Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
- From: Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 07:59:14 -0500
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 20:00:44 +0100, "Gary Nelson" <gn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gary,
¤ > ¤ > 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.
¤
No I don't. But then there isn't really any relationship between ecology and GoSub.
¤ > ¤ 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 ¤ outdated and has 'outlived its usefulness', and removes it from the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?
¤
For...Next isn't considered dated. Why would it be considered unsuitable. Nothing really changed in
the language to make it such.
It's also quite frequently used and was enhanced to support objects. Nobody ever stated that a
language component should be removed solely because there are alternatives.
¤ > ¤ > 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.
No I just choose not to dwell on it because it does little or no good.
You can only carry the torch for so long until the flame goes out.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
- From: Gary Nelson
- Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
- References:
- Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
- From: Gary Nelson
- Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
- Prev by Date: VB6 incrementing LARGE_INTEGER
- Next by Date: Re: VB6 package available somewhere?
- Previous by thread: Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
- Next by thread: Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
