A dose of reality

[unposted]

I dont have time to read what ground has already been covered on this subject
here, but I will make this plain and simple.

VBScript is worthless, and I dont pity people who bit Microshaft's fishhook
in the first place to use it. As java was in development, Microsoft insisted
on developing VBscript, part of their multi-pronged attack on Java and other
open-source (or not owned exclusively by them) technologies.

Surrrrreeeee, what if MS owned the most popular scripting engine on the web,
from both the client and server sides? It would be simple to then introduce
a 'superscript server engine' that cost $15,000/server and a development
program that cost $5000/license. They just simply put bets on all horses.
The chances may have been 1 in 10 but VB script might have won if they could
pay enough people off, bribe enough colleges to teach it, integrate it so
tight AS THEY DID IN OUTLOOK.

What interest do you or I have in VBScrap? None. If someone wants to make
nonportable proprietary code in web pages, forget them. If someone wants
to code virii and promiscious code into email, dont forget them, remember
how stupid MS was to put VBasic into their **** emailer.

Let the buyer beware. (C.E.)

Billyboy

"In a world without doors or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?" - source
unknown

[Dumbo]

You sure do have neato little tags like Microshaft and vbscrap. Neat. I'll
bet you code in servletts and beans, huh. Jesus.

[Shawn K. Hall]

<Billyboy Fences (unposted)> wrote in message
news:391a538f$1@news.devx.com...

> Surrrrreeeee, what if MS owned the most popular scripting engine on
the web,
> from both the client and server sides? It would be simple to then
introduce
> a 'superscript server engine' that cost $15,000/server and a
development
> program that cost $5000/license. They just simply put bets on all
horses.

I'm sorry? For a minute I thought you were talking about Microsoft,
then you started talking about *Sun*.

> The chances may have been 1 in 10 but VB script might have won if
they could
> pay enough people off, bribe enough colleges to teach it, integrate
it so
> tight AS THEY DID IN OUTLOOK.

VBScript is *not* integrated into Outlook. It is integrated into the
operating system. Outlook simply makes good use of the OS. There is no
need to bribe anyone to teach it - it lends very well to teaching
itself. That's what having something like VBScript/VBA/VB so
conveniently similar to each other can accomplish.

> What interest do you or I have in VBScrap? None. If someone wants
to make
> nonportable proprietary code in web pages, forget them.

Why? Why can't anything be sacred anymore? Why can't I code with a
proprietary tool on an OS that doesn't have it's source available for
free at every nickel and dime store? What do you lunatics have against
*a* business model (*any* business model)? What have you got to lose?
I'll tell you what, (assuming you're a developer) you'd enjoy life
much less if every piece of software that was ever sold was available
with free source for download; everything you ever could conceive of
working for someone else for was being given away for free. Of course,
I guess there's always banner ads, right?

> If someone wants
> to code virii and promiscious code into email, dont forget them,
remember
> how stupid MS was to put VBasic into their **** emailer.

Yeah I'd hate to easily be able to extend a product I use regularly.
They should take keyboard and mouse support from windows too while
they're at it. Pesky input devices. Hey, you know what would be really
neat? How about an email client that didn't even download email!

> Let the buyer beware. (C.E.)
>
> Billyboy


Where's that cluestick when you need it?


Shawn K. Hall
Programmer / Analyst
*Please* post/respond in the newsgroups!
http://i.am/shawnkhall

[unlisted]

"Shawn K. Hall" <shawnkhall@iname.com> wrote:
>
><Billyboy Fences (unposted)> wrote in message
>news:391a538f$1@news.devx.com...
>
>> Surrrrreeeee, what if MS owned the most popular scripting engine on
>the web,
>> from both the client and server sides? It would be simple to then
>introduce
>> a 'superscript server engine' that cost $15,000/server and a
>development
>> program that cost $5000/license. They just simply put bets on all
>horses.
>
>I'm sorry? For a minute I thought you were talking about Microsoft,
>then you started talking about *Sun*.
>

Good morning, Sir. I wasn't talking about Sun. I couldnt give a **** about
companies like Microsoft or about Sun even who are interested in developing
proprietary encapsulated code. Good morning! Sun may have plans for Java,
and I dont say Java is the best implementation, but VBscript is ENTIRELY
proprietary.



