Re: Changes in 2005.

My 2 cents. Firstly thanks for all your input into this thread -it's been
interesting.

On the subject of VB6 to .net, this was the first step that MS took imo
(with regards to IDE / Compiler) to forcefully lead us to change. Whilst I
love .net (in particular C#) I do feel this is a worrying trend with MS.
There is no reason at all why the nextgen IDE should not be able to support
a previous codebase without changes to it (runtime or not). Whilst the
instructional feedback in VS2005 is very good as far as showing what changes
you should make, this should not be necessary.

If I wanted to use the new IDE functionality, but target for 1.1 then I
should be able to. If there are certain IDE functions that would not (or
should not) be compatible with this framework then they could be disabled in
the IDE -so the IDE operates independantly of the framework. Likewise, if a
different and newer runtime is selected in the IDE, then the IDE (or
compiler) could simply display those problematic parts of code (and not
compile). I think I have banged on about these points in the past. Likewise
this approach could be taken with respect to writing native code in VB using
the new IDE.

I think my original point about the addition of new classes to replace old
classes concerned me more on the basis of their necessity (if it aint
broke..). The only justification I can think of is if they provided much
needed functionality or a big improvement in performance gain.
It is still early days for me to come to any conclusion as whether this
might be so, however I would not be very happy having to relearn a different
DataAdpter or another set of classes offerring the same type of function
every time a new IDE/ framework is released.

br,

Mark.


"Mark Broadbent" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OB0U5rigFHA.3912@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> This post is not intended in inflame, so please provide only positive or
> informative replies.
>
> Personally I'm getting a little fed up over certain changes to Framework
> classes and such -whereby new classes have been created to replace old
> ones (that only appear to offer a different location in the
> framework) -ConfigurationManager seems to be one.
> And other things such as the renaming of events e.g a form 1.1 had Closing
> ..now it's FormClosing! Yes they both still work, but one is in the
> designer (new one) and one isn't.
> What is the point of changing things like these (keep the old names fer
> gawd sake!) Changing code from 1.1 to 2.0 seems to be more fiddly than it
> should be.
>
> Br,
>
> Mark.
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Server controls and VS version
    ... As for the using webcontrol developed on a certain framework version (IDE) ... Server controls and VS version ...
    (microsoft.public.vsnet.general)
  • Re: TreeNode in Bold
    ... erkenne ich dem Framework aber RAD ab. ... Das man mit .NET momentan kein RAD machen kann liegt aber mehr an der ... Es ist also Hoffnung da das die IDE so langsam an das rankommt was bei ... Classic um Faktoren produktiver als in C#. ...
    (microsoft.public.de.german.entwickler.dotnet.csharp)
  • Re: Changes in 2005.
    ... > (with regards to IDE / Compiler) to forcefully lead us to change. ... > If I wanted to use the new IDE functionality, but target for 1.1 then I ... > should not) be compatible with this framework then they could be disabled ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Is it possible to convert VB3 to .NET ?
    ... framework, ... check out some of Microsoft's sample code. ... written compares with their sample code, people that rely on the framework ... Over the years I have occasionally wondered what the VB IDE was doing behind ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Professional IDE for a cross-platform Perl application
    ... GUI construction and other framework-type elements are an optional ... not part of the core idea of an IDE. ... framework) is part of B. ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)