Centralised MsgBox
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: crack for VSFlex8 in VB6.0
Next: Component Handles
From: Eduardo on 10 Oct 2009 07:59 Rick Rothstein escribi�: > I remember Parsec... that was one of the better TI (cartridge) games... > well, that along with the Donkey Kong game that Atari put out on their > own cartridge. If you want to relive your Parsec days... > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZgFAgmJkiE That is it. > > There were three of us that made up FFF Software... I was the > programmer, Frank Della Rossa was the graphics man and Flavian > Stellerine was the documentation man. And, of course, we all > collaborated on how the games should play. We created and sold via mail > order (advertised in the 99'er Magazine) the TI-Asteroid and the Shuttle > Command games. Both games required TI Extended Basic. We were working on > what I think would have been a great game, up until TI decided to exit > the personal computer market that is. It must be a good experience.
From: DanS on 10 Oct 2009 09:01 >>> As pointed out, you don't know anything about my knowledge of VB 6. >>> And as has a also been pointed out, I have not advocated VB .NET at >>> all in this thread. That is a *fact*. And for you to continue to >>> dispute it only serves to prove my point that you like to make stuff >>> up to serve your own purpose. >> >> You've got me confused with someone else, as, in this thread, as you >> say, I >> haven't said anything what-so-ever about advocating .Net. >> >> Should I now say something about you making stuff up ? > > Hmmm. You've accussed me of advocating .NET, yet I have not done so > in this discussion. Who's making stuff up? You are, as I *absolutely*, *definitely*, *beyond the shadow of a doubt* haven't accused you of advocating .Net in this thread. >> >>> If you want to have a conversation/debate about VB 6 or VB .NET, I'm >>> happy to particiapte. >> >> Well I don't have enough experience with .Net to make what you would >> consider a valid argument, not about technicalities about it, and I'm >> not afraid to admit that. >> >> I can make generalized arguments, like how come, the changed the >> object model of the Treeview ? It was the same for how long, how many >> years ? And across how many languages and compilers ? > > I have no idea. And, I also have no idea how or why that is relevant > to anything being discussed. It's relevant to *this* post, and to my reply to what you said. >>> If you want to go off on a rant full of made up >>> fantasies, you'll have to be prepared for people to call you out on >>> them. >> >> Fine. Call me out. I stand by my opinions, and statements. When >> proven wrong I am not above admitting it. > > You've said that Call is never required in VB 6., yet it is when using > parenthesis when calling a sub. I've *NEVER* said it was *NEVER* req'd. Coding conventions that I was taught doesn't use Call when using a SUB, you just pass params to it, and that's it. CALL is used when you are calling a function and disregarding the return value. This is done so whomever else needs to reads the code knows that the function being called is a function and does typically return a value. It's done strictly for readability. I don't know about anyone else here, but I've NEVER used CALL and PARENS for a ****SUB**** call. > You've indicated that I've been adamant about promoting VB .NET's > superiority over VB 6's, when I've not said a word about that in this > thread. I have *NOT* said anything of the sort in this thread. Do I need to copy and paste the content of all my posts in this thread to prove to you that I've said nothing of the sort ? Show me. Of course you can't, because it never happened. Including this post, I've made 5 posts in this thread, it shouldn't take long to review them. I just did. Here's something really funny. My first post, a reply to you, like 30 or 40 up the tree..... ----------------------------------------------------- > Karl, you've got way too much time on your hands and I really don't > see the need to feed the trolls any longer. > > -Scott Me----> Did you forget, YOU are the troll here ? ----------------------------------------------------- And your reply...... ----------------------------------------------------- > Did you forget, YOU are the troll here ? Everytime you make a post, you remind me of exactly who's who. -Scott ---------------------------------------------------- Apparently, you *don't* know who is who. > You've made statements about my VB 6 knowledge without knowing > anything about me or my experience, only based on your flawed > understanding of VB 6's Call keyword. Not a flawed understanding. >> I certainly didn't make up fantasies. I calls it as I sees it. >> Whatever you >> thought I said, I don't know. > > See above. It is *you* that is imagining things.[Sarcasm]See above[\Sarcasm]. >> >> Of course, I'm wondering why you even saw this, as announced you kf'd >> me in >> the other thread. > > True, but I found that using the <plonk> list made it difficult to > follow threads, so I removed the names on the list. I find it extremely hard to believe that you had never realized this before.
