Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6? - Page 7


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 126

Thread: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

  1. #91
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 03:52:42 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
    <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

    >Pascal and VB *are* alien to BASIC programmers. VB though isn't alien to VB
    >programmers....


    "VB is alien to BASIC programmers" ? What nonsense are you wibbling on
    about now? Any BASIC programmer who wanted to, could pick up VB inside
    of five minutes, no problem. And that includes BASIC programmers
    outwith the Microsoft School of B.A.S.I.C. Even ZX Spectrum BASIC or
    BBC BASIC programmers would be more conversant with VB after five
    minutes exposure than current VBc programmers are with VB.Net.

    MM

  2. #92
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 04:06:01 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
    <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

    >I said "BASIC" not VB. As I said elsewhere VB is itself alien to BASIC
    >developers due to it's Pascalization and other such extensions.


    I'm getting tired of your myth-making claims that VB was subjected to
    "Pascalisation". Would you please give examples of this
    "Pascalisation"? Has anyone else used this term, or did you just
    invent it after you'd chucked veracity in the mendacity bin?

    MM

  3. #93
    Jens Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    > I'm getting tired of your myth-making claims that VB was subjected to
    > "Pascalisation". Would you please give examples of this
    > "Pascalisation"?


    * Not using Line Number anymore
    * Subs and Functions
    * ByVal and ByRef parameters
    * ...

    To me and to many others original basic is a language like it was
    implemented in for instance the C64. A language that had limited basic
    types (like a string type and some general purpose numeric type), has
    limited control structures, does not know Subs and Functions but only Goto's
    and Gosubs.

    From there on the Pascalisation begun. It began precisely because all the
    ease of use in the original BASIC also meant that is was unusabel for
    anything serious.
    With Pascalisation BASIC became more formal and thus more useable.
    Between BASIC 'as far back as I remember' and VB.NET, there is a universe of
    difference, and a timeline of moore features and also more formalisation.
    Calling that Pascalisation seems correct to me as it was under pressure from
    Pascal that this came about.

    I must admit that I have never heard the term before, but as far as I am
    concerned, the word hits the nail on the spot.

    And MM, if you don't want to call VB.NET BASIC anymore, then VB.CLASSIC
    isn't BASIC either. VB Classic is much further away from C64 of TI99/4A or
    even ZX Spectrum BASIC than it is from VB.NET. Think about it.

    Jens



  4. #94
    Paul Clement Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:33:39 +0200, "Jens" <jens@esalar.be> wrote:



    And MM, if you don't want to call VB.NET BASIC anymore, then VB.CLASSIC
    isn't BASIC either. VB Classic is much further away from C64 of TI99/4A or
    even ZX Spectrum BASIC than it is from VB.NET. Think about it.

    Yes, but it's one of the rallying cries. ;-)

    Fact is, there isn't much serious work done these days with BASIC. It wasn't the BASIC language that
    has made it a viable development product under Windows. It is the extensions to the language
    incorporated into Visual Basic and .NET that made it the most widely used development product over
    the last decade. The BASIC language of course played a significant part because it was familiar and
    easy to use.

    The distinction between the core language and the extensions to the language is pointless. They've
    both been rendered subsets of the product as a whole and do not stand alone in their importance. I
    don't know anyone that develops software using just one or the other. To claim that one is more
    sacred than the other is hypocritical because changes to either can render an application
    inoperable, requiring modifications in order for it to function in a changed environment.

    And this didn't start with .NET. Microsoft has been making changes to the product (which affected
    written code) for a number of years now. Some of it quite significant if you have worked with any of
    the data access features. If you didn't see the limitations of Classic Visual Basic, the dead end
    approaching, and the overhaul coming, then you're simply in denial.


    Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
    Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

  5. #95
    Patrick Steele [MVP] Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    In article <o2tipughmvcpca2bbl576qosja7e5bk042@4ax.com> (from Mike
    Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk>),
    > I'm getting tired of your myth-making claims...


    LOL! The irony in you making this statement is so thick!

    --
    Patrick Steele
    Microsoft .NET MVP
    http://radio.weblogs.com/0110109

  6. #96
    Tom Shelton Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:qlsipu0tfe5hcdpd31hr3npuc7fnvmc93u@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 03:52:42 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
    > <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    > >Pascal and VB *are* alien to BASIC programmers. VB though isn't alien to

    VB
    > >programmers....

    >
    > "VB is alien to BASIC programmers" ? What nonsense are you wibbling on
    > about now? Any BASIC programmer who wanted to, could pick up VB inside
    > of five minutes, no problem. And that includes BASIC programmers
    > outwith the Microsoft School of B.A.S.I.C. Even ZX Spectrum BASIC or
    > BBC BASIC programmers would be more conversant with VB after five
    > minutes exposure than current VBc programmers are with VB.Net.


