Microsoft's C++ bigotry

[Dan Barclay]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:43:20 -0600, "Larry Serflaten"
<serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote:

>"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote
>>
>> I thought maybe this may be of help to you as well:
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stability
>>
>> The first definition is:
>> ==========================================
>> 1. The state or quality of being stable, especially:
>> Resistance to change, deterioration, or displacement.
>> Constancy of character or purpose; steadfastness.
>> Reliability; dependability.
>> ==========================================
>>
>> Do you think that, just possibly, this may apply to programming
>> languages and environments?
>
>Sure it does, reliability and dependability being chief among them.
>But it could be referring to the the current version's reliablility and
>dependability, as I have explained before.

Perhaps you're confusing the platform's reliability with the
language's reliability.

It seems clear that code written in MS Basic has deteriorated and been
displaced even without having been changed!

>
>You might (with some adjustments) even use the second definition:
>
>======================
>The ability of an object, such as a ship or aircraft, (or a Textbox) to maintain
>equilibrium (normal use) or resume its original, upright position after displacement,
> as by the sea or strong winds (errant user input).
>======================
>
>Note it says 'The ability of an object..' - an object - is a singular reference, it does
>not say 'The ability of several versions of an object...' as you would intend.

LOL. Yup, instead of remaining upright, VB has gone belly up!
ROTFLMAO!

>I already posted one definition of stability, as it specifically applies to computer
>hardware and software, but I see you didn't want to accept that. Instead you'll take
>a more general definition only to turn and twist it into what you want it to say, right?

Hmmm... it seems to me a more general definition is preferable, but to
each his own.

>As I said, you can use it however you want, but since computer programming is
>about using precise syntax, in a specific order, I would think the terms used to
>describe the work, should also be of a more precise nature. Without your personal
>web page for a definition, 'language stability' is a rather ambigious term. It could
>mean one of a few different things, your (and my) definition included....

I don't agree with your assessment, but for clarity's sake perhaps
when we use the term Language Stability
(http://www.mvps.org/vb/index2.html?tips/stability.htm) we should
provide the link for context.

I'll probably forget to do that, but maybe you can remind me.

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

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:33:32 +0100, "Jens" <jens@esalar.be> wrote:

>*** Yeah right, try and explain that to anybody who had a programming class
>at school.

Maybe the kids don't come with the same mathematical grounding that we
did. Obviously I learned nothing about Boolean logic at school,
because that was in the 1950s and there were no personal computers (in
fact, I believe there were a total of five computers of any kind in
the whole world...). But I did have this very drunk and very irate old
Irish teacher, who drummed into us boys not just the rudiments of
maths, but all kinds of maths. And this was long before calculators,
too. His form of teaching would not be allowed today, since rather a
lot of violence figured therein, though he never actually drew blood
and no kid ended up on the floor.

>I find it hilarious that you of all people are defending something so
>crytpic as the usage of parenthesis to pass a variable as ByVal.

And therefore I find it strange that you see an expression as
something cryptic. It's not that we use parentheses to pass an
argument by value, but that the parentheses turn the argument into an
expression - which by definition has to be evaluated and thus can
never be passed by reference, ergo only by value. The very moment I
read this in some old MS BASIC manual, probably penned by His Billness
Himself in those early frontier days, it made perfect sense to me, and
maybe that was because I was coming at it from the old school of basic
maths.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:35:22 +0100, "Jens" <jens@esalar.be> wrote:

>> >...because they were right...
>>
>> Like, how?
>>
>*** You'll never know unless you try. But off course the chance off ****
>freezing over is greater...

Especially now, 'cos of global warming.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:19:23 -0600, Paul Clement
<UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:

>And no I don't dread seeing your name. I know at least I have a suitable target. ;-)

Ouch! I am SO HURT!

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:01:08 -0800, "Phil Weber"
<pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:

>Mike: That's exactly what we try to tell you about multiple versions of the
>.NET Framework. Curious that you can see a fact when it supports your
>argument, but blithely ignore it otherwise...

