Talk:Visual Basic (.NET)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Proposed rename[edit]

Since Microsoft has dropped the .NET designation from Visual Basic 2005 and later, I propose renaming the Visual Basic and Visual Basic .NET articles to more closely match current usage.

  1. Rename "Visual Basic" to "Visual Basic Classic". ("Visual Basic" would temporarily become a redirect.)
  2. Enlist someone good with AutoWikiBrowser to replace the 500+ mainspace links to "Visual Basic".
  3. Rename "Visual Basic .NET" to "Visual Basic". (Replace redirect. Administrator access needed.)
  4. Leave "Visual Basic .NET" as a redirect to "Visual Basic" (Automatic with rename)
  5. Adjust the {{dablink}} templates at the top of each page.

As I think about it, step 2 above will probably need someone who can make judgement calls as to whether existing Visial Basic links specifically refer to classic, or are generic references that can remain unchanged. Opinions? -- Tcncv (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no interest in voicing an opinion one way or the other? I hesitate to make the move without further input, but the Wikipedia "be bold" guideline would support going ahead with the move. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's still VB.NET. People still call it that. We both know how different it is from VB6. I guess MS changed the name for the 2005 version, but it's almost identical to the 2003 one. At least semantically, it was .NET from 2001 to 2005.--Djnghfg (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a VB developer and I've stopped calling it VB.NET. I think the rename makes sense. Also, not sure about "almost identical": the jump between versions 2003 and 2005 seemed bigger to me than both the 2002-to-2003 move and the 2005-to-2008 move, though obviously not remotely comparable to the VB6-to-.NET migration. 13:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.173.51 (talk)
Yeah, 2005 was definitely an improvement, although I wouldn't call it a new language.--Djnghfg (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated proposal[edit]

No consensus reached above. How about an alternative:

  1. Rename "Visual Basic" to "Visual Basic (classic)".
  2. Rename "Visual Basic .NET" to "Visual Basic (.NET)".
  3. Change the "Visual Basic" redirect to point to "Visual Basic (.NET)".
  4. Adjust the {{dablink}} templates at the top of each page.

I don't think a disambiguation page is necessary. While I'm sure there is still a significant level of interest in classic, I believe the .NET page should be the main target for a bare "Visual Basic" lookup. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge The VB6 and VB.NET articles into one article called "Visual Basic." Otherwise, you'll make it into a maze.--Djnghfg (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that would be a good idea. Although marketed under the same brand name and have many similarities, there are significant differences in areas such as core language syntax, data types, memory model, run-time-library, and many other aspects. However, If you'd like to take on the task, you can start by creating a merge proposal (preferably using the procedure outlined here) and see what kind of response you get. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making is that breaking up the articles into many smaller ones is not the way to go. You could leave it the way it is (being less fragmented) or you could integrate them into a single article (the least fragmented). Most encyclopedias would include them in a single entry, and I actually found this article by typing the words "Visual Basic" into the search box. You suggest that I start a proposal, but I do not believe in such bureaucratic prodigalities. I am perfectly willing to let you do whatever you want to the article, even if I think it's a bad idea. It's not as if this is being sent to a publisher or anything, so do whatever you want.--Djnghfg (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't anyone is advocating splitting 2001-2003 from 2005-and-later. It was mainly the VB6 to VB.NET (VB7) where one product was essentially replaced with a new one, which is why we currently have two articles. And I support keeping it that way. My proposal was to adjust the naming to better match current usage, not the content. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should merge everything into one article. We don't really have enough content to justify having more than one article. There's a lot of duplication between the articles we already have. Merging them together into a single narrative would be a good starting point for future expansion, too. Warren -talk- 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, this new proposal is better than the previous one. Second, I would not merge the articles together. VB.NET is a complete from the ground-up rewrite. They really are two separate languages have almost no relationship to each other. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. They are two different products. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No change for another six months to a year[edit]

I suggest we leave the article names the same for a while longer. I know the prevailing Wikipedia view is to let the majority name have the precidence, but that view works best for countries and single entities. It doesn't work as well for two historic versions of similar but different related objects, especially when both articles are somewhat substancial.

