Self-Interest & VS.NET


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 148

Thread: Self-Interest & VS.NET

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Self-Interest & VS.NET


    One thing is obvious in the hundreds (thousands?) of posts about vs.net
    and vb.net: there's more to the debate than purely technical
    considerations. This is true for me, and I think it's true for many other
    people here.

    I'm going to explain why I think it's in My interest to go forward with
    dotnet. I hope to see responses which explain why your perceived
    interests lead you to the conclusion that vs.net is not a Good Thing[tm].


    As one of the earliest component authors and president of a
    long-established component vendor I have a serious and committed interest
    in seeing the component market improve and grow. Having worked with .net
    for some time now it's my experience that using .net I can write better
    components in a shorter time than with any previous component platform.
    If .net succeeds then I can provide better components to more people, and
    make more money. That's an obvious reason why I support dotnet.

    Related, but less obvious, is an issue of personal freedom and how I
    perceive that MS has made it possible for me to live the kind of life I
    want to live. MS has created an environment with countless thousands of
    programming niches - viewing this from an ecosystem perspective - and
    there have been tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people who have been
    grabbed the opportunity to become their own bosses, or at least work in
    association with a few people they enjoy working with. I work as much or
    little as I choose, during whichever hours work best for me, and I do the
    things my imagination (limited as it may be) conjure up as interesting and
    potentially profitable.

    To continue the ecosystem analogy I view it to be in my interest to
    coevolve with MS - which now means adapting to and enhancing the .net
    environment. I see no value in going with Sun and the other corporations
    which - in my opinion - haven't provided anywhere near the opportunity for
    people like you and me. And I resent their use of the federal government
    to attempt to gain the upper hand in what should be a competitive
    situation - which itself is a larger ecosystem with coevolutionary
    potential.

    So there are a few of the major ways in which I think it's in my interest
    to jump on the .net bandwagon.

    I'm particularly interested in hearing from those of you who argue against
    the pain and expense which may be suffered by large corporations which
    have a need to port exisiting VB6 apps to the .net platform. Don't forget
    to describe why it is that you feel such pain for large corporations which
    wouldn't hesitate a moment to hand you a pink-slip on christmas eve if
    they thought it was in the self-interest of the management and/or
    stockholders.


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  2. #2
    Rob Jolt Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET


    "Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message news:3a9aa686.859627484@news.devx.com...
    > I see no value in going with Sun and the other corporations
    > which - in my opinion - haven't provided anywhere near the opportunity for
    > people like you and me. And I resent their use of the federal government
    > to attempt to gain the upper hand in what should be a competitive
    > situation - which itself is a larger ecosystem with coevolutionary
    > potential.


    And all this time I thought I was somehow missing the point of .NET.
    But now I understand, it's really an ideology. Just be careful if you
    start to notice a lot of black helicopters around you guy.

    > So there are a few of the major ways in which I think it's in my interest
    > to jump on the .net bandwagon.


    You're one of the True Believers. Amen brother.



  3. #3
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    "Rob Jolt" <rjolt@iname.com> wrote:

    I fully expected to hear from people who would not reply with the open and
    honest spirit I tried to express in my post - you have not disappointed
    me.


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  4. #4
    Rob Jolt Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    "Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message news:3a9faf1e.861827296@news.devx.com...
    > "Rob Jolt" <rjolt@iname.com> wrote:
    >
    > I fully expected to hear from people who would not reply with the open and
    > honest spirit I tried to express in my post - you have not disappointed
    > me.


    That pot's a bit on the dark side.

    So you Believe, big deal. The anti-government, Sun vs. Microsoft, Us vs. Them
    stuff is irrelevent except to you black helicopter guys. I would prefer Microsoft
    continue to provide a practical tool in line with the one they produced before.
    Why should anyone who supports Microsoft have a problem with that?




  5. #5
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    "Rob Jolt" <rjolt@iname.com> wrote:

    I've got no use for your silly and irrelevant attempt to belittle my
    thoughts. And I note that you apparently are unable to reply with
    anything else.


