VBA Rubberducking

this

00:00

IINM, generics are just compile-time rules but in runtime, it's just plain non-generics (right?)

Mathieu Guindon

oh, not that I know of. ever heard of constructed types?

this

don't think so.

Duga

RELOAD!

[Phrancis/TwitterTools] 9 commits. 121 additions. 54 deletions.

Mathieu Guindon

using reflection to create a generic type is fun

Duga

[rubberduck-vba/Rubberduck] 23 commits. 4 opened issues. 1 closed issue. 4 issue comments. 4908 additions. 857 deletions.

[Zomis/Fighting] 1 commit. 60 additions. 8 deletions.

this

00:02

@MathieuGuindon uh, yeah. Found out that the hard way in my mocking PR. :\

Duga

[Zomis/Server2] 2 commits. 74 additions. 79 deletions.

[Minesweeper] New Users: 21, Games Played: 65, Bombs Used: 36, Moves Performed: 8084

Mathieu Guindon

a static field in a generic type is shared across all instances of the constructed type

mansellan

@this nope, IL knows about them

alexandrnikitin.github.io/blog/dotnet-generics-under-the-hood

Mathieu Guindon

so a Something<Foo> and a Something<Bar> each get their own

@mansellan yup, that's how you get Something`1

mansellan

contrast to Java, where they're just syntax-sugar that the runtime knows bugger all about.

Vogel612

00:04

@this IL and runtime needs to know about them for dealing with dynamic dispatch and vtable lookup

also for specializing generic types at runtime, which you can do via reflection

this

Thanks for the edumation!

Vogel612

for Java that's not quite as relevant, because there always is a vtable attached to everything that can be in a generic

that's not true for C#, where value types are valid generic specializations

Mathieu Guindon

via boxing

(accessing a struct through an interface it implements)

this

interesting. the linked article suggests that generalizing on value types can lead to memory explosion

but I imagine that's relatively rare since most of times, we care about and work w/ reference types.

mansellan

00:22

@MathieuGuindon tbf, the reflection API makes it about as easy as it could, given its vintage and the complexity involved. It's not that bad...

At least you can make a generic type through reflection, unlike, uh... some other languages cough

uh, did we lose you @IvenBach?

this

well, reflection predated generics, didn't it?

I think that's why when dealing w/ generics, it feels quite.... tacked on

finding a member on a non-generic type? Easy-peasy. Doing the same with generics? uhhhh, hmmm, erm....

Pretty much why I decided to just use a library so I don't have to deal with the Hunt the ~~Generics~~ Wumpus! crap.

mansellan

yeah, true. there's all sorts of things they wouldn't do if .net was new today. Non-generic IEnumerable being one.

Even in net core, where they had a cleaner slate, they had to carry some stuff to avoid too much breakage.

Well not so much breakage as "easier migration"

Mathieu Guindon

@mansellan and screw com interop!

mansellan

@MathieuGuindon They're getting there :-) They have COM interop, they just don't generate TLBs just yet. They have it on plan, and even today I think we could work around it if need be. After all, we generate our own IDL... @this could probably confirm/deny.

this

opened an issue

so yes they will bring it over.... eventually.

mansellan

00:37

devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/announcing-net-core-3-0-preview-5

> You can now create COM-callable managed components, on Windows. This capability is critical to use .NET Core with COM add-in models, and also to provide parity with .NET Framework.

Vogel612

noice

mansellan

back in preview 5...

@this IIUC, the TLB issue just means we can't generate an RD lib that VBA can reference?

Mathieu Guindon

which "just" means unit testing, fakes, mocks, all go down the drain for now

this

I can just compile a TLB out of thin air with MIDL....

mansellan

uh, outside my specialty! sorry!

Mathieu Guindon

00:40

...barring wizardry of course

this

but I do not know for sure if the .NET Core DLL will be 100% compatible because TLB is basically "here's a map into so and so"

which is why you can compile a TLB without even implementing the DLL at all

but your DLL better conform to the TLB's description or you're screwed.

mansellan

I thought the TLB was just for early binding Intellisense niceness. I'm guessing it's more than that...

