Why Is Microsoft making VB.NET just as LAME as VB 4 - 6 ???

[T.C. Boring]

O.k., I realize the three changes are small, but why is Microsoft so bent
on listening to VB hacks that have no idea what OOP is really about or don't
care about cross language shops having it easier ?

<<They don't want to have to look at a line of code and have to remember
whether it's correct for .NET or VB6.>>

Why should I have to have to look at array useage or boolean useage and have
to remember whether it's correct for VB or pretty much all other Object Oriented
Languages ?

What happened Microsoft ? You were doing so well making a "toy" language
respectable. Now you have bowed to the weakest of your product users who
are whining and crying about migration. The system I get to migrate has
over 50,000 lines of VB code, and about the same amount of VC++ code. Guess
what ? I'm looking forward to migrating every line.

T.C. Boring

[Iguana]

<<O.k., I realize the three changes are small, but why is Microsoft so bent
on listening to VB hacks that have no idea what OOP is really about or don't
care about cross language shops having it easier ?>>

Because, believe it or not, real life is not the same as a textbook and OOP
is not the end all.
Pure OO or nothing Zealots are a dime a dozen, people who can produce
solutions based upon reality are worth
their weight in gold.

Iguana



"T.C. Boring" <tboring@sbcounty.gov> wrote in message
news:3ae60360$1@news.devx.com...
>
> O.k., I realize the three changes are small, but why is Microsoft so bent
> on listening to VB hacks that have no idea what OOP is really about or
don't
> care about cross language shops having it easier ?
>
> <<They don't want to have to look at a line of code and have to remember
> whether it's correct for .NET or VB6.>>
>
> Why should I have to have to look at array useage or boolean useage and
have
> to remember whether it's correct for VB or pretty much all other Object
Oriented
> Languages ?
>
> What happened Microsoft ? You were doing so well making a "toy" language
> respectable. Now you have bowed to the weakest of your product users who
> are whining and crying about migration. The system I get to migrate has
> over 50,000 lines of VB code, and about the same amount of VC++ code.
Guess
> what ? I'm looking forward to migrating every line.
>
> T.C. Boring

[T.C. Boring]

<<Because, believe it or not, real life is not the same as a textbook and
OOP is not the end all. Pure OO or nothing Zealots are a dime a dozen, people
who can produce solutions based upon reality are worth their weight in gold.>>

Iguana,

I know the differences between real life and a text book. I'm not an idealistic
college kid with 0 real world experience. I've actually been developing
software for 10 years, and I know the real world. Of course, by your use
of the name "Iguana" I should have known you were a professional.

I'm a zealot ? I've never been called that before.

What I am, is someone that believes that an Object Oriented language should
be object oriented, and follow other object oriented languages for some of
the basics. Microsoft's goal with .NET was to make VB OO, which means to
make it easier for real OO programmers, they should continue to play by the
rules.

Also, so much work has been done by people like myself that develop and deliver
real world solutions, it's kind of ridiculous to change the rules after the
first inning of the ball game.

Also, I believe by definition 0=FALSE and 1=TRUE. That's a basic boolean
truth, nothing OO about it.

[Jonathan Allen]

> What I am, is someone that believes that an Object Oriented language
should
> be object oriented, and follow other object oriented languages for some of
> the basics.

What if the other languages suck? Keywords like Shared and MustOverride are
far more intuitive than what we get from C++ and Java. And neither of those
have basic OO concepts like properties.


> Also, so much work has been done by people like myself that develop and
deliver
> real world solutions, it's kind of ridiculous to change the rules after
the
> first inning of the ball game.

First of all, that is exactly why it was changed back to -1. Secondly, the
whole purpose of a Beta is to test the rules. If you are already doing
production work with Beta 1, then you are a fool.

> Also, I believe by definition 0=FALSE and 1=TRUE. That's a basic Boolean
> truth, nothing OO about it.

Then why do you keep talking about OO?

--
Jonathan Allen


"T.C. Boring" <tboring@sbcounty.gov> wrote in message
news:3ae60856$1@news.devx.com...
>
> <<Because, believe it or not, real life is not the same as a textbook and
> OOP is not the end all. Pure OO or nothing Zealots are a dime a dozen,
people
> who can produce solutions based upon reality are worth their weight in
gold.>>
>
> Iguana,
>
> I know the differences between real life and a text book. I'm not an
idealistic
> college kid with 0 real world experience. I've actually been developing
> software for 10 years, and I know the real world. Of course, by your use
> of the name "Iguana" I should have known you were a professional.
>
> I'm a zealot ? I've never been called that before.
>
> What I am, is someone that believes that an Object Oriented language
should
> be object oriented, and follow other object oriented languages for some of
> the basics. Microsoft's goal with .NET was to make VB OO, which means to
> make it easier for real OO programmers, they should continue to play by
the
> rules.
>
> Also, so much work has been done by people like myself that develop and
deliver
> real world solutions, it's kind of ridiculous to change the rules after
the
> first inning of the ball game.
>
> Also, I believe by definition 0=FALSE and 1=TRUE. That's a basic boolean
> truth, nothing OO about it.