>> The chances may have been 1 in 10 but VB script might have won if
>they could
>> pay enough people off, bribe enough colleges to teach it, integrate
>it so
>> tight AS THEY DID IN OUTLOOK.
>
>VBScript is *not* integrated into Outlook. It is integrated into the
>operating system. Outlook simply makes good use of the OS. There is no
>need to bribe anyone to teach it - it lends very well to teaching
>itself. That's what having something like VBScript/VBA/VB so
>conveniently similar to each other can accomplish.
>

So that shows you what happens when a business monopoly exists and they dont
even need to rely on their product, just rely on MY BROTHERS operating system
that has it built into the majority of peoples OS's, even though they never
asked for it, and in many cases of corporate deployment, never included this
into their plans.

>> What interest do you or I have in VBScrap? None. If someone wants
>to make
>> nonportable proprietary code in web pages, forget them.
>


>Why? Why can't anything be sacred anymore? Why can't I code with a
>proprietary tool on an OS that doesn't have it's source available for
>free at every nickel and dime store? What do you lunatics have against
>*a* business model (*any* business model)? What have you got to lose?
>I'll tell you what, (assuming you're a developer) you'd enjoy life
>much less if every piece of software that was ever sold was available
>with free source for download; everything you ever could conceive of
>working for someone else for was being given away for free. Of course,

>I guess there's always banner ads, right?
>

You can, but if you plan on making money on the internet, you may find that
people dont want to download potentially dangerious plugins, or modules which
are entirely up to the loose scrutiny of companies of MS (do they care?).


I see that you reduce the usability of portable code to banner ads.

Im sorry that you are angry that a consortium develops language standards
"for free". Perhaps we should all be charged to the account of "the King"
for writing in this forum in English.

In todays world, there is always a need for programmers of talent, and people
who develop custom solutions.

If anyone thinks that the web of integrated garbage spewing machines of MS
has benefited anything besides their exaggerated paychecks for time solving
obfusificating problems, I feel very sorry.

Personally I recommend you get into the business of Microsoft Active-X electronic
Programmable Toilets of you think thats fun. Perhaps your boss will sympathize
on the sway people like you put on avoiding X-10 compatable toilets and use
VB toilets instead. However I wont fail to laugh when somebody puts a virus
in your **** toilet because you didnt listen to people who designed failsafe
systems before you were even born.


>> If someone wants
>> to code virii and promiscious code into email, dont forget them,
>remember
>> how stupid MS was to put VBasic into their **** emailer.
>

>Yeah I'd hate to easily be able to extend a product I use regularly.
>They should take keyboard and mouse support from windows too while
>they're at it. Pesky input devices. Hey, you know what would be really
>neat? How about an email client that didn't even download email!
>

Could you please explain how you could extend a freaking emailer? Mail is
a delivery system. Established and tested methods of email dictate that
MIME objects can extend this functionality. However they can lead to objects
that are propriatary like VB scripts. Compare VB scripts and other mysterious
attachments to letterbombs. An expert sees them, and takes appropriate action.
A novice opens them eagerly expecting something from their grandmother,
and dies. Lets not cloud the point with speak of "I didnt fall for it".
Because its novices that fall for tricks.



>> Let the buyer beware. (C.E.)
>>
>> Billyboy
>
>
>Where's that cluestick when you need it?
>
>


Where are experienced people in this industry when you need it? If you lost
your clue-stick, i suggest you get up from your chair and see where it might
be (put politely).


>Shawn K. Hall
>Programmer / Analyst
>*Please* post/respond in the newsgroups!
>http://i.am/shawnkhall
>
>
>
>
>

[Shawn K. Hall]

<Billyboy Fences (unlisted)> wrote in message
news:391a65c4$1@news.devx.com...
>
> [snip] but VBscript is ENTIRELY proprietary.

So? Who says I want to develop for every platform? Why should I code a
solution in another language that may be more "portable" if it can't
be delivered within the timeframe my customer needs it, and if my
customer only needs it for a single platform? Why should I have to
write something in JS or Java that only needs to run on the server
(which can be guaranteed to be NT)? If I'm marketing a product to a
specific group (marketing means I can actually focus on a specific
subset of people that might have a certain need that I can fulfill),
why should I waste time and effort to write a multi-platform product?
Shouldn't the *need* determine the language for the product, not the
obsessive-compulsive-anti-microsoft-zealot-with-a-chip-on-his-shoulder
-because-he-got-shafted-by-a-virus-that-was-obviously-so just mandate
*it must be open-source-multi-platform*?