@this oh! I thought that was sarcasm!

whoosh

this

Nope. In fact I did that yesterday or day before to prove a point.

mansellan

so... we could work around it, even today?

(not suggesting we should)

this

Aug 18 at 21:56, by this

mansellan

00:43

nice :-)

this

Maybe. Need to be test because as I said, the DLL must conform to the TLB's description. From the other GH issue I linked few days earlier, a guy proved that he can late-bind in VB6 to .NET Core

just not early-bind.

Ah yes I knew I was forgetting something - in .NET FX, you have marshaler doing the hard work for you of proxying

I am not yet clear if we still have that in .NET Core. So, need to test.

mansellan

ah ok fair enough. but my point stands - they've put a lot of work into com interop, they just couldn't get every use-case done before v3.

that's fine, so long as they finish by v5 in a couple of years, we're golden.

this

^

> With .NET Framework, we used mscoree.dll as the COM server. With .NET Core, we provide a native launcher dll that gets added to the component bin directory when you build your COM component.

That's the key point - the native DLL that's generated by the core has to be the one that implements the specifications - if it's incomplete in its implementation, then early binding may fail

with FX, mscoree.dll provided the universal marshaler.

mansellan

yeah, iiuc they've moved from a system-wide, generic host to a per-library host that's built alongside each project.

this

pretty much.

IvenBach

00:50

@mansellan work ended and had to make it to a chiro appt. I’m trying to catch up.

mansellan

@this ...which I couldn't persuade the VBE to load. But I suspect that's my failing, not the tech.

@IvenBach ignore the geek-speak and focus on the generics explanations.

this

latebound?

mansellan

as an addin, so no.

this

@mansellan sorry for derailing, @IvenBach - ignore my rambling questions. :)

@mansellan yeah, addin pretty much must be early-bound.

mansellan

suspect I was missing some registry settings, need to re-read your wiki page.

this

00:53

Note that with FX, it adds few extra keys esp. to the CLSID subkey that the universal marshaler uses -- that is not part of the COM. I bet you that the .NET Core won't use that trickery anymore

mansellan

Yeah, need to dig into it some more.

IvenBach

@mansellan I understand the idea of gernerics from a hand wavey perspective. I can use them as well. I just don’t 100% rock solid understand them all. Lack of daily usage...

mansellan

@IvenBach If you're using .net, you'll be using generics even if you don't realise. They underpin everything these days.

It gets fun when you try to define your own generics. In fact, you can't really grok them until you do.

this

@IvenBach IDK if you saw but did you attach a debugger and look at what it actually contained?

it'll tell you the actual object at runtime and you can then better inference than just a generic object

IvenBach

IObservableCollection, Ienumerable<TestEplorerUnitTest> and one other.

I think IEnumerable was the last common interface before object.

this

00:59

I'm pretty sure the TestExplorerUnitTest has to have an interface.

does it?

actually it hit me

if we did go to the trouble of writing a shim, then using .NET Core is easier because binding is at shim, not on the .NET assembly

mansellan

Uhm, sounds epiphanal, but I don't follow?

this

remember the discussion about creating C++ shims?

mansellan

yes

this

well, if we wrote the same thing targeting .NET core, that's just the same thing

mansellan

but not following why core makes it easier?

this

01:11

no no no

i mean, writing our own C++ shim would be easier than trying to get it to work in half-assed OOB implementation (or waiting for it to be full-assed)

mansellan

So... use that instead of the net core-supplied host?

this

sure. who's up for some C++?

:)

mansellan

Uh, I watched a youtube the other day :) pointers look fun :-)

OTOH, net core is all MIT, we could always use it as a base...

this

@mansellan why, yes, yes they are!

mansellan

How would that help with the missing TLB problem though?

rofl

this

01:19

because we are implementing the shim, which means we are implementing the DLL in conformance to the IDL description.

then we can just proxy the call

mansellan

:brain-tickle:

I'm conviced that owning the environment bootstrapping will also yield debugging opportunities we just don't have today too.

this

yep, that, too.

remember, Wayne found the problems because he basically bootstrapped RD himself

mansellan

^

I swear he wrote his own proxy...

