How long before the next version??

[_CAG]

Does anyone have a guess as to when the next VB.NET version will be
released?

Cal

[Jeff Johnson]

"_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
>Does anyone have a guess as to when the next VB.NET version will be
>released?
>
>Cal


I think it should go beta next January at the soonest... and then relased
a year after that.

[Jim Pragit]

Hi Cal,

There are two new versions of .NET in the works. The first is code-named
Everett which is essentially .NET version 1.1. Everett is scheduled to be
released later this year. The next major release, code-named Whidbey, is
.NET version 2.0. This is scheduled to be released by end of 2003. Keep
in mind that Microsoft tends to slip on these sort of deadlines so take these
dates with a grain of salt.

For more information, see the following article:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0%2C39...73783%2C00.asp

- Jim

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not
believe in it at all.
- Noam Chomsky

"_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
>Does anyone have a guess as to when the next VB.NET version will be
>released?
>
>Cal
>
>

[_CAG]

I would have liked to wait. Guess I won't.

Thanks,
Cal

"Jeff Johnson" <jeff.johnson@electricexpress.com> wrote in message
news:3d3c06ce$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> "_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
> >Does anyone have a guess as to when the next VB.NET version will be
> >released?
> >
> >Cal
>
>
> I think it should go beta next January at the soonest... and then relased
> a year after that.

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote in message <news:3d3b5ebd@10.1.10.29>...

> Does anyone have a guess as to when the next VB.NET version will be
> released?

You mean, when will you have a new "opportunity" to rewrite all your code?

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Greed = God? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

[Patrice Scribe]

Note though this is much likely the .NET framework, not really VB.NET !

Patrice

"_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> a écrit dans le message news:
3d3c1f0a$1@10.1.10.29...
> I would have liked to wait. Guess I won't.
>
> Thanks,
> Cal
>
> "Jeff Johnson" <jeff.johnson@electricexpress.com> wrote in message
> news:3d3c06ce$1@10.1.10.29...
> >
> > "_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
> > >Does anyone have a guess as to when the next VB.NET version will be
> > >released?
> > >
> > >Cal
> >
> >
> > I think it should go beta next January at the soonest... and then
relased
> > a year after that.
>
>

[Patrice Scribe]

Note that this is unlikely you'll have to update your code, now that the
underlying platform has changed. The VB6 to VB.NET update is much like an OS
change.
AFAIK the next release won't change VB.NET but more likely the underlying
..NET infrastructure (just adding).

Patrice

"Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> a écrit dans le message news:
3d3c2e27@10.1.10.29...
> "_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote in message <news:3d3b5ebd@10.1.10.29>...
>
> > Does anyone have a guess as to when the next VB.NET version will be
> > released?
>
> You mean, when will you have a new "opportunity" to rewrite all your code?
>
> --
> Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Greed = God?
<http://www.xenu.net/>
> WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're
coming to
> because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away,
ha ha!
>
>

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com> wrote in message <news:3d3c44d8@10.1.10.29>...

> Note that this is unlikely you'll have to update your code, now that the
> underlying platform has changed. The VB6 to VB.NET update is much like an OS
> change.
> AFAIK the next release won't change VB.NET but more likely the underlying
> .NET infrastructure (just adding).

Will they get around to just adding back real array support?

URL:news://news.devx.com/39e358ba.31693765@news.devx.com

URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40tkmsftngp03

Might be nice if they just subtract the GC idiocy ripped off
from Java, which as we all know simply is not up to the job:

URL:http://cuj.com/java/articles/a24/a24.htm?topic=java

(Wrapping *each and every class* that might hold resources is
considered *easier* than other approaches!? Which garbage
collector do we call to come put both Java and .NET out of our
collective misery? "Wrap That Rascal", indeed...)

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> "Regged" again? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

[Patrice Scribe]

AFAIK you can already create non zero based array (though this is done by
the framework not in the language) and if I remember it was done for
interoperability (non zero based arrays are not CLS compliant).

For the GC, no definitive opinion but it seems to me it will fade away as
managed support grows. Remember you have to do this only for unmanaged
resources...

Patrice

"Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> a écrit dans le message news:
3d3c64a1@10.1.10.29...
> "Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com> wrote in message
<news:3d3c44d8@10.1.10.29>...
>
> > Note that this is unlikely you'll have to update your code, now that the
> > underlying platform has changed. The VB6 to VB.NET update is much like
an OS
> > change.
> > AFAIK the next release won't change VB.NET but more likely the
underlying
> > .NET infrastructure (just adding).
>
> Will they get around to just adding back real array support?
>
> URL:news://news.devx.com/39e358ba.31693765@news.devx.com
>
> URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40tkmsftngp03
>
> Might be nice if they just subtract the GC idiocy ripped off
> from Java, which as we all know simply is not up to the job:
>
> URL:http://cuj.com/java/articles/a24/a24.htm?topic=java
>
> (Wrapping *each and every class* that might hold resources is
> considered *easier* than other approaches!? Which garbage
> collector do we call to come put both Java and .NET out of our
> collective misery? "Wrap That Rascal", indeed...)
>
> --
> Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> "Regged" again?
<http://www.xenu.net/>
> WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're
coming to
> because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away,
ha ha!
>
>

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com> wrote in message <news:3d3d1dda@10.1.10.29>...

> AFAIK you can already create non zero based array (though this is done by
> the framework not in the language) and if I remember it was done for
> interoperability (non zero based arrays are not CLS compliant).

Umm, duh? Have you actually tried working with such an "array"?

> For the GC, no definitive opinion but it seems to me it will fade away as
> managed support grows. Remember you have to do this only for unmanaged
> resources...

Ground Control to Major Tom... I *am* talking about "managed"
resources, you wingnut! At least *try* to keep up, mmkay?

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> L. Ron Dullard <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

[Patrice Scribe]

"Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> a écrit dans le message news:
3d3d8fcf@10.1.10.29...
> "Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com> wrote in message
<news:3d3d1dda@10.1.10.29>...
>
> > AFAIK you can already create non zero based array (though this is done
by
> > the framework not in the language) and if I remember it was done for
> > interoperability (non zero based arrays are not CLS compliant).
>
> Umm, duh? Have you actually tried working with such an "array"?

Actually I'm generally using zero based array. What are the problems you had
with them ?

>
> > For the GC, no definitive opinion but it seems to me it will fade away
as
> > managed support grows. Remember you have to do this only for unmanaged
> > resources...
>
> Ground Control to Major Tom... I *am* talking about "managed"
> resources, you wingnut! At least *try* to keep up, mmkay?

Humm... Always thought you don't have to "wrap" (ie. implement IDisposable)
managed resources ? Or do you mean you have to call the close method and
eventually set the object to nothing (which doesn't seem to be so different
from VB6) ?

>
> --
> Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> L. Ron Dullard
<http://www.xenu.net/>
> WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're
coming to
> because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away,
ha ha!
>
>

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com> wrote in message <news:3d3d9522$1@10.1.10.29>...

> "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> a écrit dans le message news:
> 3d3d8fcf@10.1.10.29...

> > Umm, duh? Have you actually tried working with such an "array"?
>
> Actually I'm generally using zero based array. What are the problems you had
> with them ?

You mean, besides their imbecilic design, interface, and implementation?

URL:http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache...et/ArraysX.htm

> > Ground Control to Major Tom... I *am* talking about "managed"
> > resources, you wingnut! At least *try* to keep up, mmkay?
>
> Humm... Always thought you don't have to "wrap" (ie. implement IDisposable)
> managed resources ? Or do you mean you have to call the close method and
> eventually set the object to nothing (which doesn't seem to be so different
> from VB6) ?

Perhaps if you were actually familiar with VB 4.0, 5.0, or 6.0, you'd
know about this obscure, insignificant, almost unknown feature known
as the "Class_Terminate" event? Maybe you'd even know that *having*
to *explicitly* call Close methods and Set references to Nothing tend
to be the hallmarks of badly designed and/or buggy components, such
as earlier versions of DAO, RDO, and ADO:

URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40tkmsftngp04

So, is the CLR a product of poor design or of more bugs than a Biblical
plague of locusts? After all, even Brian Harry [MSFT] admits that .NET
dropped the ball when it comes to cleaning up any but trivial classes!

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Wanna buy a Bridge? <http://xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

[Patrice Scribe]

> You mean, besides their imbecilic design, interface, and implementation?
>
>
URL:http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache...thlink.net/~bu
tlerbob/VBNet/ArraysX.htm

If you need a simpler syntax you could probably create a class (I know you
shouldn't have to but if you choosed .NET you may want to workaround these
issues) to obtain something like :

Dim MyArray As New IntegerArray(10,20) ' Upper To Lower
Dim i As Integer
For i=MyArray.GetLowerBound(0) To MyArray.GetUpperBound(0)
Debug.Write(MyArray(i))
Next

> Perhaps if you were actually familiar with VB 4.0, 5.0, or 6.0, you'd
> know about this obscure, insignificant, almost unknown feature known
> as the "Class_Terminate" event? Maybe you'd even know that *having*
> to *explicitly* call Close methods and Set references to Nothing tend
> to be the hallmarks of badly designed and/or buggy components, such
> as earlier versions of DAO, RDO, and ADO:
>
> URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40tkmsftngp04

I'm used to Close and Set objects to nothing in VB6. IMO it documents the
fact that you don't need an object later in your code. Also it allows to
release things like a database connection as soon as you don't need it
anymore rather than waiting for the variable to be out of scope.

Patrice

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com> wrote in message <news:3d3e7a8e$1@10.1.10.29>...

