|
code
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
VB.NET DiscussionHello,
I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build software applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now looking VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very easily. I find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an app running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing something? Here is a sample of my coding which you could find at: http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same way in VB.NET? Thanks!
Show quote
"Sharrukin Amiri" <sharru***@amtekcenter.com> wrote in message YES you have to change your style of coding. One of the major plusses of news:6TPee.18328$VL3.788136@news20.bellglobal.com... > Hello, > > I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build software > applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now looking > VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very easily. I > find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an app > running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing something? Here > is > a sample of my coding which you could find at: > > http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm > > P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same way in > VB.NET? > > Thanks! > VS.Net is the support for object oriented programming - true OOP and not the half-assed support that VB6 has. To get the most from this tool you have to use OOP techniques and that requires not only different coding but a whole new way of thinking about and planning apps. I find that a good part of the complaining about .Net comes from people who do not understand this and want it to be just an upgrade to VB6. Well, that's just not what it is. Yes .Net has various problems, and VB6 remains a viable tool for many situations, but IMO you need to know both to be a competent Windows programmer. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message Yep, keep telling yourself that. It's a good way to ignore the real issue.news:eIwTEVqUFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl > I find that a good part of the complaining about .Net comes > from people who do not understand this and want it to be just an > upgrade to VB6. -- Reply to the group so all can participate VB.Net: "Fool me once..." "Bob Butler" <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote in message Which is .... ?news:uQ$Q53qUFHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:eIwTEVqUFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl >> I find that a good part of the complaining about .Net comes >> from people who do not understand this and want it to be just an >> upgrade to VB6. > > Yep, keep telling yourself that. It's a good way to ignore the real > issue. > I have been following this thread for a while and have yet to see any truly significant issues raised. Sure there are real issues with .Net, and they should not be ignored, but they are to be expected with a totally new development tool. And, most important, none of them rise to the level of seriously impeding development work (I am sure you can find a few obscure examples, but so what?). Other "issues" that people have raised are exactly as I describe - the result of someone not bothering to learn what .Net is or how to use it. Then there are the psychological factors - several people have staked out an anti-net stance and will defend it to the death despite all evidence. Well, I guess that's the way it is. I and many others are completing various complex projects faster and with fewer bugs thanks to .Net while you and others are whining on the newsgroup. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message Another member of the "I don't get it" crowd, I see...news:%23vNMz8KVFHA.3044@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > Well, I guess that's the way it is. I and many others are completing > various complex projects faster and with fewer bugs thanks to .Net while > you and others are whining on the newsgroup. > Do you happen to have about 10 years worth of code that you're willing to simply toss in the trash? How about the documents and certifications for that code.. No problem. Just re-hire all of the outside test personnel and get them to recertify 3/4 gigs of code. What a wonderful "upgrade". But no you say? Just use interop on all of the components? What good is "managed" code then? How about the prices? Mom and Pops software house is just going to jump for joy when they rec'v a bill for their VS Team System + MSDN subscription at $10k. Wonderful. btw.. if you're so "sold on .Net", why troll this group? There are plenty (more than VB has) .Net groups available. That's where all of the "real" developers hang out, after all. -- Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com Sign up now to help keep VB support alive - http://classicvb.org/petition Please keep all discussions in the groups..
Show quote
"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message You are being really silly. And claiming that other people "don't get it" to news:uNCb7LLVFHA.3244@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:%23vNMz8KVFHA.3044@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> >> Well, I guess that's the way it is. I and many others are completing >> various complex projects faster and with fewer bugs thanks to .Net while >> you and others are whining on the newsgroup. >> > > Another member of the "I don't get it" crowd, I see... > > Do you happen to have about 10 years worth of code that you're willing to > simply toss in the trash? How about the documents and certifications for > that code.. No problem. Just re-hire all of the outside test personnel and > get them to recertify 3/4 gigs of code. What a wonderful "upgrade". But no > you say? Just use interop on all of the components? What good is "managed" > code then? How about the prices? Mom and Pops software house is just going > to jump for joy when they rec'v a bill for their VS Team System + MSDN > subscription at $10k. Wonderful. > > btw.. if you're so "sold on .Net", why troll this group? There are plenty > (more than VB has) .Net groups available. That's where all of the "real" > developers hang out, after all. > hide your own ignorance is really telling. Toss code in the trash - when did I suggest that? Never, so it is your own straw man. I maintain existing VB6 projects as VB6 projects and strongly recommend against upgrading to .Net unless there is a compelling reason to do so (a situation I have not come across yet). As far as I am concerned, ..Net is for new projects only - and then not all new projects because VB6 is just fine for some of them. Perhaps there are some .Net programmers who are pressuring clients to upgrade existing projects without good reason, but that's not a problem with .Net, it is a problem with those programmers. And why do you accuse me of trolling? Nothing I have ever posted here could remotely be considered a troll. I am an active and experienced VB6 programmer and come here to both ask and answer questions. Got a problem with that? It sounds like you are name calling to cover the weakness of your arguments. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message Funny. Assuming that everyone that doesn't use .Net is ignorant. Your "own news:OtLNZfLVFHA.3696@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > You are being really silly. And claiming that other people "don't get it" > to hide your own ignorance is really telling. ignorance is really telling" Troll. Search Google's group search for your name there troll boy. See how many useful posts you've authored. -- Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com Sign up now to help keep VB support alive - http://classicvb.org/petition Please keep all discussions in the groups.. The part that you don't seem to understand is that there *is* a
compelling reason to move code from VB6 to a language that is currently supported by it's vendor. That reason is that it is now far more likely that your VB6 code will become broken by updates to current Windows versions and future versions of the OS. The fact that it will take HUGE amounts of time to rewrite your VB code in whatever new language you move it to means that you can't just wait until it is broken and *then* do something about it. Instead, you must start rewriting *now* so that you'll be ahead of the game when that time comes. This is the problem with all of the "just leave the code in VB6" crap. It would be extremely foolish to do so and akin to being deaf and walking down the railroad track assuming that, just because you don't see the train coming, it won't run you down. Bryan ____________________________________________________________ New Vision Software "When the going gets weird," Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro." alpine_don'tsendspam@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson - Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas On Mon, 9 May 2005 12:55:02 -0400, "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote: Show quote >"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:uNCb7LLVFHA.3244@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:%23vNMz8KVFHA.3044@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>> >>> Well, I guess that's the way it is. I and many others are completing >>> various complex projects faster and with fewer bugs thanks to .Net while >>> you and others are whining on the newsgroup. >>> >> >> Another member of the "I don't get it" crowd, I see... >> >> Do you happen to have about 10 years worth of code that you're willing to >> simply toss in the trash? How about the documents and certifications for >> that code.. No problem. Just re-hire all of the outside test personnel and >> get them to recertify 3/4 gigs of code. What a wonderful "upgrade". But no >> you say? Just use interop on all of the components? What good is "managed" >> code then? How about the prices? Mom and Pops software house is just going >> to jump for joy when they rec'v a bill for their VS Team System + MSDN >> subscription at $10k. Wonderful. >> >> btw.. if you're so "sold on .Net", why troll this group? There are plenty >> (more than VB has) .Net groups available. That's where all of the "real" >> developers hang out, after all. >> > >You are being really silly. And claiming that other people "don't get it" to >hide your own ignorance is really telling. > >Toss code in the trash - when did I suggest that? Never, so it is your own >straw man. I maintain existing VB6 projects as VB6 projects and strongly >recommend against upgrading to .Net unless there is a compelling reason to >do so (a situation I have not come across yet). As far as I am concerned, >.Net is for new projects only - and then not all new projects because VB6 is >just fine for some of them. Perhaps there are some .Net programmers who are >pressuring clients to upgrade existing projects without good reason, but >that's not a problem with .Net, it is a problem with those programmers. > >And why do you accuse me of trolling? Nothing I have ever posted here could >remotely be considered a troll. I am an active and experienced VB6 >programmer and come here to both ask and answer questions. Got a problem >with that? It sounds like you are name calling to cover the weakness of >your arguments. I recently built up an XP box. Installed the VB portion of VS6 and installed
