where is the Key in TreeView.NET?

[Tark Siala]

hi
i working with TreeView in VB6, and have good Properity Named (Key)
with the Key i can goto Any Node i know hes Key.

but in VB.NET i can find the Key :(
please tell me where i can find the key in TreeView.Net...
-----------------------------------------------
Best Regards From Tark

[Jim Burns]

I just started Programming 6 mouths ago .Before Deciding what language to
learn I look at C++ And liked the Idea It was the language of windows .
But when I looked at VB6 I was hooked I loved the way I could learn and at
the same time the program could get up and run Quickly.
What really made up my mind was watching The.net Show. I watched VB.net And
loved the idea that they said they made VB a first class language with .net
Not a lot of API calls to get to the hart of the OS .At the time I didn't
know about all this controversy after all the same people that wrote
VB1,2,3,4,5,6,Wrote VB.net
I couldn't find any video tapes for learning .net as a true beginner. So I
purchase 17 VB6 CDs and 18 VB.net CDs
I'm more then half way thru VB6 And I've tried what I learned in VB.net I'm
a beginner and it wasn't like a different language it seemed like VB.
I did notice they went a little to far with Changing stupid stuff like
combo1.AddItem and many more. No Control Arrays with out having to write
your own Array handler. But Like it or not it is VB7 and if for one moment I
thought otherwise I would learn C++ and I think New programmers would agree.
Because if VB.net wasn't VB who would want to learn a dieing language. A
language that would never be upgraded again. From what little I know I would
love for Microsoft to Change .net . Not back to vb6 but put back the syntax
arrays and more . but It will never happen. So Ill learn VB6 and then move
on to VB.net
I realize many programmers Have used VB for years and feel a strong
attachment with It and Hate what MS did with it.But It is the future of VB.
Eventually I feel Microsoft will make the .net framework the only frame work
for windows Not in the near further but at so point.

"smith" <rc********@smithvoiceTAKEOUT.com> wrote in message
news:hi*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

No one wants this to get into fire Bryan, remember I use VB new and classic and I stand behind the product Visual Basic just as strongly as you do.

Her's a great idea though, and I'd really appreciate it if you could take
the time. Because you, like Ken, are an MVP, then you have a direct line to Microsoft's VB Team and I'll bet they would be more than thrilled to give
you the marketing research numbers. I envy you your MVP status for just
that reason because as a very proud VB developer myself I could really use
those official statistics to get VB (any version) into projects that the C++ people and the "VB is a toy" perception still keep VB out of.

Please use your MVP influence to tell us officially that 51% of all Visual
Basic usage is in the retail sector, I will thank you, as a simple customer and user, from the bottom of my heart.
To the point: Actually, I didn't quite make that sad assertion, I said that for most VB devs who do corporatework (hence my use of the asterisks added
to make the implication clear, in that Of All all corporate VB developers,
Those Who need to worry about obfuscation are in the minority). Regardless of my implication not being picked up, the point of the entire post was on
Obfuscation for the percentage of retail development that IS being done by
VB.Net developers:

As posted:

"... if you aren't a corporate dev then just don't use the free version
of Dotfusctor that comes with VS.

If you truly need obfuscation ... truly, as in you are a for-retail dev,
then ..."

With a fast re-read you'll see that I also have done non-corporate VB.Net
and that the original post tells what I personally use for obfuscation on
those projects.
Can you get those numbers on VB-For-Retail using your position, Bryan?
Thanks!

Robert Smith
Kirkland, WA
www.smtihvoice.com

"alpine" <al******************@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:ba********************************@4ax.com...

You're the one that made the assertion. Back it up, bub! ;-)

Bryan
__________________________________________________ __________

[Mike In Oz]

There is no key in .net.
Which is real pain as you need to navifate via nodes. Even simple thing like
nodes(1) is a 2nd node within a node not the treeview.

I use tag property to do searching.

Try (I butchered my code but you will get general idea)
Public gTreeNodeFind as TreeNode

Public Function FindNode(ByVal t As TreeView, ByVal Id As Integer) As
TreeNode
gTreeNodeFind = Nothing

mFindNext(t.Nodes(0), Id)

Return gTreeNodeFind

End Function

Public Sub mFindNext(ByVal t As TreeNode, ByVal id As Integer)

If Not IsNothing(gTreeNodeFind) Then Exit Sub

Dim niD As integer

nid = CType(t.Tag, integer)

If nid= id Then

gTreeNodeFind = t

Exit Sub

End If

'

Dim a As TreeNode

For Each a In t.Nodes

mFindNext(a, id)

If Not IsNothing(gTreeNodeFind) Then Exit Sub

Next

end sub

"Jim Burns" <Ji****@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:JP********************@comcast.com...

I just started Programming 6 mouths ago .Before Deciding what language to
learn I look at C++ And liked the Idea It was the language of windows .
But when I looked at VB6 I was hooked I loved the way I could learn and at
the same time the program could get up and run Quickly.
What really made up my mind was watching The.net Show. I watched VB.net And loved the idea that they said they made VB a first class language with ..net Not a lot of API calls to get to the hart of the OS .At the time I didn't
know about all this controversy after all the same people that wrote
VB1,2,3,4,5,6,Wrote VB.net
I couldn't find any video tapes for learning .net as a true beginner. So I
purchase 17 VB6 CDs and 18 VB.net CDs
I'm more then half way thru VB6 And I've tried what I learned in VB.net I'm a beginner and it wasn't like a different language it seemed like VB.
I did notice they went a little to far with Changing stupid stuff like
combo1.AddItem and many more. No Control Arrays with out having to write
your own Array handler. But Like it or not it is VB7 and if for one moment I thought otherwise I would learn C++ and I think New programmers would agree. Because if VB.net wasn't VB who would want to learn a dieing language. A
language that would never be upgraded again. From what little I know I would love for Microsoft to Change .net . Not back to vb6 but put back the syntax arrays and more . but It will never happen. So Ill learn VB6 and then move
on to VB.net
I realize many programmers Have used VB for years and feel a strong
attachment with It and Hate what MS did with it.But It is the future of VB. Eventually I feel Microsoft will make the .net framework the only frame work for windows Not in the near further but at so point.

