|
code
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rolling the dice on vb6great interest. I am not sure if this is something that should be posted here, or in .net forum, but lets give it a shot - A broad evaluation of our existing vb6 code assets indicates that the majority (but not all) of our vb6-centric code (the code that needs to be most modified or converted) is in the following areas: 1) UDTs with fixed length strings and fixed-length arrays 2) Control arrays (and dynamic creation of controls using the add to array concept) 3) The forms themselves that VB6 produces 4) ActiveX Controls (some custom-created ones) 5) Lots of API calls Has anyone had to convert one or more of these things into .net? Also, we are not "sold" on .net at all (and would prefer NOT to use it). Therefore, can any of the above items be converted to another language that is NOT .net just as easy (or just as hard)? Also, if we use the activex controls inside of .net, and the activex controls are written using VB6, will they potentially be dead with the OS after Vista? In other words, should we abandon the activex controls written with vb6? We (I) are still holding out hope that VB6 will be revived (or saved) for the future, either in a guaranteed compatibility capacity, or, minor upgrades (perhaps a vb6 "XAML" like extention and development environment from some aggresive company would save us ...). Even if Microsoft exposed the WinFX to non-managed coding, that wouldn't be half bad. Unlike many "coding purists", the "OO" capability of the language isn't the be-all/end-all, its more about RAD, and ability to deliver satisfying end-user experiences. Anthony wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > A broad evaluation of our existing vb6 code assets indicates that the I've not used, but certainly heard "good things" about this:> majority (but not all) of our vb6-centric code (the code that needs > to be most modified or converted) is in the following areas: > > 1) UDTs with fixed length strings and fixed-length arrays > 2) Control arrays (and dynamic creation of controls using the add to > array concept) > 3) The forms themselves that VB6 produces > 4) ActiveX Controls (some custom-created ones) > 5) Lots of API calls > > Has anyone had to convert one or more of these things into .net? > Also, we are not "sold" on .net at all (and would prefer NOT to use > it). Therefore, can any of the above items be converted to another > language that is NOT .net just as easy (or just as hard)? http://www.deluxsoftware.com/ Especially the "to Delphi" one. KEP> http://www.deluxsoftware.com/
KEP> Especially the "to Delphi" one. Have you heard anything about when their VB to VB.NET product will be available? -- Bob Comer KEP> Anthony wrote: ??>> A broad evaluation of our existing vb6 code assets indicates that the ??>> majority (but not all) of our vb6-centric code (the code that needs ??>> to be most modified or converted) is in the following areas: ??>> ??>> 1) UDTs with fixed length strings and fixed-length arrays ??>> 2) Control arrays (and dynamic creation of controls using the add to ??>> array concept) ??>> 3) The forms themselves that VB6 produces ??>> 4) ActiveX Controls (some custom-created ones) ??>> 5) Lots of API calls ??>> ??>> Has anyone had to convert one or more of these things into .net? ??>> Also, we are not "sold" on .net at all (and would prefer NOT to use ??>> it). Therefore, can any of the above items be converted to another ??>> language that is NOT .net just as easy (or just as hard)? KEP> I've not used, but certainly heard "good things" about this: KEP> http://www.deluxsoftware.com/ KEP> Especially the "to Delphi" one. Robert Comer wrote:
>> http://www.deluxsoftware.com/ Nope. In fact, I wasn't even aware they were working on one, until I> >> Especially the "to Delphi" one. > > Have you heard anything about when their VB to VB.NET product will be > available? searched out that link for the Delphi converter. Thanks Karl! I just went there, but although the VB6 to C# converter is
available, the VB6 to VB.NET isn't available (yet?). Strange - is it actually easier to convert VB6 to C#? Makes me laugh. I was just at your site sucking down some favorites from the MVP section. I saw your link to the VBPJ archives. I still have a stack of them in my office, back from 1996 until somewhere early 2002 when VB6 articles only appeared once every 3 or 4 months (they should have called it Visual Studio.NET magazine). I still read the back issues from time to time, and continue to pick up knowledge from them. It's all so sad what they have done to vb6. Show quoteHide quote "Karl E. Peterson" wrote: > Anthony wrote: > > A broad evaluation of our existing vb6 code assets indicates that the > > majority (but not all) of our vb6-centric code (the code that needs > > to be most modified or converted) is in the following areas: > > > > 1) UDTs with fixed length strings and fixed-length arrays > > 2) Control arrays (and dynamic creation of controls using the add to > > array concept) > > 3) The forms themselves that VB6 produces > > 4) ActiveX Controls (some custom-created ones) > > 5) Lots of API calls > > > > Has anyone had to convert one or more of these things into .net? > > Also, we are not "sold" on .net at all (and would prefer NOT to use > > it). Therefore, can any of the above items be converted to another > > language that is NOT .net just as easy (or just as hard)? > > I've not used, but certainly heard "good things" about this: > > http://www.deluxsoftware.com/ > > Especially the "to Delphi" one. > -- > Working without a .NET? > http://classicvb.org/ > > > Anthony wrote:
> Thanks Karl! I just went there, but although the VB6 to C# converter I'm not sure there's a lot of demand. The conventional wisdom has pretty> is available, the VB6 to VB.NET isn't available (yet?). Strange - is > it actually easier to convert VB6 to C#? Makes me laugh. well come around to, "if you're gonna code with MS tools, be damned sure you're using the same language MS invests their IP in." > I was just at your site sucking down some favorites from the MVP Yeah, someone pointed out to me just last week that my name was still in the> section. I saw your link to the VBPJ archives. I still have a stack > of them in my office, back from 1996 until somewhere early 2002 when > VB6 articles only appeared once every 3 or 4 months (they should have > called it Visual Studio.NET magazine). I still read the back issues > from time to time, and continue to pick up knowledge from them. It's > all so sad what they have done to vb6. masthead. I had to zing an email to Patrick about that. <g> The *only* mention of VB6 anymore, it seems, is as a design element in their little "applies to" bullet lists. Sad to see that resource become entirely useless. Anthony <Anth***@discussions.microsoft.com>'s wild thoughts
