invoking on the UI thread

[Stefan Ram]

I read »The only thread that's allowed to directly access a
property value of a form or one of its controls is the
primary UI thread« (in
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc188732.aspx).

Is there a method in the standard library that I can call to
have a method/delegate/lambda of mine be executed on this UI
thread, preferably with a priority lower than user generated
events (so that the UI thread first handles user inputs,
then calls my method when it would have become idle
otherwise)?

(If someone knows Java: I am searching for a possible
equivalent of Java's »invokeLater« method of the Java
standard library, tha is
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/awt/EventQueue.html#invokeLater(java.lang.Runnable)
.)

[Mayayana]

You're asking a VB.Net question. This is mainly a
VB group. (VB 5/6) VB and VB.Net are two entirely
different things. There's a VB.Net group here:

microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb

Alternatively, there are the Microsoft forums, which
are inconvenient webpage forums and require that
you join as a member before you can post, but they
may be busier than the newsgroups. (Microsoft has
officially dropped support for their own newsgroups.)
The forum topics can be found here:

http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/categories
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/categories/
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/categories/

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Mayayana
VB group. (VB 5/6) VB and VB.Net are two entirely
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb

Thanks, I will go there.

(In 2002, Microsoft reportedly started to use the name
»Visual Basic .Net«, but since 2008 they seemed to have
changed the name back and use »Visual Basic« to refer to
what was called »Visual Basic .Net« till then.)

[Tom Shelton]

Post by Stefan Ram
I read »The only thread that's allowed to directly access a
property value of a form or one of its controls is the
primary UI thread« (in
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc188732.aspx).
Is there a method in the standard library that I can call to
have a method/delegate/lambda of mine be executed on this UI
thread, preferably with a priority lower than user generated
events (so that the UI thread first handles user inputs,
then calls my method when it would have become idle
otherwise)?
(If someone knows Java: I am searching for a possible
equivalent of Java's »invokeLater« method of the Java
standard library, tha is
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/awt/EventQueue.html#invokeLater(java.lang.Runnable)
.)

If your doing windows forms - Check out Control.Invoke. Alternatively,
if you might want to look into the BackgroundWorker control - in many
cases it can eliminate the need for ui syncronization.

[Mike Williams]

Post by Tom Shelton
If your doing windows forms - Check out Control.Invoke.

Piss off, Shelton.

[Tom Shelton]

Post by Mike Williams

Post by Tom Shelton
If your doing windows forms - Check out Control.Invoke.

Piss off, Shelton.

You piss off.

[Theo Tress]

Post by Mike Williams

Post by Tom Shelton
If your doing windows forms - Check out Control.Invoke.

Piss off, Shelton.

why he and not you?

[Mike Williams]

Post by Theo Tress

Post by Mike Williams

Post by Tom Shelton
If your doing windows forms - Check out Control.Invoke.

Piss off, Shelton.

why he and not you?

Because he's here purely to annoy people.

Mike

[Theo Tress]

Post by Mike Williams

Post by Theo Tress

Post by Mike Williams
Piss off, Shelton.

why he and not you?

Because he's here purely to annoy people.
Mike

Oh, really?

His answer you like to piss on was

"If your doing windows forms - Check out Control.Invoke. Alternatively,
if you might want to look into the BackgroundWorker control - in many
cases it can eliminate the need for ui syncronization."

and don't seem to be annoying for me. Yours indeed.

Just my 2c.

