If you could change 1 thing about VB what would it be?

[Cuallito]

If you could change 1 thing about VB what would it be? I would make declarations more C like:

Static Single a, b, c ....

Instead of:

Static a As Single, b As Single, c As Single ......

Its easier that way. What would you change?

[chrisjk]

I'd burn ADO, screw the runtimes but other than that, nothing

[SurfDemon]

Only 1 thing.... doh.

Ponder ponder ponder.

It's a toss up between run-times, the mad error-trapping system (hop hop hop) or all of the proceedes for the sale of VB going to Bill Gates and not me.

Yip, thats what I would change, all the proceeds from the sale of VB should go to me.

SD

[chrisjk]

Yeah. i'd also burn the fact that you can't have 1 generic error handler and you have to insert one in every bloody procedure.

[CiberTHuG]

Wow... the list is sooooo long.

I would make sure it is a dead language.

And I would add pointer support, and make you specify which variable you were nexting, and add regex functionality, and fix the scoping problems, and make Option Explicit the default, and get rid of the keyword dim, and add associative arrays, and return an undef instead of an error when you try to access an array element that doesn't exist (yet), and depreciate GoSub and all of the file access functions that are not part of FSO or some other OO library, and spell ElseIf as two words or End If as one, and add the increment/decrement operators (++ and --, post and pre) and add the +=, -+, *=, /=, \= operators. Hell, add the \ operator, or %. AND ADD SHORT CIRCUITING!!!

[SurfDemon]

Oh yeah, and the fact that you can't "close" procedures when you're happy with them. The ****ty VAX I was programming 15 years ago would even let you do that, it's taken them a fair amount of time to catch up.

SD

[chrisjk]

Isn't VAX a type of vacuum cleaner that washes as well as vacuums?

[SurfDemon]

Originally posted by chrisjk
Isn't VAX a type of vacuum cleaner that washes as well as vacuums?

Well the one I was using certainly sucked....

[ricmitch_uk]

The fact I can't compile. The fact it costs a lot. The fact you can't refer to Global variables when using Option Explicit.

[chrisjk]

Originally posted by ricmitch_uk
The fact I can't compile. The fact it costs a lot. The fact you can't refer to Global variables when using Option Explicit.

I can, Not if you're smart (), I can. You got Learning Ed or something?

[chrisjk]

Originally posted by SurfDemon
Well the one I was using certainly sucked....

You should remember them...big bulky orange-coloured things. What did you mean "Close" procedure anyway. Like Exit Sub?

[SurfDemon]

No, you used to be able to mark certain procedures in C with a closed keyword, and then when the text editor displayed them it would only show the header. So instead of ton's of code littering your screen you would only have the one's you were interested in. You could the keep all the procs you were happy with closed.

e.g. In VB it would be something like

+Private Function GetNumber(byval iIndex as integer) as Integer

-Private Function GetNextNumber as integer
    Dim iValue as integer
....

Does that make sense?

SD

[ricmitch_uk]

Originally posted by chrisjk
I can, Not if you're smart (), I can. You got Learning Ed or something?

Read the version on the left CCE
Controlled Creation Edition. It's like Learning but with certain feature disabled, like a sharware version. I can't comile to a .exe (ocx's are OK) and I can't us the add ons manager thing. I can't use certain controls either, like the Winsock control or the Tab control. Etc etc. I won't bore you with the gory details.

[chrisjk]

Oh I get ya. You could just change that little option that says "View all procedures in code window" or something like that. Then you only get the one you want.

[Jethro]

Originally posted by ricmitch_uk
The fact I can't compile. The fact it costs a lot. The fact you can't refer to Global variables when using Option Explicit.

Use public


Are we all ready for it...............

No Data Controls

Everything else people have been mentioning is in vb.net by the looks. See Bill does listen and care

[chrisjk]

Originally posted by ricmitch_uk

Read the version on the left CCE

VB Square style doesn't show VB Version. All I have on you is

ricmitch_uk
Addicted Member

Registered: Dec 00
Location: Rehab...
Posts: 170

[ricmitch_uk]

Sorry. Here it is in full for your benefit:

VB Version: VB5 CCE (and before you ask, no I can't compile.)

