The parable of VB.NET

[Rob Teixeira]

At the risk of running my previous analogy into the ground, I've best been
able to summarize my disappointment with VB in this way:

I once sat down to eat my Win32 meal when I realized nobody had set the
table. Upon inquiry, MS responded with the C silverware set. I had never
seen silverware in a big red box before, so curiously I opened it. To my
initial shock, there were tools and spare parts in the box. "Wait a minute!
How am I supposed to eat with these? Did you understand what I was asking
for?"
"Oh, don't get all upset!" MS responded. "This really IS a silverware
set. You see, you have to assemble the utensils from all those little spare
parts yourself. But look at all the tools you get!"
Indeed there were lots of tools. I was still dismayed, as I wouldn’t
get to eat my Win32 meal any time soon with this solution. Modern man insisted
that building utensils from scratch was pre-historic. I agreed and looked
for a better way.
Along the way, MS returned to me. Seeing that I wasn’t too pleased, they
offered to help by giving me a ++ tool extension to my C "silverware" kit.
"Look at just how powerful these babies are!" they exclaimed. Indeed, the
tools were powerful. I had never seen a hydraulic screwdriver before. I still
didn’t consider this much of an improvement. All I wanted was a spoon, a
fork, and a good knife. I would often hit or cut myself and bleed all over
the food. I gave up on the little red toolbox. To this day I still periodically
receive new ++ tool additions. The pneumatic plumb line was fun to play with,
but since none of it really helps me eat my meal, I eventually store the
tools away, only to have them collect dust.
As I looked around, I found other utensil producers who were ready and
willing to fill the utensil void left by Microsoft. I looked at their wares
and discovered they indeed had spoons, knives, and forks. However, most were
heavy or awkward to use in some way. Some just had a plain uuuuugly color
or style. I was able to eat my meal, but I still felt there was a better
way.
One day, MS excitedly ran to me and shoved a new invention in my face.
"You are just gonna LOVE this!!" they proclaimed amid staggered excited breaths.
"Everything you always wanted! One convenient, and SAFE utensil! We call
it the spork!"
It was an odd little thing. It sorta looked like a spoon, but it also
had little prongs like a fork. It was a lightweight plastic. Although there
were no ergonomics, it was rather simple to use. I smiled and thought to
myself, "what a great utensil!" I quickly began consuming my Win32 meal at
an alarming rate. Then something suddenly blocked my rapid activity. All
the peas were gone, the mystery meatloaf consumed, the cubed jello bits digested.
I was mostly done with my mashed potatoes when I realized I couldn’t scrape
the pasty remnants out of the corners. Darn, I was really liking that mashed
potato. Then, that big t-bone sat there on the other part of the tray, seemingly
defiant. In all my haste and enthusiasm, I failed to realize the spork wouldn’t
finish the job.
Determined to finish, I desperately hacked at the spork, trying to give
the utensil a better shape. I even turned it upside down and used the handle
to try to get at some of my remaining meal. That didn’t really work all too
well. I managed to damage the tray more than get the food down my pie-hole.
I then remembered I still had that red box hidden away somewhere. I was familiar
with the tools and I was convinced I could use the tools in conjunction with
my little plastic deficient spork to wrap this whole eating business up.
But the tools tended to break the spork more than help it. I even tried using
the tools directly on the meal. The t-bone didn’t look so defiant when I
whipped out the atomic-powered hacksaw. Still, the tools were overburdening
and I was left to face the fact that I had no utensil.
Again, I tried looking at the 3rd party utensils. Along the way, a company
by the name of Sun invented a new utensil. It was revolutionary, they said.
You can use this utensil on any food across any meal! OK, that seemed like
a big claim, but I had to check it out. Boy, what a disappointment. In trying
to be compatible with all utensils, they had to make concessions. Not all
utensils had prongs, so it had no prongs. Not all utensils had serrated edges,
so it had no edges. For some dumb reason, these utensils were primarily intended
to be passed around on the Internet and people didn’t want to get a dangerous
utensil, so most of the rest of it was removed. In the end, I was left holding
nothing but a handle. "What a rip-off," I thought.
In my mind, I would often dream of the ideal utensil. It would have a
spoon, a knife, and a fork. It would also be nice to have some of more useful
tools in the little red box I had gotten fond of. Something more or less
like a Swiss army knife I thought. Now why didn’t anyone else think of that?
It was perfect. It was not a be-all, "safe" utensil like that silly spork.
It was a several utensils bundled in one. It had the right utensil for all
occasions. It was compact and easy to use.
Right about the time I was giving up all hope, MS came running back.
"We have great news!" then exclaimed once more. I wasn’t too ecstatic given
the previous track record. I was determined to remain open-minded however.
I sat down and listened to their excited marketing babble. It was an upgrade
to the spork that promised a lot of the goodies I wanted from my Swiss army
knife. But upon closer inspection, it was still a spork. Sure, this time
it was solid metal. It even had a wireless internet connection jack. "It’s
the wave of the future!" they said. I think the internet has awesome potential,
I just didn’t know how it would help me solve my eating crisis. Will the
future include eating cyber food across domains? I still couldn’t cut the
t-bone.
I’ve been trying to eat this meal for years now. This morning my fiancé walked
up behind me. She suddenly gave me a disgusted look with that cute little
wrinkled up nose and puckered lips. "Your meal has mold growing on it! Bleeahh..."
she said.

-Rob

PS: thanks to all the devoted spork cultists who contributed to spork philosophy.

[Dave Haskell]

Rob,

> At the risk of running my previous analogy into the ground, ...
<snip>

Done; no risk at all.

[Alex Yakhnin]

"Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote:
.......
.......
>PS: thanks to all the devoted spork cultists who contributed to spork philosophy.

Man, we are sick over here ;)

[John Rusk]

> At the risk of running my previous analogy into the ground, I've best been
> able to summarize my disappointment with VB in this way:

At the risk of running it into the ground even futher... ;-)

> One day, MS excitedly ran to me and shoved a new invention in my face.
> "You are just gonna LOVE this!!" they proclaimed amid staggered excited
breaths.
> "Everything you always wanted! One convenient, and SAFE utensil! We call
> it the spork!"
....
> Again, I tried looking at the 3rd party utensils. Along the way, a
company
> by the name of Sun invented a new utensil. It was revolutionary, they
said.
....
> In my mind, I would often dream of the ideal utensil. It would have a
> spoon, a knife, and a fork. It would also be nice to have some of more
useful
> tools in the little red box I had gotten fond of. Something more or less
> like a Swiss army knife I thought. Now why didn't anyone else think of
that?
> It was perfect. It was not a be-all, "safe" utensil like that silly spork.
> It was a several utensils bundled in one. It had the right utensil for all
> occasions. It was compact and easy to use.

There was one utensil that did look a little like a Swiss Army knife. It
was invented around the same time as Sun's new utensil, only 3 months
earlier in fact. On the surface, it looked a lot like a metal version of
the spork however, just like a Swiss army knife it folded out into an
excellent spoon, knife and and fork. Press it a bit harder, and it soon
became apparent that it it contained many of the tools in the little red
box. Not quite all of them, but enough to virtually all the same jobs as
you could do with the little red box.

Strangely, not many people ever used this tool. Was that because of its
superficial resemblance to the spork? Did people not realise that it had
the little red tool box inside too?

Maybe there was another reason: everyone who used the MS spork ate their
meals from MS plates on MS tables. Somehow it seemed that, if you had an MS
table and an MS plate, then surely the safest thing to do was to eat with MS
cutlery. So, not many people tried Delphi, and not many found how much
better it let them eat from MS plates and tables.

