Microsoft's C++ bigotry - Page 32


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 32 of 43 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 466 to 480 of 633

Thread: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

  1. #466
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    Hi Jonathan,

    "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >As you well know, there is a substantial performance penalty in doing that.


    No, there is not always a substantial performance penalty. It depends on
    a lot of things such as the data types being passed, whether you have a chatty
    or chunky interface and whether they're being called in a loop. Even still,
    you should know that there are ways around this. But you are correct in that
    this is a short term solution. Eventually, most things will be in .NET anyway
    and COM will slowly fade away.

    >Even if you are willing to accept that penalty, this is only an option for
    >as long as you are targetting a 32-bit platform that has COM available.

    With
    >the advent of Longhorn, high-end server apps are going to be targetting
    >64-bit platforms where this is not an assumption that can automatically

    be
    >made.


    Are you saying that Longhorn will no longer support COM at all? If so, can
    you please give me a cite?

    >Lastly, even with Windows XP, Microsoft has managed (inadvertently) to
    >make changes in key DLLs that change the behaviour of VB6 code operating

    in
    >COM DLLs.
    >COM interop is not something to be trusted as anything but the
    >shortest-term interim solution.


    I'm not saying you're wrong, but so far, all our VB6 programs work fine on
    Windows XP. In any case, if this is so, this is a problem with COM, not .NET.
    And yes, you would want to begin to slowly phase out COM and replace it with
    .NET.

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

  2. #467
    Mark Hurd Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    Patrick Troughton wrote:
    > Hi Jonathan,
    >
    > "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
    > >
    > > So, what is the benefit (in some tangible form, such as increased
    > > productivity) of the change in the language itself?

    >
    > This has already been explained to you several times. Again, Wend was
    > changed to End While to be consistant with other block structures
    > such as End If, End With, End Sub, End Function, End Try, End Namespace,
    > End Class, End Property, etc. This improves language consistency
    > and readability. More consistancy + better readibility = easier to use.


    I think he's trying to say it is about as beneficial as dropping the ability
    to call routines without brackets around the parameter list. I can believe it
    *might* be easier for people learning, but they're both gratuitous unneeded
    changes that affect the simple resuse of source code.

    (I've used While Wend about as much as GoSub, mainly for the ability to use it
    as an inner loop that can contain an Exit Do to quit the outer loop without a
    GoTo.)

    Regards,
    Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)






  3. #468
    Mark Hurd Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    Mike Mitchell wrote:
    > On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 12:44:49 -0800, "Phil Weber"
    > <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > Okay then, Phil, why not change For...Next at least
    > > > to End For?

    > >
    > > Mike: Is it your contention, then, that Wend contributes more to internal
    > > consistency than End While does?

    >
    > Er, let's see: Dogmatic consistency versus pragmatic compatibility?
    > Hey! It's another of those no-brainers!


    Nicely put. Well done!

    Regards,
    Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)



  4. #469
    Larry Serflaten Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote

    > >So, what is the benefit (in some tangible form, such as increased
    > >productivity) of the change in the language itself?

    >
    > This has already been explained to you several times.
    > More consistancy + better readibility = easier to use.


    Perhaps this may be a better (more complete) arguement;

    The change was made for the same reason Caption was changed to Text,
    it adds uniformity, or consistancy to the code which will make it easier to
    work with. That reduction in complexity makes writing code less prone to
    errors which is the ultimate purpose for any high level language.

    LFS




  5. #470
    Mark Hurd Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    Larry Serflaten wrote:
    > "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote
    >
    > > > So, what is the benefit (in some tangible form, such as increased
    > > > productivity) of the change in the language itself?

    > >
    > > This has already been explained to you several times.
    > > More consistancy + better readibility = easier to use.

    >
    > Perhaps this may be a better (more complete) arguement;
    >
    > The change was made for the same reason Caption was changed to Text,
    > it adds uniformity, or consistancy to the code which will make it easier to
    > work with. That reduction in complexity makes writing code less prone to
    > errors which is the ultimate purpose for any high level language.


    Hmpph! Thanks for allowing me to realise my one inconsistencies :-)

    If asked (out of context) I would have said I agree with Caption -> Text.

    In the context of this thread however...

