Pointer to String in VB2005

[Bob O`Bob]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005

mobilemobile wrote:

>
"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:
>

>mobilemobile <mobilemobile@d iscussions.micr osoft.comwrote:

>>As I suggested to another Classic VB poster, posting to a discussion group
>>incorrectly must occur here and there.

>It happens all the time here, yes, so it is a source of irritation to many.

>
That's life, eh? It doesn't take much for some to get irritated I guess.

"not much"

repeated

several times

every day

for more than six years.


Yeah, that's done it to me, too.


Bob
--

[Bob O`Bob]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005

mobilemobile wrote:

>
It's sort of the life of the programmer nowadays -- have to keep learning
stuff.

What makes you think "nowadays" could have any bearing whatsoever?



Bob
--

[Paul G. Tobey [eMVP]]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005

And...? Yes, the response was valuable and you might decide, based on that,
to post to the VB.NET group first from now on. Since you clearly knew that
what the Compact Framework group was like, I find it hard to believe that
you consciously thought that cross-posting to five or six groups was the
right thing to do for the community...

Paul T.

"mobilemobi le" <mobilemobile@d iscussions.micr osoft.comwrote in message
news:5A5B300B-6C63-4626-BBE2-C38F26E00E13@mi crosoft.com...

>I didn't fully understand Chris' response, and I got no response to my
request for clarification. The VB.NET response was more explicit. So to
me
the VB.NET response was valuable.
>

[=?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005



"Robert Morley" wrote:

not to mention allowing VC++ users to migrate
seamlessly without offering a similar path to VB users.

Amen to that.

[Karl E. Peterson]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005

mobilemobile <mobilemobile@d iscussions.micr osoft.comwrote:

Hey, it's a respect issue. Your response was nasty, and intentionally so.
That's why I'll beat this into the ground until you apologize or at least
admit the source of your rudeness.

That is an indefensible position. Translation: "Bite me!"

>>>>Both Classic VB and .NET forums are grouped
>>>>under Visual Basic only,
>>>>
>>>That, however, is not true. All the .NET groups actually contain the word
>>>".dotnet." in their names.
>>>
>>True -- the .NET groups are clearly marked. It's the non-.NET groups that
>>are not clearly marked.

>>
>They are, in that they deal with *VB*. VFred is definitely NOT VB, and as long
>as you keep that in mind there is some hope, despite Microsoft's best efforts to
>confuse their customers.

>
In your world, VB.NET is not VB. In the rest of the world, VB.NET is a
newer flavor of VB. VB.NET looks a lot like Classic VB -- without my
background in VB5/6 it would have been a lot harder to learn VB.NET.

Regardless, the same source code can produce different results. Hence, it *is* a
different language. It's really that simple.

>>I was happy that Ken's response spelled it out for
>>me -- now that was a reasonable response.

>>
>Uh huh.

>
It's good to be reasonable.

Says the guy kicking the sand on the picnikers and demanding an apology. <LOL>

>>Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever.

>>
>You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their direction(s),
>and incapable of independent discovery?

>
Is this an admission that you think poorly of .NET users?

As a group, no. There are, that said, those who fall naturally into that category.

>>>>Your response was extreme enough to make me think that there was something
>>>>else going on. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation.
>>>>
>>>Bite me.
>>>
>>I sort of expected this level of conversation ...

>>
>Yeah, I could tell. You're welcome.

>
Please note that I have not utilized the type of invective you've lowered
yourself to.

Masochism at its finest.

>>To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
>>however, reserve my anger for Microsoft.

>>
>And now we've distinguished *you* as the angry one...

>
That was lame.

I understand you're having issues understanding your own motives and practices.

It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.

Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?

>What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe,
>attempting to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.

>
This is the one part of our little discussion that you seem unwilling to
answer directly. So I'll ask again -- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET
users wander into the VB forums, and that it's because you can't stand .NET?

Actually, I welcome anyone who comes here to learn, share, and generally
participate. You seem to be a taker, without much of anything positive to offer,
mostly.

>Attacking? <LOL>

>
Yes, attacking. Perhaps you think you can lash out at others due to some
frustration, but I find it unacceptable.

"Wah!"

