Printable View
Also they will post stupid source code that will do bad things to your system. In which I had my work's technicians working on my system, at most of the morning!!
PS: I wasn't trying to point any fingers at anyone in particular. Just generalising, in deed. Please note that it wasn't this Forum or Members. But it was a tutorial that I had found on the Internet. Not pointing the finger, at any Webpage, also...
Exactly. That's the whole point of discussion. Because you can't pretend that there are no more beginners.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
I look at it philosophically in this fashion:
I started flying at 14.
I did not start in the first airplane, the Wright Flyer. Why? Airplanes, like languages, progress.
Progression is NOT the same as power.
We now have Cessnas and Boeing jumbo jets. Both represent a progression of aviation, but this does NOT mean that beginners should start in a jumbo jet.
Ideally, progression shows up in BOTH flying experiences. Tricycle gear, ailerons, flaps, elevator, rudder, nose wheel steering, etc. This is a modern configuration... and what is learned in the Cessna all applies to the 747.
However, even though it is POSSIBLE to learn the 747 from zero (ignoring the cost! :) it is unwise to do so.
You can talk about the "reasons" why the 747 is cool... it's max ceiling, max speed, range, capacity, etc. etc. but that doesn't address the actual issue, does it?
A learning platform that is both *progressed* in terms of the fundamentals, and yet stripped down as to have full functionality, but lacking unnecessary complexity or power, is the right choice.
It SEEMS to me, that MS took that platform, and moved it out of that role... and that's a shame. It satisfies the advanced code pilots, clearly... but in a way, that satisfaction is probably a good signal that it has become a jumbo jet.
IMHO, I think that a simple object oriented configuration of BASIC, that has a vastly smaller lexicon, and is a little more forgiving is in order... the Cessna of programming.
You probably shouldn't be dabbling in things that have many specifics that you are not aware of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doogle
The CNC actually *requires* VB6... and one of our complaints with the vendor of that equipment is that they sold us, AS NEW, the control software which we later found out was in fact years old and out of date. It was fraudulent. VB6 was not (is not?) officially supported on Win7, nor is it supported or sold new... but that is the OS that came with the machine. We have the option of dumping this 5 year old version of the controller software, and at great expense putting in the latest control software that requires .Net for interface tasks.
So we have a choice to make... but this is WELL outside the scope of this forum and this thread.
Have you looked at the TcpClient Class? I don't know how it compares to winsock, but it seems simple enough.
I learned to fly in a Cessna 152 and 172.
FunkyDexter... you're the man! I really appreciate your useful and practical advice.
All,
of course this thread has a basic philosophical core, stimulated into being due to actual circumstance.
What I perceive, and I may be wrong, is that with the advent of .Net, BASIC, with a B, took a significant jump *out* of the realm of the beginner. Cessna to jumbo jet... and without knowing exactly what it looks like, I expect that it COULD have gone the other way... but didn't. Both for the sake of beginners, and those that want to dip into the environment in a quick and dirty sense for reasons of sheer pragmatism, I lament.
I just finished Bob Tabors intro videos into .Net, and at this point am resigning myself to learning a LOT more than I really wanted to, just to hammer out an interface or two, partly on the belief that learning more is never a bad choice, even if the timing is inconvenient, and will feel like drinking from a fire hose...
But I still feel for the beginner... we were all there once... and, again, I may be wrong, but I think that I would be far more intimidated and lost venturing into .Net compared to something along the lines of VBA/VB6. I don't expect that the TRS-80 Coco, starting with line #10, should still be supported... progression IS important, but I stress that progression is not the same as power and options.
I have a soft spot for the casual programmer, because I don't think that programming is necessarily about "the big/professional application", or the professional programmer... my bias being that I am not operating in that realm myself.
[EDIT]: BTW, I would like to thank EVERYONE for a pleasant, enlightening, and productive conversation, that could have easily slipped into a flaming language bigotry fest, but didn't, due to the exceptional character of all involved. Hats off to you!