were released on Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:21:30 -0800 bearing the following fruit: >Thanks Karl! I just went there, but although the VB6 to C# converter is I'm not sure I understand whats going on here? I mean,>available, the VB6 to VB.NET isn't available (yet?). Strange - is it actually >easier to convert VB6 to C#? Makes me laugh. VB.Net will convert VB6 to VB.Net code ( to a point ;-) ) Anyway the what prompted me to post was Convert C# to VB.NET http://www.developerfusion.co.uk/utilities/convertcsharptovb.aspx Comes in really handy as there are far more code samples out there for C# then there are for VB.Net. J >I was just at your site sucking down some favorites from the MVP section. I Jan Hyde (VB MVP)>saw your link to the VBPJ archives. I still have a stack of them in my >office, back from 1996 until somewhere early 2002 when VB6 articles only >appeared once every 3 or 4 months (they should have called it Visual >Studio.NET magazine). I still read the back issues from time to time, and >continue to pick up knowledge from them. It's all so sad what they have done >to vb6. -- When cannibals ate a missionary they got a taste of religion. (Pun of the Day) Jan
Thats true. However, the conversion tool does not convert "real world" applications. It is more like a conversion "guide" than a conversion "tool". If you look at the list of items we are having trouble with, which is by no means the master list of things that cause problems (I presume heavily VB6 object oriented code would convert horribly to .net object code, for example), our applications won't convert (we are talking about close to one million lines of code in our case, which again, is probably not large compared to what many companies have to deal with). Do you have any experience upgrading the items in our list, and can you offer any suggestions? Does anyone have any good/bad experiences moving to RealBasic? Seems to have a familiar "feel" to it, with alot of OO, seems more modern. Hate to move assets into an unknonw quantity though. Maybe we should just move to Java, which I personally can't stand (talk about overuse of objects) :( Somebody, please save VB6!!! Show quoteHide quote "Jan Hyde" wrote: > Anthony <Anth***@discussions.microsoft.com>'s wild thoughts > were released on Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:21:30 -0800 bearing the > following fruit: > > >Thanks Karl! I just went there, but although the VB6 to C# converter is > >available, the VB6 to VB.NET isn't available (yet?). Strange - is it actually > >easier to convert VB6 to C#? Makes me laugh. > > I'm not sure I understand whats going on here? I mean, > VB.Net will convert VB6 to VB.Net code ( to a point ;-) ) > > Anyway the what prompted me to post was > > Convert C# to VB.NET > http://www.developerfusion.co.uk/utilities/convertcsharptovb.aspx > > Comes in really handy as there are far more code samples out > there for C# then there are for VB.Net. > > J > > >I was just at your site sucking down some favorites from the MVP section. I > >saw your link to the VBPJ archives. I still have a stack of them in my > >office, back from 1996 until somewhere early 2002 when VB6 articles only > >appeared once every 3 or 4 months (they should have called it Visual > >Studio.NET magazine). I still read the back issues from time to time, and > >continue to pick up knowledge from them. It's all so sad what they have done > >to vb6. > > > Jan Hyde (VB MVP) > > -- > When cannibals ate a missionary they got a taste of religion. (Pun of the Day) > > Anthony <Anth***@discussions.microsoft.com>'s wild thoughts
were released on Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:45:28 -0800 bearing the following fruit: >Jan Sure, our main app is over a million lines too. We (and> >Thats true. However, the conversion tool does not convert "real world" >applications. It is more like a conversion "guide" than a conversion "tool". >If you look at the list of items we are having trouble with, which is by no >means the master list of things that cause problems (I presume heavily VB6 >object oriented code would convert horribly to .net object code, for >example), our applications won't convert (we are talking about close to one >million lines of code in our case, which again, is probably not large >compared to what many companies have to deal with). many others) reached the conclusion that VB code will not and never will convert to .NET It's a rewrite job. >Do you have any experience upgrading the items in our list, and can you I upgraded some of out smaller projects to see how some of>offer any suggestions? the issues would be handled, and while they *were* handled, but the resulting code was a real mess!! >Does anyone have any good/bad experiences moving to RealBasic? Seems to have If you look on google groups there was some discussion about>a familiar "feel" to it, with alot of OO, seems more modern. Hate to move >assets into an unknonw quantity though. Maybe we should just move to Java, >which I personally can't stand (talk about overuse of objects) :( > >Somebody, please save VB6!!! RealBasic a while back, you can also contact them and they will be happy to help you. Jan Hyde (VB MVP) -- Q. What's large, gray and doesn't apply? A. An irrelephant. On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:45:28 -0800, Anthony
<Anth***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >Does anyone have any good/bad experiences moving to RealBasic? Seems to have As you say, moving to RealBasic would be a gamble. So would moving to>a familiar "feel" to it, with alot of OO, seems more modern. Hate to move >assets into an unknonw quantity though. Maybe we should just move to Java, >which I personally can't stand (talk about overuse of objects) :( VB#. You'd be far better off looking into Delphi or C++, IMO. I've been playing with the Delux VB --> Delphi converter demo mentioned earlier in this thread and it seems to do a *really* good job on real world VB apps. I'm impressed! There are some unknowns surrounding Delphi at the moment what with it's pending sale and all but it does have a sizeable and active user base going for it which will probably carry it through. Add the fact that Delphi can address multiple platforms (including .NET) and it's got *a lot* going for it with regards to being a new home for the displaced VB masses. Does anyone know of a decent converter that will do VB --> C++? Bryan _______________________________ Bryan Stafford New Vision Software newvision_don'tspam@mvps.org Anthony wrote:
> just move to Java, which I personally can't stand (talk about overuse You are aware that .NET was MSFT's response to Java, right? Man, talk about> of objects) :( object overload! > Somebody, please save VB6!!! You signed the petition? (Not that it's likely to matter, but...)Yep - I kinda assumed that. When I first looked at .Net in 2001? 2002? I said
