DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 42

Thread: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll

  1. #16
    Blob Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll


    Chris,

    I think you should read the subject line on this thread. I'M A TROLL. That's
    what I have been tagged. I am a self confessed troll. But I will indulge
    anyway.

    >amusing...that you don't post a single reason why...it would be an interesting
    >topic to explore...the reason oop and vb don't belong in the same sentence...regardless

    Let's see, I think I reclarified by saying that VB developers and OO don't
    go together. There's plenty of proof in that. Now if you are a VB developer
    who only works around VB devs, well then you are probably the greatest OO
    developer that ever lived. If on the other hand you are a VB developer around
    good OO C++, C#, Java, SmallTalk devs, well then I would be willing to bet
    you would rethink any claim to being the greatest OO developer.

    You see I work around VB devs who are either moving to C# or VB.NET, and
    well, if there design is any indication, they are crappy OO developers.

    >of the language, i don't see your point...how can VB not be OO...especially
    >in the .NET world...let's not have an age old discussion on why VB6 and

    prior
    >are not pure OO,

    What can you say about pure OO? Does it exist? I don't think so. I don't
    think it is possible to accomplish in a real world environment.

    >I think that's the meaning of the 'late to the party' comment...you
    >sorta missed out there...go back a few years and catch up w/ the rest of
    >us technically and then maybe we could all talk...

    Catch up technically? You see, that's where you f***** up. Let's talk technical
    shall we. COM/DCOM, CORBA, MQSeries, MSMQ, SQL Server, Oracle, .NET, J2EE
    should be enough. I especially love it when VB guys talk about technical
    especially when it comes to COM. Tell me more about your technical ability.

    >if you had something, anything, to back up your dumb comment...i think it
    >would be a much more interesting discussion...but i can't possibly see where
    >you could take this that could warrant further discussion...


    As I said, look at the subject. I am not here with the intention of backing
    up anything but since you ask, let's rock.

  2. #17
    Anthony Jones Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll

    >VB developers and OO don't go together.

    Ahh. So it's not so much the language that you are directing your barbs at
    as the group of people who would identify themselves as users of the
    language. IOW, you wish to tar all developers who use VB with the same
    brush based on your personal experience with such.

    Do you think that casting a blanket slur on a group of people is acceptable
    behaviour? Any group of people? If you had put a disclaimer in your
    original post that you were a racist and then started casting racial slurs,
    would that be acceptable simply due to your disclaimer?

    Frankly your comments are offensive and no amount of pointing to 'I said I
    was a Troll' will absolve you. I like to participate in this newsgroup to
    assist those VB developers who are trying to implement OO designs in VB.
    That is the purpose of this NG and it is pure a techinical one there is no
    place here for people like you.

    Anthony.




  3. #18
    Paul Clement Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll

    On 23 Nov 2002 17:04:50 -0800, "Blob" <blob@blobbloblboblo.com> wrote:


    Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:
    >On 21 Nov 2002 06:50:27 -0800, "blob" <blob@blobblobblob.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    > I am a self confessed troll and if you would not like to engage me in
    my anti
    > VB sentiments then please do not respond to any thing I have to say.
    That
    > is my disclaimer. Never let it be said that I didn't warn you.
    >
    >Thanks for sharing your aspirations...but it seems you're a little late
    to that party.
    >;-)
    >
    >
    >Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
    >Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

    Is there a point to that?

    I thought it was rather obvious, but perhaps you aren't aware that this stuff has already been
    hashed and re-hashed on numerous occasions. Is there a point? Well, I could ask the same question to
    your statement but I already know the answer is "no".


    Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
    Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

  4. #19
    Blob Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll


    >Ahh. So it's not so much the language that you are directing your barbs

    at
    >as the group of people who would identify themselves as users of the
    >language.

    Correct. How can I direct my "barbs" at an inanimate object?

    IOW, you wish to tar all developers who use VB with the same
    >brush based on your personal experience with such.
    >

    Tar? You must be from over the pond. Pitty. And what else would someone
    base their knowledge on? Personal experience has always been my choice.

    >Do you think that casting a blanket slur on a group of people is acceptable
    >behaviour?

