.NOT My Views

[Roger Rabbit]

Re: .NOT My Views

Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:

Dim FileNum As Long
Dim Contents As String
FileNum = FreeFile
Open "c:\mytextfile. txt" For Binary As #FileNum
Contents = Space(LOF(FileN um))
Get #FileNum, , Contents
Close #FileNum

as opposed to this:

Dim contents as string =
My.Computer.Fil eSystem.ReadAll Text("c:\mytext file.txt")

then we're never going to agree.

:-)

RR

[Roger Rabbit]

Re: .NOT My Views

[color=blue]
> "And if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's
> "official" latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment, WinForms,
> you're going to have to start over again in two years to support Longhorn
> and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely stillborn. "
>[/color]

Ive read his article. Its a lot of fluff really. Its all ifs, maybes,
could-bes, might-bes and possiblies as per his opening paragraph.

"Microsoft is finished. As soon as Linux makes some inroads on the desktop
and web applications replace desktop applications, the mighty empire will
topple."

He subsequently suggests this is a bit far fetched but then goes on to use
the same of "if all these things were to happen then so would this" logic in
the remainder of the article. I dont buy it. More scare tactics if you ask
me.

We've been developing for .Net for 5 years now. If Vista comes out next
year, it will be six. I dont forsee a massive market share swing toward
Vista for many of the same reasons as posted in Joels article.

"Microsoft grew up during the 1980s and 1990s, when the growth in personal
computers was so dramatic that every year there were more new computers sold
than the entire installed base. That meant that if you made a product that
only worked on new computers, within a year or two it could take over the
world even if nobody switched to your product."

I dont anticipate the upgrade rates to be very high circa 2006 through to
2010. But the time Longhorn gets any serious kind of traction we'll have
been developing for .Net for 10 years. If after 10 years we need to upskill
into Avalon and Xaml then so be it, that's technology for you. In the
meantime we will have received all the productivity benefits of using .Net
framework and the CLR.

Besides according to the Op only the Indians will have to worry about any of
this before long anyhow.
;-)

RR

[Abubakar]

Re: .NOT My Views

Hi,
[color=blue]
> Some of us do. What's wrong with Win32?
> Underneath your .Net classes, somewhere, is
> an equivalent to Win32 level.[/color]

i remember when I was in college using very old versions of c++, some
changes could be made by just directly accessing (writing to) the memory.
Than operating systems introduced proper apis, and now we couldnt do things
through direct memory access and there was an api for everything. Now there
is .net. I think its there system and they can dictate us how to use it.
[color=blue]
> off the bat, because dial-up users are not going to
> download 25 MB runtimes and 12MB specialty
> programs. Then I lose another 25% because many[/color]

but people all over the world are installing service packs for windows 2000
and windows xp for security reasons which already contain the runtimes.
[color=blue]
> For one good explanation of why .Net doesn't fit well
> on the Desktop see Mark Russinovich's article:
> http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/200...im-scared.html[/color]

I have seen the Mono project and the applications that are being made on it.
They never compaint on how slow the windows forms are or what features it
lacks so that it becomes absolutely rediculous to make any serious
appliction in windows forms. They are doing everything. Novell now uses
there own made .net (mono). I'm not talking about speed but the greate
obbject-oriented framework and executiong engine .net offers that make any
kind of application development (web or desk) extremely rad and easy. There
are project on sourceforge of desk apps made in windows forms and also made
in short time.
[color=blue]
> My own situation: I taught myself VB, starting
> out leaning heavily on OCXs and gradually
> learned better, leaner coding. I write "shareware" .[/color]
[color=blue]
> What do I get if I move to .Net? First I lose
> about half of my potential customer base right[/color]