"smith" <rc********@smithvoiceTAKEOUT.com> wrote in message
news:hi*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

No one wants this to get into fire Bryan, remember I use VB new and classic

and I stand behind the product Visual Basic just as strongly as you do.

Her's a great idea though, and I'd really appreciate it if you could take the time. Because you, like Ken, are an MVP, then you have a direct line to

Microsoft's VB Team and I'll bet they would be more than thrilled to

give you the marketing research numbers. I envy you your MVP status for just that reason because as a very proud VB developer myself I could really use those official statistics to get VB (any version) into projects that the

C++

people and the "VB is a toy" perception still keep VB out of.

Please use your MVP influence to tell us officially that 51% of all Visual Basic usage is in the retail sector, I will thank you, as a simple

customer

and user, from the bottom of my heart.
To the point: Actually, I didn't quite make that sad assertion, I said

that

for most VB devs who do corporatework (hence my use of the asterisks added to make the implication clear, in that Of All all corporate VB developers, Those Who need to worry about obfuscation are in the minority).

Regardless

of my implication not being picked up, the point of the entire post was on Obfuscation for the percentage of retail development that IS being done by VB.Net developers:

As posted:

"... if you aren't a corporate dev then just don't use the free version
of Dotfusctor that comes with VS.

If you truly need obfuscation ... truly, as in you are a for-retail dev,
then ..."

With a fast re-read you'll see that I also have done non-corporate VB.Net and that the original post tells what I personally use for obfuscation on those projects.
Can you get those numbers on VB-For-Retail using your position, Bryan?
Thanks!

Robert Smith
Kirkland, WA
www.smtihvoice.com

"alpine" <al******************@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:ba********************************@4ax.com...

You're the one that made the assertion. Back it up, bub! ;-)

Bryan
__________________________________________________ __________

[Ken Halter]

"Jim Burns" <Ji****@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:JP********************@comcast.com...

What really made up my mind was watching The.net Show. I watched VB.net
And
loved the idea that they said they made VB a first class language with
.net
Not a lot of API calls to get to the hart of the OS .At the time I didn't
know about all this controversy after all the same people that wrote
VB1,2,3,4,5,6,Wrote VB.net
Sorry... nice thought but, same company. Completely different development
team....All of those API calls, and other non "plain vanilla basic" code
that we've been adding to our apps for years and years, are completely
debugged and very reliable, have to be thrown away in this "language of the
month" they're calling VB.Net (aka B#). The upgrade "wizard" is worthless on
anything but "plain vanilla basic" and even then, it falls way short of
being a useful tool. The complete loss of a decade's worth of handy code
snips and components is what's keeping "the masses" from adopting B#. There
are a lot of companies doing all of their new work in .Net. Not too many
that are paying people to re-write, test, debug and redeploy tons of code
just so they can say "but, it's .Net!". We have components here that have
been in use for 5+ years without costing the company another dime becuase
they're fully debugged and suit the purpose they were designed for very
well. Why would anyone want to toss that reliability in the trash and start
over.net?
I couldn't find any video tapes for learning .net as a true beginner. So I
purchase 17 VB6 CDs and 18 VB.net CDs
Tons and tons of videos on both. If you have problems finding tutorials on
VB.anything, post back. There are a bajillion of each.
I'm more then half way thru VB6 And I've tried what I learned in VB.net
I'm
Half way through the videos maybe.. I've been writing VB code for as as long
as I can remember and I'm still not "half way through" using all of the
capabilities of the language.
a beginner and it wasn't like a different language it seemed like VB.
I did notice they went a little to far with Changing stupid stuff like
combo1.AddItem and many more. No Control Arrays with out having to write
your own Array handler. But Like it or not it is VB7 and if for one moment
I
thought otherwise I would learn C++ and I think New programmers would
agree.
You may want to reconsider. C++ devs make the most money for one thing and
they can actually use code that's years old without worrying about some
software company changing it on a whim.
Because if VB.net wasn't VB who would want to learn a dieing language. A
people who believe the marketting hype. Here are a few opinions that aren't
tied to sales.

Visual Fred
http://www.mvps.org/vb/index2.html?rants/vfred.htm

Our statement on VB.Net
http://www.microdexterity.com/staminet.html

....If I looked hard enough, I could find many more where those came from.
language that would never be upgraded again. From what little I know I
would
love for Microsoft to Change .net . Not back to vb6 but put back the
syntax
arrays and more . but It will never happen. So Ill learn VB6 and then move
on to VB.net
Good luck to you <g> Since you state that you're a beginner, you have quite
a few options. Delphi is another option and quite a few "ex-vb'er's" are
switching to that.
btw, you might want to look around the web. When you find components that
are "100% .Net authored" (or something similar), you can be sure that you'll
find "C#" tied to that statement somewhere on the page. I've never found a
single company that states that their components are written using
"VB.Net"..... not even one company!
I realize many programmers Have used VB for years and feel a strong
attachment with It and Hate what MS did with it.But It is the future of
VB.
Only time will tell. Meanwhile, I have work to do... programming in VB
Classic.
Eventually I feel Microsoft will make the .net framework the only frame
work
for windows Not in the near further but at so point.

That's for sure.... and when that OS becomes popular, it will truly be the
end of Visual Basic. I feel that .Net's still in its infancy and resembles
Win3.1 running on top of DOS (I had that loaded for about a week)...
currently you have the .Net framework running on top of Windows. When they
get rid of the "running on top of" part of the description, things will
speed up and run more smoothly and it'll be about as different (hopefully,
improved) as Win95/NT4 was when compared to Win3.1/NT3.51(ick). I'm patient.
I'll wait. As Grandma used to say, "anything worth having is worth waiting
for" (that statement doesn't apply to waiting for a programming language to
populate a form though <g>)

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Jim Burns]

So Rob Copeland Project Manager For VB.net who on the the .net show said he
helped develop vb 1,2,3,4,5,6, was full of shit.
"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ov**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

"Jim Burns" <Ji****@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:JP********************@comcast.com...

