. It *is* a good tool. When I see the
    > figures that prove VB.Net is as good a tool, I'll start to believe it.

    You've seen the figures. You just refuse to believe it. How many times has
    it been posted that productivity has gone up when using .NET ? And how many
    have posted that it has gone down ? Even the .NOTs haven't *****ed about
    productivity. Just other senseless things.

    > That is not the case. You can use new features of the next version,
    > while retaining and maintaining the previous code. Then, when you are
    > satisfied that the new features behave properly, you can start to
    > discontinue your "legacy" code. Simple, straightforward common sense.

    Same thing here Mike. Maintain in VB6. Develop in VB.NET (or other .NET
    language of choice). This has been said so many times to you.

  8. #143
    Ed Courtenay Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > On Sat, 6 Apr 2002 08:10:21 -0600, "Larry Serflaten"
    > <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote:
    > > Your own blunder pertaining
    > >to Patrick Meader's article shows you struggle to grasp even simple

    > >when written plain english.

    > Folks, just remember the accusation "blunder" when you read the words
    > ".NET is all about Web Services. No doubt about it."
    > Patrick's plain English, which he himself admitted he would have liked
    > to have rephrased, went like this: ".NET is all about Web Services. No
    > doubt about it. Microsoft has poured a lot of resources into Web
    > Services, especially in terms of providing an infrastructure that
    > enables developers to create Web Services more quickly and
    > easily......"
    > I originally quoted the ENTIRE paragraph, because it includes a
    > qualification of the opening justification for .Net to be described as
    > "all about web services" by saying that web services were just one
    > type of application you could build. However, those opening sentences
    > can ONLY be read at face value, which is what I did. The simple
    > concept is, is .Net all about web services? That is one of the
    > "misunderstandings" Patrick was wishing to clear up when he prefaced
    > his piece with the title: "Clearing Up .NET Misunderstandings."


    Let's recap here:

    * You found Patrick's article, and posted the link in your message.
    * You lifted an entire paragraph out of the article, and also pasted into
    your message, trying to counter my argument that .NET is not all about Web
    * You failed to properly read Partrick's article, and in doing so,
    completely changed the context of the original quote.
    * Once it was pointed out to you, by several in this NG and by the author
    himself, you started ranting about how it should have been written better in
    the first place.

    We all make mistakes, no-one is perfect. However, it's painfully obvious
    that you cannot bring yourself to admit that you made a mistake. Grow up,
    and be man enough to admit that you were wrong.

  9. #144
    Thomas Eyde Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Consistent or not, in VB6 this way of doing it was a good thing. In .Net the
    number of keywords are too many, so a new way should be invented.

    VB.Net is not consistent with Property Get/Let. And then there is the arcane
    syntax of attributes, which is not consistent with anything.

    The new Class statement declares its inheritance in a separate line, so
    what's wrong with methods doing the same thing?


    "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote in message news:3cb0a29e@
    > My point to Mike was that the new keywords are consistent with the way
    > things are done in VB. His suggestions require mixing 2 styles and was
    > obviously said for the sole purpose of *****ing. Unlike Mike I use more

    > 1 language on a daily basis and I have no problem with it as long as the
    > language is consistent.

  10. #145
    Thomas Eyde Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Please tell me: Is everything in VB.Net consistent with VBc?

    I don't think this is the case (hint: Properties, Inherits on a second
    line..). So please don't use inconsistence as an argument.


    "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote in message news:3cb0b328@
    > > Sub Whatever ()
    > >
    > > Protected
    > > Overridable
    > >
    > > End Sub
    > >

    > Which is inconsistent with the VB way. Not wrong just inconsistent.

  11. #146
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    > Here's my guess at a likely scenario:
    > MS will eventually release a newer simpler language that does not provide
    > direct access to the base classes. It will be a wrapper over the base
    > classes in much the same way that VB1 was a wrapper over the Windows API.
    > There will be some small number of collection classes, some limited access
    > to datasets, and it will be able to host components written in "real" .net
    > languages. It would most likely be basic-like, maybe even very much so,
    > and would be targetted at VBA-like programmers.