;-)

John

[Richard Slauenwhite]

..NET is a great move.
..NET VS8 will be the tool we want. The .NET in beta (VS7) will be the
transition tool we hsve to live with.

Compelling points.

1) An IDE that is designed correctly. Web Forms, Winforms, Debuggers, and
plug ins should be able to be used across languages.
2) Opens the choice of implementation languages up to 10 or more.
3) Common interfaces and types allow for easy inheritance and easy
integration with UML tools like Rose.
4) The CLR is positioend to become the COSR (Common Operating System
runtime).

It'a great step forward in integration. Are some features lost? Yup. But
Visual Studio 8 (late 2003?) should be a real piece of work--by that time
control manufacturers, add-in creators, and the VS team will have had a
chance to refine and build on the premise that the .NET IDE and the CLR are
the programmign switchboard to build upon. And we may be seeing the COSR by
that time. MS chose to step back, integrate and consolidate some
technologies and offer a path that is more extensible than the current crop
of tools. It looks like I'll be more productive in the .NET IDE, and that
really is what matters.

[Bob Butler]

"Richard Slauenwhite" <Slauenwhite@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3a0d9bfe@news.devx.com...
<cut>
> Visual Studio 8 (late 2003?) should be a real piece of work--by that time
<cut>

but will developers stick with MS for the next few years if they feel they
are being screwed now or will they go with other tools that are available
now and which may look to be more stable with clean upgrade paths? I guess
time will tell.

the more I look at VB.Net the less I know what the target market is. VB6 is
a great tool for internal app development and can make junior developers
productive quickly and can also be used by more advanced developers for some
pretty intricate projects. VB.Net appears to be targeted at the higher end
only but C# provides additional capability and I think may be more
attractive to that market simply because it aligns with C++ skills. I'm not
sure VB.Net will be as usable for the entry-level or part-time developer and
I suspect it will still be stigmatized and shunned (rightly or wrongly) as a
"toy" in comparison to C# or C++.

I know a lot of people simply dislike C syntax and will choose VB.Net for
that reason but if other languages do become available for the dotnet
platform even they may drift away. When people ask why VB is a good
language now I can tell them. When they ask why they should use VB.Net I'm
not so sure I can reply with any conviction.

[Mark Newman]

"Richard Slauenwhite" <Slauenwhite@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3a0d9bfe@news.devx.com...
> .NET is a great move.
> .NET VS8 will be the tool we want. The .NET in beta (VS7) will be the
> transition tool we hsve to live with.
>
> snip...
>
> It'a great step forward in integration. Are some features lost? Yup. But
> Visual Studio 8 (late 2003?) should be a real piece of work--by that time
> control manufacturers, add-in creators, and the VS team will have had a
> chance to refine and build on the premise that the .NET IDE and the CLR
are
> the programmign switchboard to build upon
>

That'll be too bad, since all the VS.NET users will be left behind by VS 8,
which will be VS.Wireless or VS.Satellite or VS.ChipImplantedInYourBrain or
whatever MS thinks the hot technology is. VS.NET essentially says the
standalone PC is dead, everything is now wired. VS 8 will say that the wired
PC is dead, everything is now wireless...(repeat every 3 years)

Mark

[Dave Rothgery]

"Mark Newman" <mnewman@wavecrestcorp.com> wrote in message
> "Richard Slauenwhite" <Slauenwhite@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > .NET is a great move.
> > .NET VS8 will be the tool we want. The .NET in beta (VS7) will be the
> > transition tool we hsve to live with.
[...]
> That'll be too bad, since all the VS.NET users will be left behind
> by VS 8, which will be VS.Wireless or VS.Satellite or
> VS.ChipImplantedInYourBrain or whatever MS thinks the hot technology
> is. VS.NET essentially says the standalone PC is dead, everything
> is now wired. VS 8 will say that the wired PC is dead, everything
> is now wireless...(repeat every 3 years)

Eh.

Microsoft usually goes at least two releases between major redesigns. So
unless there's some earth-shattering change of direction in the software
industry, VS8 will be VS.NET 2.


--
David A. Rothgery
Consultant
Spherion, Inc.
davidrothgery@spherion.com
drothgery@myrealbox.com

[Rob Teixeira]

I'm glad that somebody else sees my point!
Although plainly stated, it is the core of my argument.
.NET has a great framework and archetecture, but VB.NET can ONLY work within
.NET. I would like to have had a "real" compiler/language that works in *conjunction*
with .NET technology. That way when .NET because .PsychicTransmission, I
wouldn't have to worry so **** much!

VB.NET is still fundamentally the first implemented (read: "demo") language
for exclusive CRL and the Framework, unlike its other VS cousins who can
step outside of the CRL and Framework when needed.

How about creating a real VB with VBM+ extensions (that are probably a little
more tightly integrated then the managed extensions for C++)?
No, that sounds like real work. Heaven forbid any excess time be spent on
the making of VB, or that VB developers spend any time doing real work with
it.

I'm still shocked people find it amazing that programmers still have to *gasp*
... Code!

-Rob

"Mark Newman" <mnewman@wavecrestcorp.com> wrote:
>That'll be too bad, since all the VS.NET users will be left behind by VS
8,
>which will be VS.Wireless or VS.Satellite or VS.ChipImplantedInYourBrain
or
>whatever MS thinks the hot technology is. VS.NET essentially says the
>standalone PC is dead, everything is now wired. VS 8 will say that the wired
>PC is dead, everything is now wireless...(repeat every 3 years)
>
>Mark
>
>
>
>

[martin rydman]

Hi Rob!

Not sure I agree with everything, but haven't laughed this much in this forum
ever, and that's worth a lot :-))

/Martin

[Rob Teixeira]

Glad you enjoyed it.
I would have enjoyed it more myself if it wasn't true :(

-Rob

"martin rydman" <martin@aprire.se> wrote:
>
>Hi Rob!
>
>Not sure I agree with everything, but haven't laughed this much in this
forum
>ever, and that's worth a lot :-))
>
>/Martin
>

[Mark Weber]

Stop complaining. Being a good programmer means knowing more than one language
and using the best one for the job. If VB is getting away from what you
like, try something else! You may find it does wonders for you resume!

[Brian Copeland]

"Mark Weber" <gn87sfi@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3a1a8a00$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Stop complaining. Being a good programmer means knowing more than one
language
> and using the best one for the job. If VB is getting away from what you
> like, try something else! You may find it does wonders for you resume!

You see, this is what is wrong with the world today. People assume that
only good programmers know more than one programming language. Well guess
what, I can only speak English. Does this make me illiterate? a poor
speaker? certainly not. So why should only knowing one programming
language make a person a bad programmer.

I would rather be a master of one trade, than a jack of all trades and
master of none.

Sure its great for the resume, but doesn't really speak of a person's
talents. Actually...wait a minute, yes it does <G>

Ummm...well a person can still be a good programmer and know only one
language.

Of course, being multi-lingual can open many more doors, but being
unilingual still opens them up too... I can't be a translator or have a
public type job in the government becuase I only speak English. Well I
accept that, but that doesn't mean I am an incompetent. Just as I only use
Visual Basic for my job. Sure C++ would provide much better performance,
and Java would provide more platorm independence, but I am the most
proficient in VB, and when time of always of the escence, you have to make
trade-offs. ****...I am just rambling now.

Brian

[Vlad Ivanov]

Being a good programmer means having a large library of existing tested/rock
stable/reusable/extendable code. Written in VB. Written in a way so that
it can be used over and over again. Cutting down time of development. Increasing
code productivity. Increasing stability. And with all the benefits that provides
such library it pretty much natural to use it in all cases. And it's wriiten
in VB5-6. And it doesn't even compile anymore in VB.Net. And it represents
a 4-5 year effort on my part. And i can't just abandon my investement and
go f#ck around with a new "different" language. Having this library meant
for me that i can take it into VB.Net and get a head start. Not so anymore.