    That's complete and utter bull! Right now, at my company we have a guy that
    has been programming in Atari Basic for years, and has been doing IMS/Basic
    for several months now - and is doing quite well at it. He is supposed to
    be taking over a VB5 based product. He has been struggling for about 3 wks
    now trying to come to grips with VB5.

    Tom Shelton



  7. #97
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    In article <3d9973dc@10.1.10.29>,
    "Jens" <jens@esalar.be> writes:

    > > I'm getting tired of your myth-making claims that VB was
    > > subjected to "Pascalisation". Would you please give examples of
    > > this "Pascalisation"?


    > * Not using Line Number anymore
    > * Subs and Functions
    > * ByVal and ByRef parameters
    > * ...


    > To me and to many others original basic is a language like it was
    > implemented in for instance the C64.


    Interesting claim. But your history is badly flawed there. C64 BASIC
    *had* subs and functions (according to the C64 Programmers Reference
    Guide sitting on my bookshelf). And at that time there were already
    versions of BASIC which had long since rendered line numbers optional.

    > A language that had limited basic types (like a string type and
    > some general purpose numeric type),


    Again, your history fails you. C64 BASIC recognized both real and
    integer numeric variables (integers were designated by %). And
    of course, arrays and the like.

    > has limited control structures, does not know Subs and Functions
    > but only Goto's and Gosubs.


    There you go again. C64 BASIC *did* know Subs and FuNctions.

    > From there on the Pascalisation begun.


    According to Kemeny and Kurtz (the creators of BASIC), Pascal had
    absolutely nothing to do with it. The changes you mention mostly
    came from Fortran (which strongly influenced the original design
    in 1965), and the rest from C (which gained popularity in the same
    timeshare/interactive domain). More recent changes (such as the OO
    support) came from C++ rather than Pascal.

    > It began precisely because all the ease of use in the original
    > BASIC also meant that is was unusabel for anything serious.


    Again, you are spouting nonsense. By the time the C64 came out (in
    1982), BASIC was being used for a wide variety of serious business
    applications and other interactive purposes.

    > With Pascalisation BASIC became more formal and thus more useable.


    Nonsense on both counts (the "Pascal" claim and the formal = useable
    claim). The single change which was regarded as making BASIC more
    useable had nothing to do with Pascal OR formality. It was the move
    to multi-character variable names (again, from Fortran). Its
    informality made it a popular choice for quick development among
    those who were more concerned with functionality than with Academic
    Propriety. By contrast, Pascal was never in the same league as BASIC,
    Fortran, COBOL, or even C in business applications - or any other non
    Academic domain. Even assembly language was more popular.

    > Between BASIC 'as far back as I remember' and VB.NET, there is a
    > universe of difference,


    True, but somewhat misleading. Much of that difference was in one
    step: the jump from VB6 to VB.NET.

    > and a timeline of moore features and also more formalisation.


    BASIC was designed - from the beginning - to allow for additional
    features. But they were just that: additions. But it was, and is,
    designed to allow any formality to be imposed by the practices of the
    programmer rather than the language. And up through VB6, TrueBASIC,
    and PureBASIC, that has been the case.

    > Calling that Pascalisation seems correct to me as it was under
    > pressure from Pascal that this came about.


    In your dreams. The "pressure" came (in chronological order) from
    Fortran, C, and C++, but not from Pascal. Unless, of course, you
    claim to be more of an authority on the issue than Kemeny and Kurtz.

    > I must admit that I have never heard the term before, but as far
    > as I am concerned, the word hits the nail on the spot.


    The only nail it hits it the thumbnail of Kunle Trollson, as he misses
    the intended target. According to the creators of BASIC, Pascal was
    absolutely irrelevant to the process.

    > And MM, if you don't want to call VB.NET BASIC anymore, then
    > VB.CLASSIC isn't BASIC either. VB Classic is much further away
    > from C64 of TI99/4A or even ZX Spectrum BASIC than it is from
    > VB.NET.


    Wrong. With the exception of system specific factors (such as UI and
    "peek/poke" restrictions), VB.Classic could run most C64 code
    fragments virtually unchanged (and I have done so). The same is not
    true of VB.NET. In fact, VB.NET cannot even run most VB6 code
    fragments unchanged - thus the uproar and the wholesale move to Java
    and the like.

    > Think about it.


    Think about the apparent holes in your memory and their effects on
    your interpretation of the issues.

