Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps - Page 2


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 85

Thread: Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

  1. #16
    Sjoerd Verweij Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    > My beta 1 experience for perf has not been especially promising

    Release builds perform quite well on my PII-266/96Mb. Debug builds are dogs
    (mainly because of all my Debug.WriteLines etc)




  2. #17
    Sjoerd Verweij Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    > But my point is that if MS is smart, they will drop the "XCOPY deployment"
    > crap, as it is meaningless in any reasonable context.


    They mostly harp on it from an IIS-perspective (you don't have to stop IIS,
    and the new DLLs will automatically be used for new sessions, etc. etc.)



  3. #18
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps


    "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote:

    >I'm a bit intolerant here. If a programmer can't understand the code by
    >looking at it then he should step through it and figure out what is going
    >on. If he can't do that, he ain't worth his salt.
    >


    Which is exactly why the converter for VB6 --> VB.NET will be a bad idea
    for most developers. They should, at least, be 100% aware of exactly what
    the converter will/will not convert and why. If they cannot trust the converter
    to be 100% consistent and reliable, after sussing out what it's going to
    do, they should convert manually, or rewrite from the ground up*.

    MM

    * in Delphi 6/Kylix (ooh, it rhymes!)


  4. #19
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps


    "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com> wrote:
    >Zane, who has several times before experienced the need to
    >rewrite/re-architect to use the new great thing for component development,
    >and who has been able to acheive a great deal of success thereby, believes
    >that what is happening to VB.NET will be a very good thing for everyone,
    >just as those prior moves were for him.
    >


    I believe Zane is in for a bit of a shock soon, once he realises that Coporate
    America is just not going to rush on to the .NET helter-skelter, if ever.
    By the time .NET is released and stable (e.g. 2003/4), the world of computing
    will have moved on in so many ways and consumers will want state-of-the-art
    *at* *that* *time*, not be coerced into using something that started out
    life as, variously, Project Cool, Son of DNA, Denali clone, Java Killer,
    etc.

    If .NET *were* the entire OS and everything in it, then I'd be able to judge
    it on its worth in comparison with other platforms. But it seems like a bunch
    of bolt-ons, go-faster (?) stripes; the core parts of Windows 2000 will stay
    the same. How can you start a new "movement" based on "old" technology? Either
    it's new or it's a quick kludge to hit Linux and Java where the sun don't
    shine.

    If Microsoft had just allowed their Research boys and girls to spend, say,
    the next ten (yes, ten) years coming up with a truly earth-shattering, mind-blowing
    new os/browser/babelfish, then we might look forward to it with some excitement.
    But attempting to foist a whole new bunch of software with, basically, the
    same purpose in life as so much other of today's software solutions, and
    layer it over the top of existing, old software, like another layer of wallpaper
    in a cheap house, well, I doubt whether it will find many takers, that's
    all.

    All 3rd-party vendors ought to take a long hard look at alternative platforms
    before maybe committing their sparse one-man-band resources to a cul-de-sac
    of computing history. Once upon a time, even Hollerith cards were considered
    the acme of computing know-how, and look what happened to them. They got
    dropped.

    MM

  5. #20
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps


    "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote:

    >Correction: It's what we do <by default?> when we're too
    >stupid/arrogant/prideful to understand there's a better way, then find that
    >better way, and use it.


    No, we're humans. We're stupid, arrogant, prideful, and many, many other
    things. The only better way is not to be human, and that would be a worse
    way.

    MM

  6. #21
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps


    "Alessandro Coppo" <a.coppo@iol.it> wrote:

    >
    >Rocket science, isn't it?
    >


    Given the number of rockets that blow up on the launch pad or soon after,
    or have to be destroyed to avoid taking out huge swathes of the population,
    I'd be a bit more circumspect with my analogies.

    MM

  7. #22
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps


    zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
    >"Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net> wrote:
    >
    >>What is your guess as to which dotnet language you will use the most?

    >
    >C#
    >
    >>And you are basically content with the fact that VB is a close-to-clone

    of#
    >>and incompatible with the language it is named after?

    >
    >No, because I don't accept your 'incompatibility' premise.
    >


    Here's what Microsoft Bookshelf says about "compatible":

    1. Capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial
    combination with another or others: compatible family relationships.
    2. Capable of orderly, efficient integration and operation with other elements
    in a system with no modification or conversion required.

    Hey, what's that bit about "no modification or conversion required"?

    You may not accept it; once people truly believed the earth was flat.