> > You mean, besides their imbecilic design, interface, and implementation?
> >
> >
> URL:http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache...et/ArraysX.htm
>
> If you need a simpler syntax you could probably create a class (I know you
> shouldn't have to but if you choosed .NET you may want to workaround these
> issues) to obtain something like :
>
> Dim MyArray As New IntegerArray(10,20) ' Upper To Lower
> Dim i As Integer
> For i=MyArray.GetLowerBound(0) To MyArray.GetUpperBound(0)
> Debug.Write(MyArray(i))
> Next

So much for your specious claims that the .NET framework natively
supports non-zero based arrays, especially when we'd be much better
off rolling our own than tolerating the framework's "support", eh?

> > Perhaps if you were actually familiar with VB 4.0, 5.0, or 6.0, you'd
> > know about this obscure, insignificant, almost unknown feature known
> > as the "Class_Terminate" event? Maybe you'd even know that *having*
> > to *explicitly* call Close methods and Set references to Nothing tend
> > to be the hallmarks of badly designed and/or buggy components, such
> > as earlier versions of DAO, RDO, and ADO:
> >
> > URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40tkmsftngp04
>
> I'm used to Close and Set objects to nothing in VB6. IMO it documents the
> fact that you don't need an object later in your code. Also it allows to
> release things like a database connection as soon as you don't need it
> anymore rather than waiting for the variable to be out of scope.

Are you "forgetting" that objects on the "finalization queue" are NOT
cleaned up automagically when they go out of scope? Sure, it's best
to .Close/.Dispose/.Whatever objects that you can know you don't need
anymore, but that hardly justifies the GC's keeping them in limbo for
arbitrary lengths of time if you don't, as even some Java zealots are
finally willing to admit:

URL:http://cuj.com/java/articles/a24/a24.htm?topic=java

You don't actually know much about .NET's architecture, do you.

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> L. Ron Dullard <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

[Tom Shelton]

"Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
news:3d3ed5e3@10.1.10.29...
> "Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com> wrote in message
<news:3d3e7a8e$1@10.1.10.29>...
>
> > > You mean, besides their imbecilic design, interface, and
implementation?
> > >
> > >
> >
URL:http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache...thlink.net/~bu
tlerbob/VBNet/ArraysX.htm
> >
> > If you need a simpler syntax you could probably create a class (I know
you
> > shouldn't have to but if you choosed .NET you may want to workaround
these
> > issues) to obtain something like :
> >
> > Dim MyArray As New IntegerArray(10,20) ' Upper To Lower
> > Dim i As Integer
> > For i=MyArray.GetLowerBound(0) To MyArray.GetUpperBound(0)
> > Debug.Write(MyArray(i))
> > Next
>
> So much for your specious claims that the .NET framework natively
> supports non-zero based arrays, especially when we'd be much better
> off rolling our own than tolerating the framework's "support", eh?

AFIK, It does. You can cast the result of Array.CreateInstance to a typed
array as long as it has more then one dimmension. I understand that you can
modify the IL to make this work on 1 dimmensional arrays but I haven't
bothered to research that.

If the above is true, and you can modify the IL to make this work then this
is a compiler implementation issue, not a framework issue.

> > > Perhaps if you were actually familiar with VB 4.0, 5.0, or 6.0, you'd
> > > know about this obscure, insignificant, almost unknown feature known
> > > as the "Class_Terminate" event? Maybe you'd even know that *having*
> > > to *explicitly* call Close methods and Set references to Nothing tend
> > > to be the hallmarks of badly designed and/or buggy components, such
> > > as earlier versions of DAO, RDO, and ADO:
> > >
> > >
URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40tkmsftngp04
> >
> > I'm used to Close and Set objects to nothing in VB6. IMO it documents
the
> > fact that you don't need an object later in your code. Also it allows to
> > release things like a database connection as soon as you don't need it
> > anymore rather than waiting for the variable to be out of scope.
>
> Are you "forgetting" that objects on the "finalization queue" are NOT
> cleaned up automagically when they go out of scope? Sure, it's best
> to .Close/.Dispose/.Whatever objects that you can know you don't need
> anymore, but that hardly justifies the GC's keeping them in limbo for
> arbitrary lengths of time if you don't, as even some Java zealots are
> finally willing to admit:
>
> URL:http://cuj.com/java/articles/a24/a24.htm?topic=java
>
> You don't actually know much about .NET's architecture, do you.

Joe, I am tired of reading your incessant ranting about GC and DF. You know
as well as I do that this is simply not an issue in probably 99% of cases.
Most classes do not manage critical resources, those that do require a
little special care.

I'm not saying that you can't have resource leaks using this model, but in
my experience with both .NET and Java the situation is not nearly as dire as
you make it out to be. I know of no language that absolutely guarantees
complete resource safety. Are you claiming that you can't have resource
leaks in VB.CLASSIC? I'm sure if I went searching on google I could find
all kinds of articles about how to avoid VB.CLASSIC leaks.

Tom Shelton