VBScript functions versus VB functions

[Mr. x]

Hello,
I need a good help/tutorial for VB, please (I preffer *.chm help file).

Also :
for the function : now() in VBScript for getting the current time,
what is the counterpart function of VB ?

Thanks :)

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Mr. x" <[e-mail]> schrieb:

I need a good help/tutorial for VB, please (I preffer *.chm
help file).

Also :
for the function : now() in VBScript for getting the current time,
what is the counterpart function of VB ?

Most functions are similar in VBScript, VB Classic and VB.NET. Are you
referring to VB.NET or VB Classic?

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Mr. x]

Hello,
I am using the ASPX and put code in vb in ASPX, and also in *.ASMX
(Web-Services),
So I think I am looking for VB.NET help.

Thanks :)

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi*******@m.activevb.de> wrote in message
news:OO**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hello,

"Mr. x" <[e-mail]> schrieb:

I need a good help/tutorial for VB, please (I preffer *.chm
help file).

Also :
for the function : now() in VBScript for getting the current time,
what is the counterpart function of VB ?

Most functions are similar in VBScript, VB Classic and VB.NET. Are you
referring to VB.NET or VB Classic?

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Scott M.]

Actually, many VBScript & VB 6.0 functions now have methods to accomplish
the same task the function used to accomplish. While many VBScript & VB 6.0
functions can still be used, they are just, in turn, calling the new .NET
method [i.e. msgbox() calls messageBox.show()].

So, while you can get away with using the "good old" functions in .NET, you
may find that you app performs better if you don't.

By the way, the .NET approach to getting the current time would be to
delcare a new DateTime object and call its appropriate method like this:

Dim y As New Date()
response.write(y.Now())

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi*******@m.activevb.de> wrote in message
news:OO**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hello,

"Mr. x" <[e-mail]> schrieb:

I need a good help/tutorial for VB, please (I preffer *.chm
help file).

Also :
for the function : now() in VBScript for getting the current time,
what is the counterpart function of VB ?

Most functions are similar in VBScript, VB Classic and VB.NET. Are you
referring to VB.NET or VB Classic?

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Cor]

Hi Mr X

(I preffer *.chm help file).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...hroughlist.asp

I find till now one of the best tutorials.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...alkthrough.asp

Is now maybe already old but very good for the basic principals Web
development with VB.net

I hope this helps a little bit
Cor

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

So, while you can get away with using the "good old"
functions in .NET, you may find that you app performs
better if you don't.

Sorry, but the performance of the 'MsgBox' function has never been a problem
for me.

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Mr. x]

Thanks :)
I don't need basic principals of writing vb.net,
but more I need list of functions of all vb.net + some basic syntax.
That's what is really help is (not via the internet), so that's why I have
said I preffered *.chm.
If you can link me to detailed help, such as *.chm file, I would be glade to
know, please.

Thanks :)

"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:3f***********************@reader22.wxs.nl...

Hi Mr X

(I preffer *.chm help file).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...hroughlist.asp
I find till now one of the best tutorials.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...alkthrough.asp
Is now maybe already old but very good for the basic principals Web
development with VB.net

I hope this helps a little bit
Cor

[Cor]

Do you use Visual.studio.net or Visual.studio.basic?

[Scott M.]

It's just an example of one of many new methods that replace VBScript and &
VB 6.0 Functions. You may not notice any performance issues if you continue
to use the old functions, but for someone who is new to .NET why bother
learning the "old" (non OO) way?

Lastly, while the use of these older functions may not bring your app to its
knees. They are NOT as efficient, by and large, as the new method calls.
"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi*******@m.activevb.de> wrote in message
news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

So, while you can get away with using the "good old"
functions in .NET, you may find that you app performs
better if you don't.
Sorry, but the performance of the 'MsgBox' function has never been a

problem for me.

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Scott M.]

As stated in my other post, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
VB.NET is a true OO language now and as such, most of the old "functions"
have been replaced with methods. The functions that are still there are
only there as a "crutch" for migrating VB 6.0 developers, but they do not
reflect the best practices of writing code it .NET.

