[Gambas-user] Correct strategy for VB static var conversion to Gambas?

[John Anderson]

On 5/29/2021 8:32 PM, Bruce <adamnt42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/5/21 10:30 am, John Anderson wrote:
>> Well here's the thing...We don't care much about Gambas-type objects 
>> on this project, because 95% of what we're doing IS working directly 
>> with C-Code. So if an object is not C-friendly, it has no use for us. 
>>   We don't care what the source code looks like, as long as it works 
>> exactly the same way the VB6 code has been running since 1998 (i.e. 
>> millions of machine hours testing, running 24/7) - and what you've 
>> done with Gambas is a really good superVB, Benoît !!  Love that J-I-T 
>> stuff for the elaborate code-math sections!!  That also works good on 
>> some XML configuration files we have to read in. Neat! That is a HUGE 
>> upgrade for us right there.
>>
>> Right now, my Sorta-Kinda-Automated VB6 to Gambas Converted Build 
>> helper is being tested to work like this - Because I ain't manually 
>> converting 84,000 lines of code from VB6 to Gambas when -MOST 
>> EVERYTHING- can stay the same...Obviously ON ERROR sections will have 
>> to get tweaked, but doing the following can automate a lot of 
>> conversion from VB world and bridge to Gambas:
>
> Bye.
> Plonk
>
Well, I don't even know what that means or why you sent that response 
off-list- did I cause you to hit yourself in frustration? Drop the 
bottle instead of the mic again???

I have to convert old code, and I have to work with what I got, and what 
I got is C-code that requires regular, standard Stucts to be passed 
around.  If I were starting a brand new project would it be different?  
Perhaps, at least in some places, and I'm sure quicker Gambas objects 
could be used more.  Other places have to work the same.

Gambas itself is terrific overall, I think!  I'm trying to figure out a 
bit more automated way to make the old stuff work the Gambas way, that's 
all.

Sorry that I've upset you <again>.

-John