But the space is being used in a different way! The space is there,
and boy, do they mean to fill it! If they just had a minimal Windows
OS layer to do the basics, like opening a file, then had all the
application logic, including third-party controls, but only the bits
actually used in the app, wrapped inside one, single Exe, I think it
would make life a lot simpler, that's all. Supposing the average PC
contained a hundred Exes and each one had to be increased in size by,
say, 50%, is it that big a deal? To be shot of DLL **** for ever?

MM

[John Butler]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c0ir2vg3t4fco7rm73asvmgt215fg2vehc@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:01:08 -0800, "Phil Weber"
> <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
>
> >Mike: That's exactly what we try to tell you about multiple versions of
the
> >.NET Framework. Curious that you can see a fact when it supports your
> >argument, but blithely ignore it otherwise...
>
> But the space is being used in a different way! The space is there,
> and boy, do they mean to fill it! If they just had a minimal Windows
> OS layer to do the basics, like opening a file, then had all the
> application logic, including third-party controls, but only the bits
> actually used in the app, wrapped inside one, single Exe, I think it
> would make life a lot simpler, that's all. Supposing the average PC
> contained a hundred Exes and each one had to be increased in size by,
> say, 50%, is it that big a deal? To be shot of DLL **** for ever?
>

Mike

Once you have the 23MB framework loaded, the exe's are small. A decent app
can be about 100K in size.

Our last VB6 app filled a CD with assorted crap required to run it (Making
sure the correct IE versions, MSADO version etc were all loaded). 20 odd
MB's is nothing in comparison.

No, it's not a self contained exe, like Delphi etc. If you're building small
shareware apps...do it in Delphi then...but having to install the framework
once is no big deal and no showstopper. Tried running any Java apps
lately...you have to download the friggin Java VM. What is the
difference...except that .net apps run way faster.

rgds
John Butler

[Larry Serflaten]

"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote
> I don't agree with your assessment,

That is not surprising since you did not agree with the definition
I posted that defines stability as it specifically relates to computer
hardware and software....

> but for clarity's sake perhaps when we use the term Language Stability
> we should provide the link for context.

Or, better yet, perhaps 'we' should use it in its proper context, and 'you'
should get treatment for your obsession with self-promotion.

LFS

[Bob]

Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:33:32 +0100, "Jens" <jens@esalar.be> wrote:
>
>>*** Yeah right, try and explain that to anybody who had a programming
class
>>at school.
>
>Maybe the kids don't come with the same mathematical grounding that we
>did. Obviously I learned nothing about Boolean logic at school,
Obviously

>>I find it hilarious that you of all people are defending something so
>>crytpic as the usage of parenthesis to pass a variable as ByVal.
>
><snip>
>maybe that was because I was coming at it from the old school of basic
>maths.
>
>MM
AFAICT you "come at" everything from some old school point of view. So old-school
that you are obviously unable to learn anything new, and that scares you,
so you spend alot of your time here, trying to prevent others from learning.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but it's also become obvious that you
have no shame.

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:39:58 -0000, "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:7pqq2voakeirccp252rid1gcqi62iv2p9d@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 01:45:12 -0000, "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >1. A VBClassic.Net (not an improved migration wizard to VB.NET)
>>
>> No. The problem there is the ".Net" part. No one appears interested
>> enough in it to become a convert.
>
>I think you should rephrase that, so that it says that *you* aren't
>interested enough in it to become a convert. I am interested enough, and
>therefore your statement that "No one appears interested enough" is
>factually incorrect.

Okay. "Not many appear interested enough in it to become converts."

>> In any case, a "VBClassic.Net"
>> sounds like a total abortion to me. Neither fish nor fowl, as the
>> saying goes.
>
>The .Net platform is likely to be around for a while. I'd prefer to use it
>than to rely on Windows API hacks to get things done. No doubt in due course
>people will develop new hacks to do things which the .Net platform can't do.

Windows API calls are not hacks. They are "using the Windows API". Dan
Appleman wrote several books on using the API with VB, but they
weren't books on hacks.

>> >2. A big public splash about language stability - on the scale of the
>recent
>> >Trustworthy Computing initiative. It would have to be large enough that
>if
>> >Microsoft suffers yet another lapse in institutional memory in the
>future,
>> >even the dimmest computer journalist would remember and start asking
>awkward
>> >questions.
>>
>> And Microsoft might just reckon than the dimmest computer journalist
>> could be asked to "shaddup your face" by employing the brightest
>> computer journalists to paint such lapses in a favourable light.
>> Basically, what little trust they once had (actually, to be fair, they
>> once had trust *in spades*, even from me) has been diluted to the
>> point that it is rapidly becoming a homeopathic oddity.
>
>In that case, I have to ask you 2 questions.
>
>1. Why do you still care?

Well, I still care about VB6 and I think there's every chance, if we
keep banging on about its untimely demise, that Microsoft will
resurrect it, maybe as "Classic Visual Basic 7", since they haven't
outwardly used that version number yet. Heck (not hack!), heck, once
the Republicans dreamed of winning the White House, and now look at
'em!

>2. What you are trying to achieve by continuing to post here?

See 1.

>Based on what you are saying, there's nothing of interest to you in anything
>about .Net, either in the platform or the languages which use it.

Correct. Zilch.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On 21 Jan 2003 14:59:58 -0800, "Bob" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>AFAICT you "come at" everything from some old school point of view. So old-school
>that you are obviously unable to learn anything new, and that scares you,
>so you spend alot of your time here, trying to prevent others from learning.
>You should be ashamed of yourself, but it's also become obvious that you
>have no shame.

Oh, how ridiculous! *I* am preventing others from learning? Get over
yourself! Don't you think folks have enough independence to be able to
say, "to heck (not hack) with Mike, I'm gonna try it anyways"? I
should be ashamed for offering my own point of view in an open forum?
It's a shame you don't agree, but don't let me hold you up if you're
of a different opinion.

MM

[Jonathan West]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39mr2vsf9sdrbstrhoguj8n40uafql38pj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:39:58 -0000, "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:7pqq2voakeirccp252rid1gcqi62iv2p9d@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 01:45:12 -0000, "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >1. A VBClassic.Net (not an improved migration wizard to VB.NET)
> >>
> >> No. The problem there is the ".Net" part. No one appears interested
> >> enough in it to become a convert.
> >
> >I think you should rephrase that, so that it says that *you* aren't
> >interested enough in it to become a convert. I am interested enough, and
> >therefore your statement that "No one appears interested enough" is
> >factually incorrect.
>
> Okay. "Not many appear interested enough in it to become converts."

That remains to be seen. IMO, the main thing holding back many VB coders is
not the platform but the lack of a migration path. Because of that, interest
in the platform is limited to those early adopters who are willing to take
the plunge mainly with new projects, in the hope that history doesn't repeat
itself (again) or in blissful ignorance of the risks that it might.

Until the migration path is sorted, there's kno way ultimately of knowing
how many people (and their applications) will move over. I guess quite a
large proportion, if they haven't gone to Delphi or Java first.

>
> >> In any case, a "VBClassic.Net"
> >> sounds like a total abortion to me. Neither fish nor fowl, as the
> >> saying goes.
> >
> >The .Net platform is likely to be around for a while. I'd prefer to use
it
> >than to rely on Windows API hacks to get things done. No doubt in due
course
> >people will develop new hacks to do things which the .Net platform can't
do.
>
> Windows API calls are not hacks. They are "using the Windows API". Dan
> Appleman wrote several books on using the API with VB, but they
> weren't books on hacks.

Some of them are hacks. I'd call Matt Curland's book a hack from one cover
to the other, and I don't think that he would disagree with that assessment.
Its making VB do things is was never designed or intended to.


> >
> >1. Why do you still care?
>
> Well, I still care about VB6 and I think there's every chance, if we
> keep banging on about its untimely demise, that Microsoft will
> resurrect it, maybe as "Classic Visual Basic 7", since they haven't
> outwardly used that version number yet. Heck (not hack!), heck, once
> the Republicans dreamed of winning the White House, and now look at
> 'em!

Won't happen unless you can persuade enough others to your point of view
that Microsoft decides there's a market there that won't be serverd by any
other product. How many people have supported your proposal in this group?

>
> >2. What you are trying to achieve by continuing to post here?
>
> See 1.
>
> >Based on what you are saying, there's nothing of interest to you in
anything
> >about .Net, either in the platform or the languages which use it.
>
> Correct. Zilch.

