"Bonj" wrote:

>
> "Mike Cox" <mikecoxli***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3a6rmdF67etjmU1@individual.net...
> > Remember when Coca Cola came out with "New Coke"?  I think VB.NET is the
> > New
> > Coke of the computing world.  Unfortunately, one cannot just stock up on
> > Coca Cola, one must get a new language.  Ruby.  It is a descendant of
> > Algol
> > 60  as is VB.
> >
> > Why switch to .NET when Microsoft is not even using it for its
> > applications?
>
> It probably does - inside its own walls, and possibly even in something like
> the .NET IDE - but I'd be surprised if there's much. They mainly use plain C
> I think, probably because they've got a huge population of programmers built
> up over the years that are strong in it. Since it targets .NET mainly at
> businesses buying it for in-house use, they could even justify admitting to
> not using it for its own applications.
>
> > This sort of reminds me of MFC too, MFC was good enough for other people's
> > programs but never Microsoft's own.
>
> Well some would say MFC's not good enough for any application. I couldn't
> really comment  - I think it's just plain ghastly. There's just no reason
> for it - if you want RAD, you use VB6 or .NET, if you want control, you use
> plain C++ or C.
>
> > But unlike MFC's C++, VB doesn't even
> > get the respect of having a classic version included in VS.NET. C++
> > programmers get to have their cake and eat it too with Managed C++ and
> > regular C++ being supported under VS.NET.  MFC is still there too along
> > with
> > ATL 7.
>
> Think of the markets again. Who mainly wants to build unmanaged
> applications? They've obviously done their research into this question, and
> found it to be software houses, who build shrink-wrapped products. And they
> are the sort of people who would cringe at the thought of any of their
> applications being recognised as having been written in VB. I have often
> noticed that VB6 is used a lot for writing packaged applications, but ones
> that go with b2b service contracts.
>
> >
> > VB developers are getting the short end of the stick.  There was no VB
> > classic support in .NET.  The C++ users got everything they wanted, and VB
> > users got nothing.
>
> Start thinking along different lines of lattitude.... it wasn't a question
> of the big bosses as MS deciding what they were going to 'give' users of
> each language, like santa deciding what children had been good and bad. It
> was probably more simply a case of "who buys the most IDE licenses? - oooh,
> big companies. Let's write a product that *they* will like, for what *they*
> want to use it for - i.e. in house applications and web systems." Sadly,
> they weren't thinking about you the programmer, they were thinking about the
> people who have the beens to decide what programs you're going to write.
> Given that MS had decided to write the .NET framework and a primary language
> to go with it, C#, for their main target audience, i.e. businesses, they
> already had two other major jobs to do - write IJW, and write a VB-like
> language to ease the burden on companies who had people who were incapable
> or unwilling to understand C#, of which there were probably many. Given all
> this work on top, the idea of writing a product that would compile "some new
> form of" VB code to unmanaged binaries was out of the window.
>
> > Goes to show what MS thinks of 60% of their developer
> > base,
>
> Of this 60%, you've got to accept that a certain percentage of these are
> going to be either going to be willing to take up .NET, or forced into it
> because their employers are migrating to it - let's say, a conservative 25%
> of these? That's 15% of the total, which leaves 45% of developers
> disgruntled. But this is probably 45% in number - not revenue. Most of the
> actual *revenue* from software sales comes from programs that are written in
> C++, so this reduce it down to probably less than 10%. And this is still
> only the *developers* themselves that are disgruntled... the question is,
> how much does this matter? Perhaps a better approach than trying to persuade
> them to "let us faithful VB programmers carry on writing unmanaged code
> because we want to" would be to make it matter what language we're more
> comfortable and satisfied in writing in. Moreover, we often know about what
> benefits one language will have over another on the final product more than
> the people commissioning the final product.
>
> > which coincidentally are VB programmers and NOT C++ programmers.
>
> Granted, there is undoubtedly a *lot* more people who know VB than C++, and
> apparently lots more lines of VB code out there than C++ code. But the point
> I'm making is that these VB programmers are often working on applications
> which aren't to be sold, but to be used by other staff of their company -
> the C++ people are the ones writing programs to sell. The C++ writers are
> the sort of people that can easily switch to a non-microsoft platform anyway
> on a whim, just because gcc happens to do some fancy template instantiation
> that msvc can't do, say - and so this is the area MS has to remain
> technically competitive - but with the VB market, they are just giving
> business what they want, in order to sell it. It's a bit like the difference
> between the tabloids and the broadsheets - the broadsheets need to maintain
> their reputation so respectable, well-heeled product lines will advertise in
> them - analagous to a particularly respected shrink-wrapped software product
> known to have been written in MSVC. The tabloids, they need to sell as many
> copies as possible - so they make it nice and bright and shiny with lots of
> bells and whistles and easy to understand - like the VB6 / .NET market.
>
> > Elitism?  Yes, I suspect so.
>
> Possibly the attempted justification of the hope of exemption from the
> fickleness that commerce is inevitably going to have on the relative
> prevalence of different IDE-based products in the software market.
>
> >
> > Where are the Raymond Chens?
>
>
> Enlighten me, who's he?
>
> > What is happening to backward and forward
> > compatiblity?  If MS won't guarentee backward and forward compatibility,
> > then what's the point?
>
> What's the point in what, backward compatibility?
> Living?
>
> > My VB program users may as well use Linux if that is
>
> VB6 can't use Linux. Ever. If you want the honest truth, UI isn't linux's
> strength - and VB6 has the UI engrained at the heart of it. Linux is mainly
> used for things that don't require UI, such as web servers and database
> servers and command line tools.
>
> > the case!  There was a time, when the old guard was still there, that a
> > program written in 1991 would run in 2001.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but VB classic (i.e. , VB 1-6) has been around
> since the 80's. Win32 is still the main windows operating system today, and
> it can run 16-bit programs (which I think were produced by VB1-3, 32 bit
> produced by 4-6). Does that not imply that any program written in any
> version of VB will probably be able to be run on the majority of windows
> operating systems today (i.e. all but Win64)?
>
> >
> > Windows Forms are already slated for obsolescence with Avalon coming up in
> > Longhorn.
>
> This is the fickleties again. You've got to either beat them or join them.
>
> > I can't name one brand name MS product that is built using the
> > .NET framework.  Is .NET not good enough for Microsoft products?
>
> No! It's not good enough for any shrink-wrapped products - it's
> decompilable. Big difference between that and machine code, what with all
> the IP law paranoia going round at the moment. But that doesn't mean it
> doesn't enjoy a large slice of the market for IDE licenses, if not the
> largest.
>
> > When I was
> > a MFC developer I always wondered why MS didn't use it for their products.
>
> They were embarassed at having created such an abomination, as you should
> have been for humouring them by using it. (*joke* - i'm sure it's good for
> some things really...)
>
> > This being the case, I cannot see why VB users would trust MS to learn
> > VB.NET when MS can just dump them again when its whim changes.
>
> No, I certainly wouldn't *trust* them! Hens probably don't "trust" the
> farmer feeding them, but they still eat the food.
>
> > That is why
> > I propose that fellow VB users just upgrade to Ruby.
>
> Ruby? Eh? What's that when it's at 'om?
>
> > No, I won't drink the
> > "New Coke", I liked the old one much better.
>
> Drink orange juice. It's much nicer.
>
>
>