>>I thought that was funny, given how it seems you have divided the world into
>>Classic vs .NET, like one of those fake wrestling matches.

>>
>Reminds me of a joke I heard recently. "Next time George Bush tells folks 'God
>told me to...' or 'Last time I talked to God...", would someone please take the
>mirror out of his hand?!?"

>
It's funny you mention a politician here -- it's a classic political ploy to
accuse your opponents of the exact behavior you yourself are exhibiting.

Put down the mirror.

>>>>Or, perhaps, you could accuse me of apostasy, by being a VB6 user now using
>>>>.NET.
>>>>
>>>If you're not evangelizing, you're just attempting to get by, like the rest of
>>>us. Your obvious defensiveness aside.
>>>
>>True, I see any particular programming language as a mere tool to provide a
>>solution -- that would qualify as "getting by", I suppose.

>>
>Yep.

>
So, are you saying that there might be cases where VB.NET might be a better
solution than Classic VB?

I would never deny such a patently silly generalization.

>offense at the word "crap."

>
It wasn't the word, it was the content. You were being nasty on purpose.

"Wah!"
--
..NET: It's About Trust!

http://vfred.mvps.org

[=?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005



"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:

mobilemobile <mobilemobile@d iscussions.micr osoft.comwrote:

Hey, it's a respect issue. Your response was nasty, and intentionally so.
That's why I'll beat this into the ground until you apologize or at least
admit the source of your rudeness.

>
That is an indefensible position. Translation: "Bite me!"

I'm responding to your initial rude response. You did not apologize for it.
My position is perfectly defensible. What was indefensible was your initial
(and continuing) rudeness.

>

>>>Both Classic VB and .NET forums are grouped
>>>under Visual Basic only,
>>>
>>That, however, is not true. All the .NET groups actually contain the word
>>".dotnet." in their names.
>>
>True -- the .NET groups are clearly marked. It's the non-.NET groups that
>are not clearly marked.
>
They are, in that they deal with *VB*. VFred is definitely NOT VB, and as long
as you keep that in mind there is some hope, despite Microsoft's best efforts to
confuse their customers.

In your world, VB.NET is not VB. In the rest of the world, VB.NET is a
newer flavor of VB. VB.NET looks a lot like Classic VB -- without my
background in VB5/6 it would have been a lot harder to learn VB.NET.

>
Regardless, the same source code can produce different results. Hence, it *is* a
different language. It's really that simple.

Give me an example of this. The code is very similar: loops, control
structures etc etc. They took things away that were in VB6 that I really
miss, like Variants, so I'll agree with you there. But, again, Microsoft
owns VB -- in their viewpoint, Classic VB has been deprecated, and VB.NET is
now VB. No matter if you agree with the "advancemen ts" in the language, the
language is still VB.

>

>I was happy that Ken's response spelled it out for
>me -- now that was a reasonable response.
>
Uh huh.

It's good to be reasonable.

>
Says the guy kicking the sand on the picnikers and demanding an apology. <LOL>

An apology would be reasonable. I apologized to Ken for posting to the
wrong group for instance. If you apologize for your over-the-top response,
then I will apologize to you for posting to the wrong group. Until then, I'm
withholding that apology.

Apologies are useful devices in a civilized world.

>

>Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever.
>
You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their direction(s),
and incapable of independent discovery?

Is this an admission that you think poorly of .NET users?

>
As a group, no. There are, that said, those who fall naturally into that category.

That's good to know. Although your comment below that going to .NET from
VB6 is "selling out" seems to contradict this.

>

>>>Your response was extreme enough to make me think that there was something
>>>else going on. Sorry, I don't buy your explanation.
>>>
>>Bite me.
>>
>I sort of expected this level of conversation ...
>
Yeah, I could tell. You're welcome.

Please note that I have not utilized the type of invective you've lowered
yourself to.

>
Masochism at its finest.

Your comment doesn't fit here -- please rephrase.

>

>To the contrary -- I agree with virtually everything on your list. I,
>however, reserve my anger for Microsoft.
>
And now we've distinguished *you* as the angry one...

That was lame.

>
I understand you're having issues understanding your own motives and practices.

My only motive here is to attempt to get you to admit that you were being
rude.

>

It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.

>
Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?

Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!