Alternatively/also I suggest we begin merging the content of Visual Basic .NET into Visual Basic, with two major sections. If that works then VB.NET can just redirect to VB.

Mark Hurd (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd resist a merge since despite sharing a name, they are two different products/languages. If compare it to the difference between C++ and C#. They share many syntax similarities, but there are significant differences. As for the rename, why should we delay? Common usage (at least that to which I am exposed to) is that an unqualified "Visual Basic" now refers to the VB.NET product, while VB6 and earlier are commonly called "Visual Basic Classic", "VB Classic" or "Classic VB". Microsoft has also dropped the .NET from the recent releases. And for those arrive at the wrong page, the disambiguation links will still be at the top of the article.
I was actually thinking about making the moves this week, but will wait if further discussion is needed. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this doesn't seem to be a high traffic article. You would think that VB.NET developers would be frequent users of the Internet and therefore Wikipedia, that doesn't seem to be the case. (Personally, having been around the block a few times, VB.NET will always be VB.NET to me no matter what Microsoft's marketing folks says its current name is.) That reminds me, I think Wikipedia's policy is to name articles according to the most popular terms that people use. So if people are still calling this VB.NET even if Microsoft isn't, we're supposed to go with what people are using. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that you start a "Visual Basic Classic" redirect now: at present that doesn't seem to point to anything. If you start a redirect for VBC now, other articles can be pointed at the redirect, and it only needs to be updated in one place, and authors can be clear about what they want to point to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this going to happen? A cursory examination of the literature (search Google for "visual basic") reveals that A Quest For Knowledge's claim that everyone's still calling it "VB.NET" is (now?) false. The persistence of the VB6 page as "Visual Basic" this long after VB6's replacement constitutes a statement about the "true" identity of VB, IMO. 58.7.149.143 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between VB.NET to VB6 are outdated[edit]

The article has a large part comparing VB.Net to VB 6. I think that should all be removed apart from may be a small reference to the origin of BASIC itself. Nobody would consider "upgrading" a VB 6 project (after being amazed that they still exist) to a .Net version without completely rewriting it as the languages are further apart than the difference between a T-Ford and a Ford Mondeo. At the start of the ".Net-era", programmers might have been interested in the differences between the new language and the one they were using, but now a rewrite of a VB 6 project resembles rewriting a COBOL project.

If any comparison should be made, it should of course be to C#. I hate C# because it shows it was meant to be shorthand for assembly and by now combines that with LINQ. I'm not the one who should change this article, but someone should. Joepnl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Rename[edit]

The .NET suffix has not been used for a long time. The language is simply called "Visual Basic" nowadays, not "VB.NET". 86.150.195.140 (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally. Even on MSDN, the language is referred to as Visual Basic, not Visual Basic.NET. JoeWang4 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There is already a Visual Basic article. What are we supposed to do with that? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most people seem to refer to it as Classic VB but its not a name which sits well with me. Particularly since there are still other venders of Visual Basic. Its just that Microsoft is the most popular.SaintGerbil (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above, if correct, means THIS article is WRONG. I don't understand WHY it has been allowed to stand for so long. In addition, the article on Visual Basic is also WRONG. To give the OBVIOUS answer to the question "what do we call the other article?", we call it Visual Basic 6.0 (and its predecessors). VB6 is 16 years old and is a curiosity for the vast majority of coders - just like Fortran or Cobol. Visual Basic is Microsoft's adaptation of BASIC to handle the GUI/mouse programming for simple Windows programs in the early 1990's. With the introduction of Windows 3.0, Microsoft finally had a fairly robust entry into GUI Operating Systems and providing entry-level programmers the ability to code with Windows reinforced the different business model compared to Apple's insular vertically integrated approach. I view VB6.0 as an ancestor, or earlier version, of what VB is today. Clearly to be consistent with reality, the MAIN article on VB should be about the CURRENT version and shouldn't be qualified as .NET specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.77.81 (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You didn't answer my question: Supposing that you are right, what exactly are we supposed to do now? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about merging the current "Visual Basic" one into the History subsection of this one? And then either renaming this one "Visual Basic" or leaving the name and redirecting the name "Visual Basic" into the History subsection. Eykeklos Omnia (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated - 2012[edit]