I'll tell you what I'd like to see: a beginning language that's language agnostic... huh? something that teaches basic fundamentals but is independent to a specific language. PseudoCode++#.NET6 soemthing that teaches logic and reasoning, I wish that flowcharting and UML and simple debugging were also taught... it's amazing the number of posts that crop up in here because someone doesn't know how to follow code or logic and debug their app... granted that's something that is dependent on the IDE... but still, it's somethign of a fundamental thing to do... all IDEs (the good ones at any rate) allow the setting of breakpoints, stepping through code... and all that... to me, that's where the real shame lies...
after giving it a LOT of thought (and restarting this post 4 times) ... I think I might have to agree... there isn't something small and simple that allows for the learning of the basics... two reasons I suspect for this: 1) academia isn't teaching the basics any more... I blame the ITT Techs for that which crank out the developers by the dozens of certifications at a time and 2) the boss's nephew syndrome -- their first foray into programming is VBA in Excel or Word... by the time they get to where they need something more powerful, they're getting into .NET ... and yes, that transition is a bit harsh.
If I had the time, the knowledge and the motivation, I'd take a shot at maybe creating a new kind of base logic type language... but it's not something that's in my wheelhouse, and not really something I want to undertake... I might be convinced to be part of a team though if someone else wants to spearhead it though...
Jsut sayin;
-tg
http://i50.tinypic.com/2uhonpd.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
Sounds interesting. The problem would be what are the fundamentals? One of the things that BASIC did, that VB .Net frowns upon, is not have strong data types. Are 1 and "1" the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
Would a fundamental be the ability to easily communicate via TCP/IP? What about multi-programming and multi-threads?
Could we have a data type that was a BIT as well as the abstract version boolean?
VisualBasic.StillSupported = False. I have been talking to Microsoft that they don't still support the Visual Basic IDE, but then they will still be supporting apps being written inside the Visual Basic IDE. Also then they are changing the Visual Basic platform to be written into a different system altogether. Also it will then be still called: Visual Basic, but with a few major and minor changes to the way that it still processes the data and also the way that it functions, will then be different. But then esscentually it will never change...
Visual Basic not supported ? What have you been smoking? Visual Basic 2012 was just released and will be supported for the next 5 years or so.
VB6 is no longer supported and hasn't been for some time now. Typically the life span is 5 years and VB6 is 14 years old. That is not to say that it doesn't work just that there is no continuing support for it. If and when it breaks it will be broken.
VB has changed with each and every release and there have been several since VB6. I work mostly in VB6 and VB8 though I also use 7, 9 and 10 as needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DataMiser
Pardon my confusion... What is VB2012??? I mean, compared with VB in Visual Studio.Net... same thing?
it's the next version... ships with FW 4.5 and comes with templates that support Windows8 & metro interfaces.
jsut like VB2005 was the next version after VB2003... VB2008 followed, followed again by VB2010 and now by VB2012 ... and I'm sure there'll be a 2014 or 2015 at some point too...
-tg
It is the latest release of Visual Basic. Yes it comes in Visual Studio just like it always did. VB6 was part of Visual Studio 6 as well. Visual Basic 6 was the last version that did not use the .Net framework but there have been several versions of VB since then they just stopped putting the number on the box and started using a year instead just like they have did with several of thier products. It is still very much Visual Basic.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyderS
I am currently working on a project in VB2005 [a.k.a. VB 8]
Well that is good that you are using a high grade of Visual Basic...
high grade? It just happens to be the one needed for the project at hand. I also use 6 7 9 and 10.
Occasionally I still have to use EVB 3 though I hope I do not have to work on those projects again :(
I had an old version of Access to write a DataBase for. I had to install it on a computer that could run 5.25" 1.2Mb IDE floppy disks...
Finally, the recognition I deserve. Now if everyone else round here would just come to realise that I'm always right then we could all get somewhere. Chit-chat would be a lot more left wing, I can tell you that.;)Quote:
FunkyDexter... you're the man!
I do disagree that VB.Net is too complicated to write simle apps though. I still think the problem is the examples and tutorials you'll find on line have changed since 6, and that's a function of the people who use the languages.
