Re: where is the Key in TreeView.NET?
"smith" <rcsTAKEOUT@smi thvoiceTAKEOUT. com> wrote in message
news:6W0td.2708 $0r.885@newsrea d1.news.pas.ear thlink.net...[color=blue]
> Instant and complete porting of old code is a valid point ... as was
> instant porting from QBasic to VB and VB3 to VB5/6.
>
> I guess it's perception, as most things really are, Ken. And calling it
> B# kinda implies that you've pretty much got your mind firmly set to a
> position. I too had that position and I might even have had you beat in
> my initial hatred of VB7 (http://www.smithvoice.com/adorumination.htm )[/color]
Well.. you've done a fairly good job of "prodding" VB6'ers over to B# but,
imo, that still doesn't mean B# is VB. Regardless. imo, B# is currently
about as useful as VB2 was (I'd say VB1 but there's already been a couple of
B# releases). As long as the framework is still running on top of the OS (as
Win3.1 still ran on top of DOS), it'll be dog slow and buggy. I prefer to
leave it to others to work with until it's mature. Let everyone else deal
with the "when I did this, the IDE crashed... but that was expected" type
problems. I have too much work (in VB6) to do. The company I currently work
for has zero interest in re-writting 20+ years worth of code just so they
can say that it't ".Net compatible". They just want something that works. It
doesn't matter one little bit if there's a ".Net" in the name. We don't do
database/web or any of the other types of apps that .Net was designed for.
fwiw, I plan on using B# to learn my way around the framework. There's very
little evidence that anything "profession al" will ever be written in B#. I
can point you to dozens of component vendors that claim that their
components are "100% C# authored". Not one that I've found claims to be
"100% B# authored". B# is still as much of a "toy language" as VB was/is as
far as MS and everyone else is concerned.
btw... my reference to "B#" vs the various nicknames for "the flavor of the
month.Net" is not a put down to the language. There absolutely needs to be a
way to tell them apart. VB.Net, as people refer to it in some groups, is
already dead. There is no ".Net" in the name anymore. VB <> B#, which means
we need a way to tell them apart. VB2005 will soon be released. It's just a
matter of time before people start calling that VB5. Just try searching for
VB5 samples and you'll see a problem. Try entering ".Net" in any search
engine. The results are worthless due to the .Net domain names. B# syntax is
closer to C# than it is to VB so B# is a great name and one that we've
suggested many times.
As long as people are complaining about B# benchmark results when compared
to VB6, and I have an OS that supports VB6, I'll be using VB6.
--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..
"smith" <rcsTAKEOUT@smi thvoiceTAKEOUT. com> wrote in message
news:6W0td.2708 $0r.885@newsrea d1.news.pas.ear thlink.net...[color=blue]
> Instant and complete porting of old code is a valid point ... as was
> instant porting from QBasic to VB and VB3 to VB5/6.
>
> I guess it's perception, as most things really are, Ken. And calling it
> B# kinda implies that you've pretty much got your mind firmly set to a
> position. I too had that position and I might even have had you beat in
> my initial hatred of VB7 (http://www.smithvoice.com/adorumination.htm )[/color]
Well.. you've done a fairly good job of "prodding" VB6'ers over to B# but,
imo, that still doesn't mean B# is VB. Regardless. imo, B# is currently
about as useful as VB2 was (I'd say VB1 but there's already been a couple of
B# releases). As long as the framework is still running on top of the OS (as
Win3.1 still ran on top of DOS), it'll be dog slow and buggy. I prefer to
leave it to others to work with until it's mature. Let everyone else deal
with the "when I did this, the IDE crashed... but that was expected" type
problems. I have too much work (in VB6) to do. The company I currently work
for has zero interest in re-writting 20+ years worth of code just so they
can say that it't ".Net compatible". They just want something that works. It
doesn't matter one little bit if there's a ".Net" in the name. We don't do
database/web or any of the other types of apps that .Net was designed for.
fwiw, I plan on using B# to learn my way around the framework. There's very
little evidence that anything "profession al" will ever be written in B#. I
can point you to dozens of component vendors that claim that their
components are "100% C# authored". Not one that I've found claims to be
"100% B# authored". B# is still as much of a "toy language" as VB was/is as
far as MS and everyone else is concerned.
btw... my reference to "B#" vs the various nicknames for "the flavor of the
month.Net" is not a put down to the language. There absolutely needs to be a
way to tell them apart. VB.Net, as people refer to it in some groups, is
already dead. There is no ".Net" in the name anymore. VB <> B#, which means
we need a way to tell them apart. VB2005 will soon be released. It's just a
matter of time before people start calling that VB5. Just try searching for
VB5 samples and you'll see a problem. Try entering ".Net" in any search
engine. The results are worthless due to the .Net domain names. B# syntax is
closer to C# than it is to VB so B# is a great name and one that we've
suggested many times.
As long as people are complaining about B# benchmark results when compared
to VB6, and I have an OS that supports VB6, I'll be using VB6.
--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..
Comment