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  6. #6
    Mike Frap Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET


    I for one have had it. I've been the computing business for over 20 years.
    The last 7 were in the MS Field. Certified, MSDN Universal Subscription,
    the works.

    It seems every year you have to learn a completely new and improved system,
    spend lots of $$ on books and classes, just to have them change it on you
    again. I saw .net and really do not think it will benefit any one but MS
    for software renting.

    I for one have answered this, by a change in jobs! I am now happily back
    in the UNIX/LINUX area and productive in 2 weeks. Sure tools change and
    improvements are made, but, the entire philosophy does not have to change
    every 2 years.

    I guess UNIX is perfect. I'll never be dragged back into the MS Software
    Selling Monopoly Enivronment again!!!!







    "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com> wrote:
    >"Rob Jolt" <rjolt@iname.com> wrote in message news:3a70b3e2@news.devx.com...
    >
    >> I would prefer Microsoft
    >> continue to provide a practical tool in line with the one they produced

    >before.
    >> Why should anyone who supports Microsoft have a problem with that?

    >
    >Well, since it does not fit the current marketecture at all, I can see why
    >that would be a problem! :-)
    >
    >--
    >MichKa
    >
    >a new book on internationalization in VB at
    >http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
    >
    >
    >



  7. #7
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    Hi Zane --

    I resisted replying, but couldn't help myself. <g>

    > I'm going to explain why I think it's in My interest to go forward with
    > dotnet. I hope to see responses which explain why your perceived
    > interests lead you to the conclusion that vs.net is not a Good Thing[tm].


    Oh my. I'm sorry. It looks like I can't help, because I certainly don't feel that
    way. Can we go on, anyway? [If not, let's drop it here, because nothing would be
    served otherwise.] I will submit, however, that your hopes may be dashed, because I
    haven't noted anyone who's seriously in the camp you suggest you'd like to hear from.
    I think that's the single biggest hang-up we've had here -- this tendancy to suggest
    that pointing out "the emporer's naked" equates to laughing at his nudity, funny as
    the sight may be.

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



  8. #8
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    Zane,

    I may as well jump in here with you and catch some of the grief <g>

    The comments on being the tool vendor etc speak for themselves, and I doubt
    anyone can argue with the reasoning.
    >
    > I'm particularly interested in hearing from those of you who argue against
    > the pain and expense which may be suffered by large corporations which
    > have a need to port exisiting VB6 apps to the .net platform. Don't forget
    > to describe why it is that you feel such pain for large corporations which
    > wouldn't hesitate a moment to hand you a pink-slip on christmas eve if
    > they thought it was in the self-interest of the management and/or
    > stockholders.


    Here seems to be where the big argument is. Migrating corporate code. Since
    it will/is my responsibility to recommend a migration, this is not somthing
    that I treat lightly. I have been kicking this in my head since PDC when I
    saw .NET in action. The answer keeps coming around to the same thing,
    migrate the stuff that makes sense to migrate. I know that sounds
    simplistic, but that's really it. What makes sense to migrate? We have a
    several application running in VB3 that we have plans on re-architecting to
    32 bit. We have decided to hold off for a while and see if .NET is the
    platform to use. We have a large app that is made up of several large
    components. We plan on taking a staged approach to migration, migrating
    certain components to .NET and leaving certain components in VB6. I have
    already experimented with this and it would appear that it will work fine.
    Finally there are a number of apps that probably will never see .NET. Why,
    no reason to migrate. They work fine in the present form, why fix it if it's
    not broke. I currently am developing a new system that will be hooking into
    several other systems. Some of these are written by third party vendors that
    have already stated that they will be moving to .NET. Some will not be. I am
    writing my part with the idea that it will be migrated, but that is by no
    means final. In all honesty, there is a chance that I'll have to move it to
    Java <ugh!>

    I doubt that anyone can dispute tha the .NET environment will be productive
    place to work in. The plan in corporate America is to look at each
    application decide on what it;s purpose is, what its future is, and what is
    gained by making the migration. Only then can you realistically do any kind
    of Cost/Benefit Analysis.

    --
    Jay Glynn
    Introducing .NET
    ISBN: 1861004893
    Wrox Press Ltd.