"Bonj" wrote:

>
> "Mike Cox" <mikecoxli***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3a6rmdF67etjmU1@individual.net...
> > Remember when Coca Cola came out with "New Coke"?  I think VB.NET is the
> > New
> > Coke of the computing world.  Unfortunately, one cannot just stock up on
> > Coca Cola, one must get a new language.  Ruby.  It is a descendant of
> > Algol
> > 60  as is VB.
> >
> > Why switch to .NET when Microsoft is not even using it for its
> > applications?
>
> It probably does - inside its own walls, and possibly even in something like
> the .NET IDE - but I'd be surprised if there's much. They mainly use plain C
> I think, probably because they've got a huge population of programmers built
> up over the years that are strong in it. Since it targets .NET mainly at
> businesses buying it for in-house use, they could even justify admitting to
> not using it for its own applications.
>
> > This sort of reminds me of MFC too, MFC was good enough for other people's
> > programs but never Microsoft's own.
>
> Well some would say MFC's not good enough for any application. I couldn't
> really comment  - I think it's just plain ghastly. There's just no reason
> for it - if you want RAD, you use VB6 or .NET, if you want control, you use
> plain C++ or C.
>
> > But unlike MFC's C++, VB doesn't even
> > get the respect of having a classic version included in VS.NET. C++
> > programmers get to have their cake and eat it too with Managed C++ and
> > regular C++ being supported under VS.NET.  MFC is still there too along
> > with
> > ATL 7.
>
> Think of the markets again. Who mainly wants to build unmanaged
> applications? They've obviously done their research into this question, and
> found it to be software houses, who build shrink-wrapped products. And they
> are the sort of people who would cringe at the thought of any of their
> applications being recognised as having been written in VB. I have often
> noticed that VB6 is used a lot for writing packaged applications, but ones
> that go with b2b service contracts.
>
> >
> > VB developers are getting the short end of the stick.  There was no VB
> > classic support in .NET.  The C++ users got everything they wanted, and VB
> > users got nothing.
>
> Start thinking along different lines of lattitude.... it wasn't a question
> of the big bosses as MS deciding what they were going to 'give' users of
> each language, like santa deciding what children had been good and bad. It
> was probably more simply a case of "who buys the most IDE licenses? - oooh,
> big companies. Let's write a product that *they* will like, for what *they*
> want to use it for - i.e. in house applications and web systems." Sadly,
> they weren't thinking about you the programmer, they were thinking about the
> people who have the beens to decide what programs you're going to write.
> Given that MS had decided to write the .NET framework and a primary language
> to go with it, C#, for their main target audience, i.e. businesses, they
> already had two other major jobs to do - write IJW, and write a VB-like
> language to ease the burden on companies who had people who were incapable
> or unwilling to understand C#, of which there were probably many. Given all
> this work on top, the idea of writing a product that would compile "some new
> form of" VB code to unmanaged binaries was out of the window.
>
> > Goes to show what MS thinks of 60% of their developer
> > base,
>
> Of this 60%, you've got to accept that a certain percentage of these are
> going to be either going to be willing to take up .NET, or forced into it
> because their employers are migrating to it - let's say, a conservative 25%
> of these? That's 15% of the total, which leaves 45% of developers
> disgruntled. But this is probably 45% in number - not revenue. Most of the
> actual *revenue* from software sales comes from programs that are written in
> C++, so this reduce it down to probably less than 10%. And this is still
> only the *developers* themselves that are disgruntled... the question is,
> how much does this matter? Perhaps a better approach than trying to persuade
> them to "let us faithful VB programmers carry on writing unmanaged code
> because we want to" would be to make it matter what language we're more