[chrisjk]

Got ya. Damn, no compile. Why no spen £80 and get the full whammy?

[SurfDemon]

Originally posted by Jethro


Everything else people have been mentioning is in vb.net by the looks. See Bill does listen and care

Good to see ya back mate! Thought we'd lost you for a bit there.

Ah! Unfortunately not all of the things mentioned apply to VB.Net. I think you will find that my bank account remains sorely vacant of funds when VB.Net goes on Sale.

Funny, 'cause I distinctly remember sending that threatening letter to Bill Gates saying that if he didn't give me all the proceeds from .Net I was going to kill him.

Oh, there's soemone hammering at the door, I wonder who that can be... I'll just go and check....

SD

[Jethro]

Originally posted by SurfDemon


Good to see ya back mate! Thought we'd lost you for a bit there.

Ah! Unfortunately not all of the things mentioned apply to VB.Net. I think you will find that my bank account remains sorely vacant of funds when VB.Net goes on Sale.

Funny, 'cause I distinctly remember sending that threatening letter to Bill Gates saying that if he didn't give me all the proceeds from .Net I was going to kill him.

Oh, there's soemone hammering at the door, I wonder who that can be... I'll just go and check....

SD

Probably Steve Jobs with an Uzi for you

Agree with the bank balance bit, yike this new platform is gonna cost.

[Wynd]

No more runtimes!

I haven't really used VB that much to have anything else, but I hate the fact that you need the VB runtimes to run programs made in it. As for .Net fixing everything, they will have ".Net Framework," but as someone else said, that's just a fancy word for runtimes.

[MerryVIP]

Yeah, I wish no external runtimes weren't required...And I wish the newer VBs would be lighter and open faster. And that I really would need VB6 (I'm fine with VB4 32-bit - except that I can't use VB6 code straight away, I need to convert it...Though I haven't copied VB code for ages...)

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by Jethro
Everything else people have been mentioning is in vb.net by the looks. See Bill does listen and care

Everything I was mentioning can already be found in much more capable and mature languages such as C++ and in much more beautiful languages such as Perl.

Bill is just re-inventing the wheel. Abandon VB and start using real languages. Don't spend you time developing VB.NET, spend that time making better languages that much better.

It is why I'm not a fan of the Intel. Generation apon generation it is slower than the Motorola. It is a CISC architecture compaired to Motorola's RISC. But now that an Intel's speed is competitive (and sometimes faster than) and Motorola's it is because they have shifted their architecture to a CISC front-end for an embedded RISC chip (and lots of on-chip cache with blazing bus speeds).

If they had started with the RISC architecture, imagine how much faster they would be today.

[mastermind94]

Try to resize the runtime file (msvbvm??.DLL)

[SurfDemon]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG

Bill is just re-inventing the wheel. Abandon VB and start using real languages. Don't spend you time developing VB.NET, spend that time making better languages that much better.

There has to be a reason as to why it's the most popular dev language out there. I'm afraid that I have a family to support, so as long as most of the decent paying jobs are in VB, I will be sticking with that. I think most other professional VB developers feel the same way.

SD

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by SurfDemon
There has to be a reason as to why it's the most popular dev language out there. I'm afraid that I have a family to support, so as long as most of the decent paying jobs are in VB, I will be sticking with that. I think most other professional VB developers feel the same way.

Hmmm... which is better, BetaMax or VHS? BetaMax. Which is in every home in America? VHS. Why? Marketing. No one is trying to sell Perl.

AOL is the worlds largest ISP. It is also the worlds worst.

I still don't undestand why anyone would by an Explorer, especially an Eddie Bauer Edition.

[SurfDemon]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG


Hmmm... which is better, BetaMax or VHS? BetaMax. Which is in every home in America? VHS. Why? Marketing. No one is trying to sell Perl.

AOL is the worlds largest ISP. It is also the worlds worst.

I still don't undestand why anyone would by an Explorer, especially an Eddie Bauer Edition.

Exactly. It doesn't have to be the best to be successful. I'm a programming prostitute, I work for whoever pays me. At present the works in VB so thats what I do

As for the explorer - shame on you. I would never buy such a crappy little car. It's an Eddie Bauer Expedition... big big difference.

Here have a look at this.

