Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?

Paul,

¤ > No but I recognize when that which was originally designed to impart a
¤ > minimal code structure has
¤ > outlived it usefulness.
¤
¤ In new VB6 code I write I don't use GoSub. Not because I wouldn't *like*
to
¤ use it, but rather because, if in the future I find myself having to
port
¤ the code I don't want to have the headache of dealing with GoSub. As to
your
¤ phrase 'outlived its usefulness', I would compare that to when some
animal
¤ or plant spiecies goes extinct due to man's intervention, saying that it
has
¤ 'outlived its usefulness'. I think saying that it was killed would be a
¤ little more exact.
¤

Yes, but it died a slow death. Problem was that a lot of folks didn't
notice it was on life support.
Imagine their shock when Microsoft pulled the plug.

I see you have very little interest in ecology.

¤ As I have mentioned before, a Sub or Function is not the equivalent of
¤ GoSub. They do distinct things. That is to say, they are complementary.
As
¤ an illustration: Say someone at Microsoft decided that For... Next is
¤ outdated and has 'outlived its usefulness', and removes it from the
¤ language. Would it be possible to write code without it? Of course, in
fact
¤ it would be easier to replace than GoSub, all you need is a Do...Loop
and a
¤ counter (or While... End While). Why is there so much redundancy in VB?
Why
¤ doesn't someone clean it up?
¤

You just said GoSub wasn't the same and I would agree. This isn't an issue
of redundancy. It's a
question of disposing of a dated construct that has a suitable
replacement.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to get rid of For...Next also, since it has a
suitable replacement?

¤ > I'm not the one engaged in the crying game. ;-)
¤
¤ Obviously, because its not your problem.
¤

Not since I left it behind for good once I started using Visual Basic.
Funny how that works.

¤ First they came for the Jews
¤ and I did not speak out
¤ because I was not a Jew.
¤ Then they came for the Communists
¤ and I did not speak out
¤ because I was not a Communist.
¤ Then they came for the trade unionists
¤ and I did not speak out
¤ because I was not a trade unionist.
¤ Then they came for me
¤ and there was no one left
¤ to speak out for me.

For those who failed to heed the warnings from others who were trying to
protect them.

Someone here seems to have missed the point.

Gary


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
    ... ¤> minimal code structure has ... ¤> outlived it usefulness. ... the code I don't want to have the headache of dealing with GoSub. ... and I did not speak out ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
    ... ¤> No but I recognize when that which was originally designed to impart ... ¤> a minimal code structure has outlived it usefulness. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
    ... ¤> language and it can be easily ... But if you're using several GoSubs in a Sub or Function then it's ... The ability to write bad code is not an excuse to use GoSub. ... I'd have to use a knife, but I would miss the screwdriver. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
    ... In new VB6 code I write I don't use GoSub. ... phrase 'outlived its usefulness', I would compare that to when some animal ... and I did not speak out ... Then they came for the trade unionists ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
    ... By the way, the preformance of Gosub in PCode was quite good, it ... ¤ ... I'm not complaining about the necessary changes, ... that Microsoft intentionally and unnecessarily made it more difficult. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)