> comfortable and satisfied in writing in. Moreover, we often know about what
> benefits one language will have over another on the final product more than
> the people commissioning the final product.
>
> > which coincidentally are VB programmers and NOT C++ programmers.
>
> Granted, there is undoubtedly a *lot* more people who know VB than C++, and
> apparently lots more lines of VB code out there than C++ code. But the point
> I'm making is that these VB programmers are often working on applications
> which aren't to be sold, but to be used by other staff of their company -
> the C++ people are the ones writing programs to sell. The C++ writers are
> the sort of people that can easily switch to a non-microsoft platform anyway
> on a whim, just because gcc happens to do some fancy template instantiation
> that msvc can't do, say - and so this is the area MS has to remain
> technically competitive - but with the VB market, they are just giving
> business what they want, in order to sell it. It's a bit like the difference
> between the tabloids and the broadsheets - the broadsheets need to maintain
> their reputation so respectable, well-heeled product lines will advertise in
> them - analagous to a particularly respected shrink-wrapped software product
> known to have been written in MSVC. The tabloids, they need to sell as many
> copies as possible - so they make it nice and bright and shiny with lots of
> bells and whistles and easy to understand - like the VB6 / .NET market.
>
> > Elitism?  Yes, I suspect so.
>
> Possibly the attempted justification of the hope of exemption from the
> fickleness that commerce is inevitably going to have on the relative
> prevalence of different IDE-based products in the software market.
>
> >
> > Where are the Raymond Chens?
>
>
> Enlighten me, who's he?
>
> > What is happening to backward and forward
> > compatiblity?  If MS won't guarentee backward and forward compatibility,
> > then what's the point?
>
> What's the point in what, backward compatibility?
> Living?
>
> > My VB program users may as well use Linux if that is
>
> VB6 can't use Linux. Ever. If you want the honest truth, UI isn't linux's
> strength - and VB6 has the UI engrained at the heart of it. Linux is mainly
> used for things that don't require UI, such as web servers and database
> servers and command line tools.
>
> > the case!  There was a time, when the old guard was still there, that a
> > program written in 1991 would run in 2001.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but VB classic (i.e. , VB 1-6) has been around
> since the 80's. Win32 is still the main windows operating system today, and
> it can run 16-bit programs (which I think were produced by VB1-3, 32 bit
> produced by 4-6). Does that not imply that any program written in any
> version of VB will probably be able to be run on the majority of windows
> operating systems today (i.e. all but Win64)?
>
> >
> > Windows Forms are already slated for obsolescence with Avalon coming up in
> > Longhorn.
>
> This is the fickleties again. You've got to either beat them or join them.
>
> > I can't name one brand name MS product that is built using the
> > .NET framework.  Is .NET not good enough for Microsoft products?
>
> No! It's not good enough for any shrink-wrapped products - it's
> decompilable. Big difference between that and machine code, what with all
> the IP law paranoia going round at the moment. But that doesn't mean it
> doesn't enjoy a large slice of the market for IDE licenses, if not the
> largest.
>
> > When I was
> > a MFC developer I always wondered why MS didn't use it for their products.
>
> They were embarassed at having created such an abomination, as you should
> have been for humouring them by using it. (*joke* - i'm sure it's good for
> some things really...)
>
> > This being the case, I cannot see why VB users would trust MS to learn
> > VB.NET when MS can just dump them again when its whim changes.
>
> No, I certainly wouldn't *trust* them! Hens probably don't "trust" the
> farmer feeding them, but they still eat the food.
>
> > That is why
> > I propose that fellow VB users just upgrade to Ruby.
>
> Ruby? Eh? What's that when it's at 'om?
>
> > No, I won't drink the
> > "New Coke", I liked the old one much better.
>
> Drink orange juice. It's much nicer.
>
>
>

