|
code
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MS, Enough is Enough!I think MS have gone too far with the VB6 issue. .NET is nothing more a platform for lazy developers trying to quickly make software. I tried 2002, 2003 and now 2005, nothing have changed except few Framework changes and cool looking IDE. The only good thing in .NET is ASP.NET. .NUT is not for local application developer. Why the hell we are just discussing this issue and not doing anything, except that online petition? Why not create a donation fund and donate $5 in it, write letters to M$, and hire someone in Redmond who can print and forward those letters to MS? I mean thousand of letters, which will make more impact then a petition? Any suggestions ? Thanks, T Hi,
I got an idea, who cares about MS support etc, I will continue to use VB6 as long as I can, whether windows 2010 or 2012. I have some 16-bit software and they run fine. But we need to create a website that can take VB6 to vista and beyond, where all users can combine the efforts and help each-other if they have problem, and by also sharing code and workaround. thanks, "Tamo" <tamoga***@excite.com> wrote in message We have that in the newsgroups.news:1141688667.444941.240360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com > Hi, > > I got an idea, who cares about MS support etc, I will continue to use > VB6 as long as I can, whether windows 2010 or 2012. I have some 16-bit > software and they run fine. > > But we need to create a website that can take VB6 to vista and beyond, > where all users can combine the efforts and help each-other if they > have problem, and by also sharing code and workaround. -- Reply to the group so all can participate VB.Net: "Fool me once..." "Tamo" <tamoga***@excite.com> wrote in message I agree they dumped VB pretty poorly and all that but this statement above news:1141687754.019865.165860@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > I tried 2002, 2003 and now 2005, nothing have changed except few > Framework changes and cool looking IDE. The only good thing in .NET is > ASP.NET. .NUT is not for local application developer. is just ludicrous. You basically have no idea of the differences between ..net and vb6 so seam to think because you don't know of them they don't exist. Dotnet is a whole level above vb6, there is no question about that. > Why not create a donation fund and donate $5 in it, write letters to Why doesn't everyone stop whinging are get together and write a better > M$, and hire someone in Redmond who can print and forward those letters > to MS? import. There's no reason it shouldn't be possible to import a VB6 app into ..net and have it run pretty much straight off. Michael Michael C wrote:
> Why doesn't everyone stop whinging are get together and write a better If you really believe that, you have an even lower opinion of Microsoft than> import. There's no reason it shouldn't be possible to import a VB6 > app into .net and have it run pretty much straight off. nearly anyone here. Is there no known depths to your stupidity? "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Can you actually come out and say what it is you're trying to say karly.news:%2302Y41XQGHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > If you really believe that, you have an even lower opinion of Microsoft > than > nearly anyone here. Is there no known depths to your stupidity? Michael Michael C wrote:
> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message I'd *plonk* ya, but the world would be worse off for it...> news:%2302Y41XQGHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> If you really believe that, you have an even lower opinion of >> Microsoft than nearly anyone here. Is there no known depths to >> your stupidity? > > Can you actually come out and say what it is you're trying to say > karly. Wow, haven't heard that one since Jr High."Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message Really karly, what is your point? I presume you have one (Actually I'm not news:%23mQ%23yVYQGHA.1096@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > Michael C wrote: >> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message >> news:%2302Y41XQGHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >>> If you really believe that, you have an even lower opinion of >>> Microsoft than nearly anyone here. Is there no known depths to >>> your stupidity? >> >> Can you actually come out and say what it is you're trying to say > > I'd *plonk* ya, but the world would be worse off for it... that sure you do now I come to think of it). Michael Michael C wrote:
[Nothing, whatsoever, of substance] <yawn> "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message *You* wrote "Nothing, whatsoever, of substance" are you kidding me? Here I news:%23PXYr%23YQGHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Michael C wrote: > [Nothing, whatsoever, of substance] am trying to get you to state an actual point. I proved you wrong in that other thread and you've been throwing a tantraum ever since. Michael
Show quote
Hide quote
"Michael C" wrote: Without a license to the MS VB language and Runtime it just isn't possible.> "Tamo" <tamoga***@excite.com> wrote in message > news:1141687754.019865.165860@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > > I tried 2002, 2003 and now 2005, nothing have changed except few > > Framework changes and cool looking IDE. The only good thing in .NET is > > ASP.NET. .NUT is not for local application developer. > > I agree they dumped VB pretty poorly and all that but this statement above > is just ludicrous. You basically have no idea of the differences between > ..net and vb6 so seam to think because you don't know of them they don't > exist. Dotnet is a whole level above vb6, there is no question about that. > > > Why not create a donation fund and donate $5 in it, write letters to > > M$, and hire someone in Redmond who can print and forward those letters > > to MS? > > Why doesn't everyone stop whinging are get together and write a better > import. There's no reason it shouldn't be possible to import a VB6 app into > ..net and have it run pretty much straight off. > > Michael > By now just about everyone and his brother has had a run at obtaining one - MS won't budge, plus they have made it very, very, clear they would take a dim view at anyone who attempted to infringe on their "intellectual" rights. -ralph "ralph" <ra***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message What do you mean? You could write an import as an addin to visual studio news:B74E0247-1DA2-49E8-A5DB-D221E1C89A07@microsoft.com... > Without a license to the MS VB language and Runtime it just isn't > possible. > > By now just about everyone and his brother has had a run at obtaining > one - > MS won't budge, plus they have made it very, very, clear they would take a > dim view at anyone who attempted to infringe on their "intellectual" > rights. 2005 in visual studio 2005. Michael
Show quote
Hide quote
"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message Please do write one and prove everyone else wrong... or just shut up as younews:#07rU2YQGHA.4452@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > "ralph" <ra***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:B74E0247-1DA2-49E8-A5DB-D221E1C89A07@microsoft.com... > > Without a license to the MS VB language and Runtime it just isn't > > possible. > > > > By now just about everyone and his brother has had a run at obtaining > > one - > > MS won't budge, plus they have made it very, very, clear they would take a > > dim view at anyone who attempted to infringe on their "intellectual" > > rights. > > What do you mean? You could write an import as an addin to visual studio > 2005 in visual studio 2005. > > Michael are actually the one that's not making sense. Most paid goons hound people to have their their way. Hmmmm I am suspecting something. "JP" <jp3blessNoSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message What are you talking about. Ralph suggested you need some sort of special >> What do you mean? You could write an import as an addin to visual studio >> 2005 in visual studio 2005. >> >> Michael > > Please do write one and prove everyone else wrong... or just shut up as > you > are actually the one that's not making sense. Most paid goons hound people > to have their their way. Hmmmm I am suspecting something. license to write an import, I was asking what he meant. Fairly valid question I thought. Show quoteHide quote > > >Why doesn't everyone stop whinging are get together and write a better Response to this>import. There's no reason it shouldn't be possible to import a VB6 app into >.net and have it run pretty much straight off. >Michael Show quoteHide quote "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:#ygsThjQGHA.5036@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > "JP" <jp3blessNoSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> What do you mean? You could write an import as an addin to visual studio > >> 2005 in visual studio 2005. > >> > >> Michael > > > > Please do write one and prove everyone else wrong... or just shut up as > > you > > are actually the one that's not making sense. Most paid goons hound people > > to have their their way. Hmmmm I am suspecting something. > > What are you talking about. Ralph suggested you need some sort of special > license to write an import, I was asking what he meant. Fairly valid > question I thought. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 17:36:16 -0800, =?Utf-8?B?cmFscGg=?=
