Geeks With Blogs

News

  
Bill Evjen's Blog Code, Life and Community

There was some interesting Q&A from the VB Team chat today:

PaulV [MS] (Expert):
Q: Paul, you blogged about refactoring today. Is there any chance there will be additional refactoring support post RTM but pre-Orcas?
A: At this point, we haven't thought far enough beyond Whidbey to really comment one way or another. All I could say is that we are very aware of the demand among VB users for refactoring features...

AmandaS_MS (Expert):
Q: Are there plans for have more snippets than are packaged today with Beta 1 for VS2005?
A: Yessiree! We intend to include ~500 code snippets with the RTM product. If you have requests for particular snippets, send them our way!
 
PaulV [MS] (Expert):
Q: PaulV - Can you give some guidance on calling Shared members in VB 2005? Should one always call them through the class instead of an instance?
A: To my mind, Shared members should always be called through the type name for clarity's sake. The problem is that Shared members don't modify the instance that they're being called on, so it's easy to make a mistake like calling Replace on a string instance and thinking that it's going to modify the string it's being called on.
 
PaulV [MS] (Expert):
Q: Experts - C#2005 has support for anonymous methods while VB2005 does not. I think they would be quite handy although I've also seen some people complaint of it being not very readable. Any reason why this was not included in VB2005?
A: Mostly a question of priorities - anonymous methods are definitely an interesting feature, but what did go into VB 2005 was of a higher priority in our view. There are also some very interesting syntatic issues with anonymous methods since we're line-oriented and C# isn't, so a feature like that might end up looking more like local methods or something like that in VB. I think this is something we'll be looking at past VB 2005.
 
AmandaS_MS (Expert):
Q: Any second thoughts in 2005 about making Option Stict "On" by default?
A: One of the overriding rationales for this is to preserve the knowledge transfer from VB6 to VB.NET. It's good if VB6 users can try out the .NET product and be immediately productive. Another data point for this is that there exists a bunch of sample code out there that may not compile with Option Strict On... and we wanted that to work. Still, another reason is that we hear from customers that certain parts of option strict are "okay" to allow until a later point, like conversions between String and Integer. That's one of the motivating reasons behind breaking out Option Strict in the compile page of the App Designer.
 
PaulV [MS] (Expert):
Q: I have heard MSFT employees say that Win Forms 2005 is the path to Avalon. I really don't see that myself and my customers are really wondering if they are going down the wrong path for vb6 to WF migration, or if they should just wait for Avalon. Comments?
A: I think Joe Stegman covered these topics over on Channel 9, you can check out his video at http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=21751.
 
Vladimir_MS (Expert):
Q: asp:menu control doesn,t work with ..opera or ..firefox..
 
AmandaS_MS (Expert):
Q: Is the form default instance going to make it into the RTM? There was a suggestion on VS2005 feedback to either remove it or have an option to turn it on or off. I assume there were a whole lot of people who wanted this back.
A: Stay tuned to the vb team blog at: http://blogs.msdn.com/vbteam/. We'll be posting on that topic very shortly.
 
Posted on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 2:54 PM Microsoft , Programming Languages | Back to top


Comments on this post: Some Interesting Q&A From the VB Team Chat Today

No comments posted yet.
Your comment:
 (will show your gravatar)


Copyright © Bill Evjen | Powered by: GeeksWithBlogs.net