From VB.net to C# - Page 12


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 196

Thread: From VB.net to C#

  1. #166
    Michael Culley Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    > All it would take is a small
    > apology on your part, a slight loss of face, and no-one would care less.


    No problem is that mike has very little face left, he has to cling dearly to
    what he has.

    --
    Michael Culley
    www.vbdotcom.com




  2. #167
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On 8 Apr 2002 07:24:04 -0800, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >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.


    Agreed. But all those previous versions of VB had an upgrade path that
    was, I reckon, at least 95% backward compatible, that's the
    difference.

    >>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.


    Correct. It will be known as .Net.

    >>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?


    There will *be* no "offline"! Microsoft is planning their future on
    the basis that we will be connected 24/7 via broadband. They always
    introduced software that pushed the hardware requirements onward and
    upward. They never supported the argument that current PCs would not
    be powerful enough. Their argument was always, "buy a more powerful
    PC!"

    > MS isn't that stupid, and if
    >there's no revenue stream, they won't sell it.


    Imagine a world that *is* connected 24/7 via broadband. Now imagine
    that *everything* that once was done locally is now dependent upon web
    services. Now imagine that the "application" running in your PC is
    just a script, which bolts together the functionalities from those
    various web services. Bingo! A global-public WAN OS called
    Microsoft.Net!

    >>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".


    Microsoft doesn't care about local apps any more. They have no control
    over local apps. They cannot levy micropayments, subscription fees, or
    any other kinds of charge for local apps. Local apps cannot be
    subjugated under .Net My Services and are agnostic about Passport or
    Product Activation. But MS (as well as Sun and IBM) *can* charge for
    web services which build the "WAN OS" equivalent of those apps, if
    they control the web services in question or access to them.

    MM

  3. #168
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On 8 Apr 2002 09:55:46 -0800, "Jason" <jason@creative_nospam_corp.com>
    wrote:

    >You need an OS to run the app, although it can interact with the Internet.
    > You need a fast CPU, because the program loads and runs entirely on your
    >local system.


    Heard of Citrix Metaframe? That's how I see the future! Not from
    Citrix, but from Microsoft. Your "PC" in the office, at home, in your
    car, or in your pocket, is merely a display and input device with
    minimal local CPU needs, i.e. just enough power to feed the display
    and send your input to its host. Which is the Terminal Server (let's
    just pretend and call it .Net Terminal Services) on a remote
    supercomputer/mainframe/fast PC somewhere you're connected to via
    broadband.

    MM

  4. #169
    Kathleen Dollard Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    Mike,

    > Heard of Citrix Metaframe? That's how I see the future! Not from
    > Citrix, but from Microsoft. Your "PC" in the office, at home, in your
    > car, or in your pocket, is merely a display and input device with
    > minimal local CPU needs, i.e. just enough power to feed the display
    > and send your input to its host. Which is the Terminal Server (let's
    > just pretend and call it .Net Terminal Services) on a remote
    > supercomputer/mainframe/fast PC somewhere you're connected to via
    > broadband.


    With MS even putting full computers into its game box, do you grok how
    stupid this prediction sounds.

    Might that be one option, sure.

    Might you be able to work on your office computer from home via terminal
    server, way cool.

    But we trashed this model in the early 80's and the problems are way too
    fundamental to think you even thought two seconds about the suggestion.

    Kathleen



  5. #170
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    "Kathleen Dollard" <kathleen@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:3cb1f680$1@10.1.10.29...
    > Kunle,
    >
    > > That's Dan *opinion*. To VB's creators and many users, this is just

    > another
    > > [albeit radical] evolution of the dialect of BASIC that underlies VB.

    >
    > Sorry to side track this hopelessly side tracked thread, but why do you
    > think this? It is not what the spec says.


    Oh but it is [what the spec says] Kathleen.

    "Visual Basic .NET is a pillar of the .NET Framework, and yet another step
    forward in evolution of the language."
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...us/vbls7/html/
    vblrfvbspec1.asp

    Seriously though, I look at VB.NET code and I know instantly that it is
    Visual Basic. I don't see a totally new language. Just a new dialect.

    Kunle



  6. #171
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 15:53:26 -0400, "Daniel Pratt"
    <dprREMOVETHISatt71@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > Most of the time your uninformed drivel doesn't bother me in the
    >slightest. This time, however, you managed to annoy me greatly.


    Next time I read:

    "<italic>.NET is all about Web Services.</italic> No doubt about it."