<ra***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: Show quoteHide quote > How about creating an add-in tot he NET IDE that could just do the> >"Michael C" wrote: > >> "Tamo" <tamoga***@excite.com> wrote in message >> news:1141687754.019865.165860@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... >> > I tried 2002, 2003 and now 2005, nothing have changed except few >> > Framework changes and cool looking IDE. The only good thing in .NET is >> > ASP.NET. .NUT is not for local application developer. >> >> I agree they dumped VB pretty poorly and all that but this statement above >> is just ludicrous. You basically have no idea of the differences between >> ..net and vb6 so seam to think because you don't know of them they don't >> exist. Dotnet is a whole level above vb6, there is no question about that. >> >> > Why not create a donation fund and donate $5 in it, write letters to >> > M$, and hire someone in Redmond who can print and forward those letters >> > to MS? >> >> Why doesn't everyone stop whinging are get together and write a better >> import. There's no reason it shouldn't be possible to import a VB6 app into >> ..net and have it run pretty much straight off. >> >> Michael >> > >Without a license to the MS VB language and Runtime it just isn't possible. > >By now just about everyone and his brother has had a run at obtaining one - >MS won't budge, plus they have made it very, very, clear they would take a >dim view at anyone who attempted to infringe on their "intellectual" rights. > >-ralph job. The level of familiarity with the _library_ needed for the job boggles the mind, though. ********************************************************************** Richm***@sympatico.ca Dog thinks: they feed me, they take care of me: they are gods. Cat thinks: they feed me, they take care of me: I am god. http://www3.sympatico.ca/richmann/ http://www.geocities.com/richmannsoft/ ********************************************************************** "Richard Jalbert" <richm***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message There would be a lot of work involved but I guess compared to the work of news:440cf79e.50564437@news1.qc.sympatico.ca... > How about creating an add-in tot he NET IDE that could just do the > job. > > The level of familiarity with the _library_ needed for the job boggles > the mind, though. re-writing a large project or several it could be less. Michael > Ralph (or anyone else),> Without a license to the MS VB language and Runtime it just isn't possible. > > By now just about everyone and his brother has had a run at obtaining one - > MS won't budge, plus they have made it very, very, clear they would take a > dim view at anyone who attempted to infringe on their "intellectual" rights. > > -ralph > Can you elaborate a bit more on the intellectual rights that MS have on VB and its runtime? Intellectual property law as applied to software is different in the UK & EU from in the US - one major difference being that software patents don't exist here (IMO a good thing - your mileage may vary), the most you can do is copyright and/or trademark software. Would this enable a group in the EU to make a start on writing a VB6 -> ..NET compiler, or have I missed something? I am _very_much_ not a lawyer, hence I've probably missed something obvious. Stewart "S. I. Becker" <stewart@becker.nospam> wrote in message news:% I wouldn't have thought you'd need any license from MS at all, couldn't you > Can you elaborate a bit more on the intellectual rights that MS have on VB > and its runtime? Intellectual property law as applied to software is > different in the UK & EU from in the US - one major difference being that > software patents don't exist here (IMO a good thing - your mileage may > vary), the most you can do is copyright and/or trademark software. Would > this enable a group in the EU to make a start on writing a VB6 -> .NET > compiler, or have I missed something? I am _very_much_ not a lawyer, > hence I've probably missed something obvious. write it in powerbuilder if you wanted to? Michael Michael C wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "S. I. Becker" <stewart@becker.nospam> wrote in message news:% It's not what you write it in that would be the issue, its the fact that >> Can you elaborate a bit more on the intellectual rights that MS have on VB >> and its runtime? Intellectual property law as applied to software is >> different in the UK & EU from in the US - one major difference being that >> software patents don't exist here (IMO a good thing - your mileage may >> vary), the most you can do is copyright and/or trademark software. Would >> this enable a group in the EU to make a start on writing a VB6 -> .NET >> compiler, or have I missed something? I am _very_much_ not a lawyer, >> hence I've probably missed something obvious. > > I wouldn't have thought you'd need any license from MS at all, couldn't you > write it in powerbuilder if you wanted to? > > Michael > you would be duplicating a Microsoft technology. But this is exactly what I want to find out: how far can you go without needing a licence from Microsoft at all? Stewart On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 13:56:18 +0000, "S. I. Becker"
<stewart@becker.nospam> wrote: <snip> >It's not what you write it in that would be the issue, its the fact that The simple answer is - a long way>you would be duplicating a Microsoft technology. But this is exactly >what I want to find out: how far can you go without needing a licence >from Microsoft at all? Astonishingly one can copyright (or in the USA patent) algorithms - and definitely do the same for raw code There is nothing to prevent one finding an alternative route from A to B - although MS would sling law suits until the 'router' gave up. I think that what Ralph was talking about was a licence to use the core source code of VBA, or a .OBJ file - something that MS does sell. I once saw a raw listing of pre-MSDOS BASIC in the offices of a major computer manufacturer "S. I. Becker" <stewart@becker.nospam> wrote in message I'd be extremely suprised if Microsoft cared at all. People write software > It's not what you write it in that would be the issue, its the fact that > you would be duplicating a Microsoft technology. But this is exactly what > I want to find out: how far can you go without needing a licence from > Microsoft at all? to compete with MS all the time. Michael
Show quote
Hide quote
"S. I. Becker" wrote: I have been trying to expand on my original statement with a clear summary > Michael C wrote: > > "S. I. Becker" <stewart@becker.nospam> wrote in message news:% > >> Can you elaborate a bit more on the intellectual rights that MS have on VB > >> and its runtime? Intellectual property law as applied to software is > >> different in the UK & EU from in the US - one major difference being that > >> software patents don't exist here (IMO a good thing - your mileage may > >> vary), the most you can do is copyright and/or trademark software. Would > >> this enable a group in the EU to make a start on writing a VB6 -> .NET > >> compiler, or have I missed something? I am _very_much_ not a lawyer, > >> hence I've probably missed something obvious. > > > > I wouldn't have thought you'd need any license from MS at all, couldn't you > > write it in powerbuilder if you wanted to? > > > > Michael > > > > It's not what you write it in that would be the issue, its the fact that > you would be duplicating a Microsoft technology. But this is exactly > what I want to find out: how far can you go without needing a licence > from Microsoft at all? > > Stewart > of the issues, without going into some lengthy babble - which as most of you know is not easy for me to avoid. I don't think there is one, and thus everyone has been spared. <g> A couple of small items: The 'core' language for VB is VBA, and you can license that - but if you read the EULA you will find that all you get is the opportunity to distribute it and let your users type it. You can't change it or the runtime. "Competing" with MS is one thing, borrowing anything they consider theirs is quite another. Visual Basic is more than a language. No serious effort to piddle with it can be done without dealing with the Runtime. Converting Forms is the best example. Also any meaningful (saleable, useful, ...) VB6.Net project has to allow a degree of translation - intermediate hybrids. This can not be done without modifying the runtime. Also there is another rumor that MS does have something in the works, But I been hearing rumors for the last 6 years - is it true? Does MS start themselves? I've stopped caring. -ralph "ralph" <ra***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9AE29F04-050D-444B-878F-> The 'core' language for VB is VBA, and you can license that - but if you So by this logic it would illegal to write an addin that generated code?> read the EULA you will find that all you get is the opportunity to > distribute > it and let your users type it. You can't change it or the runtime. > "Competing" with MS is one thing, borrowing anything they consider theirs I'm not sure how you would be borrowing something of theirs as you wouldn't > is > quite another. necessarily even have to use any of their tools. > Visual Basic is more than a language. No serious effort to piddle with it You don't have to modify visual basic in any way at all.> can be done without dealing with the Runtime. Converting Forms is the best > example. > Also any meaningful (saleable, useful, ...) VB6.Net project has to allow a I don't see why this is necessary. We're talking about a utility to > degree of translation - intermediate hybrids. This can not be done without > modifying the runtime. translate vb6 code into dotnet code. Michael
Show quote
Hide quote
"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message Nothing in programming is impossible given enough layers of indirection andnews:OZzF4ukQGHA.5552@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > "ralph" <ra***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:9AE29F04-050D-444B-878F- > > The 'core' language for VB is VBA, and you can license that - but if you > > read the EULA you will find that all you get is the opportunity to > > distribute > > it and let your users type it. You can't change it or the runtime. > > So by this logic it would illegal to write an addin that generated code? > > > "Competing" with MS is one thing, borrowing anything they consider theirs > > is > > quite another. > > I'm not sure how you would be borrowing something of theirs as you wouldn't > necessarily even have to use any of their tools. > > > Visual Basic is more than a language. No serious effort to piddle with it > > can be done without dealing with the Runtime. Converting Forms is the best > > example. > > You don't have to modify visual basic in any way at all. > > > Also any meaningful (saleable, useful, ...) VB6.Net project has to allow a > > degree of translation - intermediate hybrids. This can not be done without > > modifying the runtime. > > I don't see why this is necessary. We're talking about a utility to > translate vb6 code into dotnet code. > > Michael > enough programmers enough time to work on it. Yet, strangely nothing has yet to appear after almost 6 years of opportunity. It would seem that many are ignoring an easy opportunity for fame and riches. -ralph Ralph,
