where is the Key in TreeView.NET?

[alpine]

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."
alpine_don'(e-mail address removed) 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

 

[Ken Halter]

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.

They should've expected it. Enough people told them what they
wanted/expected out of a "VB7" and it went in one ear and out the other.
There were 100's of sites saying how excited they were about "VB7"'s planned
release. That excitement faded fast when the product, now known as "VB.Net"
was released.

"It" has a lot of possibilities/power and "It" just might be the coolest
thing since sliced bread, but it's not VB and doesn't look/act/feel like VB
and it shouldn't be sold as VB, plus it's slow and still quite buggy. VB had
something for everyone. Beginners could quickly pick up the basics and write
utilities/games/etc that worked fine. Advanced developers could do just
about anything any other programming language could do with the help of
subclassing, hooks and the Windows API (all the stuff that needs to be
re-written just because there's a .Net at the end of your programming
language).

I mean, just look at the following code. Identical steps were used to create
both. Start a new project, drop a button on the form and double-click that
button.

VB6. What more can you ask for from a click event? Plain, simple, no bloat.
Private Sub Command1_Click()
End Sub

B#. sender? e? What do those mean to a beginner. Heck... what do they mean
to me (long time VB dev with only a few hours of B# experience)? When I
click a button, I couldn't care less who the "sender" was... and what
"EventArgs" are. The framework can't handle Variants but it's perfectly
happy to say things like "sender As System.Object"? Confusing, to say the
least. Why are they in lower case? Programming C now? Yep... C#
Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As
System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
End Sub

Also, overly verbose syntax is everywhere... I posted this earlier..

=======
My.Computers.Printers.DefaultPrinter.Print("blabla")

....maybe someone in this huge crosspost list can tell me exactly how the
line above is "more productive" than VB6's

Printer.Print "blabla"
=======

....no one replied back with why that's supposed to be more productive.
Instead, they provided a way to work around the extra keystrokes (with even
more keystrokes, but done only once)... again, that's not something a
beginner will, or should need to know.

Too bad there'll never be a "VB7".. in order for "VB7" to exist, it needs
to, at least, attempt to use some of your old code... and I don't mean that
mangled, bloated mess that the "wizard" generates. I don't see what's wrong
with things like control arrays myself... if the ".Net framework doesn't
support control arrays" then, by golly, change the framework.

imo, Calling B# "VB" is like replacing all of the members of your favorite
band without changing the band's name (What?!? Bob Dylan's now the lead
singer and Willie Nelson's lead guitarist for The Who?) Fans would scream
"Foul!". VB fans are screaming "Foul".

From a technical standpoint, B# may be 10 times as powerful as VB (I haven't
seen any proof of that yet)... so what. It's still not "VB". Just look at
the confusion in this thread alone. There's only >one< group in the
crosspost list that has anything to do with B#. Anyone that's worked with B#
knows that posting to a VB group doesn't make sense. The newbies are
constantly confused when they post to VB groups and expect an answer that'll
work in their B# environment. I've seen threads go on for days, with several
participants, trying all sorts of things to get the OP up and running
without success... finally the OP mentions "Oh yeah... I'm using VB.Net"
<sigh>. Several days wasted just because the marketting team thought "Let's
call this VB.Net. We'll make a lot more money if we can grab the existing,
huge, VB developer base! We won't tell them that their existing, fully
debugged code needs to be thrown away, or wrapped in some buggy wrapper
<wink><wink>."

fwiw, there are quite a few things.net that I like... and a lot more that I
don't like. It's not an evil language/environment, it's an evil name for an
entirely new language/environment. If were called *anything* else besides
VB, I'd almost bet people would've jumped all over it by now. B# (some say
Bb) suits it just fine. The next release won't have a .Net name at all. When
that happens, all heck's going to break loose when people start searching
the internet for sample code, articles and web sites that deal with "VB" (It
must be VB. It says so right there! Why won't it work!?")

btw, just where is the Key in TreeView.NET?

 

[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."
alpine_don'(e-mail address removed) 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/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.

Robert Smith
Kirkland, WA
www.smithvoice.com


news:[email protected]...

 

[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]

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.Height) +
(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.

 

[Bob Butler]

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.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Ken,

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

Turns into this B# nightmare.

Me.Height = VB6.TwipsToPixelsY(VB6.PixelsToTwipsY(Toolbar1.Height) +
(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

 

[alpine]

Ken,

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."
alpine_don'(e-mail address removed) Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas

 

[Paul Clement]

¤
¤ > 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 ~~~ (e-mail address removed)
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[alpine]

¤ 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."
alpine_don'(e-mail address removed) Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:23:22 -0600, Paul Clement
¤
¤ >¤ 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 ~~~ (e-mail address removed)
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Stefan Berglund]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:03:50 -0600, Paul Clement

¤ On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:23:22 -0600, Paul Clement
¤
¤ >¤ 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 ~~~ (e-mail address removed)
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.

 

[Tom Shelton]

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.

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.

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.

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.


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


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


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.

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


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.

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

Why? 1.0 and 1.1 code will run on 2.0.

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.

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ >¤ 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 ~~~ (e-mail address removed)
¤ >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 ~~~ (e-mail address removed)
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Bob O`Bob]

[crossposts heavily pruned]

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 12:23:22 -0600, Paul Clement
¤
¤ >¤ 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."
alpine_don'(e-mail address removed) Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:03:50 -0600, Paul Clement
¤
¤ >
¤ >¤ On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:23:22 -0600, Paul Clement
¤ >¤
¤ >¤ >¤ 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 ~~~ (e-mail address removed)
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ [crossposts heavily pruned]
¤
¤
¤ Tom Shelton wrote:
¤
¤ >
¤ >>¤
¤
¤ >>>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 ~~~ (e-mail address removed)
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)