You name ONE program that really is "write once, run anywhere" that
doesn't require OS specific runtimes. I'd really like to check it out.

> >Outlook simply makes good use of the OS. There is no
> >need to bribe anyone to teach it - it lends very well to teaching
> >itself. That's what having something like VBScript/VBA/VB so
> >conveniently similar to each other can accomplish.
>
> So that shows you what happens when a business monopoly exists and
they dont
> even need to rely on their product, just rely on MY BROTHERS
operating system
> that has it built into the majority of peoples OS's, even though
they never
> asked for it, and in many cases of corporate deployment, never
included this
> into their plans.

Outlook was pretty obviously written for Windows. Surprise, surprise.
Many apps are. You see, we have DLLs, things like the API and COM: the
ability to have callable code within the OS that we don't have to make
up ourselves. Why recreate the wheel? The idea is, if it's *in* the
OS, it's not something you'll have to waste your time with.

I use [Windows] API calls in every app I write. If that's "depending
on my brothers software" then you're out of touch with development for
the '90's.

> >I guess there's always banner ads, right?
>
> You can, but if you plan on making money on the internet, you may
find that
> people dont want to download potentially dangerious plugins, or
modules which
> are entirely up to the loose scrutiny of companies of MS (do they
care?).

Who said anything about plugins? I'm talking serverside technologies
on a wintel platform. Not everyone has to write *content* to make
money. Some of us are developers, which means we develop (or extend)
the delivery mechanisms so that "content" can reach the most people. I
prefer sites that have no client-side scripting whatsoever, no activex
controls, no plugins and no java applets, and don't even try to feed
me some proprietary document type (like Word or PDF). If the content
really matters, it will speak for itself. Every computer out there
(and most alternative connection devices) should be able to parse the
basic standards set forth by W3C, whether or not the standard is
"agreeable" with their cause.

> I see that you reduce the usability of portable code to banner ads.
>
> Im sorry that you are angry that a consortium develops language
standards
> "for free". Perhaps we should all be charged to the account of "the
King"
> for writing in this forum in English.

That "for free" is not as "for free" as you may think. It is funded by
investors with their own interests at heart. Yeah, sure, it would be
great to be able to think of the w3c as the human rights league, but
it isn't. They've come out with some great specs, and I'm not
complaining about any of them - but they were all created to further
private technologies reach - you know "embrace and extend". There's
nothing wrong with the process, just don't be deceived into thinking
it's all for you. It's for the investors.

> >> If someone wants
> >> to code virii and promiscious code into email, dont forget them,
> >remember
> >> how stupid MS was to put VBasic into their **** emailer.
>
> >Yeah I'd hate to easily be able to extend a product I use
regularly.
> >They should take keyboard and mouse support from windows too while
> >they're at it. Pesky input devices. Hey, you know what would be
really
> >neat? How about an email client that didn't even download email!
>
> Could you please explain how you could extend a freaking emailer?
Mail is
> a delivery system. Established and tested methods of email dictate
that
> MIME objects can extend this functionality. However they can lead
to objects
> that are propriatary like VB scripts. Compare VB scripts and other
mysterious
> attachments to letterbombs. An expert sees them, and takes
appropriate action.
> A novice opens them eagerly expecting something from their
grandmother,
> and dies. Lets not cloud the point with speak of "I didnt fall for
it".
> Because its novices that fall for tricks.

Yes, mail is a delivery system. How about an address book? Wouldn't it
be awesome to be able to have a list of addresses readily available
when you need to email someone? And as long as you put that in there,
how about having the email address autocomplete so that you don't have
to remember someone's complete email address? Hey, as long as we're
doing that, why not add a scheduling component to the address book so
it can all be in one spot. And we'll add some tracking features - like
*storing* email!! Hey, why don't we add newsgroups and faxing to it so
that they can have all of their messaging in the same application! How
about a "group" so I can send the same email to several people without
having to remember that Bob is on the development team, and Mary
wanted copies. Wow, these are some great idea's - I hope someone with
more time than me can write some software like this, because I have to
type every address in individually into my corporate mailing list of
some 5000 employees...you know what else would be great - if I could
send out the annual medical options cafeteria information sheet to
everyone in email, and have them be able to respond within the email
via a HTML-based form and have it automatically get collected by an
automated email address and added to the personnel database...