Visual Studio 2012 has been released--time to update? kazu (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Notation[edit]

From the article: "The 'cmd' prefix is replaced by the 'btn' prefix, conforming to the new convention previously mentioned."

Hungarian notation is discouraged by Microsoft

Rather than get into what we should and should not be doing with standard why not follow the other examples and use the default values i.e. "Button1" rather than btnClose.

It avoids new developers starting bad habits and avoids the issues around standards. SaintGerbil (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old IDE desktop icon at top of article[edit]

Keeping the desktop icon of some obsolete IDE at the top of the infobox for a language article is totally arbitrary. It is not an official logo of the VB.NET language, nor is it related to the image below. Not a single article for any other programming language has this. It is like putting an old NetBeans IDE desktop icon at the top of the Java article, or a C# Express 2008 desktop icon at the top of the C# article. Karpouzi (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Thanks for the explanation, though I am not sure how I was supposed to get all this from your edit summary, "vb express stopped in 2010". I don't understand what you mean by "official": Microsoft has created this and put it in the corresponding product, hence it is official. If it is outdated, it should be updated, not removed; an old logo is better than no logo. On the other hand, if you are suspected of forgery (hence your "official" comment), we can request the uploaders – RJKings (talk), FleetCommand (talk), Arjun G. Menon (talk) – to join in.
And if you haven't seen logos in any other article, well, here is a couple of links to get you started with "seeing": Visual C++, Visual C#, F#, Axum, Oxygene.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing the logo of a programming language with the desktop icon of an IDE. I think I clearly stated which I was referring to. The infoboxes for F#, Axum, Oxygene, Java, Ruby, Python and almost all the others have "logo = " displaying the official logo taken from the website, not an icon from an IDE. Karpouzi (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are implying that IDE is an unreliable source, I don't see how it can be anything beyond a technical difference. VB.NET, C# and VC are developed by Microsoft, hence their nature corresponds to the commercial focus of Microsoft. That Microsoft has recently shifted its language-oriented focus to a platform and purpose-oriented one does not make these logos unofficial. They are still Microsoft's. And most importantly, I don't know why you switched from age discussion to origin discussion. So, feel free to obtain their replacement from either website or IDE. I don't mind. Unless, of course, there is something you haven't said.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax[edit]

This article is just a stub, right? WHY is Syntax the first section after the lede? Using the C++ article as a template, its first section is "History". Its obvious that spending a bit of time on (historical) context is NECESSARY for any good encyclopedia article, isn't it? Isn't it also obvious that this should come sooner rather than later? I also have some concrete suggestions to expand the contents of the section:
1."Groups of statements are terminated with keywords such as "End If", or "End Sub", instead of using braces. Braces are also known as curly brackets "{}"s and are the convention used by languages such as C and C++." This is terrible. Let me give you an example:
Dim a As Long

