DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: My Final Thoughts

  1. #1
    Rich Guest

    My Final Thoughts


    Larry,

    This is what I'm hearing you say. VB 1-3 was a component consumer. Hence,
    it was object based. In that case, any component consumer is object based,
    even the simple ActiveX Control Test Container. I disagree with your description.
    I would say it was a component consumer.

    If it was object based, where, in the VB 1-3 IDE, could you create a class
    module? You could not.

    VB 4-6 was a component consumer, component creator and allowed one to create
    class modules. This class creation capability made it object based. However,
    since it lacked implementation inheritance, I would not called it objected
    oriented; it did not meet all the criteria.

    In the end, you obviously can choose any semantics you like. However, around
    knowledgeable people, interchanging or loosely using terms can damage your
    credibility.

    That is it. I have already spent way too much of my time on this one.


    Rich


  2. #2
    Craig Burkett Guest

    Re: My Final Thoughts

    Acting like a closed minded, narcissistic, elitist doesn't help one's
    reputation either.

    --
    JMHO,
    Craig Burkett
    "A VB Developer since its coming out party"
    "An OO VB Developer since VB4"



    "Rich" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message news:3b939fa1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > Larry,
    >
    > This is what I'm hearing you say. VB 1-3 was a component consumer. Hence,
    > it was object based. In that case, any component consumer is object based,
    > even the simple ActiveX Control Test Container. I disagree with your

    description.
    > I would say it was a component consumer.
    >
    > If it was object based, where, in the VB 1-3 IDE, could you create a class
    > module? You could not.
    >
    > VB 4-6 was a component consumer, component creator and allowed one to

    create
    > class modules. This class creation capability made it object based.

    However,
    > since it lacked implementation inheritance, I would not called it objected
    > oriented; it did not meet all the criteria.
    >
    > In the end, you obviously can choose any semantics you like. However,

    around
    > knowledgeable people, interchanging or loosely using terms can damage your
    > credibility.
    >
    > That is it. I have already spent way too much of my time on this one.
    >
    >
    > Rich
    >




  3. #3
    Bob O`Bob Guest

    Re: My Final Thoughts

    Rich wrote:
    >
    > If it was object based, where, in the VB 1-3 IDE, could you create a class
    > module? You could not.



    Wrong. On the File menu, the choice is "New Form"



    Bob
    --
    Life makes SO much less sense when you're sane.

  4. #4
    Larry Linson Guest

    Re: My Final Thoughts


    "Rich" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote:
    > This is what I'm hearing you say. VB 1-3 was a
    > component consumer. Hence, it was object based.
    > In that case, any component consumer is object based,
    > even the simple ActiveX Control Test Container. I
    > disagree with your description. I would say it
    > was a component consumer.


    Silly me. I thought, as Bob O'Bob indicated, that the fact that form code
    was classes and the fact that Microsoft represented VB as "object based"
    from the very beginning were significant. Since you choose different semantics,
    it's impossible to argue the point, isn't it?

    > In the end, you obviously can choose any semantics
    > you like. However, around knowledgeable people,
    > interchanging or loosely using terms can damage your
    > credibility.


    Oh, not here, not for you... the fact that you want to define your own terms
    fits right in with the rest of the object-obsessed crowd. And, by what you
    said, or claimed, you never had much credibility with the people here who
    believe object-oriented techniques can be effectively with good business
    judgement, but aren't always the answer. (Which, in response to your "flaw
    refutation", I can only say that_your_ contention that OOD / OOI / OOP is
    always the answer doesn't make it so.)

    > That is it.


    It'll be interesting to see if you really can resist trying to weasel your
    way out of this one. Good luck.

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