You might be better of beginning to examine the .NET Framework Base Class
Libraries.
"Mr. x" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Thanks :)
I don't need basic principals of writing vb.net,
but more I need list of functions of all vb.net + some basic syntax.
That's what is really help is (not via the internet), so that's why I have
said I preffered *.chm.
If you can link me to detailed help, such as *.chm file, I would be glade to know, please.

Thanks :)

"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:3f***********************@reader22.wxs.nl...

Hi Mr X

(I preffer *.chm help file).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...hroughlist.asp

I find till now one of the best tutorials.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...alkthrough.asp

Is now maybe already old but very good for the basic principals Web
development with VB.net

I hope this helps a little bit
Cor

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

but for someone who is new to .NET why bother
learning the "old" (non OO) way?
Old <> Bad
Not OOP <> Bad
Lastly, while the use of these older functions may not bring
your app to its knees. They are NOT as efficient, by and
large, as the new method calls.

Nevertheless, sometimes readability is much higher when using the "old"
functions.

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Cor]

Scott,
Do you mean in a same way as that old paper tape things like case sensitive
"crutch" from the paper tape C Unix computer time will been replaced by
modern methods where the power of a computer can be helpful for the
programmer in C# in a way like in VB.net now?
Cor

[Cor]

Scott,

Your mails give me the idea that you are thinking that a modern computer is
the same as an abacus. Sorry for you it is not. Even for me it is not a big
problem to make from a function used in VB the same pseudo code as from a
method.

Maybe you underestimate the programmers from Microsoft, I don't. So I don't
think that they did not do that, it's so much easier for the framework you
know?

Regards,

Cor

[Cor]

Mr. x,
Sorry but in this newsgroup that is not the topic, maybe just a few persons
who often visits this newsgroup know maybe what you ask, so the change is
little that you get an answer.

The newsgroups for that are the script groups and the asp.net newsgroup.

Sorry,
I cannot help you any furter.
Cor

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Cor" <no*@non.com> schrieb:

Your mails give me the idea that you are thinking that a
modern computer is the same as an abacus.
LOL
Sorry for you it is not. Even for me it is not a big problem to
make from a function used in VB the same pseudo code as from a
method.
ACK
Maybe you underestimate the programmers from Microsoft,
I don't. So I don't think that they did not do that, it's so much
easier for the framework you know?

What did the Microsofties do? I don't really understand the meaning of the
sentence above...

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Cor" <no*@non.com> schrieb:

Do you mean in a same way as that old paper tape things like
case sensitive "crutch" from the paper tape C Unix computer
time will been replaced by modern methods where the power
of a computer can be helpful for the programmer in C# in
a way like in VB.net now?

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

VB.NET is a true OO language now
No. VB.NET is _not_ an OO language. VB.NET _supports_ OOP as a _tool_.
You can still write applications in VB.NET without using OOP (module, 'Sub
Main', ...). C# _is_ a programming language limited to OOP only.
and as such, most of the old "functions" have been replaced with
methods.
No. The old functions _are_ methods. 'Right', for example, is a method of
the 'Strings' class.
The functions that are still there are only there as a "crutch" for migrating VB 6.0 developers,
No. They are main part of the Visual Basic .NET programming language. If
you don't use them, you may want to turn to C#. I don't know any C#
programmer who won't use certain features of his language only because they
don't fit in a certain programming paradigm.
but they do not reflect the best practices of writing code
it .NET.
VB.NET is a programming language for developing VB.NET solutions.
You might be better of beginning to examine the .NET
Framework Base Class Libraries.

The Framework is good, but VB.NET provides _more_.

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Cor" <no*@non.com> schrieb:

Sorry but in this newsgroup that is not the topic, maybe
just a few persons who often visits this newsgroup know maybe what
you ask, so the change is little that you get an answer.

The newsgroups for that are the script groups and the
asp.net newsgroup.

Why are people who don't use an IDE for developing not welcome in this
group?! Notice that I fully agree with redirecting of ASP.NET related
questions to the ASP.NET group.

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Scott M.]

"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:3f***********************@reader22.wxs.nl...

Scott,

Your mails give me the idea that you are thinking that a modern computer is the same as an abacus. Sorry for you it is not. Even for me it is not a big problem to make from a function used in VB the same pseudo code as from a
method.
I don't know what this means.