    MM

  8. #23
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    On 22 Jan 2001 13:43:36 -0800, "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >I believe Zane is in for a bit of a shock soon


    Time will tell - I can't help but remember getting badly burned on OS/2.

    Apparently some of the vocally negative people here haven't even tried to
    use .net and so have no idea how incredibly productive the environment can
    be.

    I'm far from being expert in the system yet. But I have used it enough to
    know that writing components and web-services is very easy - once you get
    past the lack of documentation in key areas.

    Eventually 'the market' will sort things out and their will either be a
    good market for components, or not. My view of the dotnet platform is
    that it makes great sense from a number of perspectives. It's not
    possible to predict the future (although apparently you think you can) -
    so what I'm doing is taking the risk which is inevitable if we (Mabry) are
    going to have a future as a company. Despite your zealous advocacy of all
    things non-MS I have yet to see you provide any _facts_ which demonstrate
    that there is a commercial component market on other platforms. Given
    that sticking with MS through the vbx->mfc->atl transition has been good
    for us I'm inclined to continue sticking with them - especially in the
    abscence of a demonstrably better market.

    The dotnet platform has proven to be a very productive environment for
    writing components. What that means is that for X dollars I can provide
    more functionality in a given component. That's all that people really
    want - they want to get their problems solved as efficiently as possible -
    and from that perspective dotnet seems to have a good future.


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  9. #24
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps


    "Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net> wrote:


    >C++ 39,268; Java 30,171;
    >VB 7,481; COBOL 2,742
    >Delphi 485 (Mike are you sure thats the way you want to fly? <grin>)


    I have no choice. I hate C++, Java is unfinished and slow, VB is being killed
    off as we know it, COBOL is an anachronism in today's computing, but Delphi
    has a significant groundswell of support, which will turn into a veritable
    wave of joy and wonderment after Jan 30.

    MM

  10. #25
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps


    "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan"

    >
    >"May you live during times that are not determinisic."
    >


    Is that your final word on the subject?

    MM

  11. #26
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    On 22 Jan 2001 14:03:08 -0800, "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >You may not accept it; once people truly believed the earth was flat.


    I gotta wonder what that was supposed to demonstrate, other than the fact
    that you get some sort of emotional charge from rolling around in the mud.

    Yes, some things have changed in vb.net. But I don't see that as a bad
    thing. What would have been death for VB would have been to port it
    directly onto dotnet, where the competition from c# would have killed it
    for sure.

    The language 'looks and feels' like VB - despite the changes in _some_
    details (some of which, the representation of bools for instance, are
    insignificant imo).

    'Compatability' is a matter of degree. Some of you would like to claim
    that any changed detail, no matter how insignificant, create an
    incompatability. Other people view the situation with a more liberal
    attitude, one which allows for change and evolution.

    The only gripe I have with VB is the converter program. I think that
    rather than having compatability functions they should have generated the
    equivalent code - that would have made a much better learning tool than
    what they did do.


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  12. #27
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps


    "Jay Glynn" <jay_glynn@agla.com> wrote:

    >
    >I think that it is better to not market something that is easy to learn

    when
    >as we all know, the reality is that VB is not that easy.


    Where does Microsoft make such a great play of "it's easy to learn" where
    VB is concerned?.....
    ...here I am again, I just popped next door into my bedroom where I have
    a large box containing my VB5 upgrade from Microsoft. (It's a lot larger
    than the VB6 one, because in those days Microsoft believed in providing a
    decent set of printed manuals, but that's another gripe, sorry, story.) So,
    large box, what have you to say for yourself, eh?

    (Large box shuffles up to computer, clears throat and begins.)

    On my front side I say Requires Windows® 95 or Windows NT® Workstation/Version
    5/0/Member of Microsoft Visual Studio ... ™/For High-Performance Client/Server
    Solutions/Now with native code compilation and rapid ActiveX™ control creation/Upgrade!
    For users of Microsoft Visual Basic (See right spine for details.)/Microsoft
    Visual Basic Professinal Edition Upgrade.

    On my reverse side I say Superfast development. Superfast applications/Develop
    high-performance applications with native code compilation and ActiveX™ control
    creation for client/servcer and Web-based deployments. The Microsoft® Visual
    Basic® programming system, Professional Edition, is the fastest, most efficient
    Visual Basic -- ever.

    Okay, so it's me again now, and I won't drive my chums on the VeeBee Highway
    mad by quoting the entire box, but nowhere have I seen where the suggestion
    is made that VB is easy to learn.

    Which is a shame, because if Microsoft *had* said it's easy to learn, they'd
    be dead right -- it is. Compared with any other language (well, except Logo,
    maybe).

