|
It would be nice to have a place just for VB6. Not everyone is "born again" C++ or VB.NET..... There is still a lot of life left in VB6 in spite of attempts to exterminate it. Here we use VB6 as a fast concept test platform before desiding what platform to use for the final product. Other platforms are not as fast to 'throw togeather' a quick proof of concept demo in order to get initial funding. Access to other VB6 users in simular circumstances was the primary reason that I signed on to the code project. We are offended when it is sugested that VB6 users should be "brought into the fold of VB.NET". VB6 is used for a reason just like C++, ASP.NET, VB.NET and others have their uses. Only monosylibic programers lack the diversity to expect everyone to "convert" to their platform. Broad experience allows one to know which platform is best suited for any given application. Diversity is key to being able to compete effectivly, just look at microsoft. "When you find yourself in a hole, Stop digging" (author unknown). They keep potting out crap code. Just don't throw away any tools just because you aren't familiar with them. How many of you can do assembly? The point is to learn as much as possible. Thank you.
Poly-programmer
|
|
|
|
|
lies..only those who are resistant to change, fearful of progression, or afraid of learning new, more powerful and overall superior concepts seem to think in this non-progressive backward ideal.
If your gonna try and start a counter-culture, i think you have little hope. Most people in these forums started with vb6...yet have made the transition to a better product. Microsoft does upgrade its software for more than profit. It upgrades its frameworks and developement tools because developement exists in such a way that old tools eventually become too old to be adapted to new tasks. You can't drive in a screw in with a stone tool (and please don't get pedantic and extend this analogy). Hence, progression is a necessary thing. It is as natural as evolution. It is those who refuse to "convert", as you so resistantly phrased it, that hold back the industry and wonder why they no longer understand who to provide solutions they understood how to a few years back, yet the syntax is still derived from the same language.
Besides that, VB6 was a mess, thrown together out of bits of other languages, held together by toothpicks, strin and blue tack which we know as the VB6 syntax. VB.Net is much more adept at handling so many more things than VB6...sure some things may seem foreign and more complex, but it is this complexity that allows expansion.
It is equivocal to C# in its power and, some would argue, easier to use, especially for readability and new users. Do yourself a favour and make the move, you won't regret it. Do the industry a favour and stop trying to create a counter-culture. No-one gains anything through anti-progressionism.
Polyphonic wrote: We are offended when it is sugested that VB6 users should be "brought into the fold of VB.NET".
Sorry if you get offended, but most people on this side of the metaphoric line don't know why they stuck with VB6 for so long.
Polyphonic wrote: There is still a lot of life left in VB6
Is that why microsoft doesn't support it anymore?
Polyphonic wrote: Just don't throw away any tools just because you aren't familiar with them
This is an invalid argument, why would you own tools you aren't familiar with.
Polyphonic wrote: Other platforms are not as fast to 'throw togeather' a quick proof of concept demo in order to get initial funding
Disagree. Once you gain a better understanding of VB.Net, i belive you can 'throw' something together in the same time and include more features.
Despite all this, this really isn't the place to have this argument, there is a suggestions forum, pitch it there, but i guarantee that if there is a seperate forum, it will only be one tenth as populated as this one. But VB.Net programmers would be glad to stop hearing about VB6 questions.
Sorry if some of this comes across aggressive, i really don't mean it, i'm adamently pro VB.Net and am willing to admit that there is inherent bias in this.
|
|
|
|
|
You sure put someone in their place. I recall that VB6 was also touted as being more powerful and possesed overall superior concepts as well. Granted that was in VB6's heyday. Some people, and we all are in some form of minority, still like to squeeze every bit sic) out of older information. Who knows there might be something to be learned.
Reguarding support from microsoft: They rarely do anything that dosen't PUSH people into a direction that greatly benefits the microsoft world idea. Mind you it is great that Bill has found a way to impose his world view through software. Not everyone has to follow behind him in lock step. Perhaps the old idea of fair competition should be forgotten. After all isn't the (insert platform name here) platform perfect and totally bug free, virus proof and crash resistant?
We do use VB.Net, C++ and others (even Assembly) but we also use VB6 it has uses.
The point is we are all on a "ladder" don't kick those below you or you might just get kicked by those above you.
Polyphonic
|
|
|
|
|
This is not the place for this crap. Perhaps you're looking for the Soapbox[^].
Polyphonic wrote: "When you find yourself in a hole, Stop digging" (author unknown).
Hence, I stopped using VB6 and switched to VB.NET. What a relief that was!
Polyphonic wrote: There is still a lot of life left in VB6
You just keep right on telling yourself that. I, on other hand, can see the writing on the wall...
|
|
|
|
|
Ohhh the young (less experenced) are so inclined to reinvent the wheel. Wait until you have a few decades of diverse experience under your belt and then see if you are so quick to 'toss' out the old for the new. By the way we also use VB.Net, C++, Unix and others when it is apropriate.
Polyphonic
|
|
|
|
|
Polyphonic wrote: Ohhh the young (less experenced) are so inclined to reinvent the wheel. Wait until you have a few decades of diverse experience under your belt and then see if you are so quick to 'toss' out the old for the new.
Does 32 years of programming/developing/support count?
|
|
|
|
|
You should be starting to understand it soon!
Polyprogrammer
|
|
|
|
|
Polyphonic wrote: Other platforms are not as fast to 'throw togeather' a quick proof of concept demo in order to get initial funding.
Speak for yourself. From my point of view VB6 is the slowest method to throw something together. I never did VB6 so it would be a steep learning curve for me. I'd much rather use C# (which is what I'm best at) for throwing something together quickly.