TT

[Mayayana]

| His answer you like to piss on was
|
| "If your doing windows forms - Check out Control.Invoke. Alternatively,
| if you might want to look into the BackgroundWorker control - in many
| cases it can eliminate the need for ui syncronization."
|
| and don't seem to be annoying for me. Yours indeed.
|

What you may not know is that there's a long history
to this. As Stefan Ram described in his post, Microsoft
originally sold VB.Net as "VB.Net". .Net was a Java
competitor for writing web services. VB6 was still active.

http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2000/jul00/pdcdeliverspr.mspx

But Microsoft wanted to own more of the server market.
Historically, Microsoft coerces programmers to move in
directions for Microsoft's sake. (The same is true now.
MS is trying, through a combination of strategies, to herd
programmers into writing WinRT trinket "apps" for Windows
phone, in hopes that will increase the chances of Windows
Phone succeeding. To that end they're pointing .Net
developers toward a .Net wrapper for the WinRT wrapper,
telling them that .Net is just the thing for targetting Metro
in both Windows RT tablets and Windows Phone.)

So... 10 years ago the Microsofties were all crazed about
web services, and they were also trying to move programmers
out of Windows itself, in large part so that they could market
a locked entertainment system to Hollywood.

To that end, the Microsofties wanted to push VB programmers into
.Net. They redefined .Net as the main tool for Windows software
-- which was absurb, just as writing Windows software in Java
is absurd -- and they started dropping the ".Net", referring to VB.Net
as just "VB". But there was already a VB with over a million users,
which has almost nothing in common with VB.Net aside from laguage
syntax similarities. That had the calculated effect of misleading
new people into thinking that VB.Net was the new version of VB.
It got very confusing, and still is. There are lots of code sample
sites online that don't distinguish between VB and VB.Net.

Microsoft also created newsgroups for VB.Net, while the old,
existing groups remained for VB. There was a period of growing
pains for awhile, but eventually things settled down. Microsoft
actually helped settle things down by disowning their own
newsgroups. They started up monitored web forums, and virtually
all MVPs promptly moved to those groups. What remained on
Usenet was mainly people using VB.

These days
Tom Shelton is alone in his crusade to criticize VB and "evangelize"
VB.Net. It's become a fanatical cause for him. I had politely
explained to the OP what his options are. Tom Shelton could
have followed newsgroup protocol and given his VB.Net answer
to Stefan Ram in the .Net group. But noooooo.... he saw another
chance to fight about his beloved VB.Net and rant about how he
technically has the right to do so. :) Lately .Net is getting
somewhat sidelined to make room for the Metro mess
and the WinRT wrapper API... while Windows phone shows
little promise in terms of future survival and tablets never had
much promise to begin with; all of which gets Tom even more
worked up. He knows what he's doing. He didn't just innocently
try to help.

[Theo Tress]

Well, I know about the great error MS made with VB.net, nevertheless his
initial answer

Post by Tom Shelton
If your doing windows forms - Check out Control.Invoke.
Alternatively, if you might want to look into the BackgroundWorker
control - in many cases it can eliminate the need for ui
syncronization.

seems to be AFAIK a correct one and doesn't look like PR for dotnet or
VBclassic bashing so in my opinion it would have be enough to ask him if
he's not able to answer dotnet questions in a dotnet newsgroup.

I only found to call someone to piss off might never be a good argument.
Even if pissing might hit the right one :-)

cy, just my 2c

TT

[Mike Williams]

Post by Theo Tress
Well, I know about the great error MS made with VB.net,
nevertheless his [Shelton's] initial answer . . .

Post by Tom Shelton
If your doing windows forms - Check out Control.Invoke.
Alternatively, if you might want to look into the Background
Worker control - in many cases it can eliminate the need
for ui syncronization.

. . . seems to be AFAIK a correct one and doesn't look like
PR for dotnet or VBclassic bashing so in my opinion it would
have be enough to ask him if he's not able to answer dotnet
questions in a dotnet newsgroup.

But he's been asked to do that a thousand times, and he refuses to do so!
His purpose here, as he has demonstrated many times before, over many years,
is to deliberately "wind up" the VB6 community, sometimes by posting what
can only be described as blatant advertisements for dotnet and sometimes
just by answering off topic questions in what is clearly a newsgroup for
Visual Basic, something which the imposter that calls itself VB.Net clearly
is not. VB.Net is in fact a totally and utterly different product onto which
Micro$oft have deliberately and dishonestly grafted some "Basic looking
constructs" in order to deceive the public and in order to dishonestly
separate them from their money.

