DoEvents Sucks! No Wonder VB is so slow sometimes.

[Jacob Roman]

Click to view this thread. It's the solution to all VB programmers problems.

DoEvents Sucks

So what do ya think? I believe Microsuck did DoEvents on purpose to keep VB slow.

[Cander]

Yeah right. Microsoft purposly keeps VB slow to maintain their monopoly.

[Maven]

Click to view this thread. It's the solution to all VB programmers problems.

DoEvents Sucks

So what do ya think? I believe Microsuck did DoEvents on purpose to keep VB slow.

I think microsoft created visual basic for people who doesn't have a lot of background in computer science. Microsoft did a very good job of hiding many computer science concepts from visual basic programmers. This allows people who doesn't really know a lot about computer science to still be able to write programs that run on the windows operating system. In my opinion they did a very good job of that and that is the #1 reason why visual basic is as popular as it is today.

Now if you want to create powerful high speed algorithms, you need to learn a language ment more for computer scientist. My best advice is to learn C++ and later on learn assembler. But know that it takes disipline to be able to program in C++. It probably takes about 2 to 3 years of learning before a person can really wield the power of C++.

[Jacob Roman]

Yeah right. Microsoft purposly keeps VB slow to maintain their monopoly.

Then they came out with VB.NET and practically killed off VB's syntax. That syntax has been in BASIC since 1964! And VB.NET is slower too and too object oriented. I like it's new features and all but come on man.

[Jacob Roman]

I wonder what code they used for DoEvents. C++ always has used PeekMessage for their version of DoEvents. They could have at least stuck with PeekMessage and not use something slower.

[TheVader]

Then they came out with VB.NET and practically killed off VB's syntax. That syntax has been in BASIC since 1964! And VB.NET is slower too and too object oriented. I like it's new features and all but come on man.

Are you gonna complain about VB.NET being object-oriented? If so, you don't know what you're talking about. Because of OOP being implemented, VB now finally is being considered a 'real' programming language. And what about the syntax? Not much changed as far as I know.

[Jacob Roman]

I didn't say it's Object Oriented. I said it's way too Object Oriented.

[plenderj]

A programming language either is or is not Object Orientated.

[wossname]

Jamie, I think you should ban anyone that prefers VB6 to VB.Net, they are clearly dillusional.

Just because they can't understand OOP doesn't mean .net is bad.

[Maven]

A programming language either is or is not Object Orientated.

Some are what I call "Ojbect Based" and some are "Object Oriented". I mean you really couldn't call visual basic 6 oop when it didn't allow for polymorphism and inheritance.

[Merri]

Jacob, you should've complained about this in 1996. Not 2004.

Nowadays it is fashion to complain about .NET's insanely big framework size.

[plenderj]

Maven; totally agree. VB6 is object based, but definitely not object orientated.
.NET on the other hand is just purely object orientated, which I like, because I also come from a Java background.


Wossy; true. Its strange, but I actually feel dirty whenever I open up the VB6 IDE to do something

[Maven]

Jacob, you should've complained about this in 1996. Not 2004.

Nowadays it is fashion to complain about .NET's insanely big framework size.

I'm not the largest fan of .net!

One thing that annoys me is C#. I really don't understand the need for it. The way they did c++, it almost seems to me their trying to nudge C programmers into the "Microsoft Only" world.

[Merri]

Well, that's why they've made a Linux compiler for C# - nope, not Microsoft, but other folks. Atleast I think they did one.

[Jacob Roman]

VB.NET should have been called B++ because it is nothing like VB6. And what I really hate is digging for functions buried thoughout all those classes.

[Sgt-Peppa]

VB.NET should have been called B++ because it is nothing like VB6. And what I really hate is digging for functions buried thoughout all those classes.

Wait for the new vb.NET 2005! It brings back lots of the old VB6 features!

[crptcblade]

VB.NET should have been called B++ because it is nothing like VB6. And what I really hate is digging for functions buried thoughout all those classes.

Yeah, it must be terrible to actually have to do some work.

[crptcblade]

Well, that's why they've made a Linux compiler for C# - nope, not Microsoft, but other folks. Atleast I think they did one.

What I don't understand is why they need a different compiler. I thought .NET was to be like Java - compile once, run anywhere.

[Merri]

Because people might want to create and compile .NET programs on Linux?

[crptcblade]

Because people might want to create and compile .NET programs on Linux?

That's just crazy talk.

[Slaine]

OOP is dead, long live AOP

[Jacob Roman]

I stopped using objects (Command Buttons, Textboxes, Labels, etc.) a long time ago. Long live DirectX and OpenGL! Now that's what I call OOP. Not that other crap.

[crptcblade]

OOP is dead, long live AOP

That's Aspect Oriented, right?

[Merri]

POP would be so great.




People Orientated Programming.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I wasn't so keen on .NET at first, but by now, I'm not sure that I'd want to go back. I feel that I work more efficiently in .NET than I ever did in VB6. If you wanted speed, you shouldn't be in either one...but out on the street buying some.

Where's I go with that? What I meant to say is that VB was for RAD, C++ for radICAL! .NET does a better job at RAD than VB6, but there is a small learning curve at the beginning.

[Maven]

What I don't understand is why they need a different compiler. I thought .NET was to be like Java - compile once, run anywhere.

run anywhere on windows lol

[Maven]

I wasn't so keen on .NET at first, but by now, I'm not sure that I'd want to go back. I feel that I work more efficiently in .NET than I ever did in VB6. If you wanted speed, you shouldn't be in either one...but out on the street buying some.

Where's I go with that? What I meant to say is that VB was for RAD, C++ for radICAL! .NET does a better job at RAD than VB6, but there is a small learning curve at the beginning.

I'm personally holding out to 2005 comes out, there is suppose to be some C++ fixes.

[Cander]

What I don't understand is why they need a different compiler. I thought .NET was to be like Java - compile once, run anywhere.

You can compile once and run anywhere. But you still need to have a port of the JIT and all that...just like Java. I have already written a couple VB.NET/C# apps that run on Windows and Linux.

[Cander]

run anywhere on windows lol

Wrong!

[crptcblade]

You can compile once and run anywhere. But you still need to have a port of the JIT and all that...just like Java. I have already written a couple VB.NET/C# apps that run on Windows and Linux.

Right, that's what I was getting at. As opposed to C\C++ which is write once, compile a bunch of times.

I just didn't take into account that someone would be coding in .NET on Linux.

[Jacob Roman]

And I thought this thread was on slow functions like DoEvents. LOL! I blame myself for even bringing up VB.NET. Now it turned into a .NET discussion.

[Merri]

Well, start complaining about all string handling, graphical commands (PSet, Line, Circle...)... what else... oh yes, automatical data type conversion...

[abhijit]

Are you gonna complain about VB.NET being object-oriented? If so, you don't know what you're talking about. Because of OOP being implemented, VB now finally is being considered a 'real' programming language. And what about the syntax? Not much changed as far as I know.

I don't think that the syntax is really taht similar. VB has always been a lazy man's programming language. However this .NET thing scares me. Now that I am actually working on a project in it.

[Cander]

The syntax is EXACTLY the same. Those complaining about VB.NET being a whole new language are delusional and have been brainwashed by the VB6 purists that don't understand what syntax means.

And if you complain about having to lookup the new functions, well, you shouldn't be programming.

Sorry, but the constant bull **** surrounding .NET is getting old.