If TRUE Then

  a = 1+1/3

End If

So, what is the "group" of statements which "End If" terminates? Specifically, are we claiming that "If True Then" is a statement?!? We are certainly implying that the Dim statement, as part of the "group", needs a keyword to be terminated, right? Also, please explain to me how the (implicit) Namespace is (explicitly) terminated when writing code? It is not. This statement ONLY makes sense to those programmers who understand what a compound statement is. How useful is this? In C & C++, I can toss { and } around a bunch of statements and create a block or compound statement, there IS no equivalent in VB. VB has single (logical) line statements which are "terminated" by the end-of-line (new line) (eg. Dim A As Integer)(eg. A = A + 3) OR compound statements ( or enclosing language structures such as Class, Module, Function, Namespace) which begin with a line containing a keyword (possibly preceded by modifiers) and are terminated with a line with another keyword. For...Next; If...Then...End If; Class...End Class are examples of compound statements. In C++ the end of a line of code has no importance and is generally ignored.
2."Statements are terminated with a new line, instead of semicolons - the convention used by languages such as Pascal and C." See above. It is just NOT TRUE. eg If Then End If is NOT terminated by a end-of-line.
3."Variables are both assigned and compared using an equals sign." How about: The "=" symbol is used to both assign and to compare. (compare this to Pascal use of := to assign and = to compare, or to C which assigns with = and compares with ==).
4."Round Brackets are used with arrays, both to declare them and to get a value at a given index in one of them, as compared to languages such as C which use Square Brackets for array declaration and access." This is NOT the only use of ( and ) and is such a minor point that it does NOT BELONG HERE, imho. Perhaps in a table comparing various language features in C, C++, BASIC, Pascal,...?
5. Comments are single line and are started with the single quote character '. Replace with: "Comments must occupy an entire line, and begin with a single quote character, '. This means that comments can NOT added to a line of code. Most other modern languages allow insertion of comments on the line they are applicable to, which can make the code easier to follow. Also, multiline comments must have each line begun with a '. This doesn't allow blocks of code to be quickly "commented out" (and so ignored by compiler) which can be a great aid to debugging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.77.81 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax comparisons in article (VB6, C# etc)[edit]

According to your revert argument, you must also remove the entire section comparing VB.NET and VB6 syntax. WP:SS allows for a summary section in the main article, and the comparison is basic and short.

Also, there is exactly zero unnecessary syntax in the C# examples, which were based on the official documentation from Microsoft below. If there is, then feel free to modify it, instead of deleting the whole thing.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/06tc147t.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/5011f09h.aspx

Karpouzi (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Please don't put word in my mouth; I feel no obligation too keep an extremely low quality example just because a high quality one exists; nor do I feel the obligation to delete a high-quality example just because a low quality one is deleted.
Violating a founding policy such as WP:NPOV is unacceptable, be it by you or by Microsoft documentations. C# and VB.NET have important differences like Ternary operators.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Visual Basic" as per WP:COMMONNAME[edit]