What really made up my mind was watching The.net Show. I watched VB.net
And
loved the idea that they said they made VB a first class language with
.net
Not a lot of API calls to get to the hart of the OS .At the time I didn't know about all this controversy after all the same people that wrote
VB1,2,3,4,5,6,Wrote VB.net
Sorry... nice thought but, same company. Completely different development
team....All of those API calls, and other non "plain vanilla basic" code
that we've been adding to our apps for years and years, are completely
debugged and very reliable, have to be thrown away in this "language of

the month" they're calling VB.Net (aka B#). The upgrade "wizard" is worthless on anything but "plain vanilla basic" and even then, it falls way short of
being a useful tool. The complete loss of a decade's worth of handy code
snips and components is what's keeping "the masses" from adopting B#. There are a lot of companies doing all of their new work in .Net. Not too many
that are paying people to re-write, test, debug and redeploy tons of code
just so they can say "but, it's .Net!". We have components here that have
been in use for 5+ years without costing the company another dime becuase
they're fully debugged and suit the purpose they were designed for very
well. Why would anyone want to toss that reliability in the trash and start over.net?

I couldn't find any video tapes for learning .net as a true beginner. So I purchase 17 VB6 CDs and 18 VB.net CDs
Tons and tons of videos on both. If you have problems finding tutorials on
VB.anything, post back. There are a bajillion of each.

I'm more then half way thru VB6 And I've tried what I learned in VB.net
I'm

Half way through the videos maybe.. I've been writing VB code for as as

long as I can remember and I'm still not "half way through" using all of the
capabilities of the language.

a beginner and it wasn't like a different language it seemed like VB.
I did notice they went a little to far with Changing stupid stuff like
combo1.AddItem and many more. No Control Arrays with out having to write
your own Array handler. But Like it or not it is VB7 and if for one moment I
thought otherwise I would learn C++ and I think New programmers would
agree.
You may want to reconsider. C++ devs make the most money for one thing and
they can actually use code that's years old without worrying about some
software company changing it on a whim.

Because if VB.net wasn't VB who would want to learn a dieing language. A

people who believe the marketting hype. Here are a few opinions that

aren't tied to sales.

Visual Fred
http://www.mvps.org/vb/index2.html?rants/vfred.htm

Our statement on VB.Net
http://www.microdexterity.com/staminet.html

...If I looked hard enough, I could find many more where those came from.

language that would never be upgraded again. From what little I know I
would
love for Microsoft to Change .net . Not back to vb6 but put back the
syntax
arrays and more . but It will never happen. So Ill learn VB6 and then move on to VB.net
Good luck to you <g> Since you state that you're a beginner, you have

quite a few options. Delphi is another option and quite a few "ex-vb'er's" are
switching to that.
btw, you might want to look around the web. When you find components that
are "100% .Net authored" (or something similar), you can be sure that you'll find "C#" tied to that statement somewhere on the page. I've never found a
single company that states that their components are written using
"VB.Net"..... not even one company!

I realize many programmers Have used VB for years and feel a strong
attachment with It and Hate what MS did with it.But It is the future of
VB.
Only time will tell. Meanwhile, I have work to do... programming in VB
Classic.

Eventually I feel Microsoft will make the .net framework the only frame
work
for windows Not in the near further but at so point.

That's for sure.... and when that OS becomes popular, it will truly be the
end of Visual Basic. I feel that .Net's still in its infancy and resembles
Win3.1 running on top of DOS (I had that loaded for about a week)...
currently you have the .Net framework running on top of Windows. When they
get rid of the "running on top of" part of the description, things will
speed up and run more smoothly and it'll be about as different (hopefully,
improved) as Win95/NT4 was when compared to Win3.1/NT3.51(ick). I'm

patient. I'll wait. As Grandma used to say, "anything worth having is worth waiting
for" (that statement doesn't apply to waiting for a programming language to populate a form though <g>)

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Ken Halter]

"Jim Burns" <Ji****@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ee********************@comcast.com...

So Rob Copeland Project Manager For VB.net who on the the .net show said
he
helped develop vb 1,2,3,4,5,6, was full of sh1t.

Maybe I should've said "Completely different people in charge of the
development team" eh? Sure, there a few stragglers left. Besides... "Project
Manager" <> "Development Team". How much does your project manager actually
know about the product you're working on?

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Bob O`Bob]

Jim Burns wrote:

So Rob Copeland Project Manager For VB.net who on the the .net show said he
helped develop vb 1,2,3,4,5,6, was full of shit.

not in that specific detail.

Bob
--

[Jim Burns]

Ken Have you every seen the video of vb.net on the .net show
If not- Its definitely worth watching .Believe it or not after watching the
video you come away with the impression the people who developed .net had
only the best intensions for the language. I haven't been doing this long
but from what I see they went more then a little to far.But I don't think
they expected the mass disproval.

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"Jim Burns" <Ji****@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ee********************@comcast.com...

So Rob Copeland Project Manager For VB.net who on the the .net show said
he
helped develop vb 1,2,3,4,5,6, was full of sh1t.
Maybe I should've said "Completely different people in charge of the
development team" eh? Sure, there a few stragglers left. Besides...

"Project Manager" <> "Development Team". How much does your project manager actually know about the product you're working on?

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Jim Burns]

I have a ? but it has nothing to do with the treeview but then again most of
the post don't.
I posted in VB.general but no answer anyway here's the post.

I'am Learning VB From Paul Sheriff's video ser.
I can create classes and collection classes but he doesn't tell me what
there used for.
If I could save them to a file and open them up in the form load I would see
many uses for them But is that possible? I was practicing with a basic
address book that you could scroll thru I wrote one when I was learning ADO
and it worked great and was good homework.
I was going to do the same with Collections. I get as far as entering all
the names in the address book at runtime and then scrolling thru them with
the Key's set to 1,2,3 and so on. But after the program is closed there all
gone.
I guess My Question is can they be saved to a file and are collections used
in this way,If not what are they for?

