Forums

Hello,

Got a copy of Visual Basic .NET today. It's quite a bit different from previous versions. And since all of the 'for users of previous versions' help is for VB6 -- which I've never used (vgm2mid is written in VB5) -- well, let's just say I've got a lot of work to do.

I figure I'll have to re-write most of the code from scratch, but it'll give me a chance to really take advantage of the new features of the language.

.NET seems to be very promising. Among the cooler interface improvements are transluscent forms for Win2000/XP, and GDI+, which supports splines, rotation, translation, gradient fills, texture fills, anti-aliasing , alpha channels -- pretty useful stuff. And I guess .NET is supposed to be a lot like Java in that it can run on any computer that has the runtime installed.

Maybe I can create a better GUI.

Also, transluscent PNG-encoded bitmaps can now be used. They look really nice. Pity IE still doesn't display them properly.

Yes, I'm rambling, but that's only because it's 3:30 AM. ;)

Quote

> Hello,

> Got a copy of Visual Basic .NET today. It's quite a bit different from previous versions. And since all of the 'for users of previous versions' help is for VB6 -- which I've never used (vgm2mid is written in VB5) -- well, let's just say I've got a lot of work to do.

> I figure I'll have to re-write most of the code from scratch, but it'll give me a chance to really take advantage of the new features of the language.

> .NET seems to be very promising. Among the cooler interface improvements are transluscent forms for Win2000/XP, and GDI+, which supports splines, rotation, translation, gradient fills, texture fills, anti-aliasing , alpha channels -- pretty useful stuff. And I guess .NET is supposed to be a lot like Java in that it can run on any computer that has the runtime installed.

Doesn't sound like Microsoft to create something that can be run under other software than microsoft's own. =)

Quote

> Maybe I can create a better GUI.

> Also, transluscent PNG-encoded bitmaps can now be used. They look really nice. Pity IE still doesn't display them properly.

> Yes, I'm rambling, but that's only because it's 3:30 AM. ;)

[...]

Without ruining your motivation, does a VGM2MID converter really needs an 48 bits alpha-blended interface ? - It may be better having a tool working on all Windows version ?

Quote

> [...]

> Without ruining your motivation, does a VGM2MID converter really needs an 48 bits alpha-blended interface ? - It may be better having a tool working on all Windows version ?

I guess I put too much emphasis on the GDI. But you probably can imagine how it feels to go from having to hand-design a nice-looking interface to being able to do so using intrinsic features. I doubt I'll be using many (if any) of those features for vgm2mid, but they're nice to have.

Aside from, and more important than that is that .NET is simply more current than what I had been using. Also, VB seems to be a lot closer to C than it used to be. I have always been somewhat of a C wannabe. ;)

As for compatibility, the runtimes are supposed to be compatible with Win98 on up, and possibly even Win95. But since .NET is aimed at competing with Java, so we'll probably be seeing runtimes available for other OSes as well.

And apparently programs using .NET don't have to be installed per se -- all you have to do is copy all a program's files into a directory. Uninstall by deleting the dir.

Funny thing I noticed about the Visual Studio IDE is that the HTML designer is, at least IMO, much nicer and more streamlined than Frontpage. It produces really tight HTML without adding all that style crap that Word uses.

Sorry if this whole thing sounds like an ad for .NET, but I think that MS is on the right track here.

[...]

Quote

> As for compatibility, the runtimes are supposed to be compatible with Win98 on up, and possibly even Win95. But since .NET is aimed at competing with Java, so we'll probably be seeing runtimes available for other OSes as well.

[...]

Quote

> Sorry if this whole thing sounds like an ad for .NET, but I think that MS is on the right track here.

I've read Microsoft C# book and some stuff about the .NET platform.
C# itself seems overally ok.

But, comparing .NET to Java... how many people enjoy using a slow, memory consuming Java application on their desktop ?

Quote

> I've read Microsoft C# book and some stuff about the .NET platform.
> C# itself seems overally ok.

> But, comparing .NET to Java... how many people enjoy using a slow, memory consuming Java application on their desktop ?

I guess I meant in terms of being OS-independent. I'll have to admit I'm not an expert on Java (or any language for that matter).

