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

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> 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)

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> 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.)

[Mike Mitchell]

"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!)

[Mike Mitchell]

"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

[Mike Mitchell]

"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

[Mike Mitchell]

"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

[Mike Mitchell]

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

[Zane Thomas]

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

[Mike Mitchell]

"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

[Mike Mitchell]

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan"

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

Is that your final word on the subject?

MM

[Zane Thomas]

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

[Mike Mitchell]

"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

[Sjoerd Verweij]

> 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.

[Mike Mitchell]

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

[Mike Mitchell]

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