Re: Novice VB Questions

Trolling your $hitty wares here again are you Alex/Scott/Bill

--
2025
If you do not believe in time travel,
your beliefs are about to be tempered.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43606237254
"Scott M." <s-mar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eDWZHSaNKHA.3192@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Uh, not really. See inline.....
|
|
| "mayayana" <mayaXXyana@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:ex%23wYNvMKHA.508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| >> I'm sorry. Jez. I do believe the Subject of my post indicated
| >> "Novice"...which should imply I didn't post here on purpose. I'm trying
| >> to
| >> learn. Not piss people off.
| >>
| >
| > The whole situation is a bit of a mess. In brief,
| > Microsoft created a Java competitor in .Net and
| > decided to phase out VB. They added a VB-like
| > language to .Net and encouraged VB people to
| > switch over to the new VB.Net. But VB.Net is
| > very different from VB. It's like Java with vaguely-VB
| > syntax: a giant runtime/VM, thoroughly OO code,
| > JIT-compiling, etc. Telling VB-ers that VB.Net is the
| > new VB is like telling C++ people that Java is the new
| > version of C++.
|
| So far, so good.
|
| >
| > But MS doesn't want to support VB anymore. They want
| > everyone to move out of the Windows API to what TheRegister
| > once referred to as "the suburban programming world of .Net".
| > So how to nudge VB people who are happy where they are?
|
| Uh huh...
|
| >
| > Over time, MS gradually started referring to VB.Net
| > as just VB. (Actual VB is now "unsupported" and
| > Microsoft pretends that it just doesn't exist. So MS
| > painted a pretty face on a lie and just went ahead and
| > named something else "VB".)
|
| Depends on who you ask. Microsoft did drop the ".NET" moniker from Visual
| Studio, starting with Visual Studio 2005, but the VB.NET langauge is still
| called VB .NET in many circles, both private and professional.
|
| >
| > In the early years of .Net there was VB6, which was
| > the last version of VB. Then there was the new VB.Net 1.
| > Later there was VB.Net 1.1, 2, 3, etc.
|
| Here's where you're going astray. As you may know, the .NET language you
| use runs against an underlying "Framework" and it is this Framework that
| does the bulk of the work. The Framework that came out to support the
first
| version of Visual Basic .NET was version 1.0, but the language version was
| 7.0, not 1. And while I won't say that no one called this initial VB.NET,
| VB.NET 1.0 (never say never), I will say that I can't ever remember anyone
| calling it that, even at MS conferences, such as Tech Ed. Much more
common
| was the practice (which holds true today) of using the year of the release
| with the language, such as Visual Basic .NET 2002. Here's a breakdown of
| the names and versions:
|
| Visual Basic 1.0 - 6.0 (1991 - 1998)
| Visual Basic .NET 2002 (version 7.0, runs on .NET Framework version 1.0,
| developed with Visual Studio .NET 2002)
| Visual Basic .NET 2003 (version 7.1, runs on .NET Framework version 1.1,
| developed with Visual Studio .NET 2003)
| Visual Basic .NET 2005 (version 8.0, runs on .NET Framework version 2.0,
| developed with Visual Studio 2005)
| Visual Basic .NET 2008 (version 9.0, runs on .NET Framework version 3.5,
| developed with Visual Studio 2008)
|
| >
| > In order to confuse things -- to market .Net
| > and push out VB -- MS not only called VB.Net just "VB"
| > but also retroactively re-versioned it to appear that VB.Net
| > was the new version of VB.
|
| Well, as I said, Visual Basic .NET has only lost it's ".NET" moniker since
| 2005 (a full 7 years after VB 6 was replaced). I don't know what you are
| talking about as for retroactively re-versioning anything. The version
| numbers have been in place since 2002, when .NET first came out and have
not
| been changed.
|
| >
| > Along with the year versions
| > it gets very confusing. VB.Net v. 2 is also now known as
| > "VB8" and VB.Net 2005. (Or is it 2003? I lose track.) But
| > the year versions are technically the program rather than
| > the language version. In other words, VB.Net 2005 may
| > be the IDE version used to write VB.Net 2 AKA VB8, but
| > you're not supposed to call the language VB.Net 2005.
|
| Huh? No. Again, calling VB along with the Framework version is not now,
| nor was it ever, something that was done in marketing or technical
| documents. You are confusing this practice with the naming of
| "technologies" for .NET, such as ASP .NET, which are named for the
Framework
| version they run on (ASP .NET 1.0, ASP .NET 1.1, ASP .NET 2.0, ASP .NET