Maybe you underestimate the programmers from Microsoft, I don't. So I don't think that they did not do that, it's so much easier for the framework you
know?

I don't know what that means either.
Regards,

Cor

[Scott M.]

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi*******@m.activevb.de> wrote in message
news:eJ**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

but for someone who is new to .NET why bother
learning the "old" (non OO) way?
Old <> Bad

Old = Legacy = Non-consitent with current techniques
Not OOP <> Bad
Not OOP = Not OOP [.NET is ALL about OOP & the changes to VB.NET reflect
that]

Lastly, while the use of these older functions may not bring
your app to its knees. They are NOT as efficient, by and
large, as the new method calls.
Nevertheless, sometimes readability is much higher when using the "old"
functions.

Perhaps, but if you understand OOP, is it that hard to understand that
"length" is an appropriate property for a string rather than an ambiuous
function "len()" that allows a programmer to pass in anything they want
(including expressions that don't have length)?
--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Scott M.]

Cor,

That's one hec of a run-on-sentance. I don't even understand what it means.
"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:3f***********************@reader22.wxs.nl...

Scott,
Do you mean in a same way as that old paper tape things like case sensitive "crutch" from the paper tape C Unix computer time will been replaced by
modern methods where the power of a computer can be helpful for the
programmer in C# in a way like in VB.net now?
Cor

[Mr. x]

Well,

Is it a big problem to let me know about some help/tutorial of asp.net
locations ?
I don't see this a big deal (I have already looked in google, but I didn't
find one - maybe I missed something,
but please, please if you can reffer me to some help).

Besides - about the other newsgroup, is
microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet is fine ?

Thanks :)

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi*******@m.activevb.de> wrote in message
news:ud**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Hello,

"Cor" <no*@non.com> schrieb:

Sorry but in this newsgroup that is not the topic, maybe
just a few persons who often visits this newsgroup know maybe what
you ask, so the change is little that you get an answer.

The newsgroups for that are the script groups and the
asp.net newsgroup.

Why are people who don't use an IDE for developing not welcome in this
group?! Notice that I fully agree with redirecting of ASP.NET related
questions to the ASP.NET group.

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Scott M.]

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi*******@m.activevb.de> wrote in message
news:ew**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

VB.NET is a true OO language now
No. VB.NET is _not_ an OO language. VB.NET _supports_ OOP as a _tool_.
You can still write applications in VB.NET without using OOP (module, 'Sub
Main', ...). C# _is_ a programming language limited to OOP only.

Uh, yes VB.NET is absolutely an OO language. You can certainly write code
that bypasses classes, but that is not one of the criteria for an OO
language.

and as such, most of the old "functions" have been replaced with
methods.
No. The old functions _are_ methods. 'Right', for example, is a method

of the 'Strings' class.
Correct. and Right(string) is the old VB 6.0 function that string.Right()
replaces. Right(string) is the "old" function I am refering to. If you
were to use Right(string), all that would happen is a call to the string's
..right() method (which is an extra processing step) - why have your code
take an unecessary step?

The functions that are still there are only there as a "crutch" for migrating

VB 6.0 developers,

No. They are main part of the Visual Basic .NET programming language.

No, the methods that have replaced the functions are a main part of VB.NET.
The functions are a "crutch". I believe they are provided in the
VBCompatibilty assembly. They are for migration of code/developers.

If you don't use them, you may want to turn to C#. I don't know any C#
programmer who won't use certain features of his language only because they don't fit in a certain programming paradigm.

but they do not reflect the best practices of writing code
it .NET.
VB.NET is a programming language for developing VB.NET solutions.

You might be better of beginning to examine the .NET
Framework Base Class Libraries.

The Framework is good, but VB.NET provides _more_.

I think you've got that one backwards. All the language does (any language)
is provide access to the .NET Framework. The engine behind any .NET
application is the framework, not the language. Sure the language can make
using the Framework eaiser or more efficient and the language is not to be
discounted. But the Framework is where it all happens. That's why all .NET
languages compile to IL first and native code second. The CLR, Garbage
Collection, Security, ADO.NET, WinForms, ASP.NET, Base Class libraries,
etc., etc. are all part of the Framework, not the language.