the latest beta of VB2005 Even put in MASM and made that work. Then I took a large, to me, VB6 project and let VB2005 do it's thing. When I started looking through the results I decided I was old enough to be senile or dead before I had to use VB.Fred Galen Show quote "alpine" <alpine_don'tsendspam@mvps.org> wrote in message news:iq8v715an5v19ntvbirq5rup7et4rouu6i@4ax.com... > The part that you don't seem to understand is that there *is* a > compelling reason to move code from VB6 to a language that is > currently supported by it's vendor. That reason is that it is now far > more likely that your VB6 code will become broken by updates to > current Windows versions and future versions of the OS. The fact that > it will take HUGE amounts of time to rewrite your VB code in whatever > new language you move it to means that you can't just wait until it is > broken and *then* do something about it. Instead, you must start > rewriting *now* so that you'll be ahead of the game when that time > comes. > > This is the problem with all of the "just leave the code in VB6" crap. > It would be extremely foolish to do so and akin to being deaf and > walking down the railroad track assuming that, just because you don't > see the train coming, it won't run you down. > > Bryan > ____________________________________________________________ > New Vision Software "When the going gets weird," > Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro." > alpine_don'tsendspam@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson - > Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas > > > On Mon, 9 May 2005 12:55:02 -0400, "Peter Aitken" > <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote: > > >"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:uNCb7LLVFHA.3244@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > >> "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message > >> news:%23vNMz8KVFHA.3044@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > >>> > >>> Well, I guess that's the way it is. I and many others are completing > >>> various complex projects faster and with fewer bugs thanks to .Net while > >>> you and others are whining on the newsgroup. > >>> > >> > >> Another member of the "I don't get it" crowd, I see... > >> > >> Do you happen to have about 10 years worth of code that you're willing to > >> simply toss in the trash? How about the documents and certifications for > >> that code.. No problem. Just re-hire all of the outside test personnel and > >> get them to recertify 3/4 gigs of code. What a wonderful "upgrade". But no > >> you say? Just use interop on all of the components? What good is "managed" > >> code then? How about the prices? Mom and Pops software house is just going > >> to jump for joy when they rec'v a bill for their VS Team System + MSDN > >> subscription at $10k. Wonderful. > >> > >> btw.. if you're so "sold on .Net", why troll this group? There are plenty > >> (more than VB has) .Net groups available. That's where all of the "real" > >> developers hang out, after all. > >> > > > >You are being really silly. And claiming that other people "don't get it" to > >hide your own ignorance is really telling. > > > >Toss code in the trash - when did I suggest that? Never, so it is your own > >straw man. I maintain existing VB6 projects as VB6 projects and strongly > >recommend against upgrading to .Net unless there is a compelling reason to > >do so (a situation I have not come across yet). As far as I am concerned, > >.Net is for new projects only - and then not all new projects because VB6 is > >just fine for some of them. Perhaps there are some .Net programmers who are > >pressuring clients to upgrade existing projects without good reason, but > >that's not a problem with .Net, it is a problem with those programmers. > > > >And why do you accuse me of trolling? Nothing I have ever posted here could > >remotely be considered a troll. I am an active and experienced VB6 > >programmer and come here to both ask and answer questions. Got a problem > >with that? It sounds like you are name calling to cover the weakness of > >your arguments. > Notice that, nowhere in what I wrote below, do I advocate rewriting
code in VB#. Writing code in VB# would be akin to being deaf and walking down the railroad track assuming that, just because you don't see the train coming, it won't run you down. But anyone with even 1/2 a brain would know that already. ;-) Bryan On Mon, 9 May 2005 12:22:17 -0700, "Galen Somerville" <ga***@surewest.net> wrote: Show quote >I recently built up an XP box. Installed the VB portion of VS6 and installed ____________________________________________________________>the latest beta of VB2005 >Even put in MASM and made that work. > >Then I took a large, to me, VB6 project and let VB2005 do it's thing. > >When I started looking through the results I decided I was old enough to be >senile or dead before I had to use VB.Fred > >Galen > >"alpine" <alpine_don'tsendspam@mvps.org> wrote in message >news:iq8v715an5v19ntvbirq5rup7et4rouu6i@4ax.com... >> The part that you don't seem to understand is that there *is* a >> compelling reason to move code from VB6 to a language that is >> currently supported by it's vendor. That reason is that it is now far >> more likely that your VB6 code will become broken by updates to >> current Windows versions and future versions of the OS. The fact that >> it will take HUGE amounts of time to rewrite your VB code in whatever >> new language you move it to means that you can't just wait until it is >> broken and *then* do something about it. Instead, you must start >> rewriting *now* so that you'll be ahead of the game when that time >> comes. >> >> This is the problem with all of the "just leave the code in VB6" crap. >> It would be extremely foolish to do so and akin to being deaf and >> walking down the railroad track assuming that, just because you don't >> see the train coming, it won't run you down. >> >> Bryan >> ____________________________________________________________ >> New Vision Software "When the going gets weird," >> Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro." >> alpine_don'tsendspam@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson - >> Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas >> >> >> On Mon, 9 May 2005 12:55:02 -0400, "Peter Aitken" >> <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote: >> >> >"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:uNCb7LLVFHA.3244@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> >> "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message >> >> news:%23vNMz8KVFHA.3044@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> >>> >> >>> Well, I guess that's the way it is. I and many others are completing >> >>> various complex projects faster and with fewer bugs thanks to .Net >while >> >>> you and others are whining on the newsgroup. >> >>> >> >> >> >> Another member of the "I don't get it" crowd, I see... >> >> >> >> Do you happen to have about 10 years worth of code that you're willing >to >> >> simply toss in the trash? How about the documents and certifications >for >> >> that code.. No problem. Just re-hire all of the outside test personnel >and >> >> get them to recertify 3/4 gigs of code. What a wonderful "upgrade". But >no >> >> you say? Just use interop on all of the components? What good is >"managed" >> >> code then? How about the prices? Mom and Pops software house is just >going >> >> to jump for joy when they rec'v a bill for their VS Team System + MSDN >> >> subscription at $10k. Wonderful. >> >> >> >> btw.. if you're so "sold on .Net", why troll this group? There are >plenty >> >> (more than VB has) .Net groups available. That's where all of the >"real" >> >> developers hang out, after all. >> >> >> > >> >You are being really silly. And claiming that other people "don't get it" >to >> >hide your own ignorance is really telling. >> > >> >Toss code in the trash - when did I suggest that? Never, so it is your >own >> >straw man. I maintain existing VB6 projects as VB6 projects and strongly >> >recommend against upgrading to .Net unless there is a compelling reason >to >> >do so (a situation I have not come across yet). As far as I am concerned, >> >.Net is for new projects only - and then not all new projects because VB6 >is >> >just fine for some of them. Perhaps there are some .Net programmers who >are >> >pressuring clients to upgrade existing projects without good reason, but >> >that's not a problem with .Net, it is a problem with those programmers. >> > >> >And why do you accuse me of trolling? Nothing I have ever posted here >could >> >remotely be considered a troll. I am an active and experienced VB6 >> >programmer and come here to both ask and answer questions. Got a problem >> >with that? It sounds like you are name calling to cover the weakness of >> >your arguments. >> > New Vision Software "When the going gets weird," Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro." alpine_don'tsendspam@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson - Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas
Show quote
