Converting projects to VB.NET

Dave Doknjas <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> had this to say:

> I'm converting apps that I've written, so I should have some
> advantage (right?)

Not necessarily. What does VB.NET allow your apps to do that VB6
doesn't? The answer to that one question will go a long way towards
addressing the concerns you've raised in your post.

> This doesn't make MS look very good.

Microsoft has enough money to afford the occasional black eye. I'm
sure people like you and I do not. With that in mind, you really need
to rethink your reasons for upgrading. It does not follow that just
because you *can* upgrade that you *must* upgrade.

--
http://www.acadx.com
"If you want to be somebody else change your mind"

I've finally got around to begin converting projects to VB.NET and I have
to say I think VB6 is going to be around a LONG time (supported or not).

I'm converting apps that I've written, so I should have some advantage (right?),
but given the vast amount of work to convert a real-world app (most writers
have apparently only written hobby apps) from VB6 to VB.NET, I can't imagine
that there's an unlimited amount of money, time, and patience out there for
companines to have the incentive to convert (I'm doing some of the conversions
for clients on my own time in order to jump into the .NET world without further
delay). Certainly, it's irresponsible to say that companies need web services
- web services are irrelevant to most architectures since you normally don't
need to have parts of a system running on different networks.

Once you convert, you have to expain to clients why developers will now need
machine upgrades to run the excessively bloated and slow .NET IDE, and why
the users will notice that the apps are much slower. Good Luck!!

I'm committed to .NET, but I can't imagine why most companies should be.
If they're presented with an honest argument for converting they would naturally
conclude that the only reason for converting is to attract developers when
the market heats up again. This doesn't make MS look very good.

"Frank Oquendo" <franko at acadx dot com> wrote in message
news:3cf507cd@10.1.10.29
> Dave Doknjas <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> had this to say:
>
>> I'm converting apps that I've written, so I should have some
>> advantage (right?)
>
> Not necessarily. What does VB.NET allow your apps to do that VB6
> doesn't? The answer to that one question will go a long way towards
> addressing the concerns you've raised in your post.

I read the advantage as being familiar with the existing code so that'd make
upgrading easier as compared to trying to upgrade an app that somebody else
wrote.

>> This doesn't make MS look very good.
>
> Microsoft has enough money to afford the occasional black eye. I'm
> sure people like you and I do not. With that in mind, you really need
> to rethink your reasons for upgrading. It does not follow that just
> because you *can* upgrade that you *must* upgrade.

In the not-to-distant future there's going to be more XP upgrades and
eventually a 64-bit windows. I have no confidence that VB6 apps will be
supported under those or will even run at all. That means a rewrite one way
or another. The only question is whether or not VB.Net is the best option.
From what I've seen it isn't.

Bob Butler <butlerbob@earthlink.net> had this to say:

> I read the advantage as being familiar with the existing code so
> that'd make upgrading easier as compared to trying to upgrade an
> app that somebody else wrote.

Ok, I can see that. That reason alone still doesn't justify switching
to VB.NET so we would all do well to consider our reasons for moving
to VB.NET.

> In the not-to-distant future there's going to be more XP upgrades
> and eventually a 64-bit windows. I have no confidence that VB6
> apps will be supported under those or will even run at all. That
> means a rewrite one way or another.

True enough but that day has not yet arrived. Unless a programmer
intends to avail himself of features only available in .NET, there is
currently no good reason to make the switch.

> The only question is whether or not VB.Net is the best option.
> From what I've seen it isn't.

I don't understand this argument. Anyone who makes money at
programming should be smart enough to know that brand loyalty is a
luxury they can't afford. Evangelism be damned; if VB.NET doesn't give
you what you need in a language, use something that does.

--
http://www.acadx.com
"If you want to be somebody else change your mind"

"Frank Oquendo" <franko at acadx dot com> wrote in message
news:3cf50a67$1@10.1.10.29
> Bob Butler <butlerbob@earthlink.net> had this to say:
>
>> I read the advantage as being familiar with the existing code so
>> that'd make upgrading easier as compared to trying to upgrade an
>> app that somebody else wrote.
>
> Ok, I can see that. That reason alone still doesn't justify switching
> to VB.NET so we would all do well to consider our reasons for moving
> to VB.NET.

Agreed; all I was saying is that I read the original as saying that given
that the decision has been made to port to VB.Net there is an advantage to
migrating code that you know well already.