Back in the days of VB6 people used it almost exclusively for simple, knock out stuff. Sure, there were those of us who were hooking into the Windows API or overloading MFCs but we were the exceptions rather than the norm. That meant that, when you were a noob and had a question about how to connect to a database, you could do a quick google search and get a load of answers from people who were just like you. They would speak to you in terms you'd understand without berating you for not implementing a detached middle tier or properly implementing the MVP pattern. Now you do the same google search and you're drowned in people discussing best practices and explaining how to implement the iBindable interface, not because you have to do those things but because you can do them, and alot of us find it useful. It's no harder to do some dirty hacking in VB.Net than it was in VB6, but it's alot harder to find someone who'll tell you how to.
Us pros probably don't help with that. How often do we sneer at some quick and dirty programmer, telling them that the way they're doing something is wrong and berating them for not swallowing the whole of the MSDN documentation before daring to prostrate themselves before us? We pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves that we're maintaing standards in our industry but the truth is that half of these people are nothing to do with industry nor will they ever be. They're just some poor JAverage Joe in an unrelated job who's trying to get through their day and is too busy doing other things to learn to be a professional programmer at the same time.
To the above mentioned Average Joe, you need to do your bit too. Learn some Google-Fu. Learn what to search for and when you don't know, ask what to search for before you ask for code. Ask us to point you in the right direction before you ask us to write your app. We'll help you do you job but we don't like to do your job for you, unless you pay us consultancy fees. And bear in mind that, if we're dismissive of you we are so for a reason. We ARE protecting our industry... and with good reason. It's been populated by lazy, good-for-nothing, couldn't care less pin heads for years, and they're still coming into it. We've had to deal with their fall out. We've stood in front of the red faced apoplectic client who's business is collapsing around his ears and try to explain to him that, no, we can't tell him how long it's going to be before his thousand pund a minute call centre working again but it's our number one priority. It's not a pleasant feeling and if we can stop those guys coming into the industry we will. That doesn't mean we don't sympathise with your plight but sometimes it's difficult to spot the difference, so make it clear. And let us know that you want our help, not our work for free.
Agreed ;) I looked at the sample for the TcpClient Class and all I can say is :confused: . It is my belief that for one-off programs it would be as simple as winsock, but the code given in the documentation isn't good.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I notice people getting into a knot over Winsock lately. Did no one here ever reproduce the implementation of VB6's Winsock in VB.Net ?
-- Well actually .NET has a special process for Winsock. It's not called: Winsock. However it is TCP/IP enabled and also it works with Data IN/OUT from the modem, using that Control...
What the.....???? Why does this post read like it was produced by Google Translate ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThEiMp
It wasn't and can members/guests stop saying that. It wasn't I write/speak/read only English...
Well you said .Net has a "process".....what does that mean ? .Net doesn't have processes. A process is a running application.
I meant a function that has been written inside it to execute at a certain time when the programmer uses that specific command...
A function isn't the same thing as a Control which was what I was talking about.
That was just a mistake that I had made...
I have no idea what he was talking about either. VB.Net has the Sockets class, the TCPClient class and the TCP Listener class. It is also possible to use the winsock control but not recommended.
I personally ended up using the sockets class, probably the most complex method but I managed to get good results with it and really like the fact that you can use it as blocking or non blocking depnding on which methods you use. In my case I had a procedure where it really needed to wait for a response before going forward and was rather tricky using the winsock control whereas the blocking methods offered by the sockets class work just fine and made it much easier to reuse the code.
Prior to switching to .net I had to use this procedure in many programs and had done my best to make it reusable but no matter what I tried I still had to fudge it a bit to get it to work in each project. With the .net routines I have basically created a class that I can drop into any project and it handles all TCP communications with no changes.
Really, I had "Ms Someone" at the firm to try using Winsock in Visual Studio 2002 .NET and then it kept on crashing their application and this was a data base that was trying to connect to their Server so that it could update the data base on the Client machines. Please note that this was a internal data base program, that was used for the Aussie AFL Football Tipping for our firm, only...
Well like DataMiser said, using the VB6 Winsock control in VB.Net is not a recommended practice.
There is probably a reason why .Net versions before 2003 are not available from MS as well. I remember installing the RC of the first .net available and it was a bit buggy. I did not start using .Net until 2003 was released.