"alpine" <alpine_don'tsendspam@mvps.org> wrote in message I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I cannot news:iq8v715an5v19ntvbirq5rup7et4rouu6i@4ax.com... > The part that you don't seem to understand is that there *is* a > compelling reason to move code from VB6 to a language that is > currently supported by it's vendor. That reason is that it is now far > more likely that your VB6 code will become broken by updates to > current Windows versions and future versions of the OS. The fact that > it will take HUGE amounts of time to rewrite your VB code in whatever > new language you move it to means that you can't just wait until it is > broken and *then* do something about it. Instead, you must start > rewriting *now* so that you'll be ahead of the game when that time > comes. > > This is the problem with all of the "just leave the code in VB6" crap. > It would be extremely foolish to do so and akin to being deaf and > walking down the railroad track assuming that, just because you don't > see the train coming, it won't run you down. > > Bryan > ____________________________________________________________ imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. There are so many of them out there that there would be a storm of protest, not to mention that many organizations who rely on VB6 apps would not buy the new OS if this problem existed. Again in theory it would be smart for everyone to start moving their apps to .Net but as others have pointed out it is a major undertaking. I have poined out to clients who ask that you do not "port" an app from VB6 to .Net, you rewrite it almost from scratch. And guess how many clients want to spend tens of thousands of dollars, including retesting and recertification, just to possibly avoid possible problems several years down the road? You got it, none. I could have made some serious $$ doing the rewrites but I refuse to BS my clients to make money. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:43:06 -0400, "Peter Aitken"
<pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote: Show quote >"alpine" <alpine_don'tsendspam@mvps.org> wrote in message "In theory" MS wouldn't take a programming language with a developer>news:iq8v715an5v19ntvbirq5rup7et4rouu6i@4ax.com... >> The part that you don't seem to understand is that there *is* a >> compelling reason to move code from VB6 to a language that is >> currently supported by it's vendor. That reason is that it is now far >> more likely that your VB6 code will become broken by updates to >> current Windows versions and future versions of the OS. The fact that >> it will take HUGE amounts of time to rewrite your VB code in whatever >> new language you move it to means that you can't just wait until it is >> broken and *then* do something about it. Instead, you must start >> rewriting *now* so that you'll be ahead of the game when that time >> comes. >> >> This is the problem with all of the "just leave the code in VB6" crap. >> It would be extremely foolish to do so and akin to being deaf and >> walking down the railroad track assuming that, just because you don't >> see the train coming, it won't run you down. >> >> Bryan >> ____________________________________________________________ > >I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I cannot >imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. There are so many >of them out there that there would be a storm of protest, not to mention >that many organizations who rely on VB6 apps would not buy the new OS if >this problem existed. Again in theory it would be smart for everyone to >start moving their apps to .Net but as others have pointed out it is a major >undertaking. I have poined out to clients who ask that you do not "port" an >app from VB6 to .Net, you rewrite it almost from scratch. And guess how many >clients want to spend tens of thousands of dollars, including retesting and >recertification, just to possibly avoid possible problems several years down >the road? You got it, none. I could have made some serious $$ doing the >rewrites but I refuse to BS my clients to make money. force of over 6 MILLION (their numbers) and existing code assets numbering in the billions if not trillions of lines and toss forward compatibility for it all out the window. Seems that you can't count on logic any longer where MS is concerned, eh? Bryan ____________________________________________________________ New Vision Software "When the going gets weird," Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro." alpine_don'tsendspam@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson - Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas
Show quote
"alpine" <alpine_don'tsendspam@mvps.org> wrote in message Perhaps not! MS is a business, not a logic factory. But I think that news:2ajv71pt4u870lu52dnbqei2vg031munkp@4ax.com... > On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:43:06 -0400, "Peter Aitken" > <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote: > >>"alpine" <alpine_don'tsendspam@mvps.org> wrote in message >>news:iq8v715an5v19ntvbirq5rup7et4rouu6i@4ax.com... >>> The part that you don't seem to understand is that there *is* a >>> compelling reason to move code from VB6 to a language that is >>> currently supported by it's vendor. That reason is that it is now far >>> more likely that your VB6 code will become broken by updates to >>> current Windows versions and future versions of the OS. The fact that >>> it will take HUGE amounts of time to rewrite your VB code in whatever >>> new language you move it to means that you can't just wait until it is >>> broken and *then* do something about it. Instead, you must start >>> rewriting *now* so that you'll be ahead of the game when that time >>> comes. >>> >>> This is the problem with all of the "just leave the code in VB6" crap. >>> It would be extremely foolish to do so and akin to being deaf and >>> walking down the railroad track assuming that, just because you don't >>> see the train coming, it won't run you down. >>> >>> Bryan >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I cannot >>imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. There are so >>many >>of them out there that there would be a storm of protest, not to mention >>that many organizations who rely on VB6 apps would not buy the new OS if >>this problem existed. Again in theory it would be smart for everyone to >>start moving their apps to .Net but as others have pointed out it is a >>major >>undertaking. I have poined out to clients who ask that you do not "port" >>an >>app from VB6 to .Net, you rewrite it almost from scratch. And guess how >>many >>clients want to spend tens of thousands of dollars, including retesting >>and >>recertification, just to possibly avoid possible problems several years >>down >>the road? You got it, none. I could have made some serious $$ doing the >>rewrites but I refuse to BS my clients to make money. > > > "In theory" MS wouldn't take a programming language with a developer > force of over 6 MILLION (their numbers) and existing code assets > numbering in the billions if not trillions of lines and toss forward > compatibility for it all out the window. Seems that you can't count > on logic any longer where MS is concerned, eh? > maintaining forward compatibility with VB6 would have compromised the new languages. In my opinion, MS made the right choice in making a clean break to create the new development tools without the compromise that would have been required for backward compatibility. I agree however that they should have continued some level of support for the old language because of the enormous developer and code base. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. Peter Aitken wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I The limits of your imagination are duly noted...> cannot imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=321047 "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:u6EPeJYVFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Ouch! [lol]| The limits of your imagination are duly noted... | | http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=321047 | | -- | Working Without a .NET? | http://classicvb.org/petition | It's interesting to note that while Format() is clearly a VBA function, Visual Basic isn't mentioned anywhere in at article (unless I'm missing the obvious). ChrisG (VB6/C#) Chris Gallucci wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Most of what we love/know as VB is really VBA -- check the Object Browser. <g>> news:u6EPeJYVFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> The limits of your imagination are duly noted... >> >> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=321047 > > Ouch! [lol] > > It's interesting to note that while Format() is clearly a VBA > function, Visual Basic isn't mentioned anywhere in at article (unless > I'm missing the obvious). "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Did you bother to read that article? It is a minor glitch in XP that was news:u6EPeJYVFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > Peter Aitken wrote: >> I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I >> cannot imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. > > The limits of your imagination are duly noted... > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=321047 > > -- fixed with a service pack and there is no mention of VB. I can only assume you posted the wrong URL. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote... LOL! You are _such_ a poseur. No assumptions, there! <g>>> Peter Aitken wrote: >>> I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I >>> cannot imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. >> >> The limits of your imagination are duly noted... >> >> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=321047 > > Did you bother to read that article? It is a minor glitch in XP that > was fixed with a service pack and there is no mention of VB. I can > only assume you posted the wrong URL. Have you ever actually worked within Classic VB? Ever looked within the Object browser? Or at what references are made within *every* 32-bit Classic VB application? That KB clearly shows that Microsoft not only can, but has, broken deployed VB applications by shipping new operating systems and/or patches. The trend *will* accelerate as they have now abandoned it from their regression suite.