If MS wish to "encourage" more people to utilise the .Net framework, why have they not come with a more robust translation/migration tool ? They obviously have access to all the required runtimes etc and the commercial interest to do, but what they released so far is (apparently) somewhat pathetic. Unless the technical difficulties are actually quite many and complex. NickHK Show quoteHide quote "Ralph" <nt_consultin***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Zd6dnUHXLtJo7JPZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@arkansas.net... > > "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:OZzF4ukQGHA.5552@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > "ralph" <ra***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > news:9AE29F04-050D-444B-878F- > > > The 'core' language for VB is VBA, and you can license that - but if you > > > read the EULA you will find that all you get is the opportunity to > > > distribute > > > it and let your users type it. You can't change it or the runtime. > > > > So by this logic it would illegal to write an addin that generated code? > > > > > "Competing" with MS is one thing, borrowing anything they consider > theirs > > > is > > > quite another. > > > > I'm not sure how you would be borrowing something of theirs as you > wouldn't > > necessarily even have to use any of their tools. > > > > > Visual Basic is more than a language. No serious effort to piddle with > it > > > can be done without dealing with the Runtime. Converting Forms is the > best > > > example. > > > > You don't have to modify visual basic in any way at all. > > > > > Also any meaningful (saleable, useful, ...) VB6.Net project has to allow > a > > > degree of translation - intermediate hybrids. This can not be done > without > > > modifying the runtime. > > > > I don't see why this is necessary. We're talking about a utility to > > translate vb6 code into dotnet code. > > > > Michael > > > > Nothing in programming is impossible given enough layers of indirection and > enough programmers enough time to work on it. > > Yet, strangely nothing has yet to appear after almost 6 years of > opportunity. It would seem that many are ignoring an easy opportunity for > fame and riches. > > -ralph > > "NickHK" <TungChe***@Invalid.com> wrote in message The technical difficulties are complex, but were not insurmountable.news:eMotYenQGHA.3896@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > Ralph, > If MS wish to "encourage" more people to utilise the .Net framework, why > have they not come with a more robust translation/migration tool ? > They obviously have access to all the required runtimes etc and the > commercial interest to do, but what they released so far is (apparently) > somewhat pathetic. > Unless the technical difficulties are actually quite many and complex. > > NickHK > One only has to look at the one successful example we do have: the migration of C++. The tools supplied went through various stages. Managed and Unmanaged blocks to the evenual arrival of C++/CLI. One could also argue that VBc would also have to have extended its OOPL features - implementation inheritance, constructors, etc come to mind. Nothing here that wasn't promised years before. Had they delivered the items we expected before VB6 was released, they would have been more than half way there. (Which leads me to believe that the seeds for VB's eventual destruction were laid farther back than even the release of .Net.) The resulting VB.Net language would be little different that what exists in VB6 - much of the 'complexity' of a conversion today is due to the fact they screwed with the language as much as they did. As for 'Why'? Nothing seems to make sense. I have examined a hundred different reasons over the last couple of years. All seems to have some merit in terms of cost reduction, technical advancement, etc., but even these 'advantages' pale compared to alienating a large group of users and leaving open such a large gapping hole. Frankly, I have come to believe, that when the 'truth' comes out in ten or twenty years, and eventually it will come out, we will find it was a petty decision based one person's arrogance, and nothing more. -ralph Show quoteHide quote > "Ralph" <nt_consultin***@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Zd6dnUHXLtJo7JPZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@arkansas.net... > > > > "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:OZzF4ukQGHA.5552@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > > "ralph" <ra***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > news:9AE29F04-050D-444B-878F- > > > > The 'core' language for VB is VBA, and you can license that - but if > you > > > > read the EULA you will find that all you get is the opportunity to > > > > distribute > > > > it and let your users type it. You can't change it or the runtime. > > > > > > So by this logic it would illegal to write an addin that generated code? > > > > > > > "Competing" with MS is one thing, borrowing anything they consider > > theirs > > > > is > > > > quite another. > > > > > > I'm not sure how you would be borrowing something of theirs as you > > wouldn't > > > necessarily even have to use any of their tools. > > > > > > > Visual Basic is more than a language. No serious effort to piddle with > > it > > > > can be done without dealing with the Runtime. Converting Forms is the > > best > > > > example. > > > > > > You don't have to modify visual basic in any way at all. > > > > > > > Also any meaningful (saleable, useful, ...) VB6.Net project has to > allow > > a > > > > degree of translation - intermediate hybrids. This can not be done > > without > > > > modifying the runtime. > > > > > > I don't see why this is necessary. We're talking about a utility to > > > translate vb6 code into dotnet code. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > Nothing in programming is impossible given enough layers of indirection > and > > enough programmers enough time to work on it. > > > > Yet, strangely nothing has yet to appear after almost 6 years of > > opportunity. It would seem that many are ignoring an easy opportunity for > > fame and riches. > > > > -ralph > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 01:43:53 -0600, "Ralph" <nt_consultin***@yahoo.com> in <fqadnYc2zPBvFJPZ4p2***@arkansas.net> wrote: Show quoteHide quote > The same decision I forced myself to make because it's too difficult to>"NickHK" <TungChe***@Invalid.com> wrote in message >news:eMotYenQGHA.3896@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> Ralph, >> If MS wish to "encourage" more people to utilise the .Net framework, why >> have they not come with a more robust translation/migration tool ? >> They obviously have access to all the required runtimes etc and the >> commercial interest to do, but what they released so far is (apparently) >> somewhat pathetic. >> Unless the technical difficulties are actually quite many and complex. >> >> NickHK >> > >The technical difficulties are complex, but were not insurmountable. > >One only has to look at the one successful example we do have: the migration >of C++. The tools supplied went through various stages. Managed and >Unmanaged blocks to the evenual arrival of C++/CLI. > >One could also argue that VBc would also have to have extended its OOPL >features - implementation inheritance, constructors, etc come to mind. >Nothing here that wasn't promised years before. Had they delivered the items >we expected before VB6 was released, they would have been more than half way >there. > >(Which leads me to believe that the seeds for VB's eventual destruction were >laid farther back than even the release of .Net.) > >The resulting VB.Net language would be little different that what exists in >VB6 - much of the 'complexity' of a conversion today is due to the fact they >screwed with the language as much as they did. > >As for 'Why'? Nothing seems to make sense. I have examined a hundred >different reasons over the last couple of years. All seems to have some >merit in terms of cost reduction, technical advancement, etc., but even >these 'advantages' pale compared to alienating a large group of users and >leaving open such a large gapping hole. > >Frankly, I have come to believe, that when the 'truth' comes out in ten or >twenty years, and eventually it will come out, we will find it was a petty >decision based one person's arrogance, and nothing more. > >-ralph develop anything while dancing round and round in limbo. And if I had to guess I'd bet my money on Ballmer - the vitriolic twit with the bad temper. --- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no conferred rights. Stefan Berglund
Show quote
Hide quote