.NET compiled binaries seem to have about the same execution speed as any other program, but apparently they _can_ be pretty memory intensive.

Anyway, I guess we'll see what happens.

Quote

> > I've read Microsoft C# book and some stuff about the .NET platform.
> > C# itself seems overally ok.

> > But, comparing .NET to Java... how many people enjoy using a slow, memory consuming Java application on their desktop ?

> I guess I meant in terms of being OS-independent. I'll have to admit I'm not an expert on Java (or any language for that matter).

> .NET compiled binaries seem to have about the same execution speed as any other program, but apparently they _can_ be pretty memory intensive.

paul - this is just my 2c but I really wouldn't want to have to download an install a .NET VM onto my machine in order to convert files to MIDI :(

Having a vb500.dll isn't too bad, but the whole .NET framework? Ouch!

Quote

> > > I've read Microsoft C# book and some stuff about the .NET platform.
> > > C# itself seems overally ok.

> > > But, comparing .NET to Java... how many people enjoy using a slow, memory consuming Java application on their desktop ?

> > I guess I meant in terms of being OS-independent. I'll have to admit I'm not an expert on Java (or any language for that matter).

> > .NET compiled binaries seem to have about the same execution speed as any other program, but apparently they _can_ be pretty memory intensive.

>
> paul - this is just my 2c but I really wouldn't want to have to download an install a .NET VM onto my machine in order to convert files to MIDI :(

> Having a vb500.dll isn't too bad, but the whole .NET framework? Ouch!

Yeah. I can see how this would turn a lot of people off. I think, though, that one of these days .NET will become like DirectX -- required.

Also, I've made a few improvements to vgm2mid while re-writing it, and it would be possible to incorporate some of them in vgm2mid using VB5, so I may do so. On the other hand, .NET eliminates a lot of the grunt work associated with file I/O, which has allowed me to create some very tight code. The more I program with .NET. the less incentive I see in going back to VB5.

We'll see what happens... :)

Paul

Quote

> > > > I've read Microsoft C# book and some stuff about the .NET platform.
> > > > C# itself seems overally ok.

> > > > But, comparing .NET to Java... how many people enjoy using a slow, memory consuming Java application on their desktop ?

> > > I guess I meant in terms of being OS-independent. I'll have to admit I'm not an expert on Java (or any language for that matter).

> > > .NET compiled binaries seem to have about the same execution speed as any other program, but apparently they _can_ be pretty memory intensive.

> >
> > paul - this is just my 2c but I really wouldn't want to have to download an install a .NET VM onto my machine in order to convert files to MIDI :(

> > Having a vb500.dll isn't too bad, but the whole .NET framework? Ouch!

> Yeah. I can see how this would turn a lot of people off. I think, though, that one of these days .NET will become like DirectX -- required.

DirectX is not required to convert a MIDI file though.
You can run your program on Windows 95A probably, it would be a shame to jump from 1994 to 2002.

Quote

> Also, I've made a few improvements to vgm2mid while re-writing it, and it would be possible to incorporate some of them in vgm2mid using VB5, so I may do so. On the other hand, .NET eliminates a lot of the grunt work associated with file I/O, which has allowed me to create some very tight code. The more I program with .NET. the less incentive I see in going back to VB5.

> We'll see what happens... :)

> Paul

Quote

> .NET compiled binaries seem to have about the same execution speed as any other program, but apparently they _can_ be pretty memory intensive.

They're actually slower to run due to the pseudo-ASM to host machine conversion on startup.

Author	Message
Paul Jensen Joined: 29 Jun 1999 Posts: 254 Location: California, USA; Hiroshima, Japan	vgm2mid .NET Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2002 9:19 am
	Hello, Got a copy of Visual Basic .NET today. It's quite a bit different from previous versions. And since all of the 'for users of previous versions' help is for VB6 -- which I've never used (vgm2mid is written in VB5) -- well, let's just say I've got a lot of work to do. I figure I'll have to re-write most of the code from scratch, but it'll give me a chance to really take advantage of the new features of the language. .NET seems to be very promising. Among the cooler interface improvements are transluscent forms for Win2000/XP, and GDI+, which supports splines, rotation, translation, gradient fills, texture fills, anti-aliasing , alpha channels -- pretty useful stuff. And I guess .NET is supposed to be a lot like Java in that it can run on any computer that has the runtime installed. Maybe I can create a better GUI. Also, transluscent PNG-encoded bitmaps can now be used. They look really nice. Pity IE still doesn't display them properly. Yes, I'm rambling, but that's only because it's 3:30 AM. ;)

