[ANN] Visual Basic Language Specification v8.0 available for download

[Jason Cooke [MSFT]]

The Microsoft Visual Basic Language Specification, version 8.0, is now
available for download. This specification provides a complete description
of the language used in Visual Basic 2005. Some of the new topics covered in
this version include:

* Generic types and methods

* Custom event declarations

* Operator overloading

* Partial types

* Language compatibility

* New statements: Continue and Using

* New operators: IsNot and TryCast



To download now, go to
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...09-eaa4-44d7-8af3-e14280403e6e&displaylang=en

For more information about Visual Basic 2005, see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/

Thanks!
Jason Cooke
Visual Basic Team
========
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
(c) 2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

 

[Ken Halter]

The Microsoft Visual Basic Language Specification, version 8.0, is now
available for download. This specification provides a complete description
of the language used in Visual Basic 2005. Some of the new topics covered
in this version include:

Section:
1.2.3 Language deprecation

Is a JOKE. Those rules weren't even followed from Beta 2 to RTM, weren't
followed from VS2003-VS2005.... and surely weren't followed, or even
considered by anyone at MS when it came to VB6.

Since the article's obviously flawed (and that's saying it nicely), how can
anyone take it seriously? More marketting hype.

 

[Ken Halter]

Section:
1.2.3 Language deprecation

Is a JOKE......

My bad.... I assumed it was supposed to be taken seriously... after reading
the following, I now see that we're to ignore all claims of language
stability.

"The information contained in this document represents the current view of
Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of publication.
Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not
be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft
cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information presented after the date of
publication.
This Language Specification is for informational purposes only. MICROSOFT
MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN
THIS DOCUMENT"

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ ¤ > The Microsoft Visual Basic Language Specification, version 8.0, is now
¤ > available for download. This specification provides a complete description
¤ > of the language used in Visual Basic 2005. Some of the new topics covered
¤ > in this version include:
¤
¤ Section:
¤ 1.2.3 Language deprecation
¤
¤ Is a JOKE. Those rules weren't even followed from Beta 2 to RTM, weren't
¤ followed from VS2003-VS2005.... and surely weren't followed, or even
¤ considered by anyone at MS when it came to VB6.
¤
¤ Since the article's obviously flawed (and that's saying it nicely), how can
¤ anyone take it seriously? More marketting hype.

Ken,

To what language deprecation are you referring to between VB 2003 and VB 2005?

Of course both you and I know that there was no published language spec for VB 6.0 so is this just a
rant? ;-)


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Ken Halter]

Ken,

To what language deprecation are you referring to between VB 2003 and VB
2005?

If you're really interested, you have access to the same internet I do. The
articles aren't too terribly hard to find.

Of course both you and I know that there was no published language spec
for VB 6.0 so is this just a
rant? ;-)

You're right... they didn't use the word "Specification". Besides, just
about every part of VB's language predates VB by at least 2 decades so there
was no need for a (worthless) "Specification". All that doc is, is an
example of the (self proclaimed "Father of VB.Net") authors way of standing
on a hill, beating his chest and trying to sound like Tarzan.

Here's the decades old "Language Reference" if you're interested... better
read it quick as the links are vaporizing by the dozens.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...s/VBRef98/html/vbmscLROverview.asp?frame=true

As far as it being a rant, yes, it is a rant. I won't use the words I'd like
to use to describe this fiasco. only now, it takes 5 minutes to open the
IDE (no comment on the "IDE"), another 2 to load a project, another few to
get it into debug mode and start single stepping and (not exaggerating with
this one) about 1 second PER LINE to single step. >>>RIDICULOUS<<< but seems
perfectly acceptable to the masses (which I can't understand). There's a
good reason it's called "dot net". It's because it performs the same whether
you're running from the web or a local PC... which is great for web devs but
sucks big time for desktop devs that are used to performance. When I decide
to buy a new PC, it's not so I can run bloated software at an acceptable
pace. It's to speed up the software I already have.

For me, the truly sad part is, I've been a dedicated (die hard) MS
dev/customer since 1981, participating in groups and forums since early 1983
(when I had a 300 baud modem and the internet still involved typing entire
urls) and Linux (actually, anything else) is looking better and better every
day. We're looking into using PLCs for our machines here at work so we don't
have to deal with this non-sense any more.

