>>> "When well done it can be about 10 times quicker"
>>> "When bad done it can be about 10 times slower."
>> In my English "can be" is something different than "is".
>
> Yes, of course. The phrase "can be" is different from "is", but your
> statement was clearly intended to confuse people and ti imply something
> that is not true. The following statement is true, so why didn't you make
> it? If you want the truth then tell all the truth:
>
> Well written VB6 code can be about 10 times quicker than vb.net
>
ROFL

"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:6E259F1B-BF10-41D4-A75E-(E-Mail Removed)...


>> Well written VB6 code can be about 10 times quicker than vb.net
>>
> ROFL

Exactly. It's laughable. Just like your own statement that "vb.net code can
be about 10 timer quicker than vb.net" is also laughable! That's why I
posted it! Can you really not see the stupidity of your statement?

Mike

"Tom Shelton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:O%(E-Mail Removed)...

> Not true, Mike. You don't tell them vb6 is not vb.net

Yes I do.

> - you generally tell them that vb.net is not visual basic.

Yes. I tell them that as well. vb.net is /not/ Visual Basic. It is an
imposter, and a deliberately dishonest Micro$oft marketing scam. I'm not
saying there is anything wrong with vb.net itself as a development tool . .
.. it is just /not/ Visual Basic, and pretending that it is Visual Basic and
labelling it as such simply because Micro$oft own the trademark is outright
trickery.

> And then launch into a tirade about how dishonest
> Microsoft marketing labeled an imposter as Visual
> Basic

Yes. That's correct. I'm glad you agree about it being an imposter. It is an
imposter which Micro$oft are being thoroughly dishonest about. Bunch of
grinning fairground gypsies, if you ask me.

> and charges twice as much for Vista in the UK.

Yes. They do that as well, and they also make under the counter deals with
people like Amazon in an attempt to prevent me from purchasing the US
version from Amazon.com. They try to force me into buying the UK version
from Amazon.co.uk which costs twice as much and which is not even a UK
version. Micro$oft do not even make a UK version of Vista!!! They want to
sell me the US version, pretending that it is a UK version, and they want to
charge me an extra $300 for it!!! Micro$oft are a thoroughly dishonest and
disreputable company, as you will see if you check out their nasty gangster
like activities in certain parts of the developing world, where they think
they can get away with their disgusting activities, Africa in particular.
Shameful business.

Mike

On 2008-04-25, Mike Williams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Tom Shelton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:O%(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> Not true, Mike. You don't tell them vb6 is not vb.net
>
> Yes I do.
>
>> - you generally tell them that vb.net is not visual basic.
>
> Yes. I tell them that as well. vb.net is /not/ Visual Basic. It is an
> imposter, and a deliberately dishonest Micro$oft marketing scam. I'm not
> saying there is anything wrong with vb.net itself as a development tool . .
> . it is just /not/ Visual Basic, and pretending that it is Visual Basic and
> labelling it as such simply because Micro$oft own the trademark is outright
> trickery.
>
>> And then launch into a tirade about how dishonest
>> Microsoft marketing labeled an imposter as Visual
>> Basic
>
> Yes. That's correct. I'm glad you agree about it being an imposter. It is an
> imposter which Micro$oft are being thoroughly dishonest about. Bunch of
> grinning fairground gypsies, if you ask me.
>

I don't agree. Not in the slightest. Neither do a lot of folks, and
that is what causes the arguments. Like I said, bite your lip and
redirect or ignore - and all will be well.

<snip rant>


--
Tom Shelton

"Dick Grier" <dick_grierNOSPAM@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...

> 10X is a silly generalization.

Exactly! That's the point I was making. I was responding to Cor Ligtherts
silly and deliberately misleading statement in which he said that a well
written vb.net program was up to 10 times faster than VB6. I'm glad you
agree that he is silly.

Mike

"Tom Shelton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> I don't agree. Not in the slightest. Neither do a lot
> of folks, and that is what causes the arguments.

You don't agree with what? Can you be more specific?

Mike

On 2008-04-25, Mike Williams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Tom Shelton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> I don't agree. Not in the slightest. Neither do a lot
>> of folks, and that is what causes the arguments.
>
> You don't agree with what? Can you be more specific?
>

That VB.NET is not Visual Basic. We don't agree with your
characterization of it as an imposter. Sure, it's not VB6 - but it is
Visual Basic. I don't want to get into this anymore. I already agreed
not to argue this anymore on the other forum, and I'm not about to here.

--
Tom Shelton

"Tom Shelton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...

>> You don't agree with what? Can you be more specific?
>
> That VB.NET is not Visual Basic. We don't agree with
> your characterization of it as an imposter. Sure, it's not
> VB6 - but it is Visual Basic. I don't want to get into this
> anymore. I already agreed not to argue this anymore on
> the other forum, and I'm not about to here.

But you just have done! It's /called/ Visual Basic, but it is /not/ Visual
Basic. The differences are so enormous, and all in one huge step, and are of
such an extent that not even Micro$oft can write an effective VB6 to vb.net
converter which actually works, that it is effectively a completely
different thing altogether. I'm not knocking the net platform itself (except
of course I don't like its real intended purpose!) and I'm not even knocking
vb.net. In fact despite its problems vb.net and the net framework generally
provides a very much richer programming environment than VB6 ever did, but
vb.net is NOT Visual Basic, regardless of Micro$oft's attempts to
dishonestly make money by pretending that it is. If Micro$oft had marketed
vb.net (and the various other .net tools) as something completely new and
different then I might have included them in my list of possibilities, along
with lots of other development tools from various other companies, for when
I am looking for a replacement for VB6. But I'm not going to do so now. I do
not like the fact that Micro$oft lied to me. They have lied to me before,
and they have attempted to rip me off, and I no longer trust them.

Mike

"Mike Williams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
<snip>
> In fact despite its problems vb.net and the net framework generally
> provides a very much richer programming environment than VB6 ever did,

Yes, indeed it does. It provides many of the things we Visual Basic users
asked for, including multi threading, inheritance, strong typing etc.

>but vb.net is NOT Visual Basic

Yes it is. It's Visual Basic on the .NET paltform as distinct from Visual
basic on a COM/OLE platform. It's also a much more powerful and flexible
version of Visual Basic with lots of new features.


>If Micro$oft had marketed vb.net (and the various other .net tools) as
>something completely new and different then I might have included them in
>my list of possibilities, along with lots of other development tools from
>various other companies, for when I am looking for a replacement for VB6.
>But I'm not going to do so now.


So if you aren't using VB.NET and have no intentions of using it, what are
you doing posting to a vb.net forum ? Most folks would consider your
actions trolling. In fact, didn't even your wife tell you stop this
trolling ?


> I do not like the fact that Micro$oft lied to me.


Cite ? I think you might want to think that, but in fact Microsoft has been
very open about the issues involved in migrating from VB6 to .NET.