Re: API vs. FSO
From: Bob Butler (tiredofit_at_nospam.com)
Date: 09/28/04
- Next message: Joe: "Re: API vs. FSO"
- Previous message: Ken Halter: "Re: Releasing memory"
- In reply to: Joe: "API vs. FSO"
- Next in thread: Saga: "Re: API vs. FSO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:16:42 -0700
"Joe" <Joe@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:898CDE91-
9B62-48C1-9800-D173A1C9F3C6@microsoft.com
> Would some of you please explain why you prefer the Windows API
> drives/directories/files functions to the FSO and its associated
> objects? Other than performance, why choose one over the other?
>
> Personally, I prefer the API calls because somewhere in my mind, I
> believe that they are more robust. I don't actually know if this is
> true. Is it?
>
> I've also noticed that some are rabidly contre the Scripting Objects
> (FSO and Dictionary). Again, would you please explain why?
FSO is slow, adds overhead, requires and external DLL, and is sometimes
disabled by corporate policies to avoid virus issues. If you don't
distribute the DLL you have to deal with incompatible versions that exist
"in the wild". It also adds nothing that can't be done with native VB
syntax and/or some windows API work that is well documented and for which
numerous samples exist.
The dictionary does provide functionality that is harder to duplicate in VB
although there are samples around that accomplish it. The main issue with
that IMO is that it requires the extra DLL and you run into the same issues
of the DLL being incompatible and/or unusable by policy.
- Next message: Joe: "Re: API vs. FSO"
- Previous message: Ken Halter: "Re: Releasing memory"
- In reply to: Joe: "API vs. FSO"
- Next in thread: Saga: "Re: API vs. FSO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|