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ ¤ >
¤ > Ken,
¤ >
¤ > To what language deprecation are you referring to between VB 2003 and VB
¤ > 2005?
¤
¤ If you're really interested, you have access to the same internet I do. The
¤ articles aren't too terribly hard to find.
¤

Well if I wasn't interested then I wouldn't have asked. You don't typically have any problem going
into detail about these sort of things so why are you starting now? ;-)

¤ > Of course both you and I know that there was no published language spec
¤ > for VB 6.0 so is this just a
¤ > rant? ;-)
¤
¤ You're right... they didn't use the word "Specification". Besides, just
¤ about every part of VB's language predates VB by at least 2 decades so there
¤ was no need for a (worthless) "Specification". All that doc is, is an
¤ example of the (self proclaimed "Father of VB.Net") authors way of standing
¤ on a hill, beating his chest and trying to sound like Tarzan.
¤
¤ Here's the decades old "Language Reference" if you're interested... better
¤ read it quick as the links are vaporizing by the dozens.
¤ http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...s/VBRef98/html/vbmscLROverview.asp?frame=true
¤

Unfortunately it's just documentation. It doesn't consider the language features beyond the current
version.

¤ As far as it being a rant, yes, it is a rant. I won't use the words I'd like
¤ to use to describe this fiasco. only now, it takes 5 minutes to open the
¤ IDE (no comment on the "IDE"), another 2 to load a project, another few to
¤ get it into debug mode and start single stepping and (not exaggerating with
¤ this one) about 1 second PER LINE to single step. >>>RIDICULOUS<<< but seems
¤ perfectly acceptable to the masses (which I can't understand). There's a
¤ good reason it's called "dot net". It's because it performs the same whether
¤ you're running from the web or a local PC... which is great for web devs but
¤ sucks big time for desktop devs that are used to performance. When I decide
¤ to buy a new PC, it's not so I can run bloated software at an acceptable
¤ pace. It's to speed up the software I already have.
¤
¤ For me, the truly sad part is, I've been a dedicated (die hard) MS
¤ dev/customer since 1981, participating in groups and forums since early 1983
¤ (when I had a 300 baud modem and the internet still involved typing entire
¤ urls) and Linux (actually, anything else) is looking better and better every
¤ day. We're looking into using PLCs for our machines here at work so we don't
¤ have to deal with this non-sense any more.

Microsoft established these specifications for a reason and I think we both know what it is. Now you
may not care, if you don't use the .NET Visual Basic, but if you have a criticism then it might help
if you provided a bit more detail (or examples) which support your statements concerning the
language specification.

But then if this is just a rant...


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Ken Halter]

Well if I wasn't interested then I wouldn't have asked. You don't
typically have any problem going
into detail about these sort of things so why are you starting now? ;-)

Mostly because I'm sick of constantly having to look up the same links.

¤ > Of course both you and I know that there was no published language
spec
¤ > for VB 6.0 so is this just a
¤ > rant? ;-)
¤
¤ You're right... they didn't use the word "Specification". Besides, just
¤ about every part of VB's language predates VB by at least 2 decades so
there
¤ was no need for a (worthless) "Specification". All that doc is, is an
¤ example of the (self proclaimed "Father of VB.Net") authors way of
standing
¤ on a hill, beating his chest and trying to sound like Tarzan.
¤
¤ Here's the decades old "Language Reference" if you're interested...
better
¤ read it quick as the links are vaporizing by the dozens.
¤
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...s/VBRef98/html/vbmscLROverview.asp?frame=true
¤

Unfortunately it's just documentation. It doesn't consider the language
features beyond the current
version.

Yep... just docs... exactly the same as that Language spec they're so proud
of.

Microsoft established these specifications for a reason and I think we
both know what it is. Now you

Yeah... to convince people that "We won't do it again" but guess what...
I've heard that before.

may not care, if you don't use the .NET Visual Basic, but if you have a
criticism then it might help
if you provided a bit more detail (or examples) which support your
statements concerning the
language specification.

For who? You? You've read my rants probably a dozen times by now in probably
a dozen groups. My main gripes are (for the 100th time), no Single Proc View
and No real Immediate window... other than that, the IDE is horribly slow,
startup times for the apps are horribly slow, screen updates are horribly
slow, everything related to .Net is horribly slow.
Thing is, I *do* want to use this new mess. The *only* reason I have any
interest at all is because VB.Real is breaking a little bit more with each
Windows Update. I *have* to do something. We can only suggest to our
customers that they avoid Windows Update like it was a plague but it never
fails... as soon as the machine's shipped, their network hot-dog wants to
install their corporate AV software and run Windows Update... the support
calls start coming within hours (which is another reason the last machine we
sold ran on a PLC instead of Windows)

But then if this is just a rant...

Sorry I'm not as "candy-coated" trusting as some. I have tons of truly
reusable code. How can any .Net code be "reusable" if you have to rewrite it
year after year after year.