But being a code monkey (find out the definition for yourself) on the other
hand means that you can adopt the view of the world quoted directly below:


"Mark Weber" <gn87sfi@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Stop complaining. Being a good programmer means knowing more than one language
>and using the best one for the job. If VB is getting away from what you
>like, try something else! You may find it does wonders for you resume!
>
>
>

[Bill McCarthy]

Hi Brian,

interesting, and IMO, a valid analogy. But let's look at that a bit closer
shall we. The English language has changed and continues to change, even as
we speak. We no longer use thy shakesparean english, doust thow ? But yet
those changes have NOT removed any of the words or changed the origianl
meanings of them, rather new words have been added and new meanings added.
The same could NOT be said for VB --> VB.NET. This is the problem.

Also, assuming we accept your arguement about needing only one language,
then isn't that more reason to fully empower VB.NET, and include things such
as operator overloading, unsigned integers and unsafe code blocks etc.. ??




"Brian Copeland" <bcopeland@frontlinefocus.com> wrote in message
news:3a1a91ab$1@news.devx.com...
>
> You see, this is what is wrong with the world today. People assume that
> only good programmers know more than one programming language. Well guess
> what, I can only speak English. Does this make me illiterate? a poor
> speaker? certainly not. So why should only knowing one programming
> language make a person a bad programmer.
>
> I would rather be a master of one trade, than a jack of all trades and
> master of none.
>
> Sure its great for the resume, but doesn't really speak of a person's
> talents. Actually...wait a minute, yes it does <G>
>
> Ummm...well a person can still be a good programmer and know only one
> language.
>
> Of course, being multi-lingual can open many more doors, but being
> unilingual still opens them up too... I can't be a translator or have a
> public type job in the government becuase I only speak English. Well I
> accept that, but that doesn't mean I am an incompetent. Just as I only
use
> Visual Basic for my job. Sure C++ would provide much better performance,
> and Java would provide more platorm independence, but I am the most
> proficient in VB, and when time of always of the escence, you have to make
> trade-offs. ****...I am just rambling now.
>
> Brian
>
>

[Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]]

I want to be very careful about this, so I'll add this disclaimer upfront:
The following post is completely unrelated to the fact that I work for
Microsoft, or what my feelings about VB and its direction are.

I don't know how many native English speakers are aware of the fact that
many other languages, including my native language Dutch have had several
official spelling reforms where the spelling of the language changed in
fairly dramatic ways. The most recent one for Dutch was just a few years
ago. I know that the English language does not have anything like this.

For non-native English speakers however, that are new to learning the
language, and for children, learning to write for the first time as well,
the result is that in English there are absolutely no rules that allow you
to infer spelling from the phonetic utterance. Some sounds are represented
in over 20 different orthographies.

The reason given for the spelling reforms in Dutch, is that they will make
it easier for future learners of Dutch spelling to write correctly. I
probably don't need to emphasize that changing the way you officially spell
a language is an enormously costly affair. Throw away all existing
textbooks, retrain all the people. And of course one with significant social
implications as well, like potentially stigmatizing people that can't or
wont' learn the new spelling.

Also during the last reform there was an enormous struggle between fractions
that wanted a very radical reform and fractions that wanted a much more
surgical set of changes. Of course the entire discussion was driven by
linguists and not the users of the language.

BTW, there are significantly more than 3 million people speaking (and
writing) the Dutch language.<vbg>

And no, I personally didn't really enjoy having to un-learn and re-learn
things that had been drilled into me for 20 odd years.<g>

-Ronald-


"Bill McCarthy" <Bill_McC@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a1b32af@news.devx.com...
> Hi Brian,
>
> interesting, and IMO, a valid analogy. But let's look at that a bit
closer
> shall we. The English language has changed and continues to change, even
as
> we speak. We no longer use thy shakesparean english, doust thow ? But
yet
> those changes have NOT removed any of the words or changed the origianl
> meanings of them, rather new words have been added and new meanings added.
> The same could NOT be said for VB --> VB.NET. This is the problem.
>
> Also, assuming we accept your arguement about needing only one language,
> then isn't that more reason to fully empower VB.NET, and include things
such
> as operator overloading, unsigned integers and unsafe code blocks etc..
??

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan]

Actually, it makes a fascinating example, and you do fail to mention two
important side issues there:

1) It is VERY controversial in the Netherlands, and has been each time

2) Language like Flemish and Afrikaans do not feel much impetus to change,
themselves... which of course causes an artificial drift to enhance the
natural one over time. I even remember some people (linguists) theorizing
that this was one of the REAL reasons for reform -- to try to distinguish
their language!

The analogy is still a good one.... everyone wants the language to be easier
to use, the government convenes a panel of linguists to make changes, and
othr linguists argue with them and get the proposals modified, and
theexisting language is changed into something not as compatible with other
offshoots of the language -- the end result very different from what the
users wanted.

It DOES seem a lot like the VB situation. :-)

--
MichKa

a new book on internationalization in VB at
http://www.i18nWithVB.com/

"Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]" <ronlaere@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3a1b7a45@news.devx.com...
> I want to be very careful about this, so I'll add this disclaimer upfront:
> The following post is completely unrelated to the fact that I work for
> Microsoft, or what my feelings about VB and its direction are.
>
> I don't know how many native English speakers are aware of the fact that
> many other languages, including my native language Dutch have had several
> official spelling reforms where the spelling of the language changed in
> fairly dramatic ways. The most recent one for Dutch was just a few years
> ago. I know that the English language does not have anything like this.
>
> For non-native English speakers however, that are new to learning the
> language, and for children, learning to write for the first time as well,
> the result is that in English there are absolutely no rules that allow you
> to infer spelling from the phonetic utterance. Some sounds are represented
> in over 20 different orthographies.
>
> The reason given for the spelling reforms in Dutch, is that they will make
> it easier for future learners of Dutch spelling to write correctly. I
> probably don't need to emphasize that changing the way you officially
spell
> a language is an enormously costly affair. Throw away all existing
> textbooks, retrain all the people. And of course one with significant
social
> implications as well, like potentially stigmatizing people that can't or
> wont' learn the new spelling.
>
> Also during the last reform there was an enormous struggle between
fractions
> that wanted a very radical reform and fractions that wanted a much more
> surgical set of changes. Of course the entire discussion was driven by
> linguists and not the users of the language.
>
> BTW, there are significantly more than 3 million people speaking (and
> writing) the Dutch language.<vbg>
>
> And no, I personally didn't really enjoy having to un-learn and re-learn
> things that had been drilled into me for 20 odd years.<g>
>
> -Ronald-
>
>
> "Bill McCarthy" <Bill_McC@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3a1b32af@news.devx.com...
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > interesting, and IMO, a valid analogy. But let's look at that a bit
> closer
> > shall we. The English language has changed and continues to change,
even
> as
> > we speak. We no longer use thy shakesparean english, doust thow ? But
> yet
> > those changes have NOT removed any of the words or changed the origianl
> > meanings of them, rather new words have been added and new meanings
added.
> > The same could NOT be said for VB --> VB.NET. This is the problem.
> >
> > Also, assuming we accept your arguement about needing only one language,
> > then isn't that more reason to fully empower VB.NET, and include things
> such
> > as operator overloading, unsigned integers and unsafe code blocks etc..
> ??
>
>
>

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Ronald --

One word: WOW! I honestly had no idea. Fascinating, and completely on, analogy.