"Bob O`Bob" <fi*******@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Jim Burns wrote:

So Rob Copeland Project Manager For VB.net who on the the .net show said he helped develop vb 1,2,3,4,5,6, was full of shit.

not in that specific detail.

Bob
--

[Bob Butler]

"Jim Burns" <Ji****@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HI********************@comcast.com

Ken Have you every seen the video of vb.net on the .net show
If not- Its definitely worth watching .Believe it or not after
watching the video you come away with the impression the people who
developed .net had only the best intensions for the language. I
haven't been doing this long but from what I see they went more then
a little to far.But I don't think they expected the mass disproval.

The phrase "the road to hell is paved..." springs to mind

--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net: "Fool me once..."

[alpine]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:39:15 -0500, "Jim Burns" <Ji****@comcast.net>
wrote:

Believe it or not after watching the video you come away with the impression the people who developed .net had
only the best intensions for the language.

I see you're easily taken in by marketing hype. ;-)

The problem is that none of them had ever actually *used* the language
to develop anything so, they had absolutely no clue about what they
were doing to the language. Even after all that has transpired, it is
pretty clear that this is *still* the case. Do you really want to
invest your code assets in a language that isn't understood *at all*
by those who are developing it?

Bryan
__________________________________________________ __________
New Vision Software "When the going gets weird,"
Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro."
al******************@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas

[Jim Burns]

You really cant believe, that they never used VB . Are you one people who
think C++ programmers wrote VB.net
"alpine" <al******************@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:5e********************************@4ax.com...

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:39:15 -0500, "Jim Burns" <Ji****@comcast.net>
wrote:

Believe it or not after watching the video you come away with the impression the people who developed .net hadonly the best intensions for the language.

I see you're easily taken in by marketing hype. ;-)

The problem is that none of them had ever actually *used* the language
to develop anything so, they had absolutely no clue about what they
were doing to the language. Even after all that has transpired, it is
pretty clear that this is *still* the case. Do you really want to
invest your code assets in a language that isn't understood *at all*
by those who are developing it?

Bryan
__________________________________________________ __________
New Vision Software "When the going gets weird,"
Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro."
al******************@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas

[alpine]

LOL! Why do you find that so difficult to believe? The evidence is
clear. I doubt you would have any trouble believing if you had ever
talked to any of the devs, in person, yourself.

Bryan
__________________________________________________ __________
New Vision Software "When the going gets weird,"
Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro."
al******************@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:49:17 -0500, "Jim Burns" <Ji****@comcast.net>
wrote:

You really cant believe, that they never used VB . Are you one people who
think C++ programmers wrote VB.net

"alpine" <al******************@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:5e********************************@4ax.com.. .

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:39:15 -0500, "Jim Burns" <Ji****@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Believe it or not after watching the video you come away with theimpression the people who developed .net had >only the best intensions for the language.

I see you're easily taken in by marketing hype. ;-)

The problem is that none of them had ever actually *used* the language
to develop anything so, they had absolutely no clue about what they
were doing to the language. Even after all that has transpired, it is
pretty clear that this is *still* the case. Do you really want to
invest your code assets in a language that isn't understood *at all*
by those who are developing it?

Bryan
__________________________________________________ __________
New Vision Software "When the going gets weird,"
Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro."
al******************@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas

[smith]

:)

Hi Again Ken & folks.
I have to say this is still a great thread.

I also have to say again, if you're a long time VB developer then you
remember the frustration of losing a lot of code and components in the move
from VB3 to VB4. All of your VBX investment was a waste and, in time, you
found that making your own classes made a lot of your old structured code
un-worthy of cut&pasting into newer projects.

I remember those days just like you. I remember yelling in Redmond's
direction and feeling that I was caught in that line from All the
President's Men: "When you have them by the balls their hearts and minds
will follow." It appeared that MS had a radically new OS and because they
fully owned the Visual Basic product and knew that we had no immediate
alternative they could just force the migration and we either had to stick
with 16bit or eat our investments.

Ten years later, the edge has softened and ten years later would you still
rather be working within the constraints of VB3... even though back in the
day you heard many of us loudly screaming that VB3 did 'everything we could
ever think we would need to do' and howling that 'VB4 was a performace dog'?

As stated early on, I've been working primarily with VB7 for over two years
and with real experience I have seen that the performance issues of the
betas are not part of the apps that I release. You get better at your
toolls the more you use them. Plus, also as stated earlier, there are a
number of major performance boosts in .Net2 for VB8 (re-living the VB4 ->
VB5 experience).

Threads tend to get into minutia, so I'll bite the "Sender as object" spark:
A number of VB developers in the past used Delphi to fill in some of VBs
gaps and "Sender as object" is nothing new to them, plus (speaking only for
myself, a dedicated VB developer) when I first started using VB7 and from
real work figured out that "Sender as object" gives you some nice optional
flexibility for centralizing code I was happy that "that delphi crap" was in
VB7; I'm sure that I my words won't convince anyone because no one could
convince me with just words and I had to figure it out by actually using 7
for real projects instead of just scanning someone elses' sample code or
doing one-off tests.

Anyway, there is nothing new under the sun. VB7 to me is VB4 all over again
and while it is a pain to many in and of itself, us old-timers who have
learned to see patterns can see that VB8 has a good chance of being the
serious tool that VB5/6 was in it's day.

One last because it's a shame that no one ever goes back and reads threads
from the top (and the new google groups format makes it even less likely
that anyone will). Using VB7 is not an all or nothing choice. VB6 and VB7
work seemlessly together letting you get the power of both very very easily.
It's done with "Interop" and it's almost user-stupid. Check out the
Rockford Lhotka boo VB Interoperability (
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...qid=1103833887 ) to
see how quickly you can get the power of VB./Net to be used in VB6 and the
power of VB6 to be used in VB.Net.

Robert Smith
Kirkland, WA
www.smithvoice.com
"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OX**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

[Noozer]

As stated early on, I've been working primarily with VB7 for over two years and with real experience I have seen that the performance issues of the
betas are not part of the apps that I release. You get better at your

<snip>

There is no such thing as VB7... VB6 was the last version available.