  9. #9
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:

    >I resisted replying, but couldn't help myself. <g>


    You're so predictable. :-)

    >I will submit, however, that your hopes may be dashed, because I
    >haven't noted anyone who's seriously in the camp you suggest you'd like to hear from.


    If my "hopes are dashed" <cough> I doubt that will be the reason - I give
    you Mike Mitchell as an extreme example. Take him, please.

    >I think that's the single biggest hang-up we've had here -- this tendancy to suggest
    >that pointing out "the emporer's naked" equates to laughing at his nudity, funny as
    >the sight may be.


    Or if you find Mike too distasteful - something I can sympathize with -
    then take Don Parker who started the thread 'The Emperor's ".NET" Clothes'
    <3a5f0e2e$1@news.devx.com>, who expresses sentiments you apparently agree
    with by reference.

    But if you're right, if there are no posters who disagree with the
    statement ".net is a Good Thing[tm]" then the lack of responses will be
    welcome.

    Meanwhile we can amuse ourselves with inane responses from people like Mr.
    Jolt.


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  10. #10
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:23:00 -0600, "Jay Glynn" <jay_glynn@agla.com>
    wrote:

    >The plan in corporate America is to look at each
    >application decide on what it;s purpose is, what its future is, and what is
    >gained by making the migration. Only then can you realistically do any kind
    >of Cost/Benefit Analysis.


    A surprisingly rational approach - hopefully at least some of corporate
    america really is that rational. :-)

    Nice to have agreement, of course, but I'm still waiting to hear from
    "them" on the other side of the issue. :-)


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  11. #11
    Dan Barclay Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:15:33 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

    >"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >>I resisted replying, but couldn't help myself. <g>

    >
    >You're so predictable. :-)


    LOL! I guess I shouldn't disappoint you either, then <g>.

    <snip>
    >But if you're right, if there are no posters who disagree with the
    >statement ".net is a Good Thing[tm]" then the lack of responses will be
    >welcome.


    Hmmm... I've been trying to figure out exactly where I come out on
    that one. To be truthful, I can't commit to ".net is a Good
    Thing(tm)", but I can't disagree with it either. Does not agreeing
    count?

    I'm at ".net is a Damned Interesting Thing". Dunno if that's the
    same? I guess not. New forms of transportation are interesting, but
    then so are train wrecks (not that I'm making an analogy to either
    one, it's just a point of clarification!)

    Now that vb.net thing... well...

    >Meanwhile we can amuse ourselves with inane responses from people like Mr.
    >Jolt.


    Or unclear musings as above.

    Specifically for your entertainment,
    Dan
    Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
    (#6)

  12. #12
    Jon Ogden Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET


    "Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3a9aa686.859627484@news.devx.com...

    Zane, I appreciated the honesty and straightforwardness of your post. It is,
    indeed, in your self-interest to promote .NET heavily, since you have
    decided it's the way to go. From your point of view the sooner development
    in all languages switches to a .NET version, the better off you'll be - and
    if it turns out that you've bet on the next OS2, I'd guess somewhat the
    poorer, although you can probably land on your feet no matter what.

    > I'm particularly interested in hearing from those of you who argue against
    > the pain and expense which may be suffered by large corporations which
    > have a need to port exisiting VB6 apps to the .net platform.


    I work for a large corporation and I'm charged with evaluating the
    usefulness of A.) .NET; B.) VB.NET and when the new technology might best be
    implemented, if it is. I'm not worried about the company's pain, but I will
    do the best job I can do to evaluate the technology based on their needs and
    goals; not mine. Honest day's work, for an honest day's pay and all that
    sort of thing.

    >Don't forget
    > to describe why it is that you feel such pain for large corporations which
    > wouldn't hesitate a moment to hand you a pink-slip on christmas eve if
    > they thought it was in the self-interest of the management and/or
    > stockholders.