    Behaviour? Oh, you mean behavior. Yup, over the pond it is.

    Any group of people? If you had put a disclaimer in your
    >original post that you were a racist and then started casting racial slurs,
    >would that be acceptable simply due to your disclaimer?

    Now that's funny. I may have said that I was also an african american but
    I didn't. Funny though to call me a racist. That's amusing.

    >Frankly your comments are offensive and no amount of pointing to 'I said

    I
    >was a Troll' will absolve you.

    Didn't have any intention of doing that, I mean absolving anything, offensive
    yes.

    >I like to participate in this newsgroup to
    >assist those VB developers who are trying to implement OO designs in VB.
    >That is the purpose of this NG and it is pure a techinical one there is

    no
    >place here for people like you.

    What are you saying? I'm not technical enuf? You are much more technically
    savvy than I? Unfortunately I have done nothing wrong by coming here, so
    say hey to Blob.

  5. #20
    Chris Hylton Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll


    ugh...you bore me...yes, i read the subject line, i realize you are only here
    to push buttons...so just call me a self-professed anti-troller...it's my
    personal job to push your buttons right back...

    my resume consists of the same technologies you list in yours...so i doubt
    you are going to get a rise (or impress me) w/ your technical abilities...

    further, you contradict your own statements...if there is no 'pure OO' and
    it doesn't exist in the real world...then you really (if you think in any
    sort of logical manner) can't say VB and OO don't go together...you can implement
    many OO designs w/ VB, even VB5/6, you just can't implement all of the features
    of academic OO or whatever you want to call it...yes, something like J2EE,
    C#, C++, etc are definitely true OO languages...but so is VB now...think
    what you want about the developers...all b/c you work for a sorry company
    that turned a bunch of VB guys loose w/ no training doesn't make your statement
    or assumptions about VB developers and OO true...

    i've got a better idea...define OO...that would be a start for you...

    as far as your point...maybe you mean lousy VB developers don't go w/ OO...maybe
    I can agree on that...but a lousy developer in any language goes both ways...i've
    worked with OO developers (Java trained) that take a crack at VB and they
    wrapper every friggin' object that has already been built in their own pseudo-OO
    design...result...slow code...

    that still doesn't mean VB developers and OO don't go together...you state
    below that it's a FACT, let's hear the facts!!!...where is this documented...where
    has it been studied...what PROOF do you have that VB developers don't go
    w/ OO...they have NOTHING to do with each other...it's a stupid comment...and
    it makes zero sense...even more to the point, one statement by you doesn't
    make it so...

    Chris

    "Blob" <blob@blobbloblboblo.com> wrote:
    >
    >Chris,
    >
    >I think you should read the subject line on this thread. I'M A TROLL.

    That's
    >what I have been tagged. I am a self confessed troll. But I will indulge
    >anyway.
    >
    >>amusing...that you don't post a single reason why...it would be an interesting
    >>topic to explore...the reason oop and vb don't belong in the same sentence...regardless

    >Let's see, I think I reclarified by saying that VB developers and OO don't
    >go together. There's plenty of proof in that. Now if you are a VB developer
    >who only works around VB devs, well then you are probably the greatest OO
    >developer that ever lived. If on the other hand you are a VB developer

    around
    >good OO C++, C#, Java, SmallTalk devs, well then I would be willing to bet
    >you would rethink any claim to being the greatest OO developer.
    >
    >You see I work around VB devs who are either moving to C# or VB.NET, and
    >well, if there design is any indication, they are crappy OO developers.
    >
    >>of the language, i don't see your point...how can VB not be OO...especially
    >>in the .NET world...let's not have an age old discussion on why VB6 and

    >prior
    >>are not pure OO,

    >What can you say about pure OO? Does it exist? I don't think so. I don't
    >think it is possible to accomplish in a real world environment.
    >
    >>I think that's the meaning of the 'late to the party' comment...you
    >>sorta missed out there...go back a few years and catch up w/ the rest of
    >>us technically and then maybe we could all talk...