    Interesting idea!

    Synchronized with the removal of VBA from the Office suite too, maybe.

    Mark Jerde
    Biometrics - www.idtechpartners.com

  12. #147
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
    >Please tell me: Is everything in VB.Net consistent with VBc?
    >I don't think this is the case (hint: Properties, Inherits on a second
    >line..). So please don't use inconsistence as an argument.

    VB.NET Proeprty declarations are inconsistant with VB6, but what's this about
    Inherits? Did you have a secret copy of VB6 that implemented inheritance
    with the keyword in the same line?

    Actually, since Implements was on its own seperate line too, I don't see
    much difference there.


  13. #148
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    You're right, I should be more considerate



    Carl Caulkett <carlca@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
    >As a staunch Delphi user, can I just say that MM is such a complete
    >embarressment that I would not want him anywhere near any Borland
    >related newsgroups. So please direct him to somewhere else.
    >Thanks for your cooperation in this matter <g>.

  14. #149
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >Well, yes, implicitly they *are*. Discontinuing a product inevitably
    >sends *some* kind of message to the community.

    Yes - it says we are no longer manufacturing this product. The same message
    that was sent when they discontinued all the previous versions of VB.

    >I think their long-term
    >aim is to get consumers to see and use the internet as the next
    >"operating system"

    Get a grip. The internet is a global-public WAN. You still need software
    to run an OS.

    >controlled (naturally) by them and supplied with
    >functionality through web services, also controlled by them if at all
    >possible. It's the new revenue stream model.

    If the model fits, then fine. However, I don't think many people will buy
    a web-service OS. What would you do offline? MS isn't that stupid, and if
    there's no revenue stream, they won't sell it.

    >Ergo, with this mindset,
    >there *is* no "local app" any more where the concept of a "classic VB"
    >would fit the bill.

    .NET supports "local apps".


  15. #150
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >I can't say I ever seen multiple entries in my references. I've just
    >had another look at mine, there are 370 in the list, and they don't
    >contain any multiple entries. So could your namespace argument just be
    >another "solution in search of a problem"?

    I should have known you'd be this dense. What happens when two unrelated
    libraries expose a class with the same name, or enums with the same name?
    It *is* a real problem. Not in your world perhaps, since I've yet to be convinced
    you have one working program.

    >When you say, I had to
    >depend on GUIDs, so what?

    What, you *want* to have the following code instead?

    Dim MyCustomerObject As {7BBF32A3-49C5-4dCD-8A40-59FAF7AD2527}

    Grow up Mike. I know you don't have good arguments, but at least get a good
    rant. This is just idiotic.

    >Only a year or two ago, that whole system
    >was being defended by Microsoft to the hilt! Now you imply that it was
    >all wrong and namespaces are the answer.


    >>Meet the Imports statement.

    >Even that one, single word they managed to get wrong! It should be a
    >verb in the imperative, not third-person singular.

    >I'm *****ing at VB.Net because its syntax is more
    >unwieldy. Going back to my response to Cali LaFollett, I "*****ed"
    >about "Protected Overridable Sub Dispose(ByVal disposing As Boolean)"
    >Can't you see the ugliness in all of that? Imagine a 400 kloc program
    >shot through with those kinds of constructs. The bit that actually
    >describes what *it* is, a Sub, is discerned only at the *third* word!

    Then go write your own **** language. Ironically, you'd probably manage to
    find something to ***** about your own language too.

    >That would make the language much more amenable to (a) newbies; (b)
    >existing VB users, plus it would work just the same as it already does
    >in VB.Net and its ethos would be much more in keeping with the
    >B.A.S.I.C. legacy. Only the parser needs changing.

    If it's so easy, go write it.
    Except, I find it exteremly contradictory that you're oposing all that is
    .NET and yet here, you want to have it work just the same as it already does
    in VB.Net. Personally, I think you just like hearing yourself talk. Clue:
    you're not as a clever as you seem to think you are.

