From: Bill McCarthy on
Hi Tom,

"Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)> wrote in message
>> Lambdas in VB9 are limited to those that can be translated into
>> expression
>> trees. I wouldn't call them crippled as you can still use them for state
>> machines and use delegates.
> Do this in VB.NET:
> var list = new List<int>() {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
> list.ForEach ( i => Console.WriteLine (i) );

True that this is easier in VB 10, where you can write:
list.ForEach ( Sub( i ) Console.WriteLine (i) )

But even prior to LINQ, you could simply do a For Each loop ;)

For Each i in list
Console.WriteLine (i)

But I think this is really just a simplified example. I'd say the big issue
prior to VB10 is multi statement lambdas. Thankfully that's been added.

>> Iterators are handy on the few occasions you need them, but the vast
>> majority of C# code I've seen using custom iterators doesn't actually
>> need
>> them, and typically suffers inefficiencies. On the few occasions you do
>> need them, having a good template is really all it takes.
> I would have agreed with you before 2008. The problem is I find my self
> using them much more now that we have linq. IEnumerable has gotten a
> large
> promotion.

I find I'm using them a lot more, but that they are already defined in
generic templates, or easily gotten from other LINQ expressions.

From: Henning on

"Bill McCarthy" <bill(a)> skrev i meddelandet
> "Henning" <computer_hero(a)> wrote in message
> news:O2sIYYTTKHA.5052(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>The fact is that regardless of the value of the reference, there are a
>>>loud, select few that just will not tolerate any mention of anything
>>>other than VB 6 here and the justifaction for it isn't based on anything
>>>rational, it's just based on their dislike of .NET.
>> It is also a fact that *only* dotnet preachers visit the VB classic
>> group!
> LOL. Reality is, facts are, people like Williams, Mayayana and Provance
> who claim they never use .NET regularly troll the dotnet specific forums.
> And reality is Peterson quite often use to brag how he would troll the
> Delphi forums.
> And what you still fail to understand is that many of the people who use
> VB .NET also used and still use VB6. From time to time I find myself
> working with VB6 applications that would work so much better if only the
> people writing them had stopped and looked at VB.NET: that is if only they
> had considered bringing their code forward. It's funny how those that
> complain the most about the lack of compatibility between VB6 and VB .NET
> here are also those that actively go out of their way to make that more
> damaging.

Hi Bill,

I can only speak from my own experience, and belive it or not, but I'm from
time to time visiting the dotnet groups, to see what kind of Q's are posted
;) But, dotnet isn't for everyone, no matter how good you and other users
say it is.

As for my case, we (the company I work for) have an app residing on a VIA
EPIA mini-ITX card. That is the bottom reason for my earlier statement that
I dislike dotnet.

This doesn't mean that I'm against dotnet itself, but the guy that wrote
addons to our C++ app in VB dotnet didn't make me a fan. We just can't
afford to let dotnet in to our resource-restricted hw. I also started to
test if we can run XPEmbedded, since XP is no longer available.

Maybe you can explain to me what Scott is talking about when comparing VB6
to dotnet would make me a better VB6 coder.


From: Eduardo on
Scott M. escribi�:

>> The following code is from ALPHABET.BAS, dated 04/08/1982, which shipped
>> with IBM PC BASIC v1.00 -- take a look at lines 90, 110, etc:
> Great! What's your point in showing it here?

90 L=1
100 FOR J=1 TO 13
110 E=0

The point was that in older BASIC (even older than this sample), Let was
required for variable assignment, it should have been:

90 Let L=1
100 FOR J=1 TO 13
110 Let E=0

VB6 still supports that (test it):

Dim A As String

Let A = "AA"
Debug.Print A

It's not required at all, but still supported.
And the point was that in 1982 BASIC's, it was already optional.

The Property Let Statement is another matter. There Let is required, but
it wasn't what they were talking about.
From: Karl E. Peterson on
Eduardo wrote:
> And the point was that in 1982 BASIC's, it was already optional.

That was all it was intended to demonstrate, yeah.

> The Property Let Statement is another matter. There Let is required, but
> it wasn't what they were talking about.

Exactly. Totally misunderstood what was being asked.
..NET: It's About Trust!

From: Wolfgang Enzinger on
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:05:27 -0400, Scott M. wrote:

>I am happy to let the community
>read my posts and yours and decide for themselves who is acting like a


The troll is clearly you.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Prev: crack for VSFlex8 in VB6.0
Next: Component Handles