>> In the not-to-distant future there's going to be more XP upgrades
>> and eventually a 64-bit windows. I have no confidence that VB6
>> apps will be supported under those or will even run at all. That
>> means a rewrite one way or another.
>
> True enough but that day has not yet arrived. Unless a programmer
> intends to avail himself of features only available in .NET, there is
> currently no good reason to make the switch.

No, but it's close enough that continuing to develop in VB may not make much
sense. I'd rather start planning now so that when the day comes I'm done.

>> The only question is whether or not VB.Net is the best option.
>> From what I've seen it isn't.
>
> I don't understand this argument. Anyone who makes money at
> programming should be smart enough to know that brand loyalty is a
> luxury they can't afford. Evangelism be damned; if VB.NET doesn't give
> you what you need in a language, use something that does.

I do not disagree with that. I'd prefer to stick with VB if I could upgrade
my apps easily since that'd be the path of least resistance. The situation
now is that migrating to VB.Net is no more difficult than migrating to any
of a number of other options. If I do decide on VB.Net I have to
acknowledge that MS has burned me pretty badly on this upgrade and I have to
wonder when they'll do it again.

On Wed, 29 May 2002 19:10:18 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
<kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>>
>> I've finally got around to begin converting projects to VB.NET and I have
>> to say I think VB6 is going to be around a LONG time (supported or not).
>
>Given that COBOL, FORTAN, dBASE, Pascal et al are still around, this is
>hardly worth saying. All version of VB since VB3 will be around a long time.

I've got QuickBasic 2.0 on this machine. What's that got to do with
any application of value today?

Dan
Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)
Error 51
Error 3
Error 9
....

"Dave Doknjas" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3cf4fd4f@10.1.10.29...
>
> I've finally got around to begin converting projects to VB.NET and I have
> to say I think VB6 is going to be around a LONG time (supported or not).

Given that COBOL, FORTAN, dBASE, Pascal et al are still around, this is
hardly worth saying. All version of VB since VB3 will be around a long time.

> I'm converting apps that I've written, so I should have some advantage
(right?),

Yes. Familiarity with the code. And you do.

> but given the vast amount of work to convert a real-world app (most
writers
> have apparently only written hobby apps) from VB6 to VB.NET, I can't
imagine
> that there's an unlimited amount of money, time, and patience out there
for
> companines to have the incentive to convert

There is no situation in which anyone has an unlimited anount of money,
time and patience. If you are alluding to the fact that upgrading from VB6
to VB.NET is more difficult than upgrading from VB5 to VB6, you will be
correct.

> (I'm doing some of the conversions
> for clients on my own time in order to jump into the .NET world without
further
> delay).

Do you clients *need* or *want* to jump into the .NET world with those apps
you are converting?
If yes, is VB.NET their best option or would another language be a better
option?
If no, why are you converting? [Personal development is a good reason
here.]

> Certainly, it's irresponsible to say that companies need web services
> - web services are irrelevant to most architectures since you normally
don't
> need to have parts of a system running on different networks.

Who has said this?

> Once you convert, you have to expain to clients why developers will now
need
> machine upgrades to run the excessively bloated and slow .NET IDE, and why
> the users will notice that the apps are much slower. Good Luck!!

The VS.NET IDE requires more resources than VS6 but it's plainly absurd (and
inaccurate) to describe it as "excessively bloated". All the top Java IDEs
require more resources, perform worse and have less features). Hasn't
hampered Java's success...

> I'm committed to .NET, but I can't imagine why most companies should be.

*Why* are you committed to .NET?.

> If they're presented with an honest argument for converting they would
naturally
> conclude that the only reason for converting is to attract developers when
> the market heats up again. This doesn't make MS look very good.

It would be more fruitful to ask the companies (that are savvy enough to
understand) and *listen* to their answers. Forming an opinion based on what
you _think_ they _might_ say is unhelpful to you at best.

Kunle

"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message
news:lt4afu89ist7cn6g44dp9ukhlho8f4mhaf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 May 2002 19:10:18 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
> <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I've finally got around to begin converting projects to VB.NET and I
have
> >> to say I think VB6 is going to be around a LONG time (supported or
not).
> >
> >Given that COBOL, FORTAN, dBASE, Pascal et al are still around, this is
> >hardly worth saying. All version of VB since VB3 will be around a long
time.
>
> I've got QuickBasic 2.0 on this machine. What's that got to do with
> any application of value today?