Click on the first two Interior pictures to see what the inside looks like. It is just the nicest truck on the road

http://www.ford.ca/english/showroom/...n/features.asp

Explorer... pha! What an insult.

SD

[CiberTHuG]

Oh, okay... my bad...

I still don't understand why anyone would by an Expedition, especially the Eddie Bauer Edition.

I actually thought there were EB Eds for all of the Ford Ex* line. I even expect one for the Escape. Still, it is is a pointless, crappy excuse for a car. 9 out of 10 people who buy one are in minivan denial, and the 10th is just too tall to get into anything else. People who actually need a sport utility buy something much more practical.

Anyway... while I'm on the tangent I might as well kick over all the little ant hills. Ford sucks. NASCAR is not real racing. I can't wait until some Japanese manufacturer (Toyota? Subaru?) decides to build a large block and race...err... enter NASCAR. I'm sure they will do much much better. ;P

Hmmm... was that blasphemous enough? And I live in North Carolina.

[SurfDemon]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Oh, okay... my bad...

I still don't understand why anyone would by an Expedition, especially the Eddie Bauer Edition.

I actually thought there were EB Eds for all of the Ford Ex* line. I even expect one for the Escape. Still, it is is a pointless, crappy excuse for a car. 9 out of 10 people who buy one are in minivan denial, and the 10th is just too tall to get into anything else. People who actually need a sport utility buy something much more practical.

Well you've hit the nail on the head. Didn't we have this conversation before ?

I'm 6'6" tall, and I need a family car but I also need a big 4x4 to get over all the snow we have here in the winter. Not to mention that if we hit something I want to be in a big truck.

It was either the Expedition or a Suburban, and it was a close call, but the Expedition was a better ride (), seemed more powerful and had way more toys in it

I agree that it isn't an off-road vehichle (way too expensive to repair if you crash it), but it is a necessity here when it's -40C outside and theres a few feet of snow on the road (I live outside of the city, so it's pretty much "guess where the road used to be from the sign-posts" when you're driving in after a fresh dump of snow). I'd like to see a mini-van do that

SD

[CiberTHuG]

Yes, I think we have. And you might warrant an SUV, though I would've gone with a Suburban or 4Runner or something by Land Rover (there is no where on this planet a Land Rover can't go). Though the Ford is probably cheaper than all of them, and that is a shame.

People think they need a SUV for the snow we get here (normally it is <4", but we did get 20" winter before last) but they would fair much better in a Legacy, a Montana (that has AWD, right?), a Mazda MPV, or Astro AWD. Normally they would fair better in a FF Honda Accord, since they can't handle the Ex*'s high center of gravity, regardless of the snow.

I am upset that when Subaru finally puts their 6 cyl in their Legacy, they only put it in their LL Bean edition!!! Why do I want to advertise for some wannabe camping supply company? And why do I want leather seats? This is North Carolina. Those things get freaking hot! Besides, if I wanted leather, I would by the AWD Volvo.

I still want their 6 cyl in the Forrester. That would be perfect. There is no where on this planet that someone will take their little Ex* that I can't take a Subaru. And with the 6 cyl I could tow the boat when I'm done.

Weren't we talking about VB?

[SurfDemon]

Er, Actually the expedition is probably more expensive than all of them.

It's also a damn site more powerful than all of them apart from the suburban.

260bhp (as opposed to about 180 in the fore runner or 165 in the forester).

Land Rovers are incredibly cool, but for the price you don't get many toys. One of my mates here (A kiwi incidently) has a Land Rover and he wants to sell it and get an Expedition after driving mine.


No, I love the Expedition. And if it's towing things your into then the one we have is the business. It can haul massive amounts (8,000lbs I think), it has four corner auto leveling suspension, real four wheel drive (i.e. Selectable form 80%/20% down to 50%/50%), four way differntial axle (most 4x4's only have 2, 2 way ones), indicators in the mirrors, it can control powered brakes on the trailer from the brake pedal inside and it has upgraded brakes and suspension.

All of this because we occasionally tow a boat with it


I looked into loads of cars when I went to buy it, and like I say the only car even in the running was the Suburban.

You should take one out for a spin, you'll love iut

SD

[SurfDemon]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG


Weren't we talking about VB?