Shelton is a Micro$oft fanboy and he believes anything that Micro$oft feed
to him. If Micro$oft sold him a donkey's turd and told him it was a pork
sausage then he would probably eat it! Not only that, he would probably say
it tasted great in order not to offend his masters!

Incidentally, Shelton is often defended by someone from Germany who we have
never heard of before or who, like yourself, has been involved in just a
couple of threads here in the last ten years! Almost as though you've been
"sent for". Are you his boyfriend?

Post by Theo Tress
I only found to call someone to piss off might
never be a good argument.

Well it is clearly NOT an argument, it is simply a request, one that has
been made many times before and which he chooses to ignore.

Post by Theo Tress
Even if pissing might hit the right one :-)

Yes, of course he might well hit himself with his own piss. In fact I
suspect that might be the case, but only Shelton would be able to answer
that one for you, although if you are in fact his boyfriend then you'll
probably already know the answer yourself ;-)

Mike

[Tom Shelton]

Post by Mike Williams

Post by Theo Tress
Well, I know about the great error MS made with VB.net,
nevertheless his [Shelton's] initial answer . . .

Post by Tom Shelton
If your doing windows forms - Check out Control.Invoke.
Alternatively, if you might want to look into the Background
Worker control - in many cases it can eliminate the need
for ui syncronization.

. . . seems to be AFAIK a correct one and doesn't look like
PR for dotnet or VBclassic bashing so in my opinion it would
have be enough to ask him if he's not able to answer dotnet
questions in a dotnet newsgroup.

But he's been asked to do that a thousand times, and he refuses to do so!

Not ture. But, this is not a VB.CLASSIC news group. It's charter
specifically states taht it is for all versions of vb. So, you piss
off. I do not answer questions in the microsoft.public.vb.general
group.

[DaveO]

Post by Tom Shelton
Not ture. But, this is not a VB.CLASSIC news group. It's charter
specifically states taht it is for all versions of vb. So, you piss off.
I do not answer questions in the microsoft.public.vb.general group.
--
Tom Shelton

A charter that predates the publication of "VB.NET" a product while possibly
quite adequate is generally not accepted as a logical successor to VB6. So
it is quite easy to see that this group when conceived was intended for the
COM based versions (which of course were the only sort then) of VB, to
suggest that it should support any successive language which MS opts to call
"VB" regardless of its compatibility with preceding languages with similar
names is plain stupid especially when there are other groups dedicated to
the .NET variants.



Of course you know all this but just don't care, I imagine you'd waste no
time in your criticism if we spammed the .NET groups with irrelevant VB6
solutions but we're just not as infantile as you seem to be.



DaveO

[Mike Williams]

Post by Tom Shelton
Not ture. But, this is not a VB.CLASSIC news group.
It's charter specifically states taht it is for all versions of vb.

You are letting your desire to toe the party line affect your judgement.
That charter was written long before the imposter was released. Micro$oft
lied about their new and completely different product when they called it
Visual Basic. They are an unscrupulous and thoroughly dishonest bunch of
sleazy characters and the fact that you are effectively defending them in
this matter makes you just as dishonest as them.

Mike

[Tom Shelton]

Post by Mike Williams

Post by Tom Shelton
Not ture. But, this is not a VB.CLASSIC news group.
It's charter specifically states taht it is for all versions of vb.

You are letting your desire to toe the party line affect your
judgement. That charter was written long before the imposter was
released. Micro$oft lied about their new and completely different
product when they called it Visual Basic. They are an unscrupulous
and thoroughly dishonest bunch of sleazy characters and the fact that
you are effectively defending them in this matter makes you just as
dishonest as them.

