Delphi or C#
Jan Derk
of sale, but can be bought used from Amazon for as little as $205 US
Dollars) and several Delphi magazine articles has an interesting post
on his website.
Delphi or C#:
http://www.boyet.com/Articles/DelphiOrCSharp.html
Jan Derk
Craig
"Jan Derk" <no...@none.none> wrote in message
news:433344f0$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Julian Bucknall, the writer of the Tomes of Delphi book (which is out
> of sale, but can be bought used from Amazon for as little as $205 US
> Dollars) and several Delphi magazine articles has an interesting post
> on his website.
>
Summary, if you want to convert an app from Delphi/Win32 then Delphi is the
obvious choice, otherwise use C#.
Craig.
JED
> Summary, if you want to convert an app from Delphi/Win32 then Delphi
> is the obvious choice, otherwise use C#.
Summary. Use whatever you feel comfortable with.
--
** Compact Framework IDE support for Delphi 2005 coming soon **
Latest information: http://jedqc.blogspot.com
Release Candidate available for JED, QC - QualityCentral Win32 client
Download if from: http://www.jed-software.com
JohnE
> the obvious choice, otherwise use C#.
What about Chrome?
Robin
> Craig wrote:
>
>>Summary, if you want to convert an app from Delphi/Win32 then Delphi
>>is the obvious choice, otherwise use C#.
>
>
> Summary. Use whatever you feel comfortable with.
>
Gotta agree here Jed. Thats what I read too.
How I saw it, the conclusion was to *draw your own conclusion*. As he
had C# available, needed to learn it for work regardless, and he
preferred it anyway, it made sense to use C#.
An additional consideration is that not everyone has Visual Studio *and*
Delphi. I personally had a hard enough time justifying one investment
of time and money when I got Delphi. Getting another is not on the
cards. Especially when D2005 can do (almost) everything that any other
/combination/ of products can do (short of CF and that is not /entirely/
impossible).
One thing only lightly touched on was that C# was clean, with no
baggage. While I agree that is nice and often preferable, it indicates
an ability to completely jump from one code base to another. Backwards
compatibility exists for a damn good reason in many products. It may
make it seem /clean/ now, but indicates a trend in the provider, in this
case Microsoft, to dump a language (and its users) and move on to new
things with no direct upgrade path. It would worry me that I was
encouraging this, IMHO undesirable, behavior.
--
Robin.
<disclaimer> Not an expert </disclaimer>
JED
> (short of CF and that is not entirely impossible)
Which will very shortly become easier as well.
James K Smith
to be running in .net is making a really bad move. Technogeeks still make
lousy business people.
Let's all convert our apps to .net so we can have "lambda expressions." Good
grief. The most loyal clients I ever had were running my TP dos app with
custom screen and virtual memory libs. They'd get hostile when you tried to
take a keyboard away from them.
Craig
Summary: I agree with you on all points.
Mike B
Mike
"Jan Derk" <no...@none.none> wrote in message
news:433344f0$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Craig
> Isn't that like asking "Should I use Visual Studio or Pascal"...
Not really because even though you can do C# in Delphi IDE and Pascal in
Visual Studio, I think he implied Delphi would be using the Delphi IDE and
C# in VS IDE.
Charles McAllister
more than syntax.
Mike B
Now I'm assuming you meant "I think he implied Object Pascal would be using
the Delphi IDE..." :)
Mike
Lee Grissom
> Isn't that like asking "Should I use Visual Studio or Pascal"...
No. Delphi is a language (the IDE is Borland Developer Studio). With BDS
3.0, you can choose to use Delphi or C#.
--
Lee
somebody
> Craig wrote:
> > Summary, if you want to convert an app from Delphi/Win32 then Delphi
> > is the obvious choice, otherwise use C#.
> Summary. Use whatever you feel comfortable with.
Bad advice. Prevents one from going forward. Sometimes a little discomfort
is all it takes for major gains.
JED
> Bad advice. Prevents one from going forward. Sometimes a little
> discomfort is all it takes for major gains.
I guess that depends on the developer. If the developer is not out
there trying new things and looking at viable alternatives then perhaps
its bad advice. If the developer is proactive then I think its
perfectly good advice.
