Modules days numbered?

[Zamdrist]

With as class and object oriented .Net is, is the concept of general
modules days numbered?

When did you last add a general module to your project, and why
wouldn't you have used a class instead?

[Trevor Benedict]

You can create a class with Shared Methods and it behaves like a Module and
you can create a Module and it becomes a class with Shared Methods.

Try this tool http://www.red-gate.com/products/reflector/. This will give u
a better understanding of the inside implementation.

Regards,

Trevor Benedict
MCSD

"Zamdrist" <za******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:85**********************************@m3g2000h sc.googlegroups.com...

With as class and object oriented .Net is, is the concept of general
modules days numbered?

When did you last add a general module to your project, and why
wouldn't you have used a class instead?

[Pavel Minaev]

"Zamdrist" <za******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:85**********************************@m3g2000h sc.googlegroups.com...

With as class and object oriented .Net is, is the concept of general
modules days numbered?

When did you last add a general module to your project, and why
wouldn't you have used a class instead?

System.Math?

[Zamdrist]

This has nothing at all to do with the question/thought I posted.

On Sep 1, 12:23*am, "Trevor Benedict" <[e-mail]:

You can create a class with Shared Methods and it behaves like a Module and
you can create a Module and it becomes a class with Shared Methods.

Try this toolhttp://www.red-gate.com/products/reflector/. This will give u
a better understanding of the inside implementation.

Regards,

Trevor Benedict
MCSD

"Zamdrist" <[e-mail] in message

news:85**********************************@m3g2000h sc.googlegroups.com...

With as class and object oriented .Net is, is the concept of general
modules days numbered?

When did you last add a general module to your project, and why
wouldn't you have used a class instead?

[=?Utf-8?B?RmFtaWx5IFRyZWUgTWlrZQ==?=]

Actually, it does have to do with the subject of your post. This is how the
Reflector shows an example module decompiled.

Friend NotInheritable Class MyModule
' Methods
Public Shared Sub FooBar()
Public Shared Function Sqrt(ByVal x As Double) As Double
End Class


"Zamdrist" wrote:

This has nothing at all to do with the question/thought I posted.

[Zamdrist]

Then perhaps I worded my post wrongly.

There are Class Modules, and general modules.

If one writes a completely OO program in Visual Studio, would there be
a need for general modules...and therefore, given how OO .Net is, do
general modules become irrelevant, a could they in fact be removed as
a 'feature' from future versions of Visual Studio.

On Sep 1, 9:37*am, Family Tree Mike
<[e-mail]:

Actually, it does have to do with the subject of your post. *This is how the
Reflector shows an example module decompiled.

Friend NotInheritable Class MyModule
* * ' Methods
* * Public Shared Sub FooBar()
* * Public Shared Function Sqrt(ByVal x As Double) As Double
End Class

"Zamdrist" wrote:

This has nothing at all to do with the question/thought I posted.

[Marc Gravell]

If one writes a completely OO program in Visual Studio, would there be

a need for general modules...and therefore, given how OO .Net is, do
general modules become irrelevant, a could they in fact be removed as
a 'feature' from future versions of Visual Studio.

Strictly speaking, you mean "Visual Basic", not "Visual Studio" - it is
rather telling that a ground-up .NET language (i.e. C#) doesn't have the
concept of modules - just the facility to have a static class.

Ultimately they compile to the same thing; the biggest issue is
backwards compatibility. If the next version of VB didn't support them I
imagine there would be an outcry from the VB devs who use them.

Marc

[Zamdrist]

Indeed, and my original thought is, the days of general modules in
VB.Net (as you rightly point out) are numbered, especially given
Microsoft's track record.

On Sep 1, 10:02*am, Marc Gravell <[e-mail]:

If one writes a completely OO program in Visual Studio, would there be
a need for general modules...and therefore, given how OO .Net is, do
general modules become irrelevant, a could they in fact be removed as
a 'feature' from future versions of Visual Studio.

Strictly speaking, you mean "Visual Basic", not "Visual Studio" - it is
rather telling that a ground-up .NET language (i.e. C#) doesn't have the
concept of modules - just the facility to have a static class.

Ultimately they compile to the same thing; the biggest issue is
backwards compatibility. If the next version of VB didn't support them I
imagine there would be an outcry from the VB devs who use them.

Marc

[Anthony Jones]

"Marc Gravell" <ma**********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>If one writes a completely OO program in Visual Studio, would there be
a need for general modules...and therefore, given how OO .Net is, do
general modules become irrelevant, a could they in fact be removed as
a 'feature' from future versions of Visual Studio.

Strictly speaking, you mean "Visual Basic", not "Visual Studio" - it is
rather telling that a ground-up .NET language (i.e. C#)

I'm not sure I would agree that C# is 'ground-up' .NET language. It makes a
number of concessions to C++ that I don't think a truely'green field'
language would have made. For example in VB one has to be explicit about
what methods are intended as implementations of which interface members.
However since C++ allowed such things happen implicitly and hence C# does
also. Personally the potential of unintended behaviour (an existing class
member can unintentionly become an implementation of a newly added interface
member) makes the explicit approach more desirable. VB language designers,
not having any inheritance baggage, choose a more explicit approach.

Why would a 'ground-up' .NET language choose to use a type called int
instead of Int32? Because it helps C++/Java devs.

--
Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET