You are right, I have quite a lot deficiencies in VB Programming as I prefer to code C++. VB is only for quick and dirty hacks in a MS Office environment, and I think somebody who attempts to do something complex in VB (something that will require code reuse) will lose from the beginnig.
As ugly as VB is, it has its area to shine:
Quick automated editing of proprietary MS Office files. But with open XML-based document formats (such as in KOffice) it will become obsolete.
BTW, KOffice uses Python as its "VB". Cleaner, more portable, and replaceable.
The open source community wants to make program source as accessible as books. But now the publishers want to make books as restricted as closed proprietary software? The big publishers already have enough power by controlling what gets published. You just cannot allow them in addition to control content flow afterwards.
By forbidding libraries to loan books, you are keeping knowlwdge from a big part of the society.
But this seems to be the intention.
Both are talking about open standards, and both were and are not able to produce a browser according to w3c papers.
I was complaining about it several times before. There are well written specifications with a lot of implementation guides at w3.org and nobody is able or willing to make a full compliant system. I havn't anything against extensions to the standard, but why is there no implementation with all features described in the standard?
Dim s, t, sd, td As String
Dim i As Integer
i = 4
s = "VB String"
t = "Another String"
sd = Mid( s, i, 1)
td = Mid( t, i, 1)
If sd = td Then
' do anything
End If
String s="J String",t="Another String";
int i=4;
if(s.charAt(i)==t.charAt(i))
{ // do anything
}
So keep it. VB has a lot of unnecessary words, but not even distinct equal and assignment operators.
Restricting it would be nice. It makes it something special again. Something that forces people to think seriously about. But it would make it something different, than it is now, or has ever been.
But there are many different restrictions in different cultures for marriage already, by law or by tradition. E.g. homosexual marriage, monogamy, male or female polygamy, castes, wealth...
So the restriction should be having children.
Hmmm...that sounds strict, but I expect everybody to take everything as my sole opinion, unless I say something else. I do so.
No, I'm not trolling, I really want to hear about it.
Monagamy is good for society as a whole? That is at least a preassumption as my post. So it is as true as mine.
And I'm really glad of you having no children (that is flaming, and may change, if I knew you better).
You are right, I am immature and naive and clueless and not in touch with reality in many aspects. But I think about it, and I think I wouldn't think about it if I were not.
I didn't question your relationship, I questioned your marriage. If relationship=marriage to you, then it is your opinion, and you have to live this way.
Ok. Not the best arguments. But arguments. So I have to say it clearer.
you want to spend time with somebody - be his friend
you want to fuck with somebody - be his lover
you want to have children with somebody (a very important and difficult decision) - marry him
you want something somebody else has - make a contract
But what happens in life is something else. There are always reasons to do it in a different way. And some of these imply the other. And this is just, how it should be to me.
marriage -> raising children
raising children -> friendship & full shared property
friendship -> partially sharing almost everything & helping each other
Excuse me. I offended you.
But my posting was a reality check. I want to hear others about it, so I have to post this.
And as far as I understand you, you have children (and and they even are your own), you have a nice husband (very precious), and you raised the children together, and you still do (although they are on their own now). I think that is in the sense I said. And I would have no problem with you if not. It's my point of view a and I have to live with it.
I'd never force somebody else to divorce to fit my (slowly, but always, changing and evolving) views.
I have no religious intentions at all.
You had some weddings, you have some chlidren, and you seem to be happy now. And as long as being happy is your aim, why do you have a problem with me?
Children need fix points in their evolvement (mostly to overcome them later). If you have more than one educator, you see variation, they can control each other, they can spend more time with the spawnling...
Being married without children is far too often a material thing, or an overheated decision (even far too often with children). If you marry, and you don't want children with you partner, then he's just not worth marriage (to you). Then you only want to share his company and/or his property. And for this purposes are better (less restricting and more honest) ways.
The people who advertise their homosexuality are by far the most of who you know the homosexuality. People who you don't know of are not gay by assumption. Thus... you think all gay do advertise their preferences.
Maybe I'm the only one and still very immature, but the interview reminds me of something. My understanding of a marriage is, that it is the obligation to raise children. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be the own ones or be adopted, but a marriage without children (after some time) should be splitted.
What for? Heavier Copyrights? Not being allowed to drink your beer in front of your own house? A mild and wise justice? A liberal and tolerant community? A friendly police? Britney Spears?
I'll come!
They invented the revolver, the machine gun, the atom bomb...and soon the rail gun.
They drop environmental and social expenses to build an obscure missile defense system.
You have to like them!
The big ships today already take 100km to slowdown before the coast. And as we all know E=(m/2)v this boats will take even more, not taking into account the less friction from the higher keel line.
Will these boats be manoeuvreble? Will they be able to cross the atlantic without hitting some iceberg or some ground or other ships or shreddering whales?
What sound will they make? I guess the sound under water will carry around the globe.
Sorry for potentially posting questions answered in the article, but the link doesn't work for me today, as a big part of the net (couldn't even reach w3.org and kde.org)
I believe in differences, but I don't give them any value in general.
Of course, under certain circumstances certain races have to be preferred, e.g. when you want to make a movie about Lenin, it would be stupid to give this role to Samuel L. Jackson.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, I have quite a lot deficiencies in VB Programming as I prefer to code C++. VB is only for quick and dirty hacks in a MS Office environment, and I think somebody who attempts to do something complex in VB (something that will require code reuse) will lose from the beginnig.
I really have to get the source, as I really want to know how he tracked function pointers.