    >Catch up technically? You see, that's where you f***** up. Let's talk

    technical
    >shall we. COM/DCOM, CORBA, MQSeries, MSMQ, SQL Server, Oracle, .NET, J2EE
    >should be enough. I especially love it when VB guys talk about technical
    >especially when it comes to COM. Tell me more about your technical ability.
    >
    >>if you had something, anything, to back up your dumb comment...i think

    it
    >>would be a much more interesting discussion...but i can't possibly see

    where
    >>you could take this that could warrant further discussion...

    >
    >As I said, look at the subject. I am not here with the intention of backing
    >up anything but since you ask, let's rock.



  6. #21
    blob Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll


    >ugh...you bore me...yes,

    for something that bored you, you sure are long winded here.

    >i read the subject line, i realize you are only here
    >to push buttons...so just call me a self-professed anti-troller...it's my
    >personal job to push your buttons right back...

    Won't work. Are you like the "uber" anti-troller?

    >
    >my resume consists of the same technologies you list in yours...so i doubt
    >you are going to get a rise (or impress me) w/ your technical abilities...
    >

    Oh, I seriously doubt that. I won't even go into CORBA but let's rap about
    COM. You think by adding a reference to some dll that a C++ guy wrote in
    the VB IDE is knowing COM? Come on. Tell me about your knowledge of COM/DCOM.

    >further, you contradict your own statements...if there is no 'pure OO' and
    >it doesn't exist in the real world...then you really (if you think in any
    >sort of logical manner) can't say VB and OO don't go together...you can

    implement
    >many OO designs w/ VB, even VB5/6, you just can't implement all of the features
    >of academic OO or whatever you want to call it...

    Won't even indulge you on this. Already stated the fact. Let's try this
    again, "I SAID THE DEVELOPERS NOT THE LANGUAGE". Read again.


    yes, something like J2EE,
    >C#, C++, etc are definitely true OO languages...

    Just curious as to when J2EE became a language? And you put that on your
    resume?

    >but so is VB now...think
    >what you want about the developers...all b/c you work for a sorry company
    >that turned a bunch of VB guys loose w/ no training doesn't make your statement
    >or assumptions about VB developers and OO true...

    OK, let's try the last 4 companies I have worked for....Hmmm.....yup that's
    a pretty fair statement to make.

    >i've got a better idea...define OO...that would be a start for you...
    >
    >as far as your point...maybe you mean lousy VB developers don't go w/ OO...maybe

    Ah, now you've got it.

    >I can agree on that...but a lousy developer in any language goes both ways...i've
    >worked with OO developers (Java trained) that take a crack at VB and they
    >wrapper every friggin' object that has already been built in their own pseudo-OO
    >design...result...slow code...


    Oh, you don't want me to go into the speed issue. That's another one, speed
    and VB don't go together.

    >
    >that still doesn't mean VB developers and OO don't go together...you state
    >below that it's a FACT, let's hear the facts!!!...where is this documented...where
    >has it been studied...what PROOF do you have that VB developers don't go
    >w/ OO...they have NOTHING to do with each other...it's a stupid comment...and
    >it makes zero sense...even more to the point, one statement by you doesn't
    >make it so...

    Here we go again. "You stop bashing us VB guys. We're programmers too.
    Leave us alone and go play in C++ land." Blah, blah, blah. Ever since Don
    Box said VB guys could do whatever C++ guys could do you guys have had this
    chip on your shoulder. Quit being defensive. You know **** well you have
    met many a C++ developer that put the thought in your head about "**** that's
    one smart SOB". Now how many VB guys have you said that about?

    Good day

  7. #22
    James Barbetti Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll


    Hi Matthew, et al.

    >You've got to be kidding. How can you take C++/Java seriously as OO
    >languages when you can't avoid name collisions on interfaces.


    The vexed "namespace collision" problem! I wish they'd fix it! ADA95 fixed
    it. Why hasn't it been properly fixed in Java or C++? It'd be easy enough
    to fix! If C++ just required a teensy bit more qualification the problem
    would go away. I'm happy to put in the extra keystrokes for "classReference.interfaceName.member"
    rather than the terser (but potentially ambiguous) "classReference.member".
    With an IDE with autocomplete (or "intellisense", whatever) it would actually
    *save* me time.

