Visual Basic - Open vs FSO vs API

Author

Open vs FSO vs API

MyndPhlyp

2005-11-27, 6:55 pm

I need to work with binary data files (read-only if it matters).

According to an MSDN Library document (Processing Files with Older File I/O
Statements and Functions) it rambles on about ...

"Ever since the first version of Visual Basic files have been processed
using the Open statement and other related statements and functions. These
mechanisms will eventually be phased out in favor of the FSO object model
but they are fully supported in Visual Basic 6.0."

Unfortunately AV utilities, such as Norton AntiVirus, get paranoid when FSO
is used with various FSO Methods such as GetFile (just to name one).

With Open being phased out and FSO raising alerts, does this mean the only
other alternative left is to utilize API calls? If so, could you please
shove me in the general direction of the APIs I should look into?

Bob Butler

2005-11-27, 6:55 pm

"MyndPhlyp" <nobody@homeright.now> wrote in message
news:%233iz0x18FHA.3660@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
> I need to work with binary data files (read-only if it matters).
>
> According to an MSDN Library document (Processing Files with Older
> File I/O Statements and Functions) it rambles on about ...
>
> "Ever since the first version of Visual Basic files have been
> processed using the Open statement and other related statements and
> functions. These mechanisms will eventually be phased out in favor of
> the FSO object model but they are fully supported in Visual Basic
> 6.0."
>
> Unfortunately AV utilities, such as Norton AntiVirus, get paranoid
> when FSO is used with various FSO Methods such as GetFile (just to
> name one).
>
> With Open being phased out and FSO raising alerts, does this mean the
> only other alternative left is to utilize API calls? If so, could you
> please shove me in the general direction of the APIs I should look
> into?

If you are using VB6 just use Open. VB6 is the end of the line so the whole
language was "phased out". If you ever decide to port your code from VB to
something else you'll have much bigger issues than replacing the file I/O.

--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net: "Fool me once..."

MyndPhlyp

2005-11-27, 6:55 pm

"Bob Butler" <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ee4UpA28FHA.1292@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> If you are using VB6 just use Open. VB6 is the end of the line so the
whole
> language was "phased out". If you ever decide to port your code from VB
to
> something else you'll have much bigger issues than replacing the file I/O.

Hmm. No more VB? Looks like there is a VB 2005.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/

Bob Butler

2005-11-27, 6:55 pm

"MyndPhlyp" <nobody@homeright.now> wrote in message
news:uxNP3I28FHA.1032@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl
> "Bob Butler" <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ee4UpA28FHA.1292@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> Hmm. No more VB? Looks like there is a VB 2005.

looks can be deceiving; "VB 2005" is the latest version of VB.Net and is a
*very* different language. Code written for VB 6 and earlier often can not
be used without substantial rewrites. Only the simplest code will port
directly and even then there are differences in how some things work. MS is
calling their new product "VB" but I'm not sure whether they are trying to
convince the users or themselves. Either way, it's a misnomer.

--
Reply to the group so all can participate
VB.Net: "Fool me once..."

Rick Rothstein [MVP - Visual Basic]

2005-11-27, 6:55 pm

> > If you are using VB6 just use Open. VB6 is the end of the line so
the
> whole
from VB[color=darkred]
> to
file I/O.[color=darkred]
>
> Hmm. No more VB? Looks like there is a VB 2005.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/

Originally, after abandoning the classic versions of VB (VB6 and
earlier) Microsoft brought out a similar, but very different, language
called VB.NET. This language contained some similarities to the
classic VB line of programs in its core language constructs (If, For,
and the like); but, beyond this, the languages are **very** different.
Many of us VB-Classic programmers consider the VB.NET line of
languages to be completely new languages (they are that different).
Anyway, Microsoft has been playing around with the name of this new
language since it was introduced. The first 2 versions included the
".NET" moniker, the last and current versions have dropped it.

Rick

J French

2005-11-27, 6:55 pm

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:52:38 -0500, "MyndPhlyp" <nobody@homeright.now>
wrote:

<snip>

>Hmm. No more VB? Looks like there is a VB 2005.
>
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/

We do not consider that VB

If you knew what you were talking about, you would say the same
- you might use it - if bribed

.... but you would not call it VB

Paul Clement

2005-11-28, 6:55 pm

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:52:38 -0500, "MyndPhlyp" <nobody@homeright.now> wrote:

¤
¤ "Bob Butler" <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote in message
¤ news:ee4UpA28FHA.1292@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
¤ >
¤ > If you are using VB6 just use Open. VB6 is the end of the line so the
¤ whole
¤ > language was "phased out". If you ever decide to port your code from VB
¤ to
¤ > something else you'll have much bigger issues than replacing the file I/O.
¤
¤ Hmm. No more VB? Looks like there is a VB 2005.
¤
¤ http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/

Yes there is, but because the migration path can be difficult some Classic VB developers believe the
core language is different, despite the fact that a very high percentage of it is still intact.

Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Ken Halter

2005-11-28, 6:55 pm

"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote in message
news:re5mo1p1o23qvis168c0c66qudnqclbh37@
4ax.com...
> ¤
> ¤ Hmm. No more VB? Looks like there is a VB 2005.
> ¤
> ¤ http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/
>
> Yes there is, but because the migration path can be difficult some Classic
> VB developers believe the
> core language is different, despite the fact that a very high percentage
> of it is still intact.
>
>
> Paul
> ~~~~
> Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Then... it should be easy to simply load a VB6 project into .Net and run.

There's a big difference between a language that's "still intact" and one
that's "still compatible" or even "still works as expected"

Kool-aid... Kool-aid.... tastes great! Kool-aid... Kool-aid... Can't WAIT!

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
DLL Hell problems? Try ComGuard - http://www.vbsight.com/ComGuard.htm
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

Paul Clement

2005-11-28, 6:56 pm

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:27:10 -0800, "Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote:

¤ "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote in message
¤ news:re5mo1p1o23qvis168c0c66qudnqclbh37@
4ax.com...
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ Hmm. No more VB? Looks like there is a VB 2005.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/
¤ >
¤ > Yes there is, but because the migration path can be difficult some Classic
¤ > VB developers believe the
¤ > core language is different, despite the fact that a very high percentage
¤ > of it is still intact.
¤ >
¤ >
¤ > Paul
¤ > ~~~~
¤ > Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
¤
¤ Then... it should be easy to simply load a VB6 project into .Net and run.
¤
¤ There's a big difference between a language that's "still intact" and one
¤ that's "still compatible" or even "still works as expected"
¤
¤ Kool-aid... Kool-aid.... tastes great! Kool-aid... Kool-aid... Can't WAIT!

I'm not talking about the language extensions, I'm talking about the core language, which despite
the claims is not "very different". The distinction between the language extensions and the language
has been repeatedly made when arguing against the original changes made in VB.NET. Now all of a
sudden you want to combine them again and call all of it "the language".

If you don't consider VB.NET or 2005 to be VB then you need to make up your mind and define what you
think VB *is* so we can all judge for ourselves.

Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Sponsored Links