Cars are a lot more fun

[chrisjk]

Britons hate American-style cars...

Ford Explorer = Flop
Ford Scorpio = Flop
Caddy Seville = Large Flop
Chrysler Neon = Not the best of sales figures

We like our smal cars, not those petrol-guzzling beasts.

[barrk]

That could be because your roads are so narrow too me thinks.

[SurfDemon]

Originally posted by chrisjk
Britons hate American-style cars...

Ford Explorer = Flop
Ford Scorpio = Flop
Caddy Seville = Large Flop
Chrysler Neon = Not the best of sales figures

We like our smal cars, not those petrol-guzzling beasts.

True! But you gotta remember how cheap petrol is over here (approx 25p a litre). Also I think the big trucks wold be a bugger to park in city centres.

I quite liked the Scorpio though (that was the kinda Granada replacement wasn't it?).

The Explorer is regarded as a heap of crap over here as well (though people still buy it...strange). The caddilac is a definte mind set thing. Lots of older couples drive them here, we rented one for a weekend, it was a lovely car, but not worth the price IMHO. I have no idea about the Chrysler Neon, is that that sh*tty little car that keeps getting stuck under my trucks wheels I was going to buy one and keep it in the boot/trunk for a spare

SD

[chrisjk]

Narrow compared to? No smaller than European ones. The Neon isn't exactly the size of a house, it's just the styling. For some reason we don't take to them. We have pleanty of american owned brands, they're just styled in Europe (such as GM-owned Opel and Vauxhall).

[barrk]

Compared to the roads in the US. The Opel is a small car too.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by SurfDemon
260bhp (as opposed to about 180 in the fore runner or 165 in the forester).

That is the Forrester with the 2.5L H-4. Subaru has a H-6. They used to run it in the SVX, and they are now putting a 3.0L H-6 in the Legacy Outback LL Bean. It should have about 240bhp. Not as much as the Expedition, but better gas mileage, and impressive torque since it is horizontally opposed.

I'm surprised about the 4Runner, but it is just outrageously priced now a days. They used to be cheap. I'm sure Toyota's LandCruiser is impressive, but it is too expensive, too.

No, I love the Expedition. And if it's towing things your into then the one we have is the business. It can haul massive amounts (8,000lbs I think), it has four corner auto leveling suspension, real four wheel drive (i.e. Selectable form 80%/20% down to 50%/50%), four way differntial axle (most 4x4's only have 2, 2 way ones), indicators in the mirrors, it can control powered brakes on the trailer from the brake pedal inside and it has upgraded brakes and suspension.

This sounds like the new Discovery II from Land Rover. Auto leveling suspension, advanced traction control to prevent rollover, lovely power everything, seats seven, yadda yadda. But over US$40K.

The Expidetion may have 4x4. The Subarus only have 4x2. But I don't mind. I don't need four wheel drive. All wheel drive will provide more than enough traction for what I need to do. And while the Ex* line may be able to go places the Forrester can't, you won't find a driver who will actually take them there.

I've seen Land Rovers in places I wouldn't dare put anything.

'Course... this is scary, but there is a 2.2L H-4 Turbo Forrester in Japan that will beat a Mustang SVT in the quarter mile.

[chrisjk]

Originally posted by SurfDemon
I quite liked the Scorpio though (that was the kinda Granada replacement wasn't it

Sorry SD but the Scorpio (yes, replacement for Granada) is the most ugly car ever to show it's face. God awful and I have seen about 2 on the road ever.

The Opel is a small car too

Opel is a make used in (the rest of) Europe. We don't have Opel, we have the same cars but they are branded Vauxhall.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by chrisjk
Narrow compared to? No smaller than European ones. The Neon isn't exactly the size of a house, it's just the styling. For some reason we don't take to them. We have pleanty of american owned brands, they're just styled in Europe (such as GM-owned Opel and Vauxhall).

I thought UK roads were much narrower than the US and parts of Europe. Maybe they have tried to wided them in the last 15-20 years.

My uncle was station in the UK in the USAF. He bought a German Spec Camry while he was there. Beside being a left-hand drive, it was also wider than the British cars. It looks just like the American version, but the windsheild doesn't meet American safety standards.