Piss off, Mike. Your oppinion of what is or isn't VB has no relevance.
It is not "completely different". In fact, it's mostly the same with
some additional features. The mostly the same stuff, is why I don't
use it. VB sucks.

[DaveO]

Post by Mike Williams

Post by Tom Shelton
Not ture. But, this is not a VB.CLASSIC news group.
It's charter specifically states taht it is for all versions of vb.

You are letting your desire to toe the party line affect your judgement.
That charter was written long before the imposter was released. Micro$oft
lied about their new and completely different product when they called it
Visual Basic. They are an unscrupulous and thoroughly dishonest bunch of
sleazy characters and the fact that you are effectively defending them in
this matter makes you just as dishonest as them.

Piss off, Mike. Your oppinion of what is or isn't VB has no relevance. It
is not "completely different". In fact, it's mostly the same with some
additional features. The mostly the same stuff, is why I don't use it.
VB sucks.
--
Tom Shelton

If it is so loathsome then why the hell do you slum it in this group?

If it is as bad as you say there is no sensible reason for you to loiter
here except perhaps for the sole purpose of being a jerk.

If it is as bad as you say then why is VB6 the most popular programming
language ever created? Of course it's because everybody except you is an
idiot, or maybe it's you.

Please just go away and stop polluting this group with your pathetic
propaganda.



As for "it's mostly the same with some additional features." What a load of
crap, that's like saying "English is mostly the same as German as they use
the same letters". We've ploughed this furrow many many times but your brain
seems to have a blank spot, perhaps you should seek help.



VB2 to VB3 - Few major changes, 90% code upgraded with no work

VB3 to VB4 - Few major changes, 95% code upgraded with no work

VB4 to VB5 - Few major changes, 90% code upgraded with no work

VB5 to VB6 - Few major changes, 95% code upgraded with no work

VB6 to VB.NET - Major changes, less than 5% code upgraded with no work



If you dispute the thrust of the above then you are a liar or have never
written a program more complex than "Hello World"

Once you see the truth of the VBn to VBn+1 "upgrade" processes then your
suggestion that they are mostly the same is shown to be the idiocy we all
know it to be.



DaveO

[Tom Shelton]

Post by DaveO

Post by Tom Shelton

Post by Mike Williams

Post by Tom Shelton
Not ture. But, this is not a VB.CLASSIC news group.
It's charter specifically states taht it is for all versions of vb.

You are letting your desire to toe the party line affect your
judgement. That charter was written long before the imposter was
released. Micro$oft lied about their new and completely different
product when they called it Visual Basic. They are an unscrupulous
and thoroughly dishonest bunch of sleazy characters and the fact
that you are effectively defending them in this matter makes you
just as dishonest as them.

Piss off, Mike. Your oppinion of what is or isn't VB has no
relevance. It is not "completely different". In fact, it's mostly
the same with some additional features. The mostly the same stuff,
is why I don't use it. VB sucks.
-- Tom Shelton

If it is so loathsome then why the hell do you slum it in this group?

Because, I want to be. I used to work with VB - back when I didn't
have a choice. And I find it absoulutely hillarious looking at the
hacks you vb.classic users have to implement to accomplish drop dead
easy stuff.

Post by DaveO
If it is as bad as you say there is no sensible reason for you to
loiter here except perhaps for the sole purpose of being a jerk.
If it is as bad as you say then why is VB6 the most popular
programming language ever created? Of course it's because everybody
except you is an idiot, or maybe it's you.
Please just go away and stop polluting this group with your pathetic
propaganda.

Oh, so answering a question is propaganda?

Post by DaveO
As for "it's mostly the same with some additional features." What a
load of crap, that's like saying "English is mostly the same as
German as they use the same letters". We've ploughed this furrow many
many times but your brain seems to have a blank spot, perhaps you
should seek help.

What I said is true.