Show quote
"Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Do you have the slightest idea how silly you sound? You claim that MS is news:Oii6LfaVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Peter Aitken wrote: >> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote... >>> Peter Aitken wrote: >>>> I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I >>>> cannot imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. >>> >>> The limits of your imagination are duly noted... >>> >>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=321047 >> >> Did you bother to read that article? It is a minor glitch in XP that >> was fixed with a service pack and there is no mention of VB. I can >> only assume you posted the wrong URL. > > LOL! You are _such_ a poseur. No assumptions, there! <g> > > Have you ever actually worked within Classic VB? Ever looked within the > Object > browser? Or at what references are made within *every* 32-bit Classic VB > application? > > That KB clearly shows that Microsoft not only can, but has, broken > deployed VB > applications by shipping new operating systems and/or patches. The trend > *will* > accelerate as they have now abandoned it from their regression suite. > -- > Working Without a .NET? > http://classicvb.org/petition > breaking VB applications and the best you can do is a KB article that tells us that (1) There was a minor problem with one function that did not "break" anything, (2) That at worst caused some occasional and minor rounding errors, and (3) Was fixed. Is it April 1st again or what? Calling me names does not advance your argument and in fact is a pretty sure sign of the weakness of your position. If there are problems with VB6 apps breaking then I want to know about them, but quite frankly you don't seem to know what you are talking about. It seems to me that you (and others) have some weird obsession going on with knocking MS and .Net. You've made a few good points but on close examination your position seems to be so much hot air because you cannot back it up with anything but hand-waving. You've become a one-note band and I for one am tired of listening. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message Don't let the door hit you as you leave eh?news:OiS98$hVFHA.2172@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > You've become a one-note band and I for one am tired of listening. -- Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com Sign up now to help keep VB support alive - http://classicvb.org/petition Please keep all discussions in the groups.. Peter,
You asked a "put up or shut up" question. Karl put up an example. Now you want to whine about it. You know VB6 is going to break in upcomming releases. You know it's doubtful they'll even try to patch it. Yet you're asking people whose *mission critical* applications are at risk to put their heads in the sand. While there is risk (as Karl pointed out) in MS breaking VB runtime the far greater risk is with components. I personally don't know of a serious application that does not depend on at least one third party component (a lot more notes for you). Very few of those are still supported because the vendors recognize that with MS abandoning the language they must go elsewhere. Those will break first, and will break the applications. > You've become a one-note band and I for one am tired of listening. So, what are you doing here?Dan Show quote "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message news:OiS98$hVFHA.2172@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message > news:Oii6LfaVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> Peter Aitken wrote: >>> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote... >>>> Peter Aitken wrote: >>>>> I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I >>>>> cannot imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. >>>> >>>> The limits of your imagination are duly noted... >>>> >>>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=321047 >>> >>> Did you bother to read that article? It is a minor glitch in XP that >>> was fixed with a service pack and there is no mention of VB. I can >>> only assume you posted the wrong URL. >> >> LOL! You are _such_ a poseur. No assumptions, there! <g> >> >> Have you ever actually worked within Classic VB? Ever looked within the >> Object >> browser? Or at what references are made within *every* 32-bit Classic VB >> application? >> >> That KB clearly shows that Microsoft not only can, but has, broken >> deployed VB >> applications by shipping new operating systems and/or patches. The trend >> *will* >> accelerate as they have now abandoned it from their regression suite. >> -- >> Working Without a .NET? >> http://classicvb.org/petition >> > > Do you have the slightest idea how silly you sound? You claim that MS is > breaking VB applications and the best you can do is a KB article that > tells us that (1) There was a minor problem with one function that did not > "break" anything, (2) That at worst caused some occasional and minor > rounding errors, and (3) Was fixed. Is it April 1st again or what? Calling > me names does not advance your argument and in fact is a pretty sure sign > of the weakness of your position. If there are problems with VB6 apps > breaking then I want to know about them, but quite frankly you don't seem > to know what you are talking about. It seems to me that you (and others) > have some weird obsession going on with knocking MS and .Net. You've made > a few good points but on close examination your position seems to be so > much hot air because you cannot back it up with anything but hand-waving. > You've become a one-note band and I for one am tired of listening. > > > -- > Peter Aitken > > Remove the crap from my email address before using. > "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message Do you?news:OiS98$hVFHA.2172@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> Do you have the slightest idea how silly you sound? >> You claim that It did break applications; try explaining to a CFO why the numbers don't add>> MS is breaking VB applications and the best you can do is a KB >> article that tells us that (1) There was a minor problem with one >> function that did not "break" anything, up like they did before. "break" is not the same thing as "blue screen". In a lot of cases this sort of subtle change is worse because it can easily go unnoticed for a period of time. >> (2) That at worst caused some occasional and minor rounding errors Which can lead to some very large differences in the bottom line.>> , and (3) Was fixed. Yes, it was fixed. That wasn't the point. The point is that when the nextchange like that affects VB applications there may be no impetus for MS to fix it given that VB is no longer a supported development platform. The response is likely to be 'fixed in next rev' which means complete application rewrites to work around "minor" OS changes. -- Reply to the group so all can participate VB.Net: "Fool me once..." Peter Aitken wrote:
> Do you have the slightest idea how silly you sound? As opposed to you? Not knowing the interrelationship between VB and VBA shows youhaven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. > You claim that MS is breaking VB applications I claim(!) that they have the demonstrated ability to do so, yes. Do you refutethat? > and the best you can do is a KB article It broke the output from the Format function. Output which, presumably, some> that tells us that (1) There was a minor problem with one function > that did not "break" anything, actually relied upon to make business (and other) decisions. Despite your feable attempts to minimize this actual, documented breakage, it was indeed real. > (2) That at worst caused some Correct. (Anyone remember that Martian lander, and it's "minor rounding errors"?)> occasional and minor rounding errors, and > (3) Was fixed. No it's not. It can *never* be fixed, as that's how the OS shipped. Unpatchedinstallations will continue to show this error/breakage until such time as they die. > Is it April As opposed to your ongoing display of ignorance? Poseur.> 1st again or what? Calling me names does not advance your argument > and in fact is a pretty sure sign of the weakness of your position. > If there are problems with VB6 apps breaking then I want to know You have demonstrated quite the opposite.> about them, > but quite frankly you don't seem to know what you are LOL! Poseur.> talking about. > It seems to me that you (and others) have some weird Yes, blame someone else's "weird obsession" when your own starts backfiring. Classic> obsession going on with knocking MS and .Net. (lame) defense. > You've become a one-note band and I for one am tired of listening. Go ahead, let the door spank ya on the axx -- I don't care. <shrug>> ....<snipped>..... You claim that MS is breaking VB It is so nice of you to speak for all of us like that. For your> applications and the best you can do is a KB article > that tells us that (1) There was a minor problem with > one function that did not "break" anything, information, I use the fact that the Format function performs "normal" rounding (not Banker's Rounding) all the time in my code. I even advocate its use in my newsgroup answer when people complain about the way VB rounds numbers ending in "5". So, while this change may not have broken anything YOU write, please don't presume to speak for the rest of us. > (2) That at worst caused some occasional and minor Again, please don't presume to speak for the rest of us like that. To> rounding errors, you (who didn't use this particular feature of the Format function), this may not seem like a big deal; but to those of us who rely on this long-established functionality, a rounding error IS a rounding error and when it occurs, it is NOT a minor thing. > and (3) Was fixed. Yes, thank goodness, a service pack was released to fix it. However, asKarl points out, it is the default installation for XP, so it is out there, in the wild. And we both know there are individuals that just never seem to get around to patching things. A worse situation will occur when a new Service Pack gets released which damages some functionality in VB (don't say it won't happen, the above issue proves Microsoft is capable of screwing up)... since VB is in a "for security issues only" patch mode, Microsoft won't fix such a situation. Hell, they probably won't even know they screwed up since I doubt they will even test their changes against VB-Classic anymore. And what about when they bring out Longhorn? Are you really willing to bet that will go smoothly for us VB-Classic people? > It seems to me that you (and others) have some weird And yet you are still here, reading this thread....> obsession going on with knocking MS and .Net. You've > made a few good points but on close examination your > position seems to be so much hot air because you > cannot back it up with anything but hand-waving. You've > become a one-note band and I for one am tired of listening. Rick - MVP On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:43:06 -0400, "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote: ¤ I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I cannot ¤ imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. A lot of folks seem to be banking on that. Unfortunately it's going to happen eventually and you can expect quite a few companies will be scrambling to rewrite their code and/or simply declaring their current applications obsolete. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Show quote
"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote in message You may be right, I certainly cannot preduct the future. Rewrite now, news:l4r181dlkbg65hba2k036s55kcojded9mq@4ax.com... > On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:43:06 -0400, "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> > wrote: > > ¤ I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I > cannot > ¤ imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. > > A lot of folks seem to be banking on that. Unfortunately it's going to > happen eventually and you can > expect quite a few companies will be scrambling to rewrite their code > and/or simply declaring their > current applications obsolete. > rewrite later, either way you are gambling on something happening or not happening. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using.