So, I take it, Microsoft *must've* put a non-native English speaker in charge of
Visual Fred, huh? Can we blame this current fiasco on "funny hats," too? <gd&r>

Thanks... Karl
--
http://www.mvps.org/vb


"Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]" <ronlaere@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3a1b7a45@news.devx.com...
> I want to be very careful about this, so I'll add this disclaimer upfront:
> The following post is completely unrelated to the fact that I work for
> Microsoft, or what my feelings about VB and its direction are.
>
> I don't know how many native English speakers are aware of the fact that
> many other languages, including my native language Dutch have had several
> official spelling reforms where the spelling of the language changed in
> fairly dramatic ways. The most recent one for Dutch was just a few years
> ago. I know that the English language does not have anything like this.
>
> For non-native English speakers however, that are new to learning the
> language, and for children, learning to write for the first time as well,
> the result is that in English there are absolutely no rules that allow you
> to infer spelling from the phonetic utterance. Some sounds are represented
> in over 20 different orthographies.
>
> The reason given for the spelling reforms in Dutch, is that they will make
> it easier for future learners of Dutch spelling to write correctly. I
> probably don't need to emphasize that changing the way you officially spell
> a language is an enormously costly affair. Throw away all existing
> textbooks, retrain all the people. And of course one with significant social
> implications as well, like potentially stigmatizing people that can't or
> wont' learn the new spelling.
>
> Also during the last reform there was an enormous struggle between fractions
> that wanted a very radical reform and fractions that wanted a much more
> surgical set of changes. Of course the entire discussion was driven by
> linguists and not the users of the language.
>
> BTW, there are significantly more than 3 million people speaking (and
> writing) the Dutch language.<vbg>
>
> And no, I personally didn't really enjoy having to un-learn and re-learn
> things that had been drilled into me for 20 odd years.<g>
>
> -Ronald-
>
>
> "Bill McCarthy" <Bill_McC@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3a1b32af@news.devx.com...
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > interesting, and IMO, a valid analogy. But let's look at that a bit
> closer
> > shall we. The English language has changed and continues to change, even
> as
> > we speak. We no longer use thy shakesparean english, doust thow ? But
> yet
> > those changes have NOT removed any of the words or changed the origianl
> > meanings of them, rather new words have been added and new meanings added.
> > The same could NOT be said for VB --> VB.NET. This is the problem.
> >
> > Also, assuming we accept your arguement about needing only one language,
> > then isn't that more reason to fully empower VB.NET, and include things
> such
> > as operator overloading, unsigned integers and unsafe code blocks etc..
> ??
>
>
>

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> We no longer use thy shakesparean english, doust thow ? But yet
> those changes have NOT removed any of the words or changed the origianl
> meanings of them, rather new words have been added and new meanings
> added.

So you would be gay if the VB.Net changes were reversed?

Hold on, I am going to finish my cool soda, walk the ***** and smoke a fag
now.

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> One word: WOW! I honestly had no idea. Fascinating, and completely on,
> analogy.

Well, speaking as (yet another) Dutchman, not really. It would be, if all of
a sudden VB.Net would change to stuff like

Fer...Next
Feelds.Apend()

But it's close :-)

> So, I take it, Microsoft *must've* put a non-native English speaker in
charge
> of Visual Fred, huh?

I hope so... then maybe this time localization will not be the joke it
always has been. Boy, I'm glad to code in and for the US now.

[Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]]

Flemish isn't a language. Just like US-ian isn't. People in England speak
English and so do people in the US. The same goes for people in Holland and
people in the Flemish part of Belgium. We all speak Dutch.

Afrikaans is indeed a different language.

-Ronald-

"Michael (michka) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com> wrote
in message news:3a1bde54@news.devx.com...
> Actually, it makes a fascinating example, and you do fail to mention two
> important side issues there:
>
> 1) It is VERY controversial in the Netherlands, and has been each time
>
> 2) Language like Flemish and Afrikaans do not feel much impetus to change,
> themselves... which of course causes an artificial drift to enhance the
> natural one over time. I even remember some people (linguists) theorizing
> that this was one of the REAL reasons for reform -- to try to distinguish
> their language!
>
> The analogy is still a good one.... everyone wants the language to be
easier
> to use, the government convenes a panel of linguists to make changes, and
> othr linguists argue with them and get the proposals modified, and
> theexisting language is changed into something not as compatible with
other
> offshoots of the language -- the end result very different from what the
> users wanted.
>
> It DOES seem a lot like the VB situation. :-)
>
> --
> MichKa
>
> a new book on internationalization in VB at
> http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
>
> "Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]" <ronlaere@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3a1b7a45@news.devx.com...
> > I want to be very careful about this, so I'll add this disclaimer
upfront:
> > The following post is completely unrelated to the fact that I work for
> > Microsoft, or what my feelings about VB and its direction are.
> >
> > I don't know how many native English speakers are aware of the fact that
> > many other languages, including my native language Dutch have had
several
> > official spelling reforms where the spelling of the language changed in
> > fairly dramatic ways. The most recent one for Dutch was just a few years
> > ago. I know that the English language does not have anything like this.
> >
> > For non-native English speakers however, that are new to learning the
> > language, and for children, learning to write for the first time as
well,
> > the result is that in English there are absolutely no rules that allow
you
> > to infer spelling from the phonetic utterance. Some sounds are
represented
> > in over 20 different orthographies.
> >
> > The reason given for the spelling reforms in Dutch, is that they will
make
> > it easier for future learners of Dutch spelling to write correctly. I
> > probably don't need to emphasize that changing the way you officially
> spell
> > a language is an enormously costly affair. Throw away all existing
> > textbooks, retrain all the people. And of course one with significant
> social
> > implications as well, like potentially stigmatizing people that can't or
> > wont' learn the new spelling.
> >
> > Also during the last reform there was an enormous struggle between
> fractions
> > that wanted a very radical reform and fractions that wanted a much more
> > surgical set of changes. Of course the entire discussion was driven by
> > linguists and not the users of the language.
> >
> > BTW, there are significantly more than 3 million people speaking (and
> > writing) the Dutch language.<vbg>
> >
> > And no, I personally didn't really enjoy having to un-learn and re-learn
> > things that had been drilled into me for 20 odd years.<g>
> >
> > -Ronald-
> >
> >
> > "Bill McCarthy" <Bill_McC@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3a1b32af@news.devx.com...
> > > Hi Brian,
> > >
> > > interesting, and IMO, a valid analogy. But let's look at that a bit
> > closer
> > > shall we. The English language has changed and continues to change,
> even
> > as
> > > we speak. We no longer use thy shakesparean english, doust thow ?
But
> > yet
> > > those changes have NOT removed any of the words or changed the
origianl
> > > meanings of them, rather new words have been added and new meanings
> added.
> > > The same could NOT be said for VB --> VB.NET. This is the problem.
> > >
> > > Also, assuming we accept your arguement about needing only one
language,
> > > then isn't that more reason to fully empower VB.NET, and include
things
> > such
> > > as operator overloading, unsigned integers and unsafe code blocks
etc..
> > ??
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan]

Well, many people in Belgium disagree, although lots of people in the
Netherlands would agree with you.

One should never trust a linguist's arguments if they are a native speaker
of the language or the potential dialect, due to the potential for bias.

And I tend to prefer taking the word of the pepple who speak the language to
make the call as to whether it is a dialect or a language, in the absence of
real linguists.

No offense (or offence, depending on whare you are!).