Post by DaveO
VB2 to VB3 - Few major changes, 90% code upgraded with no work
VB3 to VB4 - Few major changes, 95% code upgraded with no work
VB4 to VB5 - Few major changes, 90% code upgraded with no work
VB5 to VB6 - Few major changes, 95% code upgraded with no work
VB6 to VB.NET - Major changes, less than 5% code upgraded with no work

LOL... Liar. That is absolutely not true. In my experience the # was
closer to around 85% - 90% ugraded with no work. And mostly no major
changes unless you used crappy coding techniques in VB.CLASSIC. Which
is probably why none of your code upgraded easily. It was probably
monlithic, gosub/goto infected, crap. Or are you one of those pathetic
idiots who just spout this kind of garbage and ever actually tried a
conversion?

Post by DaveO
If you dispute the thrust of the above then you are a liar or have
never written a program more complex than "Hello World"
Once you see the truth of the VBn to VBn+1 "upgrade" processes then
your suggestion that they are mostly the same is shown to be the
idiocy we all know it to be.
DaveO

In the end nonthing you say matters. VB is a completely proprietary
language who's sole owner is MS. So, they decide what is or isn't VB.
Not you, not Mike. So, piss off - you don't like it, than ignore me.
However, as a curtosey to the OP's - I will also include a redirection
to a forum where they will more likely get help.

[DaveO]

Post by Tom Shelton

Post by DaveO
VB2 to VB3 - Few major changes, 90% code upgraded with no work
VB3 to VB4 - Few major changes, 95% code upgraded with no work
VB4 to VB5 - Few major changes, 90% code upgraded with no work
VB5 to VB6 - Few major changes, 95% code upgraded with no work
VB6 to VB.NET - Major changes, less than 5% code upgraded with no work

LOL... Liar. That is absolutely not true. In my experience the # was
closer to around 85% - 90% ugraded with no work. And mostly no major
changes unless you used crappy coding techniques in VB.CLASSIC. Which is
probably why none of your code upgraded easily. It was probably
monlithic, gosub/goto infected, crap. Or are you one of those pathetic
idiots who just spout this kind of garbage and ever actually tried a
conversion?

I'm sorry but either your memory is deceiving you (often the case in
senility) or your entire VB6 library consisted of: MsgBox "Hello World"
because not a single program I tried would upgrade without more work than
would have been involved to write the program from scratch. (Programs
without a single GoSub you patronizing bastard)

Post by Tom Shelton
In the end nonthing you say matters. VB is a completely proprietary
language who's sole owner is MS. So, they decide what is or isn't VB. Not
you, not Mike. So, piss off - you don't like it, than ignore me.
However, as a curtosey to the OP's - I will also include a redirection to
a forum where they will more likely get help.

VB is a *Version* of B.A.S.I.C. which is NOT the property of MicroSoft, I
was using B.A.S.I.C. on minicomputers before Microsoft even existed,
certainly they extended the language but that is all, or until VB.NET which
does not follow the B.A.S.I.C. conventions so should not be called a version
of B.A.S.I.C. because it's not.

Why is it that "nothing I say matters" but everything you say is pure gold?
Perhaps you are so arrogant you don't even bother to check if what you say
is true because if you say it then it must be true. Sir, you are an arrogant
arse who is too self-important to realize what a jerk you appear to
everybody here, nor do you care. I suggest you look up the word "humility"
and try to apply it to yourself.



DaveO

[Tom Shelton]

Post by DaveO

Post by Tom Shelton

Post by DaveO
VB2 to VB3 - Few major changes, 90% code upgraded with no work
VB3 to VB4 - Few major changes, 95% code upgraded with no work
VB4 to VB5 - Few major changes, 90% code upgraded with no work
VB5 to VB6 - Few major changes, 95% code upgraded with no work
VB6 to VB.NET - Major changes, less than 5% code upgraded with no work

LOL... Liar. That is absolutely not true. In my experience the #
was closer to around 85% - 90% ugraded with no work. And mostly no
major changes unless you used crappy coding techniques in
VB.CLASSIC. Which is probably why none of your code upgraded
easily. It was probably monlithic, gosub/goto infected, crap. Or
are you one of those pathetic idiots who just spout this kind of
garbage and ever actually tried a conversion?