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  8. #98
    Vlad Ivanov Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:

    >Think about the apparent holes in your memory and their effects on
    >your interpretation of the issues.
    >
    >--
    >
    >W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD


    I have started my exposure to programming with C64 as well, but never really
    paid enough attention to history of languages. However i'd also like to mention
    in support of what Bill is saying, that i recall from somewhere in the past
    life that Fortran was always brought up to be the biggest influence on evolution
    of Basic.

  9. #99
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    Mike Mitchell wrote:
    > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 03:52:42 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
    > <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >> Pascal and VB *are* alien to BASIC programmers. VB though isn't
    >> alien to VB programmers....

    >
    > "VB is alien to BASIC programmers" ?


    Yes Mike.

    >What nonsense are you wibbling on
    > about now? Any BASIC programmer who wanted to, could pick up VB inside
    > of five minutes, no problem.


    That is an untrue statement. It doesn't take five minutes to pick up VB for
    anyone. Not even QuickBasic users.

    > And that includes BASIC programmers
    > outwith the Microsoft School of B.A.S.I.C. Even ZX Spectrum BASIC or
    > BBC BASIC programmers would be more conversant with VB after five
    > minutes exposure than current VBc programmers are with VB.Net.


    And *definitely* not these guys. Long live BBC BASIC....but it is nothing
    like VB.
    http://www.bbcbasic.com/example1.html

    Would you use this?
    http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/products/bbcwin/bbcwin.html

    Kunle




  10. #100
    Dan Barclay Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:04:09 -0600, "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD"
    <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:

    >According to Kemeny and Kurtz (the creators of BASIC), Pascal had
    >absolutely nothing to do with it. The changes you mention mostly
    >came from Fortran (which strongly influenced the original design
    >in 1965)


    Minor correction: 1964

    I have in my hands a copy of the first Basic manual. It's titled
    "BASIC" "Instruction Manual" "First Draft" dated May 1964. Mr Kurtz
    made a presentation I accidentally attended some time back and
    provided copies of this at the time. It's 23 pages including
    language, logon instructions, and sample code.

    Dan
    Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
    (#6)
    Error 51
    Error 3
    Error 9
    ....

  11. #101
    Dan Barclay Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:04:09 -0600, "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD"
    <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:

    >According to Kemeny and Kurtz (the creators of BASIC), Pascal had
    >absolutely nothing to do with it. The changes you mention mostly
    >came from Fortran (which strongly influenced the original design
    >in 1965


    Yup. The Preface for the manual I mentioned reads (clipped) and
    editorialized {ed:xx} as (note items 3 and 4 in particular):

    =========
    When plans were made for the Dartmouth College time-sharing system,
    which will enable 20 or more people to use the computer at the same
    time {ed: Woo hooo!}, the need arose for a language to meet several
    requirements.

    1. It should be very easy to learn (clipped)
    2. It should be possible to change programs from this language to
    the language of the machine ("compile") quickly. (clipped)
    3. It should be a stepping-stone for students who may later wish to
    learn one of the standard languages, such as FORTRAN or ALGOL.
    4. It should be a general purpose language; that is, every kind of
    machine computation should be programmable in it.

    (clipped)

    =======================================

    Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
    (#6)
    Error 51
    Error 3
    Error 9
    ....

  12. #102
    Blob Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    "KUNLE" <> "SMART"


  13. #103
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD wrote:

    >> A language that had limited basic types (like a string type and
    >> some general purpose numeric type),

    >
    > Again, your history fails you. C64 BASIC recognized both real and
    > integer numeric variables (integers were designated by %). And
    > of course, arrays and the like.


    Records?
    Pointers?

    >> has limited control structures, does not know Subs and Functions
    >> but only Goto's and Gosubs.

    >
    > There you go again. C64 BASIC *did* know Subs and FuNctions.
    >
    >> From there on the Pascalisation begun.

    >
    > According to Kemeny and Kurtz (the creators of BASIC), Pascal had
    > absolutely nothing to do with it.


    Bill, "MS BASIC" <> "TrueBASIC"

    It is true that early BASIC was essentially a cut-down FOTRAN but there the
    similarities with MS BASIC end. TrueBASIC - the original Dartmouth BASIC's
    ill-fated child - was never important enough to have to deal with the
    reality of TurboPascal and Borland. In fact is it unfair to claim that MS
    "pascalized" BASIC to create the the most successful descendant of BASIC. It
    was in fact a result of competion between *both* MS and Borland as they
    competed fiercly against each other's BASIC offering and the phenomenally
    successful TurboPascal. They "pacscalized" their repective PC dialects of
    BASIC - by borrowing features primarily from Pascal and also Modula-2 and
    C - and this led eventually to the very strange (to a BASIC programmer) but
    successful bialect of BASIC selected as the langauge for MS's VB dev tool.

