Hopeless...

[Rick Buda]

.NET is all about C#. If you still want to use VB - and worse yet, if you
want to use VB in its current form - then you might as well stick with VB6
- VARIANTs, IDispatch, binary compatability, 1-based arrays, -1 True values,
"Dim" statements, and all the other wonderful things that VB6 did wrong.

[Patrick Steele]

In article <3ad5a533$1@news.devx.com> (from Rick Buda
<rbuda@mediaone.net>),
> ... "Dim" statements, and all the other wonderful things that VB6 did wrong.

Ok, I gotta ask:

What's wrong with the "Dim" statement?

--
Patrick Steele
(psteele@ipdsolution.com)
Lead Software Architect
Image Process Design

[Ed Courtenay]

The most glaringly obvious thing that VB6 got wrong with Dim, VB.Net has now
got right:

Dim i As Integer = 10

I've personally been waiting for that one for years....

"Patrick Steele" <psteele@ipdsolution.com_> wrote in message
news:MPG.153f7723ab2536d7989766@news.devx.com...
> In article <3ad5a533$1@news.devx.com> (from Rick Buda
> <rbuda@mediaone.net>),
> > ... "Dim" statements, and all the other wonderful things that VB6 did
wrong.
>
> Ok, I gotta ask:
>
> What's wrong with the "Dim" statement?
>
> --
> Patrick Steele
> (psteele@ipdsolution.com)
> Lead Software Architect
> Image Process Design

[Patrick Steele]

In article <3ad5c3c8$1@news.devx.com> (from Ed Courtenay
<ed@edcourtenay.co.uk>),
>
> The most glaringly obvious thing that VB6 got wrong with Dim, VB.Net has now
> got right:
>
> Dim i As Integer = 10
>
> I've personally been waiting for that one for years....

Oh, okay. The way Rick put it in quotes ("Dim") I thought he had some
problem with the keyword "Dim". Who knows...

And yes -- I really like the ability to initialize variables when
creating them!

--
Patrick Steele
(psteele@ipdsolution.com)
Lead Software Architect
Image Process Design

[Jonathan Allen]

I think "Local" would be a better word than "Dim" considering how we use it,
but it is still a lot better than that reverse notation nonsense. We are not
casting spells for crying out loud.

--
Jonathan Allen


"Patrick Steele" <psteele@ipdsolution.com_> wrote in message
news:MPG.153f7723ab2536d7989766@news.devx.com...
> In article <3ad5a533$1@news.devx.com> (from Rick Buda
> <rbuda@mediaone.net>),
> > ... "Dim" statements, and all the other wonderful things that VB6 did
wrong.
>
> Ok, I gotta ask:
>
> What's wrong with the "Dim" statement?
>
> --
> Patrick Steele
> (psteele@ipdsolution.com)
> Lead Software Architect
> Image Process Design

[Rick Buda]

What would you rather write:

Dim i As Integer = 0
or
int i = 0;

The second statement is one-half the length of the first, and I don't like
typing.

Patrick Steele <psteele@ipdsolution.com_> wrote:
>In article <3ad5c3c8$1@news.devx.com> (from Ed Courtenay
><ed@edcourtenay.co.uk>),
>>
>> The most glaringly obvious thing that VB6 got wrong with Dim, VB.Net has
now
>> got right:
>>
>> Dim i As Integer = 10
>>
>> I've personally been waiting for that one for years....
>
>Oh, okay. The way Rick put it in quotes ("Dim") I thought he had some
>problem with the keyword "Dim". Who knows...
>
>And yes -- I really like the ability to initialize variables when
>creating them!
>
>--
>Patrick Steele
>(psteele@ipdsolution.com)
>Lead Software Architect
>Image Process Design

[Jonathan Allen]

> The second statement is one-half the length of the first, and I don't like
> typing.


But what if it is an object?

Dim X As New MyClass(1)
MyClass X = new MyClass(1)

Is it just me, or does it seem silly to begin and end the line with the type
name. One would think the compiler is smart enough to assume I wanted the
same type if I didn't specify otherwise.

When you include access modifiers, the difference is even more evident...

Private X As New MyClass(1)
private MyClass X = New MyClass(2)


--
Jonathan Allen


"Rick Buda" <rbuda@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3ad62da3$1@news.devx.com...
>
> What would you rather write:
>
> Dim i As Integer = 0
> or
> int i = 0;
>
> The second statement is one-half the length of the first, and I don't like
> typing.
>
> Patrick Steele <psteele@ipdsolution.com_> wrote:
> >In article <3ad5c3c8$1@news.devx.com> (from Ed Courtenay
> ><ed@edcourtenay.co.uk>),
> >>
> >> The most glaringly obvious thing that VB6 got wrong with Dim, VB.Net
has
> now
> >> got right:
> >>
> >> Dim i As Integer = 10
> >>
> >> I've personally been waiting for that one for years....
> >
> >Oh, okay. The way Rick put it in quotes ("Dim") I thought he had some
> >problem with the keyword "Dim". Who knows...
> >
> >And yes -- I really like the ability to initialize variables when
> >creating them!
> >
> >--
> >Patrick Steele
> >(psteele@ipdsolution.com)
> >Lead Software Architect
> >Image Process Design
>

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> What would you rather write:
>
> Dim i As Integer = 0
> or
> int i = 0;
>
> The second statement is one-half the length of the first, and I don't like
> typing.

Actually, I find myself automatically typing

Dim X As DockableBarItem = New DockableBarItem()

Maybe it's my subconscious sending me a message? :-)

[Patrick Troughton]

Just wait till you end up typing AndElse and OrAlso for the next 10 years...