    > I spend a great
    >deal of time helping out these users. That's the problem, I don't have a
    >great deal of time to spend. I don't have a problem in the world with anyone
    >writing a little VBA code, or even VB code, as long as they know their
    >limitations. I'm glad to help anyone who asks for it, but most of the time
    >what I get is a project sent to me as an attachment with a note that says
    >"Please fix this. MY deadline is next week. Thanks." We have gotten to the
    >point where I have to return it to them and ask them to take it up with

    my
    >supervisor. It may be a holier-than-thou attitude toward those "nether
    >beings", however I have to budget my time carefully. Ask the Senior VP that
    >is championing the project I'm working on if it's OK for me to waste a week
    >of his time.


    Sounds like you need some processes put in place, like a help desk with priorities,
    follow ups, and change requests. That way, you'd be able to show management
    by how much resources were being stretched. To my mind, it is worse for an
    employee to continually take on more and more work "because it has to be
    done" than to say firmly "no, I cannot do that now because I have already
    committed to this job". Think of a surgeon in the middle of an operation,
    when a nurse rushes into the operating theatre and shouts that there's been
    a road accident outside and could the surgeon come at once. No surgeon is
    going to do that. He is committed to the operation at hand. He would be being
    professionally irresponsible to drop everything and rush out, thus endangering
    the life of the patient he is operating on. If the road accident victim dies,
    so be it. That is the fault of the government for not providing the hospital
    with enough funds to employ sufficient surgeons, or the hospital for not
    spending those funds wisely. One person cannot fix the world.

    Just try saying "No" for a whole week. Then they'll start to listen to you
    when you occasionally say "Yes"! What's the worst that could happen? You
    get fired. But why? You got fired for taking a professional attitude? There
    are judges just waiting to sharpen their pencils to help you deal with those
    kinds of employers. And, anyway, with an employer like that and with such
    a skill shortage (I hear), you'd be able to walk into another, better-paid
    job tomorrow, trust me!

    >
    >Bottom line, you can't tell me that someone hasn't snickered at you when

    you
    >say you are a Vb developer, saying something to effect of when are you going
    >to use real tools etc etc etc.


    Well, yes, I can tell you that, because none of the people I work with (or
    have worked with) are of the snickering kind. Snickering, after all, is only
    a symptom of immaturity, which you'll be able to realise more and more as
    time passes.

    Alternatively, why not nail their balls to the desk? That works, too.

    >current market. A long time COBOL developer now manager made the statement
    >"VB programmers should not be making as much as COBOL programmers. Everyone
    >knows VB is easier to use." This is the kind of attitude that I am getting
    >tired of. If that makes me arrogant, so be it.


    Over here, people think COBOL is a brand of toothpaste.

    MM

  13. #28
    Sjoerd Verweij Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps

    > If .NET *were* the entire OS and everything in it, then I'd be able to
    judge
    > it on its worth in comparison with other platforms.


    Part of the attraction is that after this move, Microsoft will be able to do
    just that.



  14. #29
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps


    zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

    >I gotta wonder what that was supposed to demonstrate, other than the fact
    >that you get some sort of emotional charge from rolling around in the mud.


    Wonder no more! It was supposed to demonstrate that anyone who does not accept
    that the changes from VB6 to VB.NET do not make the latter incompatible with
    the former is being obstinate in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary,
    e.g curvature, sun going down (oi, where's it off to now, mom?),ships' masts
    appearing first. That kind of flat-earth mentality in the middle ages.

    MM

  15. #30
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Move from VB 6 to VB.Net in 5 easy steps


    zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

    >
    >The dotnet platform has proven to be a very productive environment for
    >writing components. What that means is that for X dollars I can provide
    >more functionality in a given component. That's all that people really
    >want - they want to get their problems solved as efficiently as possible

    -
    >and from that perspective dotnet seems to have a good future.
    >


    Yes, but "provide more functionality" to whom? You're hardly likely to sell
    any .NET components in volume for at least a couple of years, because until
    then there *will* be no corporates interested. The .NET platform itself isn't
    going to be out until much later this year, so corporates aren't going to
    be looking at it with any conviction until middle of 2002. Roll out to start,
    maybe, in 2003. Kylix is going to be available in quarter 2. You could put
    all your eggs in two baskets, not just one, just in case that Rhode Island
    Redmond gets run over on the Kylix freeway. And then if Kylix bombs (which
    it might), you'd still have the proprietary Windows/.NET platforms to fall
    back on.

    MM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center