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


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 56

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

  1. #1
    T.C. Boring Guest

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


    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

  2. #2
    Iguana Guest

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

    <<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




  3. #3
    T.C. Boring Guest

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


    <<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.

  4. #4
    Jonathan Allen Guest

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

    > 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.




  5. #5
    Dave Haskell Guest

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

    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.



  6. #6
    Dave Haskell Guest

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

    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?



  7. #7
    Phil Weber Guest

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

    > 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



  8. #8
    Dave Haskell Guest

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

    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



  9. #9
    Larry Serflaten Guest

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


    "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




  10. #10
    Jeff Johnson Guest

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


    "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.

  11. #11
    Phil Weber Guest

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

    > 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



  12. #12
    Rune Bivrin Guest

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

    "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



  13. #13
    Michael Welch Guest

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


    "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



  14. #14
    T.C. Boring Guest

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


    <<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.


  15. #15
    T.C. Boring Guest

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


    "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.

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