[Ken Halter]

"smith" <rc********@smithvoiceTAKEOUT.com> wrote in message
news:Y%*****************@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

:)

Hi Again Ken & folks.
I have to say this is still a great thread.

All was fine until you called B#, VB7... sorry... no such thing. There'll
never be a Microsoft VB8 either I'm afraid. The "B" in Visual Basic stands
for "Basic".... as in MS Basic. There are very few traces of "MS Basic" in
B#... and no, I'm not talking about that "VB6.compatibility" junk that turns
simple code into hell. For example...

Me.Height = Toolbar1.Height + (Me.Height - Me.ScaleHeight) 'VB6

Turns into this B# nightmare.

Me.Height = VB6.TwipsToPixelsY(VB6.PixelsToTwipsY(Toolbar1.Hei ght) +
(VB6.PixelsToTwipsY(Me.Height) -
VB6.PixelsToTwipsY(Me.ClientRectangle.Height)))

Give me a break!.. and, about screaming about VB3->VB4 changes,.... not me!
I used VB3 for maintenance only (gone forever now)... and, pretty much hated
it. I also hated Win3.1/NT3.51 and never had them loaded at home as they
were nothing more than fancy menu systems at the time. I had PCTools back
then and it provided all of the same functionality (the functionality I
needed anyway) I swore by DOS (running 4DOS and PCTools). The VB I really
started with was VB5.... which coincided with Win98... or, when Windows
started getting cool.

B# is a step backwards imo. Especially the help system. VB5's was the best
of the best. VB6's is great too but you need to learn to use it correctly.
..Net's help system is a bloated mess.

Talk about a slow IDE... Man... it's like downgrading my processor to one
that's 5 years old and cutting my ram in half! The resulting apps are slow
as well (just check the groups for plenty of complaints)

I'm sure B# will "mature" into a fine product eventually (unless MS decides
to "sh!t can" it 'cause everyone hates it, after all, it's still a toy,
right?)... I'm just not willing to pull any more hair out while this
happens. I was reluctant to migrate to Windows (look at all of the hassles I
missed out on!) and I'm reluctant to migrate to .Net (just check the groups
for all of the hassles I'm missing out on) this early. Besides, I can't use
it at work so ??? There's exactly >zero< desire to migrate to .Net at work.
We're waiting for .Next here <g>

I just wish someone would fix VS6/SP6 (so I can load it). As it is, it seems
like an blatant attack aimed directly at VB6 developers. It's hard to
believe that this is anywhere near true... but what other explanation is
there for releasing such crap.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Bob Butler]

"smith" <rc********@smithvoiceTAKEOUT.com> wrote in message
news:Y%*****************@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net

:)

Hi Again Ken & folks.
I have to say this is still a great thread.

I also have to say again, if you're a long time VB developer then you
remember the frustration of losing a lot of code and components in
the move from VB3 to VB4. All of your VBX investment was a waste
That was a downside, but there were OCX replacements for many.
and, in time, you found that making your own classes made a lot of
your old structured code un-worthy of cut&pasting into newer projects.
But that old 'structured' code still worked and you could bring the VB3 code
into VB4 and then begin to replace sections as desired.
I remember those days just like you. I remember yelling in Redmond's
direction and feeling that I was caught in that line from All the
President's Men: "When you have them by the balls their hearts and
minds will follow." It appeared that MS had a radically new OS and
because they fully owned the Visual Basic product and knew that we
had no immediate alternative they could just force the migration and
we either had to stick with 16bit or eat our investments.
moving to the 32-bit OS was a hurdle but at least there was an underlying
justification for the majority of the changes. there is virtually no
justification for most of the changes required for VB.Net apart from some
misguided attempt to "clean up" the language
Ten years later, the edge has softened and ten years later would you
still rather be working within the constraints of VB3... even though
back in the day you heard many of us loudly screaming that VB3 did
'everything we could ever think we would need to do' and howling that
'VB4 was a performace dog'?
No, evolution is a good thing and some bumps along the way are expected.
Putting up a brick wall and requiring major rewrites is a totally different
issue. And, like many, I toyed with VB4 to learn the new extensions but
didn't implement until VB5 came along and corrected the performance issues.
As stated early on, I've been working primarily with VB7
free clue, there's no such thing; there is a new language with a superficial
similarity
for over two years and with real experience I have seen that the performance issues of the betas are not part of the apps that I release. You get
better at your toolls the more you use them. Plus, also as stated
earlier, there are a number of major performance boosts in .Net2 for
VB8 (re-living the VB4 -> VB5 experience).
Too bad they so totally alienated such a large part of the VB developer
community
Threads tend to get into minutia, so I'll bite the "Sender as object"
spark: A number of VB developers in the past used Delphi to fill in
some of VBs gaps and "Sender as object" is nothing new to them,
maybe, but it would have been nice if they had concentrated on making it
"nothing new" to VB developers rather that prioritizing the Delphi crowd
plus (speaking only for myself, a dedicated VB developer) when I first
started using VB7 and from real work figured out that "Sender as
object" gives you some nice optional flexibility for centralizing
code I was happy that "that delphi crap" was in VB7;
Yes, it would have made a nice extension. As a replacement for thousands of
lines of existing code it simply bites.
I'm sure that I
my words won't convince anyone because no one could convince me with
just words and I had to figure it out by actually using 7 for real
projects instead of just scanning someone elses' sample code or doing
one-off tests.
C# has some nice features; there's just no point in putting a VB-ish skin
over that
Anyway, there is nothing new under the sun. VB7 to me is VB4 all
over again and while it is a pain to many in and of itself, us old-
timers who have learned to see patterns can see that VB8 has a good
chance of being the serious tool that VB5/6 was in it's day.
Good luck. You will need it when .Next is released.
One last because it's a shame that no one ever goes back and reads
threads from the top (and the new google groups format makes it even
less likely that anyone will). Using VB7 is not an all or nothing
choice. VB6 and VB7 work seemlessly together
ROTFLMAO
lletting you get the
power of both very very easily. It's done with "Interop" and it's
almost user-stupid. Check out the Rockford Lhotka boo VB
Interoperability ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
/1861005652/qid=1103833887 ) to see how quickly you can get the power
of VB./Net to be used in VB6 and the power of VB6 to be used in
VB.Net.