--
MichKa

a new book on internationalization in VB at
http://www.i18nWithVB.com/

"Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]" <ronlaere@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3a1c325a@news.devx.com...
> Flemish isn't a language. Just like US-ian isn't. People in England speak
> English and so do people in the US. The same goes for people in Holland
and
> people in the Flemish part of Belgium. We all speak Dutch.
>
> Afrikaans is indeed a different language.
>
> -Ronald-
>
> "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com>
wrote
> in message news:3a1bde54@news.devx.com...
> > Actually, it makes a fascinating example, and you do fail to mention two
> > important side issues there:
> >
> > 1) It is VERY controversial in the Netherlands, and has been each time
> >
> > 2) Language like Flemish and Afrikaans do not feel much impetus to
change,
> > themselves... which of course causes an artificial drift to enhance the
> > natural one over time. I even remember some people (linguists)
theorizing
> > that this was one of the REAL reasons for reform -- to try to
distinguish
> > their language!
> >
> > The analogy is still a good one.... everyone wants the language to be
> easier
> > to use, the government convenes a panel of linguists to make changes,
and
> > othr linguists argue with them and get the proposals modified, and
> > theexisting language is changed into something not as compatible with
> other
> > offshoots of the language -- the end result very different from what the
> > users wanted.
> >
> > It DOES seem a lot like the VB situation. :-)
> >
> > --
> > MichKa
> >
> > a new book on internationalization in VB at
> > http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
> >
> > "Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]" <ronlaere@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:3a1b7a45@news.devx.com...
> > > I want to be very careful about this, so I'll add this disclaimer
> upfront:
> > > The following post is completely unrelated to the fact that I work for
> > > Microsoft, or what my feelings about VB and its direction are.
> > >
> > > I don't know how many native English speakers are aware of the fact
that
> > > many other languages, including my native language Dutch have had
> several
> > > official spelling reforms where the spelling of the language changed
in
> > > fairly dramatic ways. The most recent one for Dutch was just a few
years
> > > ago. I know that the English language does not have anything like
this.
> > >
> > > For non-native English speakers however, that are new to learning the
> > > language, and for children, learning to write for the first time as
> well,
> > > the result is that in English there are absolutely no rules that allow
> you
> > > to infer spelling from the phonetic utterance. Some sounds are
> represented
> > > in over 20 different orthographies.
> > >
> > > The reason given for the spelling reforms in Dutch, is that they will
> make
> > > it easier for future learners of Dutch spelling to write correctly. I
> > > probably don't need to emphasize that changing the way you officially
> > spell
> > > a language is an enormously costly affair. Throw away all existing
> > > textbooks, retrain all the people. And of course one with significant
> > social
> > > implications as well, like potentially stigmatizing people that can't
or
> > > wont' learn the new spelling.
> > >
> > > Also during the last reform there was an enormous struggle between
> > fractions
> > > that wanted a very radical reform and fractions that wanted a much
more
> > > surgical set of changes. Of course the entire discussion was driven by
> > > linguists and not the users of the language.
> > >
> > > BTW, there are significantly more than 3 million people speaking (and
> > > writing) the Dutch language.<vbg>
> > >
> > > And no, I personally didn't really enjoy having to un-learn and
re-learn
> > > things that had been drilled into me for 20 odd years.<g>
> > >
> > > -Ronald-
> > >
> > >
> > > "Bill McCarthy" <Bill_McC@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:3a1b32af@news.devx.com...
> > > > Hi Brian,
> > > >
> > > > interesting, and IMO, a valid analogy. But let's look at that a bit
> > > closer
> > > > shall we. The English language has changed and continues to change,
> > even
> > > as
> > > > we speak. We no longer use thy shakesparean english, doust thow ?
> But
> > > yet
> > > > those changes have NOT removed any of the words or changed the
> origianl
> > > > meanings of them, rather new words have been added and new meanings
> > added.
> > > > The same could NOT be said for VB --> VB.NET. This is the problem.
> > > >
> > > > Also, assuming we accept your arguement about needing only one
> language,
> > > > then isn't that more reason to fully empower VB.NET, and include
> things
> > > such
> > > > as operator overloading, unsigned integers and unsafe code blocks
> etc..
> > > ??
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan]

I do not know of a single reptuable localizer who has reviewed the plans for
the resource and localization model without snickering.

And those are the polite ones, unfortunately.

--
MichKa

a new book on internationalization in VB at
http://www.i18nWithVB.com/

"Sjoerd Verweij" <nospam.sjoerd@sjoerd.org> wrote in message
news:3a1c13ee@news.devx.com...
> > One word: WOW! I honestly had no idea. Fascinating, and completely on,
> > analogy.
>
> Well, speaking as (yet another) Dutchman, not really. It would be, if all
of
> a sudden VB.Net would change to stuff like
>
> Fer...Next
> Feelds.Apend()
>
> But it's close :-)
>
> > So, I take it, Microsoft *must've* put a non-native English speaker in
> charge
> > of Visual Fred, huh?
>
> I hope so... then maybe this time localization will not be the joke it
> always has been. Boy, I'm glad to code in and for the US now.
>
>

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> Flemish isn't a language.

Technically, no... but two Belgians can talk all day amongst themselves
without the average Dutchman picking up a single word.

> People in England speak
> English and so do people in the US.

Wellllll, there is such a distinction as American English-British English --
never seen the Word dictionary selection screen? To repeat my example: go to
a gay bar on both sides of the Atlantic and ask for a fag.

> The same goes for people in Holland and
> people in the Flemish part of Belgium. We all speak Dutch.

Except for the Frisians, recent immigrants, and (I think) people from
Limburg. I recently met a Dutch woman around here (through my wife and by
chance), who like me was born and raised in Holland but recently moved to
the States. I could understand her (bad) English better than her (poor
excuse for) Dutch, thank you very much.

[Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]]

I take it you know that I am Flemish?

