RE: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]
There definitely will be VB for many, many more years. It is not going away, especially after the major development that was put into it for .Net. Whatever you have heard from which you construed that VB is dead, just assume that the source is bad or your interpretation is bad. I KNOW that there will be VB in VS05 From: Robert McGwier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 8:09 PMPosted To: FT-817Conversation: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]There is almost no one I respect more than David Bernstein as a programmerbut Microsoft has said it is definitely going to blow off all those developersand tell everyone VB is dead. As such, it will be. I do not believe there willbe VB in VS 2005.net.C# and even C++ are "forms programmable" and I think Microsoft believesthat VB had lost its place. They are pretty much sharpening the coffin nailshaving publicly announced the end of VB.Bobrrlanders2 wrote:>Having worked 25+ years in Fortune 500 companies here in the St. Louis>area, VB is heavily used. VBA in Access and Excel even more>so. VB.NET is following in VB6's footsteps. >>Like it or not, for business purposes, quite often it's "good enough"...>>I didn't make the rules, just get paid to write VB and VB.NET.>>And yes, you can actually write good code in VB.NET...although>it's harder in VB6>>73, Rod WI0T>>> >The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]
On 2005-04-14 09:25, Joel Kolstad wrote: > Lots of vendors have really crappy install routines that replace the > most recent, downwardly compatible versions of some DLL with > theversion they developed with that of course isn't upwardly compatible. Who knows if that was true in this case. Of course, the idea of copying an application DLL into the system DLL folder is an insane idea that many applications do anyway. Microsoft has now realized this, but it was obvious to anyone who understands proper system design that this was a poor idea from the beginning. Microsoft's practice of now separating out application files from system files, and user data files from other files, has been known by the competent system designers for over twenty years. > Hmm... do they start out at a "least common denominator" setting (a > lotbit rate) and then shift upward when both "parties" (the car and > thePC) have verified that they can handle it? I'm trying to think of > what someone would choose to implement such a "feature." Yes; the OBD-II protocol starts at 5 (yes, five) baud and then shifts up to a faster baud rate, depending upon the individual embedded car controller(in my car: 4800, 9600, 10400). Nikon has also used the "switch baud rate" protocol in software that connects their cameras to a PC. Zilog also uses it in some of their embedded controllers. -- Dean The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]
On 2005-04-14 13:37, Dave Bernstein wrote: >... you have no grounds on which to blame the application's poor quality on >the comm library rather than on the author. > > Having written numerous communications programs at the interrupt level, I think I have the experience to say that there is a very high probability that the problem was in the comm library. This was obviously an issue of timing on a non-multitasking OS (Win 95/98) vs a multitasking OS (NT/2K). The purpose of a comm library is to hide those differences from the application programmer. The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]
On 2005-04-14 13:47, Dave Bernstein wrote: >Gates should have stayed in school and taken the rest of Harvard's CS courses; >he'd have saved us all a lot of grief. > > I agree, although my personal experience with people that quit college after three years, is that the problem is not that they left college to soon, but that they had the attitude that they had learned all they needed to, and they didn't need to learn any more. The sad part is that Microsoft has hired many people with the same attitude, and while they have done good things with respect to GUI interfaces and usability, they have set software reliability back twenty years. It's amazing how they seem to have recently learned SOME things about operating system design, that the rest of the softtware world has known for twenty-plus years. The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]
On 2005-04-14 09:25, Joel Kolstad wrote: > Lots of vendors have really crappy install routines that replace the > most recent, downwardly compatible versions of some DLL with > theversion they developed with that of course isn't upwardly compatible. Who knows if that was true in this case. Of course, the idea of copying an application DLL into the system DLL folder is an insane idea that many applications do anyway. Microsoft has now realized this, but it was obvious to anyone who understands proper system design that this was a poor idea from the beginning. Microsoft's practice of now separating out application files from system files, and user data files from other files, has been known by the competent system designers for over twenty years. > Hmm... do they start out at a "least common denominator" setting (a > lotbit rate) and then shift upward when both "parties" (the car and > thePC) have verified that they can handle it? I'm trying to think of > what someone would choose to implement such a "feature." Yes; the OBD-II protocol starts at 5 (yes, five) baud and then shifts up to a faster baud rate, depending upon the individual embedded car controller(in my car: 4800, 9600, 10400). Nikon has also used the "switch baud rate" protocol in software that connects their cameras to a PC. Zilog also uses it in some of their embedded controllers. -- Dean The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]
