Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"With / End With" construct missing from PB?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John Petty
    replied
    I have mixed feelings about WITH/END WITH, it can get very difficult to read especially when they are nested and there are long sections of code using COM exe's like word as was given in the original example. As a slow typist I agree the concept is good but I just use CTL C and CTL V then I am always sure what the code is referencing. For me an IDE that that allowed me to keep several pieces of copy that can be very quickly selected would be ideal.

    Leave a comment:


  • George Bleck
    replied
    Don't forget the medium you paint on too.. that matters too

    A church ceiling is definately different then a subway car but each can equally be considered art.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    Hard to believe: Two full two pages of, "Gee I wish..." and no one has used the words 'artist' or 'paintbrush' yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rodney Hicks
    replied
    Point is tho' we all need to to get a good cinch on 9/5 that is here
    Well put.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard Angell
    replied
    and also (on the wish-list) For ... Each ...

    and likely there are several more than re re-cataloged in this thread. Point is tho' we all need to to get a good cinch on 9/5 that is here ... and that is going to take some time to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Holbrook
    replied
    I know nothing of VB programming. Well hardly nothing.

    WITH has saved me many hours of typing Pascal code, however, and I vote for it.

    Code:
    	    New ( NewInBatch );
    	    with NewInBatch^ do begin
    		BLRef       := SX.LRef;
    		BAcct       := SX.Acct;
    		BDate       := SX.Date;
                end

    Leave a comment:


  • Edwin Knoppert
    replied
    Do not take it personal

    Leave a comment:


  • Kev Peel
    replied
    It might be "yawwnn" to you, but to me all points are valid, and I noticed you skipped some of the more well known points.

    MY opinion is VB still s***ks. You're welcome to it

    Leave a comment:


  • Edwin Knoppert
    replied
    >No fat, bloated runtime files and compatibility issues with said files
    This is soo yawwnn, the never ending runtime issue.
    Even nowadays where the runtime is present on any supported os.
    You can create incredible light-weight apps with VB6 nowadays.

    >Random crashes in the IDE and programs
    Never seen, unless i used generic dll's and did not unload them properly.
    Just keep on breaking (hitting end) your running app guys..

    >Quad variables NOT supported
    For a nearly 100% unicode tool it's indeed unhandy not to have quads.
    The win32 env. has a few needs.

    >No enforced UNICODE strings
    Since Windows fully suported unicode in the os, programming languages are better of being unicode as well.
    (Being compatible)

    >Full support for the Windows API disabled
    My main complaint about VB, no linking but copying win32 parts in to the project, that s***s 100%

    >PB is supported and actively developed, also a BAD thing
    Nonsense imo, nothing as good a stable but no longer supported development tool
    No more changes like with VB3's VBX's and such.
    "Our program can not run, there is a newer VBX installed on your computer"
    I'll never encounter this issue
    (Though, we have abandoned VB3 since this year completely, the app was finally renewed)

    Using VB6 i assume one can still program for years.
    Though like VB3, we have no VB6 apps any more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rodney Hicks
    replied
    Thanks Rick, for that info.
    It supports my earlier post:
    By focusing on what PB has, you'll find a way to get your job done.
    By focusing on what PB hasn't, you won't get very far.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard Angell
    replied
    Most, if not all, items mentioned in the first 2 posts were and still are on the wish list. The same rationales have been advanced to support them too. However many of these requests also have means to accomplish the tasks now as well, albeit not as automatically or succinctly.

    Consider EXTRACT$ (et al mentioned) in reverse and take a look at using STRREVERSE$ then EXTRACT$ and STRREVERSE$ that result. This has been demonstrated here in the forums and I have used the technique for some programs where such use helped tame some strange strings. It can work with the other reverses as well, albeit this is not the automated, rocking chair way some would like it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Theo Gottwald
    replied
    Not to forget, one of the biggest strenghts in PC History was always backwards compatibility.

    That was true for windows for long years, too.

    We remember that Intel had to dig the ITANIUM, because AMD had 64 bits and was compatible.

    PB is still compatible, this means we can re use our code!

    Those using VB and now re-compiling with DOTNET will often see small wonders happen. Where I am actually on project, some programms got buggy and bloated after the conversion.

    In PB you can just re-compile it, and under good circumstances the result becomes even faster (see #OPTIMIZE ...).

    Besides that, there are always open wishes for a new PB release. No chance for Bob to think of getting penssioned.

    I have already mailed some wish in, and I'd also support those I have read her.

    The good news is, when they may be fullfilled with PB 10, we can still use most or all of our old code!
    Last edited by Theo Gottwald; 30 Aug 2008, 12:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ian Webling
    replied
    I will posit that at one 'reply' per 'missing VB feature relative to PB' this thread would be a serious contender for longest ever.
    Amen, or as they say in VB: END.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kev Peel
    replied
    Here are 10 simply Great things missing from PB that VB has:
    • No fat, bloated runtime files and compatibility issues with said files
    • Ability to NOT create standard Win32 DLLs
    • Random crashes in the IDE and programs
    • Quad variables NOT supported
    • No enforced UNICODE strings
    • No buggy printer object
    • PB has thread support, this is BAD
    • No enforced code formatting (our way, or the highway )
    • Full support for the Windows API disabled
    • PB is supported and actively developed, also a BAD thing

    Leave a comment:


  • Roberto Valois
    replied
    ...one 'reply' per 'missing VB feature relative to PB'...
    ASM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    I haven't worked with VB since VB3, but I will posit that at one 'reply' per 'missing VB feature relative to PB' this thread would be a serious contender for longest ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • José Roca
    replied
    Oh, and what about multithreading...

    Leave a comment:


  • José Roca
    replied
    Now let's see the list of what's missing in VB.
    In the first place, it can't use low-level COM servers. For example, to use DirectX, M$ had to develop ActiveX wrappers, as they did with DirectX 7 and 8. They not longer do it, so VBers can't use DirectX 9 and 10.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    Now let's see the list of what's missing in VB.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Squires
    replied
    Email your suggestion directly to PowerBASIC. I emailed my wish for With/End With a year to two ago. I always found that With/End With made the code much more readable especially in situations like Ian descibed with multiple "." levels.

    The more people who request it, the better the chance that it will be implemented.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X