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: Dee Earley on 3 Aug 2010 10:02 On 03/08/2010 12:10, Mike Williams wrote: > "Dee Earley" <dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk> wrote in message > news:i38lm9$l44$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > >> If you really want them as a single code file, you can largely >> copy the MyForm.Designer.vb contents into [some dotnet trash] > > Another one posting dotnet stuff on the Classic VB group. Sheesh! Feel free to point the OP to a vb.net usenet group. The question came under Miscellaneous VB so I answered it. -- Dee Earley (dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk) i-Catcher Development Team iCode Systems (Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the group.)
From: Tom Shelton on 3 Aug 2010 10:47 ralph brought next idea : > On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 01:55:29 -0600, Tom Shelton > <tom_shelton(a)comcast.invalid> wrote: >> >>> would have been written long before the dotnet imposter was >>> first released and whoever wrote that charter had no idea that Micro$oft >>> would one day release an imposter based on a totally different programming >>> paradigm and that they would dishonestly continue to apply the name Visual >>> Basic to it. >> >> You mean like the differences between VBDOS and VBWin. Or the changes >> between vb3 and vb4 - you know, a total change in paradigm. Going from >> non-com to COM. Dos to windows? The introduction of classes, etc? >> Your going to have to do better then that, Mike. >> > > For the record: > The "Visual Basic Windows Development" (VB) product pre-dates "Visual > Basic for MSDos" (VBDos). Due the incredible success of VB Microsoft > slapped the name "Visual Basic" on the release of an improved QBasic > product (slightly better looking character screen/form generator). > There was little compatibility between the two languages. All the same > features could be found in later PDS Basic versions but MS dropped the > "Visual" from the name. > Yes, I realize that... VBDos only had one version - never used it. I suppose that was a bad example... > There wasn't that much of a "paradigm shift" between VB3 and VB4. The > both were built on the same 'Ruby' forms engine, and Forms (as well as > some other items) as separate objects pre-dates even VB3. > LOL... VB4 changed control formats, string formats, introduced object oriented concepts such user defined classes, etc. Introduced 32-bit and shifted to COM. > The big change from VB3 to VB4 was changing object messaging based on > DDE to OLE1/2*, and of course 16-bit to 32-bit. It is common to > confuse this change with "non-COM" to "COM", but internally the > mechanism were quite similar and actually much of what is now OLE2 (or > implementation behind COM) was born in VB. It is no accident that many > OLE datatypes are identical to VB datatypes, for example. > OLE was pre-com. I know. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Platform shifted, features were introduced, some things broke. That's the point. > VB was capable of working objects such as 'classes' and 'controls' > since VB1.1, it just couldn't create them. > Exactly.... The paradigm started to shift towards more object oriented development. >>> >> >> >> LOL... Mike you know next to nothing about VB beyond version 6. ... >> > > And you know next to nothing about VB or COM *before* version 6. > > So why not just call it a draw and be done with it? <g> > You might want to check my history before saying that. -- Tom Shelton
From: Tom Shelton on 3 Aug 2010 10:49 Dee Earley expressed precisely : > On 03/08/2010 04:58, Tom Shelton wrote: >> After serious thinking Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote : >>> Aside from zipping up the entire tree, does anyone know of a way in >>> VB2008 to have it store all the information about a form in one file, >>> so as to simplify sharing small projects? >> >> 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. >> >> For instance, if for a form named MyForm will typically be broken down >> into the followin 3 files >> >> MyForm.vb >> MyForm.Designer.vb >> MyForm.resx >> >> The MyForm.vb contains user code, where as MyForm.Designer.vb contains >> the code generated by the windows forms designer. The resx file is your >> resources (this is some what akin to the .frx file from VB.CLASSIC). > > If you really want them as a single code file, you can largely copy the > MyForm.Designer.vb contents into the MyForm.vb file (Namespace/class headers > may need adjusting at the join) > > I'm not sure how happy the designer will be with this though. Actually, that does work. Old versions of vs did not split the files, so the designer still works with them that way. It's just messy. -- Tom Shelton
From: Tom Shelton on 3 Aug 2010 10:50 Dee Earley wrote on 8/3/2010 : > On 03/08/2010 12:10, Mike Williams wrote: >> "Dee Earley" <dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:i38lm9$l44$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> >>> If you really want them as a single code file, you can largely >>> copy the MyForm.Designer.vb contents into [some dotnet trash] >> >> Another one posting dotnet stuff on the Classic VB group. Sheesh! > > Feel free to point the OP to a vb.net usenet group. > The question came under Miscellaneous VB so I answered it. Exactly my point. -- Tom Shelton
From: Tom Shelton on 3 Aug 2010 11:10
Mike Williams formulated the question : > "Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcast.invalid> wrote in message > news:i38i1s$fr0$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >> You mean like the differences between VBDOS and VBWin. >> Or the changes between vb3 and vb4 - you know, a total >> change in paradigm. > > That's not the same thing, and you know it. As far as actual VB3 code is > concerned, the similarity between VB3 and VB4 far outweighs the differences. > The change from 16 bit to 32 bit (and other stuff) when VB4 was released was > dealt with properly by Micro$oft. VB4 was an honest and worthwhile upgrade > that added a lot of new stuff without taking much away, and Micro$oft ensured > that the people who owned VB3 could in almost all cases easily move their > code from one version to the other, and they specifically created VB4 in such > a way that it would deal with both 16 bit and 32 bit. VB4 was clearly a > genuine and honest upgrade of VB3. It was still the real Visual Basic. > > That is not the case with the dotnet imposter, which is something completely > different and which has been dishonestly given the name VB and has been > dishonestly peppered with VB sounding constructs purely for marketing > purposes. Micro$oft are aware of this, and it seems that only you and the > other dotnet evangelists are not, as is evidenced by the fact that Micro$oft > did NOT see the need to create a new newsgroup on their own servers and to > run a VB3 group and a separate VB4 group in parallel, whereas they DID create > a new and different newsgroup for their new and different dotnet imposter, > and they have ran both the Classic VB group and the imposter's new and > different newsgroup in parallel on their own servers. That is a fact. > >> LOL... Mike you know next to nothing about >> VB beyond version 6. > > There is no VB beyond version 6. Forget the Micro$oft lies, Tom. Wake up, and > smell the coffee. > And I'll say it once again... Visual Basic is a proprietary platform whose sysntax is soley owned by a single mega-corp. Because it is proprietary, on Microsoft gets to decide what is or is not Visual Basic - not you. Period. You may not like the changes that were made - I even agree that some were bad and that MS made the migration more difficult then it needed to be - but like it or not Mike, it's still VB. > Having said that, I am not knocking the dotnet imposter in the way that you > seem to think I am doing. If people want to use that kind of product, and > apparently many people do (especially since Micro$oft have been pushing it > down our throats to the extent that they have for years been giving perfectly > workable versions of it away for free!) then that is up to them. That's fine > with me. It is just not a product for me personally, and I have no desire to > use it. The only real problem I have with the imposter is that I do not like > being lied to, and I shall continue to tell people who mistakenly come here > for answers to their dotnet questions about the Micro$oft lies that have > brought them here. Your free to do that... And if I'm around and I feel like it - I'm going to answer their questions - since this is a VB group. -- Tom Shelton |