--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net: "Fool me once..."

[Cor Ligthert]

Ken,

Me.Height = Toolbar1.Height + (Me.Height - Me.ScaleHeight) 'VB6

Turns into this B# nightmare.

Me.Height = VB6.TwipsToPixelsY(VB6.PixelsToTwipsY(Toolbar1.Hei ght) +
(VB6.PixelsToTwipsY(Me.Height) -
VB6.PixelsToTwipsY(Me.ClientRectangle.Height)))
When I gues, what you try to archieve, did you ever try if the dock property
from the toolbar can do almost the same for you?

Cor
Give me a break!.. and, about screaming about VB3->VB4 changes,.... not
me! I used VB3 for maintenance only (gone forever now)... and, pretty much
hated it. I also hated Win3.1/NT3.51 and never had them loaded at home as
they were nothing more than fancy menu systems at the time. I had PCTools
back then and it provided all of the same functionality (the functionality
I needed anyway) I swore by DOS (running 4DOS and PCTools). The VB I
really started with was VB5.... which coincided with Win98... or, when
Windows started getting cool.

B# is a step backwards imo. Especially the help system. VB5's was the best
of the best. VB6's is great too but you need to learn to use it correctly.
.Net's help system is a bloated mess.

Talk about a slow IDE... Man... it's like downgrading my processor to one
that's 5 years old and cutting my ram in half! The resulting apps are slow
as well (just check the groups for plenty of complaints)

I'm sure B# will "mature" into a fine product eventually (unless MS
decides to "sh!t can" it 'cause everyone hates it, after all, it's still a
toy, right?)... I'm just not willing to pull any more hair out while this
happens. I was reluctant to migrate to Windows (look at all of the hassles
I missed out on!) and I'm reluctant to migrate to .Net (just check the
groups for all of the hassles I'm missing out on) this early. Besides, I
can't use it at work so ??? There's exactly >zero< desire to migrate to
.Net at work. We're waiting for .Next here <g>

I just wish someone would fix VS6/SP6 (so I can load it). As it is, it
seems like an blatant attack aimed directly at VB6 developers. It's hard
to believe that this is anywhere near true... but what other explanation
is there for releasing such crap.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[alpine]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:44:37 +0100, "Cor Ligthert"
<no************@planet.nl> wrote:

Ken,

Me.Height = Toolbar1.Height + (Me.Height - Me.ScaleHeight) 'VB6

Turns into this B# nightmare.

Me.Height = VB6.TwipsToPixelsY(VB6.PixelsToTwipsY(Toolbar1.Hei ght) +
(VB6.PixelsToTwipsY(Me.Height) -
VB6.PixelsToTwipsY(Me.ClientRectangle.Height)))

When I gues, what you try to archieve, did you ever try if the dock property
from the toolbar can do almost the same for you?

Cor

Go back and read Ken's post again. It's not about what he was trying
to achieve with the above code but rather what the VB# "upgrade
lizard" does to perfectly readable code. It turns it into GARBAGE.
(Of course, any code written in VB# *is* GARBAGE as far as MS is
concerned so don't be surprised when they put VB# out by the curb just
like they did with VB6 ;-) )

Bryan
__________________________________________________ __________
New Vision Software "When the going gets weird,"
Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro."
al******************@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas

[Paul Clement]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:34:49 -0700, "Noozer" <do*******@me.here> wrote:

¤
¤ > As stated early on, I've been working primarily with VB7 for over two
¤ years
¤ > and with real experience I have seen that the performance issues of the
¤ > betas are not part of the apps that I release. You get better at your
¤
¤ <snip>
¤
¤ There is no such thing as VB7... VB6 was the last version available.
¤

For those in denial anyway. ;-)

Doesn't make much sense cross-posting that to a VB.NET newsgroup does it? ;-)
Paul ~~~ pc******@ameritech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

[alpine]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:23:22 -0600, Paul Clement
<Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:

¤ There is no such thing as VB7... VB6 was the last version available.

For those in denial anyway. ;-)

No, only for those of us living in the real world. IOW, those of us
who, unlike you, haven't been slurping up the KoolAid distributed by
the VB# marketing/evangilisim team. ;-)

HTH,
Bryan
__________________________________________________ __________
New Vision Software "When the going gets weird,"
Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro."
al******************@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas

[Paul Clement]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:52:57 -0700, alpine <al******************@mvps.org> wrote:

¤ On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:23:22 -0600, Paul Clement
¤ <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:
¤
¤ >¤ There is no such thing as VB7... VB6 was the last version available.
¤ >
¤ >For those in denial anyway. ;-)
¤
¤ No, only for those of us living in the real world. IOW, those of us
¤ who, unlike you, haven't been slurping up the KoolAid distributed by
¤ the VB# marketing/evangilisim team. ;-)

Uh huh. And I'll still be drinking the KoolAid long after the lights in your "real world" have been
extinguished and your temporary existence "in the dark" is rendered permanent. ;-)
Paul ~~~ pc******@ameritech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

[Stefan Berglund]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:03:50 -0600, Paul Clement
<Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:
in <vt********************************@4ax.com>

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:52:57 -0700, alpine <al******************@mvps.org> wrote:

¤ On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:23:22 -0600, Paul Clement
¤ <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:
¤
¤ >¤ There is no such thing as VB7... VB6 was the last version available.
¤ >
¤ >For those in denial anyway. ;-)
¤
¤ No, only for those of us living in the real world. IOW, those of us
¤ who, unlike you, haven't been slurping up the KoolAid distributed by
¤ the VB# marketing/evangilisim team. ;-)

Uh huh. And I'll still be drinking the KoolAid long after the lights in your "real world" have been
extinguished and your temporary existence "in the dark" is rendered permanent. ;-)
Paul ~~~ pc******@ameritech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Well Paul, I sure hope you enjoy jumping through all the hoops
that MS will undoubtedly (count on it) present you. For me, it's
not worth my time to continually help them to debug their
generally *crappy* code and ideas. Perhaps you'll have the
decency to publish a book that details all your travails, but
alas, I've no time to read it since I'm so busy trying to protect
my code assets from a corporation who's obviously decided that
it's developer base is second rate at best and that the only code
assets worth protecting are their own.