OK, glad we've got that straight. Would you mind taking a look at the name
of this newsgroup, and then ask why you choose to post here specifically?


--
Regards
Jonathan West

[Patrick Troughton]

I said this two years ago....MS should've created a VB7 with Managed Extensions
and that way they could have given us a no-holds barred version of VB.NET
and removed even more legacy features. Unfortunately, a small but vocal minority
of idiotic .NOTters like DB, KP, MM, GN and others had their heads so far
up their collective a** that they couldn't see the forest for the trees.
As a response, MS gave us the disasterous beta 2 rollbacks which failed to
please anyone...just as I predicted. Oh well, there's nothing we can do about
it now. VB.NET is here to stay, and at least one of my suggestions made it
into VB.NET 1.1 The only thing I can't figure out is why MS isn't doing
a better job improving the compatibility library and upgrade wizard.....

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

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
>"Why should C++ developers enjoy such ease of migration to .NET, while VB
>developers (of whom there are arguably many more) are forced to rewrite
>their code?...The message seems clear: If your application is
>'mission-critical', don't use VB." --
>http://www.philweber.com/net/2003/01/14.htm#a40
>

[Kent]

---------------------------
the platform is stupid.
---------------------------

"Patrick Troughton" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>I said this two years ago....MS should've created a VB7 with Managed Extensions
>and that way they could have given us a no-holds barred version of VB.NET
>and removed even more legacy features. Unfortunately, a small but vocal
minority
>of idiotic .NOTters like DB, KP, MM, GN and others had their heads so far
>up their collective a** that they couldn't see the forest for the trees.
>As a response, MS gave us the disasterous beta 2 rollbacks which failed
to
>please anyone...just as I predicted. Oh well, there's nothing we can do
about
>it now. VB.NET is here to stay, and at least one of my suggestions made
it
>into VB.NET 1.1 The only thing I can't figure out is why MS isn't doing
>a better job improving the compatibility library and upgrade wizard.....
>
>/Pat
>---------------------------
>It's the platform, stupid.
>---------------------------
>
>"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
>>"Why should C++ developers enjoy such ease of migration to .NET, while
VB
>>developers (of whom there are arguably many more) are forced to rewrite
>>their code?...The message seems clear: If your application is
>>'mission-critical', don't use VB." --
>>http://www.philweber.com/net/2003/01/14.htm#a40
>>
>

[Phil Weber]

> Unfortunately, a small but vocal minority of idiotic
> .NOTters like DB, KP, MM, [and] GN...

Pat: Hey, wait a minute: GN's not idiotic! (gd&r!)

> As a response, MS gave us the disasterous beta 2
> rollbacks...

You really think the Beta 2 rollbacks were "disastrous?" Why? I'm not crazy
about AndAlso and OrElse, but other than that, the changes don't seem so bad
(it could have been worse: They could have "rolled back" Integer and Long!
;-) I wish they had also given us VB6-style array syntax (Dim Array(X To
Y)).

> The only thing I can't figure out is why MS isn't doing
> a better job improving the compatibility library and
> upgrade wizard...

I really think that's key. I wonder how difficult it would be to create a
..NET compiler for VB6 syntax? I'm considering starting an open source
project to do that. Any takers?
--
Phil Weber

[Gary Nelson]

Jens,

> I always explicitly say if a variable is
> ByVal or ByRef. That is something that is called good coding practice.

With both VB6 and VB.Net you can declare ByVal or ByRef. What we are talking
about is the default. If good coding practice is explicitly declaring ByVal
or ByRef, why then did VB.Net change the default behavior from ByRef to
ByVal when, according to you it should have forced declaring ByVal or ByRef?

> The beauty of languages like Pascal and VB is that they are verbose and
not
> cryptic. Getting rid of that parentheses thing is something I support,
> ByRef and ByVal are much much cleaner.

Since ByRef and ByVal both exist in VB6, exactly what is your point here?

> I find it hilarious that you of all people are defending something so
> crytpic as the usage of parenthesis to pass a variable as ByVal.

I personally never use parenthesis to pass a variable, but if someone else
wants to it doesn't bother me. It's been that way for a very long time.

Gary