Centralised MsgBox
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: crack for VSFlex8 in VB6.0
Next: Component Handles
From: Bill McCarthy on 7 Oct 2009 20:49 "Alex Clark" <quanta(a)noemail.noemail> wrote in message news:#CYQ206RKHA.5108(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> >>> No it doesn't. Gosub, for example, is not supported in VB.Net. Stop > > > Well goodness gracious, they finally killed it off? I had no idea, but > thank goodness for that - a wasteful, pointless keyword. It does > highlight an inconsistency in MS' approach though, as "Call" is similarly > superfluous and should really have been removed. Unfortunately however, > GoTo is still supported. I can't think of any reason why any programmer > (with skills beyond an 11yr old) would need to use GoSub or GoTo, but I'm > sure there are some on here who will doubtless be professing their undying > love for both. GoSub does have some advantages but it does also produce hard to maintain spaghetti code. Lambda functions and expressions and formalized delegates are a far better and more elegant way to achieve the same (and a lot more). I think the real pity about this though is we didn't have a replacement for GoSub when VB .NET first came out. Of course if they had spent the time it would take to include Gosub in VB .NET we'd probably still be waiting for lambdas a lot longer; and lambdas are far more important.
From: Karl E. Peterson on 7 Oct 2009 22:10 Bill McCarthy wrote: > GoSub does have some advantages Whoa! There's my old friend, Bill. :-) > but it does also produce hard to maintain spaghetti code. No, "it" doesn't. That requires an actual developer prone to such accidents. HTH! ;-) -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Tom Shelton on 7 Oct 2009 22:22 On 2009-10-08, Bill McCarthy <bill(a)localhost.com> wrote: > > > "Alex Clark" <quanta(a)noemail.noemail> wrote in message > news:#CYQ206RKHA.5108(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>> >>>> No it doesn't. Gosub, for example, is not supported in VB.Net. Stop >> >> >> Well goodness gracious, they finally killed it off? I had no idea, but >> thank goodness for that - a wasteful, pointless keyword. It does >> highlight an inconsistency in MS' approach though, as "Call" is similarly >> superfluous and should really have been removed. Unfortunately however, >> GoTo is still supported. I can't think of any reason why any programmer >> (with skills beyond an 11yr old) would need to use GoSub or GoTo, but I'm >> sure there are some on here who will doubtless be professing their undying >> love for both. > > GoSub does have some advantages but it does also produce hard to maintain > spaghetti code. I never saw anything wrong with gosub as a language structure, but since I came to the VB party in version 4 when it was already documented as being a huge perfromance hit to use - I never got in the habbit of using it in VB... Though, I used it quite frequently in my first formal programming job - since for the first year, I spend part of my time dealing with code written in a form of basic called IMS/BASIC - it was port of buisness basic to unix and unix like systems :) > Lambda functions and expressions and formalized delegates > are a far better and more elegant way to achieve the same (and a lot more). It's too bad that lambdas are so crippled in VB.NET. C# lambda's are far more useful - especially when coupled with it's custom iterator support. Still getting better in VB10 - but, this is probably not the place to discuss that. -- Tom Shelton
From: Bill McCarthy on 7 Oct 2009 23:40 Hi Tom, "Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote in message news:OUaDm47RKHA.1236(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > On 2009-10-08, Bill McCarthy <bill(a)localhost.com> wrote: >> >> GoSub does have some advantages but it does also produce hard to maintain >> spaghetti code. > > I never saw anything wrong with gosub as a language structure, but since I > came to the VB party in version 4 when it was already documented as being > a > huge perfromance hit to use - I never got in the habbit of using it in > VB... > Right it was really from an era long ago and had long been abandoned without replacement ;) > Though, I used it quite frequently in my first formal programming job - > since > for the first year, I spend part of my time dealing with code written in a > form of basic called IMS/BASIC - it was port of buisness basic to unix > and > unix like systems :) > Not familiar with it. Did it have formal structures like UDT's or classes ? >> Lambda functions and expressions and formalized delegates >> are a far better and more elegant way to achieve the same (and a lot >> more). > > It's too bad that lambdas are so crippled in VB.NET. C# lambda's are far > more > useful - especially when coupled with it's custom iterator support. > Lambdas in VB9 are limited to those that can be translated into expression trees. I wouldn't call them crippled as you can still use them for state machines and use delegates. Iterators are handy on the few occasions you need them, but the vast majority of C# code I've seen using custom iterators doesn't actually need them, and typically suffers inefficiencies. On the few occasions you do need them, having a good template is really all it takes. > Still getting better in VB10 - Yep, then lambdas have the full range of multi statement functions or subs. > but, this is probably not the place to discuss > that. > Well we are talking about it in context of VB, old and new, in particular GoSub.