"Bob Butler" wrote:

> "Ben Coats" <BenCo***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C1EB5B50-645A-4044-ACF1-62A617031C99@microsoft.com
> > Amen, bonj.  Great responses, logical arguments.
> >
> > Personally, I'm just sick of all the b*tching about MS dropping
> > support for VB6.  Sure, .Net is NOT perfect by any means.  But, it
> > is, as someone in this thread put it, a stepping stone to the future.
>
> No, it's a blind leap across a wide chasm.  Stepping stones are what has
> been asked for.
>
> > What's the issue with developers being so lazy these days?  They moan
> > and whine about all the new technology not being as good as the old
> > technology...but do they even try to learn it?  Half of the time they
> > don't give it the time it deserves, and start in whining about the
> > old being so much better.
>
> The issue is not that the old is "better" or that the new is "better".  The
> issue is that taking years of mission-critical applications developed under
> the "old" into the "new" is a massive red queen's race with no guarantee
> that the finish line can ever be seen, let alone reached.
>
> > I'm not a "big company."  I'm not a developer that had .Net forced on
> > him. I'm simply somebody who likes seeing what new things can do, so
> > I got into .Net with the very first beta.  I found that it made my
> > life a whole lot easier, and I don't even use the web functionality
> > of it.  I feel that the true object-oriented approach .Net provides
> > is much more logical.  Maybe it's not all of what MS hype has made it
> > to be, but I know that it has decreased my development time by about
> > 45%.  And I am certainly one of the "little guys," just the "computer
> > guy" for a small pathology association.
>
> For somebody in your position there may be no major issues.  For people with
> large bases of VB6 code to support the move to .Net is a major hurdle and
> the frightening aspect is that if that hurdle is cleared what level of
> comfort is there that MS won't simply set up another massive hurdle moving
> on to .Next?  They've made it quite clear that VB6 code assets are worthless
> in their opinion.  I see no reason to think that they won't feel the same
> way about VB20xx.  As has been said so many times, the core issue here is
> *trust*, not technology.
>
> > So, I guess what I have to say is this.  Get over it!  Take the
> > initiative to learn new technologies, because the old ones WILL pass
> > away, and that's all there is to it.
>
> Yes, they will, but that does not mean that a vendor can't provide
> evolutionary development and reasonable pathways to move from one version to
> the next.  I would *love* to take existing code, move it to VB.Net and then
> begin ripping out and replacing pieces where the new framework provides a
> cleaner way to do something.  I can't do that.  MS has erected a brick wall
> preventing me from moving my VB6 code forward and they don't understand (at
> least publicly) why I'm not thanking them for that.  VB20xx could be the
> most amazing language in history and I would not consider it for anything
> more than throw-away toys because that's all the value that MS puts on it.
>
> --
> Reply to the group so all can participate
> VB.Net: "Fool me once..."
>
>

"kdubious" wrote:

> It never ceases to amaze me how self-centered people are.  The guys with Big
> VB6 investments think we should have given them a way to easily migrate to
> the next version, which would have watered down the next version.
>
> If you have a big investment in VB6, then keep it there.  No one is making
> you migrate.  You've known about .NET since the BETA release in 2000 (at
> least I did), so you can chose to stay there if you like. 
>
> The VB.COM petition???  Why would MS keep tieing themselves to COM?  .NET is
> a Win32 wrapper, but when the underlying OS changes, .NET will be tweaked to
> continue to work.
>
> If you take a grander view, and realize their are young devs coming up in a
> world where Scalability, Internet Awareness, OOP, Code Reuse, etc. are big
> factors, then let them have a VB style language that can handle the demands
> of the Internet Age.  If MS wants to bring devs out of MSAccess over to MSDE
> and .NET, then let them do it.
>
> The bottom line is that things change.  Technology Changes.  At some point,
> the world needs to upgrade beyond the point where "old code might break." 
> We're not there yet.  VB6 still works . . . no need to migrate.  Please don't
> make them dumb down .NET for your self-centered ideas.  Let those of us who
> want to move on, move on. 
>
> I guess Bob Butler was mad when his DOS apps stopped working in Win XP, and
> prefers to connect to the Web on a Win95 box?
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> "Bob Butler" wrote:
>
> > "Ben Coats" <BenCo***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:C1EB5B50-645A-4044-ACF1-62A617031C99@microsoft.com
> > > Amen, bonj.  Great responses, logical arguments.
> > >
> > > Personally, I'm just sick of all the b*tching about MS dropping
> > > support for VB6.  Sure, .Net is NOT perfect by any means.  But, it
> > > is, as someone in this thread put it, a stepping stone to the future.
> >
> > No, it's a blind leap across a wide chasm.  Stepping stones are what has
> > been asked for.
> >
> > > What's the issue with developers being so lazy these days?  They moan
> > > and whine about all the new technology not being as good as the old
> > > technology...but do they even try to learn it?  Half of the time they
> > > don't give it the time it deserves, and start in whining about the
> > > old being so much better.
> >
> > The issue is not that the old is "better" or that the new is "better".  The
> > issue is that taking years of mission-critical applications developed under
> > the "old" into the "new" is a massive red queen's race with no guarantee
> > that the finish line can ever be seen, let alone reached.
> >
> > > I'm not a "big company."  I'm not a developer that had .Net forced on
> > > him. I'm simply somebody who likes seeing what new things can do, so
> > > I got into .Net with the very first beta.  I found that it made my
> > > life a whole lot easier, and I don't even use the web functionality
> > > of it.  I feel that the true object-oriented approach .Net provides
> > > is much more logical.  Maybe it's not all of what MS hype has made it
> > > to be, but I know that it has decreased my development time by about
> > > 45%.  And I am certainly one of the "little guys," just the "computer
> > > guy" for a small pathology association.
> >
> > For somebody in your position there may be no major issues.  For people with
> > large bases of VB6 code to support the move to .Net is a major hurdle and
> > the frightening aspect is that if that hurdle is cleared what level of
> > comfort is there that MS won't simply set up another massive hurdle moving
> > on to .Next?  They've made it quite clear that VB6 code assets are worthless
> > in their opinion.  I see no reason to think that they won't feel the same
> > way about VB20xx.  As has been said so many times, the core issue here is
> > *trust*, not technology.
> >
> > > So, I guess what I have to say is this.  Get over it!  Take the
> > > initiative to learn new technologies, because the old ones WILL pass
> > > away, and that's all there is to it.
> >
> > Yes, they will, but that does not mean that a vendor can't provide
> > evolutionary development and reasonable pathways to move from one version to
> > the next.  I would *love* to take existing code, move it to VB.Net and then
> > begin ripping out and replacing pieces where the new framework provides a
> > cleaner way to do something.  I can't do that.  MS has erected a brick wall
> > preventing me from moving my VB6 code forward and they don't understand (at
> > least publicly) why I'm not thanking them for that.  VB20xx could be the
> > most amazing language in history and I would not consider it for anything
> > more than throw-away toys because that's all the value that MS puts on it.
> >
> > --
> > Reply to the group so all can participate
> > VB.Net: "Fool me once..."
> >
> >

"kdubious" wrote:

> It never ceases to amaze me how self-centered people are.  The guys with Big
> VB6 investments think we should have given them a way to easily migrate to
> the next version, which would have watered down the next version.
>
> If you have a big investment in VB6, then keep it there.  No one is making
> you migrate.  You've known about .NET since the BETA release in 2000 (at
> least I did), so you can chose to stay there if you like. 
>
> The VB.COM petition???  Why would MS keep tieing themselves to COM?  .NET is
> a Win32 wrapper, but when the underlying OS changes, .NET will be tweaked to
> continue to work.
>
> If you take a grander view, and realize their are young devs coming up in a
> world where Scalability, Internet Awareness, OOP, Code Reuse, etc. are big
> factors, then let them have a VB style language that can handle the demands
> of the Internet Age.  If MS wants to bring devs out of MSAccess over to MSDE
> and .NET, then let them do it.
>
> The bottom line is that things change.  Technology Changes.  At some point,
> the world needs to upgrade beyond the point where "old code might break." 
> We're not there yet.  VB6 still works . . . no need to migrate.  Please don't
> make them dumb down .NET for your self-centered ideas.  Let those of us who
> want to move on, move on. 
>
> I guess Bob Butler was mad when his DOS apps stopped working in Win XP, and
> prefers to connect to the Web on a Win95 box?
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> "Bob Butler" wrote:
>
> > "Ben Coats" <BenCo***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:C1EB5B50-645A-4044-ACF1-62A617031C99@microsoft.com
> > > Amen, bonj.  Great responses, logical arguments.
> > >
> > > Personally, I'm just sick of all the b*tching about MS dropping
> > > support for VB6.  Sure, .Net is NOT perfect by any means.  But, it
> > > is, as someone in this thread put it, a stepping stone to the future.
> >
> > No, it's a blind leap across a wide chasm.  Stepping stones are what has
> > been asked for.
> >
> > > What's the issue with developers being so lazy these days?  They moan
> > > and whine about all the new technology not being as good as the old
> > > technology...but do they even try to learn it?  Half of the time they
> > > don't give it the time it deserves, and start in whining about the
> > > old being so much better.
> >
> > The issue is not that the old is "better" or that the new is "better".  The
> > issue is that taking years of mission-critical applications developed under
> > the "old" into the "new" is a massive red queen's race with no guarantee
> > that the finish line can ever be seen, let alone reached.
> >
> > > I'm not a "big company."  I'm not a developer that had .Net forced on
> > > him. I'm simply somebody who likes seeing what new things can do, so
> > > I got into .Net with the very first beta.  I found that it made my
> > > life a whole lot easier, and I don't even use the web functionality
> > > of it.  I feel that the true object-oriented approach .Net provides
> > > is much more logical.  Maybe it's not all of what MS hype has made it
> > > to be, but I know that it has decreased my development time by about
> > > 45%.  And I am certainly one of the "little guys," just the "computer
> > > guy" for a small pathology association.
> >
> > For somebody in your position there may be no major issues.  For people with
> > large bases of VB6 code to support the move to .Net is a major hurdle and
> > the frightening aspect is that if that hurdle is cleared what level of
> > comfort is there that MS won't simply set up another massive hurdle moving
> > on to .Next?  They've made it quite clear that VB6 code assets are worthless
> > in their opinion.  I see no reason to think that they won't feel the same
> > way about VB20xx.  As has been said so many times, the core issue here is
> > *trust*, not technology.
> >
> > > So, I guess what I have to say is this.  Get over it!  Take the
> > > initiative to learn new technologies, because the old ones WILL pass
> > > away, and that's all there is to it.
> >
> > Yes, they will, but that does not mean that a vendor can't provide
> > evolutionary development and reasonable pathways to move from one version to
> > the next.  I would *love* to take existing code, move it to VB.Net and then
> > begin ripping out and replacing pieces where the new framework provides a
> > cleaner way to do something.  I can't do that.  MS has erected a brick wall
> > preventing me from moving my VB6 code forward and they don't understand (at
> > least publicly) why I'm not thanking them for that.  VB20xx could be the
> > most amazing language in history and I would not consider it for anything
> > more than throw-away toys because that's all the value that MS puts on it.
> >
> > --
> > Reply to the group so all can participate
> > VB.Net: "Fool me once..."
> >
> >

"Bob Butler" wrote:

> "Elijah" <Eli***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:974E2169-BB64-4764-92D0-1EAA4D55C03E@microsoft.com
> > I am with you on most of this.  People keep talking about *having* to
> > migrate to .net when really they don't.
>
> They do eventually
>
> >  I started in vb4 and have some apps here that run on vb6 and then
> > stuff in .net 1.1 and am now experimenting in .net 2.0.  The old
> > stuff?  Continues to run!  The vb6 apps just sit there and hum, and
> > so do the .net 1.1 apps.  They run on what you compile them on.
>
> Right, they run on what you compile them on.  There's no way to ensure that
> they will run on newer OS versions unless you are able to modify and/or
> recompile the code for the new platform.  Issues supporting XP themes and
> other new features have already surfaced and although relatively minor so
> far just server to point out that the long-term future for VB6 apps is not
> good.
>
> > Of course there are vastly different situations from company to company,
> > but who's forcing this on people?  Nobody forced me... I *switched*
> > because it was closer to the "real" way to program.
>
> ROTFLMAO
> Any time you feel that only one way is the "real" way you've had too much
> kool-aid.
>
> > VB6 the self-taught way for me was a lot like just scripting... whereas I
> took the
> > time to learn about n-tier architecture and proper OOP when I started
> > on VB.net.
>
> And had you self-taught VB.Net that'd be a lot like scripting while had you
> taken the time to learn about n-tier architecture and "proper" OOP when you
> started on VB6 your code would probably look very different.  VB6 is
> definitely limited when compared to "full" OOP languages but you can go a
> long way into it.
>
> > VB.net is so radically different (for the better)
>
> definitely a matter of opinion.  I would agree that C# and the dotnet
> platform have some definite advantages but VB.Net is a total mess and has no
> reason to exist IMO.
>
> > than VB6 that it would be a logistic nightmare and a mess of a runtime to
> run them
> > both "together." And then I can only imagine the greek tragedy we
> > would witness in the community about how messy and stupid and bloated
> > and buggy the runtime is because it has to work two completely
> > different ways.
>
> If you are referring to the petition then I tend to agree; merging the VB6
> language into the VS.Net IDE as described there doesn't really sound like a
> good idea to me and I signed it only because *anything* in the direction of
> supporting a VB6-compatible language would be an improvement over the
> current situation.  I'm not necessarily looking for COM to continue, I want
> the core VB6 language to come forward and that could have been done, and
> still can be.
>
> > At least they do provide the conversion wizard...
> > altho I haven't had to use it, sorry.
>
> Given that you mention it as an alternative it's obvious that you haven't
> used it.
>
> > Not to mention the monumental
> > library of documentation MS gives away to anyone with a web browser.
>
> Not sure I see the connection...
>
> > All that costs a lot.
>
> And losing revenue by driving people away from MS is good for that how?
>
> --
> Reply to the group so all can participate
> VB.Net: "Fool me once..."
>
>