Show quote
"Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message news:OTYSdcZVFHA.3176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... Personally, I'm trying to avoid rewrite now AND rewrite later.> "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote in message > news:l4r181dlkbg65hba2k036s55kcojded9mq@4ax.com... > > On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:43:06 -0400, "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> > > wrote: > > > > ¤ I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I > > cannot > > ¤ imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. > > > > A lot of folks seem to be banking on that. Unfortunately it's going to > > happen eventually and you can > > expect quite a few companies will be scrambling to rewrite their code > > and/or simply declaring their > > current applications obsolete. > > > > You may be right, I certainly cannot preduct the future. Rewrite now, > rewrite later, either way you are gambling on something happening or not > happening. > > Show quote > -- > Peter Aitken > > Remove the crap from my email address before using. > > On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:33:14 -0400, "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote: ¤ > wrote:¤ "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote in message ¤ news:l4r181dlkbg65hba2k036s55kcojded9mq@4ax.com... ¤ > On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:43:06 -0400, "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> ¤ > ¤ > ¤ I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I ¤ > cannot ¤ > ¤ imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. ¤ > ¤ > A lot of folks seem to be banking on that. Unfortunately it's going to ¤ > happen eventually and you can ¤ > expect quite a few companies will be scrambling to rewrite their code ¤ > and/or simply declaring their ¤ > current applications obsolete. ¤ > ¤ ¤ You may be right, I certainly cannot preduct the future. Rewrite now, ¤ rewrite later, either way you are gambling on something happening or not ¤ happening. Good point. Which is why I consider it a risk regardless of which decision you make. Technology just isn't as stable for as long as it once was and it's become increasingly competitive. That drives change and you have to be ready to accept it or continue to be disappointed. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote in message happen eventually and you cannews:l4r181dlkbg65hba2k036s55kcojded9mq@4ax.com... > On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:43:06 -0400, "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote: > > ¤ I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I cannot > ¤ imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. > > A lot of folks seem to be banking on that. Unfortunately it's going to > expect quite a few companies will be scrambling to rewrite their code and/or simply declaring their> current applications obsolete. Or not upgrading to the latest Windows.> > > Paul > ~~~~ > Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) Galen "Galen Somerville" <ga***@surewest.net> wrote in message <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com>news:Oeco6wZVFHA.3140@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > > > "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote in message > news:l4r181dlkbg65hba2k036s55kcojded9mq@4ax.com... > > On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:43:06 -0400, "Peter Aitken" Show quote > wrote: This will only be viable if you switch to another OS entirely. Try to order> > > > ¤ I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I > cannot > > ¤ imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. > > > > A lot of folks seem to be banking on that. Unfortunately it's going to > happen eventually and you can > > expect quite a few companies will be scrambling to rewrite their code > and/or simply declaring their > > current applications obsolete. > > > > > > Paul > > ~~~~ > > Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) > > Or not upgrading to the latest Windows. > > Galen > a new PC with Windows NT, or in the case of some vendors, even Windows 2000. It's getting harder and harder. Eventually, the limitations of the 16/32 bit hybrid called VB 6 will be reached. There is a thread currently running in one of the VB classic NGs asking if it's possible to get around the 2Gb limit of VB 6 created files. Before you say that VB 6 isn't a 16/32 bit hybrid, don't forget that some of the shipped controls are limited to 32765 for max values. This is the upper limit of a 16 bit signed number. Also, VB 6 will never truely support 64 bit processors, which in the next 3-5 years will become the majority of systems sold. Eventually, we will be forced by our clients to leave VB 6. Mike Ober. "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message <cut>news:Feege.534$Dh.377@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net > Eventually, we will No doubt about that. The question is where to go to. MS has made it> be forced by our clients to leave VB 6. perfectly clear that VB.Net is not a long-term harbor. -- Reply to the group so all can participate VB.Net: "Fool me once..." Michael D. Ober wrote:
> Before you say that VB 6 isn't a 16/32 bit hybrid, don't That's not actually true. The control *properties* are, alas, clamped to this LCD as> forget that some of the shipped controls are limited to 32765 for max > values. This is the upper limit of a 16 bit signed number. you say. That said, the controls do fully support 32-bits, when used on NT and direct API manipulation. True, if you want to use the underlying API and bypass the COM controls.