You see, I've been here where I work for almost 10 years now. The company
makes ZERO dollars rewriting/re-debugging/re-certifying everything. Our
software is written for a single purpose. To run our machines. These
machines are used by the medical/food/PCB industries and the software is
documented beyond belief, tested by 3rd party testers, signed off by
corporate managers, tested, tested, approved and shipped. Every single line
of code we change after shipping means we need to start that entire process
over again. Each change must be accompanied by an ECO form that shows "Is"
and "Was" >for each line of code we change<. Can you imagine the stack of
forms we'd need to fill out for a complete re-write, especially when the
re-write is for no other reason than having a new development tool (with no
immediate window)? How would we explain the 20 grand or so we pay the 3rd
party testers? I can see it now.... Oooh... MS just released a new toy! Boss
"does it add functionality that we need?" me "no... but it's new" Boss "what
does it add that we can eventually use?" me "don't know... it'll be 5 years
before I'll have our code base converted so, I'll let you know". Sure.... I
can see that happening when pigs fly.

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ ¤ >
¤ > Well if I wasn't interested then I wouldn't have asked. You don't
¤ > typically have any problem going
¤ > into detail about these sort of things so why are you starting now? ;-)
¤
¤ Mostly because I'm sick of constantly having to look up the same links.
¤

I don't blame you. No point searching again if you didn't find any the first time around. ;-)


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Ken Halter]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:31:52 -0800, "Ken Halter"

message
¤ ¤ >
¤ > Well if I wasn't interested then I wouldn't have asked. You don't
¤ > typically have any problem going
¤ > into detail about these sort of things so why are you starting now?
;-)
¤
¤ Mostly because I'm sick of constantly having to look up the same links.
¤

I don't blame you. No point searching again if you didn't find any the
first time around. ;-)

Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ ¤ > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:31:52 -0800, "Ken Halter"
¤ >
¤ > message
¤ > ¤ ¤ > ¤ >
¤ > ¤ > Well if I wasn't interested then I wouldn't have asked. You don't
¤ > ¤ > typically have any problem going
¤ > ¤ > into detail about these sort of things so why are you starting now?
¤ > ;-)
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ Mostly because I'm sick of constantly having to look up the same links.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > I don't blame you. No point searching again if you didn't find any the
¤ > first time around. ;-)
¤
¤ Jeezzz <g> fwiw, I don't blame you either. I know you could find them if you
¤ wanted to.

Just to make certain I didn't miss a language feature that was removed in VB 2005, I had already
looked. Nada.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Ken Halter]

¤
¤ Jeezzz <g> fwiw, I don't blame you either. I know you could find them if
you
¤ wanted to.

Just to make certain I didn't miss a language feature that was removed in
VB 2005, I had already
looked. Nada.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Well, I didn't attend so I can't provide a list but at VSLive, there was a
session "We'll wind up with an overview of the 100+ breaking changes
introduced and how you can guard your applications against them."

Backwards Breaking Changes from version 1.1 to 2.0
http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/changeinfo/Backwards1.1to2.0/default.aspx#00000020

Plus a pile of really ticked off people in the private groups regarding a
few breaks.

There are people ticked off here in the publics regarding breaks/bugs/
"features". How much proof do you want? Just browse the publics. Plenty of
proof. Plenty of people saying it wasn't ready for release. This "nothing's
good until SP3" policy needs to change. People spend huge amounts of money
on VS.Net... even more with the new "pricing structure". These people
absolutely deserve a stable environment to work in. It's bad enough to get
this whole .Net thing shoved down our throats. Add the fact that the tool
we're expected to write the stuff in is flakey and, even if you follow the
rules to the letter, some bug in the language or IDE itself will rise up and
bite you where it counts. How about this.... don't release it, regardless of
what the "stock holders" say or do, until the darn thing is ready. The
customers deserve better.

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ ¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ Jeezzz <g> fwiw, I don't blame you either. I know you could find them if
¤ > you
¤ > ¤ wanted to.
¤ >
¤ > Just to make certain I didn't miss a language feature that was removed in
¤ > VB 2005, I had already
¤ > looked. Nada.
¤ >
¤ >
¤ > Paul
¤ > ~~~~
¤ > Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
¤
¤ Well, I didn't attend so I can't provide a list but at VSLive, there was a
¤ session "We'll wind up with an overview of the 100+ breaking changes
¤ introduced and how you can guard your applications against them."
¤
¤ Backwards Breaking Changes from version 1.1 to 2.0
¤ http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/changeinfo/Backwards1.1to2.0/default.aspx#00000020
¤
¤ Plus a pile of really ticked off people in the private groups regarding a
¤ few breaks.
¤
¤ There are people ticked off here in the publics regarding breaks/bugs/
¤ "features". How much proof do you want? Just browse the publics. Plenty of
¤ proof. Plenty of people saying it wasn't ready for release. This "nothing's
¤ good until SP3" policy needs to change. People spend huge amounts of money
¤ on VS.Net... even more with the new "pricing structure". These people
¤ absolutely deserve a stable environment to work in. It's bad enough to get
¤ this whole .Net thing shoved down our throats. Add the fact that the tool
¤ we're expected to write the stuff in is flakey and, even if you follow the
¤ rules to the letter, some bug in the language or IDE itself will rise up and
¤ bite you where it counts. How about this.... don't release it, regardless of
¤ what the "stock holders" say or do, until the darn thing is ready. The
¤ customers deserve better.