I'm sorry but either your memory is deceiving you (often the case in
senility) or your entire VB6 library consisted of: MsgBox "Hello
World" because not a single program I tried would upgrade without
more work than would have been involved to write the program from
scratch. (Programs without a single GoSub you patronizing bastard)

You are a liar. Pure and simple. I converted several large programs,
and yes - there was some effort. I'm not denying that - but, it was no
where near as complex as what you are trying to portray. If you only
got 5% working code, than your code sucks. And, there is no other way
to say it.

Post by DaveO

Post by Tom Shelton
In the end nonthing you say matters. VB is a completely
proprietary language who's sole owner is MS. So, they decide what
is or isn't VB. Not you, not Mike. So, piss off - you don't like
it, than ignore me. However, as a curtosey to the OP's - I will
also include a redirection to a forum where they will more likely
get help.

VB is a *Version* of B.A.S.I.C. which is NOT the property of
MicroSoft, I was using B.A.S.I.C. on minicomputers before Microsoft
even existed, certainly they extended the language but that is all,
or until VB.NET which does not follow the B.A.S.I.C. conventions so
should not be called a version of B.A.S.I.C. because it's not.

VB is microsofts product. There is no central standard for basic.
There are tons of conflicting implementations. I spent several years
working with an off shoot of business basic - and there is very little
code that would compile in vb6. While most of my vb code ported
directly to .net. You are spouting incoherent nonsense... VB has
never completely followed clasic BASIC conventions.

Post by DaveO
Why is it that "nothing I say matters" but everything you say is pure
gold? Perhaps you are so arrogant you don't even bother to check if
what you say is true because if you say it then it must be true. Sir,
you are an arrogant arse who is too self-important to realize what a
jerk you appear to everybody here, nor do you care. I suggest you
look up the word "humility" and try to apply it to yourself.

LOL... Waaaa! Waaa! Again, the solution is simple. Stop talkign to
me. Most news readers have this little feature that lets you ignore
someone...

[DaveO]

You are a liar. Pure and simple. I converted several large programs, and
yes - there was some effort. I'm not denying that - but, it was no where
near as complex as what you are trying to portray. If you only got 5%
working code, than your code sucks. And, there is no other way to say it.

No I tell the truth, it's your memory that's faulty or perhaps you're lying
about the complexity of your programs or maybe you had an adult help you do
the conversions.



I suggest you download the code for a 100 random programs (in excess of 2000
lines each) written in VB6 then try the upgrader that shipped with VB.NET
and see how many convert straight off. If you get 5 that work without
significant intervention then you will be lucky, very lucky.



As for "around 85% - 90% ugraded (sic) with no work", that is undoubtedly a
lie. Are you trying to say that the majority of your VB6 programs worked in
VB.NET without a single manual alteration? Just how many different ways can
you do "Hello World"?



DaveO.

[Mayayana]

| > VB6 to VB.NET - Major changes, less than 5% code upgraded with no
| > work
| >
| LOL... Liar. That is absolutely not true. In my experience the # was
| closer to around 85% - 90% ugraded with no work. And mostly no major
| changes unless you used crappy coding techniques in VB.CLASSIC.

Why quibble about that. This is from 4 posts down:

----------------------------

DateString = Now.ToShortDateString

They're talking about VBA/VB6. Your reply is for VB.NET
------------------------------

That's a great example of why this isn't also a VB.Net
group. Common sense. But I liked your idea of forwarding.
There'smnothing wrong with saying, "Your solution is XYZ,
but if you want to discuss it further you should post in the
.Net group." As much as we all like to criticize each others'
tool of choice, this is really about having useful, informative
discussion.