3.0,
| and ASP .NET 3.5 for example). But ASP.NET is not the language. People
did
| NOT refer to VB .NET as VB .NET 1.0, 1.1, etc.
|
| >
| > Confused yet? Well, hold onto your seat. We're just getting
| > started. :)
|
| You are making this much more confusing than it ever was or is currently.
| I've already listed the names and version numbers that the various
versions
| of VB have used.
|
| >
| > Up through .Net 2005 AKA v. 2, the langauge and IDE
| > matched up. In other words, in VB.Net 2003 you write
| > VB.Net 1 AKA VB7.
| > In VB.Net 2005 you write VB.Net 2
| > AKA VB8....or something like that. But with .Net 2008
| > there was a change.
|
| No, in VB .NET 2003 you wrote VB .NET 2003 to run against the 1.1
Framework.
|
| > The .Net v. 3+ runtime is gigantic
| > (over 200 MB) and not preinstalled on most systems.
|
| Not quite:
|
| .NET Framework 1.0: 19.7MB
| .NET Framework 1.1: 23.1MB
| .NET Framework 2.0: 22.4MB
| .NET Framework 3.0: 50.3MB ( x86 )
| .NET Framework 3.0: 90.1MB ( x64 )
| .NET Framework 3.5: 197.0MB
|
| And, the Framework is pre-installed into Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows
| Server 2003 and 2008, SQL Server 2005 and 2008. It is also provided as an
| optional item in Windows Update for those sytems that didn't have it when
| the OS was installed.
|
| > So people writing VB.Net 3 AKA VB9 AKA VB.Net 2008
|
| No, just VB .NET 2008 or VB 9.0 will do (NO ONE CALLS VB BY THE FRAMEWORK
| VERSION IT RUNS ON).
|
| > have a very small potential market, unlss they can persuade
| > all of their customers to download and install the monstrosity
| > known as the .Net 3 Framework.
|
| Since the Framework can be installed on every version of Windows going
back
| to Windows 95, I'd say that your "very small potential market" factoid is
| completely off. 100 Million copies of Vista are out there (not to mention
| the 2003 and 2008 servers and the upcoming Windows 7). I thinik that is
| more than just a small market.
|
| > Therefore, in .Net 2008 you can choose to
| > work with VB.Net 3 or VB.Net 2. In other words, you can
| > switch to VB.Net 2008 and keep writing software that runs
| > on the v.2 framework AKA runtime AKA VM.
|
| Actually, ALL .NET code written in version 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5 run against
the
| 2.0 version of the Framework. The 3.0 and 3.5 versions are just
| enhancements to the 2.0 core Framework.
|
| > So you've asked a question about what Microsoft says
| > is VB. But it's actually VB.Net. The code has almost nothing
| > in common with VB. VB does not use any of the .Net classes.
|
| Sort of right, but not worth getting into here.
|
| > We get these questions here daily due to the deliberate
| > obfuscation by the Microsoft marketing dept. So people get
| > a bit testy. It's not that we're splitting hairs. It's just that we're
| > talking about VB here and it really is a completely different
| > thing from VB.Net. So we can't talk about both.
| >
| > If you're not lost at this point then feel free to post back
| > for more explanations. :).
|
| Just please try to be more accurate with those explanations. :)
|
| -Scott M.
|
|


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Difference between VC++ and UNIX
    ... It uses whatever compiler you have, in whatever language you like. ... like edit Lisp or integrate 3rd party compilers into Visual Studio. ... Windows, HP-UX, and Linux. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: If you cant write Text2.Text = Text1.Text, then VB clone is no good
    ... tester for OS/2 (which became a lead-in to beta Windows) and I was hooked. ... also distaining FORTRAN (a useful niche language for mathemetical ... C-geeks - Why because of the VB-ness of the .Net Framework and IDE. ...
    (comp.lang.basic.visual.misc)
  • Re: Bye bye CF.Net for Delphi dev?
    ... deliver it in a readily usable form for .NET developers. ... believe the Delphi language could offer great things on the .NET platform, ... It's also a framework. ... abstracts them from the Windows OS. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Difference between VC++ and UNIX
    ... It uses whatever compiler you have, in whatever language you like. ... What is Visual Studio Express? ... Windows, HP-UX, and Linux. ... for-fee editors, but I don't have much experience with the for fee ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Difference between VC++ and UNIX
    ... It uses whatever compiler you have, in whatever language you like. ... like edit Lisp or integrate 3rd party compilers into Visual Studio. ... Windows, HP-UX, and Linux. ...
    (comp.programming)
Loading