From: Scott M. on 10 Oct 2009 10:49
"mayayana" <mayaXXyana(a)rcXXn.com> wrote in message
>> 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. :)
Not really. The question wasn't if a particular person uses it or not. The
question was whtether it was ever required. For Dan to change his position
over to his personal use of Call, is just his way of shifting the
conversation to substantiate the point he couldn't substantiate when he was
staying on topic.
From: Henning on 10 Oct 2009 10:50
"Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> skrev i meddelandet
> "Henning" <computer_hero(a)coldmail.com> wrote in message
>> 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
> 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
> 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!".
If the Nuts weight in on over 100 times the cream, then Nuts are bad! And
not asked for!
>> 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.
The rewrite is to get rid of the unnecesary framework dependency.
How can a comparsion to dotnet educate someone about VB6??
>> 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?
Why limit it to just this tread?
"Haven't at all"? Forgot the: ".NET development has been highly successful
since its inception and is considered to be leaps and bounds (by orders of
magnitude) better than VB 6."
Isn't Usenet wonderful, what is once written, never goes away.
From: DanS on 10 Oct 2009 11:12
"Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> wrote in
> "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
>>>>> 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..."
That doesn't say anything about you advocating .Net in this
thread.....let me post the entire statement.....
"I find it hard to see how you can be so adamant about the superiority of
VB.Net versus VBc when clearly you have little knowledge of VBc."
That says nothing of any advocation. That tells you what opinion I have
formed of you based on several of the side-threads that had developed in
these two very long and pointless threads. That's it.
Right or wrong, my opinion, just as you have formed of me, so, what are
you going to do ?
My opinion is that your a pompous a**, that only comes here to stir up
Which is defined as one trait of a troll. I mean, come on, why are you
here, to answer VBc questions ? Have you ? Really ? More to the
point......Can you ?....
.....Oh wait...I see *1* here.....Subject: Re: MSXML2
And then you post out-of-context quotes, trying to pass them off as proof
of some ill-formed interpretation that you have of statements I have
made....more standard troll behavior.
All this is neither here nor there, as I'm done with this thread.
From: mayayana on 10 Oct 2009 11:20
> >> I don't know about anyone else here, but I've NEVER used CALL and
> >> 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. :)
> Not really. The question wasn't if a particular person uses it or not.
> question was whtether it was ever required. For Dan to change his
> over to his personal use of Call, is just his way of shifting the
> conversation to substantiate the point he couldn't substantiate when he
> staying on topic.
....And anyone who disagrees with me
is WRONG and shouldn't be allowed to
eat potahtoes. :)
> 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.
Oh, boy, you can say that again! When I
look at my potahto from the other side it
reminds me of a tomahto. If I look at it
from the bottom, through a glass table, it
reminds me of a full yard waste bag. Is that
what you meant?
PS: IMHO and all that good stuff. :)
From: Mike Williams on 10 Oct 2009 11:24
"Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> Please show me EXACTLY where I wrote anything
> of the sort in this thread?
Please show me EXACTLY where you wrote anything useful in this group, apart
from an occasional little trifle. You are here as a troll, Scotty, part of
the three headed Clark/Scott/McCarthy troll. The more we feed it, the more
it enjoys its feast. Now be a good little troll and go play somewhere else.