The whole idea of using VB is its insulation of the programmer from the underlying Windows API. Since I write in C++/MFC as well, I'm comfortable with the API, but for those VB programmers who haven't the first clue about the API, limitations like these can be serious. And if you monitor the VB Classic NGs, there are frequent questions that are answered by code referencing the Windows API. These are severe limitations in the language. Mike Ober. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message this LCD asnews:unBV1skVFHA.3840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > > Michael D. Ober wrote: > > Before you say that VB 6 isn't a 16/32 bit hybrid, don't > > forget that some of the shipped controls are limited to 32765 for max > > values. This is the upper limit of a 16 bit signed number. > > That's not actually true. The control *properties* are, alas, clamped to Show quote > you say. That said, the controls do fully support 32-bits, when used on NT and > direct API manipulation. > -- > Working Without a .NET? > http://classicvb.org/petition > > > "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message True; a VB7 that extended the language and added native support for many ofnews:Ouzge.1589$OU1.345@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net > And if you monitor the VB Classic NGs, there are > frequent questions that are answered by code referencing the Windows > API. These are severe limitations in the language. the functions commonly implemented via API would have been welcomed. The VB language needed to be extended, not replaced. -- Reply to the group so all can participate VB.Net: "Fool me once..." > > And if you monitor the VB Classic NGs, there are Your last sentence is the key statement. Why is it that all the VB.NET> > frequent questions that are answered by code > > referencing the Windows API. These are severe > > limitations in the language. > > True; a VB7 that extended the language and added > native support for many of the functions commonly > implemented via API would have been welcomed. The > VB language needed to be extended, not replaced. advocates say their language is so great? Could it possibly be that 20Meg library of functionality that was given to them? Do these people really think that a VB6+ (can't call it VB7 as Microsoft mistakenly called VB.NET that<g>) coupled with a 20Meg library of pre-constructed API functionality wouldn't have been every bit as powerful? Rick On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:21:34 -0400, "Rick Rothstein"
<rickNOSPAMnews@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote: ¤ > > And if you monitor the VB Classic NGs, there are ¤ > > frequent questions that are answered by code ¤ > > referencing the Windows API. These are severe ¤ > > limitations in the language. ¤ > ¤ > True; a VB7 that extended the language and added ¤ > native support for many of the functions commonly ¤ > implemented via API would have been welcomed. The ¤ > VB language needed to be extended, not replaced. ¤ ¤ Your last sentence is the key statement. Why is it that all the VB.NET ¤ advocates say their language is so great? Could it possibly be that ¤ 20Meg library of functionality that was given to them? Do these people ¤ really think that a VB6+ (can't call it VB7 as Microsoft mistakenly ¤ called VB.NET that<g>) coupled with a 20Meg library of pre-constructed ¤ API functionality wouldn't have been every bit as powerful? That depends on whether you're referring to implementations specific to Visual Basic (such as extensions) or the actual language. To the former the answer would be no. Most don't fit in an environment where the extensions are shared. To the latter, there isn't enough of a difference between VB.NET and Classic VB for me to care about because I spend far more time learning the .NET Framework. It's what most developers do when moving to VB.NET. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) On Tue, 10 May 2005 13:09:50 -0700, "Galen Somerville" <ga***@surewest.net> wrote: ¤ ¤ "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote in message ¤ > ¤ I'm not sure I agree with you. In theory what you say is true but I¤ news:l4r181dlkbg65hba2k036s55kcojded9mq@4ax.com... ¤ > On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:43:06 -0400, "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> ¤ wrote: ¤ > ¤ cannot ¤ > ¤ imagine MS doing anything with the OS to "break" VB6 apps. ¤ > ¤ > A lot of folks seem to be banking on that. Unfortunately it's going to ¤ happen eventually and you can ¤ > expect quite a few companies will be scrambling to rewrite their code ¤ and/or simply declaring their ¤ > current applications obsolete. ¤ > ¤ > ¤ > Paul ¤ > ~~~~ ¤ > Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) ¤ ¤ Or not upgrading to the latest Windows. So you cut off your nose to spite your face? I don't know too many companies that can afford not to move forward whether it be with a new version of Windows or another OS. If their business can stand pat with their current environment then there is no reason to be concerned with the status of Classic Visual Basic. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) Paul Clement wrote:
> ¤ Or not upgrading to the latest Windows. Hardly. Windows 2000 supports the business needs of most.> > So you cut off your nose to spite your face? > I don't know too many companies that can afford not to move forward I don't know too many companies that *can* afford to move forward, if the only> whether it be with a new version of Windows or another OS. If their > business can stand pat with their current environment then there is > no reason to be concerned with the status of Classic Visual Basic. purpose in doing so is to "move forward." That's idiocy. On Wed, 11 May 2005 10:03:49 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote: ¤ Paul Clement wrote:¤ > ¤ Or not upgrading to the latest Windows. ¤ > ¤ > So you cut off your nose to spite your face? ¤ ¤ Hardly. Windows 2000 supports the business needs of most. ¤ I suppose it will until Microsoft and other vendors stop supporting it. ¤ > I don't know too many companies that can afford not to move forward ¤ > whether it be with a new version of Windows or another OS. If their ¤ > business can stand pat with their current environment then there is ¤ > no reason to be concerned with the status of Classic Visual Basic. ¤ ¤ I don't know too many companies that *can* afford to move forward, if the only ¤ purpose in doing so is to "move forward." That's idiocy. Moving forward isn't the purpose. The purpose is to remain competitive and/or sustain the business. If you can do that on current technology for years and years then you're probably OK. If you can't you have little choice but to move forward or in another direction. But if it's necessary and you can't move forward, regardless of the reason, the business dies...unless you're the government. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) Paul Clement wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 10:03:49 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" At which point, the question of whether "Microsoft support" (oxymoron?) is an actual> <k***@mvps.org> wrote: > > ¤ Paul Clement wrote: > ¤ > ¤ Or not upgrading to the latest Windows. > ¤ > > ¤ > So you cut off your nose to spite your face? > ¤ > ¤ Hardly. Windows 2000 supports the business needs of most. > > I suppose it will until Microsoft and other vendors stop supporting > it. business need, or not, needs to be addressed. Show quote > ¤ > I don't know too many companies that can afford not to move For non-IT businesses (are you even *remotely* aware that such exist?), that's really> forward > ¤ > whether it be with a new version of Windows or another OS. If > their > ¤ > business can stand pat with their current environment then there > is > ¤ > no reason to be concerned with the status of Classic Visual Basic. > ¤ > ¤ I don't know too many companies that *can* afford to move forward, > if the only > ¤ purpose in doing so is to "move forward." That's idiocy. > > Moving forward isn't the purpose. The purpose is to remain > competitive and/or sustain the business. If you can do that on > current technology for years and years then you're probably OK. almost a fundamental truth. Remaining competitive and sustaining the business are objectives almost certainly impeded by staying on the upgrade treadmill. On Wed, 11 May 2005 12:03:40 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote: ¤ Paul Clement wrote:¤ > On Wed, 11 May 2005 10:03:49 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" ¤ > <k***@mvps.org> wrote: ¤ > ¤ > ¤ Paul Clement wrote: ¤ > ¤ > ¤ Or not upgrading to the latest Windows. ¤ > ¤ > ¤ > ¤ > So you cut off your nose to spite your face? ¤ > ¤ ¤ > ¤ Hardly. Windows 2000 supports the business needs of most. ¤ > ¤ > I suppose it will until Microsoft and other vendors stop supporting ¤ > it. ¤ ¤ At which point, the question of whether "Microsoft support" (oxymoron?) is an actual ¤ business need, or not, needs to be addressed. ¤ Yes that's true. If business needs continue to be met by the existing platform and system security isn't at risk then there is no need to upgrade. But then how many companies do you know of that still run Windows 3.x or Windows 95 as their company desktop OS standard? ¤ > ¤ > I don't know too many companies that can afford not to move ¤ > forward ¤ > ¤ > whether it be with a new version of Windows or another OS. If ¤ > their ¤ > ¤ > business can stand pat with their current environment then there ¤ > is ¤ > ¤ > no reason to be concerned with the status of Classic Visual Basic. ¤ > ¤ ¤ > ¤ I don't know too many companies that *can* afford to move forward, ¤ > if the only ¤ > ¤ purpose in doing so is to "move forward." That's idiocy. ¤ > ¤ > Moving forward isn't the purpose. The purpose is to remain ¤ > competitive and/or sustain the business. If you can do that on ¤ > current technology for years and years then you're probably OK. ¤ ¤ For non-IT businesses (are you even *remotely* aware that such exist?), that's really ¤ almost a fundamental truth. Remaining competitive and sustaining the business are ¤ objectives almost certainly impeded by staying on the upgrade treadmill. The company I work for is non-IT business. We provide a service but software is not the basis of our revenue. However, we still need to be able to build software applications more quickly and efficiently and support the service we provide through these software applications, whether they be internally or externally used. We've actually redesigned and rewritten a couple of our applications in the last year or so and were able to do so, using .NET, in considerably less time it took using the previous technologies. It only gets better as we improve our knowledge of the tool. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) Paul Clement wrote:
Show quote > On Wed, 11 May 2005 12:03:40 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" Holy crap! That's gotta be a first. Let's frame that one. <g>> <k***@mvps.org> wrote: > > ¤ Paul Clement wrote: > ¤ > On Wed, 11 May 2005 10:03:49 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" > ¤ > <k***@mvps.org> wrote: > ¤ > > ¤ > ¤ Paul Clement wrote: > ¤ > ¤ > ¤ Or not upgrading to the latest Windows. > ¤ > ¤ > > ¤ > ¤ > So you cut off your nose to spite your face? > ¤ > ¤ > ¤ > ¤ Hardly. Windows 2000 supports the business needs of most. > ¤ > > ¤ > I suppose it will until Microsoft and other vendors stop > supporting > ¤ > it. > ¤ > ¤ At which point, the question of whether "Microsoft support" > (oxymoron?) is an actual > ¤ business need, or not, needs to be addressed. > ¤ > > Yes that's true. > If business needs continue to be met by the existing Too bad you let silliness intrude, though. Personally, I think Microsoft achieved a> platform and system security isn't at risk then there is no need to > upgrade. But then how many companies do you know of that still run > Windows 3.x or Windows 95 as their company desktop OS standard? "State of Good Enough" <tm> in the 2000-series of products. Everyone will, naturally, need to find that balance for themselves. Do you have a philosophicalissue with the concept of "good enough"? > We've actually redesigned and rewritten a couple of our applications Sounds better when the pom-poms move more. <shrug>> in the last year or so and were able to do so, using .NET, in > considerably less time it took using the previous technologies. It > only gets better as we improve our knowledge of the tool. On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:54:33 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote: ¤ > ¤ At which point, the question of whether "Microsoft support"¤ > (oxymoron?) is an actual ¤ > ¤ business need, or not, needs to be addressed. ¤ > ¤ ¤ > ¤ > Yes that's true. ¤ ¤ Holy crap! That's gotta be a first. Let's frame that one. <g> ¤ Hey if not by accident, sooner or later you had to agree with me. ;-) ¤ > If business needs continue to be met by the existing ¤ > platform and system security isn't at risk then there is no need to ¤ > upgrade. But then how many companies do you know of that still run ¤ > Windows 3.x or Windows 95 as their company desktop OS standard? ¤ ¤ Too bad you let silliness intrude, though. Personally, I think Microsoft achieved a ¤ "State of Good Enough" <tm> in the 2000-series of products. Everyone will, ¤ naturally, need to find that balance for themselves. Do you have a philosophical¤ issue with the concept of "good enough"? ¤ Yes, it doesn't last, especially with respect to technology. Besides, what may be good enough for you will probably not be good enough for someone else. ¤ > We've actually redesigned and rewritten a couple of our applications ¤ > in the last year or so and were able to do so, using .NET, in ¤ > considerably less time it took using the previous technologies. It ¤ > only gets better as we improve our knowledge of the tool. ¤ ¤ Sounds better when the pom-poms move more. <shrug> Coming from a dedicated spectator that statement doesn't surprise me. ;-) Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Show quote
"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote in message According to the MS support lifecycle charts:news:ejf4819gofjsio0ccussmec8j60e32ijh7@4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 May 2005 10:03:49 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote: > > ¤ Paul Clement wrote: > ¤ > ¤ Or not upgrading to the latest Windows. > ¤ > > ¤ > So you cut off your nose to spite your face? > ¤ > ¤ Hardly. Windows 2000 supports the business needs of most. > ¤ > > I suppose it will until Microsoft and other vendors stop supporting it. Windows 2000 Professional Mainstream support ends on June 30, 2005. That means "no more" non-security related hotfixes. Windows 2000 SP5 has already been killed by MS. Mike Ober. On Mon, 9 May 2005 11:53:08 -0400, "Peter Aitken"
<pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote: in <#vNMz8KVFHA.3***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl> Show quote >"Bob Butler" <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote in message Well, bully for you. How wonderful.>news:uQ$Q53qUFHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:eIwTEVqUFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl >>> I find that a good part of the complaining about .Net comes >>> from people who do not understand this and want it to be just an >>> upgrade to VB6. >> >> Yep, keep telling yourself that. It's a good way to ignore the real >> issue. >> > >Which is .... ? > >I have been following this thread for a while and have yet to see any truly >significant issues raised. Sure there are real issues with .Net, and they >should not be ignored, but they are to be expected with a totally new >development tool. And, most important, none of them rise to the level of >seriously impeding development work (I am sure you can find a few obscure >examples, but so what?). Other "issues" that people have raised are exactly >as I describe - the result of someone not bothering to learn what .Net is or >how to use it. Then there are the psychological factors - several people >have staked out an anti-net stance and will defend it to the death despite >all evidence. > >Well, I guess that's the way it is. I and many others are completing various >complex projects faster and with fewer bugs thanks to .Net while you and >others are whining on the newsgroup. ..NET could possibly be the greatest thing ever, but I'll never know that because MS will never again have the opportunity to shove it or anything of theirs down my throat again. I'm too busy scrambling to recover my code assets from the trash. When I finish refactoring my bread and butter app in C/C++ (in another year or two) I'll check back with you to see just how overwhelmingly successful you've been. I'm sorry, but nobody but my clients gets to decide when my app is no longer useful. If my clients decide that, then so be it. But for MS to attempt to do that is just plain ludicrous. You can make any argument you want to the contrary, but with no real forward migration path, that is precisely the message that MS has delivered to me. It should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that this is not an anti .net stance. More accurately it is the realization that MS has outgrown the need for the developer base it once relied on. MS no longer cares about or is concerned for the little guy. Heh, 10,000 seats is probably beneath them now in all their magnificence and glory. I have no anti .net stance. I'm just a small businessman trying to survive in a world of giants who can't or no longer want to see me. And I will survive, but only by removing any dependence on the company who made it all possible. Eventually, someone or something will come along to fill the void created by their disdain for the small businessman. --- Stefan Berglund
Show quote