I don't speak on behalf of the 9-5 "do my job" developers because I
don't know what it is like to be one. I'm always trying to learn new
things so my opinions are based on what I know.
Developers that hang off other developers every word all the time is
something I have an issue with. Sometimes its good to question and try
and find out for yourself.
saying "You *should* use X or you *should* use Y is bad advice". There
is no silver bullet, and note how the original article doesn't say that.
Kevin
> I just dug out the D6 books and they refer to Object Pascal as the language.
> When did it change?
AFAICR- Delphi 7
Mike B
news:43335ed6$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
I just dug out the D6 books and they refer to Object Pascal as the language.
When did it change?
Mike
JED
> Prevents one from going forward.
You mean to say that the developer prevents himself from going forward.
I think that is his responsibility isn't it?
Mike B
Guess I missed that one, ooh well it'll always be Object Pascal to me...
Mike
Craig
>
> Now I'm assuming you meant "I think he implied Object Pascal would be
> using the Delphi IDE..." :)
>
Yeah, except it is all very confusing these days because a few years back
they dropped 'Object Pascal' name for the language and said the language is
now called 'Delphi'. The problem is we now have a Delphi IDE that hosts a
Delphi langage as well as others. Maybe the OP name should be brought back.
Craig
Atmapuri
> I guess that depends on the developer. If the developer is not out
> there trying new things and looking at viable alternatives then perhaps
> its bad advice. If the developer is proactive then I think its
> perfectly good advice.
Humm... Somehow I dont see too much philosophy here.
I see Delphi.W32 as C# strenght language without .NET.
Can you show me an alternative that will have most benefits of
C# and still run 5x faster with 5x less memory?
The biggest advantage of C# and Microsoft namely .NET
is also its biggest dissadvantage...
Best Regards!
Atmapuri
Ingvar Nilsen
I find it impossible to explain to someone not knowing Delphi The Tool
what language it uses without mentioning Object Pascal:
Q: What is your favourite programming tool?
A: My main tool is Borland Delphi
Q: What programming language does it use?
A: Delphi
Q: No, I mean the language, not the tool
A: Yes, but the language is Delphi
Q: Huh? I am confused, is it a proprietary language?
A: Sort of, stems from Pascal
Q: So it is good old Pascal then?
A: No, it is an advanced version, was called Object Pascal
Q: Oh, I have heard of that, so what you say is that Delphi uses Object
Pascal?
A: No, it uses Delphi
Q: But what the heck is the difference between Object Pascal and Delphi,
the language?
A: To be honest, I really don't know exactly, have not bothered to find out
Q: So, in practice, at the end of the day, programming with Delphi the
tool is like programming in Object Pascal?
A: Yes, it actually is
Q: Why didn't you say that from the beginning?!
--
Ingvar Nilsen
http://www.ingvarius.com
Robert Giesecke
>
> Q: So, in practice, at the end of the day, programming with Delphi the
> tool is like programming in Object Pascal?
> A: Yes, it actually is
> Q: Why didn't you say that from the beginning?!
>
Actually, I call it simply and proudly Pascal. ;-)
Joanna Carter (TeamB)
4333aae2$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
| I find it impossible to explain to someone not knowing Delphi The Tool
| what language it uses without mentioning Object Pascal:
I also find that I want to use the "ideal" mixture of a Borland IDE but the
C# language.
Unfortunately, Borland have to play catchup in a world where MS control the
OS, the framework and the language. Look at Linq, where the query syntax
(part of the framework) could not easily be achieved without changes to the
language like extension methods, anonymous type and lamda expressions.
Nevertheless, I have confidence that Borland are well on track to release a
.NET 2.0 version of the Delphi language as soon as possible after the
official release of .NET 2.0.
My latest project though will be for .NET, using C# in VS for several
reasons :
1. It has to be for .NET because it is a vertical market product that has to
"keep up with the times"
2. Delphi does not yet support .NET 2.0 with fetaures like generics, etc;
the time and effort that generics save is truly worthwhile.
3. It is not possible to easily port our style of Delphi code straight to
Delphi for .NET due to extensive use of interfaces that required special
code to accomodate refcounting problems, the inability to get to an object
from an interface and implementation delegation. We actually used "template"
code in Delphi to give us typesafe collections, but that code will
completely disappear with generics.
