Microsoft's C++ bigotry - Page 43


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst ... 33414243
Results 631 to 633 of 633

Thread: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

  1. #631
    Jason Sobell iGadget Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    <1dhh15g5mihte.adjyx7whjjh1$.dlg@40tude.net> <3e2b341e$1@tnews.web.devx.com>
    Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:26:35 +1100
    Message-ID: <1o97lw2ssejqo$.1jmxuifij2nhd$.dlg@40tude.net>
    User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.3.1 (bba1155f.25.503)
    NNTP-Posting-Host: c16664.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au
    X-Trace: 19 Jan 2003 17:13:28 -0800, c16664.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au
    Lines: 29
    Path: tnews.web.devx.com
    Xref: dnews vb.dotnet.discussion:48836

    On 19 Jan 2003 15:26:22 -0800, Kent wrote:

    > You make things seem as rosey as MM makes them seem bleak. As I recall early
    > OCX controls sucked bigtime! Also, you weren't forced into them right away,
    > because the 16 bit version of VB still supported VBX files. I also remember
    > the OLE runtime files being broken by new versions of office that came along.


    There were problems with the first controls that companies released, as
    there are with any v1.0 software, but the point is that architecture of OCX
    controls was so much better than that of VBX and provided far more
    stability than we were used to. With the new versions of controls came
    loads of new features, so most people were very happy (except Mike of
    course )

    > And for those of us who actually built the controls it was even worse. That
    > is until 1996 when the spec was "simplified"
    >
    > You shouldn't judge people so quickly, you've made a few statements of your
    > own that are questionable.


    Judge people quickly? I've had years of Mike's messages to judge him by
    Of course I've made questionable statements, every comment is questionable,
    and I'm happy for people to point out where I might have missed or
    misunderstood something. There are often viewpoints that are not considered
    by a poster, which is why it's important to keep an open mind and impartial
    attitude.

    Cheers,
    Jason

  2. #632
    Jason Sobell iGadget Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:07:37 +1100
    Message-ID: <2lstvs7okmf6$.mv19ua1lvtdt$.dlg@40tude.net>
    User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.3.1 (d6d96615.16.510)
    NNTP-Posting-Host: c16664.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au
    X-Trace: 22 Jan 2003 13:54:20 -0800, c16664.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au
    Lines: 41
    Path: tnews.web.devx.com
    Xref: dnews vb.dotnet.discussion:49015

    On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:15:22 -0600, Dan Barclay wrote:
    > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:19:34 -0600, Paul Clement
    >>
    >>I used it in old line coded basic, which had no Subs or Functions, but there was never any reason to
    >>use it in QuickBASIC or any variant of the structured BASIC language. It is outdated just as GoTo
    >>is.

    >
    > Oh, so GoTo is scheduled for removal? Didn't know that. I suppose it
    > makes about as much sense though. I've been outta touch but I'm glad
    > you're keeping up with 'em.


    I also doubt if GoTo will be removed. The GoSub has almost direct
    replacements, but GoTo doesn't, and there are sometimes situations where
    GoTo gives enormous simplification (possibly at the expense of structure).

    >>¤ Duplicate code fragments are a virus in code that lives through years
    >>¤ of maintenance. It's a hard fact that, at some point, one copy of the
    >>¤ fragment will be fixed or enhanced and others will be missed. Its
    >>¤ proper usage is as a code-only container for eliminating duplicate
    >>¤ code fragments.
    >>
    >>Problem is it isn't a container but a containee that affects the flow of logic within its container.

    >
    > Certainly it is a container, and it works quite well. You *really*
    > should learn something about it.


    Very arguable. It's not really a container, because it has no effect on
    scope of variables. It is a flow control statement in the same manner as
    GoTo, but we could all argue semantics...
    The only advantage over a Subroutine is that it retains the scope of all
    the variables that the calling function has.

    Having said all this, there are situation where using GoSub would save time
    and resources, particularly in large complex (spaghetti?) routines that
    have not been broken into structured subroutines and using large numbers of
    variables. It certainly is frequently a killer of readability and
    maintainability, and I know that I won't miss it, but then that's just my
    way of coding.