"Bob Butler" wrote:

> "Elijah" <Eli***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:974E2169-BB64-4764-92D0-1EAA4D55C03E@microsoft.com
> > I am with you on most of this.  People keep talking about *having* to
> > migrate to .net when really they don't.
>
> They do eventually
>
> >  I started in vb4 and have some apps here that run on vb6 and then
> > stuff in .net 1.1 and am now experimenting in .net 2.0.  The old
> > stuff?  Continues to run!  The vb6 apps just sit there and hum, and
> > so do the .net 1.1 apps.  They run on what you compile them on.
>
> Right, they run on what you compile them on.  There's no way to ensure that
> they will run on newer OS versions unless you are able to modify and/or
> recompile the code for the new platform.  Issues supporting XP themes and
> other new features have already surfaced and although relatively minor so
> far just server to point out that the long-term future for VB6 apps is not
> good.
>
> > Of course there are vastly different situations from company to company,
> > but who's forcing this on people?  Nobody forced me... I *switched*
> > because it was closer to the "real" way to program.
>
> ROTFLMAO
> Any time you feel that only one way is the "real" way you've had too much
> kool-aid.
>
> > VB6 the self-taught way for me was a lot like just scripting... whereas I
> took the
> > time to learn about n-tier architecture and proper OOP when I started
> > on VB.net.
>
> And had you self-taught VB.Net that'd be a lot like scripting while had you
> taken the time to learn about n-tier architecture and "proper" OOP when you
> started on VB6 your code would probably look very different.  VB6 is
> definitely limited when compared to "full" OOP languages but you can go a
> long way into it.
>
> > VB.net is so radically different (for the better)
>
> definitely a matter of opinion.  I would agree that C# and the dotnet
> platform have some definite advantages but VB.Net is a total mess and has no
> reason to exist IMO.
>
> > than VB6 that it would be a logistic nightmare and a mess of a runtime to
> run them
> > both "together." And then I can only imagine the greek tragedy we
> > would witness in the community about how messy and stupid and bloated
> > and buggy the runtime is because it has to work two completely
> > different ways.
>
> If you are referring to the petition then I tend to agree; merging the VB6
> language into the VS.Net IDE as described there doesn't really sound like a
> good idea to me and I signed it only because *anything* in the direction of
> supporting a VB6-compatible language would be an improvement over the
> current situation.  I'm not necessarily looking for COM to continue, I want
> the core VB6 language to come forward and that could have been done, and
> still can be.
>
> > At least they do provide the conversion wizard...
> > altho I haven't had to use it, sorry.
>
> Given that you mention it as an alternative it's obvious that you haven't
> used it.
>
> > Not to mention the monumental
> > library of documentation MS gives away to anyone with a web browser.
>
> Not sure I see the connection...
>
> > All that costs a lot.
>
> And losing revenue by driving people away from MS is good for that how?
>
> --
> Reply to the group so all can participate
> VB.Net: "Fool me once..."
>
>

>> "Mike Cox" <mikecoxli***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3a6rmdF67etjmU1@individual.net...
>> > Remember when Coca Cola came out with "New Coke"?  I think VB.NET is
>> > the
>> > New Coke of the computing world.

>Some of your points are not valid.
>C# is as different from C++ as VB.NET is from VB 6.0.
>New Language and concepts all together.
>
>Microsoft probably kept C++ in becuase you can do things in C++ you
>can not do in C#, as well as MS still using C++ as well as C#. However you
>can do everything and more in VB.NET than you can with VB 6.0.
>
>In the managed code world VB.NET and C# are exactly the same, only
>differenece is syntax. I have seen this as a plus for VB programmers out there
>now you compete with the C programmers out there. Once a VB programmer goes
>to VB.NET there is no looking back. OOP Principals with a VB syntax has been
>great.
>Your making a mistake if you dont try the "new coke".

