getting rid of old vb6 code

[Scott M.]

Hi Scott,

From who do you have this information, some own made?


It is not true the are sometimes more efficient some time less efficient.

Why I don't know but probably because they have to carry some extra with
them.

The Find of a string is twice as fast as the Instring.

That's my point exactly!

 

[Scott M.]

My problem with this kind of answers from you is (and this is not the
first

time) that you give the OP the idea that by removing the classic VB
functions he starts writing OOP.

Cor,

Yes, we've had these discussions before, but I think what you are missing is
that I NEVER said that by removing the classic functions, you are writing
OOP.

The OP asked:

"Is there any program available that I can get to sweep through VB.Net
projects and flag these older VB functions/things?"

Where is the request for OOP in that statement? What I supplied was an
answer to the OP about how old VB functions could be flagged and then
(presumably) replaced.

I appreciate your opinion, but it seems that each time this question comes
up, you take my answer to be something it was never intended to be.

 

[Cor]

Hi Scott,

I told you why I am acting like this. I told you I almost never use
Microsoft.Visual basic functions

However, sometimes I get the idea that when this kind of questions comes in
this newsgroup, that you are the first one who wants to tell not to use
those functions.

I think in some cases they are very good and nowhere is written that they
are old.
I do not like them, but that is my own decision.

It is not important because I think all is clear, but this was the start of
the message from the OP.

My introduction to VB was through VB.Net but I am working with a lot
of code that was written by programmers with pre-dotnet experience. As
a result there are lots of function calls and "non-OOP aware" code.

In my opinion is he pointing on "non-OOP aware" code.

I think it had been better to ask what he did mean with that sentence than
directly telling that he should get rid with the Microsoft.VisualBasic
namespace.

That the name is Microsoft instead of System does not mean it is not in the
Net, it is even a part of the Linux Mono code as Tom Shelton told us.

However, marry Christmas,

No hard feeling at all, just wanted to clear this more.

Cor

 

[Scott M.]

I told you why I am acting like this. I told you I almost never use

Microsoft.Visual basic functions

Ok, fine. As I told Herfried, the decision to not use them was IMHO.

However, sometimes I get the idea that when this kind of questions comes in
this newsgroup, that you are the first one who wants to tell not to use
those functions.

That may be true. I don't see any advantage at all to using them, so IMHO I
suggest not to. But in this case I was responding (as I said) to the OP who
wanted a way to flag the "old" VB 6.0 functions and this will certainly do
the trick. The OP already responded to me yesterday that this was what he
was looking for.

"Thanks Scott.

Always the simple answers that are the best

Removing the Namespace at least alerts me to code to avoid in future
projects.

Thanks to all the others who responded as well.

Chook."

I think in some cases they are very good and nowhere is written that they

are old.

They've been around for approaching 10 years or more! Now that, in and of
itself does not make them bad. But there are new (and in my opinion more
intuitive and more efficient ways to accomplish most of the "old"
functions). So, I think to use the terms "old" and "new" is appropriate.

I do not like them, but that is my own decision.

Again, ok. I'm not twisting anyone's arm. I'm simply pointing out that
there are newer (more efficient & more intuitive) ways to do these things.
By the way, I've yet to hear ANYONE supply an example of why the old
functions would be a better way to go (other than that they are familiar
with them, which for a newbie to VB.NET wouldn't be a good reason to use
them).

It is not important because I think all is clear, but this was the start of the message from the OP.


In my opinion is he pointing on "non-OOP aware" code.

I think it had been better to ask what he did mean with that sentence than
directly telling that he should get rid with the Microsoft.VisualBasic
namespace.

I see his question as trying to avoid 2 things "function calls" and "non-OOP
aware" code (that's exactly what he wrote). I answered the first of his 2
questions. That's all. I think the problem is that you interpreted my
answer as an answer to part 2 as well.

Again, the OP already responded that my answer was what he wanted, so I
think I interpreted the question correctly.

That the name is Microsoft instead of System does not mean it is not in

the Net, it is even a part of the Linux Mono code as Tom Shelton told us.

I've never made a statement saying that it wasn't.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!