fx Joined: 09 Sep 2001 Posts: 236 Location: Umeå, Sweden	Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2002 11:00 am
fx Joined: 09 Sep 2001 Posts: 236 Location: Umeå, Sweden	Quote > Hello, > Got a copy of Visual Basic .NET today. It's quite a bit different from previous versions. And since all of the 'for users of previous versions' help is for VB6 -- which I've never used (vgm2mid is written in VB5) -- well, let's just say I've got a lot of work to do. > I figure I'll have to re-write most of the code from scratch, but it'll give me a chance to really take advantage of the new features of the language. > .NET seems to be very promising. Among the cooler interface improvements are transluscent forms for Win2000/XP, and GDI+, which supports splines, rotation, translation, gradient fills, texture fills, anti-aliasing , alpha channels -- pretty useful stuff. And I guess .NET is supposed to be a lot like Java in that it can run on any computer that has the runtime installed. Doesn't sound like Microsoft to create something that can be run under other software than microsoft's own. =) Quote > Maybe I can create a better GUI. > Also, transluscent PNG-encoded bitmaps can now be used. They look really nice. Pity IE still doesn't display them properly. > Yes, I'm rambling, but that's only because it's 3:30 AM. ;)

Bock Site Admin Joined: 08 Jul 2001 Posts: 8653 Location: Paris, France	Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2002 12:51 pm
	[...] Without ruining your motivation, does a VGM2MID converter really needs an 48 bits alpha-blended interface ? - It may be better having a tool working on all Windows version ?

Paul Jensen Joined: 29 Jun 1999 Posts: 254 Location: California, USA; Hiroshima, Japan	Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:42 pm
	Quote > [...] > Without ruining your motivation, does a VGM2MID converter really needs an 48 bits alpha-blended interface ? - It may be better having a tool working on all Windows version ? I guess I put too much emphasis on the GDI. But you probably can imagine how it feels to go from having to hand-design a nice-looking interface to being able to do so using intrinsic features. I doubt I'll be using many (if any) of those features for vgm2mid, but they're nice to have. Aside from, and more important than that is that .NET is simply more current than what I had been using. Also, VB seems to be a lot closer to C than it used to be. I have always been somewhat of a C wannabe. ;) As for compatibility, the runtimes are supposed to be compatible with Win98 on up, and possibly even Win95. But since .NET is aimed at competing with Java, so we'll probably be seeing runtimes available for other OSes as well. And apparently programs using .NET don't have to be installed per se -- all you have to do is copy all a program's files into a directory. Uninstall by deleting the dir. Funny thing I noticed about the Visual Studio IDE is that the HTML designer is, at least IMO, much nicer and more streamlined than Frontpage. It produces really tight HTML without adding all that style crap that Word uses. Sorry if this whole thing sounds like an ad for .NET, but I think that MS is on the right track here.

Bock Site Admin Joined: 08 Jul 2001 Posts: 8653 Location: Paris, France	.NET [ot] Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2002 11:25 pm
	[...] Quote > As for compatibility, the runtimes are supposed to be compatible with Win98 on up, and possibly even Win95. But since .NET is aimed at competing with Java, so we'll probably be seeing runtimes available for other OSes as well. [...] Quote > Sorry if this whole thing sounds like an ad for .NET, but I think that MS is on the right track here. I've read Microsoft C# book and some stuff about the .NET platform. C# itself seems overally ok. But, comparing .NET to Java... how many people enjoy using a slow, memory consuming Java application on their desktop ?

