Why I am sick of .Net

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ALEX_0077

Freshman
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
40
Location
0000 61 6D 65 72 69 63 61 6E; 0008 20 63 61 6E 79
If your gonna flame, shut up and read first:

I have been programming in VB (5, 6), VB.NET (1.0,1.1, 2.0), VBA, etc..
since 2000.

I really loved working with that RAD tool, Visual BASIC IDE, and Visual
Studio .Net.

But the think that just drives me past the brink of flipping insanity
is the FACT that half the crap thats supposed to work a certain way in
VB6 or .NET just plain DOESN'T!!!!!!!

WHAT THE @*&!# HECK!!!!

Always with the stupid 'workaround' solutions. Burn VB!, burn to a
crisp. I hope you die of a lethal flatite. Everyone hates you VB,
Nobody likes you. I certainly dont. And I hope you and your stupid
'workaround' functionality all just explodes into a gazillion snippets
of code. So there!

Well, enough of that. Hope you all enjoyed my dumb post. Maybe you can relate sometimes. If not, feel free to let me know. :-)

EDIT: Just so everyone is clear, I do like VB, and I just need to vent a bit. Its just frustrating sometimes. No flatites or harm is intended to anyone resembling any of the characters mentioned in this post. Thanks.
 
You forgot the most important part. What, exactly, did you have to work around?
 
Flatulence?

Can you provide a .Net example of something that is supposed to work a specific way but doesn't?

And.... what is a flatite? :confused:
 
I certainly can. I have a paint program that needs to be able to manipulate bitmap bits directly, but cant. Only C# can do it, and only because you can temporarily use C++ in an unmanaged way. VB.net (1.0, 1.1, and possibly even 2.0) doesnt. I would be forced to use API calls to DLL hell. Not a very 'managed' approach to creating apps in .Net.

But hey, everyones entitled to an opinion. :)

Oh, and type in "define: flatite" at google.com

Google is your friend.
 
Google is your friend too?

I already tried Google, and various other sites. Does this not display 'No definitions were found for flatite'? Perhaps you can find a definition and point me there.

Besides that, I asked for an example of something which is supposed to work a specific way, but doesn't. You gave an example of something you can't do, which is entirely different. And even on that point, you are mistaken.

You are correct in that VB.Net doesn't have constructs for unsafe code blocks, but even in C# you should avoid them where possible. In this case, it is certainly possible. If you look in the documentation for Bitmap.LockBits there is a VB.Net example of byte manipulation of a Bitmap. It might not be particularly fast, but it is certainly possible. And if you're not working with Bitmaps but with some other image object, the example there shows how to use a pointer to access data.

And the term "DLL hell" usually refers to a problem inherent in COM, not with standard API calls.

But rant away. :)
 
This is not the case at all! It can be done, and without unsafe code. The attached tutorial is written in C#, but it is done in a language-neutral way (it is only half as fast as using pointers, but it works in VB). Lemme know if you need help with the translation.
[Edit2] Guess Mr Paul is a little faster than me.[/Edit2]
 

Attachments

Hmmm. so it is (or isnt). Guess i didnt use the singular form for "fart".

I didnt imply I couldnt do it. I implied It wasn't easily accessible via the built in managed methods of VB.Net. I am forced to use API calls (not very "managed"), or unsafe code blocks in C# (also not very "managed").

Get it?

Now, if I want to redefine the term "DLL hell", I will. So bite me. :-) (...dont get your panties in a knot about it)


Now, read the following carefully: I am not the only one facing quirks in the .Net framework. If you want to be in denial and live in la-la land, go right ahead. Its a free country.

I found them. It bugs me. Period. K?

MrPaul said:
I already tried Google, and various other sites. Does this not display 'No definitions were found for flatite'? Perhaps you can find a definition and point me there.

Besides that, I asked for an example of something which is supposed to work a specific way, but doesn't. You gave an example of something you can't do, which is entirely different. And even on that point, you are mistaken.

You are correct in that VB.Net doesn't have constructs for unsafe code blocks, but even in C# you should avoid them where possible. In this case, it is certainly possible. If you look in the documentation for Bitmap.LockBits there is a VB.Net example of byte manipulation of a Bitmap. It might not be particularly fast, but it is certainly possible. And if you're not working with Bitmaps but with some other image object, the example there shows how to use a pointer to access data.

And the term "DLL hell" usually refers to a problem inherent in COM, not with standard API calls.

But rant away. :)
Click to expand...

EDIT: I forgot about VB 6. As we all know so well, one major issue was that it wasn't actually OOP. But at least there it was safe to expect everyone to know that before starting a huge project. An hence, you didn't always hit a killer wall when you were 99.9999999% done.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the HTML doc, marble_eatter. Already did that. And yes, it was ssssllllooooowwww.

(My pc = P4 w/ HT @ 3.8 GHz, 1GB ddr 400 dual-channel plat. ed OCZ mem, asus p4p800 se mboard, RAID-0 7200 WD Caviar 300 GB, and the cherry on top,

BFG GeForce 7800 OC 256MB GDDR3 AGP video card)

And i quote "...Unfortunately, .Net doesn't make it as simple as we would like when it comes to direct image memory access... "

Again, I know better than to use a screw driver as a mallet. Its just funny how I get 99.9999% done with a program, only to find out the one essential function I need cant be done without doing back-flips to get it to work.

Huge overhead + hard to implement = Screwy workaround.
 
Denial is a long river...

If you had originally just said the managed approach was too ssssllllooooowwww for your needs, then this whole discussion could have been avoided. You stated that you couldn't do direct byte manipulation in a managed way, and so both myself and marble_eater gave examples where you could (although the two examples are essentially the same).

Sorry for trying to help you out. :rolleyes:

Good luck. :cool:
 
Are you alright? Seriously. The method I posted to you isn't... ssssllllooooowwww... at all. Not if you write code that is optimized for speed. It might not be blazing C++ pointer fast, but it is pretty fast and skips the unmanaged world of the API and pointer math. Realize that you are working in a managed environment. You are a big step away from the hardware. DMA isn't meant to be an option. But the method I posted is pretty close. The overhead isn't huge. If you are clever you will allocate a single buffer and recycle it. If you are clever you will write reusable code and it will be easy to implement the next time you need it. (In fact, I frequently use the approach that was in my tutorial, but I created drop-in classes that let me obtain image data buffers with only a few lines of code.)

Do I live in la-la land? Is this some sort of dream world? Well, if you say so, I must agree. RAD with C-style syntax? JIT compilation that gives me near-native execution speed? An extremely comprehensive, thoroughly documented, very consistent and easy to use programming API? VB with OOP? Cross-language interoperability? And I downloaded the Express versions for free from Microsoft? Sounds like a dream come true. But here you are complaining because it doesn't provide for DMA?? You want the best of both worlds. You want C++ power and VB ease of use. Who is living in la-la land? Maybe the one being insulting and offensive to those who want to help? FYI, this is a board for getting help. Blogs are for venting.
 
Seriously. Stop taking it so personally. If I don't like how something works, I am entitled, like everyone else, to post my RANDOM THOUGHT.

Here is something constructive: get back to work and stop worrying what my random thought was. I didn't ask for help. I already stated what this post was about.

You have done nothing but try and change my opinion, instead of making your own. Unless you have something related to VB and NOT something that has to do with me, I suggest you wise up and move on with your life.

---END OF DISCUSSION---
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top