It's all bloat right?

( and then billyboy responds about how *most* customers don't "need"
or "want" it and that it's just garbage to begin with because it
doesn't run on every system out there....I just have difficulty
telling if it's Linux Envy or if he just caught a love bug on his own
computer )

There are a lot of "typical consumers" out there that don't know the
difference between a mouse and a modem. But the majority of customers
extend their capabilities and pc usage over time. They don't just veg
out on solitaire forever.

It *would* be nice to have the security options in Win9x that you have
in NT, and more. It would be nice to be able to disable specific calls
made to any object within your system policies. It's not going to
happen anytime soon, but security is becoming more important to MS,
and I think they've demonstrated that pretty well with Win2K.

Just because *you* can't figure out how to write code in vbscript, or
conceive of any possible usefulness of the language does not mean it
doesn't have merits.

Shawn K. Hall
Programmer / Analyst
*Please* post/respond in the newsgroups!
http://i.am/shawnkhall

[Phil Weber]

> VBScript is worthless, and I don't pity people who bit
> Microshaft's fishhook in the first place to use it.

Billyboy: Windows Scripting Host supports JavaScript and Perl as well. The
ILOVEYOU virus could just as easily have been written in one of those
cross-platform languages; the fact that the perpetrator chose to use
VBScript is irrelevant.
---
Phil Weber

[Chad Mello]

You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some
of the time, but NEVER ALL of the people ALL of the time.

[some]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@teleport.com> wrote:
> > VBScript is worthless, and I don't pity people who bit
> > Microshaft's fishhook in the first place to use it.
>
>Billyboy: Windows Scripting Host supports JavaScript and Perl as well. The
>ILOVEYOU virus could just as easily have been written in one of those
>cross-platform languages; the fact that the perpetrator chose to use
>VBScript is irrelevant.
>---
>Phil Weber
>
>

Its true, scripts may be written in Visual Basic, or in Java (which I might
laughingly note is purposely incompliant with any and all other implementations
of Java).

I've read (believe it or not) a number of arguments which support this type
of scripting. In general, all "extensions" of a platform or a programming
language are great! However, if you have a major in history and a minor
in programming, so to speak (sarcarsically) you would realize how this all
came about. I wont pretend you agree with my version of it either, because
if you wrote this article, you obviously dont know the history.

1 bc ) Microsoft is happily constructing Visual Basic, no problems.

3 ad ) Microsoft imagines Visual Basic and its RAD tools dominate the market
for OS specific programs, because "it works" and "its easy".

3.5 ad) A Java conference upsets officials at Microsoft. Planned dominance
is threatened.

3.75 ad) Microsoft begins agressively marketing their scripting tools and
denying the fact that Java exists as a viable tool.

4.00 ad) Microsoft decides to mock Java, and at the same time develop a
proprietary version themselves.

4.03 ad) Microsoft releases their first versions of Java, and simutaneously
their own proprietary browser technologies that employ these extensions.
Also Visual Basic scripting is equally included, at a great effort.

4.04 ad) The net community is outraged at MS Explorers free distribution
of a product, in order to put not one, but all other competitors out of business.

4.05 ad- present)

Im sure even the most dense of the readers of this forum can follow along.
MS not only attempted to dominate the browser market, but push along their
own versions of java, push along the visual basic related scripting (which
nobody wanted in the first place unless they already relyed in Microsoft
or bent over before bed), and gee, they also tied the entire MSOffice product
to this internal wiregoop. Besides, why not incorporate it into the OS it
self, not to mention the mailer. Are there any more questions, kids? Microsoft
shoved these changes down your throat. If a 16 year old kid in cannibal
island mocks your own argument, you'd better be willing to come up with some
hard and fast explanations if you work for me.

In sarcastic form, I would reccomend that we all train our secretaries in
attachment fear. Lets explain to everyone in our company that email isnt
a tool of exchange, its a penis in everyones face, which cant be aquainted
with, without a condom and safe practices. In my organization, nothing like
this would ever happen, because we are all lectured by Sir Sh. and company
to be careful.