There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.
It's like me crying over the demise of DEC. I remember when there was no VB
-- what would the religion of a pre-VB programmer be? I've been through so
many languages over 30 years of programming, I don't see the point of any
type of allegiance.

Clearly you and I will not have a meeting of the minds on this point. I
can't quite comprehend why a VB6 programmer wouldn't check out VB.NET
thoroughly, if anything because it's newer technology, and I'm always
interested in new tech. OTOH, I can certainly understand the frustration of
VB6 users not being able to migrate to .NET easily etc. And I am still not
nearly as comfortable with VB.NET as I was with VB6.

But thanks for your response here -- it felt honest and I appreciate that.

>

What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe,
attempting to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.

This is the one part of our little discussion that you seem unwilling to
answer directly. So I'll ask again -- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET
users wander into the VB forums, and that it's because you can't stand .NET?

>
Actually, I welcome anyone who comes here to learn, share, and generally
participate. You seem to be a taker, without much of anything positive to offer,
mostly.

You didn't know anything about me when I made my first post. You had no
idea what kind of personality or behavior I had. And yet you fired away.

>

Attacking? <LOL>

Yes, attacking. Perhaps you think you can lash out at others due to some
frustration, but I find it unacceptable.

>
"Wah!"

From your response, it seems you now agree you were attacking me.

BTW, if "Wah!" is your only available response, perhaps it would be better
for you if you just didn't respond at all.

>

>I thought that was funny, given how it seems you have divided the world into
>Classic vs .NET, like one of those fake wrestling matches.
>
Reminds me of a joke I heard recently. "Next time George Bush tells folks 'God
told me to...' or 'Last time I talked to God...", would someone please take the
mirror out of his hand?!?"

It's funny you mention a politician here -- it's a classic political ploy to
accuse your opponents of the exact behavior you yourself are exhibiting.

>
Put down the mirror.

Stop acting like a politician.

Clearly your comment about "selling out" has proven my assumption about your
feelings.

>

>>>Or, perhaps, you could accuse me of apostasy, by being a VB6 user now using
>>>.NET.
>>>
>>If you're not evangelizing, you're just attempting to get by, like the rest of
>>us. Your obvious defensiveness aside.
>>
>True, I see any particular programming language as a mere tool to provide a
>solution -- that would qualify as "getting by", I suppose.
>
Yep.

So, are you saying that there might be cases where VB.NET might be a better
solution than Classic VB?

>
I would never deny such a patently silly generalization.

An example of a generalization would be: "VB.NET is better than VB6 in all
cases". See how that works? The key phrase is "all cases". My question was
not a generalization.

But I'm gathering from your response that you would consider VB.NET superior
to VB6 in certain cases.

>

offense at the word "crap."

It wasn't the word, it was the content. You were being nasty on purpose.

>
"Wah!"

So, can I take from this that you are acknowledging that your behavior was
nasty?

[Kevin Provance]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005

>They took things away that were in VB6 that I really miss, like Variants,

Dude, you just opened the door to another Pandora's Box. Variants by nature
are evil. Or so I've been taught.

- Kev

[alpine]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:08:03 -0800, mobilemobile
<mobilemobile@d iscussions.micr osoft.comwrote:

It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.

>>
>Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?

>
>Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!
>
>There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.
>It's like me crying over the demise of DEC. I remember when there was no VB
>-- what would the religion of a pre-VB programmer be? I've been through so
>many languages over 30 years of programming, I don't see the point of any
>type of allegiance.

Apparently, your view is so myopic that you can't see the forrest for
the trees.

The point is that MS's move to VB.NET is change for change's sake and
nothing more. The part you somehow seem to be missing is that every
line of code that you re-write/re-test/re-deploy is costing *someone*
(your employer, the end user, whomever) money that they should not
have had to spend. Unless you're working for free, your attitude of
"I'm getting paid so who cares." is *indeed* selling out, given the
statements you've made in this thread. You're (the collective you)
willingness to grease up and bend over will just make it worse the
next time around.

Get some backbone and tell MS to, "Go pound sand." There are plenty
of alternatives to VB.NET so pick one and move on.