From: Scott M. on 10 Oct 2009 09:23 "Henning" <computer_hero(a)coldmail.com> wrote in message news:uEabAlUSKHA.5052(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Plz Scott, the people in this group _are_ using VB Classic. So, how on > earth do you think comparing dotnet to classic is of any use? Because many times it helps to see a situation from a different angle to truly understand it. I'm sorry if that's not the case for you, but it is a *FACT* that this approach is valuable in learning environments. Just because you don't see a vaule in it doesn't mean that others don't. >_If_ I, and I dare to say anyone else in this group, were using dotnet, we >surely know where to find the help needed, and it would _not_ be in this >group. That statement would make perfect sense if someone here were offering *help* with .NET, but I haven't and I haven't seen anyone else doing it either. You are confusing (as is Mike, Dan, and Kevin) a mention of .NET for comparison to .NET answers given to VB 6 classic answers, which I have not done. > > In the company I work for, we have the main app written in Borland C++. > One thoughtless programmer wrote some tightly connected addons in, guess > what? Yes VB.Net!! So now we _are_ on the train desperately trying to get > off! The guilty programmer is no longer with us. How can someone be that > stupid? First of all that short little story does not have any information in it that has any bearing on the value of .NET. Writing an add-in for a COM application in .NET is not necessarially a bad idea at all. Now, I don't know the details of your situation (because you didn't provide any), but your statement, taken as is, doesn't have any technical merit whatsoever. That's just like saying "I got an ice cream sunday and it came with nuts on it! How can they be so stupid? Nuts are bad!". > Now you know why _I_ disslike dotnet. No, not really at all. All you've said is that you don't like .NET and provided a situation that has no technical basis for your conclusion. > Beeing a HW guy, writing som helper apps in VB6, I now have to rewrite all > his dotnet apps in, guess what, yes VB6. So we can get rid of the not to > be needed framework. Again, you haven't provided enough info. for anyone to understand why you *need* to rewrite the .NET stuff, but whether you do or don't really *have* to do it doesn't really have anything to do with the point, which is that mentioning .NET as a comparison to VB 6 is a perfectly legitmate way to educate someone about VB 6. > > Dotnet ofcause has its place, but not for everyone. And for me, and other > programmers in this group, it does not make any sense, however hard you > try to push it.. As I've asked Kevin to do (which he couldn't), I'd like you to point out where I've "pushed" .NET in this thread. Once you really come to your senses, you'll see that I haven't at all, which pretty much makes all your ranting at me about that pointless, doesn't it? -Scott
From: Scott M. on 10 Oct 2009 09:42 "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t(a)r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message news:Xns9CA05C3833D7Athisnthatroadrunnern(a)216.196.97.131... >>>> As pointed out, you don't know anything about my knowledge of VB 6. >>>> And as has a also been pointed out, I have not advocated VB .NET at >>>> all in this thread. That is a *fact*. And for you to continue to >>>> dispute it only serves to prove my point that you like to make stuff >>>> up to serve your own purpose. >>> >>> You've got me confused with someone else, as, in this thread, as you >>> say, I >>> haven't said anything what-so-ever about advocating .Net. >>> >>> Should I now say something about you making stuff up ? >> >> Hmmm. You've accussed me of advocating .NET, yet I have not done so >> in this discussion. Who's making stuff up? > > You are, as I *absolutely*, *definitely*, *beyond the shadow of a doubt* > haven't accused you of advocating .Net in this thread. Really? Dan S wrote: "I find it hard to see how you can be so adamant about the superiority of VB.Net versus VBc..." Please show me EXACTLY where I wrote anything of the sort in this thread? > >>> >>>> If you want to have a conversation/debate about VB 6 or VB .NET, I'm >>>> happy to particiapte. >>> >>> Well I don't have enough experience with .Net to make what you would >>> consider a valid argument, not about technicalities about it, and I'm >>> not afraid to admit that. >>> >>> I can make generalized arguments, like how come, the changed the >>> object model of the Treeview ? It was the same for how long, how many >>> years ? And across how many languages and compilers ? >> >> I have no idea. And, I also have no idea how or why that is relevant >> to anything being discussed. > > It's relevant to *this* post, and to my reply to what you said. I still don't get how your introduction of the TreeView object model here has any relevance to anyting here. > > >>>> If you want to go off on a rant full of made up >>>> fantasies, you'll have to be prepared for people to call you out on >>>> them. >>> >>> Fine. Call me out. I stand by my opinions, and statements. When >>> proven wrong I am not above admitting it. >> >> You've said that Call is never required in VB 6., yet it is when using >> parenthesis when calling a sub. > > I've *NEVER* said it was *NEVER* req'd. Really? Dan S wrote: "....I saw you claim is was *required* to use in VBc, when in fact you were wrong....." > > Coding conventions that I was taught doesn't use Call when using a SUB, > you just pass params to it, and that's it. CALL is used when you are > calling a function and disregarding the return value. This is done so > whomever else needs to reads the code knows that the function being > called is a function and does typically return a value. It's done > strictly for readability. > > I don't know about anyone else here, but I've NEVER used CALL and PARENS > for a ****SUB**** call. So? How does the way you like to code translate into you telling me that my statement about Call being sometimes required in VB 6 is wrong? It's not wrong and yes, you flat out (and quite adamantly I might add) said that it was (above). Sorry, but you are wrong. Why is it so hard for you to simply say "Oops, I guess you're right, I just never used it that way." as is really your situation? > >> You've indicated that I've been adamant about promoting VB .NET's >> superiority over VB 6's, when I've not said a word about that in this >> thread. > > I have *NOT* said anything of the sort in this thread. Do I need to copy > and paste the content of all my posts in this thread to prove to you that > I've said nothing of the sort ? > > Show me. Of course you can't, because it never happened. On 10/8/09 8:21PM Dan S wrote: "I find it hard to see how you can be so adamant about the superiority of VB.Net versus VBc..." So, now you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar Dan. Are you going to admit it or just keep on spewing lies? > > Including this post, I've made 5 posts in this thread, it shouldn't take > long to review them. I just did. Clearly your memory is going and your eyes need to be tested Dan. -Scott
From: mayayana on 10 Oct 2009 10:34
> I don't know about anyone else here, but I've NEVER used CALL and PARENS > for a ****SUB**** call. > I never have either. That seems to be one of those cases of tomaytoes/tomahtoes that people are prone to feeling very strongly about. :) |