Give me a break, if programmers make it programmers break it. Dont try to
blame Sally the Secretary for ****ing up your system. This thread, and this
article (bless the author) has opened up a whole world of how dense the overpraised
children programmers (and anal-ists) can be. Welcome to the real world,
kids. If you think you can design on the fly, and take a quick buck, be
prepared to face consequences tomorrow.

P.S. anyone of that school ever tried versioning a program far back as WIN
3.11?

BillyBoy, Proponent for Microsoft Illusion

[Chad Mello]

Old Billyboy :

You fail to make a winning argument here because it is all too evident that
your strong bias against Microsoft makes it impossible to interject an objective
(even useful) opinion on this topic. Insulting the participants of this
forum also reveals immaturity, crassness and ignorance. I don't blame you
for not using your real name. If I were as simple minded as you, I wouldn't
want the world to know either!

You also failed to stay on track. Your original point was “…VBScript is
worthless, and I dont pity people who bit Microshaft's fishhook in the first
place to use it…” Your statement attacking VBScript’s worthiness cannot
be justified by pointing out the marketing tactics used by Microsoft to introduce
it. These are two, distinctly different topics with no relevance to one
another. Maybe you should find some “kids” to preach to because the adults
here are marveling over the fact that someone armed with nothing can assert
himself so boldly. As far as I’m concerned the content of your interjection
is of no use.
I suggest that you wait until you grow up before making any more “contributions”
to these discussions.

Chad

[ToneDeF]

This bickering about whose technology better is pointless. ASP's w/ VBScript
& ActiveX perform just as well as JSP's w/ Java & Java Beans. I think that
a software developer should try to be proficient in whatever technology provides
him/her with a working solution for the targeted platform.

It seems to me that the real root of the argument here is a bias for or against
Micro$oft. I do have quite a strong opinion in regards to this (I think
that I liked the company better when it was merely a developer of operating
systems and APIs, but it has since become a behemoth-sized software tyrant).
Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to type up my $0.02 (perhaps I
shouldn't have skipped that typing class back in high school), nor do I have
the time to compose all my thoughts together into a cohesive, convincing
article. I'm amazed that I took a few moments to post a comment at all!

[James Curran]

<Old Billyboy (some)> wrote in message news:391d0ad4$1@news.devx.com...
> Its true, scripts may be written in Visual Basic, or in Java (which I
might
> laughingly note is purposely incompliant with any and all other
implementations
> of Java).

First of all, you message largely confuses JavaScript and Java. The two
have nothing in common, and the fact that they have similar names is the
result of a backroom deal (that is, a scam) perpetrated by Netscape & Sun.

JScript, the implementation of JavaScript that comes with Windows, is
fully compliant to the ECMA standard for the language. Microsoft was
compliant to that standard long before Netscape's implementation was.
(Discrepancies occurred because Netscape merely documented it's bugs, ECMA's
specification wanted them fixed)

Further, Microsoft implementation of Java is fully compliant to the
"standard" specified by Sun at the time the contract was signed. It was
only afterwards that Sun decided to deliberately change it's
specification --- in ways it *knew* would break Microsoft implementation.
(Sun claims it can do this -- and "standard" rendered in quotes above --
because Java is a completely closed & proprietary language owned entirely by
Sun. There is no "standard" for Java, merely Sun's whim......)

What you seem to be blind to is Sun's attempt at dominate the entire
computer market via Java. Their plans are actually far more evil than
Microsoft's, but were prevented, largely due to Sun's own incompetence.

The rest of your message is nonsense.... "No one wanted scripting"?
Having people been crying since DOS 1.0 for better batch files? What about
all those (really bad) scripting languages for Windows that came before
VBScript? What about all those scripting language for UNIX and Macs?