    >If I have a method Foo on two different interfaces and I want
    >one implementation of Foo per interface then I'm completely stuck
    >unless I'm in VB6 or a .NET language. What a joke.


    Not completely stuck (but, yes, greatly inconvenienced). The language enables
    that - sort of. It just doesn't support it. Who wants to roll their own
    vtables (tables of pointers to functions)? Not me! If I have to do that
    I might as well be programming in C, rather than C++, for all the good it
    is doing me.

    >Also, implementation inheritance is highly overrated. You get much
    >better code in the long run if you stick to interfaces.
    >Extending a base class only encourages calling code to call base
    >methods through the derived class, which completely destroys your
    >calling code reuse.


    Well, the *source* code is reused. But the binary code - as Matt points
    out - by and large isn't (so your EXE or DLL size goes up, and up, and up,
    as you have more layers of non-trivial implementation inheritance). That's
    largely the fault of the compilers, though. They don't actually *have* to
    do implementation inheritance that way.

    If compilers "played fair" when they did implementation inheritance and did
    *all* calls via vtable lookup (with, i might add, accessing inherited functions
    via functions that returned vtable pointers) you would have (in deep hierarchies
    anyway) lower code size and compilation dependency, at the price of significantly
    worse performance. But if vtable lookup is bad "vtree" lookup would be even
    worse.

    >VB doesn't let you cheat and bypass the interface, so you end up
    >with a much more pluggable and extensible system than the
    >fragile inheritance based systems so many organizations toss at
    >the beginning of V2, and you can actually predict your call stack
    >by looking at the code.


    Yes, ...mostly... (tho the call stack frames for functions taking string
    parameters can get pretty weird in some circumstances, like if you're meddling
    with the call stack when you're doing a debug run from the IDE), but the
    flexibility is bought at a pretty steep price. You need rather more *source
    code* and you get let less *source code* reuse. The flexibility is mostly
    'negative flexibility': "what it doesn't do for you... doesn't limit you"
    (that's like someone not buying you a christmas present. At least there's
    no risk you won't *like* the present they didn't buy you).

    >Public constructors should be banned (protected or private are fine). All
    >object creation should happen through public static (VB.NET: shared)
    >entrypoints so that you can validate your incoming data before
    >creating the object.


    I agree, particularly for parameterized public constructors (I don't quite
    so much mind zero-parameter constructors being public). I like there to
    be a separate point of failure for object "shell" creation and initialization.
    Otherwise when I get an object not created I don't know - so quickly - whether
    I'm failing to get to the code that creates it (missing library, or whatever),
    or whether something on which it depends is unavailable, or isn't working.

    And even for zero-parameter constructors... I'd be happier if they were protected
    or private, but never public. You can get reasonably close to that in VB6
    libraries if you declare all your public classes (bar one) to be "not creatable",
    and add allocator functions to the one fully public class. Like so... (for
    hardtyped calls)...

    'hanging off the one fully public class
    Public Function GetMeANewDog(byref putDogHere As IAmADog) AS Boolean
    Set putDogHere = Nothing
    Set putDogHere = New IAmADog
    'Well, technically I'd more likely do a New of another class
    'that *implements* an IAmADog interface
    GetMeANewDog = True
    End Function

    >BTW, this removes the need for a new keyword outside shared
    >functions and restores some semblance of balance in the universe (having
    >'new' without 'delete' is really creepy).


    Yep. I always wondered if new and delete came along because of
    "Pascal Envy". They didn't seem very "natural" to me. If new() had required
    parentheses I mightn't have felt it smacked so of heresy and revisionism
    (and perhaps even "terrorist infiltration" by the Pascal crowd...). I didn't
    like it that they made it a keyword.

    Anyhow, (tongue firmly in cheek) I'd prefer an "old" rather than a "delete".
    becoz delete is arrogant presumption. I only have the *right* to tell an
    object I no longer find it of interest. If it *declares* a deleteYourself()
    method (or similar, how about makeYourselfScarce()...) that's another story;
    i've a right to delete it then. Via an explicit destruction function. Though
    there too I'd prefer something like...

    className.forget ( classReference *x); //indicate i'm not interested
    className.discard ( classReference *x); //state i want it killed off

    or maybe deallocate is better than discard. But delete is definitely a *bad*
    name. Does

    delete myFile

    delete the file itself or the object that refers to it. For that matter,
    wouldn't

    myFile.delete()

    be potentially misleading for the same reason?

