Prev: rsidll32
Next: Run executable from memory/ram?
From: Tom Shelton on 16 Jun 2005 11:30
In article <d8rfm2$ptf$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net>, Tony Proctor wrote:
> The reference-counted objects is really a consequence of COM's object model
> Tom. You said "VB6's" below. Anyway, I get your point, but certain resource
> elements need that "clean and safe deterministic clean up" that's not really
> there.
>

Of course, VB6 objects refernce-counted objects are a side affect of the
fact that it is based on COM. I thought that was a given :) But, you
don't need reference counting for deterministic finalization.

And your right, there is no really safe way to ensure deterministic
clean up, since even with the addition of the using block, you still
have to rely on the client programmer to actually make use of it...

In the end, I think there is a trade off here.

> It may not be a big issue on its own, but it is another obstacle to
> portability that may require a re-assessment of a previous design, and so
> needs a mention in lists such as the one I responded to.

Oh, no doubt. It is definately an issue that one needs to be aware of
when transitioning to .NET - but, I feel it is just as important that
they understand the solutions as well.

--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
From: Michael B. Johnson on 17 Jun 2005 12:04
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:59:49 +1000, fajp(a)xxxxoptushome.com.au (Frank Adam)
wrote:

>>VB6 is simpler to learn for the beginner but .NET is probably the way to go
>>because it has a future (assuming MS ignore the 'keep supporting VB6'

I've looked at the ".NET future", and I don't like what I see. Not because I'm a
fossilized fool who can't be agile

>>
>LOL. When COM hit the dev PCs it was also "the future", remember ?
>Just how many futures can our old brains take !? ;-)
>
>The 2005 beta certainly looks and feels ok now. If only i could get my
>head around what's where in the frigging class trees, i'd be rocking.
>It's a struggle to hunt down stuff, the model is just a bit too vast
>for anyone to just jump in and start producing, IME & IMO. Time will
>probably cure that though.
>
>To think that we used to joke about "Universe" being the base class of
>everything.. well, dotnet has gone and done it. :)

From: Michael B. Johnson on 17 Jun 2005 12:25
Let's try that again....my apologies for the previous incomplete post.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:59:49 +1000, fajp(a)xxxxoptushome.com.au (Frank Adam)
wrote:

>>VB6 is simpler to learn for the beginner but .NET is probably the way to go
>>because it has a future (assuming MS ignore the 'keep supporting VB6'

I've looked at the ".NET future", and I don't like what I see. Not because I'm a
fossilized fool who can't be agile and adapt to a different way of doing things,
but because I don't see the "improvements" as sufficient return on investment.
There is no compelling arguement for my company to abandon what they have, in
order to embrace the "newer", "bigger", "better" so called "world wonder" that
has just been cobbled together.

>LOL. When COM hit the dev PCs it was also "the future", remember ?
>Just how many futures can our old brains take !? ;-)

The sheer complexity of the product had even the people giving the VS 2005 demos
confused the other day - /they/ had already /practiced/ and still couldn't
remember all the obscure arcane twiddling that had to be done. Nor could they
deal comprehensively with the lurking instability.

There's something to be said for small, sharp tools, you know?

>The 2005 beta certainly looks and feels ok now. If only i could get my

As stable as water. Fatal exceptions, crashes and other undocumented features
abound - for anyone to imply otherwise makes one look like a stooge. The beta
isn't stable like I need it to be to get my work done - but maybe you have lower
standards than I? And one had better be sure you've got reams of RAM and hard
disk space. Why should I struggle with this shaky edifice to "progress"? I've
got enough to accomplish every day without adding to it: serving the ever-hungry
upgrade (false) gods.

>head around what's where in the frigging class trees, i'd be rocking.
>It's a struggle to hunt down stuff, the model is just a bit too vast
>for anyone to just jump in and start producing, IME & IMO. Time will
>probably cure that though.

And for what? Microsoft has changed the rules (again) in order to accomplish
what good? They simply couldn't extend the old model in order to get this to
work? No, they've simply changed the rules (again) to ensure barrier-to-entry in
their chosen monopoly. They find that people just aren't running the upgrade
hamster wheel fast enough any more, so they've decided on a whim (money) to
change the rules (again) with no regard to the slaves' well-being.

>To think that we used to joke about "Universe" being the base class of
>everything.. well, dotnet has gone and done it. :)

I could learn a new API /if/ I was convinced it would buy me more than an easy
way of writing web-services. What I've seen just isn't justified. I'm not alone
in that conclusion, either.

Microsoft has enough people with personal interest in hoaxing this thing that
I'm not at all surprised they have supporters - but what are those supporters'
interests in pushing this propaganda?
_______________________
Michael B. Johnson
From: KwikOne on 17 Jun 2005 12:48
I see that nobody mentioned the fact that VB6 is un-managed code and
..Net is managed code.

From: CadAd on 17 Jun 2005 13:02
What is "unmanaged" code?

--
CadAd
ý--ý
"KwikOne" <kerrykurtz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119026903.468809.90430(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I see that nobody mentioned the fact that VB6 is un-managed code and
> .Net is managed code.
>


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: rsidll32
Next: Run executable from memory/ram?