"If a 16 year old kid in cannibal island mocks your own argument, you'd
better be willing to come up with some hard and fast explanations if you
work for me." Ignoring racist remarks about the Philippines, the fact
remains that I could write a similar virus for the Mac in about a day, using
no Microsoft products. It wouldn't spread very far because hardly anyone in
my address lists use Macs, and the few that do, probably aren't using the
email package I'd script the virus for, but that merely proves that Windows
is very popular... and that's hardly a design flaw. (I give myself a full
day to wrote the virus, because first, I'd have to teach myself AppleScript)

--
Truth,
James Curran
http://www.NJTheater.com
http://www.NJTheater.com/JamesCurran






>
> I've read (believe it or not) a number of arguments which support this
type
> of scripting. In general, all "extensions" of a platform or a programming
> language are great! However, if you have a major in history and a minor
> in programming, so to speak (sarcarsically) you would realize how this all
> came about. I wont pretend you agree with my version of it either,
because
> if you wrote this article, you obviously dont know the history.
>
> 1 bc ) Microsoft is happily constructing Visual Basic, no problems.
>
> 3 ad ) Microsoft imagines Visual Basic and its RAD tools dominate the
market
> for OS specific programs, because "it works" and "its easy".
>
> 3.5 ad) A Java conference upsets officials at Microsoft. Planned
dominance
> is threatened.
>
> 3.75 ad) Microsoft begins agressively marketing their scripting tools and
> denying the fact that Java exists as a viable tool.
>
> 4.00 ad) Microsoft decides to mock Java, and at the same time develop a
> proprietary version themselves.
>
> 4.03 ad) Microsoft releases their first versions of Java, and
simutaneously
> their own proprietary browser technologies that employ these extensions.
> Also Visual Basic scripting is equally included, at a great effort.
>
> 4.04 ad) The net community is outraged at MS Explorers free distribution
> of a product, in order to put not one, but all other competitors out of
business.
>
> 4.05 ad- present)
>
> Im sure even the most dense of the readers of this forum can follow along.
> MS not only attempted to dominate the browser market, but push along
their
> own versions of java, push along the visual basic related scripting (which
> nobody wanted in the first place unless they already relyed in Microsoft
> or bent over before bed), and gee, they also tied the entire MSOffice
product
> to this internal wiregoop. Besides, why not incorporate it into the OS it
> self, not to mention the mailer. Are there any more questions, kids?
Microsoft
> shoved these changes down your throat. If a 16 year old kid in cannibal
> island mocks your own argument, you'd better be willing to come up with
some
> hard and fast explanations if you work for me.
>
> In sarcastic form, I would reccomend that we all train our secretaries in
> attachment fear. Lets explain to everyone in our company that email isnt
> a tool of exchange, its a penis in everyones face, which cant be aquainted
> with, without a condom and safe practices. In my organization, nothing
like
> this would ever happen, because we are all lectured by Sir Sh. and
company
> to be careful.
>
> Give me a break, if programmers make it programmers break it. Dont try to
> blame Sally the Secretary for ****ing up your system. This thread, and
this
> article (bless the author) has opened up a whole world of how dense the
overpraised
> children programmers (and anal-ists) can be. Welcome to the real world,
> kids. If you think you can design on the fly, and take a quick buck, be
> prepared to face consequences tomorrow.
>
> P.S. anyone of that school ever tried versioning a program far back as WIN
> 3.11?
>
> BillyBoy, Proponent for Microsoft Illusion
>
>

[James Curran]

"ToneDeF" <ToneDeF@HoTMaiL.com> wrote in message
news:3922a1f0$1@news.devx.com...
>(I think
> that I liked the company better when it was merely a developer of
operating
> systems and APIs, but it has since become a behemoth-sized software
tyrant).

Actually, MSFT started writing applications, then moved to development
tools, and then into operating systems....

--
Truth,
James Curran
http://www.NJTheater.com
http://www.NJTheater.com/JamesCurran

[Robert Scoble]

> Actually, MSFT started writing applications, then moved to development
> tools, and then into operating systems....

Um, a BASIC compiler was Gates' first product, methought.

Robert Scoble

###

[James Curran]

"Robert Scoble" <rscoble@fawcette.com> wrote in message
news:392329be$1@news.devx.com...
> > Actually, MSFT started writing applications, then moved to
development
> > tools, and then into operating systems....
>
> Um, a BASIC compiler was Gates' first product, methought.

Actually, we both said it wrong..... Microsoft's first product was a
BASIC (although I think the first version was an interpreter). However,
before he started using the Microsoft name, Gates was writing applications
(remember Traf-O-Data?)

--
Truth,
James Curran
http://www.NJTheater.com
http://www.NJTheater.com/JamesCurran