Like Julian, I also was "brought up" on C++ and still find C# a very natural
language, but have also been very happy using the Delphi language ever since
D1. After all, I am more of an OO architect than an application writer and
find that the choice of language to be a secondary consideration to the
structure of the interfaces and classes involved.
However, one of the compelling reasons for wanting to stay with Borland has
to be the productivity that their IDEs encourage. VS has certainly improved
but it still doesn't "feel" as comfortable as the Delphi IDE.
Certainly, if you have an application that needs porting from Wn32 to .NET
then there is no easier way so to do than Delphi... unless you do anything
other than the RAD model of development encouraged by the "out-of-the-box"
approach implied by Delphi.
I have been and remain fiercely loyal to Borland because I see them as a
company that has done more to innovate in the field of software development
than anyone else. MS have had to play a serious game of catchup to get to
where they are at the moment and a lot of that improvement has been by
copying or acquiring Borland technology.
So I find myself in a very awkward time; never having ever thought that one
day, I would *ever* use a MS IDE. Unfortunately, earning a living has to
come before blind loyalty; I console myself with the thought that, without
Borland's brains, none of us would be enjoying software development as much
as we do today.
Joanna
--
Joanna Carter [TeamB]
Consultant Software Engineer
Mauro Venturini
message news:4333...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> "Ingvar Nilsen" <my.a...@my.signature> a écrit dans le
message de news:
> 4333aae2$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
where MS control the
> OS, the framework and the language. Look at Linq, where
the query syntax
> (part of the framework) could not easily be achieved
without changes to the
> language like extension methods, anonymous type and lamda
expressions.
For extension methods it's more MS that plays catchup.
From the samples I saw they seems very similar to helper
classes.
Wait a moment, Borland patented helper classes. It should
sue MS!
Joanna Carter (TeamB)
news: 4333...@newsgroups.borland.com...
| For extension methods it's more MS that plays catchup.
| From the samples I saw they seems very similar to helper
| classes.
| Wait a moment, Borland patented helper classes. It should
| sue MS!
Too right !! Not forgetting that lambda expression are also a very good
imitation of Clipper code blocks :-)
As I hinted, there is very little innovation in the MS camp; but they are
very good at marketing the best of everyone else's ideas.
Lurkio
>
>James K Smith wrote:
>>Summary: Anybody converting an existing revenue generating desktop app
>>just to be running in .net is making a really bad move.
>
> Summary: I agree with you on all points.
I agree with both of you. IME, most fellow Delphi developers that
I know are only using .Net for the creation of new applications
and are content to keep their existing, native Delphi applications
in the Win32 domain. I also have to say that, IME, those new .Net
applications seem to be written in C#, not Delphi.Net (including
my own, I must admit). Among many colleagues, current and former,
there is a quite commmon perception of .Net being an /alternative/
to Delphi as opposed to a path forward /with/ Delphi. I don't know
how true this is in the wider world but I'm only speaking as I find.
I agree with much that the writer of the article linked to by the OP
says about Delphi.Net being perpetually one step behind the latest .Net
release, regardless of the herculean efforts put in by the good folk
at Borland to keep up with the Redmond machine. However, I still think
that native Delphi offers huge advantages to me over .Net and I will
continue to have Delphi as a string to my bow while this continues to
be the case. A big part of the Windows development future will involve
.Net but it's not the /whole/ story, not by a long stretch.
Mauro Venturini
I am old enough to be called 'antique' :-(
"Joanna Carter (TeamB)" <joa...@not.for.spam> wrote in
message news:4333d0d0$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> "Mauro Venturini" <mauro.v...@ocem.com> a écrit dans
le message de
> news: 4333...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
IanH
> > Craig wrote:
> >
> > James K Smith wrote:
> > > Summary: Anybody converting an existing revenue generating
> > > desktop app just to be running in .net is making a really bad
> > > move.
> <snip>
> >
> > Summary: I agree with you on all points.
>
> I agree with both of you. IME, most fellow Delphi developers that
> I know are only using .Net for the creation of new applications
> and are content to keep their existing, native Delphi applications
> in the Win32 domain. I also have to say that, IME, those new .Net
> applications seem to be written in C#, not Delphi.Net (including
> my own, I must admit). Among many colleagues, current and former,
> there is a quite commmon perception of .Net being an alternative
> to Delphi as opposed to a path forward with Delphi. I don't know
> how true this is in the wider world but I'm only speaking as I find.