what u said about the OCX. When you move to .net, you get absolutely amazing
component based framework. Seriously there is no comparison with COM. Arnt
you happy that every one can learn to write there own components with out
learning how the heck IUnknown and IDispatch works. VB6 did make the
components writing easy but still the power of c++ on com could beat the
crap out of vb (i hope i used the english here correctly!!!!!! ). Now in .net
its not that about you write components inC# or vb.net, its just the same
for every language.
[color=blue]
> address the common complaints, such as the issue
> of easily decompiled code and poor speed, the[/color]

well thats there, althought u do get some benefit from obfuscators (these
obfuscator vendors r making a lot of money it seems) but I do get your point
here.
[color=blue]
> using .Net keep hanging around here like religious
> converts (or maybe MS plants) doing a .Net sales
> pitch. I wish that people would try to just think for[/color]

nothing like that, (i'm not even an mvp!). For me, .net is just amazing.

Ab.

http://joehacker.blogspot.com

"mayayana" <mayayanaXX1a@m indXXspring.com > wrote in message
news:dfv2f.1184 3$vw6.3683@news read1.news.atl. earthlink.net.. .[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > What we /wanted/ was a compiler that took existing, VB6 syntax
> > > and generated CLR-compliant code that would run atop the[/color]
> >
> > oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick to[/color]
> win32.[color=green]
> >[/color]
>
> Some of us do. What's wrong with Win32?
> Underneath your .Net classes, somewhere, is
> an equivalent to Win32 level.
>[color=green]
> > Is it not possible in vb.net to write desktop applications like vb6?[/color]
>
> Not very. It strikes me that this point just doesn't
> seem to come up in the minds of most .Net users.
> If it were not for Microsoft's strategy and tactics then
> it would not even occur to anyone to discuss VB vs.
> .Net. They're not for the same thing. This whole argument
> is happening out of context.
>
>
> For one good explanation of why .Net doesn't fit well
> on the Desktop see Mark Russinovich's article:
> http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/200...im-scared.html
> ]
>
> My own situation: I taught myself VB, starting
> out leaning heavily on OCXs and gradually
> learned better, leaner coding. I write "shareware" .
> I don't make a lot of money at it but I enjoy coding
> and I like making something that's useful to others.
> My main program is an HTML and script editor
> that's quick, light, free of dependencies (other
> than the VB6 runtime) and has an installer of
> about 800 KB. To my mind it's progress to cut
> out the OCX middleman where that's feasible.
> VB6 gives me the ability to do that, while still providing
> easy methods where and when I want them.
>
> What do I get if I move to .Net? First I lose
> about half of my potential customer base right
> off the bat, because dial-up users are not going to
> download 25 MB runtimes and 12MB specialty
> programs. Then I lose another 25% because many
> people won't deal with the added complexity of
> needing to download and install a runtime. I also lose
> any ability to write for Windows 95. So now I've
> got maybe 20% of my possible base left.
>
> Beyond that, I'm
> getting back into the bloat and inefficiency of objects
> that are twice- or thrice-removed from the API. Why
> would I want to do that? I like using the API. I like
> using Windows. I don't want to be led gradually to some
> sort of future X-Box/Vista crap hybrid that won't let me
> access the system directly.
>
> (And all of these reasons not to move to .Net don't even
> address the common complaints, such as the issue
> of easily decompiled code and poor speed, the
> problem of continual changes that require new, giant
> runtimes, and the question of how .Net will weather
> the changes of Avalon, WinFX, etc. The thing is already
> in its third rendition and now MS has plans for more
> big changes with Vista.)
>
> To my mind it borders on bizarre that so many people
> using .Net keep hanging around here like religious
> converts (or maybe MS plants) doing a .Net sales
> pitch. I wish that people would try to just think for
> themselves a bit, do what's best for their own case,
> and not worry so much about what everyone else
> is up to.
>
> To anyone who says that the Desktop is old
> hat and that I should be thinking about web-based
> software: Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Either
> way, I have no intention of following such a path using
> Microsoft software.
>
>[/color]

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Re: .NOT My Views

Ken,

What do you think that will happen when you give a user a program with a
loop in it, that waits some parts of a second.

