VB.Net Sucks - - PureBasic Works :-)

[Shannara]

Not really. Another anology is .. well, actually. All it is, is a runtime library, or a collection of libraries. One huge fat bloated library "framework". And all it does is use the Win32s .... So yeah, it sets on top of the Win32 API, but you still have access to the api .. so it's kinda like this .. The more layers you go through, the slower your application will get ....

This is why PureBasic still works on Vista .. or at least the newest one us MSDN subscribers have. PureBasic accesses the API. Luckily it doesnt have to wade through bloat to do system calls

But of course ... we have the option to use PureBasic to call .NET assembly ... why one would do that .. I dont know.

[Edwin Knoppert]

>But of course ... we have the option to use PureBasic to call .NET assembly ... why one would do that .. I dont know.

That's because you are biased due lack of knowledge.
But you are not the only one over here, so you can keep up that 'pb-family' feeling (wet pants mode).
There where more responses like yours where one clearly can see he has never put any serious time into this matter..

Of course, a layer on top, it's easy to point fingers but what about this layer?
You *wish* you could access it as easy as it was in visual studio.

[Dare2]

.. so you can keep up that 'pb-family' feeling (wet pants mode).

Points can be made without us wetting our diapers or someone saying we have.

So, whatever the advantages or otherwise of the .net framework and etc - don't you think it might be, at the least, a courtesy on the PureBasic forums to keep within the "pb-family" feeling?

Do (or would) you like it if someone posting on your forums and in a discussion about linux or .net, casually posted a put down about your visual designer and the users of that product?

Your designer, BTW, was a winner but for one thing, your resistance to change. Had you generated code the Pure way rather than your way you would have had at least 1 more paid up user, and I hazard, based on requests made re the Pure designer, many more than that. So it is ironic you argue the case for change, and mention raking in $$$ at our expense, here. You had a legitimate chance for the latter ...

Especially as change in PureBasic comes from Fred, not us. If you are asking us to change, you are asking us to leave PureBasic, which is a bit beyond rude and moving toward insolent.

Fred, BTW, does not appear to be reluctant to change things. 4.00 is proof of that. Let vista and net settle a bit and who knows? (Rumours now start)

[Edwin Knoppert]

(Sorry my enlish isn't that good)

>Points can be made without us wetting our diapers or someone saying we have.
If it was a solid argument, i could not blame anyone, this topic only dumps critic since 'it's size'.
Imo clearly comming from people actually not have any or little experiance with the framework(FW!).


>So, whatever the advantages or otherwise of the .net framework and etc - don't you think it might be, at the least, a courtesy on the PureBasic forums to keep within the "pb-family" feeling?
Sure, if you want to have an off-topic and non-sense argue about another product?
Maybe this should be mentioned in the first message here.
"This topic contains non-based critic about .NET" or so??

>Do (or would) you like it if someone posting on your forums and in a discussion about linux or .net, casually posted a put down about your visual designer and the users of that product?
If critic's are true, i wouldn't mind.. hey! it would increase forum-traffic

>Your designer, BTW, was a winner but for one thing, your resistance to change.
I thank you, so true.

>..you would have had at least 1 more paid up user..
I work for a living, i'm not depending on my tools

>So it is ironic you argue the case for change, and mention raking in $$$ at our expense, here.
I can't follow, it's me being dutchie, i'm sure it was not an important sentence.
Can't tell.

>Especially as change in PureBasic comes from Fred, not us.
oh no, i do have some (positive) critic on PureBasic but i don't want to stress those (anymore).
It's just is that i can't stand critic's about a imo great framework which has a steep learning curve, and therefore me expecting that the arguments are not truly based.

>If you are asking us to change, you are asking us to leave PureBasic
See above, i don't mind.

[Dare2]

.. i'm sure it was not an important sentence.

hehe, whether or not you meant it, that's score one to you!

[Shannara]

>But of course ... we have the option to use PureBasic to call .NET assembly ... why one would do that .. I dont know.

That's because you are biased due lack of knowledge.
But you are not the only one over here, so you can keep up that 'pb-family' feeling (wet pants mode).
There where more responses like yours where one clearly can see he has never put any serious time into this matter..

Of course, a layer on top, it's easy to point fingers but what about this layer?
You *wish* you could access it as easy as it was in visual studio.