    >Ripping a system (COM/VB) that has successfully produced and
    >consumed reusable objects for many years because it doesn't have
    >your favorite (or is that your old professor's favorite) OOP feature is


    >a joke.


    Let's hope so. Though even if it was supposed to be serious... it's still
    a joke. In an "Plan 9 From Out Of Space" sort of way.

    >Some of my favorite OO concepts are controlled state
    >(academic: encapsulation), object shape (abstraction),
    >multiple views (polymorphism), object composition, and


    >...object lifetime (academically snubbed, but incredibly useful
    >for idiot-proofing object models).


    I just *love* being able to "Set and forget". Thank you VB!

    >Inheritance is no where near the top of the list.


    Nor of mine. I *do* miss implementation inheritance in VB sometimes.
    But I miss *other* such luxuries too, such as:

    * run-time-implementation-overrides and interface extension
    (*Javascript* does this beautifully. To do it in C++ I need to
    explicitly declare writable function pointer class members - ick)
    * freedom from the name-space pollution problem (ADA and VB handle
    this very well. Java *can* if you code it right, but in C++ it's
    quite hard to avoid)
    * multiple inheritance (it's never necessary but now and again it's
    very convenient; C++ does it reasonably well... Though I would
    very much like to inherit via more than one path from the same base
    class; if only I could tell it the tiebreak!)
    (i need this once in a blue moon)
    * templates (I should put that one in capitals. I *like* templates,
    and C++ does them pretty well; though it won't instantiate them at
    run-time, **** it! whereas Javascript sort of... can... though it
    is a lot of work)
    * passing functions by value (*not by reference*). Javascript, and
    "functional" languages like ML sort-of allow this.

    No language has all the things I occasionally want. Probably in terms of
    sheer flexibility Javascript (!) wins out, with C++ narrowly beating ADA
    for second place (though ADA95 is much better thought out). On the other
    hand VB manages most of the things I want from an OOP language, and I can
    develop in it much faster than I can in ADA95 or Javascript (and a little
    faster than I can in C++). VB gives me enough rope for a Yo Yo, but not
    enough rope to hang myself (unless I really work at it). C++ gives me enough
    rope for a rope bridge - which is generally way more than I need.

    >OOP is an approach to software development. Over the years
    >different people have added different tools that facilitate
    >that approach.


    Exactly.

    >Claiming a house built with screws instead of nails is
    >not a real house just means you're an ignorant building inspector.


    [Irrelevant pun: ...it's been built with a "screwed up" construction
    technique though... hasn't it?]

    >If pull your head out and look up you might actually see that VB
    >builds very stable houses.


    More so than C++. No namespace pollution.

    >> That being said, is this group really necessary? I mean VB and OOP
    >> in the same sentence? Come on. It's like putting Java and
    >> speed together, you just don't do it.


    OOP is about how you do it, not about the language you do it in! I'm an
    idiot whether I'm talking in English or in Thai. It's more obvious when
    I'm speaking Thai because I speak it so badly. But that's a reflection on
    *my* language skills. It's not Thai's fault that I can't express my ideas
    well. It's up to the job. I just don't know it well enough to use it properly.
    If I learned its vocabulary and idiom I could - eventually - figure out
    how to express myself better. Some things would take more or bigger words
    than in English. Others would take less.

    Languages aren't ideas. Languages are merely tools for expressing ideas.

    I've seen -on occasion- solid OO mainframe assembler libraries (e.g. implementations
    of the bsearch() and qsort() (and other) standard library functions that
    took pointers to functions as parameters). And I've seen *plenty* of botched
    C++ programs. It's the program that is or is not OOP! Not the language!


    Even if OOP stood for "Object-Oriented *Language* Design" rather than "Object-Oriented
    Programming", VB/VBScript would just about tie with C++, as while it scores
    worse in some ways (implementation inheritance, pointers to functions), it
    scores better in others (polymorphism, availability of an Eval function).