Well like all new programs and applications. There are bugs that have to be worked out, using good programming skills. However I don't know why Mircosoft didn't finish debugging it properly, when they were able to release it in the first place???
That seems to be the thing! The longer there is between releases the less bugs there will be. Just look at Windows 95,Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows ME, however, if you compare that to two operating systems that had a longer period between them say Windows XP although, Vista was a flop. I think the same can be said about Visual Studios in regard to having less bugs the longer the project is worked on.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThEiMp
Windows 95, 98 and ME should not be considered in the same line as Windows 2000.
Win2k was the next release of Windows NT just as Windows XP was the next in that same line. So it goes Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows 2000 was the most stable they had produced to that date and in many ways was the best they have produced yet.
Hey, don't take it out on me! I was only telling it how it was written on the Microsoft Operating System history page.Quote:
Originally Posted by DataMiser
Hehe... well that was the release order but they were really 2 different product lines until XP with the NT versions being 32 bit and the 9x versions being some hybrid 8/16/32 bit
Well, I suppose you could just look at Vista compared to Windows 7.
Getting back to OP's original statements / questions / observations, I don't suppose anyone who has never used VBA, vbScript or VB6 will find VB.NET ' more difficult' because they will have nothing to measure it against. You could take a view that, in 2012, the 'entry level' for Basic is a .NET version and it would be a 'take it or leave' it situation if there wasn't so much VBA out there.
In the 1960's, operating a TV used to be simple, there was an On/Off switch, Volume, Brightness, Contrast Controls and Channel Selector (Black and White only and over here there was only one Channel then). In 2012 you can't buy one without a hand held control with loads of buttons to do all sorts of things that weren't possible in 1960's. That advancement has required us to be 're-educated' to learn how to get the best out of the TV 'system'. If you only want to watch one channel and change the Volume, Contrast and Brightness, then fine, the learning curve is slight. Those of you born in more recent years have only ever experienced TVs with hand held controls and don't find any difficulty using them.
When I was at School we used Log Tables for assisting in performing calculations, at College we 'migrated' to Slide-Rules and at work to Mechanical Calculators then Electronic Calcluators and finally Computers.
Same with VB vs VB.NET - the baseline has moved up. The difference being that it's difficult to purchase a Slide-Rule and Mechanical Calculator these days, but there's so much VBA and VBScript out there that it's probably never going to die (although that was said about Mainframes not so long ago)
For a 'beginners' language these days, take a look at Python. Fairly simple syntax yet very powerful and multi-platform.
Er, mainframes aren't dead by any means. My last contract was ripping out a balky .Net application and replacing it with a VB6 application... that talks to a mainframe.
But in general you are right, VB.Net is Microsoft's "gateway drug" programming language today.
The big questions are (1.) Why hasn't VBA been replaced yet? and (2.) If VBA is viable why is there no updated VB (as in VB4, 5, 6) available? One excuse has been "gosh, we can't do it anymore" but supporting VBA in Office is probably a solid 50% or more of what a Classic VB6.1 might require.
Of course nobody really wants a mere VB6.1 today anyway. There is no question the language could benefit from a ton of new features at this late date. But once that is done the result might seem just as "difficult" as VB.Net to somebody right off the boat.
Give them a decade or two and they'll probably come up with VBA.Net.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Moved to the General Developer Forum.
That will never happen. Microsoft is moving away from VBA in office as well. Office 2013 uses web based languages which means HTML, CSS, and JavaScript and you'll need Visual Studio 2012 for development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightwalker83
They're gonna alienate a lot of people with that move. I personally don't agree with that move. I'd much prefer they go into .Net instead. HTML and CSS seems way more messy than a real programing language. And besides, its gear towards layouts rather than performing actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joacim Andersson
You still have VSTO for .Net development for Office.
VSTA/VSTO are pretty moribund though, and never did see heavy adoption. I can't imagine the typical Office VBA user will ever make that move and the lack of integration just makes it even less likely.