    >> With Pascalisation BASIC became more formal and thus more useable.

    >
    > Nonsense on both counts (the "Pascal" claim and the formal = useable
    > claim). The single change which was regarded as making BASIC more
    > useable had nothing to do with Pascal OR formality. It was the move
    > to multi-character variable names (again, from Fortran). Its
    > informality made it a popular choice for quick development among
    > those who were more concerned with functionality than with Academic
    > Propriety. By contrast, Pascal was never in the same league as BASIC,
    > Fortran, COBOL, or even C in business applications - or any other non
    > Academic domain. Even assembly language was more popular.


    Your warped version of history denies the existence, success and influence
    of Pascal - particularly TurboPascal and the Mac version of Pascal.
    Fortunately, Pascal's influence continues in real life -- Delphi.NET (a la
    TurboPascal.NET) or one of it's many variants is still the most often cited
    smoking gun to kill off the VB6-to-VB.NET transition........just ask MM.
    ;-)

    http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_...mming_language
    http://www.mvps.org/vb/hardcore/html...rification.htm

    >> Calling that Pascalisation seems correct to me as it was under
    >> pressure from Pascal that this came about.

    >
    > In your dreams. The "pressure" came (in chronological order) from
    > Fortran, C, and C++, but not from Pascal. Unless, of course, you
    > claim to be more of an authority on the issue than Kemeny and Kurtz.


    Kurtz et al aren't relevant when discussing the most successful dialect of
    BASIC - MS BASIC. Their decisons influences and historical recollections do
    not affect or apply to MS BASIC. It does affect Kurtz et al's product
    though - www.truebasic.com

    >> I must admit that I have never heard the term before, but as far
    >> as I am concerned, the word hits the nail on the spot.

    >
    > The only nail it hits it the thumbnail of Kunle Trollson, as he misses
    > the intended target. According to the creators of BASIC, Pascal was
    > absolutely irrelevant to the process.


    As are your comments to MS BASIC.

    Never heard of this Pascalization?, well let's see what BYTE's Jerry thinks
    of it:
    http://www.byte.com/art/9607/sec14/art1.htm

    <quote>
    It was a big deal when Turbo Pascal hit the market. When Philippe Kahn's
    Borland International brought out Turbo Basic, it shook Microsoft to the
    core. After years of neglect, they rapidly produced two major revisions to
    Microsoft Basic, and they haven't slowed much since.
    </quote>

    <quote>
    Instead, partly because Bill Gates got his start by writing Altair BASIC for
    the first microcomputer, in the U.S., BASIC became the language of choice
    outside professional programming circles. QuickBasic, and its successor VB,
    incorporate most of the best features of Pascal and Modula-2.
    </quote>

    Kunle



  14. #104
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    In article <b5ujpug9tdijdnh682md9rjlsm44oujbct@4ax.com>,
    Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> writes:

    > On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:04:09 -0600, "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD"
    > <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:


    > >According to Kemeny and Kurtz (the creators of BASIC), Pascal had
    > >absolutely nothing to do with it. The changes you mention mostly
    > >came from Fortran (which strongly influenced the original design
    > >in 1965)


    > Minor correction: 1964


    Ok, bad choice of words on my part. My books show the Release of
    BASIC as being in 1965, FWIW.

    > I have in my hands a copy of the first Basic manual. It's titled
    > "BASIC" "Instruction Manual" "First Draft" dated May 1964. Mr
    > Kurtz made a presentation I accidentally attended some time back
    > and provided copies of this at the time. It's 23 pages including
    > language, logon instructions, and sample code.


    Cool!

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  15. #105
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    In article <3d99e7eb$1@10.1.10.29>,
    "Vlad Ivanov" <vb.@127.0.0.1> writes:

    > "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:


    > >Think about the apparent holes in your memory and their effects
    > >on your interpretation of the issues.


    > I have started my exposure to programming with C64 as well,


    I hope that "as well" was a reference to Jens (who did seem to think
    that the world began in 1982). FWIW, I had well over a decade of
    programming experience by that time.

    > but never really paid enough attention to history of languages.
    > However i'd also like to mention in support of what Bill is saying,
    > that i recall from somewhere in the past life that Fortran was
    > always brought up to be the biggest influence on evolution of Basic.


    Ouch! Much of that "history" was "current events" for me. <-;

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

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