A week later you give him a program in which you have shorten that delay
time and tell him that it was a lot of work, however you have improved it.

A month later you give him that again, with again a shorter delay.

Do you think that the user will recognise it.
He will probably only tell that the last one he got is very fast.

Just my thought in this (partial) thread between you and Karl,

Cor

[Abubakar]

Re: .NOT My Views

yea and .net is also faster in "new" and in many many many many other things
:)

Ab.


"Ken Dopierala Jr." <kdopierala2@wi .rr.com> wrote in message
news:%23t8cowfz FHA.908@tk2msft ngp13.phx.gbl.. .[color=blue]
> Sorry, sorry.
>
> To any new programmers out there *always* use OR unless you know what you
> are doing. In this case the code was ripped from a game programming API I
> wrote in both VB6 and VB.Net. Unlike VB6, VB.Net addition & subtraction
> operations are extremely fast. In fact, a quick search will point you to[/color]
a[color=blue]
> white paper showing that the VB.Net compiled runtime is faster in addition[/color]
&[color=blue]
> subtraction than not only VB6 but also C#, C++ (pick your flavor), and of
> course Java *note this holds true for .Net 1.0 & 1.1 - I havn't tested 2.0
> yet but I would imagine the C# & C++ compilers are now using the same
> optimizations*. I ORed in VB6 because there is no net gain to using
> addition, I added in VB.Net because the gain is quite substantial. While
> the PlaySound API call won't benefit much, even in a loop, it is just a
> force of habit I have to help my compiler along into creating the most
> optimized runtime possible.
>
> Of course the whole point of this is that codewise, calling API functions
> requires no additional code in VB.Net and is actually easier and more
> straight forward than in VB6. Ken.
>
> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.or g> wrote in message
> news:%23iRNoffz FHA.3540@TK2MSF TNGP10.phx.gbl. ..[color=green]
> > Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.or g> schrieb:
> > >>> VB6 Code To Call API
> > >>> ----------------------------
> > >>> PlaySound "chime.wav" , 0, SND_NODEFAULT Or SND_ASYNC
> > >>>
> > >>> VB.Net Code To Call Same API
> > >>> -------------------------------------
> > >>> PlaySound("chim e.wav", 0, SND_NODEFAULT + SND_ASYNC)
> > >>
> > >> Are you suggesting that "best practices" in VB.NET regressed to using
> > >> addition for combining bitflags?
> > >
> > > Using '+' to combine bitflags is not a "best practice" in VB.NET :-).[/color]
> >
> > Jest checking... ;-)
> > --
> > Working Without a .NET?
> > http://classicvb.org/petition
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Abubakar]

Re: .NOT My Views

Greeting Master Karl :)
[color=blue]
> operations. Smells rather fishy. This paper wasn't published by[/color]
Microsoft, per[color=blue]
> chance, was it?[/color]

why would microsoft lie?

Ab.


"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.or g> wrote in message
news:%23PnrD3fz FHA.3540@TK2MSF TNGP10.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Ken Dopierala Jr. wrote:[color=green]
> > Sorry, sorry.
> >
> > To any new programmers out there *always* use OR unless you know what
> > you are doing. ^^^^^^[/color]
>
> I feel like you misspelled "even if"... Hard to buy the rationale there,[/color]
except in[color=blue]
> *very* limited circumstances not at all like those demonstrated here.
>[color=green]
> > Unlike VB6, VB.Net
> > addition & subtraction operations are extremely fast. In fact, a
> > quick search will point you to a white paper showing that the VB.Net
> > compiled runtime is faster in addition & subtraction than not only
> > VB6 but also C#, C++ (pick your flavor), and of course Java[/color]
>
> And that sounds like a license violation against publishing benchmarks.[/color]
Hmmm... ;-)[color=blue]
>
> I really must wonder, though, how IL could possibly compete with ASM for[/color]
such basic[color=blue]
> operations. Smells rather fishy. This paper wasn't published by[/color]
Microsoft, per[color=blue]
> chance, was it?
>[color=green]
> > While the PlaySound API call won't benefit much, even in a loop,[/color]
> ^^^^
> And again, you seem to have misspelled "at all" -- HTH! :-)
> --
> Working Without a .NET?
> http://classicvb.org/petition
>
>[/color]