Bryan
_______________ _______________ _______________ ____________
Bryan Stafford "Don't need no more lies"
New Vision Software - Neil Young -
www.mvps.org/vbvision Living With War : The Restless Consumer
alpineDon'tSpam @mvps.org

[Karl E. Peterson]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005

mobilemobile <mobilemobile@d iscussions.micr osoft.comwrote:

>>Hey, it's a respect issue. Your response was nasty, and intentionally so.
>>That's why I'll beat this into the ground until you apologize or at least
>>admit the source of your rudeness.

>>
>That is an indefensible position. Translation: "Bite me!"

>
I'm responding to your initial rude response. You did not apologize for it.

You can rot, waiting, too.

>Regardless, the same source code can produce different results. Hence, it *is* a
>different language. It's really that simple.

>
Give me an example of this.

Query the net for any CRC32 example code.

They took things away that were in VB6 that I really
miss, like Variants, so I'll agree with you there.

It's been called many things, including a "Death by a 1000 cuts." Everyone bled.

But, again, Microsoft
owns VB -- in their viewpoint, Classic VB has been deprecated,

They don't know the meaning of the word!

Apologies are useful devices in a civilized world.

Again, I'll remind you, you're NOT in a civilized world. HTH!

>>>>Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever.
>>>>
>>>You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their direction(s),
>>>and incapable of independent discovery?
>>>
>>Is this an admission that you think poorly of .NET users?

>>
>As a group, no. There are, that said, those who fall naturally into that
>category.

>
That's good to know. Although your comment below that going to .NET from
VB6 is "selling out" seems to contradict this.

Hardly.

>>Please note that I have not utilized the type of invective you've lowered
>>yourself to.

>>
>Masochism at its finest.

>
Your comment doesn't fit here -- please rephrase.

You just beg others to do so, so you can "feel the pain."

>>It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
>>It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.

>>
>Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?

>
Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!
>
There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.

Obviously, there's *something* to "believe in" or you wouldn't be mad at Microsoft.
Perhaps you believe a customer ought be treated with some shred of respect? Dig
deep. I'm sure you can find the words. Where would you be if you treated your
customers the same way Microsoft does? Or, do you feel that "Anything For A Buck!"
is an appropriate business motto? As the tagline says -- "It's About Trust!" --
nothing more.

Clearly you and I will not have a meeting of the minds on this point.

Then you're a moron, and my initial assessment only underestimated the degree. I
actually disagree with that, though, and think you couldn't possibly be that daft.
That you're only jumping to conclusions here, and actually can come around to
understanding.

can't quite comprehend why a VB6 programmer wouldn't check out VB.NET
thoroughly, if anything because it's newer technology,

And as such, it's indeed interesting. Not worth investing in, from my perspective,
as I don't "do" disposable code and am not willing to be at the mercy of someone
else telling me when it's time for a rewrite (again).

OTOH, I can certainly understand the frustration of
VB6 users not being able to migrate to .NET easily etc.

Repeat after me: "It's About Trust!", "It's About Trust!", "It's About Trust!", ...

>>>What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe,
>>>attempting to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.
>>>
>>This is the one part of our little discussion that you seem unwilling to
>>answer directly. So I'll ask again -- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET
>>users wander into the VB forums, and that it's because you can't stand .NET?

>>
>Actually, I welcome anyone who comes here to learn, share, and generally
>participate. You seem to be a taker, without much of anything positive to offer,
>mostly.

>
You didn't know anything about me when I made my first post.

Wrong.

>>So, are you saying that there might be cases where VB.NET might be a better
>>solution than Classic VB?

>>
>I would never deny such a patently silly generalization.

>
An example of a generalization would be: "VB.NET is better than VB6 in all
cases". See how that works? The key phrase is "all cases". My question was
not a generalization.

"Better" is a generalization. Arguments could be made, but what's the point?

But I'm gathering from your response that you would consider VB.NET superior
to VB6 in certain cases.

It's far from inconceivable, yeah.
--
..NET: It's About Trust!

http://vfred.mvps.org

[Bob Butler]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005

"mobilemobi le" <mobilemobile@d iscussions.micr osoft.comwrote in
message news:63FF93B4-5823-40B9-AC72-A5FBF58BD2C7@mi crosoft.com

But I'm gathering from your response that you would consider VB.NET
superior to VB6 in certain cases.

Free clue: the technical merits of a given language are only part of what
needs to go into the decision to use it for anything more than throw-away
apps. Nothing MS can do with "VB" at this point would ever convince me that
they truly understand how badly the screwed up and that they won't do it
again. Anybody committing resources to VB.Net deserves whatever happens
to them.

--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net: "Fool me once..."

[=?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005



"Kevin Provance" wrote:

They took things away that were in VB6 that I really miss, like Variants,

>
Dude, you just opened the door to another Pandora's Box. Variants by nature
are evil. Or so I've been taught.
>
- Kev
>
>
>

Yeah, I've heard that too. But, man are they useful for creating generic
utilities.

[=?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005

Karl, this is my last response to you. I'm not reading your post quoted below.

Elsewhere in this thread are posts where at least one other person in this
group understands my position, and I feel content to leave it at that. I
have all the answers I need.

I will not be reading any more of your posts.

Have a good one, Karl.

Steve

"Karl E. Peterson" wrote:

mobilemobile <mobilemobile@d iscussions.micr osoft.comwrote:

>Hey, it's a respect issue. Your response was nasty, and intentionally so.
>That's why I'll beat this into the ground until you apologize or at least
>admit the source of your rudeness.
>
That is an indefensible position. Translation: "Bite me!"

I'm responding to your initial rude response. You did not apologize for it.

>
You can rot, waiting, too.
>

Regardless, the same source code can produce different results. Hence, it *is* a
different language. It's really that simple.

Give me an example of this.

>
Query the net for any CRC32 example code.
>

They took things away that were in VB6 that I really
miss, like Variants, so I'll agree with you there.

>
It's been called many things, including a "Death by a 1000 cuts." Everyone bled.
>

But, again, Microsoft
owns VB -- in their viewpoint, Classic VB has been deprecated,

>
They don't know the meaning of the word!
>

Apologies are useful devices in a civilized world.

>
Again, I'll remind you, you're NOT in a civilized world. HTH!
>

>>>Face it, there will be .NET users wandering into your space forever.
>>>
>>You're saying they're a confused bunch of posers, unsure of their direction(s),
>>and incapable of independent discovery?
>>
>Is this an admission that you think poorly of .NET users?
>
As a group, no. There are, that said, those who fall naturally into that
category.

That's good to know. Although your comment below that going to .NET from
VB6 is "selling out" seems to contradict this.

>
Hardly.
>

>Please note that I have not utilized the type of invective you've lowered
>yourself to.
>
Masochism at its finest.

Your comment doesn't fit here -- please rephrase.

>
You just beg others to do so, so you can "feel the pain."
>

>It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
>It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.
>
Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?

Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!

There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.

>
Obviously, there's *something* to "believe in" or you wouldn't be mad at Microsoft.
Perhaps you believe a customer ought be treated with some shred of respect? Dig
deep. I'm sure you can find the words. Where would you be if you treated your
customers the same way Microsoft does? Or, do you feel that "Anything For A Buck!"
is an appropriate business motto? As the tagline says -- "It's About Trust!" --
nothing more.
>

Clearly you and I will not have a meeting of the minds on this point.

>
Then you're a moron, and my initial assessment only underestimated the degree. I
actually disagree with that, though, and think you couldn't possibly be that daft.
That you're only jumping to conclusions here, and actually can come around to
understanding.
>

can't quite comprehend why a VB6 programmer wouldn't check out VB.NET
thoroughly, if anything because it's newer technology,

>
And as such, it's indeed interesting. Not worth investing in, from my perspective,
as I don't "do" disposable code and am not willing to be at the mercy of someone
else telling me when it's time for a rewrite (again).
>

OTOH, I can certainly understand the frustration of
VB6 users not being able to migrate to .NET easily etc.

>
Repeat after me: "It's About Trust!", "It's About Trust!", "It's About Trust!", ...
>

>>What do I _really_ think? I think you're an impetulant flamer-wannabe,
>>attempting to stir up controversy where there really isn't any.
>>
>This is the one part of our little discussion that you seem unwilling to
>answer directly. So I'll ask again -- aren't you just plain bugged that .NET
>users wander into the VB forums, and that it's because you can't stand .NET?
>
Actually, I welcome anyone who comes here to learn, share, and generally
participate. You seem to be a taker, without much of anything positive to offer,
mostly.

You didn't know anything about me when I made my first post.

>
Wrong.
>

>So, are you saying that there might be cases where VB.NET might be a better
>solution than Classic VB?
>
I would never deny such a patently silly generalization.

An example of a generalization would be: "VB.NET is better than VB6 in all
cases". See how that works? The key phrase is "all cases". My question was
not a generalization.

>
"Better" is a generalization. Arguments could be made, but what's the point?
>

But I'm gathering from your response that you would consider VB.NET superior
to VB6 in certain cases.

>
It's far from inconceivable, yeah.
--
..NET: It's About Trust!

http://vfred.mvps.org

>
>
>

[=?Utf-8?B?bW9iaWxlbW9iaWxl?=]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005



"alpine" wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:08:03 -0800, mobilemobile
<mobilemobile@d iscussions.micr osoft.comwrote:
>

It certainly won't do any good to get mad at Microsoft.
It's not like they're going to change what they're doing.
>
Yeah, better to sell out, than to stand up for what you believe in, eh?

Ah, finally, here's the crux. Ding, ding, ding!!!

There's nothing to "believe in" -- It's programming, not some religion.
It's like me crying over the demise of DEC. I remember when there was no VB
-- what would the religion of a pre-VB programmer be? I've been through so
many languages over 30 years of programming, I don't see the point of any
type of allegiance.

>
Apparently, your view is so myopic that you can't see the forrest for
the trees.
>
The point is that MS's move to VB.NET is change for change's sake and
nothing more. The part you somehow seem to be missing is that every
line of code that you re-write/re-test/re-deploy is costing *someone*
(your employer, the end user, whomever) money that they should not
have had to spend. Unless you're working for free, your attitude of
"I'm getting paid so who cares." is *indeed* selling out, given the
statements you've made in this thread. You're (the collective you)
willingness to grease up and bend over will just make it worse the
next time around.
>
Get some backbone and tell MS to, "Go pound sand." There are plenty
of alternatives to VB.NET so pick one and move on.
>
Bryan
_______________ _______________ _______________ ____________
Bryan Stafford "Don't need no more lies"
New Vision Software - Neil Young -
www.mvps.org/vbvision Living With War : The Restless Consumer
alpineDon'tSpam @mvps.org
>

Wow.

I get paid most of the time to do new software development. The people who
pay for my services are the same people who usually decide what language and
platform to use.

If I do software maintenance, then I will use whatever language the software
is written in.

As far as "selling out", I don't get this -- I don't understand your
sentiment. Programming is my living, a way to make an income. I do what I
have to do. I have no control over the market. I not only have VB6 and
VB.NET, but also some C#, and some Java, some PHP for smaller projects,
Oracle PL/SQL. I'll learn what I have to in order to make a living.

I'm not sure what kind of forest you live in, but the forest I've been
plugging through has involved starting with punch cards, ecstatic with the
first CRT screens so I didn't have to listen to those damned noisy teletypes,
saving files on paper tape. I've had to learn so many languages the one
thing I know about programming is change.

[Bob O`Bob]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005

mobilemobile wrote:

In your world, VB.NET is not VB. In the rest of the world, VB.NET is a
newer flavor of VB. VB.NET looks a lot like Classic VB -- without my
background in VB5/6 it would have been a lot harder to learn VB.NET.

That's ... an interesting view.

But, having my own 30+ years and 30+ languages behind me, my opinion is
almost the opposite. Without 10+ years of VB1-2-3-4-5-6 expectations,
learning VFred would probably have been a little easier.

It is, after all, with a few exceptions, mechanically translatable to/from C#.


Bob
--
are you using some web-foofy interface that ignores Followup-To settings,
or are you doing that by hand to be annoying?

[Bob O`Bob]

Re: Pointer to String in VB2005

mobilemobile wrote:

>
The code is very similar: loops, control
structures etc etc. They took things away that were in VB6 that I really
miss, like Variants, so I'll agree with you there.

You "miss" Variants?

Wow.
That's, um ... surprising.
But at the same time, in a specifically newsgroup-oriented way, I find it liberating.

bye!


Bob
--