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: Mayayana on 3 Aug 2010 23:03 | | big8 groups usually are created to discuss subjects and not applications | (there may be a few exceptions). This group is for discussions on the | subject "MS Visual Basic" and is according to its charta not restricted to | certain versions of "MS Visual Basic". Although there is no closer relation | between VB.classic (VB <= 6) and VB.net both are versions of "MS Visual | Basic", and both are covered by the subject "MS Visual Basic". | The regulars of the dc.basic.visual.* groups have failed to update the | group chartas at the time VB.net was introduced, or to split the groups | into VB.classic and VB.net groups - obviously because there was no need of | it due to that the MS groups were available. Now, that the MS groups have | been or will be closed the need is there, and the regulars of these groups | should make up leeway. | This is the same thing you just said and it makes no sense. You didn't answer that criticism. VB.Net is NOT VB. That's common sense to anyone outside the MS marketing dept. Splitting hairs about the language of the charter is just a lot of hot air to no purpose. And the groups are NOT closing down, except on the MS server. As I understand it, the VB.Net group has already been dropped by MS. But that group had 3 new threads today, 2 yesterday, and 4 or 5 on Sunday. It's far more active than this group is. Plus VB.Net has the MS forums, which VB does not have. So where's the need? It may turn out that more DotNetters come here while the VBers dwindle and lose interest. I could live with that if that's the way it works out. But pretending that both can work out of one group is nonsense. It will just result in confusion and arguments.
From: Tom Shelton on 3 Aug 2010 23:08 Mayayana submitted this idea : >> >> big8 groups usually are created to discuss subjects and not applications >> (there may be a few exceptions). This group is for discussions on the >> subject "MS Visual Basic" and is according to its charta not restricted to >> certain versions of "MS Visual Basic". Although there is no closer relation >> between VB.classic (VB <= 6) and VB.net both are versions of "MS Visual >> Basic", and both are covered by the subject "MS Visual Basic". >> The regulars of the dc.basic.visual.* groups have failed to update the >> group chartas at the time VB.net was introduced, or to split the groups >> into VB.classic and VB.net groups - obviously because there was no need of >> it due to that the MS groups were available. Now, that the MS groups have >> been or will be closed the need is there, and the regulars of these groups >> should make up leeway. >> > > This is the same thing you just said and it > makes no sense. You didn't answer that > criticism. VB.Net is NOT VB. That's common > sense to anyone outside the MS marketing > dept. Splitting hairs about the language of > the charter is just a lot of hot air to no purpose. > > And the groups are NOT closing down, > except on the MS server. As I understand it, > the VB.Net group has already been dropped > by MS. But that group had 3 new threads today, 2 > yesterday, and 4 or 5 on Sunday. It's far more > active than this group is. Plus VB.Net has the > MS forums, which VB does not have. So where's > the need? > > It may turn out that more DotNetters come here > while the VBers dwindle and lose interest. I could > live with that if that's the way it works out. But > pretending that both can work out of one group > is nonsense. It will just result in confusion and > arguments. Only if you start them with your non-sense. Get it through your .NOTTER skull - Microsoft Visual Basic is what Microsoft says it is... See it even has their name on it. When it says Mayayana Visual Basic - then you can decide what it is or is not. -- Tom Shelton
From: Dee Earley on 4 Aug 2010 03:49 On 04/08/2010 01:20, Mayayana wrote: > Nothing good can come of starting a tradition > of discusing two dissimilar things, with similar > names, in one group. I've done it for years in my IRC channel and wiki. As long as we know which is being discussed, there is no problem. If it is unclear, we ask. There are people in there that don't like or use .net so they just don't answer .net questions. -- Dee Earley (dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk) i-Catcher Development Team iCode Systems (Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the group.)