Same here. If I need to write a .Net app - and Borland do not provide a
clear technical advantage - I will use C# in VS.
I will NOT port my existing apps to .Net unless some compelling
commercial reasons appear from nowhere.
> I agree with much that the writer of the article linked to by the OP
> says about Delphi.Net being perpetually one step behind the latest
> .Net release, regardless of the herculean efforts put in by the good
> folk at Borland to keep up with the Redmond machine. However, I still
> think that native Delphi offers huge advantages to me over .Net and I
> will continue to have Delphi as a string to my bow while this
> continues to be the case. A big part of the Windows development
> future will involve .Net but it's not the whole story, not by a long
> stretch.
Many people are successfully using .Net 2.0 today. What will the delay
be between .Net 2.0 becoming official and Delphi support becoming
available? People are able to use the MS beta period as time to
familiarise themselves with the new goodies, and be in a position to
quickly exploit them as they stabilise / mature.
How many people, greedy for LINQ, will jump in to C# v3 to get early
access, and how many will prefer to wait for a Borland release that,
barring a change of policy, will not allow you to begin evaluation
until well after the C# crowd are shipping code?
Borland choose to only target official MS releases - for understandable
reasons - but while people are prepared to use MS beta releases,
Borland look increasingly out of touch.
Angra Mainyu
"Joanna Carter (TeamB)" wrote
>
> Too right !! Not forgetting that lambda expression are also a very good
> imitation of Clipper code blocks :-)
The roots of lambda expression goes back to the invention of lambda calculus in
the 1930s and it has influenced several languages perhaps most notably in Lisp.
> As I hinted, there is very little innovation in the MS camp; but they are
> very good at marketing the best of everyone else's ideas.
Sour apples make the best apple pies! I giggle when someone equates Microsoft's
success with only their marketing prowess and for whatever reason chooses to
overlook their technical prowess which in the case of .NET involves in
impressive number of highly skilled and innovative former Borland employees.
Have you ever wondered how so many of Borland's best and brightest ended up
advancing their careers as leaders and innovators at Microsoft?
Joanna Carter [TeamB]
4333e136$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
| Sour apples make the best apple pies! I giggle when someone equates
Microsoft's
| success with only their marketing prowess and for whatever reason chooses
to
| overlook their technical prowess which in the case of .NET involves in
| impressive number of highly skilled and innovative former Borland
employees.
Like I said, the present success is ultimately down to Borland :-)
| Have you ever wondered how so many of Borland's best and brightest ended
up
| advancing their careers as leaders and innovators at Microsoft?
Money ??? :-)
Chris Brooksbank
In general true of course.
From the businesses point of view carrying on in Delphi means no big spend
on training and rewriting.
From a developers point of view not learning dotnet may restrict future
earnings and/or how interesting future offered work is.
So lots of IT people want to learn important new stuff, so the best
developers head for companys offering development in interesting new stuff.
This is one factor pushing business from comfort zone into new stuff.
Of course not going into new stuff may be cheaper in the short term but
cause problems as the shop falls further and futher behind the technology
curve.
Also a shop using Borland code is arguably using niche tools developed by a
struggling company with limited resources to develop stuff esential for
their future survival.
I suspect nobody sits down for a new greenfield development and picks
Delphi, but plenty dont want to rewrite existing stuff at huge expense for
no immediate benefit.
Lots of pros and cons I guess.
Ingvar Nilsen
> the inability to get to an object from an interface and
> implementation delegation.
Can you eloborate this?
> Like Julian, I also was "brought up" on C++
I was not!
> and still find C# a very natural language
Also I find it natural!
> but have also been very happy using the Delphi language ever since
> D1.
Same here too.
> After all, I am more of an OO architect than an application writer
I do both, at the moment
> and find that the choice of language to be a secondary consideration
> to the structure of the interfaces and classes involved.
I am not quite sure what you mean here?
> So I find myself in a very awkward time; never having ever thought
> that one day, I would *ever* use a MS IDE. Unfortunately, earning a
> living has to come before blind loyalty;
Business is business. I use both, Delphi and VS.Net.
somebody
> somebody wrote:
> > Prevents one from going forward.