I thought you were referring to the Visual Basic language spec and deprecation. That isn't the same
thing as "breaking changes" in which none of those listed constitute obsolete language elements. As
a matter of fact, the "breaking changes" in Visual Basic aren't even significant and in almost every
case falls into the category of bug fixes or enhancements.

So if you have a beef with the Visual Basic language spec, it's severely misplaced since there are
no issues with respect to the 2005 upgrade.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Ken Halter]

I thought you were referring to the Visual Basic language spec and
deprecation. That isn't the same
thing as "breaking changes" in which none of those listed constitute
obsolete language elements. As
a matter of fact, the "breaking changes" in Visual Basic aren't even
significant and in almost every
case falls into the category of bug fixes or enhancements.

The "Spec" is worthless if your code doesn't work. Period.

So if you have a beef with the Visual Basic language spec, it's severely
misplaced since there are
no issues with respect to the 2005 upgrade.

Huh?!? No issues? You must be filtering any posts that contain profane
language <g>. Here in the publics, in the privates, on blogs across the
world, there are plenty of reported issues.

I guess our definition of an "issue" is different. To me, anything that
keeps the code from running and/or running as expected, is an "issue". So,
sure, the keyword is spelled the same, takes the same args, etc but doesn't
return the same result... that's an "issue", no matter how you look at it.

The good news for me would be.... since I barely touched VS2003, the
"upgrade issues" won't be an issue. All I'll need to do is convince .Net to
do the work I need it to do.... which is "supposed" to be easier and "more
productive" but it seems that every snip of code I see takes about 10 times
more typing than the equivalent VB6 code would. Plus I have to wrestle with
that bloatware called an "IDE"

We'll see.... if I manage to convert (notice no use of the words "upgrade"
or "migrate") one of our apps, and it actually performs well (I have my
doubts), I may be a VS2005 die hard. After all, I wouldn't touch Windows
until '98 was released (DOS was just too darned fast/stable to put up with
fancy menu systems... which is all Windows was to me), wouldn't touch VB
until VB5 was released so (did some simple stuff in VB3)... just maybe,
this'll be the platform I can sink my teeth into (I have my doubts... but
we'll see). I surely won't be trusting that "Spec" though.

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ ¤ >
¤ > I thought you were referring to the Visual Basic language spec and
¤ > deprecation. That isn't the same
¤ > thing as "breaking changes" in which none of those listed constitute
¤ > obsolete language elements. As
¤ > a matter of fact, the "breaking changes" in Visual Basic aren't even
¤ > significant and in almost every
¤ > case falls into the category of bug fixes or enhancements.
¤
¤ The "Spec" is worthless if your code doesn't work. Period.
¤

This doesn't really have anything to do with your comments concerning the VB language spec.

You claim the rules have not been followed but you're not willing to identify specific examples. You
also indicated the document was "flawed" but have not identified why this is the case. Instead, you
toss up the "breaking changes" issue without even fully understanding why those changes were made.

http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/changeinfo/default.aspx

BTW, breaking changes are not unusual. We had them Classic Visual Basic as well. Other development
languages have them too. As a matter of fact C++ has more breaking changes than VB 2005 (31 vs. 11).

¤ > So if you have a beef with the Visual Basic language spec, it's severely
¤ > misplaced since there are
¤ > no issues with respect to the 2005 upgrade.
¤
¤ Huh?!? No issues? You must be filtering any posts that contain profane
¤ language <g>. Here in the publics, in the privates, on blogs across the
¤ world, there are plenty of reported issues.
¤

Then you should very easily be able to cite an example. Maybe it's a framework issue you're
referring to, maybe it's a C# programmer who is complaining. I don't know because you haven't
provided an example.