    Seeya,
    James

  8. #23
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll

    On 21 Nov 2002 06:50:27 -0800, "blob" <blob@blobblobblob.com> wrote:

    >That being said, is this group really necessary? I mean VB and OOP in the
    >same sentence? Come on. It's like putting Java and speed together, you
    >just don't do it.


    Hey, or Microsoft and Trustworthy!

    Any others?

    MM

  9. #24
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll

    On 24 Nov 2002 17:11:08 -0800, "Blob" <blob@blobbloblboblo.com> wrote:

    >What can you say about pure OO? Does it exist? I don't think so. I don't
    >think it is possible to accomplish in a real world environment.


    And you don't need it anyway.

    MM

  10. #25
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll

    On 25 Nov 2002 16:37:38 -0800, "Blob" <blob@blobbloblboblo.com> wrote:

    >Tar? You must be from over the pond. Pitty.


    Pity? All Americans - including Native Americans - originated from
    Europe. It's official!

    MM

  11. #26
    Blob Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >On 25 Nov 2002 16:37:38 -0800, "Blob" <blob@blobbloblboblo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Tar? You must be from over the pond. Pitty.

    >
    >Pity? All Americans - including Native Americans - originated from
    >Europe. It's official!
    >
    >MM


    Not true. My family originated from bears. And not polar.


  12. #27
    Blob Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >On 21 Nov 2002 06:50:27 -0800, "blob" <blob@blobblobblob.com> wrote:
    >
    >>That being said, is this group really necessary? I mean VB and OOP in

    the
    >>same sentence? Come on. It's like putting Java and speed together, you
    >>just don't do it.

    >
    >Hey, or Microsoft and Trustworthy!
    >
    >Any others?
    >
    >MM



    Or the english and showers? Or the irish and non-alcoholic beer? Or white
    guys and big(oops), well you know the rest?

  13. #28
    Paul Mc Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll


    Hey Block, or whatever the handle is nowadays. You remind of that fellow Ted
    from way back, over in the architecture group. What's the matter, too timid
    to go by the real name nowadays? As I remember you got outclassed back there...
    And here to, if you are going to bait Matt Curland, a guy who is so far beyond
    your capabilities that you'd be lucky to see his dust with Hubble....


  14. #29
    blob Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll


    >Hey Block, or whatever the handle is nowadays.

    Hey Paully, it's Blob. And don't you forget it.

    >You remind of that fellow Ted
    >from way back, over in the architecture group. What's the matter, too timid
    >to go by the real name nowadays?

    If it was Ted, how do you know that was my real name then? Hmmm? I think
    I have mentioned I use numerous aliases here. I even remember one conversation
    with myself that I couldn't win...

    >As I remember you got outclassed back there...

    Yeah, from what I see, Ted was outclassed by guys writing enterprise apps
    with Access as their backend DB, wasn't that it and trying to argue a C++
    article? From what I see in that thread it appears you guys started with
    him. The original article was written in C++ wasn't it? All of this from
    the same person who took the time to answer such idiotic questions as "what
    is an HRESULT"? By the way, the comments you posted over there in 2001 look
    an awful lot like they came from the book of the author you reference here.
    Is that a coincidence Paul? Come on, be original.

    >And here to, if you are going to bait Matt Curland,

    Bait who? As I see it dumbass, the subject line was enough to warn anyone.
    You should have kept that 10 minutes you spent pondering how to reply and
    put it to use in more productive ways.

    >a guy who is so far beyond
    >your capabilities that you'd be lucky to see his dust with Hubble....

    Unfortunately just because somebody writes a book that does not make them
    an expert, you lemming. You would follow just about any instruction wouldn't
    you? I think it was also you that mentioned the hundred or so VB books out
    there that could explain VB. I am assuming that blanket statement means
    they are all worth the money?


  15. #30
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Hello vb.oop - I'm a troll

    On 5 Dec 2002 16:45:26 -0800, "Blob" <blob@blobbloblboblo.com> wrote:

    >Not true. My family originated from bears. And not polar.


    Bipolar?

    MM

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