Prev: rsidll32
Next: Run executable from memory/ram?
From: Michael D. Ober on 17 Jun 2005 13:07
VB 6 is "semi-managed" code. If you don't use Active X components or
Windows API calls, VB 6 is fully managed code. If you use ActiveX and/or
Windows API calls, you must remember to release resources.

Mike Ober.

"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.
>
>



From: Frank Adam on 17 Jun 2005 18:38
On 17 Jun 2005 09:48:23 -0700, "KwikOne" <kerrykurtz(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>I see that nobody mentioned the fact that VB6 is un-managed code and
>.Net is managed code.
>
Managed code, big deal. I see that as a nice way of saying that
programmers are incompetent.

--

Regards, Frank
From: Steve Gerrard on 17 Jun 2005 22:23

"Frank Adam" <fajp(a)xxxxoptushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:l6k6b19ia0m2vc4dnlc012vf5gam8p7mqj(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:25:03 -0500, Michael B. Johnson
> <mjohnson(a)veribox.net> wrote:
>

> I only dabble in it at this stage, but yes, it did crash a few times.
> I find it interesting that people who are presumably computer savvy,
> still get surprised by an MS application having bugs.

As far as I can tell, all major programs and systems have bugs. MS, Oracle,
Unix, MAC, Solaris, SAP - name one that is perfect. And find me a VB programmer
whose code is flawless. Complex software has bugs.

> I'm playing with both java and .Net at the moment. Not very hard, but
> i do dabble. The difference between the two is next to nothing.
> The architecture is the same, the feel is the same and they are both
> sluggish and somewhat quirky in the IDE. Over time i'm sure these
> problems will be fixed.

I have the "pleasure" these days of embarking on a new project involving a web
application connected to an Oracle database. This is not good territory for VB;
and in fact, ASP.Net seems to be a good tool for it.

For programs that involve intranets, file security issues, distributed
applications, web apps, web services, database servers, connectivity, mobile and
handheld users, multi-threading, and ten other such buzz words, .Net looks to be
better than COM as a framework.

The Visual Studio Walkthroughs help includes exactly one entry for "Rich Client
Application Walkthroughs." It is called "Creating a Rich Client Application with
MFC." It uses C++. To me this speaks volumes on the whole ".Net will replace
everything" hysteria.

I have no plans to discard VB6 anytime soon; but it looks like I am also going
to be doing some .Net stuff. Seems okay to me.


From: Michael B. Johnson on 20 Jun 2005 11:10
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:38:15 +1000, in comp.lang.basic.visual.misc,
fajp(a)optushomexxx.com.au (Frank Adam)wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:25:03 -0500, Michael B. Johnson
><mjohnson(a)veribox.net> 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.
>>
>Oi, who you calling a fool !? Fossilized perhaps...

I'm not calling /you/ a fool, Frank: I'm responding to what I perceive as the
scorn being heaped on VB6 artisans. Please re-read and be fair - note that I
used that in reference to no-one in particular. Agreed?


>Out of interest, what did you use 10 years ago ? How about 20 years

10 years ago I was writing PAL, Word macros and maybe some Access 2.0/'95 stuff.
20 years ago, I was writing C and ASM (8086 assembly) code, along with (I think)
GWBASIC and a BASIC compiler.


>>There's something to be said for small, sharp tools, you know?
>>
>Yep, but let's not forget that .Net only falls on it's face speedwise
>at it's initial load time. After that the speed is quite good,
>especially once the most used segments of the application are
>compiled.

The Linux/UNIX model where the output of one application can be piped to another
application, where each leverages its expertise in a particular problem domain
is what I was alluding to. Linux scripting doesn't need to be unusually speedy,
it needs to be effective and powerful - and be capable of being used in
conjunction with other tools. So my tools reference is less a criticism of speed
as opposed to apparently needless complexity.


>So tell me, did you use VB4 ? It was an abomination. I liked the way

No, I didn't have the benefit of the Microsoft VB4 eXPerience.

>I find it interesting that people who are presumably computer savvy,
>still get surprised by an MS application having bugs. I can't recall
>any MS product that did not have a substantial quantity of problems at
>their release and even in a large number of subsequent updates.