From: Tom Shelton on 8 Oct 2009 01:05
On 2009-10-08, Bill McCarthy <bill(a)localhost.com> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > "Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote in message > news:OUaDm47RKHA.1236(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> On 2009-10-08, Bill McCarthy <bill(a)localhost.com> wrote: >>> >>> GoSub does have some advantages but it does also produce hard to maintain >>> spaghetti code. >> >> I never saw anything wrong with gosub as a language structure, but since I >> came to the VB party in version 4 when it was already documented as being >> a >> huge perfromance hit to use - I never got in the habbit of using it in >> VB... >> > > Right it was really from an era long ago and had long been abandoned without > replacement ;) > > >> Though, I used it quite frequently in my first formal programming job - >> since >> for the first year, I spend part of my time dealing with code written in a >> form of basic called IMS/BASIC - it was port of buisness basic to unix >> and >> unix like systems :) >> > > Not familiar with it. Did it have formal structures like UDT's or classes ? > I wouldn't expect you to be :) It really is an obscure version of BASIC - which by the way that company still uses to this day... In fact, when the company that developed it abandoned it several years ago, they bought the source code and rights to distribute licenses to their customers. Anyway, it was a port of the basic language used on the Point 4 Iris systems - a long forgoten mini-computer system (I've never seen one - though, we still had 3 or 4 customers running them when I first started that job. So, I did dial in and work on those systems on occasion - debuging programs etc) I worked with it full time for the first six months at that job, and then about half time for the next six months (i was doing perl programming the other time). After the first year, I still worked with it on occasion doing custom programming for customers or writting stored procs in it for our in house sql engine :) We also were moving a lot of functionality to a .NET based windows product... > >>> Lambda functions and expressions and formalized delegates >>> are a far better and more elegant way to achieve the same (and a lot >>> more). >> >> It's too bad that lambdas are so crippled in VB.NET. C# lambda's are far >> more >> useful - especially when coupled with it's custom iterator support. >> > > Lambdas in VB9 are limited to those that can be translated into expression > trees. I wouldn't call them crippled as you can still use them for state > machines and use delegates. Do this in VB.NET: var list = new List<int>() {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}; list.ForEach ( i => Console.WriteLine (i) ); > Iterators are handy on the few occasions you need them, but the vast > majority of C# code I've seen using custom iterators doesn't actually need > them, and typically suffers inefficiencies. On the few occasions you do > need them, having a good template is really all it takes. > I would have agreed with you before 2008. The problem is I find my self using them much more now that we have linq. IEnumerable has gotten a large promotion. > >> Still getting better in VB10 - > > Yep, then lambdas have the full range of multi statement functions or subs. > > >> but, this is probably not the place to discuss >> that. >> > > Well we are talking about it in context of VB, old and new, in particular > GoSub. Yes, but I think we might have crossed the line here a bit - despite what Kevin and mayayanna(or whatever) may think, I'm not here to discuss VB.NET. I don't think I will be saying anymore on this topic - unless you want to discuss it somewhere else. -- Tom Shelton |