As ugly as VB is, it has its area to shine: Quick automated editing of proprietary MS Office files. But with open XML-based document formats (such as in KOffice) it will become obsolete.
BTW, KOffice uses Python as its "VB". Cleaner, more portable, and replaceable.
The open source community wants to make program source as accessible as books. But now the publishers want to make books as restricted as closed proprietary software? The big publishers already have enough power by controlling what gets published. You just cannot allow them in addition to control content flow afterwards.
By forbidding libraries to loan books, you are keeping knowlwdge from a big part of the society.
But this seems to be the intention.
Both are talking about open standards, and both were and are not able to produce a browser according to w3c papers.
I was complaining about it several times before. There are well written specifications with a lot of implementation guides at w3.org and nobody is able or willing to make a full compliant system. I havn't anything against extensions to the standard, but why is there no implementation with all features described in the standard?
Dim s, t, sd, td As String
Dim i As Integer
i = 4
s = "VB String"
t = "Another String"
sd = Mid( s, i, 1)
td = Mid( t, i, 1)
If sd = td Then
' do anything
End If
String s="J String",t="Another String";
// do anything
So keep it. VB has a lot of unnecessary words, but not even distinct equal and assignment operators.int i=4;
if(s.charAt(i)==t.charAt(i))
{
}
Restricting it would be nice. It makes it something special again. Something that forces people to think seriously about. But it would make it something different, than it is now, or has ever been.
But there are many different restrictions in different cultures for marriage already, by law or by tradition. E.g. homosexual marriage, monogamy, male or female polygamy, castes, wealth...
So the restriction should be having children.
Hmmm...that sounds strict, but I expect everybody to take everything as my sole opinion, unless I say something else. I do so.
Love is for love and feeling good because of sombody else.
No, I'm not trolling, I really want to hear about it.
Monagamy is good for society as a whole? That is at least a preassumption as my post. So it is as true as mine.
And I'm really glad of you having no children (that is flaming, and may change, if I knew you better).
You are right, I am immature and naive and clueless and not in touch with reality in many aspects. But I think about it, and I think I wouldn't think about it if I were not.
I didn't question your relationship, I questioned your marriage. If relationship=marriage to you, then it is your opinion, and you have to live this way.
- you want to spend time with somebody - be his friend
- you want to fuck with somebody - be his lover
- you want to have children with somebody (a very important and difficult decision) - marry him
- you want something somebody else has - make a contract
But what happens in life is something else. There are always reasons to do it in a different way. And some of these imply the other. And this is just, how it should be to me.marriage -> raising children
So, a bit mechanistic, but not completely wrong.raising children -> friendship & full shared property
friendship -> partially sharing almost everything & helping each other
Excuse me. I offended you.
But my posting was a reality check. I want to hear others about it, so I have to post this.
And as far as I understand you, you have children (and and they even are your own), you have a nice husband (very precious), and you raised the children together, and you still do (although they are on their own now). I think that is in the sense I said. And I would have no problem with you if not. It's my point of view a and I have to live with it.
I'd never force somebody else to divorce to fit my (slowly, but always, changing and evolving) views.
I have no religious intentions at all.
You had some weddings, you have some chlidren, and you seem to be happy now. And as long as being happy is your aim, why do you have a problem with me?
Who is not going to be fried in Texas? I mean beside white, rich, republican, hetero, christian Nationalists.
Children need fix points in their evolvement (mostly to overcome them later). If you have more than one educator, you see variation, they can control each other, they can spend more time with the spawnling...
Being married without children is far too often a material thing, or an overheated decision (even far too often with children). If you marry, and you don't want children with you partner, then he's just not worth marriage (to you). Then you only want to share his company and/or his property. And for this purposes are better (less restricting and more honest) ways.
The normal is to make the extraordinary possible, and the extraordinary is to justify the normal.
The people who advertise their homosexuality are by far the most of who you know the homosexuality. People who you don't know of are not gay by assumption. Thus... you think all gay do advertise their preferences.
Maybe I'm the only one and still very immature, but the interview reminds me of something. My understanding of a marriage is, that it is the obligation to raise children. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be the own ones or be adopted, but a marriage without children (after some time) should be splitted.
And then the American Way Of Life will be everywhere!
What for? Heavier Copyrights? Not being allowed to drink your beer in front of your own house? A mild and wise justice? A liberal and tolerant community? A friendly police? Britney Spears? I'll come!
They invented the revolver, the machine gun, the atom bomb...and soon the rail gun.
They drop environmental and social expenses to build an obscure missile defense system.
You have to like them!
Wrong. Ferdinand Porsche design(yes, that Ferdinand Porsche).
The rules are:
- 100g weight
- 30cm span
- main material paper
- on annual architects party public test of the candidates
In 1998 I watched it and the winning bridge was holding 127kg before it broke. That's engineering!The big ships today already take 100km to slowdown before the coast. And as we all know E=(m/2)v this boats will take even more, not taking into account the less friction from the higher keel line.
Will these boats be manoeuvreble? Will they be able to cross the atlantic without hitting some iceberg or some ground or other ships or shreddering whales?
What sound will they make? I guess the sound under water will carry around the globe.
Sorry for potentially posting questions answered in the article, but the link doesn't work for me today, as a big part of the net (couldn't even reach w3.org and kde.org)
And Godzilla 2 is played by Marlon Brando?
I believe in differences, but I don't give them any value in general.
Of course, under certain circumstances certain races have to be preferred, e.g. when you want to make a movie about Lenin, it would be stupid to give this role to Samuel L. Jackson.