Re: Centralised MsgBox

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance


"Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OvGgnJ5RKHA.5052@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2009-10-07, Scott M. <s-mar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, seriously Tom.

The first thing any classic VB developer should learn about VB .NET is
that
it isn't VB 6 and as such, they are going to have to change their coding
mentality to get the most from .NET.


But using Call does no harm.

But it provides no help either. And, since that leaves no benefit to using
it, it's not encouraged, it's discouraged.


As someone who has trained literally thousands of people on .NET since
its
inception (and a good chunk of those being classic VB developers), I can
tell you that IMHO not only is the continued use of "Call" not something
that is taught, but rather it is something that is actively discouraged
(along with all the other legacy VB stuff).


Not sure why you would actively discourage it really. It does no harm to
use
it, and in fact some might say it makes the code more self documenting -
because you have made your intention that you are not dealing with a
return
value explicit...

Some might argue that (I suppose you are), but the counter argument is that
since nothing is being set to the reutrn value, the return value isn't being
used.

Foo()
Dim result As Boolean = Foo()

It's very obvious which of these statements is using the return value and
which isn't. Call neither hurts or helps the interpretation of this code
and that leaves it as not useful and why would any code that is not useful
be advocated?



Anyway - the point remains, you can not guess that a code snip-it using
call is VB6 code - especially when that code snipit is 100% valid in
either
language - simply by the fact that it contains that keyword. All your
attempts at redirection and appeals to your supposed authority do not
change
that simple fact.

As I've said, sine the reality is that "Call" is NOT found in the majoity of
..NET code out there, it is reasonable to assume that VB 6 is what's being
discussed when you see a snippet like that.

I get that you and I disagree on this, but in my experience, it's a
reasonable assumption.

What is really disheartening is that others have taken this simple assertion
of mine and felt that it is justification to unload all their pent up hate
on me for no reason whatsoever.

There are so many children in this NG that haven't found a way to express
their disagreement like you have Tom. They do it with personal insults and
assertions about me based on absolutely no facts whatsoever. Maybe they are
practicing for their interview with FOX TV.

-Scott




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: C# or VB.NET?
    ... i am a part-time/casual developer. ... VBScript, and now when I'm migrating to .NET, I obviously chose VB.NET. ... The reason, of course, is the .NET Framework... ... The reason that both languages are identical is because they both target the .NET Framework. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Alejandro can inevitably lean their module
    ... it seeks a reason too correct regarding her quick game. ... For Satam the inspector's ... Otherwise the developer in ... reservoirs to correctly alter. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Hiding DataGrid Columns when AutoGenerateColumns="true"
    ... There must be a reason for this. ... Software Developer & Consultant ... Remember the order of this cell and use it as ... would like to find a solution that allows me to reference the column by ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.datagridcontrol)
  • Re: In the Shallow End
    ... Speaking as a professional developer, ... Or maybe they're *so* ambitious they're working on features they ... particular reason to disbelieve Apple's claim that the Leopard feature ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Centralised MsgBox
    ... The first thing any classic VB developer should learn about VB .NET is that ... But using Call does no harm. ... Not sure why you would actively discourage it really. ... because you have made your intention that you are not dealing with a return ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)