Good Luck, Sucker. And I mean that with all the vitriol I can
muster, which at this point in this obviously meaningless debate,
is nil, since I've moved on and for sure not to anything .NET.
ha ha.

For your sake, I'd honestly like you to have the last laugh
(seriously), but realistically speaking am sure that that will
never happen. Nobody, not even GOD, can walk all over people and
have them remain receptive unless they're complete idiots.
---
Stefan Berglund

[Tom Shelton]

On 2004-12-23, Bob Butler <ti*******@nospam.com> wrote:

"smith" <rc********@smithvoiceTAKEOUT.com> wrote in message
news:Y%*****************@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net

:)

Hi Again Ken & folks.
I have to say this is still a great thread.

I also have to say again, if you're a long time VB developer then you
remember the frustration of losing a lot of code and components in
the move from VB3 to VB4. All of your VBX investment was a waste

That was a downside, but there were OCX replacements for many.

Just as there are .NET replacements for many OCX components... And that's
ignoring the fact that almost all of your OCX components will work in
VB.NET.

and, in time, you found that making your own classes made a lot of
your old structured code un-worthy of cut&pasting into newer projects.

But that old 'structured' code still worked and you could bring the VB3 code
into VB4 and then begin to replace sections as desired.

With interop - you can essentially do the same thing... You can convert
your project in bits and pieces. A well structured VB6 program is not
as difficult to convert as you would like others to believe.

I remember those days just like you. I remember yelling in Redmond's
direction and feeling that I was caught in that line from All the
President's Men: "When you have them by the balls their hearts and
minds will follow." It appeared that MS had a radically new OS and
because they fully owned the Visual Basic product and knew that we
had no immediate alternative they could just force the migration and
we either had to stick with 16bit or eat our investments.

moving to the 32-bit OS was a hurdle but at least there was an underlying
justification for the majority of the changes. there is virtually no
justification for most of the changes required for VB.Net apart from some
misguided attempt to "clean up" the language

I agree that most of the changes made in VB.NET were not "necessary" in
the sense that they were required by the framework. But, I'm glad they
made the changes. Actually, I'm a little pissed still over the fact
that they caved on the stuff they did during the beta 2 rollbacks.
Especially the declaration of arrays and the handling of boolean.

Ten years later, the edge has softened and ten years later would you
still rather be working within the constraints of VB3... even though
back in the day you heard many of us loudly screaming that VB3 did
'everything we could ever think we would need to do' and howling that
'VB4 was a performace dog'?

No, evolution is a good thing and some bumps along the way are expected.
Putting up a brick wall and requiring major rewrites is a totally different
issue. And, like many, I toyed with VB4 to learn the new extensions but
didn't implement until VB5 came along and corrected the performance issues.

As stated early on, I've been working primarily with VB7

free clue, there's no such thing; there is a new language with a superficial
similarity

for over two years and with real experience I have seen that the

performance

issues of the betas are not part of the apps that I release. You get
better at your toolls the more you use them. Plus, also as stated
earlier, there are a number of major performance boosts in .Net2 for
VB8 (re-living the VB4 -> VB5 experience).

Too bad they so totally alienated such a large part of the VB developer
community

Threads tend to get into minutia, so I'll bite the "Sender as object"
spark: A number of VB developers in the past used Delphi to fill in
some of VBs gaps and "Sender as object" is nothing new to them,

maybe, but it would have been nice if they had concentrated on making it
"nothing new" to VB developers rather that prioritizing the Delphi crowd

The event model in .NET is way better then VB.CLASSIC and the "Sender as
object" thing is part of that improvement.

plus (speaking only for myself, a dedicated VB developer) when I first
started using VB7 and from real work figured out that "Sender as
object" gives you some nice optional flexibility for centralizing
code I was happy that "that delphi crap" was in VB7;

Yes, it would have made a nice extension. As a replacement for thousands of
lines of existing code it simply bites.

I'm sure that I
my words won't convince anyone because no one could convince me with
just words and I had to figure it out by actually using 7 for real
projects instead of just scanning someone elses' sample code or doing
one-off tests.

C# has some nice features; there's just no point in putting a VB-ish skin
over that

Some people prefer it... There are things that are easier to do in
VB.NET then in C#. Such as latebound code, for one example.

Anyway, there is nothing new under the sun. VB7 to me is VB4 all
over again and while it is a pain to many in and of itself, us old-
timers who have learned to see patterns can see that VB8 has a good
chance of being the serious tool that VB5/6 was in it's day.

Good luck. You will need it when .Next is released.

Why? 1.0 and 1.1 code will run on 2.0.

One last because it's a shame that no one ever goes back and reads
threads from the top (and the new google groups format makes it even
less likely that anyone will). Using VB7 is not an all or nothing
choice. VB6 and VB7 work seemlessly together

ROTFLMAO

What's that supposed to mean? It's true. You can create code that in
VB.NET that can be consumed by VB6. And you can consume code created in
VB6 in VB.NET. I know - I've done it. I've used lots of my old VB6
libraries from C# and VB.NET - so I'm not sure what your on about here.