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

but for someone who is new to .NET why bother
learning the "old" (non OO) way?

Old <> Bad

Old = Legacy = Non-consitent with current techniques

I don't think so. The VB.NET functions like 'Right', 'Mid', and
'AppActivate' are methods of classes, they are not simple functions any more
(in VB Classic they were members of modules). As mentioned before,
sometimes there isn't even a "replacement" (I hate the word in this context)
for the "function" available in the Framework.

Not OOP <> Bad

Not OOP = Not OOP [.NET is ALL about OOP & the
changes to VB.NET reflect that]

I don't agree... OOP is nice, but OOP only is IMO _bad_ because it doesn't
reduce complexity of simple tasks.

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

No. VB.NET is _not_ an OO language.
Uh, yes VB.NET is absolutely an OO language.

Sorry, I missed out the most important word in my sentence. It should read
"VB.NET is _not_ an OO-only language."

and as such, most of the old "functions" have been
replaced with methods.

No. The old functions _are_ methods. 'Right', for example,
is a method of the 'Strings' class.

Correct. and Right(string) is the old VB 6.0 function that
string.Right() replaces. Right(string) is the "old" function I
am refering to. If you were to use Right(string), all that would
happen is a call to the string's .right() method (which is an extra
processing step)

There is no 'String.Right' method. That's the problem. If there was a
'String.Right' instance method, I would not use 'Strings.Right' any more
because it doesn't have any advantages over the instance method. But at the
moment there is no replacement for the 'Right' function available (OK,
'Substring' exists, but 'Right', and 'Left' make understanding code easier
to the reader).
- why have your code take an unecessary step?
See above. I don't want to say that all of the methods in the VB Runtime
Libarary should be used, I only want to point out that in some cases the VB
Runtime Libarary extends the Framework by uinique methods.

No. They are main part of the Visual Basic .NET

programming language.

No, the methods that have replaced the functions are a main
part of VB.NET.

They are main part of .NET. VB.NET provides some "shortcuts" that fit
better into the BASIC programming paradigm.
The functions are a "crutch". I believe they are provided in the
VBCompatibilty assembly. They are for migration of code/
developers.
The functions I am talking about are implemented in the Microsoft Visual
Basic .NET Runtime Libarary. That's not the Compatibility Libarary which
provides some VB6 controls and functionality.

You might be better of beginning to examine the .NET
Framework Base Class Libraries.

The Framework is good, but VB.NET provides _more_.

I think you've got that one backwards. All the language does
(any language) is provide access to the .NET Framework.
The engine behind any .NET application is the framework,
not the language.

ACK
Sure the language can make using the Framework eaiser
110% ACK -- that's the only reason why more than one programming language
for .NET exists.
or more efficient and the language is not to be
discounted. But the Framework is where it all happens.
That's why all .NET languages compile to IL first and native
code second. The CLR, Garbage Collection, Security,
ADO.NET, WinForms, ASP.NET, Base Class libraries,
etc., etc. are all part of the Framework, not the language.

ACK -- but why not extend the framework by a libarary providing functions
that fit better into the programming scheme of a certain programming
language?

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Scott M.]

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi*******@m.activevb.de> wrote in message
news:OP**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

> but for someone who is new to .NET why bother
> learning the "old" (non OO) way?

Old <> Bad
Old = Legacy = Non-consitent with current techniques

I don't think so. The VB.NET functions like 'Right', 'Mid', and
'AppActivate' are methods of classes, they are not simple functions any

more

When called like Right(string), you are using it as a simple function. This
is my point. By calling the Right() method of a string, you are using the
string object's method directly. When using Right(string) as a function you
are adding an extra step to get to that string's Right() method.
(in VB Classic they were members of modules). As mentioned before,
sometimes there isn't even a "replacement" (I hate the word in this context) for the "function" available in the Framework.
You're right again! But, where replacements do exist, they should be used.