On 2005-04-13 20:20, Dave Bernstein wrote: > ### At present, I don't use GOTOs. However, if I were to learn auseful > new technique for, say, limiting the impact of non-upward-compatible > changes to externally visible interfaces, and the only way to exploit > this technique meant using GOTOs, I wouldn't hesitate to use utilize > them within appropriate patterns. Another area where we are worlds apart. >### This discussion has not heretofore been limited to amateur radio >applications. > I was the one who brought up the issue, and it was regarding the development of amateur radio applications, and why they are not open source/GPL, and why they are not written in a portable manner. The concerns are obviously different in different markets. >### In many market segments, the size of the Microsoft-only component is quite >large; malware prevention, for example. > Same comment. >### That's just not true, Dean. MSCOMM.DLL works correctly on Win95, 98, 98SE, >NT, 2K, and XP. Yes, I left out ME; nothing works >correctly there. > > Just because it works in one application, doesn't mean it will work everywhere. Lots of software libraries are (unfortunately) designed only for applications that the writers anticipated. The OBD-II communications environment is quite complex (eg, mutiple BAUD rates changes in the middle of communications). -- Dean The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]
On 2005-04-13 21:46, Dave Bernstein wrote: >The clear message to software developers is that Microsoft can't be trusted to >provide an upward compatible path. > > A message that was first sent 1991 when Microsoft charged developers $3000 (fortunately, I was not one of them) for the SDK for OS/2 v2.0, and then abandoned them all 2/3 of the way toward delivery. The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]
There is almost no one I respect more than David Bernstein as a programmer but Microsoft has said it is definitely going to blow off all those developers and tell everyone VB is dead. As such, it will be. I do not believe there will be VB in VS 2005.net. C# and even C++ are "forms programmable" and I think Microsoft believes that VB had lost its place. They are pretty much sharpening the coffin nails having publicly announced the end of VB. Bob rrlanders2 wrote: >Having worked 25+ years in Fortune 500 companies here in the St. Louis >area, VB is heavily used. VBA in Access and Excel even more >so. VB.NET is following in VB6's footsteps. > >Like it or not, for business purposes, quite often it's "good enough"... > >I didn't make the rules, just get paid to write VB and VB.NET. > >And yes, you can actually write good code in VB.NET...although >it's harder in VB6 > >73, Rod WI0T > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Visual BASIC [was: Win Link]
On 2005-04-13 13:22, Dave Bernstein wrote: >http://www.appforge.com/products/enterprise/crossfire/index.html > > Well, we'll just have to disagree on this. As for the above link, I found the statement "/AppForge Crossfire uses industry standard tools and languages such as Microsoft C#, Visual Basic .NET, and Visual Basic 6/." especially amusing. >Java, because it evolved from C and C++, has a ridiculously cryptic syntax. > I can see we are on completely different wavelengths here as well; Java does not have "a ridiculously cryptic syntax". It reminds me of one criticism of COBOL (which I developed in for eight years ): "It is verbose because it has long variable names". Like a developer can't use short variable names in COBOL (or long ones in C/C++)??? Programmers that use cryptic variable names (in any language) are poorly trained, but that is not the fault of C/C++. About the only possible "cryptic" part of C is the pre/post decrement operators (which Java has) and "*pointer" references (which Java doesn't have), and that certainly doesn't take any time to learn. Java has references (without the "*" syntax), but references are an important part of modern langauges. The rest of the syntax of C and Java is not that different from Algol or Pascal or other similar languages. C++ has its good points, but I will agree with you that portions of it are unnecessarily obtuse and cryptic (but then Microsoft can't even get their C++ compilers correct). However, programmers that don't learn an object-oriented language like C++, Java, or C# are doomed to be mired in the past (sorta like CW). However, Java has fairly unique feature: No GOTOs. Despite the recognition for the past 30 years in the computer industry that GOTOs are NEVER necessary, Microsoft allows GOTOs in C#. A clear indication that they either don't understand the fundamentals of good software development, OR that they are so interested in the almighty dollar that they are afraid that they will alienate a few GOTO-diehards (who shouldn't be programming) by not including it. Do you use GOTOs??? Any at all??? Ever??? >>> Good programmers look for ways to INCREASE the portability of their code, >>> not DECREASE it. > >***Good software engineers look to understand and anticipate the needs of >their users, and develop accordingly; increasing cost, complexity, and >time-to-market to achieve unnecessary portability can be fatal. > > "time-to-market" ??? For an amateur radio program that you give away? "Unnecessary portability" ??? For an amateur radio program that you would like everyone to use? Portability doesn't increase complexity; it only means that developers have to not dive in and code first and design later. Portability is only unnecessary if you don't care about the non-Microsoft market. It's a typical Microsoft-centric attitude that is especially common here in the Seattle area, with lots of ex-Microsofties (as they are called) starting their own companies, and then going belly-up in the .com bust. That's what I found so amusing about the link (above) that you sent. >***You purchased a poorly-designed, poorly-implemented application; the fact >that it happened to be built with VB was irrelevant. A similarly incompetent >author would produce comparable garbage in any language. > > Because VB doesn't have an adequate communication library (one that works the same in Win 9x and the NT/2k products), it's the author's fault? >***Yes, the code was copyrighted. No, I did not threaten legal action; I >simply expressed my dissapointment with his behavior. > And did he stop? There are a lot of people out there that need the copyright law to be explained to them. Amateurs seem to be especially guilty of this. I've visited web sites that have copied the exact same wording about a technical subject from another site, with no attribution given. People need to be told. >This is a hobby, remember? > > And that's exactly the problem I have with many of the amateur radio programs out there. The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
