Centralised MsgBox
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: crack for VSFlex8 in VB6.0
Next: Component Handles
From: Scott M. on 10 Oct 2009 11:38 "Henning" <computer_hero(a)coldmail.com> wrote in message news:%236bqJkbSKHA.4504(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > "Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> skrev i meddelandet > news:uqCzryaSKHA.5488(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> >> "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!". > > If the Nuts weight in on over 100 times the cream, then Nuts are bad! And > not asked for! Now you are adding "if's". I said, "your statement, taken at face value". Your statement doesn't supply any reasonable information to be appicable at all. > >> >>> 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. > > See above. Yes, please do. > >> >>> 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. Ok, so your company decided that for this project, they didn't want to have to deal with a Framework dependency. Does that mean that the use of .NET is a "stupid" idea? Does it mean that the programmer who wrote the code was wrong? Hardly, it just means that someone at your company made a decision about what architecture they wanted to go forward with. Your characterizations of .NET, based on this are hardly warranted. > > How can a comparsion to dotnet educate someone about VB6?? I know I'll get flammed over simply answering your question, but here goes: One of the most common areas where .NET is compared to VB 6 to help users of both environments understand how to more effectively write code is in comparing how memory is managed in the two architectures (COM vs. Managed). For someone trying to understand how object dereferencing causes immediate object finalization, one could provide something to compare that concept to. Are you really going to tell me that you've never compared two situations to get a better understanding of one of them? What you seem to not understand is that NG's are full of people who have different levels of knowledge about a topic. Newbies have a hard time just getting their head around the idea of object termination and cleanup, so providing a comparsion very often helps to solidify the concept. You may personally disagree, but that doesn't make you right. In fact, if you knew anyting about education and teaching methods, you'd konw this to be a proven learning method. > >> >>> >>> 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? Because the accusation was that I made these kinds of comments in this thread. > "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." And your point? I stand by that statement. It was made within the context of a completely different discussion and in THAT context, I believe it to be an appropriate statement. > >> >> -Scott >> > > Isn't Usenet wonderful, what is once written, never goes away. I wonder what the basis for this statement is. You sound like a lawyer who feels they've just presented some kind of irrefutable evidence. I just told you that I stand by that comment in the context of the thread it was written in. Why would I want it to go away? What is your point here? You've proven nothing here, other than you like to argue for the sake of arguing. You've shown that you are happy to remain ignorant of the world that is spinning around you and that you'd rather stick your head in the sand that possibly hear someone mention anything you don't like. -Scott
From: Scott M. on 10 Oct 2009 11:57 "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:Xns9CA0727825AFthisnthatroadrunnern(a)216.196.97.131... > "Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> wrote in > news:Odsq98aSKHA.1796(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > >> >> "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..." > > 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. Wow Dan. Next you'll be trying to say that it all matters on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Saying that I'm "adamant about the superiority of .NET" means the same thing as saying I'm advocating it. Get real! Now, you are just trying to backpeddle. Interestingly, lower in this thread you swore up and down that again that you *NEVER* wrote EXACTLY what I just quoted you as saying and you didn't care to respond to me supplying you with that information. > > Right or wrong, my opinion, just as you have formed of me, so, what are > you going to do ? Keep on pointing out when you are wrong. > > My opinion is that your a pompous a**, that only comes here to stir up > trouble. If you had the ability to read and comprehend and went back and read my posts in this NG, you would clearly see that I have NEVER been the first one to cause ANY kind of conflict. There are about 4 regulars here that jump on my comments and start insulting me at any opportunity for providing factucal information that they don't like. Now, to do that is the behavior of, not only a troll, but really a sad excuse for a human. Ask yourself when have I called you a derogitory name without provocation? > > 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 What is your point here? Would you please provide the correct number of posts someone must make here in order for you to feel they have worth? And, ask yourself if any of us really are supposed to be trying to prove anything to you? Who the hell do you think you are? I will provide help, where I see fit, when I see fit, and in the form I see fit. You are absolutely nothing in that decsion making process. > > 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. Hmmm. Let's see what's out of context and WHO's convieniently forgotten to respond to the following exhcange: Scott M said: > 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. Dan S. responded: > 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. Scott M. responded with what Dan S wrote on 10/8/09 at 8:21PM (in THIS thread): >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. These are the facts Dan. This is the EXACT text of that exchange. Yet, you mysteriously snipped that portion of my reply and didn't mention it. How hard is it for you to admit you are wrong?! > > All this is neither here nor there, as I'm done with this thread. But, I'm sure you'll be back.
From: Scott M. on 10 Oct 2009 11:59 "mayayana" <mayaXXyana(a)rcXXn.com> wrote in message news:eKrkzzbSKHA.1268(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > >> > >> >> 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. >> > > ....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. :) > I don't really understand any of what you wrote here.
From: Mike Williams on 10 Oct 2009 12:25 "Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:eIlnENcSKHA.4004(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > some nonsense Go away, Scotty. There's a good troll. Mike
From: Mike Williams on 10 Oct 2009 12:58
"Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> wrote in message news:eeOkQ%23bSKHA.4004(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > NG's are full of people who have different levels of knowledge > about a topic. Newbies have a hard time just getting their head > around the idea of object termination and cleanup, so providing > a comparsion very often helps to solidify the concept. So why don't you infest the VB.Net newsgroup with your unwanted comparisons, telling them how the behaviour of various other products compares to what they are doing? Why do you mainly restrict yourself to doing it here on the Classic VB group? I've just been through your posts here for the last three months and you have lots and lots of them, but you hardly ever answer any real programming questions. So what exactly is your purpose here, Scotty? Now be a good troll and go play somewhere else. Mike |