"VB (9) Rocks" slide show

[Doug H]

Ran across this (requires Firefox): http://www.pugscode.org/osdc/vb.xul

Done by the developer of a new perl6 runtime called pugs.

Information about Visual Basic 9 is here, if you haven't already read
about it:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/future/default.aspx

[Ken Halter]

Re: "VB (9) Rocks" slide show

"Doug H" <doug00@gmail.c om> wrote in message
news:1141748485 .282508.244010@ j33g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .[color=blue]
> Ran across this (requires Firefox): http://www.pugscode.org/osdc/vb.xul[/color]
[color=blue]
>requires< Firefox? That's too bad. They sure know how to limit an audience,
>eh?[/color]
[color=blue]
> Done by the developer of a new perl6 runtime called pugs.
>
> Information about Visual Basic 9 is here, if you haven't already read
> about it:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/future/default.aspx[/color]

Actually, that would be B#9... Visual Basic "the language" died with VS6.
Besides... I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to call it anything
other than what it is.... which is B#.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Mitchell S. Honnert]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show

OK. I know I shouldn't, but...I'll bite. What's the deal with calling the
next version of VB "B#"? Is this the disenfranchised VB6 developer version
of Microsoft haters' use of "M$"? It may be self evident to you that Visual
Basic died with VS6, but those of us who are more than happy with the
direction that the language has taken, a little explanation might be needed.

- Mitchell S. Honnert


"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use _Sparingly_Hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:%23id1augQ GHA.1096@TK2MSF TNGP11.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> "Doug H" <doug00@gmail.c om> wrote in message
> news:1141748485 .282508.244010@ j33g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .[color=green]
>> Ran across this (requires Firefox): http://www.pugscode.org/osdc/vb.xul[/color]
>[color=green]
>>requires< Firefox? That's too bad. They sure know how to limit an
>>audience, eh?[/color]
>[color=green]
>> Done by the developer of a new perl6 runtime called pugs.
>>
>> Information about Visual Basic 9 is here, if you haven't already read
>> about it:
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/future/default.aspx[/color]
>
> Actually, that would be B#9... Visual Basic "the language" died with VS6.
> Besides... I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to call it anything
> other than what it is.... which is B#.
>
> --
> Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
> Please keep all discussions in the groups..
>[/color]

[Martin]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show

I'm absoluely not one of those "fashionabl e MS bashers" and yes, I do love
VB2005 as a language. I use it every day and am still daily amazed by all
the new possibilities.

Having said that, I do agree with Ken that it is not VB and for one simple
reason: The absolute lack of a migration path from VB6 to VB7. The port of
our main app from VB6 to the "current VB version" (still in progress) is
costing us well over a $100,000. And I'm sure we're not the only ones. This
clearly proves that no matter how great VB7/8 is, it is not an upgrade from
VB6 but a totally new language instead. A new language deserves a new name,
don't you think?

Martin

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@REMhonner tOVE.com> wrote in message
news:O5ctasiQGH A.3916@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> OK. I know I shouldn't, but...I'll bite. What's the deal with calling
> the next version of VB "B#"? Is this the disenfranchised VB6 developer
> version of Microsoft haters' use of "M$"? It may be self evident to you
> that Visual Basic died with VS6, but those of us who are more than happy
> with the direction that the language has taken, a little explanation might
> be needed.
>
> - Mitchell S. Honnert
>
>
> "Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use _Sparingly_Hotm ail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23id1augQ GHA.1096@TK2MSF TNGP11.phx.gbl. ..[color=green]
>> "Doug H" <doug00@gmail.c om> wrote in message
>> news:1141748485 .282508.244010@ j33g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .[color=darkred]
>>> Ran across this (requires Firefox): http://www.pugscode.org/osdc/vb.xul[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>requires< Firefox? That's too bad. They sure know how to limit an
>>>audience, eh?[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Done by the developer of a new perl6 runtime called pugs.
>>>
>>> Information about Visual Basic 9 is here, if you haven't already read
>>> about it:
>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/future/default.aspx[/color]
>>
>> Actually, that would be B#9... Visual Basic "the language" died with VS6.
>> Besides... I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to call it anything
>> other than what it is.... which is B#.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
>> Please keep all discussions in the groups..
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Ken Halter]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@REMhonner tOVE.com> wrote in message
news:O5ctasiQGH A.3916@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> OK. I know I shouldn't, but...I'll bite. What's the deal with calling
> the next version of VB "B#"? Is this the disenfranchised VB6 developer
> version of Microsoft haters' use of "M$"? It may be self evident to you
> that Visual Basic died with VS6, but those of us who are more than happy
> with the direction that the language has taken, a little explanation might
> be needed.
>
> - Mitchell S. Honnert[/color]

I guess I left off the part where I should've said "and I never said B# is a
bad thing".