    >For example, do you think that changing from an easy, conversational
    >style like "Visual Basic runtime objects and procedures" (an entry in
    >the VB6 References) to a much more computerese "Imports
    >System.Runtime.InteropServices" is advancing computing for the masses?
    >How does the introduction of arcane syntax help people learn what is
    >already a complex subject?

    Yes, because it groups functionality.
    In case you haven't figured it out yet, it's easier to find what you're looking
    for if it's properly grouped and categorized.

    >>You like your limitations? Stick to VB6. Have a nice day.

    >Yes! I *don't* want C with B.A.S.I.C. syntax! I want B.A.S.I.C.! Maybe
    >Microsoft will get the message that some consumers want to see the
    >same in a simplified version of VB.Net?

    It is simple.

    >Make the product accessible to
    >the widest range of potential consumers, and you'll have a winner

    No Mike, you aren't talking about the widest range of potential consumers,
    you're talking about MS making a product for *you* the individual. I would
    have thought that by now you'd realize you are not the majority spokesman
    - even the other people who don't like .NET want no association with you
    and your ideas.

    >That's how it happened with classic VB. Most successful
    >programming language ever. Apart from English.

    Statements like these just send your credability soaring.

    >In classic VB, Unicode was forced down our throats at one fell swoop.
    >No option to switch it off, no choice, oh, no, that would have been
    >just too democratic, wouldn't it?

    Exactly. Now in VB.NET you have a choice. You have complete control of which
    type of string you want to use when making API calls. Don't look now Mike,
    but you just scored an argument Pro-.NET.

    >Unicode made no difference to any of
    >my apps, except that I couldn't rely on strings for file buffers any
    >more. Unicode was for me a pain in the butt. It was just a ****
    >nuisance that suddenly appeared on the scene.

    Fine - for *YOU*. There are 1.3 billion people in mainland China alone, and
    here's a clue: if they use computers, they don't use plain-vanilla ASCII.
    Again, *YOU* are not the majority, and MS isn't going to build software for
    *YOU* as an individual.

    >Dead easy for them to do, but they just wanted everyone to adopt
    >Unicode habits overnight, even though vast numbers of the world's apps
    >will never, ever need it. So in addition to Unicode, now I have to
    >learn about Marshalling and what ever else besides.

    Whine whine whine..

    What would your reaction be if someone took a piece of VB6 you liked and
    said it wasn't important? Remember that next time you *****.

    >Sounds like I resemble yet again a foie gras factory.

    It would be indecent to say what you resemble.

    >And now there are 5,000!

    Your point?

    >I want to *build upon* past experience! That would seem to me to be
    >the most sensible means of "reuse".

    You can.

    >What you're advocating is
    >rewriting my entire experiences to the tune of VB.Net! Oh, well, I
    >'spose rewriting will become second nature in the VB.Net world!

    What the **** is wrong is with you? The sample that was posted showed clearly
    how similar the code was. You have *NO* idea what the porting effort is like.

    >Under "Marshaling Attributes" on page 479 of his "Moving to VB.NET" he
    >writes: "There are a few objects that can be used in front of
    >parameters (and the return type) in API declarations." He then goes on
    >the describe the use of those objects.

    And this has nothing to do at all with the change from Type to Structure,
    as you suggested. Your credibility soars yet another few points.

    >>Proper basic didn't have subs. That must have looked wrong too.

    >Yes, it did. It was called GoSub.

    So Sub and Function would look "wrong" according to your reasoning. *wooosh*

    >No, I'm opposed to re-learning.

    You're in the wrong business.

    >But VB3 didn't break all the rules of backward compatibility! Its new
    >features just added to the language without altering whatever mindset
    >the programmer had already adopted.

    VB3 was not compatible with B.A.S.I.C.


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
Latest Articles
Questions? Contact us.
Web Development
Latest Tips
Open Source

   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center

We have made updates to our Privacy Policy to reflect the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation.