Speaking of strings... - Page 10


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 247

Thread: Speaking of strings...

  1. #136
    Dave Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >How did you do it in VB6? Create a form, add a button, double click on

    the
    >button and add some code.
    >
    >How do you do it in VB.NET? Create a form, add a button, double click on
    >the button and add some code.
    >
    >Mike, it is EXACTLY the same conceptually. VB.NET adds a few more OO bells
    >and whistles which help with writing those components you love. It also
    >cleans up the language a bit - it's a bit more consistent now. And better
    >garbage collection. But that is about it.
    >
    >If you program by creating forms, adding controls, and then writing code
    >behind them, you will be right at home in Visual Studio.NET.
    >
    >Really. Without any more OO than you are using right now.


    I think this is mostly right - I've converted a couple of small projects
    from VB6 to VB.NET (during my retirement from this newsgroup) and I didn't
    have to radically change my mindset (kinda OO, but not extremist). On the
    other hand, I'm pissed that with the current condition of the Upgrade Wizard
    I'm going to have to leave my large projects in VB6 - just little things
    like the wizard randomly deleting a couple of lines of code here and there(!!!!).
    Like most developers, I'll probably eventually abandon these to others when
    I can't stand being further than a stone's throw from the leading edge.

    And since my large projects is where I spend most of my time, until the wizard
    is drastically improved I can only play with .NET.



  2. #137
    PWilmarth Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Of course, both of you are engaging in circular arguments, convinced that
    only your particular point of view is correct, with neither one of you able
    or willing to acknowledge that the other side may have some valid points.
    The need to be right or to win has caused both of you to engage in personal
    attacks just so you can claim victory. Rather than adopting a "win at all
    costs" (or be right at all costs) mentality, you both could just "agree to
    disagree" and move on.

  3. #138
    Jason Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    "Dave" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    >On the
    >other hand, I'm pissed that with the current condition of the Upgrade Wizard
    >I'm going to have to leave my large projects in VB6 - just little things
    >like the wizard randomly deleting a couple of lines of code here and there(!!!!).
    >Like most developers, I'll probably eventually abandon these to others when
    >I can't stand being further than a stone's throw from the leading edge.
    >
    >And since my large projects is where I spend most of my time, until the

    wizard
    >is drastically improved I can only play with .NET.


    Yeah, and that is an argument where MM has a point. VB.NET is not backward
    compatible with VB6, and there is no easy upgrade path. It is best, for
    now, to think of them as entirely separate languages, kind of like C++ and
    Java are separate languages despite the fact that they share syntactical
    similarities.

    I personally don't believe the upgrade wizard will ever provide an easy upgrade
    solution, but Microsoft may prove me wrong yet. The upgrade wizard for version
    1.1 is supposed to take in UserControls. Like I have said before, I will
    believe it when I see it.

  4. #139
    Jason Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    "PWilmarth" <PWilmarth80231@msn.com> wrote:
    >
    >Of course, both of you are engaging in circular arguments, convinced that
    >only your particular point of view is correct, with neither one of you able
    >or willing to acknowledge that the other side may have some valid points.
    >The need to be right or to win has caused both of you to engage in personal
    >attacks just so you can claim victory. Rather than adopting a "win at all
    >costs" (or be right at all costs) mentality, you both could just "agree

    to
    >disagree" and move on.


    I'd like to agree to disagree, but that isn't my style. Besides, I'd like
    to enlighten Mike.

    He thinks that if he uses modular programming style in VB, then he is doing
    modular programming.

    What I am trying to get him to understand is that when he uses objects, he
    is doing a form of OO programming, even if he doesn't ever write a class
    module.

    Some people seem to have gotten the idea that I am 100% OOP and o% modular
    programming. That is not the case. In fact, it doesn't work, unless you
    happen to be programming Eiffel.

    Almost all good OOP I have seen uses a lot of functions underneath. The
    OO part is just to wrap the library in a way that makes it easier to understand
    for end users. The object wrapper is there to encapsulate the nasty bits,
    and sometimes to allow users to add their own customizations to the library.