"Stefan Berglund" <keepit@in.thegroups> wrote in message I understand what you are saying and do not disagree with any of it. It's news:kn3v71pkjpoea7veqolcq657a1oaqehct0@4ax.com... > On Mon, 9 May 2005 11:53:08 -0400, "Peter Aitken" > <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote: > in <#vNMz8KVFHA.3***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl> > >>"Bob Butler" <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote in message >>news:uQ$Q53qUFHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>> "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message >>> news:eIwTEVqUFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl >>>> I find that a good part of the complaining about .Net comes >>>> from people who do not understand this and want it to be just an >>>> upgrade to VB6. >>> >>> Yep, keep telling yourself that. It's a good way to ignore the real >>> issue. >>> >> >>Which is .... ? >> >>I have been following this thread for a while and have yet to see any >>truly >>significant issues raised. Sure there are real issues with .Net, and they >>should not be ignored, but they are to be expected with a totally new >>development tool. And, most important, none of them rise to the level of >>seriously impeding development work (I am sure you can find a few obscure >>examples, but so what?). Other "issues" that people have raised are >>exactly >>as I describe - the result of someone not bothering to learn what .Net is >>or >>how to use it. Then there are the psychological factors - several people >>have staked out an anti-net stance and will defend it to the death despite >>all evidence. >> >>Well, I guess that's the way it is. I and many others are completing >>various >>complex projects faster and with fewer bugs thanks to .Net while you and >>others are whining on the newsgroup. > > Well, bully for you. How wonderful. > > .NET could possibly be the greatest thing ever, but I'll never know that > because MS will never again have the opportunity to shove it or anything > of theirs down my throat again. I'm too busy scrambling to recover my > code assets from the trash. When I finish refactoring my bread and > butter app in C/C++ (in another year or two) I'll check back with you to > see just how overwhelmingly successful you've been. > > I'm sorry, but nobody but my clients gets to decide when my app is no > longer useful. If my clients decide that, then so be it. But for MS to > attempt to do that is just plain ludicrous. You can make any argument > you want to the contrary, but with no real forward migration path, that > is precisely the message that MS has delivered to me. > > It should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that this > is not an anti .net stance. More accurately it is the realization that > MS has outgrown the need for the developer base it once relied on. MS > no longer cares about or is concerned for the little guy. Heh, 10,000 > seats is probably beneath them now in all their magnificence and glory. > > I have no anti .net stance. I'm just a small businessman trying to > survive in a world of giants who can't or no longer want to see me. And > I will survive, but only by removing any dependence on the company who > made it all possible. Eventually, someone or something will come along > to fill the void created by their disdain for the small businessman. > not really relevant to my comments though. I too wish that MS had provided a smooth upgrade path to take VB6 apps to bigger and better things. I have written about this and I have signed the petition. But that's very different from all the complaining about .Net itself - that's where my comments were directed. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. "Stefan Berglund" <keepit@in.thegroups> wrote I'd suggest you keep this in the back of your mind, and plan accordingly....> .NET could possibly be the greatest thing ever, but I'll never know that > because MS will never again have the opportunity to shove it or anything > of theirs down my throat again. I'm too busy scrambling to recover my > code assets from the trash. When I finish refactoring my bread and > butter app in C/C++ (in another year or two) I'll check back with you to > see just how overwhelmingly successful you've been. (This is ALL speculation on my part, to suggest what MIGHT happen that would need to be addressed now, to save similar headaches later) Imagine we're at 2010, and LongHorn has been fully deployed with LH SP1 due soon. Security is getting a lot of attention today, so, in a few years: What if MSFT tells the industry that they can gaurentee no malicious will be allowed to run on the desktop, or entire intranet, so long as all code used is 'managed' (.Net) applications, and the administrator has created a 'whitelist' of allowed applications? (Plus maybe a few other device driver certification tests) A gaurantee like that, with 'insurance' money behind it could entice many to want to go that route. If that happens, which is a business decision left up to individual CIO's or other company big-wigs, MSFT would get THEM to effectually axe all non-managed code in that environment. You should consider that a possibility, and what can you do NOW to mitigate your losses, at that time??? If you had known 10 years ago that MSFT would be dropping VB.COM would you have made different decisions? If anyone answers yes to that question, they they are guilty of not planning for that possibility, way back when. Those people who expect their software to last for 20 years or more, have got to look 20 years ahead, as best they can. I am just saying the above scenareo is within the realm of possibility, so those long-term planners don't get broadsided by such a move. If you plan to continue developing applications to run on Windows in that situation, you might want to come up with a Plan B now.... LFS On Mon, 9 May 2005 17:32:42 -0500, "Larry Serflaten"
<serfla***@usinternet.com> wrote: in <ezRI3ZOVFHA.3***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl> Show quote > Unfortunately Larry, the scenario you've painted is all too possible.>"Stefan Berglund" <keepit@in.thegroups> wrote > >> .NET could possibly be the greatest thing ever, but I'll never know that >> because MS will never again have the opportunity to shove it or anything >> of theirs down my throat again. I'm too busy scrambling to recover my >> code assets from the trash. When I finish refactoring my bread and >> butter app in C/C++ (in another year or two) I'll check back with you to >> see just how overwhelmingly successful you've been. > >I'd suggest you keep this in the back of your mind, and plan accordingly.... > >(This is ALL speculation on my part, to suggest what MIGHT happen that >would need to be addressed now, to save similar headaches later) > >Imagine we're at 2010, and LongHorn has been fully deployed with LH SP1 >due soon. > >Security is getting a lot of attention today, so, in a few years: > >What if MSFT tells the industry that they can gaurentee no malicious will >be allowed to run on the desktop, or entire intranet, so long as all code used >is 'managed' (.Net) applications, and the administrator has created a 'whitelist' >of allowed applications? (Plus maybe a few other device driver certification tests) > >A gaurantee like that, with 'insurance' money behind it could entice many to >want to go that route. If that happens, which is a business decision left up to >individual CIO's or other company big-wigs, MSFT would get THEM to >effectually axe all non-managed code in that environment. > >You should consider that a possibility, and what can you do NOW to >mitigate your losses, at that time??? > > >If you had known 10 years ago that MSFT would be dropping VB.COM >would you have made different decisions? If anyone answers yes to that >question, they they are guilty of not planning for that possibility, way back >when. Those people who expect their software to last for 20 years or more, >have got to look 20 years ahead, as best they can. I am just saying the above >scenareo is within the realm of possibility, so those long-term planners don't >get broadsided by such a move. If you plan to continue developing applications >to run on Windows in that situation, you might want to come up with a Plan B >now.... > >LFS In fact, that's precisely what I think MS intends to do. But of course, they wouldn't want to let the cat out of the bag at this stage of the game because others could possibly foment a mutiny. But it certainly makes sense to me. Effectively, they've just put 6 MILLION VBers out to pasture. This is the first step in their long range plans. Can you say Palladium? Ultimately, MS would have it so that there are no developers of code except MS developers. Then all code will be ~safe~. What I want to know is who the hell is going to protect us from Microsoft? --- Stefan Berglund Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Bob Butler" <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote in message In a word: Trust!> news:uQ$Q53qUFHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> "Peter Aitken" <pait***@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:eIwTEVqUFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl >>> I find that a good part of the complaining about .Net comes >>> from people who do not understand this and want it to be just an >>> upgrade to VB6. >> >> Yep, keep telling yourself that. It's a good way to ignore the real >> issue. > > Which is .... ? Succinctly: http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2005/05/09/415751.aspx On Fri, 6 May 2005 15:49:21 -0400, "Sharrukin Amiri" <sharru***@amtekcenter.com> wrote: ¤ Hello,¤ ¤ I am using VB 6.0 for many years. Everytime I needed to build software ¤ applications, I just opened VB 6.0 and started coding. I am now looking ¤ VB.NET Express Edition and I find I can no longer do this very easily. I ¤ find that there is too much copy and paste of code in order to get an app ¤ running. I also find it slow. Is it me or I am missing something? Here is ¤ a sample of my coding which you could find at: ¤ ¤ http://www.amtekcenter.com/amtek/wdwscode.htm ¤ ¤ P.S.: Do I have to change my style of coding? Can I code the same way in ¤ VB.NET? Well I'm sure you had to learn the Classic Visual Basic environment before you could effectively started coding in it. But yes, the .NET environment is different and once again there are new things to learn. Is it slower? Yes, I would say the environment is slower. It's also quite a bit bigger than Classic Visual Basic and architecturally different. In some ways yes you will have to adapt your style because .NET does things differently. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)  
Other interesting topics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