-Ronald-

"Michael (michka) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com> wrote
in message news:3a1c3562$1@news.devx.com...
> Well, many people in Belgium disagree, although lots of people in the
> Netherlands would agree with you.
>
> One should never trust a linguist's arguments if they are a native speaker
> of the language or the potential dialect, due to the potential for bias.
>
> And I tend to prefer taking the word of the pepple who speak the language
to
> make the call as to whether it is a dialect or a language, in the absence
of
> real linguists.
>
> No offense (or offence, depending on whare you are!).
>
> --
> MichKa
>
> a new book on internationalization in VB at
> http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
>
> "Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]" <ronlaere@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3a1c325a@news.devx.com...
> > Flemish isn't a language. Just like US-ian isn't. People in England
speak
> > English and so do people in the US. The same goes for people in Holland
> and
> > people in the Flemish part of Belgium. We all speak Dutch.
> >
> > Afrikaans is indeed a different language.
> >
> > -Ronald-
> >
> > "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com>
> wrote
> > in message news:3a1bde54@news.devx.com...
> > > Actually, it makes a fascinating example, and you do fail to mention
two
> > > important side issues there:
> > >
> > > 1) It is VERY controversial in the Netherlands, and has been each time
> > >
> > > 2) Language like Flemish and Afrikaans do not feel much impetus to
> change,
> > > themselves... which of course causes an artificial drift to enhance
the
> > > natural one over time. I even remember some people (linguists)
> theorizing
> > > that this was one of the REAL reasons for reform -- to try to
> distinguish
> > > their language!
> > >
> > > The analogy is still a good one.... everyone wants the language to be
> > easier
> > > to use, the government convenes a panel of linguists to make changes,
> and
> > > othr linguists argue with them and get the proposals modified, and
> > > theexisting language is changed into something not as compatible with
> > other
> > > offshoots of the language -- the end result very different from what
the
> > > users wanted.
> > >
> > > It DOES seem a lot like the VB situation. :-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > MichKa
> > >
> > > a new book on internationalization in VB at
> > > http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
> > >
> > > "Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]" <ronlaere@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3a1b7a45@news.devx.com...
> > > > I want to be very careful about this, so I'll add this disclaimer
> > upfront:
> > > > The following post is completely unrelated to the fact that I work
for
> > > > Microsoft, or what my feelings about VB and its direction are.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know how many native English speakers are aware of the fact
> that
> > > > many other languages, including my native language Dutch have had
> > several
> > > > official spelling reforms where the spelling of the language changed
> in
> > > > fairly dramatic ways. The most recent one for Dutch was just a few
> years
> > > > ago. I know that the English language does not have anything like
> this.
> > > >
> > > > For non-native English speakers however, that are new to learning
the
> > > > language, and for children, learning to write for the first time as
> > well,
> > > > the result is that in English there are absolutely no rules that
allow
> > you
> > > > to infer spelling from the phonetic utterance. Some sounds are
> > represented
> > > > in over 20 different orthographies.
> > > >
> > > > The reason given for the spelling reforms in Dutch, is that they
will
> > make
> > > > it easier for future learners of Dutch spelling to write correctly.
I
> > > > probably don't need to emphasize that changing the way you
officially
> > > spell
> > > > a language is an enormously costly affair. Throw away all existing
> > > > textbooks, retrain all the people. And of course one with
significant
> > > social
> > > > implications as well, like potentially stigmatizing people that
can't
> or
> > > > wont' learn the new spelling.
> > > >
> > > > Also during the last reform there was an enormous struggle between
> > > fractions
> > > > that wanted a very radical reform and fractions that wanted a much
> more
> > > > surgical set of changes. Of course the entire discussion was driven
by
> > > > linguists and not the users of the language.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, there are significantly more than 3 million people speaking
(and
> > > > writing) the Dutch language.<vbg>
> > > >
> > > > And no, I personally didn't really enjoy having to un-learn and
> re-learn
> > > > things that had been drilled into me for 20 odd years.<g>
> > > >
> > > > -Ronald-
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Bill McCarthy" <Bill_McC@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:3a1b32af@news.devx.com...
> > > > > Hi Brian,
> > > > >
> > > > > interesting, and IMO, a valid analogy. But let's look at that a
bit
> > > > closer
> > > > > shall we. The English language has changed and continues to
change,
> > > even
> > > > as
> > > > > we speak. We no longer use thy shakesparean english, doust thow ?
> > But
> > > > yet
> > > > > those changes have NOT removed any of the words or changed the
> > origianl
> > > > > meanings of them, rather new words have been added and new
meanings
> > > added.
> > > > > The same could NOT be said for VB --> VB.NET. This is the
problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, assuming we accept your arguement about needing only one
> > language,
> > > > > then isn't that more reason to fully empower VB.NET, and include
> > things
> > > > such
> > > > > as operator overloading, unsigned integers and unsafe code blocks
> > etc..
> > > > ??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan]

No, I did not know that. You would also be the first Flemish person I have
ever met who considers Flemish to be a mere dialect of Dutch.

--
MichKa

a new book on internationalization in VB at
http://www.i18nWithVB.com/

"Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]" <ronlaere@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3a1c51a8$1@news.devx.com...
> I take it you know that I am Flemish?
>
> -Ronald-
>
> "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com>
wrote
> in message news:3a1c3562$1@news.devx.com...
> > Well, many people in Belgium disagree, although lots of people in the
> > Netherlands would agree with you.
> >
> > One should never trust a linguist's arguments if they are a native
speaker
> > of the language or the potential dialect, due to the potential for bias.
> >
> > And I tend to prefer taking the word of the pepple who speak the
language
> to
> > make the call as to whether it is a dialect or a language, in the
absence
> of
> > real linguists.
> >
> > No offense (or offence, depending on whare you are!).
> >
> > --
> > MichKa
> >
> > a new book on internationalization in VB at
> > http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
> >
> > "Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]" <ronlaere@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:3a1c325a@news.devx.com...
> > > Flemish isn't a language. Just like US-ian isn't. People in England
> speak
> > > English and so do people in the US. The same goes for people in
Holland
> > and
> > > people in the Flemish part of Belgium. We all speak Dutch.
> > >
> > > Afrikaans is indeed a different language.
> > >
> > > -Ronald-
> > >
> > > "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com>
> > wrote
> > > in message news:3a1bde54@news.devx.com...
> > > > Actually, it makes a fascinating example, and you do fail to mention
> two
> > > > important side issues there:
> > > >
> > > > 1) It is VERY controversial in the Netherlands, and has been each
time
> > > >
> > > > 2) Language like Flemish and Afrikaans do not feel much impetus to
> > change,
> > > > themselves... which of course causes an artificial drift to enhance
> the
> > > > natural one over time. I even remember some people (linguists)
> > theorizing
> > > > that this was one of the REAL reasons for reform -- to try to
> > distinguish
> > > > their language!
> > > >
> > > > The analogy is still a good one.... everyone wants the language to
be
> > > easier
> > > > to use, the government convenes a panel of linguists to make
changes,
> > and
> > > > othr linguists argue with them and get the proposals modified, and
> > > > theexisting language is changed into something not as compatible
with
> > > other
> > > > offshoots of the language -- the end result very different from what
> the
> > > > users wanted.
> > > >
> > > > It DOES seem a lot like the VB situation. :-)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > MichKa
> > > >
> > > > a new book on internationalization in VB at
> > > > http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
> > > >
> > > > "Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]" <ronlaere@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3a1b7a45@news.devx.com...
> > > > > I want to be very careful about this, so I'll add this disclaimer
> > > upfront:
> > > > > The following post is completely unrelated to the fact that I work
> for
> > > > > Microsoft, or what my feelings about VB and its direction are.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know how many native English speakers are aware of the
fact
> > that
> > > > > many other languages, including my native language Dutch have had
> > > several
> > > > > official spelling reforms where the spelling of the language
changed
> > in
> > > > > fairly dramatic ways. The most recent one for Dutch was just a few
> > years
> > > > > ago. I know that the English language does not have anything like
> > this.
> > > > >
> > > > > For non-native English speakers however, that are new to learning
> the
> > > > > language, and for children, learning to write for the first time
as
> > > well,
> > > > > the result is that in English there are absolutely no rules that
> allow
> > > you
> > > > > to infer spelling from the phonetic utterance. Some sounds are
> > > represented
> > > > > in over 20 different orthographies.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason given for the spelling reforms in Dutch, is that they
> will
> > > make
> > > > > it easier for future learners of Dutch spelling to write
correctly.
> I
> > > > > probably don't need to emphasize that changing the way you
> officially
> > > > spell
> > > > > a language is an enormously costly affair. Throw away all existing
> > > > > textbooks, retrain all the people. And of course one with
> significant
> > > > social
> > > > > implications as well, like potentially stigmatizing people that
> can't
> > or
> > > > > wont' learn the new spelling.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also during the last reform there was an enormous struggle between
> > > > fractions
> > > > > that wanted a very radical reform and fractions that wanted a much
> > more
> > > > > surgical set of changes. Of course the entire discussion was
driven
> by
> > > > > linguists and not the users of the language.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, there are significantly more than 3 million people speaking
> (and
> > > > > writing) the Dutch language.<vbg>
> > > > >
> > > > > And no, I personally didn't really enjoy having to un-learn and
> > re-learn
> > > > > things that had been drilled into me for 20 odd years.<g>
> > > > >
> > > > > -Ronald-
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bill McCarthy" <Bill_McC@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3a1b32af@news.devx.com...
> > > > > > Hi Brian,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > interesting, and IMO, a valid analogy. But let's look at that a
> bit
> > > > > closer
> > > > > > shall we. The English language has changed and continues to
> change,
> > > > even
> > > > > as
> > > > > > we speak. We no longer use thy shakesparean english, doust thow
?
> > > But
> > > > > yet
> > > > > > those changes have NOT removed any of the words or changed the
> > > origianl
> > > > > > meanings of them, rather new words have been added and new
> meanings
> > > > added.
> > > > > > The same could NOT be said for VB --> VB.NET. This is the
> problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, assuming we accept your arguement about needing only one
> > > language,
> > > > > > then isn't that more reason to fully empower VB.NET, and include
> > > things
> > > > > such
> > > > > > as operator overloading, unsigned integers and unsafe code
blocks
> > > etc..
> > > > > ??
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Phil Weber]

> I am going to finish my cool soda...