    The top level of code is almost always modular in nature. Even in Java,
    you always enter the code through a static "main()" method (not part of an
    object).

    But when you program a Form in VB, even VB6, you are doing OO programming.
    The Form is an Object (or class - it has Initialize, Terminate, and a lifetime).
    It contains controls (a "has-a" relationship, not an "is-a" relationship).
    The form receives polymorphic callbacks for events on both the controls
    and the Form, and they are handled by Event Handlers. Every form has, optionally,
    additional public and private members that contain different data between
    instances of the form.

    This is OO programming. In fact, I think VB6 has a very nice OO model.
    Very clean, very much like writing a normal BAS module. Not complete, by
    any definition, but it has a lot of functionality.

    I've been saying in many of my posts that Mike has some valid points. The
    top level of any program in VB is going to look more MP and less OOP if it
    is programmed well. But the libraries you use to implement that top level
    are far easier to consume if they have a well written object model.

    Compare any of the ActiveX libraries from Microsoft to the APIs of what they
    wrap. If we had to do everything in VB6 without those object wrappers, development
    would be a lot more time consuming.

    All I have been saying all along is that OO has a place, and OO tools can
    be very useful if applied and used correctly. All I have heard from Bill
    and Mike is that "modular programming" has always been superior to OO, and
    they want nothing to do with it.

    And what I am telling them is that if they are using VB6, they are doing
    OO whether they like it or not (and seeing it as useful and intuitive), even
    if they never create a class.

  5. #140
    Dave Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >I personally don't believe the upgrade wizard will ever provide an easy

    upgrade
    >solution, but Microsoft may prove me wrong yet. The upgrade wizard for

    version
    >1.1 is supposed to take in UserControls. Like I have said before, I will
    >believe it when I see it.


    Yeah. BYW, have you seen the abortion the wizard makes of control arrays?
    Yuk!! It was far cleaner to fix them in VB6 (via truly dynamic control creation
    and 1 class to subclass a single control instance) and then run the wizard.
    Kinda makes you wonder about how little VB was understood by those programming
    the wizard (since they also could have taken the clean approach).




  6. #141
    PWilmarth Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Your answer is rational and reasonable, but remember, the game Mike is playing
    is to refuse to acknowledge any valid points that you have. Don't know if
    you have ever watched the debates on MSNBC or CNBC. They argue for the sake
    of arguing. Doesn't matter if the other side has valid points. If he (or
    Bill) acknowledge your arguments as valid, the game is over.

  7. #142
    Ed Courtenay Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in message
    news:3DAC3F63.473FDCE8@netzero.net...
    > <snip/>
    >
    > Here is a brief list I gave in another post:
    >
    > 1) It is simpler.
    >


    Possibly, but not necessarily a good thing. Overall, OO is not inheritantly
    difficult either.

    > 2) It is closer to the way people normally think, and is therefore
    > more intuitive.
    >


    I disagree. I find OO based design much more natural than plain Modular
    development.

    > 3) It is closer to the way computers operate, and generally creates
    > less unnecessary overhead.
    >


    So? Write your code in hex if you want to get down to the metal.

    > 4) It is closer to the realities of most problem domains.
    >


    Not in any large scale developments that I've worked on; invariably OO
    design has been able to model the 'real-world' problem at a much closer
    level.

    > 5) It avoids all of the problems inherent in class related OO
    > constructs (inheritance, overloading, etc.).
    >


    Operator overloading can be a thorny issue; if used correctly it's a boon,
    if not it's a problem I'll grant you. However, it can make for very natural
    code;

    Point p = new Point(1, 2);
    Point q = new Point(4, 5);
    Point r = p + q;

    When you change the *meaning* of the overloaded operator, then you cause
    problems and lead to code obfuscation.

    > 6) It avoids problems caused by confusion between data access and
    > code execution.
    >


    What confusion?

    > 7) It concentrates the code for a given function in one place, and
    > limits the potential range and scope of unwanted side effects
    > from changes to that code.
    >


    It also makes that function large and unwieldy, prone to error and difficult
    to manage. As for limiting the potential range and scope of unwanted side
    effects, I'll think of a decent rebuff when I pick myself off the floor and
    stop laughing.