[Abubakar]

Re: .NOT My Views

So RR's point is clear. Compare 1 line of .net to 7 lines of vb6 code.
Oh God I always hated the "open ... for binary as #" hehehehe. What kind of
a syntax is it? .Net to the rescue.

Ab.


"Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]" <rickNOSPAMnews @NOSPAMcomcast. net>
wrote in message news:uSnec7fzFH A.2880@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
> > How many lines of VB6 code would it takes to do this? And what[/color]
> would that[color=green]
> > nasty ass bit of code look like?
> >
> > contents =[/color]
> My.Computer.Fil eSystem.ReadAll Text("c:\mytext file.txt")
>
> If I understand its purpose, this is a VB6 solution...
>
> Dim FileNum As Long
> Dim Contents As String
> FileNum = FreeFile
> Open "c:\mytextfile. txt" For Binary As #FileNum
> Contents = Space(LOF(FileN um))
> Get #FileNum, , Contents
> Close #FileNum
>
> Rick
>
>[/color]

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Re: .NOT My Views

Kevin,

[color=blue]
> Besides, I think the VB Classic MVP's have it right...by the time I
> tortured myself into learning all that new syntax, M$ will replace .NET
> with something else that will break my code yet a second time. I have
> better things to do than to re-learn everything I've ever known because M$
> thinks that's what it is our best interest.[/color]

I agree this with you. (I am surely not from the classic camp). Maybe should
Microsoft have given VBNet another name? Something as V# and let VB die
after its normal supported time and had given tools to convert it to V#. As
they did now to VBNet (although they call it now upgrading).

They did this with C++ and came with C#, (although without the converting
tools).

They did this not with VB, maybe for marketing reasons maybe because of
nostalgia. (Basic is very much related to Microsoft from the first start).
However that they have kept it as VB is history and as I wrote somewhere
else in this thread, you cannot change history.

Before you tell it, that they go on with C++ . That is in my opinion
reasonable. Because there is needed a language for more to the machine side
development, so that is for me a straight reason to keep that alive.

I hope therefore that they will keep the language more cleanly and only
'add' instead of changing all the time, however I am afraid they do not.

One of the points that show this for me is that they have kept in the new
versions the 'Integer' 32bits and did not make it according to the register
size. This will mean again big changes in future when everybody is forgotten
this, while all things to do was already done when there was the step from
16bits to 32bits. Probably most will have called the fixed size needed 32Bit
value now 'Int32'.

Just my opinion.

Cor

[Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]]

Re: .NOT My Views

> Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:[color=blue]
>
> Dim FileNum As Long
> Dim Contents As String
> FileNum = FreeFile
> Open "c:\mytextfile. txt" For Binary As #FileNum
> Contents = Space(LOF(FileN um))
> Get #FileNum, , Contents
> Close #FileNum
>
> as opposed to this:
>
> Dim contents as string =
> My.Computer.Fil eSystem.ReadAll Text("c:\mytext file.txt")
>
> then we're never going to agree.[/color]

But if I bundle the code I posted up into a Function like this

Public Function ReadAllText(Fil eName As String) As String
Dim FileNum As Long
Dim Contents As String
FileNum = FreeFile
Open FileName For Binary As #FileNum
ReadAllText = Space(LOF(FileN um))
Get #FileNum, , ReadAllText
Close #FileNum
End Function

and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
this...

Content = ReadAllText("c: \temp\test.txt" )

That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.