"this is Microsoft Java!". I have to admit that .net feels more natual than Java though (For example, I would rather write myObj.Prop = x, or x = myObj.Prop, in Java (last time I checked), you have to do this: myObj.PropSet(x) and x = myObj.PropGet() )- yuk!) I signed the petition a year or so ago (it was around 2,500 when I signed it). Not sure if it has helped, but I suspect that it has helped a bit (kind of puts the 'vb6 movement' on the map, and any thoughts that Microsoft might have had that vb6 users were going to happily migrate should now be gone). It's really a big misstep. Boy, I would like to use some of the new stuff in the vb2005 IDE (I like it better than the vb6 IDE - who wouldn't). I can't understand it. Microsoft has (thousands? millions?) of vb6 users waiting to spend money to upgrade -- why doesn't Microsoft enable us to develop in the new IDE, throw us a bone or two (vb8.com or vb6.1?), let us continue to create compiled executables, and slowly migrate as needed or desired -- and keep people in their development environment, instead of letting us loose to choose other non-microsoft development environments? Deplhi has win32 and ..net development in the same ide! Does Microsoft not see the profit potential? I cant write any more, I get all fired up every time I think about the predicament they have put us in! Show quoteHide quote "Karl E. Peterson" wrote: > Anthony wrote: > > just move to Java, which I personally can't stand (talk about overuse > > of objects) :( > > You are aware that .NET was MSFT's response to Java, right? Man, talk about > object overload! > > > Somebody, please save VB6!!! > > You signed the petition? (Not that it's likely to matter, but...) > -- > Working without a .NET? > http://classicvb.org/ > > > Anthony wrote:
> Yep - I kinda assumed that. When I first looked at .Net in 2001? Isn't that just because Microsoft can't get past default properties? <g>> 2002? I said "this is Microsoft Java!". I have to admit that .net > feels more natual than Java though (For example, I would rather write > myObj.Prop = x, or x = myObj.Prop, in Java (last time I checked), you > have to do this: myObj.PropSet(x) and x = myObj.PropGet() )- yuk!) I mean, *everything* is an object, in .net, no? > I signed the petition a year or so ago (it was around 2,500 when I Yep, long gone. When they were announcing VS2005, we were announcing 10K> signed it). Not sure if it has helped, but I suspect that it has > helped a bit (kind of puts the 'vb6 movement' on the map, and any > thoughts that Microsoft might have had that vb6 users were going to > happily migrate should now be gone). signatures. Not even a huge percentage of the ClassicVB users, but for things of this nature just about anyone (ceptin maybe Paulyanna) would have to concede it's very significant. > It's really a big misstep. Boy, I would like to use some of the new LOL! They're having trouble *giving* away the new stuff.> stuff in the vb2005 IDE (I like it better than the vb6 IDE - who > wouldn't). I can't understand it. Microsoft has (thousands? > millions?) of vb6 users waiting to spend money to upgrade -- They don't see IDEs as revenue generators. They're platform pushers, pure and simple. > why doesn't Microsoft enable us to develop in the new IDE, throw us a That's the smart answer, but they haven't shown *any* ability to understand> bone or two (vb8.com or vb6.1?), let us continue to create compiled > executables, and slowly migrate as needed or desired -- and keep > people in their development environment, this customer base from the get-go. I can't really offer any more than that. Wish I could. > Isn't that just because Microsoft can't get past default properties? <g> Well, yes, technically. (keep in mind I am nowhere close to an OO expert) > > I mean, *everything* is an object, in .net, no? > .... Its just that Java feels so much more rigid and constrained. I guess what I am saying is, in Java, it FEELS like everything is an object, where in ..net, it doesn't feel so much so. Even knowing that, I would still pick Java over .net (imagine migrating a ..net app to Microsoft's next ".net sucks now, but .new is awesome" framework (100mb framwork I suppose?)) if it werent for the fact that as bad and slow and sligginsh as .net apps feel/perform (in my experience), Java apps run like I had a 486 DX2/66. And they don't compile to executables?!?! Does ANYONE use Java to create commerial applications (that you can sell)? Which brings me to another thought about Microsoft (I am all fired up now!). Every time I pick up a magazine or read an online article announcing something new from microsoft, it always seems they bash their old version. Its like they make you feel like crap if you don't get the new item. its not just that they say "version x has this new feature which is great", but they say ""version x has this new feature which fixes the god awful way the previos version did it". Although, when the previous version just hit, they were singing the praises of it. That really p****s me off! Ok, I am done :) Show quoteHide quote "Karl E. Peterson" wrote: > Anthony wrote: > > Yep - I kinda assumed that. When I first looked at .Net in 2001? > > 2002? I said "this is Microsoft Java!". I have to admit that .net > > feels more natual than Java though (For example, I would rather write > > myObj.Prop = x, or x = myObj.Prop, in Java (last time I checked), you > > have to do this: myObj.PropSet(x) and x = myObj.PropGet() )- yuk!) > > Isn't that just because Microsoft can't get past default properties? <g> > > I mean, *everything* is an object, in .net, no? > > > I signed the petition a year or so ago (it was around 2,500 when I > > signed it). Not sure if it has helped, but I suspect that it has > > helped a bit (kind of puts the 'vb6 movement' on the map, and any > > thoughts that Microsoft might have had that vb6 users were going to > > happily migrate should now be gone). > > Yep, long gone. When they were announcing VS2005, we were announcing 10K > signatures. Not even a huge percentage of the ClassicVB users, but for > things of this nature just about anyone (ceptin maybe Paulyanna) would have > to concede it's very significant. > > > It's really a big misstep. Boy, I would like to use some of the new > > stuff in the vb2005 IDE (I like it better than the vb6 IDE - who > > wouldn't). I can't understand it. Microsoft has (thousands? > > millions?) of vb6 users waiting to spend money to upgrade -- > > LOL! They're having trouble *giving* away the new stuff. > > They don't see IDEs as revenue generators. They're platform pushers, pure > and simple. > > > why doesn't Microsoft enable us to develop in the new IDE, throw us a > > bone or two (vb8.com or vb6.1?), let us continue to create compiled > > executables, and slowly migrate as needed or desired -- and keep > > people in their development environment, > > That's the smart answer, but they haven't shown *any* ability to understand > this customer base from the get-go. I can't really offer any more than > that. Wish I could. > -- > Working without a .NET? > http://classicvb.org/ > > > Anthony wrote:
That really p****s me off! > PHEW!> Ok, I am done :) > Man, I feel better after reading that one :-) <g> -- Robin. "He who treats the database as a flat-file repository of data is doomed to burn in Hell. It's true, I asked." - Dratz Anthony done broke da code <vbg>.