NET Software Legend Juval Lowy agrees with that too, saying the only thing
VB6 has in common with VB.Net is the letters "V" and "B" in their names. You
can hear that in the following podcast.... Note that he also uses B# as the
name of this entirely new language. It's not meant to be a put down. It's a
new name for a new language. Simple as that. And it should've started with
the very first release.

VB6 Glass Ceiling

http://blogs.duncanmackenzie.net/duncanma/archive/2005/10/28/3148.aspx

....and, about the "disenfranchise d VB6 developer version" comment...
hmmm.... nope. I'm not disenfranchised ... no one took away my right to vote.
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we...senfranchised)... and, lemme
see now.... I still have a job so that can't be the problem.... hmmm... I
may have to get back with you on that.

MS Hater? I don't think so.

Yup... You knew you shouldn't but.......

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Ken Halter]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show

"Martin" <x@y.com> wrote in message
news:%23cs9sZjQ GHA.5248@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> I'm absoluely not one of those "fashionabl e MS bashers" and yes, I do love
> VB2005 as a language. I use it every day and am still daily amazed by all
> the new possibilities.
>
> Having said that, I do agree with Ken that it is not VB and for one simple
> reason: The absolute lack of a migration path from VB6 to VB7. The port of
> our main app from VB6 to the "current VB version" (still in progress) is
> costing us well over a $100,000. And I'm sure we're not the only ones.
> This clearly proves that no matter how great VB7/8 is, it is not an
> upgrade from VB6 but a totally new language instead. A new language
> deserves a new name, don't you think?
>
> Martin[/color]

Holy smokes... 100k eh? I can easily imagine it costing the company where I
work at least that much... thinking about it, probably 4 times that much.
Thinking about it more, that's just the tip of the iceburg. Luckily, we
won't be doing anything drastic "all at once". I already have a plan that's
going to save me countless hours (at first anyway) in documentation time
(every minute I spend in documentation subtracts 2 to 3 minutes from my life
<g>)

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Andrew Morton]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show

Ken Halter wrote:[color=blue]
> Actually, that would be B#9... Visual Basic "the language" died with
> VS6. Besides... I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to call it
> anything other than what it is.... which is B#.[/color]

You can't have B# as there is already a B programming language ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_programming_language

The next available letter appears to be H.

Andrew

[Mitchell S. Honnert]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show

> Having said that, I do agree with Ken that it is not VB and for one simple[color=blue]
> reason: The absolute lack of a migration path from VB6 to VB7.[/color]
[snip][color=blue]
> This clearly proves that no matter how great VB7/8 is, it is not an
> upgrade from VB6 but a totally new language instead. A new language
> deserves a new name, don't you think?[/color]
I don't disagree that the migration path from VB6 to VB.NET is difficult or
even more difficult than it should be, but I don't see how this has any
bearing on the *name* of the language. The cost of your migration is an
external factor, not an intrinsic property of the language itself. If you
look at the key words and the syntax of VB6 and VB.NET, they're very close.
This is why I don't have a problem with calling the .NET versions "Visual
Basic". The frameworks in which they live are very different of course, but
the basic elements of both versions are basically the same. Having said
this, I also didn't have any problem with MS differentiating the .NET
version of VB; I just wish that they wouldn't have picked something as
stupendously silly as ".NET" to do it.

