Vulcan .Net and VO 2.8
in [Visual Objects]
|
From: Marc Verkade [Marti IT] on 21 Sep 2006 18:37 I was thinking of an pineapple <g> "Geoff Schaller" <geoff(a)xxxsoftwareobjectives.com.au> schreef in bericht news:45130dc3$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >> similarities happened to have trees of both of them. Name me one piece > of >> fruit that comes closes to an apple than a pear. > > A nashi of course. > > http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/pome-fruits/okusanki.htm > > It's a big industry here and very popular with the Japanese. >
From: Patrick Vletter (Prive) on 21 Sep 2006 18:39 Geoff, One thing an old boss of mine once told is this: "it is not important what you think you trying to say in a conversation, but it is important what the other end of the conversation thinks you are trying to say. The only way a debate can procede in a good and meaningfull way is if all parties pay constant attention to that wisdom. If either one of the parties involved does not adhere to this rule than the debate will just be a serie of useless statements..." Let's see how "our" new thread works out... Patrick "Geoff Schaller" <geoff(a)xxxsoftwareobjectives.com.au> wrote in message news:45130aac$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > Patrick, > > Well, we'll have to agree to disagree but if you guys really think that > way then you need to take a valium and have good lie down. You are taking > things way too seriously and way too personally. > > Geoff >
From: Patrick Vletter (Prive) on 21 Sep 2006 18:44 Geoff, How do you plan to keep on capitalizing on your VO-code for the years to come if you do not upgrade to 2.8? Sounds like a paradox to me... Patrick "Geoff Schaller" <geoff(a)xxxsoftwareobjectives.com.au> wrote in message news:45130ef7$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > Marc, > > Correct. Again the disappointing thing is how little new stuff is in 2.8 > and little of the GUI classes are properly fixed. ...and how much of the > promised things aren't there. A new editor is really just a fix for the > old one (and an acknowledgment it couldn't be fixed) but for all that, it > worked. Given our slow migration away from VO to C# I don't know yet > whether it will be worth the upgrade money. I guess we will wait for > reviews in here and certainly the first patch. There is always a patch - > in fact there are always several <g>. Had there been more new stuff and > more of the requested fixes my attitude might have been different. > > Geoff > > > "Marc Verkade [Marti IT]" <marcatM(a)rtidotnl> wrote in message > news:45128fe0$0$69153$58c7af7e(a)news.kabelfoon.nl: > >> Yes, >> But an expectation was raised! >> Grtz, Marc >
From: Mullet on 21 Sep 2006 18:52 Are there some up and coming changes to the Window API that we are all missing? Will these theoretical API changes be supported by 2.8 and not 2.7? Explain how 2.8 is required for Geoff support legacy code. "Patrick Vletter (Prive)" <NoWay(a)spam.org> wrote in message news:451315b8$0$10954$e4fe514c(a)dreader30.news.xs4all.nl... > Geoff, > > How do you plan to keep on capitalizing on your VO-code for the years to > come if you do not upgrade to 2.8? > Sounds like a paradox to me... > > Patrick > > "Geoff Schaller" <geoff(a)xxxsoftwareobjectives.com.au> wrote in message > news:45130ef7$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >> Marc, >> >> Correct. Again the disappointing thing is how little new stuff is in 2.8 >> and little of the GUI classes are properly fixed. ...and how much of the >> promised things aren't there. A new editor is really just a fix for the >> old one (and an acknowledgment it couldn't be fixed) but for all that, it >> worked. Given our slow migration away from VO to C# I don't know yet >> whether it will be worth the upgrade money. I guess we will wait for >> reviews in here and certainly the first patch. There is always a patch - >> in fact there are always several <g>. Had there been more new stuff and >> more of the requested fixes my attitude might have been different. >> >> Geoff >> >> >> "Marc Verkade [Marti IT]" <marcatM(a)rtidotnl> wrote in message >> news:45128fe0$0$69153$58c7af7e(a)news.kabelfoon.nl: >> >>> Yes, >>> But an expectation was raised! >>> Grtz, Marc >> > >
From: Alex Leskiw on 21 Sep 2006 18:50
It will be simple if/when Microsoft finishes what it started with CodeDom CSharpCodeProvider provider = new CSharpCodeProvider(); ICodeParser parser = provider.CreateParser(); // but this returns null StreamReader rdr = new StreamReader("test.cs"); CodeCompileUnit codeUnit = parser.Parse(rdr); The CodeCompileUnit is then used to generate code in the desired .NET language using the target language's CodeDomProvider.GenerateCodeFromCompileUnit I wonder when that will be? .NET 3? .NET 4? .NEVER? -- Regards, Alex Leskiw "Karl Faller" <k.faller_withoutthat_(a)onlinehome.de> wrote in message news:tao2h2lngo8jb63qoq5ls2455dl1tcps1q(a)4ax.com... > Geoff, >>Really? Are you offering? > No i don't. If you would have read what i wrote, you could have > realised that i have doubts converting code from any .net lang to > another being so "simple" as Heiko told. > Karl |