Dan Show quoteHide quote "Anthony" <Anth***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:3A6EBC8B-9A18-4C9C-B950-A4799FA520CB@microsoft.com... >> Isn't that just because Microsoft can't get past default properties? <g> >> >> I mean, *everything* is an object, in .net, no? >> > > Well, yes, technically. (keep in mind I am nowhere close to an OO expert) > ... Its just that Java feels so much more rigid and constrained. I guess > what I am saying is, in Java, it FEELS like everything is an object, where > in > .net, it doesn't feel so much so. > > Even knowing that, I would still pick Java over .net (imagine migrating a > .net app to Microsoft's next ".net sucks now, but .new is awesome" > framework > (100mb framwork I suppose?)) if it werent for the fact that as bad and > slow > and sligginsh as .net apps feel/perform (in my experience), Java apps run > like I had a 486 DX2/66. And they don't compile to executables?!?! Does > ANYONE use Java to create commerial applications (that you can sell)? > > Which brings me to another thought about Microsoft (I am all fired up > now!). > Every time I pick up a magazine or read an online article announcing > something new from microsoft, it always seems they bash their old version. > Its like they make you feel like crap if you don't get the new item. its > not > just that they say "version x has this new feature which is great", but > they > say ""version x has this new feature which fixes the god awful way the > previos version did it". Although, when the previous version just hit, > they > were singing the praises of it. That really p****s me off! > > Ok, I am done :) > > -- > Anthony Dunleavy > www.atrixware.com > > > > > "Karl E. Peterson" wrote: > >> Anthony wrote: >> > Yep - I kinda assumed that. When I first looked at .Net in 2001? >> > 2002? I said "this is Microsoft Java!". I have to admit that .net >> > feels more natual than Java though (For example, I would rather write >> > myObj.Prop = x, or x = myObj.Prop, in Java (last time I checked), you >> > have to do this: myObj.PropSet(x) and x = myObj.PropGet() )- yuk!) >> >> Isn't that just because Microsoft can't get past default properties? <g> >> >> I mean, *everything* is an object, in .net, no? >> >> > I signed the petition a year or so ago (it was around 2,500 when I >> > signed it). Not sure if it has helped, but I suspect that it has >> > helped a bit (kind of puts the 'vb6 movement' on the map, and any >> > thoughts that Microsoft might have had that vb6 users were going to >> > happily migrate should now be gone). >> >> Yep, long gone. When they were announcing VS2005, we were announcing 10K >> signatures. Not even a huge percentage of the ClassicVB users, but for >> things of this nature just about anyone (ceptin maybe Paulyanna) would >> have >> to concede it's very significant. >> >> > It's really a big misstep. Boy, I would like to use some of the new >> > stuff in the vb2005 IDE (I like it better than the vb6 IDE - who >> > wouldn't). I can't understand it. Microsoft has (thousands? >> > millions?) of vb6 users waiting to spend money to upgrade -- >> >> LOL! They're having trouble *giving* away the new stuff. >> >> They don't see IDEs as revenue generators. They're platform pushers, >> pure >> and simple. >> >> > why doesn't Microsoft enable us to develop in the new IDE, throw us a >> > bone or two (vb8.com or vb6.1?), let us continue to create compiled >> > executables, and slowly migrate as needed or desired -- and keep >> > people in their development environment, >> >> That's the smart answer, but they haven't shown *any* ability to >> understand >> this customer base from the get-go. I can't really offer any more than >> that. Wish I could. >> -- >> Working without a .NET? >> http://classicvb.org/ >> >> >> Anthony wrote:
> Which brings me to another thought about Microsoft (I am all fired up Not just *their* old version. They're not actively bashing *you* if you> now!). Every time I pick up a magazine or read an online article > announcing something new from microsoft, it always seems they bash > their old version. haven't sufficiently "evolved" yet. You seen this? http://www.microsoft.com/office/evolve/default.mspx > Its like they make you feel like crap if you don't get the new item. Dunno about you, but I don't do business with folks who ridicule theircustomers. "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message LOLnews:O5g$LwIRGHA.2532@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl > Anthony wrote: >> Which brings me to another thought about Microsoft (I am all fired up >> now!). Every time I pick up a magazine or read an online article >> announcing something new from microsoft, it always seems they bash >> their old version. > > Not just *their* old version. They're not actively bashing *you* if > you haven't sufficiently "evolved" yet. You seen this? > > http://www.microsoft.com/office/evolve/default.mspx Since Office 95 all the updates seem to deliver is a foofier interface that just gets more and more in the way. -- Reply to the group so all can participate VB.Net: "Fool me once..." What word processing feature was not in CP/M versions of WordStar that most
word processing users (95%, excluding the 5% "power users" and 5% print authors) need today? 1. Mouse Support 2. WYSIWYG 3. ??? We've been markeered<lol>. Dan Show quoteHide quote "Bob Butler" <tiredofit@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23$d23yIRGHA.2532@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote in message > news:O5g$LwIRGHA.2532@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl >> Anthony wrote: >>> Which brings me to another thought about Microsoft (I am all fired up >>> now!). Every time I pick up a magazine or read an online article >>> announcing something new from microsoft, it always seems they bash >>> their old version. >> >> Not just *their* old version. They're not actively bashing *you* if >> you haven't sufficiently "evolved" yet. You seen this? >> >> http://www.microsoft.com/office/evolve/default.mspx > > LOL > > Since Office 95 all the updates seem to deliver is a foofier interface > that > just gets more and more in the way. > > -- > Reply to the group so all can participate > VB.Net: "Fool me once..." > "Dan Barclay" <D**@MVPs.org> wrote in message marketeered? Yepnews:%23OBDsRJRGHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl > What word processing feature was not in CP/M versions of WordStar > that most word processing users (95%, excluding the 5% "power users" > and 5% print authors) need today? > > 1. Mouse Support > 2. WYSIWYG > 3. ??? > > We've been markeered<lol>. BTW, I didn't say office 95 had new features, just that since then there's been little but negative UI changes -- Reply to the group so all can participate VB.Net: "Fool me once..." Bob Butler wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Dan Barclay" <D**@MVPs.org> wrote in message Yeah, I find O2K the perfect blend of form/functionality.