From: Scott M. on

"Henning" <computer_hero(a)> wrote in message
> "Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> skrev i meddelandet
> news:uqCzryaSKHA.5488(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> "Henning" <computer_hero(a)> 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

>>> 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

> "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.


From: Scott M. on

"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
> "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)
>>>>>> 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
>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

"mayayana" <mayaXXyana(a)> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> 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.
> 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
"Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> wrote in message

> some nonsense

Go away, Scotty. There's a good troll.


From: Mike Williams on
"Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> wrote in message

> 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.