Why must we accept shoddy workmanship? We already /have/ a working development
tool in VB6. For Microsoft to drop support for this product is dishonorable and
shameful.

>This is the way MS produces applications. If the puppy dog wags it's
>tail correctly, then all is ok, so they release it and fix other less
>important problems like gaping security holes, leaking memory,
>corrupted GUI and I/O, as they come.. aahand it's their life
>commitment that they will do that, even if it takes 15 years. Unless
>it gets decommissioned first, a'la VB6.

Life commitment? 15 years? I don't think so.

Should we really settle for what they've given us, though?

>Btw, even the VB6 IDE crashed a hell of a lot more time on me than the
>VC6 IDE. It doesn't mean that i would ever say that VB6 wasn't a great
>product, but the VC6 IDE @#$@# all over it for stability..

Then I think we collectively ought to hold Microsoft to a standard that they
develop a patch to make VB6 as stable as VC6, and not buy products that provide
little value.

I still think I was right to call you on your assertion that the Beta is
"stable".

>>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?
>>
>Look Michael, i'm not sure where you got the idea that i'm a supporter
>of MS or .Net, i think my posts in the past will prove that i'm not.
>But i do think about the whole thing rationally..

Frank, I'm really responding to the thread on a whole, not getting into
something with you personally, though I did post in response to your post. I
agree you are generally approaching things rationally. However, in prior posts
(and in various threads) I see people recommending .NET without any substance
behind the recommendations. I seriously question their motives.

>IMO, Java having become the most popular languages for web oriented
>software, is probably what caused MS to take the same route and note
>that other compiler makers(Borland/Symantec comes to mind) are
>following their steps.

Could be, but it could also be that Microsoft might have been able to extend the
VB6 product with language extensions and adding the .NET runtime without
dropping the existing product. Or they could have done what has been done before
- provide VB6 and the new .NET compiler in the same box, and maintain support
for both.

>I'm playing with both java and .Net at the moment. Not very hard, but
>i do dabble. The difference between the two is next to nothing.
>The architecture is the same, the feel is the same and they are both
>sluggish and somewhat quirky in the IDE. Over time i'm sure these
>problems will be fixed.

Sure. Java is more portable than .NET is, and has more open-source tools to
support it, something I find a virtue.

>The main thing you have to consider here, being a professional, is
>what do you want to do about your business ?
>
>Your options are to stick with what kinda looks and sounds like VB, or
>move to another compiler. Which one ?
>
>Java ? Virtually the same as C# which is the same as VB.Net without
>the VB keywords. Nothing gainedm unless you know Java already.
>Delphi ? Perhaps.. but they are moving towards .Net as well.
>Back to C or C++ ? I do that sometimes even with VB, since VB can not
>satisfy everything i want. Sometimes i'll design code in VB then opt
>to rewrite it in C to get full performance and control.
>ASM ? Nowdays ? You gotta be kidding.

But /why/ must we move? I don't see the benefits, the ROI.

>Bottom line is, if you don't like what you see, you have to move on,
>but your choices are not going to make it any easier on you and there
>is no guarantee whatsoever that in 10 years we won't be having this
>same conversation, regardles of whichever language you choose..

Why are we /compelled/ to make the choice, why does Microsoft dictate that we
must move on?


>ps:
>As i've said, i don't particularly like the idea of losing VB6.
>Neither do i like the vast .Net model. This isn't "learning new APIs",
>as you put it, it is a completely new architecture, which makes very
>little sense to anyone having been stuck in VB for years. Even with my
>(self assuredly so) good Win32 API knowledge, i can not figure out the
>logic behind some of the class trees. It is one big pile of mess.
>But in the end, if VB does become unusable, i don't want to be left
>with havng to rush and learn a new RAD IDE. So at the moment, slowly
>in my free time i muck about with what's available, sooner or later
>i'l figure out both and can make a decision as to which one to stick
>with, but TBH, at the moment and despite the teething problems,
>.Net(C# or VB#) is looking better as a whole, than the alternative,
>being Java.