From: Thorsten Albers on 4 Aug 2010 08:26 Mayayana <mayayana(a)invalid.nospam> schrieb im Beitrag <i3al65$a8d$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>... > This is the same thing you just said and it > makes no sense. You didn't answer that > criticism. VB.Net is NOT VB. That's common > sense to anyone outside the MS marketing > dept. Splitting hairs about the language of > the charter is just a lot of hot air to no purpose. The charta, and >>only the charta<< specifies what is on-topic in an unmoderated group. Neither the participants in this group nor the big8 moderators may decide what is on-topic in this group, only the charta which has been established by a democratic polling act in the prescribed way (RfD, CfV). And for this it doesn't matter that VB.classic and VB.net are nearly incompatible. VB.classic is a 'Visual Basic' and VB.net is a 'Visual Basic', and 'Visual Basic' is on-topic in this group. Sorry, this is not hair splitting but how the usenet works. If any participants in this group don't want VB.classic and VB.net to be discussed together in this group, they have to try either to throw VB.net out of this group or to get a group of their own. But this can be done only in the prescribed way by a democratic polling act (RFD, CfV) - and not by telling other participants "We don't want you in here". > And the groups are NOT closing down, > except on the MS server. As I understand it, > the VB.Net group has already been dropped > by MS. But that group had 3 new threads today, 2 > yesterday, and 4 or 5 on Sunday. It's far more > active than this group is. The old MS newsgroups are no alternative to the cl.basic.visual.* groups because they are kept on some newsservers only as long as there is a certain amount of traffic, they may be removed at any time. Primarily they are kept to give the participants the opporunity to communicate infos on how and where participants can discuss the group's topic in the future. > Plus VB.Net has the > MS forums, which VB does not have. So where's > the need? Anything outside of the big8 doesn't matter. If somebody want an english MS web forum to be established for VB.classic he has to ask MS to do so. A german MS web forum for VB.classic has been established by MS on request of Thorsten Doerfler, MVP. > It may turn out that more DotNetters come here > while the VBers dwindle and lose interest. I could > live with that if that's the way it works out. But > pretending that both can work out of one group > is nonsense. It will just result in confusion and > arguments. To make things clear for a RfD/CfV the common way is tagging. The subject of any contribution to this group should be preceeded by a character sequence giving the 'Visual Basic' technology used by the contributor. E.g.: '[VB] I have a question' '[VB6] I have a question' '[VBC] I have a question' '[VBClassic] I have a question' '[VBNET] I have a question' '[VB2008] I have a question' Tagging makes it easy for the participants to ignore contributions they are not interested in (some newsreaders even allow filtering of messages). And tagging makes it easier to count the traffic. The traffic can be used in a later RfD to argue for a separate group either for VB.classic or VB.net. What I am talking about here is partly based on my experiences with the german usenet hierarchy de.* which is organized almost the same way like the big8. In de.* there doesn't exist a group for 'Visual Basic'. Some weeks ago we (Ingo Moch and I) have started a RfD to establish a VB.classic (only!) group there in order to move microsoft.public.de.vb to de.* (de.comp.lang.basic.vbclassic, or de.comp.lang.vbclassic). The discussion on the 2. RfD has almost been finished, the next step will be the 1. CfV. -- Thorsten Albers albers (a) uni-freiburg.de
From: Dr Nancy's Sweetie on 4 Aug 2010 08:51
In response to my question about getting newer versions of VB to pack a form into one file, "Tom Shelton <tom_shelton(a)comcast.invalid>" wrote: > Hmmm... While I can't imagine sending a single form without the entire > project - it's not that difficult. You simply open the folder and grab > the 2 or 3 files that make up a typical form, zip, and send. I use VB to teach "Introduction to Programming", a course with no prereqs except basic algebra and enough computer skills to send email and play minesweeper. It gets taken by art history majors and the like, whose natural talents lean in other directions. So, if they're stuck, it's easy to say "email the form as an attachment", which in VB6 (and earlier) VB would just open as part of a sort of default project. And I could put a link to a form on a website which they could click, one file, no troubles. Everything we do until the very end of the semester is a one-form programming project, and so sending single form files around saved a lot of complication. I certainly appreciate that VB needed a bit more discipline in its design, but for *my* purposes it seems they took a good Intro language and pasted a lot of needless stuff on it to make it into a language suitable for very large programming projects. But there were already many languages suitable for large programming projects, and not many suitable for teaching a one-semester intro class to non-technical people. Anyway, thanks for your helpful answer; it's far and away the most useful reply I've gotten on Usenet in quite some time. Darren Provine ! kilroy(a)elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "To summarize, then: 'Language change bad, Hell in a Handbasket, Kids These Days, Barbarians at the Gate, Boo-Hoo.' Does that about cover it?" -- Miranda Cornielle |