Paul Jensen Joined: 29 Jun 1999 Posts: 254 Location: California, USA; Hiroshima, Japan	Re: .NET [ot] Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2002 2:07 am
	Quote > I've read Microsoft C# book and some stuff about the .NET platform. > C# itself seems overally ok. > But, comparing .NET to Java... how many people enjoy using a slow, memory consuming Java application on their desktop ? I guess I meant in terms of being OS-independent. I'll have to admit I'm not an expert on Java (or any language for that matter). .NET compiled binaries seem to have about the same execution speed as any other program, but apparently they _can_ be pretty memory intensive. Anyway, I guess we'll see what happens.

dave Guest	Re: .NET [ot] Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2002 9:02 pm
dave Guest	Quote > > I've read Microsoft C# book and some stuff about the .NET platform. > > C# itself seems overally ok. > > But, comparing .NET to Java... how many people enjoy using a slow, memory consuming Java application on their desktop ? > I guess I meant in terms of being OS-independent. I'll have to admit I'm not an expert on Java (or any language for that matter). > .NET compiled binaries seem to have about the same execution speed as any other program, but apparently they _can_ be pretty memory intensive. paul - this is just my 2c but I really wouldn't want to have to download an install a .NET VM onto my machine in order to convert files to MIDI :( Having a vb500.dll isn't too bad, but the whole .NET framework? Ouch!

Paul Jensen Joined: 29 Jun 1999 Posts: 254 Location: California, USA; Hiroshima, Japan	Re: .NET [ot] Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2002 5:05 am
	Quote > > > I've read Microsoft C# book and some stuff about the .NET platform. > > > C# itself seems overally ok. > > > But, comparing .NET to Java... how many people enjoy using a slow, memory consuming Java application on their desktop ? > > I guess I meant in terms of being OS-independent. I'll have to admit I'm not an expert on Java (or any language for that matter). > > .NET compiled binaries seem to have about the same execution speed as any other program, but apparently they _can_ be pretty memory intensive. > > paul - this is just my 2c but I really wouldn't want to have to download an install a .NET VM onto my machine in order to convert files to MIDI :( > Having a vb500.dll isn't too bad, but the whole .NET framework? Ouch! Yeah. I can see how this would turn a lot of people off. I think, though, that one of these days .NET will become like DirectX -- required. Also, I've made a few improvements to vgm2mid while re-writing it, and it would be possible to incorporate some of them in vgm2mid using VB5, so I may do so. On the other hand, .NET eliminates a lot of the grunt work associated with file I/O, which has allowed me to create some very tight code. The more I program with .NET. the less incentive I see in going back to VB5. We'll see what happens... :) Paul

dave Guest	Re: .NET [ot] Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 2:49 pm
dave Guest	Quote > > > > I've read Microsoft C# book and some stuff about the .NET platform. > > > > C# itself seems overally ok. > > > > But, comparing .NET to Java... how many people enjoy using a slow, memory consuming Java application on their desktop ? > > > I guess I meant in terms of being OS-independent. I'll have to admit I'm not an expert on Java (or any language for that matter). > > > .NET compiled binaries seem to have about the same execution speed as any other program, but apparently they _can_ be pretty memory intensive. > > > > paul - this is just my 2c but I really wouldn't want to have to download an install a .NET VM onto my machine in order to convert files to MIDI :( > > Having a vb500.dll isn't too bad, but the whole .NET framework? Ouch! > Yeah. I can see how this would turn a lot of people off. I think, though, that one of these days .NET will become like DirectX -- required. DirectX is not required to convert a MIDI file though. You can run your program on Windows 95A probably, it would be a shame to jump from 1994 to 2002. Quote > Also, I've made a few improvements to vgm2mid while re-writing it, and it would be possible to incorporate some of them in vgm2mid using VB5, so I may do so. On the other hand, .NET eliminates a lot of the grunt work associated with file I/O, which has allowed me to create some very tight code. The more I program with .NET. the less incentive I see in going back to VB5. > We'll see what happens... :) > Paul

Bock Site Admin Joined: 08 Jul 2001 Posts: 8653 Location: Paris, France	Re: .NET [ot] Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2002 9:04 am
	Quote > .NET compiled binaries seem to have about the same execution speed as any other program, but apparently they _can_ be pretty memory intensive. They're actually slower to run due to the pseudo-ASM to host machine conversion on startup.

Forums

View topic - vgm2mid .NET