Polyphonic wrote: Just don't throw away any tools just because you aren't familiar with them.
I don't throw away anything. However if I don't know how to use a tool I'll not use it because it would take me a long time to figure out how to use it.
Your arguments may be valid for your individual situation, but it isn't valid for the majority of people out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Reguarding the "Majority" of people: Since we are all "Ego Centric" one often believes one's own group to be in the majority. A must read should be "How To Lie With Statistics". It is only about 200 pages long but packed with enabling information. I am not discounting C++ (it is one of many platforms we use here) just the mistaken belief that it is the "GOD" of the programming world. Every one of us is in the minority in some group somewhere. Just be careful when you discount something that you are inexperenced at using. C++ is great for what it does but then VB6 is also great for doing what it is intended for as well. Unix, Fortran, Cobal, Pascal even Assembly and others all have a valid use and place. We encourage people to not be limited
Polyphonic
|
|
|
|
|
Polyphonic wrote: Just be careful when you discount something that you are inexperenced at using
I always try to ensure I have a good overview of most technolgies so I can assess whether something would be worthwhile for me to learn nor not. Given that VB6 was discontinued about 5 years ago I feel that it comes in to the category of "insufficient possible return on investment" to be worthwhile learning. If you already have the skill and it is useful in your situation then go for it.
Another for instance, F# has just come on my radar. At the moment it is not currently worth learning, but could be useful in the future. So I'm keeping watch on it.
Polyphonic wrote: We encourage people to not be limited
I don't regard myself as limited. I try to take a more pragmatic approach to see if there is any longevity in the technology to make it worth while spending the effort learning it. I can imagine that at some point in the future it may be useful to me to revisit C++ (I did about 3 years ago and I may do again).
|
|
|
|
|
I won't argue with your approach, I agree to a large extent. However I expect that you might concure the no technology has longevity. It's just the nature of the beast. Ideally the best system should have the least complexity to learn and implement while being highly economical to obtain (buy or rent). Of course such a system would and should put all of us out of business. If you are not having fun you are doing it wrong. As Lilly Tomlin once said in her one woman show, Is there any intelligent life in the universe, "Reality is just a collective hunch!" Enjoy the ride.
Polyprogrammer
|
|
|
|
|
Polyphonic wrote: However I expect that you might concure the no technology has longevity. It's just the nature of the beast.
In the context of computer software longevity is shorter than in the context of human lifespans. It is all relative to what is being discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private thrDownload As Thread
thrDownload = new trhead addressof "functionname that contains the code to be run in the tread"
thrdownload.start
that should do it
If my help was helpfull let me know, if not let me know why.
The only way we learn is by making mistaks.
|
|
|
|
|
MSDN Library: Thread class[^]
---
"Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
-- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks A lot for help. That's All Worked Fine Now 
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Friends,
I am going to do one mobile application project in dot net. I will have to call camera application through my application. Can any one help me how to do it?
I will appreciate you if you send me a code snippet for doing this
Thank you
Best Regards
Ahamed Azeem
|
|
|
|
|
No details on your problem typically returns no results.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I will have to do design an application which should activate camera application in pocket pc 2003.
I have found that there is a namespace in .net 2005 that "Microsoft.WindowsMobile.Forms" through MSDN. But When i try Add Reference, Its not available in the collection of dlls. but Is it anyway to get it back.
In Recent mobile we have a camera application like this I need to develop for my own and it should run in Pocket PC 2003 mobiles. And i will type a filename to store it into the folder.
I think this time you got an idea.
Regards
Azeem
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have an array of times(in miliseconds). I need to loop through the array and activate the dsrEnable method on serial port for exactly ethe time in the array and then disable the dsrEnable and move on to the next item in the array. The time has to be exact in a milisecond.
I have tried using a timer, but that is not precise, at all.
Do you know any other precise methods besides timer?
Thank you!!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, you could find more information on this subject in my timer article. See link below.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
this months tips:
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am just tired getting this error "Object reference not set to an instance of an object" in my project. I know that to solve this error you can use New keyword but I don't think that "new" can be used with Thread. Some code is as follows:
Private thrDownload As Thread
<br />
'''''' Some code is here'''''''''''''<br />
'<br />
'<br />
'<br />
'Now On This line I am getting an error :<br />
<br />
thrDownload.Start(0)<br />
<br />
' Or On thrDownload.Pause(0) & thrDownload.Stop(0) the same error !<br />
'<br />
'<br />
'<br />
'<br />
'''''' Some code is here'''''''''''''<br />
<br />
If anyone wants then I can paste the whole code here but It's lots of lines of code ! :->
Any Suggestions ? 
Thanks,
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
Dan`M wrote: I know that to solve this error you can use New keyword but I don't think that "new" can be used with Thread.
Yes, it can. You have to create the Thread object before you can use it.
---
"Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
-- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
|
|
sorry but can you show some example code please.. :->
|
|
|
|
|
Yo,
I have an datagrid where I want to filter my data I got.
The filter I want to use is the text inside an combobox or textbox (it doesn't matter)
This is the code I already have
Private Sub cmbPO_textChanged(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles cmbPO.SelectedValueChanged
Me.TblLijstBindingSource.Position = Me.cmbPO.SelectedIndex
End Sub
Where:
cmbPO = combobox
tblLijstBindingSource = binding source
This doesn't works like I want it, I want to see just the record I've insert in the combobox. But if this is to hard to do, it may just jump to that record.
Thanks
(Plz keep in VB.NET and do not throw code of C# or such a languages :->)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