    > 8) It is easier to maintain and upgrade by people other than the
    > original designer(s) and programmer(s).
    >


    Doubtful in my experience. The clear hierachy present in OO designs make it
    easier for me to find my way through a colleagues code, not the other way
    around. The most likely problem faced with by a developer charged with
    maintaining and updating someone elses code is obfusation, badly named
    variables and monolithic programming stuctures.

    > 9) It is practical to do in most languages, from Assembly up.
    >


    Why have OO languages been developed then? Why have they proved so popular?
    Are we being brainwashed, or have we actually proved to ourselves that this
    is a viable method of development?

    > <snip/>




  8. #143
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On 15 Oct 2002 18:23:19 -0700, "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >I personally don't believe the upgrade wizard will ever provide an easy upgrade
    >solution, but Microsoft may prove me wrong yet. The upgrade wizard for version
    >1.1 is supposed to take in UserControls. Like I have said before, I will
    >believe it when I see it.


    I repeat, the converter/wizard/updater, call it what you will, should
    have been *the* most important feature of VB.Net after the actual
    language itself was produced. By (a) scrapping backward compatibility,
    and (b) not providing a 99.9% useful converter, Microsoft basically
    implied they'd given up on traditional VB programmers. Either that, or
    Microsoft thought that traditional VB programmers were already 100%
    converted to Java-based thinking.

    Imagine the outcry if a word processor were introduced that could not
    read any previous documents of any kind, not even by importing or
    filtering or whatever process!

    MM

  9. #144
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On 15 Oct 2002 19:25:27 -0700, "Dave" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote:

    >Yeah. BYW, have you seen the abortion the wizard makes of control arrays?
    >Yuk!! It was far cleaner to fix them in VB6 (via truly dynamic control creation
    >and 1 class to subclass a single control instance) and then run the wizard.
    >Kinda makes you wonder about how little VB was understood by those programming
    >the wizard (since they also could have taken the clean approach).


    Yes, where there are so many disparities between classic Visual Basic
    and VB.Net, there will be conversion situations which are ambiguous.
    But this is where a good wizard would prompt the user with different
    conversion scenarios, with paybacks and obstacles, then allowing the
    user to make a decision. Thus, the wizard could even learn by example,
    thereby exhibiting some rudimentary form of AI.

    MM

  10. #145
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:13:32 +0100, "Ed Courtenay"
    <replace-this-with-my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote:

    >Why have OO languages been developed then? Why have they proved so popular?
    >Are we being brainwashed, or have we actually proved to ourselves that this
    >is a viable method of development?


    Prove to others, not just yourselves! I'm still waiting for meaningful
    ways of measuring productivity so that the supposed benefits of OOP
    can be shown to be actual and not just brainwashing.

    MM

  11. #146
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On 15 Oct 2002 12:59:15 -0700, "PWilmarth" <pwilmarth80231@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >If, as you imply, OOP is not the solution, but part of the problem, then what
    >would you suggest as a solution?


    We get to keep *our* preferred tools and are not fobbed off with
    something we don't want. It's all about choice. For decades, anyone
    who really wanted to produce software following OOP principles could
    have done so. They didn't need Microsoft to take away classic VB in
    order to permit them to do it.

    >Using analagies to other professions is all very well and good, but none
    >of them live in a perfect world either. To cite your example of the general
    >practitioner, even a good general practitioner has to know something about
    >about cardiology, as well as oncology, hematology, orthopedics, obstretrics,
    >pharmacology, nutrition, neurology, dermatology, toxicology, emergency medicine,
    >etc, etc. He (or she) doesn't need to be an expert in each of these areas,
    >but needs to at least have enough fundamental knowledge of each area in order
    >to know when a specialist in each of these areas is required. Each one of
    >these specialists has their own paradigm, and you might get a different solution
    >to a given problem, depending on who you ask.


    Yeah, and I know enough about OOP in order for me to write the
    mandatory classes needed when I develop a VB5/6 add-in. If I needed to
    know more, I'd find out. Just like the doc.

