Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?

Paul,

¤ 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.

It was just an illustration on your attitude. You are only interested in
those things that you can see are of immediate benifit to you personally.


¤ > ¤ 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 ¤ outdated and has 'outlived its usefulness', and removes it from the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.

It's all a matter of point of view. If it became the *in* thing to consider
it outdated, I can see Paul removing all the for...nexts from his code. By
the way, why was While...Wend (End While) left in? It is defintely dated.

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.

Unfortunately the flame is not going to go out for a long time yet. In our
company we continue to churn out hundreds of lines of VB6 code a day, and I
am sure that there are thousands of companies out there doing the same. Not
to speak of all the VBA code being created daily. We are not happy and we
will continue to complain as long as it hurts.

Gary


.

Relevant Pages

  • 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?
    ... 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)
  • Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
    ... ¤> ¤ vFred. ... ¤> No one was really complaining about the removal of GoSub other than ... probably DOS BASIC apps and not Visual Basic apps. ... as they had never worked with a BASIC language before and had little or no ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
    ... ¤ Couldn't the same be said of those who don't use GoSub? ... Since GoSub is part of the language ... Generally code posted in the forums are short secuences to solve certain ... Just like C programmers looked down upon VB programmers. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
    ... ¤> Replacing GoSub code is trivial. ... have spaghetti code then hopefully you understand how it got that way to begin with. ... ¤> converting their GoSub code to equivalent Visual Basic.NET code. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)