Sjoerd: I understand the above to refer to a low-temperature carbonated
beverage. Does it have some other meaning outside the U.S.?
---
Phil Weber

[Christopher Fitzmartin]

Right. Let's talk about trade-offs in making a switch to ".NewLanguage."

It's OK to be enthused about the new stuff while looking at years of
investment in VB and win32 and a bunch of debugged classes and modules and
say, "Hey wait a minute. I have quite an investment here in myself and this
code and this career path. None of this code is going to compile now and I'm
not sure what my career path looks like anymore."

The truth is that VB7 is a significant fork in the road for a lot of people.
All this talk about what a "real" programmer or "real" language is, is just
testosterone, though slightly entertaining. But it's not analysis. MS
created this big market for tools and technologies to help build
business/database apps and help beginner programmers. That's your core VB
audience. There are other smaller audiences, too, that are more advanced.
So, now it's not clear that VB7 just fits with that history and that
marketplace. It's cute to say in a newsgroup "change or die," but then we
are talking about how people feed their kids and pay the mortgage. If ".Net"
is a strategic move by MS, so is my decision to play ball with ".Net." It is
an equally serious career decision.

Another way to make the same point: VB represented an easier way to do win32
programming than the alternatives for a certain set of business solutions.
There is a multi-year career path inherent in that statement. Now let's come
up with an analog for VB.NET. "VB.NET is an easier way to create
blah-blah-blah solutions for the win32 platform in a wired world." The
problem is that VB.NET got *disconnected* from my various investments in
VB3-VB6 style programming. Not totally disconnected, but partially
disconnected. These "investments" were also made by the customers who paid
for all of this code. So, any disconnection could cost them and maybe they
make a different trade-off or maybe I recommend a different platform or
toolset going forward.

Folks, all I want is an interesting job that pays well. But we VB/win32
solution providers need a solid platform of tools and technologies. Can
anyone of us with this kind of "investment" look at the ".NET" thing and
just say, "don't worry dude, this is a slam dunk for you career-wise." ???


<Vlad Ivanov> wrote in message news:3a1a9583$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Being a good programmer means having a large library of existing
tested/rock
> stable/reusable/extendable code. Written in VB. Written in a way so that
> it can be used over and over again. Cutting down time of development.
Increasing
> code productivity. Increasing stability. And with all the benefits that
provides
> such library it pretty much natural to use it in all cases. And it's
wriiten
> in VB5-6. And it doesn't even compile anymore in VB.Net. And it represents
> a 4-5 year effort on my part. And i can't just abandon my investement and
> go f#ck around with a new "different" language. Having this library meant
> for me that i can take it into VB.Net and get a head start. Not so
anymore.
>
> But being a code monkey (find out the definition for yourself) on the
other
> hand means that you can adopt the view of the world quoted directly below:
>
>
> "Mark Weber" <gn87sfi@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >Stop complaining. Being a good programmer means knowing more than one
language
> >and using the best one for the job. If VB is getting away from what you
> >like, try something else! You may find it does wonders for you resume!
> >
> >
> >
>

[Howard Jones]

Just a general observation. Half of us are reactionary by nature and thus
opposed to change on princple. The other half are exploratory by nature
and seek out whats new. Its true that its the reactionaries who generally
save our collective butts, but its also true that its the explorers who advanced
the tools it took to save our butts in the first place.

I have noticed that its much easier to generate really well-reasoned and
logically persuasive arguments as to why we should not change anything than
it is to argue for a change, even when everything that we have accumulated
in our professional dicipline, our years of experience, our theoretical insights,
our finely honed intuition, all of it practically screams at us that this
new direction is right - we still can't measure up in a cold logical debate
with the reactionaries.

Is the .net initiative a case study in these forces? Yes I think so. There
is clearly a new paradigm coming and with it a need for new language capabilities
and programmatic approaches for all the new platforms we will play on. At
the same time, everything that *was*, still is, and will continue to be for
a long time.

Microsoft, as we all well know will mostly always choose to go forward, this
can't be news to anyone. VB is not an openly specified language, it has
been a proprietary language all
along. When one comes on board with VB one comes "for the ride", dammit
- its always been so. The ride has taken us some strange places, after all.
DDE then OLE then COM now COM+. ODBC then the RDO-ADO stuff. MAPI-TAPI-SAPI,
out-of-process, in-process, remote-process, early-binding, binary compatibility,
control-arrays, AddressOf, interfaces, and so on and on.

We, the VB community have always accepted these changes and new introductions
in the spirit with which the language was offered to us - as explorers.
In return we got tremendous productivity, a spot on the leading edges and
somewhat built-in hedges against obsolence. But implicitly, the foundation
understanding was that this language would never bit-shift and pointer-math
with the best of 'em, though it *would* adapt, merge, and converge to head
into any new arenas that presented themselves. So now we know why Microsoft
*dared* to change VB so - they were acting perfectly within their part of
the contract.

Now if anyone has built foundation works and frameworks in VB, then they
were taking a chance, no? And if anyone has applied great effort and ingenuity
into shoehorning VB code into resembling some API-ridden, OS-suited other
language, then they too were taking a chance. If you ride a leading-edge
proprietary stallion and moan that he isn't the reliable donkey you really
wanted, then every exhiliarating rise will seem a painful bump.





"Christopher Fitzmartin" <cfitz@entigo.com> wrote:
>Right. Let's talk about trade-offs in making a switch to ".NewLanguage."
>
>It's OK to be enthused about the new stuff while looking at years of
>investment in VB and win32 and a bunch of debugged classes and modules and
>say, "Hey wait a minute. I have quite an investment here in myself and this
>code and this career path. None of this code is going to compile now and
I'm
>not sure what my career path looks like anymore."
>
>The truth is that VB7 is a significant fork in the road for a lot of people.
>All this talk about what a "real" programmer or "real" language is, is just
>testosterone, though slightly entertaining. But it's not analysis. MS
>created this big market for tools and technologies to help build
>business/database apps and help beginner programmers. That's your core VB
>audience. There are other smaller audiences, too, that are more advanced.
>So, now it's not clear that VB7 just fits with that history and that
>marketplace. It's cute to say in a newsgroup "change or die," but then we
>are talking about how people feed their kids and pay the mortgage. If ".Net"
>is a strategic move by MS, so is my decision to play ball with ".Net." It
is
>an equally serious career decision.
>
>Another way to make the same point: VB represented an easier way to do win32
>programming than the alternatives for a certain set of business solutions.
>There is a multi-year career path inherent in that statement. Now let's
come
>up with an analog for VB.NET. "VB.NET is an easier way to create
>blah-blah-blah solutions for the win32 platform in a wired world." The
>problem is that VB.NET got *disconnected* from my various investments in
>VB3-VB6 style programming. Not totally disconnected, but partially
>disconnected. These "investments" were also made by the customers who paid
>for all of this code. So, any disconnection could cost them and maybe they
>make a different trade-off or maybe I recommend a different platform or
>toolset going forward.
>
>Folks, all I want is an interesting job that pays well. But we VB/win32
>solution providers need a solid platform of tools and technologies. Can
>anyone of us with this kind of "investment" look at the ".NET" thing and
>just say, "don't worry dude, this is a slam dunk for you career-wise."
???
>
>
><Vlad Ivanov> wrote in message news:3a1a9583$1@news.devx.com...
>>
>> Being a good programmer means having a large library of existing
>tested/rock
>> stable/reusable/extendable code. Written in VB. Written in a way so that
>> it can be used over and over again. Cutting down time of development.
>Increasing
>> code productivity. Increasing stability. And with all the benefits that
>provides
>> such library it pretty much natural to use it in all cases. And it's
>wriiten
>> in VB5-6. And it doesn't even compile anymore in VB.Net. And it represents
>> a 4-5 year effort on my part. And i can't just abandon my investement
and
>> go f#ck around with a new "different" language. Having this library meant
>> for me that i can take it into VB.Net and get a head start. Not so
>anymore.
>>
>> But being a code monkey (find out the definition for yourself) on the
>other
>> hand means that you can adopt the view of the world quoted directly below:
>>
>>
>> "Mark Weber" <gn87sfi@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Stop complaining. Being a good programmer means knowing more than one
>language
>> >and using the best one for the job. If VB is getting away from what
you
>> >like, try something else! You may find it does wonders for you resume!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