Requested move 25 April 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Visual Basic moved to Visual Basic (classic). This discussion has been open for 100 days and the last relisting 3 weeks ago elicited zero response, so it's beyond stale. These moves were first proposed over a decade ago so seem overdue. There is consensus that the original, legacy, classic version is no longer the primary topic however there is no consensus retronym, so parenthetical disambiguation seems in order. Of the alternatives (original), (legacy), (1991–2008), etc. – (classic) seems to be the most popular. It's the term proposed here, has support in 2021 sites such as here, the redirect Visual Basic Classic was created back in May 2009‎, and this target was proposed in January 2009. There is no consensus at this time that Visual Basic .NET is the primary topic but I will work to minimize direct links to Visual Basic, which should help to provide more clarity on the matter. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– As per WP:COMMONNAME, when people say "programming in Visual Basic" today, they are most likely referring to Visual Basic .NET, not VB6. Microsoft's official website simply calls it "Visual Basic". Félix An (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Félix An (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Colin M (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 17:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to Visual Basic 6 as classic Visual Basic without providing reliable sources demonstrating that it is indeed the common name is simply using Wikipedia to make up facts. Start by providing the sources. TEDickey (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can call it Visual Basic (legacy) or something like that. Félix An (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think would be a suitable name to refer to VB6? I could use some help finding some reliable sources to find a good name to describe VB6. Félix An (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Request at Talk:Visual Basic merged into this one) – Thjarkur (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current topic covers Visual Basic 5 and 6 (so renaming it to "Visual Basic 6" wouldn't work well). But looking to see what's a suitable common-name involves more than a talk-page discussion (talk pages are never reliable sources, but are places to discuss sources TEDickey (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – As per WP:COMMONNAME. More recent books also just refer to the .NET version as Visual Basic e.g. ISBN 978-0136076957, ISBN 978-1593270742, ISBN 978-0132546867, ISBN 978-1285197975 etc. The old version is now generally refered to as Classic Visual Basic (e.g. in the TIOBE index and in the literature) see: [1], [2], [3] Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that "Classic Visual Basic" is a common name to refer to the old Visual Basic. Félix An (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a specfic version of the Classic Visual Basic. There is also Visual Basic 5 etc. just like we have Visual Basic 2005, 2010 etc. refering to the more current (.NET based) variant. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – I can't even count how many times I've ended up here instead of Visual Basic .NET. Besides that, the official language spec calls VB.NET just 'Visual Basic'. Cindercat 🐱 (Want to talk?) 09:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming to Visual Basic; Support renaming to Classic Visual Basic. Visual Basic refers ambiguously to Visual Basic .NET or Classic Visual Basic, so this title should be a disambiguation page. Jarble (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Visual Basic" should be a dab page or an overview article covering all forms of VB -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move of this article, I don't think it's a primary topic and having .NET is a good WP:NATURALDIS disambiguator. Re the other article it could be moved, as it isn't likely the PTOPIC either, but I'd oppose "Classic Visual Basic" that sounds like an actual name, and it isn't called that in most sources. Something along the lines of Visual Basic (original) would probably be best. Annoyingly, the most commonly-used name in the industry is "VB6", but as noted above that's too narrow a definition, since there were also earlier versions.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal: Merge both articles into one simply called Visual Basic. The .NET variant started with version 2002 (VB 7.0) – right where VB 6.0 ended. The technology under the hood between both versions is not that important (and can be explained in detail in the article). Compare that to the Microsoft Windows article which covers early MS-DOS / Windows 9x based versions as well as the more modern Windows NT family and Windows CE etc. From a user perspective (UI) they are quite similar (and are all usually just called "Windows"), just like the syntax in Visual Basic between different versions is quite similar. It would solve a lot of issues regarding which article links to which version of the language and we would not need a disambiguation page for just 2 articles. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment My reading of the discussion so far is that there is universal agreement that "Classic Visual Basic" is not the primary topic for Visual Basic. But there is disagreement as to whether Visual Basic .NET is the primary topic, or if this is a WP:NOPRIMARY situation. For those who support the former, it would be helpful to know whether you find the latter option (make Visual Basic a disambiguation page) acceptable as a second choice. i.e. Do you think it's at least superior to the status quo? (There's also the third option recently proposed by Ghettoblaster to consider.) Colin M (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
regarding a suggested merge: the two pages are (after formatting) more than 100,000 characters, which is the suggested limit on topic-size. Merging would make the result much larger than than limit (there's little repetition between the two) TEDickey (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per buidhe / Amakuru; create a very short 2-entry disambig page. Move the 6.0 article to Classic Visual Basic or the like (Visual Basic (original)? Visual Basic (1991–2008)?) (I'm skeptical about "Classic", "6.0" or "VB6" is how it's really referred to but the article includes pre-6 versions so we can't use that, but not sure there's a good disambiguator either). Keep VB .NET at its current title. SnowFire (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can contain more than just these 2, there's VBA, VBscript, for a better sized 4dab -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 10 December 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Basic .NET → Visual Basic (.NET) – The page was recently moved to Visual Basic (.NET), but the move has since been reverted. Should the page be left as "Visual Basic .NET", or should it be moved to "Visual Basic (.NET)" (like A Sharp (.NET))? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Microsoft's docs [4] specifically says "Using Visual Basic makes it fast and easy to create type-safe .NET apps.". Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 23:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per official Microsoft documentation. It is officially just called "Visual Basic". Félix An (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Visual_Basic_(.NET)&oldid=1208645287"