    >You write very lengthy dissertations about the weaknesses of OOP as a methodology,
    >but, Mike, in your dream world, how would you like to see things done? And
    >how are you moving your profession in that direction?


    The way I'd like to see things done is, they should get easier, they
    should build upon the ideas inherent in Alan Cooper's design as the
    Father of Visual Basic, they should involve the *computer* much more
    by using AI, they should enable ordinary workers and members of the
    public to write software, as QuickBASIC/VB uniquely made a start in
    doing, they should be "open" in the sense that no proprietary
    manufacturer should be allowed to arbitrarily consign a widely used
    product to the trash.

    How am I moving "my profession" along? Like eating an elephant - one
    byte at a time!

    MM

  12. #147
    iGadget Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:l3cqqu8g3psupciaea87cgvbno124bd966@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:13:32 +0100, "Ed Courtenay"
    > <replace-this-with-my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    > >Why have OO languages been developed then? Why have they proved so

    popular?
    > >Are we being brainwashed, or have we actually proved to ourselves that

    this
    > >is a viable method of development?

    >
    > Prove to others, not just yourselves! I'm still waiting for meaningful
    > ways of measuring productivity so that the supposed benefits of OOP
    > can be shown to be actual and not just brainwashing.


    All of these arguments are pointless if you assume programming languages are
    only there to solve your particular line of work.
    I wrote a database app to query and report questionnaire results for a
    company recently, and most of it was procedural. It didn't really benefit
    from my writing any objects, although they were present in the reporting
    tool I linked to.
    I am now working on a structured questionnaire designer with hierarchical
    structures of sections, groups, and questions, with reusable sections lots
    of question structures that all differ slightly. An OO language is perfect
    for this situation.

    Perhaps, in your line of work, you don't have many requirements for OO
    coding, in which case you can either use VB6 or probably get away with
    procedural coding in VB.NET.
    Arguing about whether OO is efficient, viable, or whatever is pointless. It
    does have its uses, and is perfect for many tasks, but unnecessary for
    others.

    You want something to argue about in the mainstream software development
    world?
    Justify why Rational managed to sell millions of copies of Rose to
    companies? I think the idea behind UML is excellent, and class and sequence
    diagrams are great (although I still struggle to do them), but Rational's
    methodologies are the biggest load of bollocks I have ever seen.
    Conversation I overheard between a business analyst and a Rational trainer
    at one bank I was at:
    "So, how many 'scenarios' should we write for each Use Case?"
    "About 20"
    "And how big would you expect each one to be?"
    "Oh, about 10pages..."
    This was when the business analyst decided to leave and get a cup of coffee
    for the rest of the week...

    Cheers,
    iGadget



  13. #148
    Paul Clement Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:27:41 +0100, Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:13:32 +0100, "Ed Courtenay"
    <replace-this-with-my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote:

    >Why have OO languages been developed then? Why have they proved so popular?
    >Are we being brainwashed, or have we actually proved to ourselves that this
    >is a viable method of development?

    Prove to others, not just yourselves! I'm still waiting for meaningful
    ways of measuring productivity so that the supposed benefits of OOP
    can be shown to be actual and not just brainwashing.

    It's really very simple. If it's not your style and you don't feel there is a productivity benefit,
    then don't use it. Continue to code as you did before. Nobody is forcing you to implement the
    concepts in your applications.


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

  14. #149
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    In article <3dac4a73$1@10.1.10.29>,
    "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> writes:

    > >It would take a good sized book to fully explain modular programming,
    > >though I have covered some of the highlights from time to time.


    > Then it is neither simple nor intuitive. It takes about 3 or 4
    > chapters to explain OO in the context of the .NET implementation.


    Yet more of your word games and tactical illiteracy, I see. Do you
    seriously expect anyone here to be stupid enough to fail to see the
    significant difference between "fully explain" and "explain in the
    context of the .NET implementation"? Just how stupid do you think your
    fellow cheerleaders are? Willfully blind, yes. Stupid - especially
    THAT stupid - no.