"Stefan Berglund" wrote: He gets my vote as well.> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 01:43:53 -0600, "Ralph" <nt_consultin***@yahoo.com> > wrote: > in <fqadnYc2zPBvFJPZ4p2***@arkansas.net> > > > > >"NickHK" <TungChe***@Invalid.com> wrote in message > >news:eMotYenQGHA.3896@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > >> Ralph, > >> If MS wish to "encourage" more people to utilise the .Net framework, why > >> have they not come with a more robust translation/migration tool ? > >> They obviously have access to all the required runtimes etc and the > >> commercial interest to do, but what they released so far is (apparently) > >> somewhat pathetic. > >> Unless the technical difficulties are actually quite many and complex. > >> > >> NickHK > >> > > > >The technical difficulties are complex, but were not insurmountable. > > > >One only has to look at the one successful example we do have: the migration > >of C++. The tools supplied went through various stages. Managed and > >Unmanaged blocks to the evenual arrival of C++/CLI. > > > >One could also argue that VBc would also have to have extended its OOPL > >features - implementation inheritance, constructors, etc come to mind. > >Nothing here that wasn't promised years before. Had they delivered the items > >we expected before VB6 was released, they would have been more than half way > >there. > > > >(Which leads me to believe that the seeds for VB's eventual destruction were > >laid farther back than even the release of .Net.) > > > >The resulting VB.Net language would be little different that what exists in > >VB6 - much of the 'complexity' of a conversion today is due to the fact they > >screwed with the language as much as they did. > > > >As for 'Why'? Nothing seems to make sense. I have examined a hundred > >different reasons over the last couple of years. All seems to have some > >merit in terms of cost reduction, technical advancement, etc., but even > >these 'advantages' pale compared to alienating a large group of users and > >leaving open such a large gapping hole. > > > >Frankly, I have come to believe, that when the 'truth' comes out in ten or > >twenty years, and eventually it will come out, we will find it was a petty > >decision based one person's arrogance, and nothing more. > > > >-ralph > > The same decision I forced myself to make because it's too difficult to > develop anything while dancing round and round in limbo. And if I had > to guess I'd bet my money on Ballmer - the vitriolic twit with the bad > temper. > > --- > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no conferred rights. > > Stefan Berglund > -ralph Ralph wrote:
> Or perhaps a high-level corporate one - that supporting a programming toolset> Frankly, I have come to believe, that when the 'truth' comes out in ten or > twenty years, and eventually it will come out, we will find it was a petty > decision based one person's arrogance, and nothing more. > which "mere mortals" could use was no longer in the best interests of Office and Windows sales. .... Even though bringing BASIC to a popular audience was precisely the reason "Micro-Soft" (as it was then known) was founded in the first place. Bob -- On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:14:43 +0800, "NickHK" <TungChe***@Invalid.com> An alternative view is that the people running MS are a bit thickwrote: >Ralph, >If MS wish to "encourage" more people to utilise the .Net framework, why >have they not come with a more robust translation/migration tool ? >They obviously have access to all the required runtimes etc and the >commercial interest to do, but what they released so far is (apparently) >somewhat pathetic. >Unless the technical difficulties are actually quite many and complex. - it does happen, sh*t floats to the top About 5 years ago I wrote a simple BASIC interpreter in VB, it was astonishingly easy. To write a PCode compiler for it would take little over a day. I doubt that re-writing VB would be that difficult - it is just hard to get motivated - mostly prats try to write an IDE - as BG spotted you start with an interpreter. Incidentally, old seasoned coders tend to write 'interpreters' to parameterize their applications, it is just that we tend to be /application/ programmers so we don't look at the 'dog food' that we use, that critically. In the old days we used to extend our BASIC with ASM, nowadays Delphi DLLs do the same job. - some use 'C' - but I vomit at the sight of 'C' code - it is so incompetant - neither fish nor fowl - just foul. Personally I reckon that MS are making a major Marketing mistake, and I use the word 'marketing' in a very specific way. BG probably knows, but his cretins do not understand, that BASIC has always been the way that smart people translate their knowledge into code. In other words, applications sell computers, and the people who write 'applications' are not, primarily, programmers. Real 'programmers' are linguistically challenged nerds who revel in obscurity and are taught 'Computer Science' by dis-functional morons working for universities and paid peanuts. I know, my younger brother did CS, I had to teach him commercial programming, I've given remedial programming tuition to a guy with a PhD in CS. Being a sarcastic swine, I always call myself a 'computer programmer', which I am not, I am (and some of you out there are also) really an analyst who happens to be capable of coding in a few languages. Over time, us 'non-programmer Analysts' develop skills, primarily because supposed experts screw us up, and we have to sort out the mess. In my case it got down to TSRs, Device Drivers and PCB design, simply because it was the only way to get things working. What MS has forgotten, is where they came from. They provided a cheap and easily useable language that was remarkably portable, and enabled people like me to write systems that sacked rooms full of nebishes. Nowadays, the entry level is 'scripting' in Word or Excel, the next step used to be VB - but the rug has been pulled out there. Personally I don't much care, although I have spotted an extremely obscure bug in the XP DOS emulator (which I suspect was bought in from CP/M well DR), I am pretty confident that my stuff will continue to run - MS cannot afford to trash unmaintained legacy Apps What narks me is that MS have shafted the source of new 'real programmers' - VB is far from an ideal language, but it remained (until VB6) a pretty good play pen for us 'non-programmers' to release ideas into the wild. Who gives a toss about the 'purity' of the code, all the punters see is the fuctionality - 'purity' is something we invent for self preservation, like maintaining the 'streams of conciousness' that we use to solve a problem /permanently/. MS have shot themselves in the foot On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:26:02 +0000 (UTC), erew***@nowhere.uk (J French)
wrote: in <440e9529.607735***@news.btopenworld.com> Show quoteHide quote >On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:14:43 +0800, "NickHK" <TungChe***@Invalid.com> BRAVO! Well said and all that rot.>wrote: > >>Ralph, >>If MS wish to "encourage" more people to utilise the .Net framework, why >>have they not come with a more robust translation/migration tool ? >>They obviously have access to all the required runtimes etc and the >>commercial interest to do, but what they released so far is (apparently) >>somewhat pathetic. >>Unless the technical difficulties are actually quite many and complex. > >An alternative view is that the people running MS are a bit thick > >- it does happen, sh*t floats to the top > >About 5 years ago I wrote a simple BASIC interpreter in VB, it was >astonishingly easy. To write a PCode compiler for it would take little >over a day. > >I doubt that re-writing VB would be that difficult >- it is just hard to get motivated >- mostly prats try to write an IDE - as BG spotted you start with an >interpreter. > >Incidentally, old seasoned coders tend to write 'interpreters' to >parameterize their applications, it is just that we tend to be >/application/ programmers so we don't look at the 'dog food' that we >use, that critically. In the old days we used to extend our BASIC with >ASM, nowadays Delphi DLLs do the same job. >- some use 'C' - but I vomit at the sight of 'C' code >- it is so incompetant - neither fish nor fowl - just foul. > >Personally I reckon that MS are making a major Marketing mistake, and >I use the word 'marketing' in a very specific way. > >BG probably knows, but his cretins do not understand, that BASIC has >always been the way that smart people translate their knowledge into >code. > >In other words, applications sell computers, and the people who write >'applications' are not, primarily, programmers. > >Real 'programmers' are linguistically challenged nerds who revel in >obscurity and are taught 'Computer Science' by dis-functional morons >working for universities and paid peanuts. > >I know, my younger brother did CS, I had to teach him commercial >programming, I've given remedial programming tuition to a guy with a >PhD in CS. > >Being a sarcastic swine, I always call myself a 'computer programmer', >which I am not, I am (and some of you out there are also) really an >analyst who happens to be capable of coding in a few languages. > >Over time, us 'non-programmer Analysts' develop skills, primarily >because supposed experts screw us up, and we have to sort out the >mess. > >In my case it got down to TSRs, Device Drivers and PCB design, simply >because it was the only way to get things working. > >What MS has forgotten, is where they came from. >They provided a cheap and easily useable language that was remarkably >portable, and enabled people like me to write systems that sacked >rooms full of nebishes. > >Nowadays, the entry level is 'scripting' in Word or Excel, the next >step used to be VB - but the rug has been pulled out there. > >Personally I don't much care, although I have spotted an extremely >obscure bug in the XP DOS emulator (which I suspect was bought in from >CP/M well DR), I am pretty confident that my stuff will continue to >run >- MS cannot afford to trash unmaintained legacy Apps > >What narks me is that MS have shafted the source of new 'real >programmers' >- VB is far from an ideal language, but it remained (until VB6) a >pretty good play pen for us 'non-programmers' to release ideas into >the wild. > >Who gives a toss about the 'purity' of the code, all the punters see >is the fuctionality >- 'purity' is something we invent for self preservation, like >maintaining the 'streams of conciousness' that we use to solve a >problem /permanently/. > >MS have shot themselves in the foot > --- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no conferred rights. Stefan Berglund Rarely(!) do I applaud a post. This is one of those few occassions.