--
Tom Shelton [MVP]

[Paul Clement]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:34:19 -0800, Stefan Berglund <ke****@in.thegroups> wrote:
¤ >¤ No, only for those of us living in the real world. IOW, those of us
¤ >¤ who, unlike you, haven't been slurping up the KoolAid distributed by
¤ >¤ the VB# marketing/evangilisim team. ;-)
¤ >
¤ >Uh huh. And I'll still be drinking the KoolAid long after the lights in your "real world" have been
¤ >extinguished and your temporary existence "in the dark" is rendered permanent. ;-)
¤ >
¤ >
¤ >Paul ~~~ pc******@ameritech.net
¤ >Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
¤
¤ Well Paul, I sure hope you enjoy jumping through all the hoops
¤ that MS will undoubtedly (count on it) present you. For me, it's
¤ not worth my time to continually help them to debug their
¤ generally *crappy* code and ideas. Perhaps you'll have the
¤ decency to publish a book that details all your travails, but
¤ alas, I've no time to read it since I'm so busy trying to protect
¤ my code assets from a corporation who's obviously decided that
¤ it's developer base is second rate at best and that the only code
¤ assets worth protecting are their own.
¤
¤ Good Luck, Sucker. And I mean that with all the vitriol I can
¤ muster, which at this point in this obviously meaningless debate,
¤ is nil, since I've moved on and for sure not to anything .NET.
¤ ha ha.
¤
¤ For your sake, I'd honestly like you to have the last laugh
¤ (seriously), but realistically speaking am sure that that will
¤ never happen. Nobody, not even GOD, can walk all over people and
¤ have them remain receptive unless they're complete idiots.

Well I guess if you feel you've been screwed then you probably have. The only
suckers are the those who continue to stew about it. ;-)

Hey, you can either remain permanently disappointed or move on to something new
that at some point in the future may or may not disappoint you again. That's
life, whether you choose to embrace it...or not.
Paul ~~~ pc******@ameritech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

[Bob O`Bob]

[crossposts heavily pruned]
Tom Shelton wrote:

On 2004-12-23, Bob Butler <ti*******@nospam.com> wrote:

"smith" <rc********@smithvoiceTAKEOUT.com> wrote in message
news:Y%*****************@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net

One last because it's a shame that no one ever goes back and reads
threads from the top (and the new google groups format makes it even
less likely that anyone will). Using VB7 is not an all or nothing
choice. VB6 and VB7 work seemlessly together

ROTFLMAO

What's that supposed to mean? It's true. You can create code that in
VB.NET that can be consumed by VB6. And you can consume code created in
VB6 in VB.NET. I know - I've done it. I've used lots of my old VB6
libraries from C# and VB.NET - so I'm not sure what your on about here.

I think he's laughing because the previous poster not only shared your
laughably unsupportable definition of "seamless" but also
used a spelling that was ... interesting ... on its own.

If it were actually supportably worthy of the word "seamless", then
there never could have been any use (much less NEED) for words like
"interop" or "wrapper"

Bob

[alpine]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:03:50 -0600, Paul Clement
<Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:52:57 -0700, alpine <al******************@mvps.org> wrote:

¤ On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:23:22 -0600, Paul Clement
¤ <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:
¤
¤ >¤ There is no such thing as VB7... VB6 was the last version available.
¤ >
¤ >For those in denial anyway. ;-)
¤
¤ No, only for those of us living in the real world. IOW, those of us
¤ who, unlike you, haven't been slurping up the KoolAid distributed by
¤ the VB# marketing/evangilisim team. ;-)

Uh huh. And I'll still be drinking the KoolAid long after the lights in your "real world" have been
extinguished and your temporary existence "in the dark" is rendered permanent. ;-)

Sorry, Paul, that's just the KoolAid talking. Come back when you've
sobered up. ;-)

HTH,
Bryan
__________________________________________________ __________
New Vision Software "When the going gets weird,"
Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro."
al******************@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas

[Paul Clement]

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:07:45 -0700, alpine <al******************@mvps.org>
wrote:

¤ On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:03:50 -0600, Paul Clement
¤ <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:
¤
¤ >On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:52:57 -0700, alpine <al******************@mvps.org> wrote:
¤ >
¤ >¤ On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:23:22 -0600, Paul Clement
¤ >¤ <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:
¤ >¤
¤ >¤ >¤ There is no such thing as VB7... VB6 was the last version available.
¤ >¤ >
¤ >¤ >For those in denial anyway. ;-)
¤ >¤
¤ >¤ No, only for those of us living in the real world. IOW, those of us
¤ >¤ who, unlike you, haven't been slurping up the KoolAid distributed by
¤ >¤ the VB# marketing/evangilisim team. ;-)
¤ >
¤ >Uh huh. And I'll still be drinking the KoolAid long after the lights in your "real world" have been
¤ >extinguished and your temporary existence "in the dark" is rendered permanent. ;-)
¤
¤ Sorry, Paul, that's just the KoolAid talking. Come back when you've
¤ sobered up. ;-)

And it's soooo goooooooood! :-9
Paul ~~~ pc******@ameritech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

[Paul Clement]

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:24:48 -0800, Bob O`Bob <fi*******@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

¤ [crossposts heavily pruned]
¤
¤
¤ Tom Shelton wrote:
¤
¤ > On 2004-12-23, Bob Butler <ti*******@nospam.com> wrote:
¤ >
¤ >>"smith" <rc********@smithvoiceTAKEOUT.com> wrote in message
¤ >>news:Y%*****************@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net
¤
¤
¤ >>>One last because it's a shame that no one ever goes back and reads
¤ >>>threads from the top (and the new google groups format makes it even
¤ >>>less likely that anyone will). Using VB7 is not an all or nothing
¤ >>>choice. VB6 and VB7 work seemlessly together
¤ >>
¤ >>ROTFLMAO
¤ >
¤ >
¤ > What's that supposed to mean? It's true. You can create code that in
¤ > VB.NET that can be consumed by VB6. And you can consume code created in
¤ > VB6 in VB.NET. I know - I've done it. I've used lots of my old VB6
¤ > libraries from C# and VB.NET - so I'm not sure what your on about here.
¤ >
¤
¤ I think he's laughing because the previous poster not only shared your
¤ laughably unsupportable definition of "seamless" but also
¤ used a spelling that was ... interesting ... on its own.
¤
¤ If it were actually supportably worthy of the word "seamless", then
¤ there never could have been any use (much less NEED) for words like
¤ "interop" or "wrapper"
¤

And to think that we've been using COM interop and wrappers all these years with
Classic VB, but for some reason it's a "bad thing" to use in .NET...at least
according to the *strictly* Classic VB folks. ;-)
Paul ~~~ pc******@ameritech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)