    The basics of modular programming are very simple and intuitive. A
    "how to do modular programming in VB6" explanation could be done in
    a single chapter. But the issue wasn't "explain it in the context of
    VB", it was "fully explain it in a way that could be understood by a
    self proclaimed semi illiterate". While a "Modular Programming for
    Dummies" explanation (with apologies to IDG Books) would take an
    entire book, the equivalent "OOP for Dummies" book would be much
    larger.

    > >Your
    > >own demonstrated ignorance on the subject of modular programming says
    > >sad things about your education and experience. And I would hardly
    > >call Scott Meyers' piece an "obscure academic article."


    > It sure looked academic to me.


    That says very sad things about you.

    > Did I use the word obscure? I don't know that for a fact.


    And you are too crippled to look at the article you were citing? In
    particular, to look at the quotation you chose to delete? Your exact
    words were:

    : And don't just post some obscure academic articles that don't tell
    ^^^^^^^
    : anyone anything - actually explain what you are talking about.

    Yes, you DID use the word obscure. It is one thing for you to claim
    that you lack the vocabulary to understand my posts. It is quite
    another to claim that you can't even read your own statements - even
    when they are quoted back to you word for word.

    > But the article - if I remember correctly - was not written in a way
    > that made it all that useful to me.


    More tactical illiteracy, I see.

    > Sounded more like a thesis paper.


    More like an "engineering journal" article (which it was) than an
    Academic paper (much less thesis). Its focus is practical, and its
    tone is informative. Your claimed inability to understand such
    articles says very sad things about your education and experience.


    > *************************


    > On another point, we are talking about things in the context of VB6
    > and VB.NET here, right?


    It's a little to try and play THAT brain dead game. No, we are most
    certainly NOT just talking about things in the context of VB and
    VB.NET here. YOU have not been doing so - one of your first examples
    was from Java, and you have repeatedly cited that and other languages.
    As have I. When we have been discussing MP and OOP as such, it has
    been in the broader context of the modalities rather than in the
    narrow context of a particular language or two.

    Of course, if you now admit that you are unable to do so, that says a
    lot about the nature of your previous posts. And you.

    > I mean, when you say "Modular Programming," you are referring to
    > something you can do in VB6 and not some new concept for which a
    > language still needs to be written.


    Not only tactical illiteracy, but a claimed ignorance of the history
    of the field as well? Modular Programming has been around for the
    better part of half a century (as I have already mentioned), does not
    need any specialized languages (as I have repeatedly mentioned), and
    constitutes a significant portion of the basis (and accounts for much
    of the claimed benefits) of both OOP and the earlier SSP (as I have
    mentioned a number of times). It has also been the modality
    responsible for the most stable and robust software available in most
    fields - software which has survived decades of use, in many cases.

    The claimed ignorance in that question goes a long way toward
    explaining many of your nonsensical arguments in this newsgroup.

    --

    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. #150
    Jason Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:
    >Not only tactical illiteracy, but a claimed ignorance of the history
    >of the field as well? Modular Programming has been around for the
    >better part of half a century (as I have already mentioned), does not
    >need any specialized languages (as I have repeatedly mentioned), and
    >constitutes a significant portion of the basis (and accounts for much
    >of the claimed benefits) of both OOP and the earlier SSP (as I have
    >mentioned a number of times). It has also been the modality
    >responsible for the most stable and robust software available in most
    >fields - software which has survived decades of use, in many cases.
    >
    >The claimed ignorance in that question goes a long way toward
    >explaining many of your nonsensical arguments in this newsgroup.


    Yuh know, I am trying not to post negatively, and to try to understand your
    point of view. And you still post an insult in every other sentence. But
    every OTHER sentence is providing some information, so I will try to deal
    with that.

    Simply put, how do you reconcile the fact that forms, controls, and ActiveX
    DLLs are all OO-based (without inheritance, granted), in the context of modular
    programming in VB?

    What I mean is, there are a number of programs that are written in C that
    are still around, and these programs are strictly MP. But with VB, you can't
    write more than about 10 lines of code without using some sort of object.

    What I am trying to understand here is, are you for "strict" MP, or MP that
    makes use of object libraries others have written, or do the object libraries
    in VB somehow fall under the MP umbrella, so they are not actually object
    libraries at all?

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