Umm, you do know what your saying right? Bias for or against what? I use C# on my day job for web development and smart clients. While using PB for my night job ... so no, Im not bias, just stating facts based on ... well, them, of course

Who's bias now? :P

[OnePunchMickey]

It would be better if you at least having a passing acquaintance with what you're criticising Randy, before making yourself look stupid. It probably didn't work because the other XP machines didn't have the .NET framework installed. And comparing a .NET language with something like PureBasic is pointless - they are designed to do very different things. Try writing an n-tier database system with a secure web based front end in PB and see how far you get. Try writing a 3D shooter in VB.NET and you'll realise fairly quickly that you could have chosen a better tool.

[netmaestro]

Try writing an n-tier database system with a secure web based front end in PB and see how far you get.

It isn't that hard at all!

[thefool]

I have to agree with OnePunchMickey.
They are written with 2 different things in mind.

You will get long, if you learn both.!

[Karbon]

When are you guys going to see that arguing for PureBasic over .NET is like arguing the use of a shovel verses a D9 bulldozer for an excavation project. It's apples and oranges.

Use the best tool for the job. Sometimes that's PB, sometimes that's .NET, sometimes that's something else. ANYTHING you choose will have both benefits and caveats.

I love PB but I really like .NET too. They're two tools in my development toolbox that are used for two totally different purposes.

[Mike Stefanik]

I wonder why Microsoft doesn't release .NET as a critical update for XP at least.

The .NET 1.1 framework was part of SP2 for Windows XP, and rumor has it that the 2.0 framework will be part of SP3.

Another poster mentioned Win32 is being replaced by .NET, and that's not exactly true. In Vista, the only thing that I'm aware of that requires .NET is WinFX. And, interestingly enough, with each new release of the Vista betas, the dependency on .NET has been decreasing (i.e.: fewer managed code assemblies are being included with the base operating system). As it stands now, the .NET framework is heavily dependent on Win32 and COM. Neither are going away anytime in the forseeable future.

[Edwin Knoppert]

>and rumor has it that the 2.0 framework will be part of SP3.

Awesome!

>with each new release of the Vista betas, the dependency on .NET has been decreasing
Hmm, says nothing to me, this could be a time (-pressure) issue.

Btw, i would not care billy doing it's stuff in the kernel.exe or user.dll and so.
To me the framework means i have all desired functionality close by.
What do i care if the FWK makes call to a lower level library?

For the one or two speed depending functions we need to investigfate how we would solve those.
+ i'm not a games programmer and speed issues are not my daily task to solve.
I have a few but not critical yet..

>and COM
Eh?
Windows = com, dispatces/vtables all over, like it's folderview stuff.
You make it sound .NET or Vista is making it worse.
However, since '98 they screwed the system up imo.
Everything you execute is 'handled' by some event system which holds up the system!!
Execute notepad under windows 95 and then under 98.
Guess which executes notepad immediately?
That matter went only worse.
(Hard to explain what i mean here but Windows trully sucks on it's responsiveness, well no one seems to notice but me?)

[USCode]

... As it stands now, the .NET framework is heavily dependent on Win32 and COM. Neither are going away anytime in the forseeable future.

This is true and was never in question.
I think the key thing folks have to realize is that for the future, Microsoft is very unlikely to be moving Win32 FORWARD with new advances & features. Those will most likely occur just in .NET.

[SFSxOI]

Personally, I think the .Net thing is a little too hyped. Does anyone remember mainframes? I do...the first mainframe I ever used was on an old PDP series. We did punch cards back then and the PET personal computer was still a few years away.

Is it just me or does this .NET 'centricity' (if there is such a word) smack of a move back to a centralized form of computing power control towards a mainframe type control vs the distributed and independant user controlled computing environment we have today? If i'm not mistaken, one of the goals of a 'future' MS operating system was to operate in a MS controlled environment using a .NET framework, seems i read that somewhere a while back...don't exactly remember it right now.

Maybe its my old age making me paranoid

[Edwin Knoppert]

Of course you could be right, if i was a VB6'r i would think twice to make a move to VB.NET unless the framework is there guaranteed.
But certainly not rewrite old to new code, that would be somewhat pointless.
Unless you need new features VB6 does not support.
PS, any idea how annoying the VB6 behavious since we are used to scroll mouses?
Module contents do not scroll, a minor issue?

For internet i'm very pleased with ASP.NET (2).

.NET might be a hype, at first it's Windows based and until now depending on it.
(Mono is not ready)
Maybe we can speak about a hype only if a new hype appears.
Did you think VB6 was a hype?