Not OOP <> Bad
Not OOP = Not OOP [.NET is ALL about OOP & the
changes to VB.NET reflect that]

I don't agree... OOP is nice, but OOP only is IMO _bad_ because it

doesn't reduce complexity of simple tasks.
OOP is a "concept" or a "paradigm" if you like. In general, when you have
to mix concepts or paradigms in one solution, things get confusing. Now,
let me be clear, I'm not standing on a soap box here claiming that it's got
to be OO or not at all. I'm simply saying that in .NET (with respect to
these legacy VB 6.0 functions), there really isn't a strong case to be made
for their use over the new OOP method calls.

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Cor]

Herfried,
Maybe I had to add the word "too",

Maybe you underestimate the programmers from Microsoft,
I don't. So I don't think that they did not do that, it's so much
easier for the framework you know?

Maybe you underestimate the programmers from Microsoft,
I don't. So I don't think that they did not do that too, it's so much
easier for the framework you know?
What did the Microsofties do? I don't really understand the meaning of the sentence above...

Making the same intermidiate code for Mid(xxxxxxxx) and a.substring(xxxx).

Cor

[Cor]

Herfried,
I would not take to much time on this, the messages from Scott shows that he
does not understand it all.
But to you.

See above. I don't want to say that all of the methods in the VB Runtime
Libarary should be used, I only want to point out that in some cases the VB Runtime Libarary extends the Framework by uinique methods.

Are you sure of this (and this is to the meaning of my post in the other
thread about intermidiate code) I don't see a runtimer that extends the
framework when I build an exe when I use Microsoft.Visuals.Basic things.

This has given me the idea that the code build with the
Microsoft.Visual.Basic classes and the code with the System.net classes
makes the same software. And because of the fact that it is intermidiate
software gives the same processing results.

(That had probably not been so when it all was end code).

Do you know something about this?

Cor

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

When called like Right(string), you are using it as
a simple function. This is my point. By calling the
Right() method of a string, you are using the string
object's method directly.
I would call the 'Right' method of the string too, if it would exist.
You're right again! But, where replacements do exist,
they should be used.

There exist replacements in VB.NET which can be used.

I don't agree... OOP is nice, but OOP only is IMO _bad_
because it doesn't reduce complexity of simple tasks.

OOP is a "concept" or a "paradigm" if you like. In general,
when you have to mix concepts or paradigms in one solution,
things get confusing. Now, let me be clear, I'm not standing
on a soap box here claiming that it's got to be OO or not at all.
I'm simply saying that in .NET (with respect to these legacy
VB 6.0 functions), there really isn't a strong case to be made
for their use over the new OOP method calls.

I agree with you and I would like it if they would add functions like 'Left'
and 'Right' to the 'String' class.

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Cor" <no*@non.com> schrieb:

I would not take to much time on this, the messages from Scott
shows that he does not understand it all.
;-)

Runtime Libarary extends the Framework by uinique methods.

Are you sure of this (and this is to the meaning of my
post in the other thread about intermidiate code) I don't see
a runtimer that extends the framework when I build an exe when
I use Microsoft.Visuals.Basic things.

For example, the 'AppActivate' method doesn't have a replacement in the
framework.
This has given me the idea that the code build with the
Microsoft.Visual.Basic classes and the code with the
System.net classes makes the same software. And because
of the fact that it is intermidiate software gives the same
processing results.

Yes.

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Cor" <no*@non.com> schrieb:

Making the same intermidiate code for Mid(xxxxxxxx)
and a.substring(xxxx).

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

When called like Right(string), you are using it as
a simple function. This is my point. By calling the
Right() method of a string, you are using the string
object's method directly.
I would call the 'Right' method of the string too, if it would exist.
You're right again! But, where replacements do exist,
they should be used.

There exist replacements in VB.NET which can be used.

I don't agree... OOP is nice, but OOP only is IMO _bad_
because it doesn't reduce complexity of simple tasks.

OOP is a "concept" or a "paradigm" if you like. In general,
when you have to mix concepts or paradigms in one solution,
things get confusing. Now, let me be clear, I'm not standing
on a soap box here claiming that it's got to be OO or not at all.
I'm simply saying that in .NET (with respect to these legacy
VB 6.0 functions), there really isn't a strong case to be made
for their use over the new OOP method calls.

I agree with you and I would like it if they would add functions like 'Left'
and 'Right' to the 'String' class.

