Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news-spur2.glorb.com!homer.glorb.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Steve Sobol Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Android---Why Dalvik? Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:57:21 -0700 Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: xoAFiuXnRqdiUJrjkwExXQ.user.posting2.glorb.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@glorb.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:57:25 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4 X-Notice: Scanned by Mr. Bill Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5225 In article , Michael Wojcik says... > > VB is not called »VB.NET« anymore. > > It certainly is by many people, regardless of what Microsoft choose to > call it. And the term is useful to distinguish it from pre-.NET > versions of VB. I've never called it VB7. I don't call my currently-installed version VB 2010, either. (or VB10, because according to Help|About, it's actually version 10.0.40219.1 Service Pack 1.) I can think of one exceedingly good reason to call VB, from version 7 forward, VB.NET: it allows me to write .NET managed code, which VB6 doesn't. :) -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net