Outstanding. Simply outstanding. One for the archives. Thanks... Karl Show quoteHide quote > On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:14:43 +0800, "NickHK" <TungChe***@Invalid.com> > wrote: > >> Ralph, >> If MS wish to "encourage" more people to utilise the .Net framework, >> why have they not come with a more robust translation/migration tool >> ? >> They obviously have access to all the required runtimes etc and the >> commercial interest to do, but what they released so far is >> (apparently) somewhat pathetic. >> Unless the technical difficulties are actually quite many and >> complex. > > An alternative view is that the people running MS are a bit thick > > - it does happen, sh*t floats to the top > > About 5 years ago I wrote a simple BASIC interpreter in VB, it was > astonishingly easy. To write a PCode compiler for it would take little > over a day. > > I doubt that re-writing VB would be that difficult > - it is just hard to get motivated > - mostly prats try to write an IDE - as BG spotted you start with an > interpreter. > > Incidentally, old seasoned coders tend to write 'interpreters' to > parameterize their applications, it is just that we tend to be > /application/ programmers so we don't look at the 'dog food' that we > use, that critically. In the old days we used to extend our BASIC with > ASM, nowadays Delphi DLLs do the same job. > - some use 'C' - but I vomit at the sight of 'C' code > - it is so incompetant - neither fish nor fowl - just foul. > > Personally I reckon that MS are making a major Marketing mistake, and > I use the word 'marketing' in a very specific way. > > BG probably knows, but his cretins do not understand, that BASIC has > always been the way that smart people translate their knowledge into > code. > > In other words, applications sell computers, and the people who write > 'applications' are not, primarily, programmers. > > Real 'programmers' are linguistically challenged nerds who revel in > obscurity and are taught 'Computer Science' by dis-functional morons > working for universities and paid peanuts. > > I know, my younger brother did CS, I had to teach him commercial > programming, I've given remedial programming tuition to a guy with a > PhD in CS. > > Being a sarcastic swine, I always call myself a 'computer programmer', > which I am not, I am (and some of you out there are also) really an > analyst who happens to be capable of coding in a few languages. > > Over time, us 'non-programmer Analysts' develop skills, primarily > because supposed experts screw us up, and we have to sort out the > mess. > > In my case it got down to TSRs, Device Drivers and PCB design, simply > because it was the only way to get things working. > > What MS has forgotten, is where they came from. > They provided a cheap and easily useable language that was remarkably > portable, and enabled people like me to write systems that sacked > rooms full of nebishes. > > Nowadays, the entry level is 'scripting' in Word or Excel, the next > step used to be VB - but the rug has been pulled out there. > > Personally I don't much care, although I have spotted an extremely > obscure bug in the XP DOS emulator (which I suspect was bought in from > CP/M well DR), I am pretty confident that my stuff will continue to > run > - MS cannot afford to trash unmaintained legacy Apps > > What narks me is that MS have shafted the source of new 'real > programmers' > - VB is far from an ideal language, but it remained (until VB6) a > pretty good play pen for us 'non-programmers' to release ideas into > the wild. > > Who gives a toss about the 'purity' of the code, all the punters see > is the fuctionality > - 'purity' is something we invent for self preservation, like > maintaining the 'streams of conciousness' that we use to solve a > problem /permanently/. > > MS have shot themselves in the foot > In other words, applications sell computers, and the people who write I've always looked at it that way and was grateful> 'applications' are not, primarily, programmers. > > Real 'programmers' are linguistically challenged nerds who revel in > obscurity and are taught 'Computer Science' by dis-functional morons > working for universities and paid peanuts. > > Nowadays, the entry level is 'scripting' in Word or Excel, the next > step used to be VB - but the rug has been pulled out there. > to Microsoft for providing so many rungs up the ladder, but the geek illuminati...the cult of C....that you describe as real programmers, are right now over at Slashdot discussing whether VB is a good language for beginners. Many of the posters feel that beginners should start with C or assembly because starting at a higher level skips the basics. That seems to be a good point, but if I had had to start at command line I still wouldn't even own a computer. It's not worth the bother. Many of the Slashdot posters feel that VB is not good for anything. What I found especially striking is how much the Cult of C doesn't understand VB. Most of the posters don't seem to know that VB6 and VB.Net are different. And most think of VB as only the basic version, using objects and variants; the VB that nearly matches VBScript. J French wrote:
> the bad news is they've proven to have an unlimited supply of feet.> MS have shot themselves in the foot Bob -- And ammo to match
Saga Show quoteHide quote "Bob O`Bob" <filter***@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message news:uVIu7qvQGHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >J French wrote: > >> >> MS have shot themselves in the foot > > > the bad news is they've proven to have an unlimited supply of feet. > > > > Bob > -- It's an interesting issue about whether the "language" can be copyrighted,
and whether a "clean room" compiler and run-time could be created outside of Microsoft. I don't know the international law covering copyright and patent in this area but these mechanisms always favour the institutions with enough money to drive them along. As for Intellectual Property, what about the IP embodied in those legacy code bases - the ones Microsoft has arbitrarily consigned to rot. Surely those companies could take whatever means necessary to preserve that IP, and their commercial products associated with it. Tony Proctor Show quoteHide quote "ralph" <ra***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message couldn't younews:9AE29F04-050D-444B-878F-8728C431FA6A@microsoft.com... > > > "S. I. Becker" wrote: > > > Michael C wrote: > > > "S. I. Becker" <stewart@becker.nospam> wrote in message news:% > > >> Can you elaborate a bit more on the intellectual rights that MS have on VB > > >> and its runtime? Intellectual property law as applied to software is > > >> different in the UK & EU from in the US - one major difference being that > > >> software patents don't exist here (IMO a good thing - your mileage may > > >> vary), the most you can do is copyright and/or trademark software. Would > > >> this enable a group in the EU to make a start on writing a VB6 -> ..NET > > >> compiler, or have I missed something? I am _very_much_ not a lawyer, > > >> hence I've probably missed something obvious. > > > > > > I wouldn't have thought you'd need any license from MS at all, Show quoteHide quote > > > write it in powerbuilder if you wanted to? > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > It's not what you write it in that would be the issue, its the fact that > > you would be duplicating a Microsoft technology. But this is exactly > > what I want to find out: how far can you go without needing a licence > > from Microsoft at all? > > > > Stewart > > > > I have been trying to expand on my original statement with a clear summary > of the issues, without going into some lengthy babble - which as most of you > know is not easy for me to avoid. > > I don't think there is one, and thus everyone has been spared. <g> > > A couple of small items: > > The 'core' language for VB is VBA, and you can license that - but if you > read the EULA you will find that all you get is the opportunity to distribute > it and let your users type it. You can't change it or the runtime. > > "Competing" with MS is one thing, borrowing anything they consider theirs is > quite another. > > Visual Basic is more than a language. No serious effort to piddle with it > can be done without dealing with the Runtime. Converting Forms is the best > example. > > Also any meaningful (saleable, useful, ...) VB6.Net project has to allow a > degree of translation - intermediate hybrids. This can not be done without > modifying the runtime. > > Also there is another rumor that MS does have something in the works, But I > been hearing rumors for the last 6 years - is it true? Does MS start > themselves? I've stopped caring. > > -ralph > > If MS wish to "encourage" more people to utilise the .Net framework, You cannot build an entirely sucessfull translation tool, any autowhy > have they not come with a more robust translation/migration tool ? translation of VB6 would result in a messy difficult to maintain .NET system which fails to take advantage of what object orietated languages have to offer. VB6 is not a proper object orientated language. .NET languages are and there is a VB flavoured .NET language called VB.NET. VB6 and a .NET languages are "apples" and "oranges", square pegs and round holes, Dinosaurs and Mammals, it is time the VB6 dinosaur became extinct. VB6 developers need to make the evolutionary leap into the object orientated world some time if they expect to build ever more complex systems. Yes I know this is tough to accept when you have so much effort and expertise invested in VB6, take the hit like a pro. and get on with it. To convert a VB6 system to C# or VB.NET (they are pretty much the same) 1) put the effort into learning one of these languages and object orietated software design. 2) take everything you learned about the requirements for your system while you were building it in VB6 and keep a record of it, this is the most valuable thing you can get from your existing system. 3) Keep any VB6 complex functions / algoritms implementing business rules you might have for later manual translation into C# / VB.NET these are usefull and constitue detailed requirements 4) Start rebuilding with you favoured .NET language using best practices - see MSDN patterns and practices. Enterprise Library is a good foundation to start with. It has often been said .NET rocks! In time you will think so too if you make the effort. Adrian *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com *** AGH! wrote:
>> If MS wish to "encourage" more people to utilise the .Net framework, Which is why they should not have changed the language when they created > why >> have they not come with a more robust translation/migration tool ? > > You cannot build an entirely sucessfull translation tool, any auto > translation of VB6 would result in a messy difficult to maintain .NET > system which fails to take advantage of what object orietated languages > have to offer. Fred. It would have been possible to keep the existing language, but extend it to make it fully OO, and add the ability to access the .NET framework. > VB6 is not a proper object orientated language. Agreed. There is no reason why MS could not have made VB7, which would have compiled existing VB6 code but was also fully OO. Offering access to the .NET framework would have been an additional bonus. But MS decided not to - they decided to write a new language: Fred. > .NET languages are and No, it is time for the next VB. Like you said, Fred is VB flavoured, > there is a VB flavoured .NET language called VB.NET. VB6 and a .NET > languages are "apples" and "oranges", square pegs and round holes, > Dinosaurs and Mammals, it is time the VB6 dinosaur became extinct. but it isn't VB. What is needed is a language that can take VB6 code, and compile it, but also extends the language to make it fully OO and offers access to the .NET framework. Is that really too much to ask? Everything you've said about Fred and VB6 could be applied to C# and C(++), but no-one argues that C should die just because C# is here? > VB6 Maybe. But where is our tool to do so? Fred doesn't cut it since we > developers need to make the evolutionary leap into the object orientated > world some time if they expect to build ever more complex systems. can't use existing code. Even with the upgrade wizard it's no good since the wizard doesn't work. OO is nice _for_coders_, but it's not 42. Users don't care if the program is OO or not, or whether it was written in VB6, Fred, C, C#, java, FORTRAN, assembler ... as long as it does what it's supposed to at a decent speed, and is produced by the delivery date. In my line of work I need to keep my users happy, producing what they want and need, not what I think they should have based on how it suits my agenda. > Yes It's not the effort or expertise involved in learning Fred or C#, it's > I know this is tough to accept when you have so much effort and > expertise invested in VB6, take the hit like a pro. and get on with it. the code assets that can't be taken forward that is the problem. > To convert a VB6 system to C# or VB.NET (they are pretty much the same) Done.> 1) put the effort into learning one of these languages and > object orietated software design. > 2) take everything you learned about the requirements for your system Mostly already documented during the design stage. Much of the rest in > while you were building it in > VB6 and keep a record of it, this is the most valuable thing you can get > from your existing system. comments added during debugging stages. > 3) Keep any VB6 complex functions / algoritms implementing business Manual translation will incorporate bugs. Not might, but will. We > rules you might have for later manual translation into C# / VB.NET these > are usefull and constitue detailed requirements humans are a fallible lot (well I am). For example, I just converted some code from VB to C++ yesterday. It's not even 1000 lines. I still haven't converted it fully, because I made mistakes - typos, missed lines, forgot differences in behaviour between VB and C++. And this was code that when written I knew I'd have to port to C++. It took 2 hours to research the algorithm - i.e. find the right page in the right book - 2 hours to code in VB, and a further 2 hours to test. It's taken nearly 2 days to port to a new language so far. And this is with the book still next to me. What it will be like with whole modules of undocumented code, written by someone else, deliberately using hacks of the language to accomplish stuff I dread to think! > 4) Start rebuilding with you favoured .NET language using best practices In other words, do a re-write in a new language. But for many that's > - see MSDN patterns and practices. Enterprise Library is a good > foundation to start with. just not feasible. For others, the decision for a re-write should not be imposed from outside, it should be when you decide to write the next version. > It has often been said .NET rocks! In time you will think so too if you I have made the effort! Fred and C# are quite pleasant to code in. I > make the effort. shall be purchasing VS 2005 later today (My wife just gave me permission). I was active in getting my boss to get VS2005 when we next renew our MSDN subscription. That doesn't stop my .NET apps being slower than my C++/VB6 native apps, or mean that my existing VB6 code-base can move forward to take advantage of the .NET framework. It also doesn't stop me thinking that VB6 rocks! The question you must ask yourself is "Will my users think my VB6 app is better when I convert it to .NET?" Most often the answer is no. Users expect new features after a re-write, and the longer they have to wait, the more features they expect. Unless you have already planned to re-write your app, coding it in a new language doesn't make sense. Stewart "S. I. Becker" <stewart@becker.nospam> wrote in message This would not have been possible. MS wanted to make the most advanced high > Which is why they should not have changed the language when they created > Fred. It would have been possible to keep the existing language, but > extend it to make it fully OO, and add the ability to access the .NET > framework. level language possible. Making it fully compatible with vb6 would have held it back. Maybe there should be a seperate language called vb7 but that couldn't be dotnet without hobbling it. Michael "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message Was your koolaid grape, orange or cherry?news:%23Sin1OrQGHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl > "S. I. Becker" <stewart@becker.nospam> wrote in message >> Which is why they should not have changed the language when they >> created Fred. It would have been possible to keep the existing >> language, but extend it to make it fully OO, and add the ability to >> access the .NET framework. > > This would not have been possible. MS wanted to make the most > advanced high level language possible. Making it fully compatible > with vb6 would have held it back. Maybe there should be a seperate > language called vb7 but that couldn't be dotnet without hobbling it. -- Reply to the group so all can participate VB.Net: "Fool me once..." "Bob Butler" <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote in message news:% Dunno, we don't get koolaid here afaik. Is it anything like gelati? :-)>> This would not have been possible. MS wanted to make the most >> advanced high level language possible. Making it fully compatible >> with vb6 would have held it back. Maybe there should be a seperate >> language called vb7 but that couldn't be dotnet without hobbling it. > > Was your koolaid grape, orange or cherry? Michael Michael C wrote:
> If that's true (which I dispute) it certainly wasn't named "Visual Basic"> MS wanted to make the most advanced high > level language possible. "Bob O`Bob" <filter***@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message No, it was named C#.news:OwHXNsvQGHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > Michael C wrote: > >> >> MS wanted to make the most advanced high level language possible. > > > If that's true (which I dispute) it certainly wasn't named "Visual Basic" > Which is why they should not have changed the language when they Under the skin VB.NET is refered to as VB7.created Fred. Fred? > ... which would have compiled existing VB6 code but was also fully OO Fully OO means by definition, not allowed to do things the "old" way,old VB6 code's basic architecture is not fully OO, there is no easy upgrade path and that cannot be helped. VB6 has probably gone as far as it can with support for building objects. > ... but also extends the language to make it fully OO and offers access to the .NET framework. Is that really too much to ask? It is really, any .NET language has to be CLR compliant. There is some help for projects migrating to .NET over time, for example you can call existing COM components from .NET code and vice versa http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dncomg/ html/comtechnologies.asp "This protects your existing investments in COM applications while allowing you to take advantage of the power of .NET in a measured pace." - quote. ...well it at least helps. > Users don't care if the program is OO or not, or whether it was written in VB6, Fred, C, C#, java, FORTRAN, assembler ... Yes, I agree. > Manual translation will incorporate bugs. Not might, but will. I agree again.It is not easy tackling the issue of existing VB6/VC++ systems migrating to .NET (I would agree this issue applies nearly as much to VC++ as it does VB6). One thing that is certain is Microsoft themselves are faced with the same problem for their whole product line (Exchange 2003 for example is not a .NET framework system). > The question you must ask yourself is "Will my users think my VB6 app is better when I convert it to .NET?" Most often the answer is no.I know quite a few people in this position, one person in particular has a class ASP / VBScript web system which he still has not moved over to .NET because the customer base will not know or care how it is built and he cannot find a reason to spend the money doing it. What I see going on in the market place is green field and new sub-system developments in .NET, older systems continueing to be maintained in VB6/VC++ until they reach the end of their life or there is a significant enough change in requirements to justify a system re-build / re-write. Adrian *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com *** "AGH!" <agh@nospam.com> wrote in message And VB8 and now they are working on VB9, I think :-Snews:eOCGztrQGHA.224@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> Which is why they should not have changed the language when they > created Fred. > Fred? > Under the skin VB.NET is refered to as VB7. > Saga AGH! wrote:
>> Which is why they should not have changed the language when they Over here it's referred to as VisualFred, because VB it is not.> created Fred. > Fred? > Under the skin VB.NET is refered to as VB7. >> ... which would have compiled existing VB6 code but was also fully OO No, any .NET language has to be _capable_ of producing CLR compliant > Fully OO means by definition, not allowed to do things the "old" way, > old VB6 code's basic architecture is not fully OO, there is no easy > upgrade path and that cannot be helped. VB6 has probably gone as far as > it can with support for building objects. >> ... but also extends the language to make it fully OO and offers > access to the .NET framework. Is that really too much to ask? > It is really, any .NET language has to be CLR compliant. code, which is not the same thing. If there is code that is not CLR compliant, you can still compile it though if you turn CLR Compliance off in your AssemblyInfo file. > There is some help for projects migrating to .NET over time, for example This allows you to call existing compiled VB code, in an existing DLL. > you can call existing COM components from .NET code and vice versa > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dncomg/ > html/comtechnologies.asp > "This protects your existing investments in COM applications while > allowing you to take advantage of the power of .NET in a measured pace." > - quote. > ..well it at least helps. It does not allow you to maintain and upgrade that code using the latest tools. >> Manual translation will incorporate bugs. Not might, but will. So having manual translation as part of the critical path for using the > I agree again. latest compiler is a bad thing. Your code will develop bugs during the "upgrade" process. > It is not easy tackling the issue of existing VB6/VC++ systems migrating MS has most of their code assets in C++, not VB. Code written in VC6 > to .NET (I would agree this issue applies nearly as much to VC++ as it > does VB6). One thing that is certain is Microsoft themselves are faced > with the same problem for their whole product line (Exchange 2003 for > example is not a .NET framework system). can be opened in VC7, recompiled and off you go. The most I've needed to do is reset some project properties such as include locations, taking me half a day. C++ code can be maintained using the latest tools, whether that means .NET or not. VB6 code cannot - and this is the major issue in the VB6/VB.NET argument. >> The question you must ask yourself is "Will my users think my VB6 app Sometimes that will not occur, at least for a long while. I maintain > is better when I convert it to .NET?" Most often the answer is no. > I know quite a few people in this position, one person in particular has > a class ASP / VBScript web system which he still has not moved over to > .NET because the customer base will not know or care how it is built and > he cannot find a reason to spend the money doing it. > > What I see going on in the market place is green field and new > sub-system developments in .NET, older systems continueing to be > maintained in VB6/VC++ until they reach the end of their life or there > is a significant enough change in requirements to justify a system > re-build / re-write. code that changes slowly, adapting to my customers' needs and wants. Slow, gradual, evolutionary changes are sometimes the best methods for software development, rather than recreation. But that option is closed now to some of my code. Stewart Agreed, it certainly isn't due to my muleheadedness as to why I use
VB6, rather it pertains to the depth of the pockets of the company where I render my services. Doing a full migration is not cheap, in terms of money or time (although in the end time is money). If they required me to use FORTRAN tomorrow, then I would, but this is not likely to happen for the same reason why we have not made the switch to .NET. Truth be told, we will start doing development in .NET, probably this year as we are aware of its advantages (and disadvantages) but we don't see dropping VB6 entirely for quite some time. Aside from the VB6 code assets that are already in our pockets there are also hardware assets that need to be replaced in order to make .NET work. Upgrades are driven by necessity, so hardware is not upgraded unless there is a need for it. This places us in the "OMG, they still have that!" category, but I believe that most businesses try to maximize their use of resources. The same can't be said about VB5. When the company started to use VB6, they stopped using VB5 in one day. VB5 projects were opened in VB6, tweaked accordingly where necessary and that was that. The cost of migration was minimal. Not so with .NET. We don't care if Fred.NET is or is not compatible with VB6. We don't care if MS made it this way. We do care; however, that MS is forcing us to eat F.NET. This "bullying" makes me even more hesitant to delve into the .NET platform, even knowning that sooner or later (and sooner than later) I will have to. Personally I am up to the challenge, but this is not a case where I can go running amok in the .NET jungle. "Daddy" has to be willing to pay for it.<g> Regards, Saga Show quoteHide quote "AGH!" <agh@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23ThrbtpQGHA.2156@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > > Dinosaurs and Mammals, it is time the VB6 dinosaur became extinct. > VB6 > developers need to make the evolutionary leap into the object > orientated > world some time if they expect to build ever more complex systems. > Yes > I know this is tough to accept when you have so much effort and > expertise invested in VB6, take the hit like a pro. and get on with > it. Hi,
I know VB.NUT is a better languages and its has things like inheritance, fully opps etc but here we are not talking about VB.NET or ..NUT. Here we are talking about VB6, this language was growing and they decided on one day to stop it completely. Its like most people have petrol cars and the government one day decides to ban petrol, and say because it's a bad fuel, so all petrol cars user should buy new electric car? They should have provided VB v6.5 that fixes VB6 bugs and serve as a migration platform for the users existing codes, removing very old and not so used features. and making the VB v6.5 for the NT platform only, and also adding full Unicode support for the forms and control. Thank you, Show quoteHide quote > Michael C wrote: > I agree they dumped VB pretty poorly and all that but this statement above > is just ludicrous. You basically have no idea of the differences between > .net and vb6 so seam to think because you don't know of them they don't > exist. Dotnet is a whole level above vb6, there is no question about that.
Show quote
Hide quote
On 7 Mar 2006 02:45:14 -0800, "Tamo" <tamoga***@excite.com> wrote: I've been thinking about this for some time>Hi, >I know VB.NUT is a better languages and its has things like >inheritance, fully opps etc but here we are not talking about VB.NET or >.NUT. Here we are talking about VB6, this language was growing and they >decided on one day to stop it completely. >Its like most people have petrol cars and the government one day >decides to ban petrol, and say because it's a bad fuel, so all petrol >cars user should buy new electric car? >They should have provided VB v6.5 that fixes VB6 bugs and serve as a >migration platform for the users existing codes, removing very old and >not so used features. and making the VB v6.5 for the NT platform only, >and also adding full Unicode support for the forms and control. MS don't really care whether people write in VB.NET or C# - what they really want is for people to use the .NET framework - in some ways that is not entirely daft as the framework is really meant to be a portable operating system. If I were MS I would have reproduced VB6 precisely 'as is' - but have added features to lure programmers into producing 100% DotNet compliant systems - for example an OnMessage event and the ability to 'bind' an OCX into an App, also a sensible alternative to APIs VB.NET (as it is misleadingly named) might be a better thought out product, but it is not a 'natural' next step for most VB Classic users. > I agree they dumped VB pretty poorly and all that but this statement above A whole level above, not from my POV. (The POV of a manager/developer with > is just ludicrous. You basically have no idea of the differences between > .net and vb6 so seam to think because you don't know of them they don't > exist. Dotnet is a whole level above vb6, there is no question about that. a lot of VB5 and VB6 apps to manage) > Why doesn't everyone stop whinging are get together and write a better A better question is why wont Microsoft write a better import. I personally > import. There's no reason it shouldn't be possible to import a VB6 app > into .net and have it run pretty much straight off. don't think a better import can be done without a lot of changes to VB2005. (.NET) -- Show quoteHide quoteBob Comer "Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23BEalwXQGHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > "Tamo" <tamoga***@excite.com> wrote in message > news:1141687754.019865.165860@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... >> I tried 2002, 2003 and now 2005, nothing have changed except few >> Framework changes and cool looking IDE. The only good thing in .NET is >> ASP.NET. .NUT is not for local application developer. > > I agree they dumped VB pretty poorly and all that but this statement above > is just ludicrous. You basically have no idea of the differences between > .net and vb6 so seam to think because you don't know of them they don't > exist. Dotnet is a whole level above vb6, there is no question about that. > >> Why not create a donation fund and donate $5 in it, write letters to >> M$, and hire someone in Redmond who can print and forward those letters >> to MS? > > Why doesn't everyone stop whinging are get together and write a better > import. There's no reason it shouldn't be possible to import a VB6 app > into .net and have it run pretty much straight off. > > Michael > On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 10:01:47 -0500, "Robert Comer"
<bobco***@mindspring.com> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >> I agree they dumped VB pretty poorly and all that but this statement above Well it is a different language>> is just ludicrous. You basically have no idea of the differences between >> .net and vb6 so seam to think because you don't know of them they don't >> exist. Dotnet is a whole level above vb6, there is no question about that. >A whole level above, not from my POV. (The POV of a manager/developer with >a lot of VB5 and VB6 apps to manage) >> Why doesn't everyone stop whinging are get together and write a better >> import. There's no reason it shouldn't be possible to import a VB6 app >> into .net and have it run pretty much straight off. >A better question is why wont Microsoft write a better import. I personally >don't think a better import can be done without a lot of changes to VB2005. >(.NET) The upside is that us old gits will soon be worth serious bucks - you want your bug fixed - price $10,000 - you want your system re-written - price $500,000 (plus risk) The neat thing is that VB.Not.Yet is sufficiently 'advanced' to turn off potential new entries - restricting the players And those who get through the 'Gate' will have no idea about VB Classic' code. A very nice thought > Well it is a different language That's for sure!> The upside is that us old gits will soon be worth serious bucks <g> I'm too tired to take on more work like this...> - you want your bug fixed - price $10,000 > - you want your system re-written - price $500,000 (plus risk) -- Show quoteHide quoteBob Comer "J French" <erew***@nowhere.uk> wrote in message news:440da548.546316804@news.btopenworld.com... > On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 10:01:47 -0500, "Robert Comer" > <bobco***@mindspring.com> wrote: > >>> I agree they dumped VB pretty poorly and all that but this statement >>> above >>> is just ludicrous. You basically have no idea of the differences between >>> .net and vb6 so seam to think because you don't know of them they don't >>> exist. Dotnet is a whole level above vb6, there is no question about >>> that. > >>A whole level above, not from my POV. (The POV of a manager/developer >>with >>a lot of VB5 and VB6 apps to manage) > >>> Why doesn't everyone stop whinging are get together and write a better >>> import. There's no reason it shouldn't be possible to import a VB6 app >>> into .net and have it run pretty much straight off. > >>A better question is why wont Microsoft write a better import. I >>personally >>don't think a better import can be done without a lot of changes to >>VB2005. >>(.NET) > > Well it is a different language > > The upside is that us old gits will soon be worth serious bucks > - you want your bug fixed - price $10,000 > - you want your system re-written - price $500,000 (plus risk) > > The neat thing is that VB.Not.Yet is sufficiently 'advanced' to turn > off potential new entries > - restricting the players > > And those who get through the 'Gate' will have no idea about VB > Classic' code. > > A very nice thought DLL Hell problems? Try ComGuard - http://www.vbsight.com/ComGuard.htm
Show quoteHide quote "Robert Comer" <bobco***@mindspring.com> wrote in message Talking about bug fixes in old code... boy.. I /almost/ contacted a company news:uxH6g6fQGHA.5248@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> Well it is a different language > > That's for sure! > >> The upside is that us old gits will soon be worth serious bucks >> - you want your bug fixed - price $10,000 >> - you want your system re-written - price $500,000 (plus risk) > > <g> I'm too tired to take on more work like this... > > -- > Bob Comer a few weeks ago that wanted their DOS basic apps migrated to windows. If the thought of working in Quickbasic wasn't bad enough, I just *knew* the code would be full of spaghetti after 15 years of maintenance. That scared me off. If they happen to be still interested in a few months, I may actually do it <g> -- Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - Please keep all discussions in the groups.. > Talking about bug fixes in old code... boy.. I /almost/ contacted a I can understand that sentiment!> company a few weeks ago that wanted their DOS basic apps migrated to > windows. If the thought of working in Quickbasic wasn't bad enough, I just > *knew* the code would be full of spaghetti after 15 years of maintenance. > That scared me off. If they happen to be still interested in a few months, > I may actually do it <g> -- Show quoteHide quoteBob Comer "Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Og2LgrgQGHA.3108@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > DLL Hell problems? Try ComGuard - http://www.vbsight.com/ComGuard.htm > "Robert Comer" <bobco***@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:uxH6g6fQGHA.5248@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>> Well it is a different language >> >> That's for sure! >> >>> The upside is that us old gits will soon be worth serious bucks >>> - you want your bug fixed - price $10,000 >>> - you want your system re-written - price $500,000 (plus risk) >> >> <g> I'm too tired to take on more work like this... >> >> -- >> Bob Comer > > Talking about bug fixes in old code... boy.. I /almost/ contacted a > company a few weeks ago that wanted their DOS basic apps migrated to > windows. If the thought of working in Quickbasic wasn't bad enough, I just > *knew* the code would be full of spaghetti after 15 years of maintenance. > That scared me off. If they happen to be still interested in a few months, > I may actually do it <g> > > -- > Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - Please keep all discussions in the groups.. > > On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 09:16:29 -0800, "Ken Halter"
<Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> >Talking about bug fixes in old code... boy.. I /almost/ contacted a company I would be seriously interested>a few weeks ago that wanted their DOS basic apps migrated to windows. If the >thought of working in Quickbasic wasn't bad enough, I just *knew* the code >would be full of spaghetti after 15 years of maintenance. That scared me >off. If they happen to be still interested in a few months, I may actually >do it <g> - provided the $'s are Ok Put them on to me, I'll sort out a reasonable kickback - no responsibility on your part - and I guess you have assessed my level of skills I can do a direct port (sussed that years ago) or a functional re-write which is one of my specialities. However I do not budge for less than GBP 10,000 If the pay is low, just walk away Tossers pay peanuts to monkeys. "Tamo" <tamoga***@excite.com>'s wild thoughts were released on 6 Mar 2006 15:29:14 -0800 bearing the following fruit:>hiya, Erm.. that's what people said about VB.> >I think MS have gone too far with the VB6 issue. .NET is nothing more a >platform for lazy developers trying to quickly make software. You get lazy developers in any language. VB and VB.NET are supposed to be RAD tools and I don't see anything wrong with that. >I tried 2002, 2003 and now 2005, nothing have changed except few Your kidding, there has been tons of changes, I've only>Framework changes and cool looking IDE. scratched the surface of 2005 and I'm amazed at the amount of changes. Jan Hyde (VB MVP) -- Toothache: The pain that drives you to extraction. (Goeff Tibballs) "Jan Hyde" <StellaDrin***@REMOVE.ME.uboot.com> wrote in message Ya' got that right <g>... and, with syntax like this (below), it's no news:99et021mai63uguddad8qihuhvaot097hb@4ax.com... > > You get lazy developers in any language. > wonder! "For Each Dim"? Like I said in another group, Gimme a break! Nothing like being able to instantly have a bug in an app.... and readability? forget it. The day I'm too lazy to actually declare a variable on one line and set its value on another, hand me my ticket to the 'old folks home' and take away my keyboard.... and, Console.WriteLine? Nothing like a modern OS flashing DOS console windows all over the place. What an advancement! Can I run DOS 6.1 too? Cool! I guess since there's no decent immediate window functionality, they had to come up with "something" eh? For Each Dim Country In SmallCountries Console.WriteLine(Country.Name) Next Overview of Visual Basic 9.0 http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/future/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnvs05/html/vb9overview.asp -- Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - Please keep all discussions in the groups.. DLL Hell problems? Try ComGuard - http://www.vbsight.com/ComGuard.htm "Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:upZUGPtQGHA.4900@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... I have to agree that is perverse. I have gotten used to using:" eh? > > For Each Dim Country In SmallCountries > Console.WriteLine(Country.Name) > Next > > For Each c As Country In SmallCountries Debug.Print(c.Name) Next As opposed to: Dim c As Country For Each c In SmallCountries Debug.Print(c.Name) Next I find it quite useful. But I really don't see the need to once again make up new syntax that accomplishes nothing. Just my $0.02. -- Al Reid. "Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com>'s wild thoughts were released on Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:14:34 -0800bearing the following fruit: Show quoteHide quote >"Jan Hyde" <StellaDrin***@REMOVE.ME.uboot.com> wrote in message Microsoft rarely if ever stick to the programming standards>news:99et021mai63uguddad8qihuhvaot097hb@4ax.com... >> >> You get lazy developers in any language. >> > >Ya' got that right <g>... and, with syntax like this (below), it's no >wonder! "For Each Dim"? Like I said in another group, Gimme a break! Nothing >like being able to instantly have a bug in an app.... and readability? >forget it. The day I'm too lazy to actually declare a variable on one line >and set its value on another, hand me my ticket to the 'old folks home' and >take away my keyboard.... and, Console.WriteLine? Nothing like a modern OS >flashing DOS console windows all over the place. What an advancement! Can I >run DOS 6.1 too? Cool! I guess since there's no decent immediate window >functionality, they had to come up with "something" eh? > >For Each Dim Country In SmallCountries > Console.WriteLine(Country.Name) >Next > >Overview of Visual Basic 9.0 >http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/future/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnvs05/html/vb9overview.asp they expect of others. Just take a look at the code for the P&DW..... Jan Hyde (VB MVP) -- An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys. 
Other interesting topics
Can someone please check my code? No Intellisense for items
About The Hard Disk Serial Number VB and Excel Crazy VB Convert Variant String to Double Creating an ActiveX control Acces Denied when calling FaxDocument Submit What considerations must be taken for app to run as a service? Lock Word window? Launch VB App with Arguments via Hyperlink |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
