Re: VB6+ Article in VSM by Bill McCarthy
From: Tony Proctor (tony_proctor_at_aimtechnology_NOSPAM.com)
Date: 03/04/04
- Next message: Jan Hyde: "Re: sda"
- Previous message: Damon: "DataReport???"
- In reply to: Bob O`Bob: "Re: VB6+ Article in VSM by Bill McCarthy"
- Next in thread: Jonathan West: "Re: VB6+ Article in VSM by Bill McCarthy"
- Reply: Jonathan West: "Re: VB6+ Article in VSM by Bill McCarthy"
- Reply: Joe \: "Re: VB6+ Article in VSM by Bill McCarthy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 09:45:41 -0000
They would all be nice to have Bob, but the case being made is really one of
a stepping stone, or an extra rung on the ladder, between VB6 and VB.Net.
Significant enhancements to VB6 might be viewed as "competition" for VB.Net,
or a distraction for those people MS are waiting on to make the switch.
I'd be content with the introduction of much of the VB.Net syntax, and a
whole heap of compiler help to weed-out syntax or functionality that will
cause problems later. This should include an array of options targeted at
specific elements of syntax or semantics, such that when they're all turned
off, it simply compiles VB6 code as per normal. Even in the VB "classic"
world, I would love options to weed-out, say, missing types (i.e. accidental
Variant declarations) without having to go look for them.
I'm sure a lot of people are in the same boat -- any expectation from MS
that we'll just take a few months off core development of our products, and
switch to a different language, is a little naive. Not everyone has the
money and resources that MS has. Trying to do this all in one go, rather
than step-wise, would be commercial suicide.
Tony Proctor
"Bob O`Bob" <filterbob@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:40468F5C.7FC0@yahoogroups.com...
> Karl E. Peterson wrote:
>
> > Okay, I probably should've said their *perceived* interests, hmmm?
> >
> > > Just not today's flavor-of-the-moment current interests.
> > >
> > > And they could really hedge their big [dot]bet that way.
> >
> > Yep! It'd certainly be interesting. I'm still not sure the proposal
goes far
> > enough, though. Maybe if they did what Bill suggests, then tossed in
free-threading,
> > native console support (I could live without that, now, actually),
callable function
> > pointers, etc. ...?
>
> What I think they _should_ do is reconstitute the development team and
find out
> what the talent they can bring together considers themselves *able* to
add.
>
> Console apps would be of significant use to me. Free-threading would be
just nice.
> Those pointers, they could even call them "delegates" for all I care,
again to me
> that would be a "just nice"
>
> What I personally would really like to see is tools to transition the
functionality
> of reference counting (and damn the overhead costs) onto the next platform
> for those cases where it's the Right Thing To Do.
>
> Mostly, I think, I'd like to get those IDE improvements they promised us
back
> in *early* 2000, when it was still "VB7" and the whole marketechture of
dotbet
> hadn't been perpetrated upon us yet.
>
> We're still stuck with the %*&$*^$%* VB 1.0 menu editor window!
>
>
> Bob
> --
> looking for work again <http://obob.com/bob/resume/>
- Next message: Jan Hyde: "Re: sda"
- Previous message: Damon: "DataReport???"
- In reply to: Bob O`Bob: "Re: VB6+ Article in VSM by Bill McCarthy"
- Next in thread: Jonathan West: "Re: VB6+ Article in VSM by Bill McCarthy"
- Reply: Jonathan West: "Re: VB6+ Article in VSM by Bill McCarthy"
- Reply: Joe \: "Re: VB6+ Article in VSM by Bill McCarthy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