Rick

[Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]]

Re: .NOT My Views

> So RR's point is clear. Compare 1 line of .net to 7 lines of vb6
code.[color=blue]
> Oh God I always hated the "open ... for binary as #" hehehehe.[/color]
What kind of[color=blue]
> a syntax is it? .Net to the rescue.[/color]

The kind of syntax that it is is one in which my old project files
continued to load no matter the newer version of VB (.NET excluded
of course), could be improved and recompiled without a second's
thought. For those with legacy projects, trust me, .NET has NOT
come to the rescue.

Rick

[Gary Nelson]

Re: .NOT My Views

RR,

But then again you could do it this way:

Dim contents as string
contents = ReadAllText("c: \mytextfile.txt ")
....

Function ReadAllText(Fil eName as string) as string
Dim FileNum As Long
Dim Contents As String
FileNum = FreeFile
Open "c:\mytextfile. txt" For Binary As #FileNum
Contents = Space(LOF(FileN um))
Get #FileNum, , Contents
Close #FileNum
ReadAllText = Contents
End Function


"Roger Rabbit" <roger@rabbit.c om> wrote in message
news:exv%234iiz FHA.3540@TK2MSF TNGP10.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
>
> Dim FileNum As Long
> Dim Contents As String
> FileNum = FreeFile
> Open "c:\mytextfile. txt" For Binary As #FileNum
> Contents = Space(LOF(FileN um))
> Get #FileNum, , Contents
> Close #FileNum
>
> as opposed to this:
>
> Dim contents as string =
> My.Computer.Fil eSystem.ReadAll Text("c:\mytext file.txt")
>
> then we're never going to agree.
>
> :-)
>
> RR
>
>[/color]

[Abubakar]

Re: .NOT My Views

> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file[color=blue]
> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
> this...
>
> Content = ReadAllText("c: \temp\test.txt" )
>
> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.[/color]

but how much of the functionality are you going to surround with function
calls and classes? And its you who is doing that, how are you going to make
this utility code available to all the vb6 devs? .Net that makes it
available for everyone.

Ab.



"Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]" <rickNOSPAMnews @NOSPAMcomcast. net>
wrote in message news:ee9PbQjzFH A.2212@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
> > Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
> >
> > Dim FileNum As Long
> > Dim Contents As String
> > FileNum = FreeFile
> > Open "c:\mytextfile. txt" For Binary As #FileNum
> > Contents = Space(LOF(FileN um))
> > Get #FileNum, , Contents
> > Close #FileNum
> >
> > as opposed to this:
> >
> > Dim contents as string =
> > My.Computer.Fil eSystem.ReadAll Text("c:\mytext file.txt")
> >
> > then we're never going to agree.[/color]
>
> But if I bundle the code I posted up into a Function like this
>
> Public Function ReadAllText(Fil eName As String) As String
> Dim FileNum As Long
> Dim Contents As String
> FileNum = FreeFile
> Open FileName For Binary As #FileNum
> ReadAllText = Space(LOF(FileN um))
> Get #FileNum, , ReadAllText
> Close #FileNum
> End Function
>
> and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file
> manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add that
> Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call to
> this...
>
> Content = ReadAllText("c: \temp\test.txt" )
>
> That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.
>
> Rick
>
>[/color]

[J French]

Re: .NOT My Views

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:25:56 +1300, "Roger Rabbit" <roger@rabbit.c om>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Well if you seriously prefer wading through this:
>
>Dim FileNum As Long
>Dim Contents As String
>FileNum = FreeFile
>Open "c:\mytextfile. txt" For Binary As #FileNum
> Contents = Space(LOF(FileN um))
> Get #FileNum, , Contents
>Close #FileNum
>
>as opposed to this:
>
>Dim contents as string =
>My.Computer.Fi leSystem.ReadAl lText("c:\mytex tfile.txt")[/color]
[color=blue]
>then we're never going to agree.[/color]

But nobody is going to wade through that, they write it once and
re-use it all the time

S$ = FileStr( "c:\mytextfile. txt" )

[Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]]

Re: .NOT My Views

> > and place it in a BAS Module along with all my other file[color=blue][color=green]
> > manipulation Functions and Subs, then all I have to do is add[/color][/color]
that[color=blue][color=green]
> > Module to any projects needing file input and reduce the call[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > this...
> >
> > Content = ReadAllText("c: \temp\test.txt" )
> >
> > That really isn't such a burdensome thing to do.[/color]
>
> but how much of the functionality are you going to surround with[/color]
function[color=blue]
> calls and classes?[/color]

A lot less than 20 Megs worth.