[Dave Haskell]

T.C. Boring,

> Also, I believe by definition 0=FALSE and 1=TRUE. That's a basic boolean
> truth, nothing OO about it.

Uh, no. By definition False = False and True = True; False = Not True and True
= Not False. A definition of the assignment of numeric values to the boolean
*concept* of True and False is just that.

You may want to look at
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath...alcLogic.html.
You'll notice that True and False are just concepts, not numeric values.

[Dave Haskell]

T.C. Boring,

> ... The system I get to migrate has
> over 50,000 lines of VB code, and about the same amount of VC++ code. Guess
> what ? I'm looking forward to migrating every line.

And why exactly are you migrating it? Wouldn't it be better as a rewrite?

[Phil Weber]

> False = Not True

Dave: I'm not sure that's correct. Every definition of boolean logic I've
seen says that True = Not False, but not the opposite.
---
Phil Weber

[Dave Haskell]

Phil,

> > False = Not True
>
> Dave: I'm not sure that's correct. Every definition of boolean logic I've
> seen says that True = Not False, but not the opposite.

http://max.cs.kzoo.edu/CS400/Lecture...Logic.html#NOT

[Larry Serflaten]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@devx.com> wrote
> > False = Not True
>
> Dave: I'm not sure that's correct. Every definition of boolean logic I've
> seen says that True = Not False, but not the opposite.
> ---
> Phil Weber

While you may be largely correct about the lack of definition, the statement
should still be valid as there are only two states in Boolean logic, if its not
one, it has to be the other....

Can you think of an expression where relying on False = Not True will not work?

LFS

[Jeff Johnson]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@devx.com> wrote:
> > False = Not True
>
>Dave: I'm not sure that's correct. Every definition of boolean logic I've
>seen says that True = Not False, but not the opposite.
>---
>Phil Weber
>
>

If True = not False and False <> Not True, then we have asserted an axiom
that creates a system of Logic that that makes it impossible for us to reason
altogether.

[Phil Weber]

> Can you think of an expression where relying on
> False = Not True will not work?

Larry: Depends on the implementation of Not. ;-) If Not is bitwise, the
expression "Not True" will generate an error in Beta 2 with Option Strict
On.
---
Phil Weber

[Rune Bivrin]

"Jeff Johnson" <johnsonjs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ae701ac$1@news.devx.com...
>
> "Phil Weber" <pweber@devx.com> wrote:
> > > False = Not True
> >
> >Dave: I'm not sure that's correct. Every definition of boolean logic I've
> >seen says that True = Not False, but not the opposite.
> >---
> >Phil Weber
> >
> >
>
> If True = not False and False <> Not True, then we have asserted an axiom
> that creates a system of Logic that that makes it impossible for us to
reason
> altogether.
Er, well I think we can safely assume that False = Not True in the context
of logical tests. The definition is used when defining the values, not when
comparing them. By starting with False=0, True will take on whatever value,
from a Boolean perspective, that is the inverse of False, so that the
evaluations will work as expected.

Ask Dan for an in-depth explanation<g>.

Rune Bivrin

[Michael Welch]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@devx.com> wrote in message
news:3ae708ca@news.devx.com...
> > Can you think of an expression where relying on
> > False = Not True will not work?
>
> Larry: Depends on the implementation of Not. ;-) If Not is bitwise, the
> expression "Not True" will generate an error in Beta 2 with Option Strict
> On.

Thanks a lot Phil. Now I'm sure I don't understand what is going on in
..NET. And I certainly know I don't understand how I'm supposed to use
boolean logic in it.

Well, I guess that's something good to discover now and not while I'm
writing code.

Michael

[T.C. Boring]

<<Er, well I think we can safely assume that False = Not True in the context
of logical tests. The definition is used when defining the values, not when
comparing them. By starting with False=0, True will take on whatever value,
from a Boolean perspective, that is the inverse of False, so that the evaluations
will work as expected.

Ask Dan for an in-depth explanation<g>.

Rune Bivrin
>>

It's also safe to assume that 0=False and 1=True.

Nothing OO about it.

[T.C. Boring]

"Dave Haskell" <NOhaskellsSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T.C. Boring,
>
>> ... The system I get to migrate has
>> over 50,000 lines of VB code, and about the same amount of VC++ code.
Guess
>> what ? I'm looking forward to migrating every line.
>
>And why exactly are you migrating it? Wouldn't it be better as a rewrite?
>
>
Migration, rewrite, whatever.

Point is, I get to take codebase A and convert/migrate/rewrite/beg borrow
and steal to make it run under .NET, and I'm looking forward to it.

Why ? Cause I'm not some pansey (sp?) that screams his head off when some
of the rules change.