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Cor" <no*@non.com> schrieb:

I would not take to much time on this, the messages from Scott
shows that he does not understand it all.
;-)

Runtime Libarary extends the Framework by uinique methods.

Are you sure of this (and this is to the meaning of my
post in the other thread about intermidiate code) I don't see
a runtimer that extends the framework when I build an exe when
I use Microsoft.Visuals.Basic things.

For example, the 'AppActivate' method doesn't have a replacement in the
framework.
This has given me the idea that the code build with the
Microsoft.Visual.Basic classes and the code with the
System.net classes makes the same software. And because
of the fact that it is intermidiate software gives the same
processing results.

Yes.

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Cor" <no*@non.com> schrieb:

Making the same intermidiate code for Mid(xxxxxxxx)
and a.substring(xxxx).

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Scott M.]

No Cor, I just don't understand YOUR post at all. And by understand, I
don't mean from a VB.NET standpoint. I mean from a reading of the English
language standpoint.

I've read many of your posts on several topics and very often people will
reply to you that they can't understand what you are saying because your
English and writing skills aren't sufficient to express your point.
"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:3f***********************@reader21.wxs.nl...

Herfried,
I would not take to much time on this, the messages from Scott shows that he does not understand it all.
But to you.

See above. I don't want to say that all of the methods in the VB Runtime
Libarary should be used, I only want to point out that in some cases the

VB

Runtime Libarary extends the Framework by uinique methods.

Are you sure of this (and this is to the meaning of my post in the other
thread about intermidiate code) I don't see a runtimer that extends the
framework when I build an exe when I use Microsoft.Visuals.Basic things.

This has given me the idea that the code build with the
Microsoft.Visual.Basic classes and the code with the System.net classes
makes the same software. And because of the fact that it is intermidiate
software gives the same processing results.

(That had probably not been so when it all was end code).

Do you know something about this?

Cor

[Cor]

Than I did succeed.

[Scott M.]

Or, do you mean "Then".
"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:3f**********************@reader20.wxs.nl...

Than I did succeed.

[Scott M.]

No Cor, I just don't understand YOUR post at all. And by understand, I
don't mean from a VB.NET standpoint. I mean from a reading of the English
language standpoint.

I've read many of your posts on several topics and very often people will
reply to you that they can't understand what you are saying because your
English and writing skills aren't sufficient to express your point.
"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:3f***********************@reader21.wxs.nl...

Herfried,
I would not take to much time on this, the messages from Scott shows that he does not understand it all.
But to you.

See above. I don't want to say that all of the methods in the VB Runtime
Libarary should be used, I only want to point out that in some cases the

VB

Runtime Libarary extends the Framework by uinique methods.

Are you sure of this (and this is to the meaning of my post in the other
thread about intermidiate code) I don't see a runtimer that extends the
framework when I build an exe when I use Microsoft.Visuals.Basic things.

This has given me the idea that the code build with the
Microsoft.Visual.Basic classes and the code with the System.net classes
makes the same software. And because of the fact that it is intermidiate
software gives the same processing results.

(That had probably not been so when it all was end code).

Do you know something about this?

Cor

[Cor]

Than I did succeed.

[Scott M.]

Or, do you mean "Then".
"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:3f**********************@reader20.wxs.nl...

Than I did succeed.

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

No Cor, I just don't understand YOUR post at all. And by
understand, I don't mean from a VB.NET standpoint. I
mean from a reading of the English language standpoint.

Cor and some other people here are not native English speakers. Even if
their postings (including mine) are hard to understand, most of them can be
understood by the reader.

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Cor]

Jak bedziesz wladal wiesza ilosia jezyków bedzie to dla ciebie nie
najwazniejsze bo chodzi tu o resultat a nie metode.

[Mr. x]

I am not native English speeker too, but on every post of yours, you don't
get to the point - Is there a file (a true file, indeed, not tutorial) of
Visual VB help (like *.chm) ?

Thanks :)

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi*******@m.activevb.de> wrote in message
news:e2**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

No Cor, I just don't understand YOUR post at all. And by
understand, I don't mean from a VB.NET standpoint. I
mean from a reading of the English language standpoint.
Cor and some other people here are not native English speakers. Even if
their postings (including mine) are hard to understand, most of them can

be understood by the reader.

