Re: App Object (fixes)

[Dave Doknjas]

"Tim Overbay" <luhar@neverendingsoftware.com> wrote:
>Pardon my language, but you *are* a whiny little *****. First you whine
that
>you don't want to rewrite code that's readily available in VB6--somebody
>took a little time and effort to do it for you. Then you whine that you
>don't want to take the time to scavenge for other people's code--which is
>what VBc developers have been doing since the beginning.

This seems to be the final "point" that most people in this discussion group
make - whoever they disagree with is a whiner. If you're not up to the challenge
then don't bother posting.

[Mike Mitchell]

On 31 May 2002 08:00:42 -0800, "Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>........ Don't confuse different with difficult.

I'm not confused. It's both dfferent AndAlso difficult.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Fri, 31 May 2002 08:55:58 -0700, "Phil Weber"
<pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:

> > ...and I certainly don't want Rob writing part of my apps.
>
>Dave: Why do you prefer to let Microsoft write part of your apps? If MS'
>code doesn't work, you have no recourse. If Rob's code doesn't work, you can
>e-mail him, or fix it yourself.

Hey, we could ask Borland to write VB.Net instead of Microsoft! Maybe
then they'd have retained backward compatibility!

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On 31 May 2002 08:30:13 -0800, "Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I'm not going down that path. That's been discussed to death. We all know
>there isn't an easy migration path, but that isn't an answer to the question.
>I won't disagree that MSFT made a mistake by calling it VB, but that doesn;t
>make it a bad thing.

Yes it does. Very, very bad indeed. This is the veritable nub of the
problem. All they needed to do was keep classic VB going
(indefinitely, with upgrades), but baptise their new language under a
different name. I once suggested "Visual Net", but there's many others
they could have chosen. The fundamental problem is that classic VB was
dumped and replaced with an inherently incompatible, new language,
thus causing a billion dollar headache to businesses in every high
street in the entire world. And you say it isn't a bad thing!! Ha!

MM

[Rob Teixeira]

No, but if you do whine, you will get called on it. Besides, you've even
admitted that all you want to do is complain already. Why is this a surprise?
There's a big difference between discussion and venting. The former is what
this group is for. The latter is what a therapist is for. If you want a therapist
to vent your angst at, I'm gonna start charging you by the hour. Otherwise,
go start a support group somewhere where you can all go cry on eachother's
shoulders.

-Rob


"Dave Doknjas" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>This seems to be the final "point" that most people in this discussion group
>make - whoever they disagree with is a whiner. If you're not up to the challenge
>then don't bother posting.
>
>

[Dave Doknjas]

So you've also given up?

[Zane Thomas]

On Fri, 31 May 2002 21:14:30 GMT, kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell)
wrote:

>I'm not confused.

Bwahahahahahaha!!!


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

[Rob Teixeira]

Fine. Go ask them and go away.

-Rob

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>
>Hey, we could ask Borland to write VB.Net instead of Microsoft! Maybe
>then they'd have retained backward compatibility!
>
>MM

[John Butler]

"Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3cf799aa$1@10.1.10.29...
> so the net effect
> is much better, for me anyway.

Not just for you...

As I've stated before, I now have my programmers *****ing whenever they have
to go back to VB6 to do something. Just three months into it, and they're
like that. One of my guys said to me yesterday that he felt he was writing
much better code. He said that with VB6, he would often be
break-edit-continue-fixing code two or three times before something worked,
but that now with VB.net, much of the time his code worked first time..I
thought that was quite an interesting comment.

It's not scientific and certainly doesn't mean a whole lot...but an
interesting observation from a programmer who has no allegiance to
anything...just making a casual observation.

rgds
John Butler

[John Butler]

"Dave Doknjas" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3cf7e014$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> So you've also given up?

Well..you're not exactly making it easy are you? Rob went to some trouble to
show you how something could be done...and went as far as taking the time to
write the code for you...and you carry on...I doubt many people are feeling
particularly kindly disposed towards you.

There are two types of moaning people can do here. One is moaning about some
lack of functionality in VB.NET, which you need but don't have. The missing
APP object probably falls into that...and Rob tried to help you out by
giving it to you.

The second type of moaning is the child-like stamping of feet because it
isn't like it used to be and they broke it and it all sucks wah wah....which
you've probably noticed...doesn't garner much sympathy here anymore.

You keep saying you're using .NET...if so, keep bashing at it...and I am
fairly certain you that within a few weeks you'll have a completely
different opinion.(I do, and I started off very cynical about it). In the
meantime...peoples genuine attempts to help you out should not be so lightly
taken.

regards
John Butler

[Dave Doknjas]

>>I won't disagree that MSFT made a mistake by calling it VB, but that doesn;t
>>make it a bad thing.
>
>Yes it does. Very, very bad indeed. This is the veritable nub of the
>problem. All they needed to do was keep classic VB going
>(indefinitely, with upgrades), but baptise their new language under a
>different name. I once suggested "Visual Net", but there's many others
>they could have chosen. The fundamental problem is that classic VB was
>dumped and replaced with an inherently incompatible, new language,
>thus causing a billion dollar headache to businesses in every high
>street in the entire world. And you say it isn't a bad thing!! Ha!
>
>MM

Exactly, that's why I've been hinting that those who don't care that VB.NET
is so incompatible with VB6 probably don't have serious apps that they've
also tried to convert. They have nothing at stake.

[Zane Thomas]

On 31 May 2002 15:33:13 -0800, "Dave Doknjas" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>Or.. perhaps it's just because you *CAN'T* break-edit-continue in VB.NET!

Fwiw I've never used nor seen the need for such a "feature".


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

[Phil Weber]

> So you agree - it's a horrible nightmare to convert
> VB6 apps to VB.NET.

Dave: Given the current conversion tools, yes. I'd bet money that either MS
or third parties will provide better porting tools before long. And, as I've
pointed out elsewhere, most VB6 apps will benefit from a substantial rewrite
anyway, to take advantage of .NET's new capabilities.
---
Phil Weber

[Phil Weber]

> Phil, where have you been for the last year? Companies
> aren't spending this kind of money now!

Dave: Actually, I misspoke in my previous post. I meant to say, "VB6 apps
*that need to be ported* will benefit from a substantial rewrite..." IMO,
the vast majority of VB6 code can (and should) remain in VB6 for as long as
Windows is able to run 32-bit apps.
---
Phil Weber

[Dave Doknjas]

>One of my guys said to me yesterday that he felt he was writing
>much better code. He said that with VB6, he would often be
>break-edit-continue-fixing code two or three times before something worked,
>but that now with VB.net, much of the time his code worked first time..I
>thought that was quite an interesting comment.
>
>It's not scientific and certainly doesn't mean a whole lot...but an
>interesting observation from a programmer who has no allegiance to
>anything...just making a casual observation.
>

Ask this programmer for an example the next time you see him. It looks like
VB.NET just might be the solution to all software development problems (and
perhaps other types of problems as well).

Or.. perhaps it's just because you *CAN'T* break-edit-continue in VB.NET!