Prev: Retrieving ProductID via MSI.dll
Next: Help on Dinstinct - Linq
From: jerryys on 13 Jan 2010 02:41
thank you tom. references were helpful.

jerryys


"Tom Shelton" wrote:

> On Jan 12, 6:46 am, Tom Shelton <tom_shel...(a)comcastXXXXXXX.net>
> wrote:
> > On 2010-01-12, jerryys <jerr...(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > > cannot find equivalent control for winsock in vb2005. can someone please
> > > explain
> > > why and additionally provide a small sample to get me going.
> >
> > > thanks
> >
> > > jerryys
> >
> > System.Net.TcpClient - I believe there are examples in the documentation.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Shelton
>
> Oh... And System.Net.TcpListener for the server side.
>
> You can also use the System.Net.Socket implementations as well. You
> can find some good examples on msdn. I actually prefer to use the
> Socket class - but, for simple stuff TcpClient/TcpListener are fine.
>
> --
> Tom Shelton
> .
>
From: Tom Shelton on 13 Jan 2010 12:21
On 2010-01-13, jerryys <jerryys(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

<snip>

> by the way, why in the world would a supposedly avanced language, vb2005 not
> contain an easy to use compact winsock control as vb6. it seems vb2005 does
> little when it comes to ease of use for communication pgms. i would have
> expected a superior network control. and actually, in the 1960's cobol
> communication pgms were referred to as network database apps.

LOL... I'm sorry. But, to compare the winsock control to what's availabe in
..NET is kind of funny. The networking capablities introduced in System.Net
and System.Net.* are far superior to anything VB6 had to offer - short of
using the API and buying 3rd party controls.

The Winsock control in VB6 was only sufficient for very low load, simple
client/server applications.

If you talking about event handling - then, no problem. You simply use the
async methods of the TcpClient/TcpListener/Socket class. They will call back
to you when they have completed the task.

--
Tom Shelton
From: jerryys on 14 Jan 2010 03:04
where in the world do you see me comparing both languages? what i point out
is the
regression to more basic levels of communication programming tools. quite
frankly
i dont know why vb2005 developers simply did not just force vb users to use
the
classes in C++. vb2005 is billed as an superior language to vb6 -- it is, so
i think they
could of moved into the future , not backwards. please read more carefully
next time before lol.

jerryys

"Tom Shelton" wrote:
,> On 2010-01-13, jerryys <jerryys(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > by the way, why in the world would a supposedly avanced language, vb2005 not
> > contain an easy to use compact winsock control as vb6. it seems vb2005 does
> > little when it comes to ease of use for communication pgms. i would have
> > expected a superior network control. and actually, in the 1960's cobol
> > communication pgms were referred to as network database apps.
>
> LOL... I'm sorry. But, to compare the winsock control to what's availabe in
> ..NET is kind of funny. The networking capablities introduced in System.Net
> and System.Net.* are far superior to anything VB6 had to offer - short of
> using the API and buying 3rd party controls.
>
> The Winsock control in VB6 was only sufficient for very low load, simple
> client/server applications.
>
> If you talking about event handling - then, no problem. You simply use the
> async methods of the TcpClient/TcpListener/Socket class. They will call back
> to you when they have completed the task.
>
> --
> Tom Shelton
> .
>
From: Tom Shelton on 14 Jan 2010 13:27
On 2010-01-14, jerryys <jerryys(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> where in the world do you see me comparing both languages?

LOL.. I never said you compared the languages, I said you compared the sorry
winsock control to the networking cababilities offered in .NET.

I wasn't trying to be rude - but having done lots of network programming in
both languages, I can tell you there is no "regression" that you speak of
below.

> what i point out
> is the
> regression to more basic levels of communication programming tools.

Only someone unfamilar with the availabe classes would say that. If you need
simple, you have TcpClient/TcpListener (or UdpClient if you need to do udp).
These do both blocking and non-blocking io. All of the async options provide
for callback notification. Is the fact that they don't provide "Events"
what's making you say this?

If it will make you feel better - spend a couple of hours and write a winsock
control replacement. It's not that hard.

> quite
> frankly
> i dont know why vb2005 developers simply did not just force vb users to use
> the
> classes in C++. vb2005 is billed as an superior language to vb6 -- it is, so
> i think they
> could of moved into the future , not backwards. please read more carefully
> next time before lol.
>

LOL.. I'm not even sure I know what your saying here.

--
Tom Shelton
From: jerryys on 15 Jan 2010 01:16
i dont believe i compare winsock in my statement. i do make an observation
about how microsoft decided to implement winsock facilities in .net. a true
comparison must conclude with which items compared are better, or the same. i
believe the more modern languages should not become more complex to use.
further in programming languages, the further down one regresses the more
power and flexibility one gains. this goes without saying. the problem is it
is more difficult to deal with lower level languages and many more statements
are required to perform a 1 line command in a higher level language. see code
for windows assembler language, which all languages ultimately get regressed
to in order to execute. surely you realize when vb6 was replaced by the .net
versions most vb6 programmers complained that a downward compatibility to vb6
was not possible. few said that .net was not more powerful, at least for
programming. it is intriguing to me that you refer to vb6 winsock control as
'sorry'. when vb6 was first introduced there was not really any difference
in microsoft's marketing statements for the product and it's power when
compared to statements made about .net versions. and i assume you thought
winsock was great then. in conclusion vb is a cute language for non
programmers to do basic home projects. programmers should stick to c++ or
lower level languages when developing for non main frame serious
applications.


jerryys


"Tom Shelton" wrote:

> On 2010-01-14, jerryys <jerryys(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > where in the world do you see me comparing both languages?
>
> LOL.. I never said you compared the languages, I said you compared the sorry
> winsock control to the networking cababilities offered in .NET.
>
> I wasn't trying to be rude - but having done lots of network programming in
> both languages, I can tell you there is no "regression" that you speak of
> below.
>
> > what i point out
> > is the
> > regression to more basic levels of communication programming tools.
>
> Only someone unfamilar with the availabe classes would say that. If you need
> simple, you have TcpClient/TcpListener (or UdpClient if you need to do udp).
> These do both blocking and non-blocking io. All of the async options provide
> for callback notification. Is the fact that they don't provide "Events"
> what's making you say this?
>
> If it will make you feel better - spend a couple of hours and write a winsock
> control replacement. It's not that hard.
>
> > quite
> > frankly
> > i dont know why vb2005 developers simply did not just force vb users to use
> > the
> > classes in C++. vb2005 is billed as an superior language to vb6 -- it is, so
> > i think they
> > could of moved into the future , not backwards. please read more carefully
> > next time before lol.
> >
>
> LOL.. I'm not even sure I know what your saying here.
>
> --
> Tom Shelton
> .
>
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Retrieving ProductID via MSI.dll
Next: Help on Dinstinct - Linq