    I shall translate it in my mind as:

    "<italic>.NET is all about Web Services.</italic> There is doubt about
    it."

    Then I shall be assured of correctly interpreting the meaning.

    MM

  7. #172
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 21:04:56 +0100, "Ed Courtenay"
    <my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote:

    [snip]

    See my response to Daniel Pratt!

    MM

  8. #173
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 08:11:23 +1000, "Michael Culley"
    <mike@vbdotcom.com> wrote:

    [snip]

    See my response to Daniel Pratt!

    MM

  9. #174
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On 8 Apr 2002 12:23:38 -0800, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
    wrote:

    [snip]

    See my response to Daniel Pratt!

    MM

  10. #175
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On 8 Apr 2002 12:42:06 -0800, "Jason" <jason@creative_nospam_corp.com>
    wrote:

    >But Mike, classic VB is not simple. It's not even close.


    Nonsense. It is the simplest, easiest modern computer language that is
    the most flexible (VB/VBScript/VBA), the most accessible (anyone of
    average intelligence can learn it in 21 days), and the most successful
    (at least 3 million programmers, plus countless millions of
    end-users).

    MM

  11. #176
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:29:33 -0600, "Kathleen Dollard"
    <kathleen@mvps.org> wrote:

    >................. VB.NET
    >seems likely to focus on the millions of developers that used VB6 and will
    >struggle with VB.NET.


    Hang about, that cannot possibly be! Jason and others keep telling me
    that VB.Net is *simpler* than classic VB! How could those millions
    possible be struggling? Wriggling, yes, but struggling? With such an
    *easy* language as VB.Net?

    I'm perplexed!

    MM

  12. #177
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:39:56 GMT, kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell)
    wrote:

    >anyone of average intelligence can learn [VB] in 21 days


    When are you going to get started?


    --
    Turn on, tune in, download.
    zane@mvps.org

  13. #178
    Paul Mc Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    G'day.

    >> Heard of Citrix Metaframe? That's how I see the future!


    This is an issue that my company has recently thought deeply about: should
    we assume thin or fat client as "the future"? We needed to make some strategic
    decisions, as we are currently re-architecting our major app with the long-term
    in mind. We debated long and hard, and eventually came to the conclusion
    that, in our books, fat client was the bet. It seems to us that the Citrix
    Metaframe model, while having some *very* good points, is in many ways a
    stopgap solution. Smarter network software (though some of this *smarter*
    software has been around for a long tim ie Novell) will erode some of the
    advantages of the terminal; good hardware for the client is becoming cheaper
    and easier to use/manage all the time; and the network connection is, (for
    the forseeable future IMHO), the weak/expensive link in the whole structure.
    While connectivity is, of course, vital and supremely useful, we look at
    more disconnected models and really see a lot of advantages there that cannot
    be gained elsewhere.


    Cheers,
    Paul

  14. #179
    Larry Serflaten Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#

    > Next time I read:
    >
    > "<italic>.NET is all about Web Services.</italic> No doubt about it."
    >
    > I shall translate it in my mind as:
    >
    > "<italic>.NET is all about Web Services.</italic> There is doubt about
    > it."
    >
    > Then I shall be assured of correctly interpreting the meaning.


    You still don't get it, eh? "No doubt about it." Is not a full sentence.
    You should normally associate such an incomplete sentence with the
    preceeding or following sentence. In this case the preceeding sentence was
    set apart by being italisized, so the natural association (which Patrick used)
    was to assume it was associated with the following sentence. If he had used
    a comma, instead of a period, that association would be concrete. Because
    there was text later on that strengthened that association, most were able to
    decypher his meaning.

    "Nevertheless, Web Services are just one type of application that VS.NET
    enables you to build."

    LFS




  15. #180
    Ian R Guest

    Re: From VB.net to C#


    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
    news:3cb17c49$1@10.1.10.29...
    > 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.


    If you use all of them on the same method, yes it gets a tad verbose. Should
    a new way be invented ? Not sure about that. Rightly or wrongly the way it
    is now is the VB way. Beside Mike will just ***** about that as well..

    >
    > VB.Net is not consistent with Property Get/Let. And then there is the

    arcane
    > syntax of attributes, which is not consistent with anything.


    It's not exactly the same as VB6. But's it pretty similar. VB6's attributes
    (such as they are) are hidden in the code. I'm not a big fan of opening
    another dialog to edit the attributes. But that's just me.

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


    Because that's not the way VB classic does it. I'm not saying the VB classic
    way is correct, just that changing it in VB.NET would be inconsistent.




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