- Mitchell S. Honnert



"Martin" <x@y.com> wrote in message
news:%23cs9sZjQ GHA.5248@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> I'm absoluely not one of those "fashionabl e MS bashers" and yes, I do love
> VB2005 as a language. I use it every day and am still daily amazed by all
> the new possibilities.
>
> Having said that, I do agree with Ken that it is not VB and for one simple
> reason: The absolute lack of a migration path from VB6 to VB7. The port of
> our main app from VB6 to the "current VB version" (still in progress) is
> costing us well over a $100,000. And I'm sure we're not the only ones.
> This clearly proves that no matter how great VB7/8 is, it is not an
> upgrade from VB6 but a totally new language instead. A new language
> deserves a new name, don't you think?
>
> Martin
>
> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@REMhonner tOVE.com> wrote in message
> news:O5ctasiQGH A.3916@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> OK. I know I shouldn't, but...I'll bite. What's the deal with calling
>> the next version of VB "B#"? Is this the disenfranchised VB6 developer
>> version of Microsoft haters' use of "M$"? It may be self evident to you
>> that Visual Basic died with VS6, but those of us who are more than happy
>> with the direction that the language has taken, a little explanation
>> might be needed.
>>
>> - Mitchell S. Honnert
>>
>>
>> "Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use _Sparingly_Hotm ail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23id1augQ GHA.1096@TK2MSF TNGP11.phx.gbl. ..[color=darkred]
>>> "Doug H" <doug00@gmail.c om> wrote in message
>>> news:1141748485 .282508.244010@ j33g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .
>>>> Ran across this (requires Firefox): http://www.pugscode.org/osdc/vb.xul
>>>
>>>>requires< Firefox? That's too bad. They sure know how to limit an
>>>>audience, eh?
>>>
>>>> Done by the developer of a new perl6 runtime called pugs.
>>>>
>>>> Information about Visual Basic 9 is here, if you haven't already read
>>>> about it:
>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/future/default.aspx
>>>
>>> Actually, that would be B#9... Visual Basic "the language" died with
>>> VS6. Besides... I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to call it
>>> anything other than what it is.... which is B#.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) -
>>> http://www.vbsight.com
>>> Please keep all discussions in the groups..
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Ken Halter]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show

"Andrew Morton" <akm@in-press.co.uk.inv alid> wrote in message
news:uNVivqpQGH A.2300@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> You can't have B# as there is already a B programming language ;-)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_programming_language
>
> The next available letter appears to be H.
>
> Andrew[/color]

Well... "B" looks a bit like C-Flat <g> at least it's readable <g> B#'s
still my choice.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Ken Halter]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Hot mail.com> wrote in message
news:e0ZG7TnQGH A.1264@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> I guess I left off the part where I should've said "and I never said B# is
> a bad thing".
>[/color]

Not a 'bad thing' but.... the syntax below is an improvement? "For Each
Dim"? Gimme a break. Talk about an easy way to overlook a variable
declaration. Sheesh.

From
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/fut...verview_topic3)

For Each Dim Country In SmallCountries
Console.WriteLi ne(Country.Name )
Next

....and "Implicitly Typed Local Variables" is new? Can't be. I've been using
them in VB3/4/5/6 for years.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Mitchell S. Honnert]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show

> VB6 has in common with VB.Net is the letters "V" and "B" in their names.
This is easily-disproven hyperbole. It may have gotten a laugh out of the
podcast listeners, but there are dozens if not hundreds of similarities
between the two "languages" .
[color=blue]
> It's a new name for a new language. Simple as that. And it should've
> started with the very first release.[/color]
Well, it *did* have a new name; they tacked on the silly ".NET" suffix to
VB. I know that your argument is that it shouldn't have included the words
"Visual Basic" at all, but my argument is that there are so many
similarities that the naming is justified. (I'm glad that MS is dropping
the whole .NET suffix from VB. It's served its purpose.)
[color=blue]
> ...and, about the "disenfranchise d VB6 developer version" comment...
> hmmm.... nope. I'm not disenfranchised ... no one took away my right to
> vote.[/color]
OK, you know a discussion is devolving when the participants are quibbling
over word definitions, but you may want to check another source for
"disenfranchise d". Try www.m-w.com. You'll find the meaning I had in mind.

