DoEvents Sucks! No Wonder VB is so slow sometimes.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.