The move to JavaScript, et al. is interesting though. It is no secret that the internal teams at Microsoft are at war, and the Office Team has markets beyond the domain of the Windows Team and no reason to "be beholden to" the Visual Studio/Tools Team. Such a move might clearly be in the interest of Office even if it leaves the other groups behind.
I don't really think that there are any wars among the teams at Microsoft and the statement that the Office team has markets beyond the Windows team is just ridiculous. There are far more installations of Windows compared to Office.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
The second statement is also wrong since you need VS to develop Office apps using JS/HTML
The reason that Office now supports web languages is simply because of Office for Windows RT. Office needs to run on touch devices with ARM processors.
I too am an engineer who learned BASIC way back in the year 1984 by reading a book and staying up late at night with my Apple IIe computer....green phosphorous screen and all 64K of RAM. I don't have the time to read all 100+ replies to this thread so let me add my 2¢ worth on this topic.
In the last 4 months I have had to learn VB.NET and as I learn more it gets easier but it's still too much for what my needs are... most of the time. And with that there are too many times when I search for or ask for information on something I get bombarded with replies which contain way too much fluff with mouse and forms and all those trappings which everyone think are so essential. If I understand the OP's request here I can tell you that most of the time I don't need a mouse, or a form. I just want to read a text file, do some calculations and feed that information to something like another text file, or perhaps an Excel spreadsheet or dump it to a network drive where a CNC machine out in the shop can read it and make some parts. I don't need no stinking users to get in my way, I don't need help screens, I don't need nothing but raw cpu cycles reading and processing data and making something and saving time and improving accuracy.
That said I can tell you that if I could get away with it, I'd pull up my old copy of QBASIC and just get on with making short programs which just do the work and get out of the way. The bulk of the stuff I do is automation and getting the users out of the loop. I once wrote a BASIC program, using BASICA on an old IBM PC which did linear optimization for cutting up stock lengths of aluminum extrusions. The meat of the program was maybe 100 lines...yes with line numbers even....but the program ended up being over 1000 lines long. The other 900 lines were to make the thing user friendly.
I enjoy programming with VB.NET using VS 2012 Express and I will keep growing with it, but for what the OP describes it sounds like we're on the same page. You don't need all the whistles and bells to get the job done most of the time.
Damn, I miss those green screens and the simplistic ways of doing things. Mind you, you couldn't accomplish as much then as you can now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladamir
I remember working late on the Commodore C64, now that was something. But then I don't remember much from those days, even. However those days were like something of a dream or a nightmare, though...
Sounds like vbScript will do everything you need. (Automate Excel, Read and Write files, perform calculations, minimal User Interface etc. etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladamir
They are not the only ones. I am heavy into AutoCAD automation and AutoDesk has already announced their intent to abandon VBA in favor of .NET due to the earlier decision by Microsoft. You can still use VBA with AutoCAD products but it's no longer installed with the product and you have to download and install the module separately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joacim Andersson
Man, really??? Do you have to pay for it, I bet you do. That is one way of making a buck, isn't it???
VBA Support in Access in Office 2013
Quote:
I have been hearing rumours that VBA will no longer be supported in the next iteration of Microsoft Office.
What he means is "a form of" Office 2013 works in the Metro/RT environment.Quote:
Realistically, nothing changed for desktop applications between Access 2010 and Access 2013. All changes in Access 2013 are related to web applications (and web applications can only use macros, not VBA)
And while Office 2013 will be usable on tablets, unfortunately Access isn't included in that particular build.
I think we're seeing an incredible amount of misinformation presented in this thread. Office 2013 still fully supports VBA and comes with no form of VS.Net at all. See What's new for Office 2013 developers. The use of VS 2012 is entirely optional, and few users or Office developers will need it.
So then what happens if your apps aren't supported when you load them into Access. Well that does hurt me, we're running Office 2007, still and have not a chance in hell of changing or rather more over upgrading just yet!!
Where did you see any misinformation? What I said was that Microsoft is moving away from VBA, I didn't say that it was gone yet. VBA is however gone in the Office 2013 version that will be available for Windows RT. If you want to develop for that you need to go the web language route and the IDE for that would be VS 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Are you talking about "Apps for Office" or something?