The forms support in Java I really don't like. I think that once one uses the
..NET API enough, one will get used to what you refer to as the "mess". The
question I want to underscore is, why give Microsoft a free ride when they've a
moral responsibility to their customers and they are failing horrendously in
that?

Why must one just "accept" that Microsoft has a "right" to dictate to their
customers that the product they bought (with no moving parts) is now worn out
and must be replaced with a shoddy substitute, OR ELSE!
_______________________
Michael B. Johnson
From: Tony Proctor on 20 Jun 2005 11:58
Interesting question tucked away in this part of the thread: why are there
still so many different programming languages, and ways of expressing things
in these languages. The basic elements of a structured program have been
around donkey's years, object orientation has actually been around a lonnnng
time, and things like threads, windows, exception handling and events aren't
exactly new either. You'd think that by now we should be reaching an
asymptotic, one-size-fits-all language. Is Java and/or C# in the right
direction? Probably, but we're still not really converging much are we.
There's still no common language that can be used on any platform, and that
provides full access to all services and operations on those platforms (not
even C).

I agree that C# (and certainly VB.Net) are not really adding anything
dramatically new, or anything that couldn't be achieved through previous
languages without a few tweaks. I feel that someone must be confusing
languages with environments. Sure, the Java and .Net approaches to the
program environment have a lot going for them, but do they really need a
whole new language?