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Cor]

Mr. x.
I told you yesterday that the most people who are actibe in this group are
specialized in the VB.language and that they use Visual.Studio.Net or
VB.studio.Net.

Yesterday Herfried told me, that that was not important. He and a lot of
others did try to help you as much as possible to day.

We don't know if there is a *.chm file. I myself have looked for the .Net
framework SDK if there was a *.chm file with it, but I doubt it. Writting
this maybe you are intrested in the Script language from Microsoft. In that
is I thought a *.chm with examples of JavaScript and Visual.Basic script.

I have looked it up for you.
It is at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...f-fc6af26dc390

Remember the people who answered you are no paid people.
The took time to help you on there free saterday in there country too.

Cor

[Mr. x]

Hmmm.
Very interesting.
Kidding - I don't understand your language, and even if it is a curse or
something - I don't mind.

BTW, see my post for my time problem, I think you interesting to know, and I
think it is a Bingo.
posted at : "Tutorials for VB'.

Cheers...

"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:3f***********************@reader22.wxs.nl...

Jak bedziesz wladal wiesza ilosia jezyków bedzie to dla ciebie nie
najwazniejsze bo chodzi tu o resultat a nie metode.

[Mr. x]

Thanks :)

I'll manage somehow...

See my post on "Tutorial for VB" - it has an answer for my time problem, and
I think it is a Bingo...
Please inform me at "Tutorial for VB" subject.

Thanks :)

"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:3f**********************@reader22.wxs.nl...

Mr. x.
I told you yesterday that the most people who are actibe in this group are
specialized in the VB.language and that they use Visual.Studio.Net or
VB.studio.Net.

Yesterday Herfried told me, that that was not important. He and a lot of
others did try to help you as much as possible to day.

We don't know if there is a *.chm file. I myself have looked for the .Net
framework SDK if there was a *.chm file with it, but I doubt it. Writting
this maybe you are intrested in the Script language from Microsoft. In that is I thought a *.chm with examples of JavaScript and Visual.Basic script.

I have looked it up for you.
It is at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...f-fc6af26dc390
Remember the people who answered you are no paid people.
The took time to help you on there free saterday in there country too.

Cor

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

No Cor, I just don't understand YOUR post at all. And by
understand, I don't mean from a VB.NET standpoint. I
mean from a reading of the English language standpoint.

Cor and some other people here are not native English speakers. Even if
their postings (including mine) are hard to understand, most of them can be
understood by the reader.

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Cor]

Jak bedziesz wladal wiesza ilosia jezyków bedzie to dla ciebie nie
najwazniejsze bo chodzi tu o resultat a nie metode.

[Mr. x]

I am not native English speeker too, but on every post of yours, you don't
get to the point - Is there a file (a true file, indeed, not tutorial) of
Visual VB help (like *.chm) ?

Thanks :)

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi*******@m.activevb.de> wrote in message
news:e2**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hello,

"Scott M." <s-***@badspamsnet.net> schrieb:

No Cor, I just don't understand YOUR post at all. And by
understand, I don't mean from a VB.NET standpoint. I
mean from a reading of the English language standpoint.
Cor and some other people here are not native English speakers. Even if
their postings (including mine) are hard to understand, most of them can

be understood by the reader.

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner
MVP · VB Classic, VB.NET
http://www.mvps.org/dotnet

[Cor]

Mr. x.
I told you yesterday that the most people who are actibe in this group are
specialized in the VB.language and that they use Visual.Studio.Net or
VB.studio.Net.

Yesterday Herfried told me, that that was not important. He and a lot of
others did try to help you as much as possible to day.

We don't know if there is a *.chm file. I myself have looked for the .Net
framework SDK if there was a *.chm file with it, but I doubt it. Writting
this maybe you are intrested in the Script language from Microsoft. In that
is I thought a *.chm with examples of JavaScript and Visual.Basic script.

I have looked it up for you.
It is at
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...f-fc6af26dc390

Remember the people who answered you are no paid people.
The took time to help you on there free saterday in there country too.

Cor