> news:%23OBDsRJRGHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl >> What word processing feature was not in CP/M versions of WordStar >> that most word processing users (95%, excluding the 5% "power users" >> and 5% print authors) need today? >> >> 1. Mouse Support >> 2. WYSIWYG >> 3. ??? >> >> We've been markeered<lol>. > > marketeered? Yep > > BTW, I didn't say office 95 had new features, just that since then > there's been little but negative UI changes (Most recent/last VBA being very high on my list!)
Show quote
Hide quote
"Dan Barclay" wrote: The ability to create extremely varied ransom notes without scissors and > What word processing feature was not in CP/M versions of WordStar that most > word processing users (95%, excluding the 5% "power users" and 5% print > authors) need today? > > 1. Mouse Support > 2. WYSIWYG > 3. ??? > > We've been markeered<lol>. > > Dan > glue, nor getting ink smugges all over your fingers. <g> -ralph <snipped>
Show quote
Hide quote
"ralph" <ra***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message Isn't that easily done with WordStar? <g>news:A55BBD47-E842-4E75-9C48-EC63A812EE50@microsoft.com... > > > "Dan Barclay" wrote: > >> What word processing feature was not in CP/M versions of WordStar that >> most >> word processing users (95%, excluding the 5% "power users" and 5% print >> authors) need today? >> >> 1. Mouse Support >> 2. WYSIWYG >> 3. ??? >> >> We've been markeered<lol>. >> >> Dan >> > > > The ability to create extremely varied ransom notes without scissors and > glue, nor getting ink smugges all over your fingers. > > <g> > -ralph Oh, wait, maybe you'd need it enhanced with MailMerge (I think that was a separate product in CP/M but I can't remember). Dan On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 16:31:36 -0800, "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote: ¤ Yep, long gone. When they were announcing VS2005, we were announcing 10K¤ signatures. Not even a huge percentage of the ClassicVB users, but for ¤ things of this nature just about anyone (ceptin maybe Paulyanna) would have ¤ to concede it's very significant. ¤ According to you Karl there were 6.1 million VB developers. You do the math and tell us how statistically significant that number is. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) Paul Clement wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 16:31:36 -0800, "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote: OK, statistics aside, let's think about this from a pure dollars> > ¤ Yep, long gone. When they were announcing VS2005, we were announcing 10K > ¤ signatures. Not even a huge percentage of the ClassicVB users, but for > ¤ things of this nature just about anyone (ceptin maybe Paulyanna) would have > ¤ to concede it's very significant. > ¤ > > According to you Karl there were 6.1 million VB developers. You do the math and tell us how > statistically significant that number is. > > > Paul > ~~~~ > Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) perspective. Let us say that Microsoft could write a real VB6 -> Fred conversion tool. Heck, let's say that MS could write a VBClassic7. They spend, gee, $20 Million on it. I think that's a fairly realistic number, but I do not have experience in Very Large software products. If only the people that signed the petition buy this tool at $2000 per, MS will break even. Now, you can argue all you want about 'diversion of resources from other projects' and 'supporting old technologies costs time and money that could be used for new development.' However, think about the platform lock-in. There have got to be plenty of small to midsize software companies that have gotten hit hard by Microsoft's decision to break VB with VB.Fred. These are the folks that are going to probably make Borland's IDE Company fairly sucessful. These are the folks, like Dan Barclay, who are moving away from Microsoft products after how many years? MS could have had their business, could have had my business, and they instead chose to 'move forward' with .NET. Remember, not all movement is progress. Just a random opinion from a guy who had to pick up a 5000 line VB6 App two years ago, and has extended it to a 60k line app that is "mission critical". We are a small company, and it is tough to convince the my boss or the company president that I need to sink eight months in re-writing this application just because Microsoft says we have to. So, I am on VB6 for the forseeable future. And MS has given me no place to go in their environment. RussN On 10 Mar 2006 07:13:33 -0800,
"russnewcomer.afterthedotisvan***@gmail.com" <russnewco***@gmail.com> in <1142003613.397224.43***@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >Paul Clement wrote: BINGO! Got it in one. And what's worse, they just don't give a hoot.>> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 16:31:36 -0800, "Karl E. Peterson" <k***@mvps.org> wrote: >> >> ¤ Yep, long gone. When they were announcing VS2005, we were announcing 10K >> ¤ signatures. Not even a huge percentage of the ClassicVB users, but for >> ¤ things of this nature just about anyone (ceptin maybe Paulyanna) would have >> ¤ to concede it's very significant. >> ¤ >> >> According to you Karl there were 6.1 million VB developers. You do the math and tell us how >> statistically significant that number is. >> >> >> Paul >> ~~~~ >> Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) > >OK, statistics aside, let's think about this from a pure dollars >perspective. Let us say that Microsoft could write a real VB6 -> Fred >conversion tool. Heck, let's say that MS could write a VBClassic7. >They spend, gee, $20 Million on it. I think that's a fairly realistic >number, but I do not have experience in Very Large software products. >If only the people that signed the petition buy this tool at $2000 per, >MS will break even. Now, you can argue all you want about 'diversion >of resources from other projects' and 'supporting old technologies >costs time and money that could be used for new development.' However, >think about the platform lock-in. There have got to be plenty of small >to midsize software companies that have gotten hit hard by Microsoft's >decision to break VB with VB.Fred. These are the folks that are going >to probably make Borland's IDE Company fairly sucessful. These are the >folks, like Dan Barclay, who are moving away from Microsoft products >after how many years? > >MS could have had their business, could have had my business, and they >instead chose to 'move forward' with .NET. Remember, not all movement >is progress. > >Just a random opinion from a guy who had to pick up a 5000 line VB6 App >two years ago, and has extended it to a 60k line app that is "mission >critical". We are a small company, and it is tough to convince the my >boss or the company president that I need to sink eight months in >re-writing this application just because Microsoft says we have to. >So, I am on VB6 for the forseeable future. And MS has given me no >place to go in their environment. > >RussN --- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no conferred rights. Stefan Berglund Paul,
> According to you Karl there were 6.1 million VB developers. You do the How many people have even seen the petition? Most people who use VB6 don't > math and tell us how > statistically significant that number is. even know that this forum exists. By the way, any more these are the threads that interest me most here, and will continue to do so. We must keep up the noise to let MS know that their clients are not happy with what they have done. You help a lot Paul, with your drive you keep these threads alive and make them last longer. All the better to see if someone at MS takes notice one of these days. (I doubt they will, but you never know) Gary On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:25:47 -0000, "Gary Nelson" <gn@nospam.com> wrote: in <et9GVDTRGHA.***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl> Show quoteHide quote >Paul, I wouldn't hold your breath too long. I'm afraid everything falls on> >> According to you Karl there were 6.1 million VB developers. You do the >> math and tell us how >> statistically significant that number is. > >How many people have even seen the petition? Most people who use VB6 don't >even know that this forum exists. > >By the way, any more these are the threads that interest me most here, and >will continue to do so. We must keep up the noise to let MS know that their >clients are not happy with what they have done. You help a lot Paul, with >your drive you keep these threads alive and make them last longer. All the >better to see if someone at MS takes notice one of these days. (I doubt they >will, but you never know) > >Gary deaf ears at microsoft. The real solution is just not to buy or use their products any longer. That's a message that only a fool would not understand. --- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no conferred rights. Stefan Berglund "Stefan Berglund" <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote: Apache is a pretty swell webserver. I like it 1000 times better than IIS.> I'm afraid everything falls on deaf ears at microsoft. The real solution > is just not to buy or use their products any longer. That's a message > that only a fool would not understand. http://httpd.apache.org/ And then there's PHP to run as server-side scripting as well. I like it a lot. It's like VB all over again (well kind of maybe) <g>. http://www.php.net/ And then there's a really swell editor called SciTE (Scintilla based Text Editor). The only real problems I've discovered so far... (1) compiled by a Delphi compiler (I don't want to translate the code to another language and don't have the time to get involved in it). (2) there's a limit stuck into the horizontal scrolling whereby if you have a line with over 65535 characters, you encounter issues. (3) It lacks a drop-down combobox specifying function names nor class names inside the code. This is something I greatly miss from the VB IDE, although I know of better ways to get it accomplished rather than drop- down comboboxes. Anyways, those are three absolutely fantastic products. SciTE is a really great all around editor for quick jobs, and offers cool features (configure to handle specific libraries of functions to customize the drop down auto-complete and tool tip pop ups for functions). It supports, PERL, PHP, VB6, C++ and other languages. I give it 5 stars on a 1 to 5 star scale whereby 5 stars represents the best, even with the three limitations noted above. Best of all it's fast, easy and its language .properties files are documented, easy to understand and easy enough to modify. http://scintilla.sourceforge.net/SciTEDoc.html ( http://www.scintilla.org/SciTE.html ) Just my two cents and kind of off-topic, but I made sure I stuck the VB6 in as a supported language (although I haven't tested it really deeply and the VB IDE is better for VB6). Jim Carlock Post replies to the group. On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:34:58 -0500, "Jim Carlock" <anonymous@localhost> in <ui8I2aZRGHA.4***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >"Stefan Berglund" <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote: Yep. I'm headed in that direction also. I'm converting three web sites>> I'm afraid everything falls on deaf ears at microsoft. The real solution >> is just not to buy or use their products any longer. That's a message >> that only a fool would not understand. > >Apache is a pretty swell webserver. I like it 1000 times better than IIS. >http://httpd.apache.org/ > >And then there's PHP to run as server-side scripting as well. I like it a >lot. It's like VB all over again (well kind of maybe) <g>. >http://www.php.net/ > >And then there's a really swell editor called