I find the same problem with VBA, for that matter. People
post MS Office questions in VB groups when they should
really post them in an Office group. VBA for Office and
VB6 seem to be very close to being identical, but that
doesn't really matter. For anyone who's not writing MS
Office macros the code and object model might just as
well be another language.

[Tom Shelton]

Post by Mayayana

Post by Tom Shelton

Post by DaveO
VB6 to VB.NET - Major changes, less than 5% code upgraded with no work

LOL... Liar. That is absolutely not true. In my experience the #
was closer to around 85% - 90% ugraded with no work. And mostly no
major changes unless you used crappy coding techniques in
VB.CLASSIC.

----------------------------

Post by Tom Shelton
DateString = Now.ToShortDateString

They're talking about VBA/VB6. Your reply is for VB.NET
------------------------------

This is no different than knowing if someone is working in VB5 or 6.
You know InStrRev, etc? The old format command is still there in .net
- though some of the format strings are different.

MsgBox(Format(Now, "M/d/yyyy"))

In other words, mostly the same.

[Mike Williams]

I find it absoulutely hillarious looking at the hacks you
vb.classic users have to implement to accomplish drop
dead easy stuff.

The only reason you think it is easy, Shelton, is because someone else has
already done it for you!

Mike

[Jason Keats]

It is not "completely different". In fact, it's mostly the same with
some additional features. The mostly the same stuff, is why I don't use
it.

Most (non-GUI) VB6 code runs unchanged in VB.NET - which is why I do use
it. It's usually just a matter of searching and replacing a few data
types: eg Long to Int32 and Integer to Int16.

I see no advantage in using C# over VB.NET (for a VB6 programmer).

[Tom Shelton]

Post by Jason Keats

It is not "completely different". In fact, it's mostly the same with
some additional features. The mostly the same stuff, is why I don't use
it.

Most (non-GUI) VB6 code runs unchanged in VB.NET - which is why I do

Even the GUI code can be almost the same if you install the vb
powerpack stuff. Still, gui code is probably the most problematic to
convert.

Post by Jason Keats
use it. It's usually just a matter of searching and replacing a few
data types: eg Long to Int32 and Integer to Int16.
I see no advantage in using C# over VB.NET (for a VB6 programmer).

There isn't really - for the most part. I just happen to like C-style
syntax better than BASIC. Different strokes.

[Mike Williams]

Post by Tom Shelton
Piss off, Mike. Your oppinion of what is or isn't VB
has no relevance. It is not "completely different". In
fact, it's mostly the same with some additional features.
The mostly the same stuff, is why I don't use it. VB sucks.

So WTF are you doing here, Shelton?

I do thank you for one thing though, and that is the proof you have just
given to your boyfriend who jumped out of the woodwork to defend you that I
was right when I told him you were here simply to cause trouble. By the way,
your last few posts have been full of "typos". You need to chill, Shelton.
Maybe you should see a trick cyclist?

Mike

[GS]

I didn't get why they did not call it VB# as they did with C#. Your
comment has merit with me!

[Theo Tress]

Post by Mike Williams
Incidentally, Shelton is often defended by someone from Germany

Perhaps we in Germany prefer arguments by brain rather than by balls?


Ok, I understand your animosity against dotnet enthusiasts. I myself think
introducing VB.net as "Visual Basic" with such a wide gap to VB6 was a big
strategic error, I think MS loses a lot of competent programers and only
gains newbies for them. But that's another story.

Back to the roots: His answer was correct, no dotnet promoting, and even in
the proper newsgroup (you know what .misc means?), so you simply have no
right to bash on such a message. That's all what's to say.

Bye.
TT

[Farnsworth]

Post by Theo Tress
His answer was correct

Since most dotnet posters don't hang out here regardless of whether the
newsgroup fits or not, the answers you get are questionable since others are
not here to scrutinize the answer.