    Perhaps I can justify it by saying it's OK (good, in fact) because these are
    new .NET controls, not the same ones from VB6. (This is true of Labels, for
    example.)

    But, yes, I acknowledge if I can accept Caption -> Text is a good thing, then
    I shouldn't complain too much about Wend -> End While. I don't because I don't
    use it, but, on principal (which is now suspect :-( ), I disagree with it.

    Regards,
    Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)



  6. #471
    Jonathan West Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
    news:3e3d7712$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
    >
    > There's no point in keeping up this discussion if you're not going to pay
    > attention. I've explained myself several times. I'm going to be nice and
    > explain it one more time. But honestly, I'm getting tired of repeating

    myself
    > over and over again. So this is going to be last time....
    >
    > Wend was changed to End While to be consistant with other block structures
    > such as End If, End With, and End Sub. This improves language consistency
    > and readability. More consistancy + better readibility = easier to use.
    >
    > There, I've said it *again*. Now, do you understand?


    What this comes down to is that you are claiming an unspecified and
    unquantified minor benefit from the language change in terms of readability,
    without being willing or able to suggest what effect on productivity the
    language change would have (as opposed to the IDE changes, where there is
    clearly a productivity benefit). Most of your specific statements about
    changes in this area have been in terms of the IDE, and how Microsoft has
    gone to quite a lot of trouble to minimize the adverse effect of the change
    on compatibility, to the point where it doesn't matter a whole lot which
    version of the construct is in the language. Consider the facts you have
    referred to.

    1. The end of a control structure is automatically inserted when you type
    the start of it, so the programmer would see and understand what is the
    equivalent end statement without having to look it up - whether it were End
    While or Wend, and would not have to type either of them in most
    circumstances.

    2. Microsoft has gone to the trouble of automatically converting Wend to End
    While if typed or pasted in the IDE

    3. Microsoft has gone to the trouble of converting Wend to End While in the
    Upgrade Wizard

    4. Microsoft has gone to the trouble of creating a special compiler error
    message just to tell you to use End While instead of Wend, if it happens
    that you are using the command-line compiler.

    Item #1 is a productivity benefit independent of the language change. Items
    #2, #3 & #4 are only necessary because of the adverse effect the change has
    had on compatibility. The productivity benefit from the language change (if
    any) when coding new products is by your own statements "minor". I count
    that as an extremely wise, prudent and efficient use of Microsoft's
    development resources. Yes indeed.

    I think that if we ever were to find ourselves working together, I would
    examine the justifications for your feature proposals *very* carefully! :-)

    --
    Regards
    Jonathan West


  7. #472
    Jonathan West Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
    news:3e3abd44@tnews.web.devx.com...
    >
    > I wasn't the one dumb enough to keep using GoSubs long after it was clear
    > they were obsolete. You have no one to blame but yourself. Do everyone a
    > favor, and go troll somewhere else.


    Were you dumb enough to use the Line or Circle methods on Forms? Silly you,
    even though there was no alternative, and no warning they were for the chop.
    Were you dumb enough to use the Printer object or Printers collection? You
    must have been nuts - even though there was no alternative. The Clipboard
    object? Even worse. Windowless controls?

    You should have plainly realised that all these were completely obsolete and
    were never going to get included in a new version of VB. After all,
    Microsoft told you this ahead of time, didn't they? They didn't? Really?

    --
    Regards
    Jonathan West


  8. #473
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >What this comes down to is that you are claiming an unspecified and
    >unquantified minor benefit from the language change in terms of readability,
    >without being willing or able to suggest what effect on productivity the
    >language change would have


    I don't know what you're expecting. Did you want me to cite a half dozen
    university studies conducted by ivy league institutions showing a quantifiable
    and exact 5.3% boost in productivity? Get real. Changing Wend to End While
    simply makes VB more consistant and readible. Nothing more, nothing less.
    If you want a study conducted on the exact boost in productivity, you'll
    have to commission one yourself.

    >(as opposed to the IDE changes, where there is
    >clearly a productivity benefit).


    Well, at least you admit this. I guess that's something.

    >I think that if we ever were to find ourselves working together, I would
    >examine the justifications for your feature proposals *very* carefully!