- Mitchell S. Honnert

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Hot mail.com> wrote in message
news:e0ZG7TnQGH A.1264@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@REMhonner tOVE.com> wrote in message
> news:O5ctasiQGH A.3916@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> OK. I know I shouldn't, but...I'll bite. What's the deal with calling
>> the next version of VB "B#"? Is this the disenfranchised VB6 developer
>> version of Microsoft haters' use of "M$"? It may be self evident to you
>> that Visual Basic died with VS6, but those of us who are more than happy
>> with the direction that the language has taken, a little explanation
>> might be needed.
>>
>> - Mitchell S. Honnert[/color]
>
> I guess I left off the part where I should've said "and I never said B# is
> a bad thing".
>
> NET Software Legend Juval Lowy agrees with that too, saying the only thing
> VB6 has in common with VB.Net is the letters "V" and "B" in their names.
> You
> can hear that in the following podcast.... Note that he also uses B# as
> the name of this entirely new language. It's not meant to be a put down.
> It's a new name for a new language. Simple as that. And it should've
> started with the very first release.
>
> VB6 Glass Ceiling
> http://blogs.duncanmackenzie.net/dun...0/28/3148.aspx
> ...and, about the "disenfranchise d VB6 developer version" comment...
> hmmm.... nope. I'm not disenfranchised ... no one took away my right to
> vote. (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we...senfranchised)... and,
> lemme see now.... I still have a job so that can't be the problem....
> hmmm... I may have to get back with you on that.
>
> MS Hater? I don't think so.
>
> Yup... You knew you shouldn't but.......
>
> --
> Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
> Please keep all discussions in the groups..
>
>[/color]

[Paul Clement]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 06:28:11 +0800, "Martin" <x@y.com> wrote:

¤ I'm absoluely not one of those "fashionabl e MS bashers" and yes, I do love
¤ VB2005 as a language. I use it every day and am still daily amazed by all
¤ the new possibilities.
¤
¤ Having said that, I do agree with Ken that it is not VB and for one simple
¤ reason: The absolute lack of a migration path from VB6 to VB7. The port of
¤ our main app from VB6 to the "current VB version" (still in progress) is
¤ costing us well over a $100,000. And I'm sure we're not the only ones. This
¤ clearly proves that no matter how great VB7/8 is, it is not an upgrade from
¤ VB6 but a totally new language instead. A new language deserves a new name,
¤ don't you think?
¤
¤ Martin

How can it be a new language when it still uses a high percentage of the BASIC language?

Did they rename COBOL when OO features were added?


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

[Doug H]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show

See, the thing is, Microsoft _owns_ Visual Basic.
They can make a new version that isn't backward compatible if they
want.
It's vendor lock-in (or lock-out, however you want to look at it).
You don't have to worry about that so much with java or C# or C++ or
javascript,
because they are standardized. There are multiple
compilers for those languages (even with C# there is mono's mcs/bmcs).
They should develop a standard for VB 9, but it has so many features,
I'm not sure how easy that would be.

But for Microsoft to port VB6 to .NET without making any backwards-
incompatible changes, that would be stupid (I don't believe anyone else
has
done it, either). Firstly because people can still use VB6 as is, and
also .NET is focused more on security and OOP. Visual Basic .NET is a
great
adaptation of VB to .NET, but again standardization would be nice.

[Andrew Morton]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show

Ken Halter wrote:[color=blue]
> "Andrew Morton" <akm@in-press.co.uk.inv alid> wrote in message
> news:uNVivqpQGH A.2300@TK2MSFTN GP15.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>
>> You can't have B# as there is already a B programming language ;-)
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_programming_language
>>
>> The next available letter appears to be H.
>>
>> Andrew[/color]
>
> Well... "B" looks a bit like C-Flat <g> at least it's readable <g>
> B#'s still my choice.[/color]

I knew there was a reason B# struck a chord: there's a group called the B
Sharps:-
http://www.slipups.com/items/2859.html <g>

So, moving on from VB, VC is sort-of already taken, how about... err, maybe
not :o

Andrew

[Homer J Simpson]

Re: &quot;VB (9) Rocks&quot; slide show


"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtE ndofMessage@sws pectrum.com> wrote in message
news:v60u02tsv3 em86vffcb8e9oar ocfi5qnbs@4ax.c om...
[color=blue]
> How can it be a new language when it still uses a high percentage of the
> BASIC language?
>
> Did they rename COBOL when OO features were added?[/color]

Adding OO to COBOL is surely like putting lipstick on a cow. Does the cow
get a new name?