Tony Proctor

"Michael B. Johnson" <mjohnson(a)veribox.net> wrote in message
news:ubmdb1hesqrqm1g2h5a9ab69v22apeqie3(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:38:15 +1000, in comp.lang.basic.visual.misc,
> fajp(a)optushomexxx.com.au (Frank Adam)wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:25:03 -0500, Michael B. Johnson
> ><mjohnson(a)veribox.net> 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.
> >>
> >Oi, who you calling a fool !? Fossilized perhaps...
>
> I'm not calling /you/ a fool, Frank: I'm responding to what I perceive as
the
> scorn being heaped on VB6 artisans. Please re-read and be fair - note that
I
> used that in reference to no-one in particular. Agreed?
>
>
> >Out of interest, what did you use 10 years ago ? How about 20 years
>
> 10 years ago I was writing PAL, Word macros and maybe some Access 2.0/'95
stuff.
> 20 years ago, I was writing C and ASM (8086 assembly) code, along with (I
think)
> GWBASIC and a BASIC compiler.
>
>
> >>There's something to be said for small, sharp tools, you know?
> >>
> >Yep, but let's not forget that .Net only falls on it's face speedwise
> >at it's initial load time. After that the speed is quite good,
> >especially once the most used segments of the application are
> >compiled.
>
> The Linux/UNIX model where the output of one application can be piped to
another
> application, where each leverages its expertise in a particular problem
domain
> is what I was alluding to. Linux scripting doesn't need to be unusually
speedy,
> it needs to be effective and powerful - and be capable of being used in
> conjunction with other tools. So my tools reference is less a criticism of
speed
> as opposed to apparently needless complexity.
>
>
> >So tell me, did you use VB4 ? It was an abomination. I liked the way
>
> No, I didn't have the benefit of the Microsoft VB4 eXPerience.
>
> >I find it interesting that people who are presumably computer savvy,
> >still get surprised by an MS application having bugs. I can't recall
> >any MS product that did not have a substantial quantity of problems at
> >their release and even in a large number of subsequent updates.
>
> Why must we accept shoddy workmanship? We already /have/ a working
development
> tool in VB6. For Microsoft to drop support for this product is
dishonorable and
> shameful.
>
> >This is the way MS produces applications. If the puppy dog wags it's
> >tail correctly, then all is ok, so they release it and fix other less
> >important problems like gaping security holes, leaking memory,
> >corrupted GUI and I/O, as they come.. aahand it's their life
> >commitment that they will do that, even if it takes 15 years. Unless
> >it gets decommissioned first, a'la VB6.
>
> Life commitment? 15 years? I don't think so.
>
> Should we really settle for what they've given us, though?
>
> >Btw, even the VB6 IDE crashed a hell of a lot more time on me than the
> >VC6 IDE. It doesn't mean that i would ever say that VB6 wasn't a great
> >product, but the VC6 IDE @#$@# all over it for stability..
>
> Then I think we collectively ought to hold Microsoft to a standard that
they
> develop a patch to make VB6 as stable as VC6, and not buy products that
provide
> little value.
>
> I still think I was right to call you on your assertion that the Beta is
> "stable".
>
> >>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?
> >>
> >Look Michael, i'm not sure where you got the idea that i'm a supporter
> >of MS or .Net, i think my posts in the past will prove that i'm not.
> >But i do think about the whole thing rationally..
>
> Frank, I'm really responding to the thread on a whole, not getting into
> something with you personally, though I did post in response to your post.
I
> agree you are generally approaching things rationally. However, in prior
posts
> (and in various threads) I see people recommending .NET without any
substance
> behind the recommendations. I seriously question their motives.
>
> >IMO, Java having become the most popular languages for web oriented
> >software, is probably what caused MS to take the same route and note
> >that other compiler makers(Borland/Symantec comes to mind) are
> >following their steps.
>
> Could be, but it could also be that Microsoft might have been able to
extend the
> VB6 product with language extensions and adding the .NET runtime without
> dropping the existing product. Or they could have done what has been done
before
> - provide VB6 and the new .NET compiler in the same box, and maintain
support
> for both.
>
> >I'm playing with both java and .Net at the moment. Not very hard, but
> >i do dabble. The difference between the two is next to nothing.
> >The architecture is the same, the feel is the same and they are both
> >sluggish and somewhat quirky in the IDE. Over time i'm sure these
> >problems will be fixed.
>
> Sure. Java is more portable than .NET is, and has more open-source tools
to
> support it, something I find a virtue.
>
> >The main thing you have to consider here, being a professional, is
> >what do you want to do about your business ?
> >
> >Your options are to stick with what kinda looks and sounds like VB, or
> >move to another compiler. Which one ?
> >
> >Java ? Virtually the same as C# which is the same as VB.Net without
> >the VB keywords. Nothing gainedm unless you know Java already.
> >Delphi ? Perhaps.. but they are moving towards .Net as well.
> >Back to C or C++ ? I do that sometimes even with VB, since VB can not
> >satisfy everything i want. Sometimes i'll design code in VB then opt
> >to rewrite it in C to get full performance and control.
> >ASM ? Nowdays ? You gotta be kidding.
>
> But /why/ must we move? I don't see the benefits, the ROI.
>
> >Bottom line is, if you don't like what you see, you have to move on,
> >but your choices are not going to make it any easier on you and there
> >is no guarantee whatsoever that in 10 years we won't be having this
> >same conversation, regardles of whichever language you choose..
>
> Why are we /compelled/ to make the choice, why does Microsoft dictate that
we
> must move on?
>
>
> >ps:
> >As i've said, i don't particularly like the idea of losing VB6.
> >Neither do i like the vast .Net model. This isn't "learning new APIs",
> >as you put it, it is a completely new architecture, which makes very
> >little sense to anyone having been stuck in VB for years. Even with my
> >(self assuredly so) good Win32 API knowledge, i can not figure out the
> >logic behind some of the class trees. It is one big pile of mess.
> >But in the end, if VB does become unusable, i don't want to be left
> >with havng to rush and learn a new RAD IDE. So at the moment, slowly
> >in my free time i muck about with what's available, sooner or later
> >i'l figure out both and can make a decision as to which one to stick
> >with, but TBH, at the moment and despite the teething problems,
> >.Net(C# or VB#) is looking better as a whole, than the alternative,
> >being Java.
>
> The forms support in Java I really don't like. I think that once one uses
the
> .NET API enough, one will get used to what you refer to as the "mess". The
> question I want to underscore is, why give Microsoft a free ride when
they've a
> moral responsibility to their customers and they are failing horrendously
in
> that?
>
> Why must one just "accept" that Microsoft has a "right" to dictate to
their
> customers that the product they bought (with no moving parts) is now worn
out
> and must be replaced with a shoddy substitute, OR ELSE!
> _______________________
> Michael B. Johnson


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