[Vlad Ivanov]

It always suprises me. The amount of philosophical insight that surrounds
something as simple as that. Let me attempt to explain again that the changes
that "reactionaries" are opposed about are f'ing moronic.

You have a house?

In your house you have a heater. It costs 2-3 K to replace it. Tomorrow i
(being a gas company) change the natural gas that is pumped to your house
to pure oxygen. It burns cleaner and has tons of other benefits, 'cept your
heater doesn't work anymore. And you can't just shell out 3K to replace it.
And you really don't think it's fair to do that to you. And you would really
want that the gas company asked you first - if they should start pumping
oxygen, or stick to natural gas meanwhile you upgrade. Ofcourse there's still
some gas tanks that you can have delivered to your house and temporary hook
up your old heater to them, to buy yourself time. But still you know that
you should really upgrade the heater, coz those gas tanks are not that safe
and it's a hustle to use them. Plus if time comes to sell your house you
know that the first thing that buyer will ask is "you got those new oxygen
heater things, right?". And you really don't want to mumble "erm.. you see..".

Back in real world it will cost MUCH more to "upgrade the heater".

Reactionary my ***. If the money that Microsoft is saving by not providing
us with FULL BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY, and appropriate DEPRECATION POLICY (things
phased out over a few versions), those dollars were coming out directly out
of your pocket - you wouldn't be singing the philosophical theories here,
would you?


"Howard Jones" <hjones@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Just a general observation. Half of us are reactionary by nature and thus
>opposed to change on princple. The other half are exploratory by nature
>and seek out whats new. Its true that its the reactionaries who generally
>save our collective butts, but its also true that its the explorers who
advanced
>the tools it took to save our butts in the first place.
>

[Vlad Ivanov]

Since for some reason the point seems to be getting lost - noone in this group
(correct me if i am wrong) is putting down any of the enchancements and cools
stuff.

Problem is ***compatibility***. VB6 code does no longer run. But most importantly
some of the VB6 code needs ***serious*** redesign to function, and some of
the functionality is plain ***lost*** (DF).

[Dave Haskell]

Howard,

> ... understanding was that this language would never bit-shift ...

I've never had that understanding; it *does* bit-shift now, and it is *very*
ugly.

[Michael \(michka\) Kaplan]

Huh? VB has never supported shift operations.

They **** sure use those operations in the product, though. Think about
it.... :-)

--
MichKa

a new book on internationalization in VB at
http://www.i18nWithVB.com/

"Dave Haskell" <NOhaskellsSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3a241992@news.devx.com...
> Howard,
>
> > ... understanding was that this language would never bit-shift ...
>
> I've never had that understanding; it *does* bit-shift now, and it is
*very*
> ugly.
>
>

[Dave Haskell]

Michael,

> Huh? VB has never supported shift operations.

I never said VB "supported" shift operations. But, it is a programming
language and can be coded (which is where the *ugly* comes from).

> They **** sure use those operations in the product, though. Think about
> it.... :-)

Of course they do; they just seem to think we don't need to...

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> In your house you have a heater. It costs 2-3 K to replace it. Tomorrow i
> (being a gas company) change the natural gas that is pumped to your house
> to pure oxygen.

At the repeated requests of the entire neighborhood for cleaner burning and
being able to use the fuel for first aid, you mean? ;-)

[Kevin Downs]

<Vlad Ivanov> wrote in message news:3a2416e6@news.devx.com...
>
> In your house you have a heater. It costs 2-3 K to replace it. Tomorrow i
> (being a gas company) change the natural gas that is pumped to your house
> to pure oxygen. It burns cleaner and has tons of other benefits, 'cept your
> heater doesn't work anymore. And you can't just shell out 3K to replace it.
> And you really don't think it's fair to do that to you. And you would really
> want that the gas company asked you first - if they should start pumping
> oxygen, or stick to natural gas meanwhile you upgrade. Ofcourse there's
still
> some gas tanks that you can have delivered to your house and temporary hook
> up your old heater to them, to buy yourself time. But still you know that
> you should really upgrade the heater, coz those gas tanks are not that safe
> and it's a hustle to use them. Plus if time comes to sell your house you
> know that the first thing that buyer will ask is "you got those new oxygen
> heater things, right?". And you really don't want to mumble "erm.. you
see..".

Umm, I hate to mention it , but oxygen isn't a fuel.
If the gas company started pumping oxygen, pretty much everything would burn -
including your heater.
And no-one, but no-one, would want to come anywhere near you neighbourhood,
let alone buy your house.

Maybe this is quite a good analogy after all ! <bg>

[Jonathan Allen]

"Kevin Downs" <kdowns@nospam.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a262f93@news.devx.com...
> <Vlad Ivanov> wrote in message news:3a2416e6@news.devx.com...
> >
> > In your house you have a heater. It costs 2-3 K to replace it. Tomorrow
i
> > (being a gas company) change the natural gas that is pumped to your
house
> > to pure oxygen. It burns cleaner and has tons of other benefits, 'cept
your
> > heater doesn't work anymore. And you can't just shell out 3K to replace
it.
> > And you really don't think it's fair to do that to you. And you would
really
> > want that the gas company asked you first - if they should start pumping
> > oxygen, or stick to natural gas meanwhile you upgrade. Ofcourse there's
> still
> > some gas tanks that you can have delivered to your house and temporary
hook
> > up your old heater to them, to buy yourself time. But still you know
that
> > you should really upgrade the heater, coz those gas tanks are not that
safe
> > and it's a hustle to use them. Plus if time comes to sell your house you
> > know that the first thing that buyer will ask is "you got those new
oxygen
> > heater things, right?". And you really don't want to mumble "erm.. you
> see..".
>
> Umm, I hate to mention it , but oxygen isn't a fuel.
> If the gas company started pumping oxygen, pretty much everything would
burn -
> including your heater.
> And no-one, but no-one, would want to come anywhere near you
neighbourhood,
> let alone buy your house.
>
> Maybe this is quite a good analogy after all ! <bg>
>
>

If you can keep the purity above 99% oxygen your safe, otherwise BOOM!

You know, the more I think about it the better the analogy fits.

--
Jonathan Allen