Or more likely, reused one he had lying around :-)

But yeah, ultimately a shim receives the COM call, and proxies it somewhere. ATM, that's mscoree.dll, forwarding to netfx. No reason it has to be...

That's just where we have the reg entries pointing.

this

exactly

mansellan

so.. Core 3 at GA? ;-)

In all seriousness, perhaps not. But I think we should be looking into it sooner rather than later.

mansellan

01:37

ttgtb

Vogel612

@mansellan well, we actually might go with GA because of the build system

not sure what would break, though, soo ...

Mathieu Guindon

@this I think this might be the WP commenter:

0

Q: How do I run the VBA msi installer dependencies based on install options using WiX?

I am in the process of creating a new WiX 3.x installer project for our older integration product that depends on the VBA SDK in Visual Studio 2017. Our product currently uses an extremely outdated InstallShield project that I've determined isn't really salvageable and selected WiX for various r...

What's that compound name you gave RD's installer setup again? looks like they need that!

(not sure how answerable that is on SO though)

IvenBach

02:19

@this Model.Tests is of type ObservableCollection<TestMethodViewModel>.

Results is of type ICollectionView.

_state.AllUserDeclarations is of type IEnumerable<Parsing.Symbols.Declaration>.

this

@MathieuGuindon not very. I don't have enough details to go on. Left a comment. We use heat.exe, not Burn --- that's the bootstrapper.

@IvenBach and you are supposed to output what?

Mathieu Guindon

:+1:

IvenBach

ExportFormatter.CSV, XmlSpreadsheetNew and RTF expect object[][] data.

Mathieu Guindon

interesting

IvenBach

HtmlClipboardFormat is also used.

Mathieu Guindon

02:34

object[][] is not a 2D array though

55

A: What is a jagged array?

A jagged array is an array of arrays. string[][] arrays = new string[5][]; That's a collection of five different string arrays, each could be a different length (they could also be the same length, but the point is there is no guarantee that they are). arrays[0] = new string[5]; arrays[1] = n...

IvenBach

#ExposingMyIgnorance

Mathieu Guindon

#JustLearning

"Array of arrays", Eric Lippert

apparently jagged array access is much faster than 2D array access

#StillLearning

hmm, comments from 2009 are probably no longer relevant lol

this

02:59

what would you all say to using WixSharp -- it's something I found out recently about. The only reason I kept using InnoSetup was because of complex scripting that would have been madness to express in declarative mode that WiX expects.

Mathieu Guindon

ooh, nice!

this

No more Pascal!

Mathieu Guindon

> Another important feature is the support for custom UI including WPF external UI

WPF! your favorite!

this

LOL

at least we can make it duck-shaped!

Mathieu Guindon

now that's an idea...

this

03:03

Thanks for volunteering to write the XAML!

>:D

Mathieu Guindon

github.com/retailcoder/SimonSays/blob/master/SimonSays/…

I'd just put the ducky xaml in there

the white is the background, not the window

this

That's cool

Mathieu Guindon

:)

#WPFRocks

this

for this kind of stuff sure. I can see why it rocks.

for simple stuff? mwahahaha

Mathieu Guindon

yeah

that UI was my first time using xaml storyboards

this

03:08

anyway, glad to see that WiX has a solution - I do like the idea of using WiX but I had to keep on using InnoSetup back then. If there's a need to update installer might look at it.

that should at least come after there's EM re-introduced back in the ducky.

Mathieu Guindon

yeah

lol

this

#TryingNotToGetDistractedByShinyThings

GN!

IvenBach

Night.

Mathieu Guindon

'night!

IvenBach

03:21

I'm feeling like a derp for not seeing a solution...

IvenBach

04:21

I've given up for tonight. Night pond.

Mathieu Guindon

'night!

IvenBach