    :-)

    That's OK with me. I wouldn't want to have to explain my feature proposals
    to you over and over again. <BG>

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

  9. #474
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    Hi Jonathan,

    See, this is what I'm talking about....you're lumping completely disparate
    items together without making any distinction as to why these changes were
    made. That you can't make such a distintion implies to me that you still
    don't get it. Plus, it sounds like you're starting to get emotional about
    all of this.

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

    "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >Were you dumb enough to use the Line or Circle methods on Forms? Silly you,
    >even though there was no alternative, and no warning they were for the chop.
    >Were you dumb enough to use the Printer object or Printers collection? You
    >must have been nuts - even though there was no alternative. The Clipboard
    >object? Even worse. Windowless controls?
    >
    >You should have plainly realised that all these were completely obsolete

    and
    >were never going to get included in a new version of VB. After all,
    >Microsoft told you this ahead of time, didn't they? They didn't? Really?
    >
    >--
    >Regards
    >Jonathan West
    >



  10. #475
    Jonathan West Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
    news:3e3e6e40$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
    >
    > "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
    > >
    > >What this comes down to is that you are claiming an unspecified and
    > >unquantified minor benefit from the language change in terms of

    readability,
    > >without being willing or able to suggest what effect on productivity the
    > >language change would have

    >
    > I don't know what you're expecting. Did you want me to cite a half dozen
    > university studies conducted by ivy league institutions showing a

    quantifiable
    > and exact 5.3% boost in productivity?


    What I did expect (and have been disappointed in) is that you haven't been
    able to provide any reason for it being better other than that you think is
    it more readable. You haven't suggested any means by which this readability
    might translate into improved productivity or any other tangible benefit to
    Microoft or its customers. All your individual points have suggested that
    the effect is neutral in terms of productivity, in that you haven't been
    able to say something like "The change makes coding faster because..."

    You clearly are capable of understanding what I am looking for, because you
    described perfectly lucidly several tangible productivity benefits that have
    come from the changes in the IDE. It seems that your original mistake was to
    assume that the language and IDE changes were dependent on each other, and
    that the IDE Intellisense features you described needed the language change.
    The Intellisense feature that improves productivity (in that it reduces the
    number of keystrokes needed, and helps to ensure that there is a matched
    pair of opening and closing statements) is the one where the End statement
    is automatically inserted. However, that is not dependent on Wend being
    changed to End While, since the same feature is available for For-Next and
    for Do-Loop, neither of which use End.

    > Get real. Changing Wend to End While
    > simply makes VB more consistant and readible. Nothing more, nothing less.
    > If you want a study conducted on the exact boost in productivity, you'll
    > have to commission one yourself.


    It's a bit of a pity that your opinion on the change in language can be
    paraphrased as "it's better because I think it ought to be that way", given
    that you haven't suggested one single tangible benefit that has come from
    it. Consistency is not an end in itself. You have already agreed with me
    that consistency is sometimes an impediment to readability. In fact, that is
    the case in this specific instance. Consider:

    - VB.NET was (supposedly) targetted at the VB6 developer community
    - The VB6 developer community already knows Wend, and so has no
    trouble reading it
    - With End While, it is not until you read the second word that you
    can distinguish the statement from several other similar ones,
    which means that it takes marginally longer to read and
    comprehend the statement.

    >
    > >(as opposed to the IDE changes, where there is
    > >clearly a productivity benefit).

    >
    > Well, at least you admit this. I guess that's something.


    I've never suggested otherwise. It's not a matter of admitting. Where there
    is a benefit, I've no interest in denying it. I just wish that you would
    accept that the benefits you have described are down to changes in the IDE,
    rather than changes in the language.

    >
    > >I think that if we ever were to find ourselves working together, I would
    > >examine the justifications for your feature proposals *very* carefully!

    > :-)
    >
    > That's OK with me. I wouldn't want to have to explain my feature proposals
    > to you over and over again. <BG>


    You wouldn't have to. On the showing of this thread, they would get kicked
    out the first time, and you wouldn't be given the chance to raise them
    again.

    --
    Regards
    Jonathan West


  11. #476
    Jonathan West Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
    news:3e3e6f68$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
    >
    > Hi Jonathan,
    >
    > See, this is what I'm talking about....you're lumping completely disparate
    > items together without making any distinction as to why these changes were
    > made.


    Overall, the changes were made because some bright spark in Microsoft
    thought that they would make the VB.NET object model "more readable" and
    "more consistent". The same reason you have been giving for End While
    applies with equal justification (or lack of it) to these changes as well.

    > That you can't make such a distintion implies to me that you still
    > don't get it. Plus, it sounds like you're starting to get emotional about
    > all of this.


    Not at all, I'm just making a bit of fun of you, given that you are
    unwilling to understand when you are in an indefensible position. The #1
    rule when designing upgrades to a product is "Don't piss off your existing
    customers". Taking away functionality that they use breaks this rule in a
    big way.

    The fact that a few new customers come along and like the new way is not
    going to compensate for the fact that you lose the existing ones through the
    changes. New customers are much harder and more expensive to sell to than
    existing ones.

    Remember that this whole thread started with Phil Weber being mightily
    pissed off about the contrast between the changes to VB and the ongoing
    compatibility of C++. He was so pissed off that in addition starting this
    thread he posted the same message on his blog and also in at least one other
    newsgroup on a different server.

    Microsoft doesn't exist for the purpose of making the most consistent
    language. It exists to make money. if it can make more money with a less
    consistent language, then it normally will. Its decision to ignore that
    principle for VB.NET has led it to the situation where so many of its
    customers have decided to pass on the upgrade that C# usage is outstripping
    VB.NET usage by roughly 50%.

    --
    Regards
    Jonathan West


  12. #477
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >What I did expect (and have been disappointed in) is that you haven't been
    >able to provide any reason for it being better other than that you think

    is
    >it more readable.


    Wrong again. I gave you two specific reasons for this change. In addition
    to readability, it is more consistant with other scope terminators such as
    End If, End With, End Sub, etc. This has been explained to you several times....

    <quote>
    Wend was changed to End While to be consistant with other block structures
    such as End If, End With, End Sub, End Function, End Try, End Namespace,
    End Class, End Property, etc. This improves language consistency
    and readability.
    </quote>

    I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.

    >You clearly are capable of understanding what I am looking for,


    I've answered every question you've had about Wend=>End While as directly
    and honestly as I can. Several times over, in fact.

    >It seems that your original mistake was to
    >assume that the language and IDE changes were dependent on each other,
    >and
    >that the IDE Intellisense features you described needed the language change.


    Please don't put words into my mount. I did not say that. You appear to have
    a reading comprehension problem.

    >It's a bit of a pity that your opinion on the change in language can be
    >paraphrased as "it's better because I think it ought to be that way",


    It's a pity you have such trouble understanding the English language. This
    has been explained to you several times.

    Jonathan, unless you're willing to do me the common curtesy of actually reading
    my posts and paying attention, I don't see much point in continuing this
    particular discussion with you.

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

  13. #478
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    Hi Jonathan,

    This will probably go over your head, but unwittingly you're helping me prove
    my points about you lumping disparate items into one confused mess. Sadly,
    you're allowing your emotions to get the better of you. All I can say is
    that I wish you the best of luck.

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

    "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
    >news:3e3e6f68$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
    >>
    >> Hi Jonathan,
    >>
    >> See, this is what I'm talking about....you're lumping completely disparate
    >> items together without making any distinction as to why these changes

    were
    >> made.

    >
    >Overall, the changes were made because some bright spark in Microsoft
    >thought that they would make the VB.NET object model "more readable" and
    >"more consistent". The same reason you have been giving for End While
    >applies with equal justification (or lack of it) to these changes as well.
    >
    >> That you can't make such a distintion implies to me that you still
    >> don't get it. Plus, it sounds like you're starting to get emotional about
    >> all of this.

    >
    >Not at all, I'm just making a bit of fun of you, given that you are
    >unwilling to understand when you are in an indefensible position. The #1
    >rule when designing upgrades to a product is "Don't piss off your existing
    >customers". Taking away functionality that they use breaks this rule in

    a
    >big way.
    >
    >The fact that a few new customers come along and like the new way is not
    >going to compensate for the fact that you lose the existing ones through

    the
    >changes. New customers are much harder and more expensive to sell to than
    >existing ones.
    >
    >Remember that this whole thread started with Phil Weber being mightily
    >pissed off about the contrast between the changes to VB and the ongoing
    >compatibility of C++. He was so pissed off that in addition starting this
    >thread he posted the same message on his blog and also in at least one other
    >newsgroup on a different server.
    >
    >Microsoft doesn't exist for the purpose of making the most consistent
    >language. It exists to make money. if it can make more money with a less
    >consistent language, then it normally will. Its decision to ignore that
    >principle for VB.NET has led it to the situation where so many of its
    >customers have decided to pass on the upgrade that C# usage is outstripping
    >VB.NET usage by roughly 50%.
    >
    >--
    >Regards
    >Jonathan West
    >



  14. #479
    Jonathan West Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
    news:3e3e89a1$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
    >
    > "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
    > >
    > >What I did expect (and have been disappointed in) is that you haven't

    been
    > >able to provide any reason for it being better other than that you think

    > is
    > >it more readable.

    >
    > Wrong again. I gave you two specific reasons for this change. In addition
    > to readability, it is more consistant with other scope terminators such as
    > End If, End With, End Sub, etc. This has been explained to you several

    times....

    Yes, but what you haven't done is provide a causal link between that and any
    increase in productivity (or any other benefit).

    >
    > <quote>
    > Wend was changed to End While to be consistant with other block structures
    > such as End If, End With, End Sub, End Function, End Try, End Namespace,
    > End Class, End Property, etc. This improves language consistency
    > and readability.
    > </quote>


    And repeating that doesn't make the link spring into existence.

    >
    > I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.
    >
    > >You clearly are capable of understanding what I am looking for,

    >
    > I've answered every question you've had about Wend=>End While as directly
    > and honestly as I can. Several times over, in fact.


    I see. Thank you.

    >
    > >It seems that your original mistake was to
    > >assume that the language and IDE changes were dependent on each other,
    > >and
    > >that the IDE Intellisense features you described needed the language

    change.
    >
    > Please don't put words into my mount. I did not say that. You appear to

    have
    > a reading comprehension problem.


    I said "it seems". In other words, I was describing the effect your words
    have on me. I'm not presuming to put words into your moth. You appear to
    have a reading comprehension problem.

    >
    > >It's a bit of a pity that your opinion on the change in language can be
    > >paraphrased as "it's better because I think it ought to be that way",

    >
    > It's a pity you have such trouble understanding the English language. This
    > has been explained to you several times.


    You have said several times that "Wend was changed to End While to be
    consistant with other block structures" as if that was all that needed to be
    said on the subject. I've consistently challenged you to explain what
    tangible benefit the change brings to the user to offset the loss of
    compatibility. So far, you haven't done that.

    >
    > Jonathan, unless you're willing to do me the common curtesy of actually

    reading
    > my posts and paying attention, I don't see much point in continuing this
    > particular discussion with you.


    Please notice that I trim your posts to a much lesser extent than you trim
    mine. I'm much more willing to read and address your points that you appear
    to be. For instance, you haven't attempted to refute my suggestion that in
    the context of the knowledge and experience of a VB6 developer, Wend is more
    readable than End While. That just got cut instead from your reply. That
    kind of behaviour doesn't do much good for your ability to persuade people
    that you are right. Building an argument requires more than just repeating
    your original assertions in the hope that everybody else will eventually
    agree with what you consider to be "obvious". Oh well. I gave you a fair
    chance to justify your position or to change it, and you blew it. Your
    problem, not mine.

    --
    Regards
    Jonathan West


  15. #480
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    Hi Jonathan,

    "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
    >news:3e3e89a1$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
    >>
    >> "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
    >>
    >> I gave you two specific reasons for this change. In addition
    >> to readability, it is more consistant with other scope terminators such

    as
    >> End If, End With, End Sub, etc. This has been explained to you several

    >times....
    >
    >Yes,


    Good, at least you admit you are wrong on this point.

    >but what you haven't done is provide a causal link between that and any
    >increase in productivity (or any other benefit).

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Wrong again. I have explained the benefits. Those benefits lie in consistency
    and readability. As for whether consistency and readability really make you
    more productive, I've aswered that question as well...

    <quote>
    It's not life and death, if that's what you mean. I think it's a minor improvement.
    </quote>

    So no, I didn't use the word 'productivity' because I think the change from
    Wend to End While is a very minor point. In comparison, I would think that
    VB.NET's centralized error handling and built-in resizing capabilities (for
    example) make for much greater productivity gains.

    >> >It seems that your original mistake was to
    >> >assume that the language and IDE changes were dependent on each other,
    >> >and
    >> >that the IDE Intellisense features you described needed the language

    >change.
    >>
    >> Please don't put words into my mount. I did not say that. You appear to

    >have
    >> a reading comprehension problem.

    >
    >I said "it seems". In other words, I was describing the effect your words
    >have on me. I'm not presuming to put words into your moth.


    You were mischaracterizing what I said. Do you now admit this mischaracterization
    is incorrect?

    >You have said several times that "Wend was changed to End While to be
    >consistant with other block structures" if that was all that needed to be
    >said on the subject.


    You asked what was the rationale for changing Wend to End While. I've explained
    that rationale several times over. Just because it can be explained in a
    few sentences doesn't mean the answer isn't valid. And asking the same question
    over and over again won't make the answer change either.

    >I've consistently challenged you to explain what
    >tangible benefit the change brings to the user


    I already answered this question a couple posts ago....

    <quote>
    I think it's a minor improvement....Did you want me to cite a half dozen
    university studies conducted by ivy league institutions showing a quantifiable
    and exact 5.3% boost in productivity? Get real. Changing Wend to End While
    simply makes VB more consistant and readable. Nothing more, nothing less.
    If you want a study conducted on the exact boost in productivity, you'll
    have to commission one yourself.
    </quote>

    > to offset the loss of
    >compatibility.


    I already address the compatibility issue several times.

    <quote>
    There is no "pragmatic compatibility" issue in regards to Wend=>End While
    in VB.NET as far as I can see.....

    1...If you're upgrading a project, the Upgrade Wizard automatically convert
    all Wend's to End While's. So, there's no issue here.

    2...If you're upgrading a code snippet, the code snippet tool automatically
    converts all Wend's to End While's. So, there's no issue here either.

    3...If you're typing a While loop, VB.NET's Intellisense will automatically
    insert End While for you. Again, no issue here.

    4...If you manually type Wend, VB.NET's Intellisense will automatically convert
    it to End While for you. No issue.

    5...If you copy and paste a Wend into VB.NET, the Intellisense will automatically
    convert it to End While for you. No issue.
    </quote>

    >For instance, you haven't attempted to refute my suggestion that in
    >the context of the knowledge and experience of a VB6 developer, Wend is

    more
    >readable than End While. That just got cut instead from your reply.


    The last post you made consisted almost entirely of you repeating the same
    questions I had already answered many times over. It was only until this
    post did I realize that you actually said something new. You have my apology.
    Now I'll address your question....

    > You have already agreed with me
    >that consistency is sometimes an impediment to readability. In fact, that

    is
    >the case in this specific instance.


    No, I did not say that. From several posts ago....

    <quote>
    >you are now in effect suggesting that
    >readability can somtimes be improved by making some reduction in
    >consistency, a sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse.


    No, I did not say that.
    </quote>

    So, that's the second time I've told you that. Do I have to say that a third
    time?

    >Consider:
    >
    >- VB.NET was (supposedly) targetted at the VB6 developer community
    >- The VB6 developer community already knows Wend, and so has no
    > trouble reading it
    >- With End While, it is not until you read the second word that you
    > can distinguish the statement from several other similar ones,
    > which means that it takes marginally longer to read and
    > comprehend the statement.


    Yes, VB.NET is targetted at the VB6 developer community but it's also targetted
    at new developers. The B in VB stands for beginners, remember? End While
    probably makes more sense to beginners because it's more consistant with
    the rest of the language. As for existing VB6 developers, I'm pretty sure
    that most are smart enough to figure out that End While means Wend very quickly.
    I know I was able to. Your assertion that End While "takes marginally longer
    to read and comprehend the statement" is a gross exaggeration. You're grasping
    at straws again. If you think reading End While takes too long, do you also
    think End Select and End Class should be changed because they take too long
    to read?

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

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