SciTE (Scintilla based >Text Editor). The only real problems I've discovered so far... > >(1) compiled by a Delphi compiler (I don't want to translate the code to >another language and don't have the time to get involved in it). >(2) there's a limit stuck into the horizontal scrolling whereby if you have >a line with over 65535 characters, you encounter issues. >(3) It lacks a drop-down combobox specifying function names nor class >names inside the code. This is something I greatly miss from the VB IDE, >although I know of better ways to get it accomplished rather than drop- >down comboboxes. > >Anyways, those are three absolutely fantastic products. > >SciTE is a really great all around editor for quick jobs, and offers cool >features (configure to handle specific libraries of functions to customize >the drop down auto-complete and tool tip pop ups for functions). It >supports, PERL, PHP, VB6, C++ and other languages. I give it 5 stars >on a 1 to 5 star scale whereby 5 stars represents the best, even with >the three limitations noted above. Best of all it's fast, easy and its >language .properties files are documented, easy to understand and easy >enough to modify. >http://scintilla.sourceforge.net/SciTEDoc.html >( http://www.scintilla.org/SciTE.html ) > >Just my two cents and kind of off-topic, but I made sure I stuck the >VB6 in as a supported language (although I haven't tested it really >deeply and the VB IDE is better for VB6). > >Jim Carlock >Post replies to the group. simultaneously from ASP to PHP with a PostgreSQL backend. Once that's done I'll start building front ends using Trolltech's C++ platform. --- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no conferred rights. Stefan Berglund On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:25:47 -0000, "Gary Nelson" <gn@nospam.com> wrote: Gary,¤ > According to you Karl there were 6.1 million VB developers. You do the ¤ > math and tell us how ¤ > statistically significant that number is. ¤ ¤ How many people have even seen the petition? Most people who use VB6 don't ¤ even know that this forum exists. ¤ ¤ By the way, any more these are the threads that interest me most here, and ¤ will continue to do so. We must keep up the noise to let MS know that their ¤ clients are not happy with what they have done. You help a lot Paul, with ¤ your drive you keep these threads alive and make them last longer. All the ¤ better to see if someone at MS takes notice one of these days. (I doubt they ¤ will, but you never know) Glad I can help. I would certainly welcome improvements to the current migration process...as long as it doesn't involve the re-introduction of GoSub. ;-) Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:09:59 -0600, Paul Clement
<UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote: in <6jqd12l6k6q4ftgbaekelu347v6bi38***@4ax.com> Show quoteHide quote >On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:25:47 -0000, "Gary Nelson" <gn@nospam.com> wrote: Five years ago would have been a more appropriate time for such> >Gary, > >¤ > According to you Karl there were 6.1 million VB developers. You do the >¤ > math and tell us how >¤ > statistically significant that number is. >¤ >¤ How many people have even seen the petition? Most people who use VB6 don't >¤ even know that this forum exists. >¤ >¤ By the way, any more these are the threads that interest me most here, and >¤ will continue to do so. We must keep up the noise to let MS know that their >¤ clients are not happy with what they have done. You help a lot Paul, with >¤ your drive you keep these threads alive and make them last longer. All the >¤ better to see if someone at MS takes notice one of these days. (I doubt they >¤ will, but you never know) > >Glad I can help. I would certainly welcome improvements to the current migration process...as long >as it doesn't involve the re-introduction of GoSub. ;-) considerations. --- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no conferred rights. Stefan Berglund On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:12:38 -0800, Stefan Berglund <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote:
¤ >¤ > According to you Karl there were 6.1 million VB developers. You do the ¤ >¤ > math and tell us how ¤ >¤ > statistically significant that number is. ¤ >¤ ¤ >¤ How many people have even seen the petition? Most people who use VB6 don't ¤ >¤ even know that this forum exists. ¤ >¤ ¤ >¤ By the way, any more these are the threads that interest me most here, and ¤ >¤ will continue to do so. We must keep up the noise to let MS know that their ¤ >¤ clients are not happy with what they have done. You help a lot Paul, with ¤ >¤ your drive you keep these threads alive and make them last longer. All the ¤ >¤ better to see if someone at MS takes notice one of these days. (I doubt they ¤ >¤ will, but you never know) ¤ > ¤ >Glad I can help. I would certainly welcome improvements to the current migration process...as long ¤ >as it doesn't involve the re-introduction of GoSub. ;-) ¤ ¤ Five years ago would have been a more appropriate time for such ¤ considerations. It's never too late. I hear .NET calling your name...Ste......phan. Ste.....phan. ;-) Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:58:04 -0600, Paul Clement
<UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote: >On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:12:38 -0800, Stefan Berglund <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote: I hope it's not indicative that it's calling him by the wrong name :)>¤ >Glad I can help. I would certainly welcome improvements to the current migration process...as long >¤ >as it doesn't involve the re-introduction of GoSub. ;-) >¤ >¤ Five years ago would have been a more appropriate time for such >¤ considerations. > >It's never too late. > >I hear .NET calling your name...Ste......phan. Ste.....phan. ;-) > -- Alfie <http://www.delphia.co.uk/> Sceptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:58:04 -0600, Paul Clement posted:
> "Alfie [UK]" replied:>It's never too late. > >I hear .NET calling your name...Ste......phan. Ste.....phan. ;-) > > I hope it's not indicative that it's calling him by the wrong name :) Paul thought about netting Ste.....phanie....Who is Stephanie, Paul? <g> Jim Carlock Post replies to the group. On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:58:08 -0500, "Jim Carlock" <anonymous@localhost> wrote: ¤ On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:58:04 -0600, Paul Clement posted:¤ > ¤ >It's never too late. ¤ > ¤ >I hear .NET calling your name...Ste......phan. Ste.....phan. ;-) ¤ > ¤ ¤ ¤ "Alfie [UK]" replied: ¤ > I hope it's not indicative that it's calling him by the wrong name :) ¤ ¤ Paul thought about netting Ste.....phanie.... ¤ ¤ Who is Stephanie, Paul? <g> ¤ Sorry I meant Dweezil. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:32:33 +0000, "Alfie [UK]" <m*@privacy.net> wrote: ¤ On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:58:04 -0600, Paul Clement¤ <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote: ¤ >On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:12:38 -0800, Stefan Berglund <sorry.no.kool***@for.me> wrote: ¤ >¤ >Glad I can help. I would certainly welcome improvements to the current migration process...as long ¤ >¤ >as it doesn't involve the re-introduction of GoSub. ;-) ¤ >¤ ¤ >¤ Five years ago would have been a more appropriate time for such ¤ >¤ considerations. ¤ > ¤ >It's never too late. ¤ > ¤ >I hear .NET calling your name...Ste......phan. Ste.....phan. ;-) ¤ > ¤ I hope it's not indicative that it's calling him by the wrong name :) It doesn't matter. It sounds the same, even if it can't spell. ;-) Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) Karl,
>> Somebody, please save VB6!!! You know, I was just thinking...> > You signed the petition? (Not that it's likely to matter, but...) I of course signed the petition just as soon as I saw it, and I also told all of my programming friends and workmates about it, and I believe most or all of them also signed it, but I just thought, the rest of the people who work at our company (11) haven't signed it. Of course they are not programmers, but on the other hand, their economic security depends on the survival of VB6. Would you think that it is ok for them to sign, even if they aren't programmers? After all, their jobs do depend upon it. Gary Gary Nelson wrote:
Show quoteHide quote >>> Somebody, please save VB6!!! The demise of ClassicVB affects *lots* more folks than "just programmers.">> >> You signed the petition? (Not that it's likely to matter, but...) > > You know, I was just thinking... > > I of course signed the petition just as soon as I saw it, and I also > told all of my programming friends and workmates about it, and I > believe most or all of them also signed it, but I just thought, the > rest of the people who work at our company (11) haven't signed it. Of > course they are not programmers, but on the other hand, their > economic security depends on the survival of VB6. Would you think > that it is ok for them to sign, even if they aren't programmers? > After all, their jobs do depend upon it. It's not *my* petition (it's owned by the community, imo!), so I'm not the voice of authority by any means. Certainly seems legit to me. Jan Hyde wrote:
> Anthony <Anth***@discussions.microsoft.com>'s wild thoughts By that logic, you can walk to the moon, too - "up to a point."> were released on Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:21:30 -0800 bearing the > following fruit: > >> Thanks Karl! I just went there, but although the VB6 to C# converter is >> available, the VB6 to VB.NET isn't available (yet?). Strange - is it actually >> easier to convert VB6 to C#? Makes me laugh. > > I'm not sure I understand whats going on here? I mean, > VB.Net will convert VB6 to VB.Net code ( to a point ;-) ) Bob -- Bob O`Bob wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Jan Hyde wrote: Which, I believe, is somewhere in Nepal...>> Anthony <Anth***@discussions.microsoft.com>'s wild thoughts >> were released on Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:21:30 -0800 bearing the >> following fruit: >> >>> Thanks Karl! I just went there, but although the VB6 to C# >>> converter is available, the VB6 to VB.NET isn't available (yet?). >>> Strange - is it actually easier to convert VB6 to C#? Makes me >>> laugh. >> >> I'm not sure I understand whats going on here? I mean, >> VB.Net will convert VB6 to VB.Net code ( to a point ;-) ) > > By that logic, you can walk to the moon, too - "up to a point."
Show quote
Hide quote
"Karl E. Peterson" wrote: Naw. Everest is too far north (28 degrees).> Bob O`Bob wrote: > > Jan Hyde wrote: > >> Anthony <Anth***@discussions.microsoft.com>'s wild thoughts > >> were released on Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:21:30 -0800 bearing the > >> following fruit: > >> > >>> Thanks Karl! I just went there, but although the VB6 to C# > >>> converter is available, the VB6 to VB.NET isn't available (yet?). > >>> Strange - is it actually easier to convert VB6 to C#? Makes me > >>> laugh. > >> > >> I'm not sure I understand whats going on here? I mean, > >> VB.Net will convert VB6 to VB.Net code ( to a point ;-) ) > > > > By that logic, you can walk to the moon, too - "up to a point." > > Which, I believe, is somewhere in Nepal... > -- > Working without a .NET? > http://classicvb.org/ > Due to its being closer to the plane (3 degrees) and the equatoral bulge, Kilimanjaro, though shorter, is actually closer and is a better bet for a good jump, as one has to time that last step very well. Plus it is an easier climb (perhaps getting a running start). -ralph ralph wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Karl E. Peterson" wrote: LOL! You did the math, I presume? <g>>> Bob O`Bob wrote: >>> Jan Hyde wrote: >>>> I'm not sure I understand whats going on here? I mean, >>>> VB.Net will convert VB6 to VB.Net code ( to a point ;-) ) >>> >>> By that logic, you can walk to the moon, too - "up to a point." >> >> Which, I believe, is somewhere in Nepal... > > Naw. Everest is too far north (28 degrees). > > Due to its being closer to the plane (3 degrees) and the equatoral > bulge, Kilimanjaro, though shorter, is actually closer and is a > better bet for a good jump, as one has to time that last step very > well. Only in a programming group... > Plus it is an easier climb (perhaps getting a running start). There ya go! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics