Bundling VB Files?
in [Visual Studio]
|
Prev: hooking into a window and peeking/poking memory
Next: Mike Williams' ideal world (Was: Bundling VB Files?)
From: Jon Lewis on 3 Aug 2010 05:14 Yes but the charter of this group was drawn up years ago when there was no reason to assume that any Visual Basic version would differ from its predecessors as much as vb.Fred does from vb<=6. There are several available forums that are vb.Fred specific. You know this. You also know that the vast majority of users of this forum and microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion offer/seek support for 'classic' vb, so what is it exactly that motivates you to continually antagonise and provoke these communities? Jon "Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcast.invalid> wrote in message news:i3837n$gg3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > on 8/2/2010, Bob Butler supposed : >> "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy(a)elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message >> news:i37598$1uj$1(a)pcls6.std.com... >>> >>> For most small projects, in VB6 and earlier, you could just email >>> someone the form file, and VB would open it and away you go. >>> >>> I've recently been shifted to VB2008, which I find is full of >>> needless complications. >> >> As you've seen, VB 2008 is not the same as "classic" VB versions 6 and >> earlier. This group is for the older VB so you need to find a dotnet >> forum to ask questions about VB.Net. > > I advise you and the other .NOTTERS to actually read the charter of this > group. It DOES NOT limit this group to classic VB in anyway - this is a > made up rule by self appointed moderators (in a group specifically created > as unmoderated). I suggest that you get the charter changed if you do not > want VB2008 questions here. > > You could get away with on the MS groups, where the groups were > specifically split - but this is not an ms sponsored group. This is a > real live public newsgroup with a charter that specifically allows > discussion of all versions of Visual Basic. > > -- > Tom Shelton > >
From: Mike Williams on 3 Aug 2010 07:08 "Jon Lewis" <jon.lewis(a)cutthespambtinternet.com> wrote in message news:DOudnSPLu9tnQMrRnZ2dnUVZ8o2dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > [Addressed to Tom Shelton] Yes but the charter of this group > was drawn up years ago when there was no reason to assume > that any Visual Basic version would differ from its predecessors > as much as vb.Fred does from vb<=6. There are several available > forums that are vb.Fred specific. You know this. You also know > that the vast majority of users of this forum and > microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion offer/seek support for > 'classic' vb, so what is it exactly that motivates you to continually > antagonise and provoke these communities? Tom Shelton's main reason for being here is exactly what you have said, to continually provoke and antogonise the users of VB6. That is his sole purpose here, to cause trouble. Anything else he does is merely whitewash in order to disguise his real purpose. Tom Shelton is a troll. Mike
From: Mike Williams on 3 Aug 2010 07:10 "Dee Earley" <dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk> wrote in message news:i38lm9$l44$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > If you really want them as a single code file, you can largely > copy the MyForm.Designer.vb contents into [some dotnet trash] Another one posting dotnet stuff on the Classic VB group. Sheesh!
From: ralph on 3 Aug 2010 07:34 On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 01:55:29 -0600, Tom Shelton <tom_shelton(a)comcast.invalid> wrote: > >> would have been written long before the dotnet imposter was >> first released and whoever wrote that charter had no idea that Micro$oft >> would one day release an imposter based on a totally different programming >> paradigm and that they would dishonestly continue to apply the name Visual >> Basic to it. > >You mean like the differences between VBDOS and VBWin. Or the changes >between vb3 and vb4 - you know, a total change in paradigm. Going from >non-com to COM. Dos to windows? The introduction of classes, etc? >Your going to have to do better then that, Mike. > For the record: The "Visual Basic Windows Development" (VB) product pre-dates "Visual Basic for MSDos" (VBDos). Due the incredible success of VB Microsoft slapped the name "Visual Basic" on the release of an improved QBasic product (slightly better looking character screen/form generator). There was little compatibility between the two languages. All the same features could be found in later PDS Basic versions but MS dropped the "Visual" from the name. There wasn't that much of a "paradigm shift" between VB3 and VB4. The both were built on the same 'Ruby' forms engine, and Forms (as well as some other items) as separate objects pre-dates even VB3. The big change from VB3 to VB4 was changing object messaging based on DDE to OLE1/2*, and of course 16-bit to 32-bit. It is common to confuse this change with "non-COM" to "COM", but internally the mechanism were quite similar and actually much of what is now OLE2 (or implementation behind COM) was born in VB. It is no accident that many OLE datatypes are identical to VB datatypes, for example. VB was capable of working objects such as 'classes' and 'controls' since VB1.1, it just couldn't create them. >> > > >LOL... Mike you know next to nothing about VB beyond version 6. ... > And you know next to nothing about VB or COM *before* version 6. So why not just call it a draw and be done with it? <g> -ralph [*OLE1/2 - the details of how OLE evolved from a hodge-podge "Object Linking and Embedding" (OLE) alternative to "Dynamic Data Linking" to OLE2, and an outline of what piece and part appeared where and when and was borrow/migrated from what and how - would take up far more space than is available here. <g>]
From: Henning on 3 Aug 2010 09:12
"Mike Williams" <Mike(a)WhiskyAndCoke.com> skrev i meddelandet news:i38tf9$p2$2(a)speranza.aioe.org... > "Dee Earley" <dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk> wrote in message > news:i38lm9$l44$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > >> If you really want them as a single code file, you can largely >> copy the MyForm.Designer.vb contents into [some dotnet trash] > > Another one posting dotnet stuff on the Classic VB group. Sheesh! > > They are just feeling bad about how forums work, feeling more free here ;) /Henning |