You tell me. It's on *your* machine. ;-)

Kunle

On Wed, 29 May 2002 21:05:59 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
<kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>I don't agree with Dan's position that MS needs to keep *selling* and
>supporting VB6.

Huh? Which Dan are you talking about?

FWIW, that's not my position. VB has been advertised as a serious
development tool. That being the case, MS needs to provide for VB
code on its strategic platform. That is, and has been, my position.

In fact, my comments to those who were pushing for a longer life for
VB6 was that it was a good solution to the wrong problem.

Pay closer attention, willya?

Dan
Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)
Error 51
Error 3
Error 9
....

Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> had this to say:

> I've got QuickBasic 2.0 on this machine. What's that got to do with
> any application of value today?

You and I both know that the value of an application has nothing to do
with the language used to write it. It has to do with how well it
meets the client's needs.

--
http://www.acadx.com
"If you want to be somebody else change your mind"

"Dave Doknjas" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3cf52743$1@10.1.10.29...

> >> Certainly, it's irresponsible to say that companies need web services
> >> - web services are irrelevant to most architectures since you normally
> >don't
> >> need to have parts of a system running on different networks.
> >
> >Who has said this?
>
> If you read beyond the hype, web services are purely for accessing
functionality
> available beyond a single network (which happens to not be relevant for
99%
> of apps out there).

I meant who has said "companies need web services" ?

> >*Why* are you committed to .NET?.
> >
> I'm committed because I want to keep working. I don't think there's a
lucrative
> future in VB6 beyond the next year or so.

You've missed out Java, C++ and COBOL. The other sought-after skills in the
market.
And C# looks set to join them.

Kunle

> Given the vast amount of work to convert a real-world app...
> from VB6 to VB.NET, I can't imagine that there's an unlimited
> amount of money, time, and patience out there for companies
> to have the incentive to convert.

Dave: Agreed. See
http://www.fawcette.com/dotnetmag/20.../guestop/defau
lt.asp
---
Phil Weber

>
>Microsoft has enough money to afford the occasional black eye. I'm
>sure people like you and I do not. With that in mind, you really need
>to rethink your reasons for upgrading. It does not follow that just
>because you *can* upgrade that you *must* upgrade.
>

I'm upgrading because I know that there's not a lucrative future in VB6.
That said, I still think clients are not getting much in return (that's why
I'm currently doing one conversion without charge).

I still think VB has an advantage since it causes developers to focus on
business problems rather than forcing developers to think like geeks, but
it's a shame Microsoft is trying to kill off this large and practical group
of developers by making it so hard to upgrade and by catering shamelessly
to the geek crowd. Only geeks need zero-based arrays and despise the common
sense shortcuts of VB6 (just look at the .NET equivalent of the 'App' object).

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote in message
news:3cf52df4@10.1.10.29...
> > Given the vast amount of work to convert a real-world app...
> > from VB6 to VB.NET, I can't imagine that there's an unlimited
> > amount of money, time, and patience out there for companies
> > to have the incentive to convert.
>
> Dave: Agreed. See
>
http://www.fawcette.com/dotnetmag/20.../guestop/defau
> lt.asp

I don't agree with Dan's position that MS needs to keep *selling* and
supporting VB6. For people with code to port, this is a non-issue. If you
don't already have VB6, where did you get the codebase that you have to
port?

MS has already made public it's support plans for VB6 and as long as the
executables still run on Windows, MS is doing it's part. I wonder if Dan
believe MS should still sell and support VB1-5. If not, why the asymmetry?

Kunle

>
>Do you clients *need* or *want* to jump into the .NET world with those apps
>you are converting?
>If yes, is VB.NET their best option or would another language be a better
>option?
>If no, why are you converting? [Personal development is a good reason
>here.]

Definitely, I want to keep making a living for a few years yet.

>> Certainly, it's irresponsible to say that companies need web services
>> - web services are irrelevant to most architectures since you normally
>don't
>> need to have parts of a system running on different networks.
>
>Who has said this?

If you read beyond the hype, web services are purely for accessing functionality
available beyond a single network (which happens to not be relevant for 99%
of apps out there).

>*Why* are you committed to .NET?.
>
I'm committed because I want to keep working. I don't think there's a lucrative
future in VB6 beyond the next year or so.