/Pat

"Rick Buda" <rbuda@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>What would you rather write:
>
>Dim i As Integer = 0
>or
>int i = 0;
>
>The second statement is one-half the length of the first, and I don't like
>typing.
>
>Patrick Steele <psteele@ipdsolution.com_> wrote:
>>In article <3ad5c3c8$1@news.devx.com> (from Ed Courtenay
>><ed@edcourtenay.co.uk>),
>>>
>>> The most glaringly obvious thing that VB6 got wrong with Dim, VB.Net
has
>now
>>> got right:
>>>
>>> Dim i As Integer = 10
>>>
>>> I've personally been waiting for that one for years....
>>
>>Oh, okay. The way Rick put it in quotes ("Dim") I thought he had some

>>problem with the keyword "Dim". Who knows...
>>
>>And yes -- I really like the ability to initialize variables when
>>creating them!
>>
>>--
>>Patrick Steele
>>(psteele@ipdsolution.com)
>>Lead Software Architect
>>Image Process Design
>

[Jeff Pipes]

Now that Microsoft is ruining VB with these rollbacks what makes you think
VB will even be around 10 years from now?

-Jeff

"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>
>Just wait till you end up typing AndElse and OrAlso for the next 10 years...
>
>/Pat
>
>"Rick Buda" <rbuda@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>>What would you rather write:
>>
>>Dim i As Integer = 0
>>or
>>int i = 0;
>>
>>The second statement is one-half the length of the first, and I don't like
>>typing.
>>
>>Patrick Steele <psteele@ipdsolution.com_> wrote:
>>>In article <3ad5c3c8$1@news.devx.com> (from Ed Courtenay
>>><ed@edcourtenay.co.uk>),
>>>>
>>>> The most glaringly obvious thing that VB6 got wrong with Dim, VB.Net
>has
>>now
>>>> got right:
>>>>
>>>> Dim i As Integer = 10
>>>>
>>>> I've personally been waiting for that one for years....
>>>
>>>Oh, okay. The way Rick put it in quotes ("Dim") I thought he had some
>
>>>problem with the keyword "Dim". Who knows...
>>>
>>>And yes -- I really like the ability to initialize variables when
>>>creating them!
>>>
>>>--
>>>Patrick Steele
>>>(psteele@ipdsolution.com)
>>>Lead Software Architect
>>>Image Process Design
>>
>

[Patrick Troughton]

Hi Jeff,

You're right, there's no telling how long VB will last. I guess we'll have
to wait and see what other improvements they're going to take away from us....

/Pat

"Jeff Pipes" <JeffP622@msn.com> wrote:
>
>Now that Microsoft is ruining VB with these rollbacks what makes you think
>VB will even be around 10 years from now?
>
>-Jeff
>
>"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>>
>>Just wait till you end up typing AndElse and OrAlso for the next 10 years...
>>
>>/Pat

[Rick Buda]

What is up with that? That's almost as bad as:

If Not myObject Is Nothing Then DoSomethingWithMyObject(myObject)

"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>
>Just wait till you end up typing AndElse and OrAlso for the next 10 years...
>
>/Pat

[Patrick Steele]

In article <3ad62da3$1@news.devx.com> (from Rick Buda
<rbuda@mediaone.net>),
> The second statement is one-half the length of the first, and I don't like
> typing.

Then use a language like C/C++/C#.

--
Patrick Steele
(psteele@ipdsolution.com)
Lead Software Architect
Image Process Design

[Larry Linson]

"Rick Buda" <rbuda@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>.NET is all about C#. If you still want to use VB - and worse yet, if
you
>want to use VB in its current form - then you might as well stick with
VB6
>- VARIANTs, IDispatch, binary compatability, 1-based arrays, -1 True values,
>"Dim" statements, and all the other wonderful things that VB6 did wrong.

I drop in here once in a while and skim through a few weeks of posts. This
time, I'm amazed at the apparent concensus that so many things were wrong
with VB through VB6. I'm wondering if you are talking about the same VB,
the one that is undeniably the most popular development tool of all time.


I really cannot bring myself to believe that was solely due to the Mighty
Microsoft Marketing Machine (MMMM) being able to force down millions of throats
a product with so many things wrong with it. I really find no way to avoid
believing that there must have been many things right with it, or not even
the MMMM nor IBM in its heyday could have sold that many copies.

Reading these posts, I come to the conclusion that the really amazing thing
is that I was, and uncounted thousands of my fellow programmers and developers,
were somehow able to struggle along in this business since its inception,
using language after language and tool after tool that lacked all these vital
necessities (the ones that people have just in the past very few years realized
we couldn't compute without). I guess all those programs that I remember,
the ones that kept the world running more or less smoothly, the ones without
a single object anywhere, must just be the products of an aging memory, not
historical fact as they seem.

[David A. Rothgery]

Larry Linson <larry.linson@ntpcug.org> wrote:

> Reading these posts, I come to the conclusion that the really amazing
> thing is that I was, and uncounted thousands of my fellow programmers
> and developers, were somehow able to struggle along in this business
> since its inception, using language after language and tool after tool
> that lacked all these vital necessities (the ones that people have just
> in the past very few years realized we couldn't compute without). I
> guess all those programs that I remember, the ones that kept the world
> running more or less smoothly, the ones without a single object
> anywhere, must just be the products of an aging memory, not
> historical fact as they seem.

To get the very good VB IDE, a lot of programmers have always been
willing to deal with some of the deficiencies of the VB language. This
isn't saying that 'classic VB' didn't have lot of good points. It's just
that there were a few things that were a bit strange, and the support
for OOP was limited.

--
Dave Rothgery
Picking nits since 1976
drothgery@myrealbox.com
http://drothgery.editthispage.com