[color=blue]
> And its you who is doing that, how are you going to make
> this utility code available to all the vb6 devs?[/color]

Through these newsgroups as I have been doing for the last 6 years
or so.

[color=blue]
> .Net that makes it available for everyone.[/color]

But to move into your .NET world, I have to move my existing code
there too (assuming I will want to keep adding features to them).
Since Microsoft didn't provide an effective translator for the
job, I have to do it all myself. For the given example, I have to
find all of the projects using the function I currently use to
read in a text file and replace them with your line of code. And
that is just ONE change I would have to do. The time and effort to
move my legacy code to .NET appears to be substantial.


Rick

[Gary Nelson]

Re: .NOT My Views

RR,
[color=blue]
> contents = My.Computer.Fil eSystem.ReadAll Text("c:\mytext file.txt")[/color]

I see you are using VB 2005 which is still in Beta at this time...

Just an anecdote from my personal experience:

I've been working for over two years on a project in Asp.net (a Spanish
accounting program, you can visit it at www.conta.net - if you understand
Spanish). Anyway, in July I was attending TechEd 2005 in Amsterdam and they
were going on about all these wild and worderful new things that VS2005
does. So, I thought, why not give it a go. Now I must say that I am not at
all ignorant of the dangers of installing a Beta product. I got very badly
burned by the VB5CCE Beta, and I remember that at the time MS wouldn't even
say they were sorry after blowing up many developers VB4 production
machines. They said that it was understood that you don't install Beta
software on a production machine. But, to continue on with my story, I was
in Amstertam, I had my trusty production machine with me, and I had made
backups of everything before leaving, and I was feeling like living
dangerously. I figured that in a worst case scenario, I could always just
format the HD and reinstall everything. So I pulled out the fresh new VS2005
Beta DVD, and let it roll on my HD. Then I loaded my project into VS2005 and
it asked if I wanted to upgrade, and of course I answered YES! By the way,
my project is not just an ordinary little project, it contains several
controls, DLLs and a web service. After grinding away for awhile it finally
came to a halt. Now, what were the results? Was I going to be able to do new
wild and wonderful things to my project? Unfortunately, but not
unexpectedly, no. The VS2005 Beta had blown my project to smitherines. It
would not load, it would not do anything. Not only that, but there was very
little recognizable about it. MS has not lost their touch! What I found
especially "cute" about their conversion mechanism, is that instead of
leaving the originaly project intact and creating a new project, they
overwrite the original source code, so that, if you haven't made a backup
copy they efectively exterminate your code. Since I was still in Amsterdam,
I took my production machine in the next day and visited the "Ask the
Experts" booth, to talk to the guy who had given the talk on upgrading to
VS2005. He spent about half an hour looking at it and finally admitted that
He didn't have any idea of what had happened.
So then I had to start manually copying each project back to the
original directories. I had to manually clean up the mess of files that
VS2005 had scattered around the HD. Then I spent several hours trying to get
my project to run again, to no avail. Finally I went into IIS and found that
the upgrader had messed up the IIS configuration settings. After that, my
ASP.NET 2003 project was finally back in working order.
What have I learned? Foremost and above all, MS has not learned any of
the lessons (as if I had expected them to). They will continue to break code
at willl. They are the 800lb. gorilla and they sit where they want and do
what they want and if you don't like it don't work with them.

Gary