That appears to be yet another attempt at a "sidecar" technology hanging off some Office applications. Sort of a JavaScript version of the VSTA/VSTO attempts that haven't prospered. One advantage is that you can use 3rd party tools... or even Notepad in theory, though in practice you'd want VS 2012 or the "Napa" Office 365 Development Tools.Quote:
Apps for Office enable a new extensibility model for supported Office 2013 client applications. This new model is designed to enable web developers to easily create web-based solutions that extend Office client applications. An app for Office is essentially a webpage that can be hosted inside an Office client application to provide extended content or functionality within a document, hosted in a task pane that is associated with the client application, or activated contextually in an email message. Apps for Office provide a new way to extend Office client applications through standard web technologies like HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and REST.
I guess we'll just have to see whether it takes off. But I suspect it will have a hard time overcoming VBA.
Macros, developer tools yanked
As far as I can tell the only thing that might work on RT are those "Apps for Office" when they are hosted on a remote Web server.Quote:
Sources close to Microsoft claim that the version of Office 2013 that ships for Redmond's Surface tablet and other ARM systems will be missing features from the build for rival Intel-based Windows machines.
Among the items to be pruned from the version of Office for ARM-based Windows RT will be macros, third-party add-ons, and support for Visual Basic for Applications (VBA)
Does anyone have links to articles on actually creating and using any sort of JavaScript macros locally in Office under RT?
I wasn't only referring to Apps For Office (in the sense of apps that you can distribute in the app store), there is a completely new JavaScript object model built in to Office that allows you to interact with the content, much like you do with VBA. When I stated that the IDE for using these web languages for Office would be VS 2012 I meant that you need an external tool for development unlike the VBA IDE which has always been shipped together with Office. Of course, since we're talking about HTML, CSS, and JavaScript here you can of course use any text editor to create the content but VS 2012 has templates for it.
Apps for Windows RT does not have to be hosted on a remote server. You can distribute them via the app store and people can then download and install them. There is a special Office Store for this purpose.
But that seems to conflict with Anatomy of an app for Office. It appears the Office App Store only hosts a manifest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joacim Andersson
What am I missing? Is there some disconnected model supported that just isn't discussed there?
You can still use a Text Editor, like Notepad or even Wordpad to piece together the proper language Forms, Modules and also Class Modules for VB6 COM. However I'm not really sure that you can do this for .NET and also #, as well...
As people get a good whiff of Windows 8 and where things are headed more and more of them may start looking for ways to hedge their bets. One option is to "say goodbye" and that is becoming an easier proposition every day.
Nothing says you need to "move" at all right away. But for those still on XP through Windows 7 there are cheap ways to begin exploring alternatives.
My General PC thread at http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...roid-x86-Basic talks about how you can run Android for x86 in a VirtualBox or VPC VM, or even an old PC. From there you can start looking at the growing number of Basics for the Android world.
I've begun to explore the idea of an Android desktop since I already have an Android phone, set-top box, and tablet. This convergence is quite similar to the direction Microsoft is headed with Windows 8, but without the baggage and uncertainty.
Seriously, how many people buy a Windows-based phone these days?
While I'm using the Android SDK and Java for more serious development, a simple Basic for quick-n-dirty is always nice. Unlike some of the more ambitious Android Basic development tools which are for cross-development, the RFO BASIC! I am playing with allows you to develop and test right on your Android computer: no Windows, Mac, etc. required.
I posted a simple TCP/IP demo there too, in case anyone is interested.
For those who find VB.Net or even VB6 more than they need, some of these more "basic" Basics might fill the bill. The RFO BASIC! is more like a QBasic or Atari, etc. Basic with some extensions for the platform and for things like TCP/IP and HTML.
Right now some of this requires more background than the average Joe might have. VirtualBox, builds of Android 4.0 for x86, and BASIC! are all free, but getting them all playing together takes a little work. Of course you can take an under $100 Android tablet and a USB keyboard and put RFO BASIC! on there and start banging away.
Unlike Win8 RT Android is still an open world. So you can get RFO BASIC! for free from the author's site, Amazon's Android Store, and it is probably on Google Play as well.
Options are always nice, especially the ones that only cost you some time to explore.