Centralised MsgBox
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: crack for VSFlex8 in VB6.0
Next: Component Handles
From: Scott M. on 10 Oct 2009 13:08 "Mike Williams" <Mike(a)WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in message news:O8$mercSKHA.4048(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > "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 If anyting Mike, we know you can't read, so I'm not at all surprised that you couldn't find any of the numerous posts I've made in many of the .NET groups. -Scott
From: Henning on 10 Oct 2009 13:23 "Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> skrev i meddelandet news:eeOkQ%23bSKHA.4004(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > "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. So now we are down to marking words? Since (as you know from an earlier post about the time) I'm not a natural english spoken, it's easy to choose the wrong word, even though the translation to my language are easily understod. Change the *If* to when, if you can't read it the right way. That I hope would let even you understand the sentence. > >> >>> >>>> 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. And again, 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. > Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes in this case. >> >> 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? So you insist that knowing this and that about dotnet, will really make me a better VB6 programmer? For me it would only add to confusion, like damn that doesn't work in VB6. > > 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. What I do understand is that beeing one of those people, getting a reply that doesn't apply to VB6, would be better never posted. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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 > ?? *I*, just like you, only presented a fact. Ohh, sorry then, I thought that was what your'e seeking, someone that will not call you a troll, to argue with. /Henning
From: Scott M. on 10 Oct 2009 13:31 What I think we're boiled down to here is that I know for a fact that a valuable learning tool is to provide comparisons to the concept being taught and you personally disagree. Since my position is a proven learning technique and your position is your personal opinion, I respect it, but disagree with it. As such, you really haven't convinced me of anything, other than you don't like .NET. -Scott
From: Rick Rothstein on 10 Oct 2009 14:13 -- Rick (MVP - Excel) "Eduardo" <mm(a)mm.com> wrote in message news:hapstn$qr3$1(a)aioe.org... > 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. It was a great experience from a couple of standpoints. First, it helped me to learn TI-Basic. My approach to learning how to program back then (remember, this was my first computer and, with it, my introduction to programming) was to select a complex concept and attempt to implement it in a program. I knew nothing... just what I read in the programming manual and trying out the examples for each command. This approach worked out well because I made a LOT of mistakes and saw LOTS of error messages and crashes. Trying to figure out why so that I could correct the problem taught me way more than any class or tutorial ever would have. My first program ever was submitted as an entry to a user group contest that was being run at the time. The program processed so much data that it required a floppy disk drive to run. Floppy disks drives back then were EXPENSIVE and so most TI owners did not have one (I got mine for free from TI... why is an interesting story if you are interested). Anyway, this was my first *real* program and the people running the contest liked it so much they created a special category for it (basically, a "programs requiring a disk drive" category) and awarded me first prize in it. The prize was a free TI-Extended Basic module (about a $100 item if memory serves me correctly). So, that contest result showed me that I had a small talent for programming and definitely encouraged me to continue Second, it was reasonably profitable. The TI-Asteroids and Shuttle Command programs sold for a little more than 2 years as I recall and netted *each* of us around $3000 clear (remember, this was in early 1980's dollars, so it was a fair amount of money back then, especially for a part-time hobby). In addition, I sold six articles to COMPUTE! magazine for the TI-99/4A computer (COMPUTE! was one of the leading computer magazines of the day back then). They published two of them in their magazine and all six across several of the TI books that they also published. Now, most of the articles sold for $200 to $250, but the two that were published in the magazine netted me $650 for one and $450 for the other (again, remember, all of this money was in 1980 dollars). If you are interested, here are two links to the two magazine articles... Mosaic Puzzle ================== http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue41/MOSAIC_PUZZLE.php Jackpot ================== http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue51/202_1_JACKPOT.php The Mosaic Puzzle was purchase was interesting. This was my first submission to a magazine... I sent it in not knowing what to expect. Well, I got a phone call from COMPUTE! magazine... as luck would have it, they were putting an article in their upcoming issue about the "Number 15 Puzzle" (number block sliding game which my program was a simulation of) and they wanted to know if I accept their offer of $650 and, if so, told me of the need to return the signed contract as soon as possible as the issue's publication date was not too far away. They wanted to know if I would accept $650 for the article? I nearly fainted when I heard that amount... I figured I would be lucky to sell it to them for $50. My actual article text was published as an insert (mainly because I came late to the party), so you will have to scroll down to find it. If you compare my (TI) display to the other computer displays (COMPUTE! always translated the programs they published into several computer BASIC dialects backl then), I think you will see why they were excited to buy my version of the game. -- Rick (MVP - Excel)
From: Henning on 10 Oct 2009 14:25
Swoooshh, there all backreferences dissapeared. Is that meaning we should start a new thread from now on? "Scott M." <s-mar(a)nospam.nospam> skrev i meddelandet news:%23ZSUW9cSKHA.1792(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > What I think we're boiled down to here is that I know for a fact that a > valuable learning tool is to provide comparisons to the concept being > taught and you personally disagree. I still don't see how someone (you) educating about apples will make me an expert on oranges? > > Since my position is a proven learning technique and your position is your > personal opinion, I respect it, but disagree with it. Educating apple specialists by teaching about oranges? Don't think that is a proven learning technique. How doe's one solve when two are disagreeing? Call in some 3:rd party opinion(s)? > > As such, you really haven't convinced me of anything, other than you don't > like .NET. > > -Scott And for me you only convinced me that you really should stay in the safety of dotnet groups. At least I, have learnt nothing new about VB6 in this thread ;) /Henning |