Printable View
OK... before you reply to this thread you have to understand that I am a total novice and have only just started using VB6. Is there a VB 7? If there isn't what have they renamed it to? Is it Visual Studio.NET? I would have thought that .NET meant it was related to the Internet in some way.
Please go easy on the idiot!
VB.NET is the thing. And, the Visual Studio suites, after 6.0 were named after calendar years rather than using version numbers.
But you can still see that VB 7 is named VB.NET 2002 and VB 7.1 is 2003 and VB 8 is 2005. ;)
Oh right. How come it is called .NET then? Does it mean that it is related to the Internet in some way, like for making HTML application or something?
had hack said vb 7 or 8 is named vb .net they got rid of the version number
P.S. the code had changed as well
Nope, it has nothing to do with the internet. Just the name they choose. There is also the .NET Framework that VS (& VB) .NET run on. Maybe they had some meaning for .NET but its not Internet. ;)
Yes, its no longer considered any kind of upgrade from VB 6 but rather a new language thats all OOP based.
It is just Microsoft being clever. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dom_stapleton
Seriously though, the Visual Studio suite contains a variety of things, not just VB.NET and you can make web applications with this tool.
it has nothing to do with internet.
it has a diffrent lenguage as i said
i am pretty sure they choose the ".net" name b/c most buisness involved around the internet and a name like ".net" is just eye coughting
Someone has just got a brilliant idea @MS I guess - it could be anything: get, set, let, wet, jet ... But silly part is that it sets the new style in the world of naming conventions. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by dom_stapleton
They could have called it VB#, but they chose .NET instead.
AFAIK the name was choosen to reflect all the new technology in the framework geared towards facilitating rapid development of Internet and intranet applications. The new framework made it easier to program for Windows, and the web but also web services. And now also for other platforms sutch as Linux. but that has nothing to do with the .NET name..:)
- ØØ -
I've always wondered with they called it C# instead of C.NET *shrugs shoulders*Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
I guess it would have been confusing to distinguish C++.NET from C.NET.
It keeps me (as well as everybody else) wonder too ...
VB# would have been good to. They did do C# and J# so why not VB#?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
But C# is actualy called C# .NET, so then I guess VB would have been called VB# .NET..:). But to be honest, it actualy looks good..:)
- ØØ -
Good question. Maybe someone oughta email MS and find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I dont program in C# yet but I cant say that I have seen it referred that way - "C# .NET". All the jobs online just mention it as "C#" only but I'm sure there are some that may. ;) I know you program C# so I think you would know best. ;)
Interesting discussion. :) Moved to General Developer.
The .NET craze at MS came along with VB.Net and ADO.Net - at the height of the XML-will-take-over the world moment.
We were all supposed to use disconnected recordsets - all of us start turning our ovens and DVD recorders at home on over the internet.
At the same time the very nature of security fell on it's face - SQL slammer - virus after virus after worm...
The "internet" revolution never materialized - we all still use intranet and VPN and anything else to keep the internet out of our networks.
XML never turned into anything more then a neat new way to store an .INI file. EDI was supposed to disappear with XML - but EDI is just as strong as ever, and even legally mandated for health-care transmissions!
Here's a quote from an MSDN archive...
Link to it: http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/en...scriptText.aspQuote:
CHARLES FITZGERALD: Yep, that's pretty close. The .NET platform is about helping people, through software technologies, build Web services, deploy them, operate them, aggregate and integrate them, and also consume. And that allows people to think about both exposing their capabilities in a standard way that other people can consume and embed those things into their environment, but also making it easy for the developer to consumer other Web services and leverage other intellectual property that's out there in the world.
Can't say nothing but INDEED, INDEED and again INDEED as I just couldn't agree more. Crap is ... well ... crap - anyway you look at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
.NET is not "just about web services". It a total integration of suite apps all running on a common framework to say the least. Web services are a new feature but its not what .NET revolves around. ;)
RD - we know that's true, but that wasn't the MS marketing hype that they used to push this out with.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I believe that the new common framework - and the ultimate plans for the operating system related to the framework and file-storage system are great.
We had a common framework on our mainframes VAX machines back in 1980 - it's great that MS is finally thinking about losing the "reliance" on DOS as the backbone of the OS...
Why do we still have a CMD prompt? :rolleyes:
? I have a DOS prompt. :D
It will even be a more advanced shell in Vista...I am looking forward to it. Makes certain things easier to do...:)
*walks back to his Linux machine*
until they implement symlinks in the windows console, it has nothing compared to linux. :bigyello:Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
Lets not get into a Linux vs Windows debate.
The topic dejour is the .NET framework. ;)
I know :lol:, they called it .NET because all the suite of apps are "networked" through the common framework. :D
But if everything is gonna rely on the framework, even the Windows Vista OS, someone can easily create a virus that can destroy the framework, and not make anything work at all. Not exactly secure in my opinion.
Virus makers all exploit holes in the OS - holes is a nice way of saying untested buggy code.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Buffer overflows seem to be the target of most. That means the programmer did not check the size of data being moved to see if it's going to fit the memory spot it's going into. That's simply sloppy programming - today, yesterday, back in 1980 and back in 1960.
Allowing someone to "fashion" some data bigger then the buffer so that they can drop code into "execution space" is simply inexcusable.
It should be no different then VB6 relying on the msvbvm60.dll runtime.