Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

> Jinn Wins wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>I've looked at .NET a bit. What they did with VB, point by point,
>>I agree with, but decided to not bother porting since there are too many
>>differences.
>
>
> The problem is that VB.NET doesn't appear to 'break' old, bad VB code.
>
> I used to work with a group of people who supported an old, crusty VB
> app. It had been 'rescued' from one of the old MS Basic systems that
> supported GOTOs, global variables and spaghetti code. The app had grown
> and grown over the years and nobody could figure out how the damned
> thing worked. Nobody dared touch it anymore.
>
> About a year or so ago, they moved the source into VB.NET. Guess what?
> It still works.
>
>
>>They invented VB quite early, and it was bad for a long time.
>
>
> What do you mean 'was'? It still supports spaghetti code.
>

Thass okay. So does Tommy.

http://scrawlmark.org/g/arrlines.jpg

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
If a pome falls in the middle of a library and
the Bishop can't read it, does it still say, "Iamb"?
http://scrawlmark.org