    Cheers,
    Jason

  3. #633
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
    Message-ID: <3e32ff15$1@tnews.web.devx.com>
    Date: 25 Jan 2003 13:18:13 -0800
    X-Trace: 25 Jan 2003 13:18:13 -0800, 127.0.0.1
    Lines: 95
    Path: tnews.web.devx.com
    Xref: dnews vb.dotnet.discussion:49245


    Hi Mike,

    You are mistaken. VBDOS and VB for Windows had *hundreds* of incompatibilies....everything
    from missing or changed keywords....

    ALL INKEY$ SEEKEQ
    BLOAD INP SEEKGE
    BOF INSERT SEEKGT
    BSAVE IOCTL SEG
    CALLS IOCTL$ SETINDEX
    CDECL ISAM SETMEM
    CHAIN KEY SETUEVENT
    CHECKPOINT LIST SIGNAL
    COLOR LOCATE SLEEP
    COM LPOS SOUND
    COMMON LPRINT SSEG
    CREATEINDEX MKC$ SSEGADD
    CSRLIN MKDMBF$ STACK
    CVI MKI$ STICK
    CVC MKL$ STRIG
    CVD MKS$ SWAP
    CVDMBF MKSMBF$ SYSTEM
    CVL OUT TEXTCOMP
    CVS PAINT TRON
    CVSMBF PALETTE TROFF
    DELETEINDEX PCOPY UEVENT
    DELETETABLE PEEK UPDATE
    DRAW PEN VARPTR
    ERDEV PLAY VARPTR$
    ERDEV$ PMAP VARSEG
    EVENT POS VIEW
    FIELD PRESET WAIT
    FILES RUN WINDOW
    FN SADD
    FRE SAVEPOINT
    GETINDEX$ SCREEN

    to incompatible file formats. If you don't believe me, just check out the
    following article and see it for yourself...

    http://support.microsoft.com/default...EN-US;Q120075&

    /Pat
    --------------------------
    It's the platform, stupid.
    --------------------------

    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:21:56 -0500, "Larry Triezenberg"
    ><ltriezenberg@pathsys.com> wrote:
    >
    >>..... That
    >>raises the bar much higher than just taking a couple of weeks to upgrade

    and
    >>being able to move on into taking advantage of some of the new features.

    >
    >And that is the big difference between *all* previous VB upgrades and
    >the upgrade from VB to VB.Net. In *all* previous upgrades you didn't
    >need to rewrite the app. Sure, you may have had to make minor mods,
    >but in general the "old" version loaded straight into the upgrade, and
    >you were away! Up and running.
    >
    >You see, Paul, the thing is, bringing out a new programming system
    >like VB was in 1991 should be like a marriage, especially given that
    >one of the parties was Microsoft, the biggest software company in the
    >world that knew then that it wanted and aspired to ruling the world,
    >software-wise at least. When such a company with hegemonic tendencies
    >brings out a new product, it should make its vows to the world in
    >promising to keep that product around forever, if need be. Not a
    >ten-year fling and then, hey, let's go for the younger model! And
    >leave the old VB with 3 million screaming kids in tow and not much of
    >a contract left (let's just hang on for euthanasia in 2008 is not much
    >of a contract, is it?).
    >
    >It may end up like lots of real marriages that only really stay
    >together because of the kids. But I happen to think that the kids in
    >any marriage are kinda important and that's why, in the real world, we
    >have marriage guidance counsellors, child support agencies, indeed, a
    >whole plethora of support to try and keep that compact between church
    >and state - or between Microsoft and The People - functioning for as
    >long as human(e)ly possible. By unceremoniously killing off real VB
    >for its replacement product, the kids are now wandering the streets,
    >looking for places to hang out. Getting into all kinds of scrapes with
    >dodgy strangers. Is this what you'd want for your kids, eh?
    >
    >Let's hope, for VB.Netizens' sake, that VB.Net doesn't get the
    >unceremonious coup de grāce at some point in the future. It's unfair
    >of a company not to have done its sums beforehand and then simply take
    >it out on the faithful supporters whenever it likes. VB.Net should be
    >here to stay. There has to be some sense of responsibility here, and
    >not just to shareholders. I mean, don't we all want to go to heaven?
    >
    >MM



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