¤ I guess our definition of an "issue" is different. To me, anything that
¤ keeps the code from running and/or running as expected, is an "issue". So,
¤ sure, the keyword is spelled the same, takes the same args, etc but doesn't
¤ return the same result... that's an "issue", no matter how you look at it.
¤

Sometimes changes in the platform or supporting technologies dictate a change. Sometimes it's just a
flat out bug or an enhancement. We can discuss generalizations all day. Do you have a specific
example in VB 2005 we can discuss?

¤ The good news for me would be.... since I barely touched VS2003, the
¤ "upgrade issues" won't be an issue. All I'll need to do is convince .Net to
¤ do the work I need it to do.... which is "supposed" to be easier and "more
¤ productive" but it seems that every snip of code I see takes about 10 times
¤ more typing than the equivalent VB6 code would. Plus I have to wrestle with
¤ that bloatware called an "IDE"

Use Imports if you don't like all the typing. Doesn't bother me since Intellisense is quite
efficient.

¤
¤ We'll see.... if I manage to convert (notice no use of the words "upgrade"
¤ or "migrate") one of our apps, and it actually performs well (I have my
¤ doubts), I may be a VS2005 die hard. After all, I wouldn't touch Windows
¤ until '98 was released (DOS was just too darned fast/stable to put up with
¤ fancy menu systems... which is all Windows was to me), wouldn't touch VB
¤ until VB5 was released so (did some simple stuff in VB3)... just maybe,
¤ this'll be the platform I can sink my teeth into (I have my doubts... but
¤ we'll see). I surely won't be trusting that "Spec" though.

Yeah, we know you wanna. ;-)


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Ken Halter]

This doesn't really have anything to do with your comments concerning the
VB language spec.

You claim the rules have not been followed but you're not willing to
identify specific examples. You

You're right. I'm not willing to waste my time finding things you refuse to
read or even admit exist. I've supplied link after link after link in
previous threads. If you missed them, it's not my problem. So, you can blah
blah blah blah all you want, drink the kool-aid and be happy. Treat the spec
as if it's your bible. Hold it close to your heart. I don't care. When and
if I decide I want to spend the time and relocate the links, you'll be the
first to know. Mean while, try google. It's a fairly friendly search engine.
The bottom line is. The articles are just as available to you as they are to
me. I don't have a private internet.

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ ¤ >
¤ > This doesn't really have anything to do with your comments concerning the
¤ > VB language spec.
¤ >
¤ > You claim the rules have not been followed but you're not willing to
¤ > identify specific examples. You
¤
¤ You're right. I'm not willing to waste my time finding things you refuse to
¤ read or even admit exist. I've supplied link after link after link in
¤ previous threads. If you missed them, it's not my problem. So, you can blah
¤ blah blah blah all you want, drink the kool-aid and be happy. Treat the spec
¤ as if it's your bible. Hold it close to your heart. I don't care. When and
¤ if I decide I want to spend the time and relocate the links, you'll be the
¤ first to know. Mean while, try google. It's a fairly friendly search engine.
¤ The bottom line is. The articles are just as available to you as they are to
¤ me. I don't have a private internet.

No, it's become rather obvious that you would prefer to spend all your time complaining rather than
identifying and discussing a specific example. If these articles were as readily available as you
claim you would have posted at least one by now. I know it certainly wasn't a problem back when we
had the same discussions concerning the VB 6.0 to VB.NET upgrade. ;-)

Sorry I couldn't help.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Ken Halter]

No, it's become rather obvious that you would prefer to spend all your
time complaining rather than
identifying and discussing a specific example. If these articles were as
readily available as you

Heh... actually, I spend all of my time getting work done... not rejoicing
over a new product release or the release of a flawed document that no one
at MS intends to take seriously. The wording makes that point all by itself.

"this document represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation"

"current view"? So, that "view" can change by the time this post hits the
web?

"should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft"

Not a commitment? What good is it then? Why was it created in the first
place? No need to answer. There is none. It's marketting hype. Period.

claim you would have posted at least one by now. I know it certainly
wasn't a problem back when we
had the same discussions concerning the VB 6.0 to VB.NET upgrade. ;-)

There is no such "upgrade". There's a conversion. Just like converting any
Basic language to any C type language. It's *not* an "upgrade". It's a
conversion. If it were an upgrade, I'd expect *better* performance... which
I don't. The best I can hope for is equal performance... which I doubt I'll
see.

About my failure to provide links: These articles *are* readily available to
anyone that wants to read them. I truly hope you're capable of finding info
on the web, should you choose to look. Think Google.

Sorry I couldn't help.

Wasn't asking. Not sure where you got the impression that I wanted help...
oh well. Thanks anyway?

 

[Earl]

All I really care about is whether or not you guys fixed the combo that was
designed by the Three Stooges.