"RCS" <rse***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cByie.597$KZ1.77@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> As if anyone is going to read this, but in the off chance a VB-hugger
does -
> here is my light-bashing, straight-forward response to all this nonsense
> (and to the troll below):
>
> The .NET architecture is a paradigm shift into full-bore,
> no-more-half-assed-programming object-oriented programming. VB6 was a
means
> to an end for "get it done quick-n-dirty" development. You could crank out
> apps in short order, but almost always at the expense of scalability and
> reusability. I mean, you *could* make reusable objects - but I haven't met
> many developers who did. In the time I've been using .NET, there are
> literally dozens of assemblies, web services, etc that are used across my
> department. So although VB6 had it's place, it's time to take it out to
the
> woodshed and shoot it. There is something 100x more robust available now.
> Period. It's actually absurd to me that people are still talking about
bring
> VB6 any more forward. It's call progress. And .NET is definintely not
> "technology for technologys sake" - this is truly a fundamental shift in
how
> we develop software - a BETTER way to develop software (in every way). So
in
> my opinion (and I would consider myself equally strong in VB6 and C#) -
> trying to drag the cinder block, that is VB6 into .NET would've been a
huge
> mistake, it would've only hurt the .NET architecture - and all so some "I
> hate change", lazy developers didn't want to switch! There is zero-benefit
> of draggin VB6 forward in it's current form. In fact, I wouldn't have even
> cleaned it up and made VB.NET. I assume they did because it's similar
enough
> that they wouldn't loose their "point-n-click" developer base - but
politics
> aside, I wouldn't have done it.
>
> Secondly, why doesn't Microsoft use MFC or .NET for their software -
mainly
> because of two reasons: 1) they write a lot of System software - .NET is
> intended for end-user, rapid-development database applications I would
> think... user software, not system software. And as for their non-System
> software, you use the strengths that you have within your team. If I had a
> bunch of ASP guys, and for Windows programming, they only knew VB6 - a
> windows app would be written in VB6. At MS, if they have the expertise and
> efficiency of writing MS Office in C++, more power to them - it's not a
> choice I would make, but that is their business decision.. just like the
> languages you use at your work.
>
> I just wish this "I love VB6" movement would die. I've yet to read a
single
> valid comment. Absolutely, positively every complaint about VB6 can be
> boiled down to "I'm lazy", "I hate change" and "I'm ignorant" - which,
none
> of those are valid to me.
>
> >> "Mike Cox" <mikecoxli***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3a6rmdF67etjmU1@individual.net...
> >> > Remember when Coca Cola came out with "New Coke"?  I think VB.NET is
> >> > the
> >> > New Coke of the computing world.
>
>

>> "Mike Cox" <mikecoxli***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3a6rmdF67etjmU1@individual.net...
>> > Remember when Coca Cola came out with "New Coke"?  I think VB.NET is
>> > the
>> > New Coke of the computing world.

"RCS" <rse***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cByie.597$KZ1.77@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> As if anyone is going to read this, but in the off chance a VB-hugger
does -
> here is my light-bashing, straight-forward response to all this nonsense
> (and to the troll below):
>
> The .NET architecture is a paradigm shift into full-bore,
> no-more-half-assed-programming object-oriented programming. VB6 was a
means
> to an end for "get it done quick-n-dirty" development. You could crank out
> apps in short order, but almost always at the expense of scalability and
> reusability. I mean, you *could* make reusable objects - but I haven't met
> many developers who did. In the time I've been using .NET, there are
> literally dozens of assemblies, web services, etc that are used across my
> department. So although VB6 had it's place, it's time to take it out to
the
> woodshed and shoot it. There is something 100x more robust available now.
> Period. It's actually absurd to me that people are still talking about
bring
> VB6 any more forward. It's call progress. And .NET is definintely not
> "technology for technologys sake" - this is truly a fundamental shift in
how
> we develop software - a BETTER way to develop software (in every way). So
in
> my opinion (and I would consider myself equally strong in VB6 and C#) -
> trying to drag the cinder block, that is VB6 into .NET would've been a
huge
> mistake, it would've only hurt the .NET architecture - and all so some "I
> hate change", lazy developers didn't want to switch! There is zero-benefit
> of draggin VB6 forward in it's current form. In fact, I wouldn't have even
> cleaned it up and made VB.NET. I assume they did because it's similar
enough
> that they wouldn't loose their "point-n-click" developer base - but
politics
> aside, I wouldn't have done it.
>
> Secondly, why doesn't Microsoft use MFC or .NET for their software -
mainly
> because of two reasons: 1) they write a lot of System software - .NET is
> intended for end-user, rapid-development database applications I would
> think... user software, not system software. And as for their non-System
> software, you use the strengths that you have within your team. If I had a
> bunch of ASP guys, and for Windows programming, they only knew VB6 - a
> windows app would be written in VB6. At MS, if they have the expertise and
> efficiency of writing MS Office in C++, more power to them - it's not a
> choice I would make, but that is their business decision.. just like the
> languages you use at your work.
>
> I just wish this "I love VB6" movement would die. I've yet to read a
single
> valid comment. Absolutely, positively every complaint about VB6 can be
> boiled down to "I'm lazy", "I hate change" and "I'm ignorant" - which,
none
> of those are valid to me.
>
> >> "Mike Cox" <mikecoxli***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3a6rmdF67etjmU1@individual.net...
> >> > Remember when Coca Cola came out with "New Coke"?  I think VB.NET is
> >> > the
> >> > New Coke of the computing world.
>
>