> You mean to say that the developer prevents himself from going forward.
Yes, if he heeds the advice that one should use what he is comfortable with.
A better tautological advice would be for him to use what's right for the
job. And while both are tautological, they aren't the same for what's right
for the job may cause some discomfort for the developer, initially at least.
> I think that is his responsibility isn't it?
Naturally.
Angra Mainyu
"Joanna Carter [TeamB]" wrote
> | Have you ever wondered how so many of Borland's best and brightest ended
> | up advancing their careers as leaders and innovators at Microsoft?
>
> Money ??? :-)
I see your smiley but still do you think that people who are characterized as
being the best and brightest are exclusively motivated by money?
JED
> Yes, if he heeds the advice that one should use what he is
> comfortable with. A better tautological advice would be for him to
> use what's right for the job. And while both are tautological, they
> aren't the same for what's right for the job may cause some
> discomfort for the developer, initially at least.
exactly
Joanna Carter [TeamB]
| I see your smiley but still do you think that people who are characterized
as
| being the best and brightest are exclusively motivated by money?
Not entirely, but they could be just as good and bright in a company that
doesn't pay as well, as long as that company treats them with the respect
due to their intellect.
Joanna Carter [TeamB]
| > the inability to get to an object from an interface and
| > implementation delegation.
|
| Can you eloborate this?
Writing an application that uses interfaces on Delphi for Win32 tends to be
an all or nothing situation. It is not possible to cast an interface
reference back to an object reference; this is due to the COM-like
implementation where the interface doesn't point to the same memory as the
object.
Delphi for Win32 provides the "implements" directive to allow us to delegate
behaviour to sub-objects but you then have to do a custom QueryInterface
method on the inner object to allow casting back to the outer object; this
works differently in C#, therefore I have to change all my "custom"
interface code whether I was moving to Delphi for .NET or C#.
| > and find that the choice of language to be a secondary consideration
| > to the structure of the interfaces and classes involved.
|
| I am not quite sure what you mean here?
My main work is as a consultant architect, designing systems that I don't
necessarily write. However, I do end up coding many systems and find that
the design of the system doesn't usually change, except in small
implementation details that are governed by the language's capabilities.
| Business is business. I use both, Delphi and VS.Net.
Ain't that the truth ! :-))
tony
C#
Jan Derk wrote:
> Julian Bucknall, the writer of the Tomes of Delphi book (which is out
> of sale, but can be bought used from Amazon for as little as $205 US
> Dollars) and several Delphi magazine articles has an interesting post
> on his website.
>
> Delphi or C#:
> http://www.boyet.com/Articles/DelphiOrCSharp.html
>
> Jan Derk
Henry
> | I see your smiley but still do you think that people who are characterized
> as
> | being the best and brightest are exclusively motivated by money?
>
> Not entirely, but they could be just as good and bright in a company that
> doesn't pay as well, as long as that company treats them with the respect
> due to their intellect.
OK, I'll say it. At Microsoft, the technical folk have taken over the asylum,
and senior technologists can get the go-ahead (and funding) for almost anything
as long as they use enough buzzwords and technobabble to awe the clueless. At
Borland, you have to show the PHBs the ROI in a crystal ball/in-flight magazine,
and the lawyers still won't let you talk to anyone outside the company about it.
How much of the innovation which Anders is ploughing into C# could he have got
away with at Borland? Perhaps this is the reason why he and his colleagues moved
to Microsoft? The money helps of course :)
Angra Mainyu
"Joanna Carter [TeamB]" wrote >
> | I see your smiley but still do you think that people who are characterized
> | as being the best and brightest are exclusively motivated by money?
>
> Not entirely, but they could be just as good and bright in a company that
> doesn't pay as well, as long as that company treats them with the respect
> due to their intellect.
I don't know what to make of your comment, surely you are not saying that
Borland under paid and didn't treat their best and brightest with the respect? I
have no way to know but would guess it had a lot more to do with frustration,
disappointment and lack of opportunity than pay and respect.
Some say that getting a big increase in salary is a lot like eating a big
Chinese meal, your feeling of satisfaction just doesn't too long. ;-)
Johnnie Norsworthy
news:433364d5$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> I just dug out the D6 books and they refer to Object Pascal as the
> language. When did it change?
I see now - THAT'S why I never upgraded from D6 to D7. I didn't want to
learn a new programming language. <g>
So, like mentioned in the article, I use D6 for my Win32 applications and C#
for .NET development.
-Johnnie
Trevor de Koekkoek
"Joanna Carter (TeamB)" <joa...@not.for.spam> wrote in message
> "Ingvar Nilsen" <my.a...@my.signature> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 4333aae2$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> from an interface and implementation delegation.
Hi Joanna,
I've seen you mention this before. And although I can't say that I never
have had a need to do this, I rather think of it as a "code smell" that
indicates poor design. I know there are some purists who would say you
should never have to go back to the object by way of the interface. The
interface should be all you need. (I'm not one of them, but would think it
shouldn't be needed too often)
-Trevor
Joanna Carter [TeamB]
43341461$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
| I've seen you mention this before. And although I can't say that I never
| have had a need to do this, I rather think of it as a "code smell" that
| indicates poor design. I know there are some purists who would say you
| should never have to go back to the object by way of the interface. The
| interface should be all you need. (I'm not one of them, but would think
it
| shouldn't be needed too often)
My point is that, in .NET, all interfaces point to the same object and
casting is very simple, whilst in Delphi it is possible to makes a real pigs
ear of situations like this. AFAICS, C# makes things harder to mess up in
this direction :-)
Ingvar Nilsen
> My point is that, in .NET, all interfaces point to the same object
> and casting is very simple, whilst in Delphi it is possible to makes
> a real pigs ear of situations like this.
So you mean that, while this is possible in both camps:
IFoo SomeFoo = SomeObject as IFoo
this is only possible in .Net? :
IFoo FooAsInterface = SomeObject as IFoo
TFoo FooAsClass = FooAsInterface as TFoo
When thinking of it, I doubt I ever use the latter casting, I always
want to find out whether an interface is supported and then use its
public members.
> AFAICS, C# makes things harder to mess up in this direction :-)
I have built a rather complicated "framework" to simplify the visual
presentation of data from the business logic in ASP.Net, many classes,
and all as interfaces, and I find .Net and C# great for this.
Robert Kozak
Are you saying Delphi is 5X faster and uses %x less memory than C#?
You got any evidence to back that up?
True or false, statements like that mean absolutely nothing unless you
can prove it.
-- Robert
Gunnar Liknes
> One thing only lightly touched on was that C# was clean, with no baggage.
> While I agree that is nice and often preferable, it indicates an ability
> to completely jump from one code base to another. Backwards compatibility
> exists for a damn good reason in many products. It may make it seem
> /clean/ now, but indicates a trend in the provider, in this
(********************************)
> case Microsoft, to dump a language (and its users) and move on to new
(******************************************************)
> things with no direct upgrade path. It would worry me that I was
(**************************)
> encouraging this, IMHO undesirable, behavior.
Damned good point:-) Sorry my French, but this thread was already in
French...
I feel sorry for all the VB1-6 user out there which had to scrap all their
source code and start all over again when MS decided it was time for
something new. Thank you Borland for VCL. I hope we see a
Mac version as well of Delphi/VCL soon.
Gunnar
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> My point is that, in .NET, all interfaces point to the same object
> and casting is very simple, whilst in Delphi it is possible to makes
> a real pigs ear of situations like this. AFAICS, C# makes things
> harder to mess up in this direction :-)
How is Delphi for .NET any different than C# in this respect?
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] . Vertex Systems Corp. . Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Useful articles about InterBase development:
http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/category/21.aspx
Ritchie Annand
> I still think database developement with Delphi is much easier than with
> C#
Was watching our R&D head try to put together a database application in
VS with C#, and I must concur. He took an entire morning to get things
hooked up to a data grid. Using OLE DB, an exception came up, but he
ended up having to put in actual *code* to extract the information from
the exception.
I was also a bit shocked at how badly the control name/synchronization
was in VS as well. Changing the names of controls and then double-
clicking to get an event as often as not came up with the old control
name.
It's possible he didn't have things set up right or was using a less-
able version, but ouch :)
--
Ritchie Annand
Senior Software Architect
Decision Dynamics Technology Ltd.
http://ddytech.com
Personal: http://nimblebrain.net
Blog: http://blogs.nimblebrain.net