    Hmmm, can I ask why you feel so comfortable with and trusting of MSFT? I'm
    not sorry that the DOJ took them down a peg, and I have little doubt that
    they deserved to be reined-in. (I also think Jackson should be retired real
    soon now. His handling of the trial was far from impartial.) I suspect that
    Microsoft would make decisions that would leave you feeling as high and dry
    as some other folks obviously feel right now, if it was in the self-interest
    of the management and/or stockholders. So far they've been good to you and
    for you, but when the lion and the wolf lie down together, the wolf always
    should be very, very nervous.

    Good Luck
    Jon



  13. #13
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:28:44 -0600, Dan Barclay <dbarclay@ih2000.net>
    wrote:

    >I guess I shouldn't disappoint you either, then <g>.


    ROFL! It's the same people year after year, how'd y'all manage to get so
    old while still taking the bait over and over again? :-)

    >Or unclear musings as above.


    Works for me. :-)

    I really am interested in this topic, although I'm sure some people view
    my post suspiciously as if it's baiting or something. (or at least people
    who know me will view it that way <g>)

    Let's narrow the focus a bit.

    What's behind the evident emotion and many harsh posts from the vb.NOT
    camp?

    I think it's because vb.net isn't perceived - rightly or wrongly so - as
    being in many peoples' interest.

    In the case of someone like you who has a comfortable niche with a large
    code base I can certainly understand that perspective. I know it's no
    comfort, but I have a large investment in ATL code, which was MFC, which
    was VBX - so I feel your pain. :-) If that investment would have gone on
    paying off for the indefinite future then it's fair to wonder if vb.net
    serves your interests at all. Balancing that there may be in your case, I
    really don't know, the opportunity for greater functionality and access to
    a broader market. I'm sure you're thinking about all of that.

    I've been thinking lately that there's another way in which vb.net
    threatens the interests of existing vb.net programmers. Portability. But
    not portability of apps, portability of their skills. VB programmers have
    had the luxury of being in a more or less stable programming environment
    for quite a few years.

    I have no problem accepting skills-portability as being an issue.
    However, I wonder if - for those people - language stability wouldn't
    really work against their self-interest in the not-too-long term.
    Software development, languages, and systems are inevitably going to
    evolve - as we've seen with java for instance. Now maybe Java (Delphi,
    whatever) aren't VB-killers, but if VB was to remain unchanged forever
    then there's little doubt that it would eventually be eclipsed.

    I guess it's obvious that MS decided it was time to make a radical change
    to VB - rather than port it as-is into dotnet. Personally I think that's
    not all bad for existing VB programmers. They get to take their "I am a
    VB programmer" badge with them into dotnet, which gives them threads and a
    parity with the functionality of c# without which VB's future would
    obviously be limited.

    That should be some consolation, I hope, but by no means does it put an
    end to the threat VB faces. C# is - imo, and assuming the success of
    dotnet - going to be used by the upcoming generation of programmers
    preferentially. Mabye Eiffel, Scheme and who knows what else too.

    So yes, VB programmers' self-interest is threatened - if by self-interest
    you define being able to stay in a comfortable niche which is never
    challenged by MS or anyone else. But I don't see how the (probably near)
    future could fail to threaten that niche anyway.

    Seems to me that this is a good time for everyone involved to evaluate
    which future is in their best interest and try to make it happen. And it
    doesn't seem to me that asking for a .net version of Classic VB will be
    the outcome of such an evaluation - for reasons including those I outlined
    above.


    ---
    Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

  14. #14
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:34:07 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

    >
    >I'm particularly interested in hearing from those of you who argue against
    >the pain and expense which may be suffered by large corporations which
    >have a need to port exisiting VB6 apps to the .net platform. Don't forget
    >to describe why it is that you feel such pain for large corporations which
    >wouldn't hesitate a moment to hand you a pink-slip on christmas eve if
    >they thought it was in the self-interest of the management and/or
    >stockholders.
    >


    It's because corporates want solidity, reliabilty, predictability -
    none of which can be guaranteed with new, uncharted .NET for a number
    of years, and all of which is more tested, trusted, and tried in
    existing products that have reached Service Pack 4 or greater.

    If you cannot see the advantage to so many corporates, who only use
    computers as a means to an end - of running their business, to stay
    for as long as possible with the devil you know rather than switch to
    the devil you don't, then I really do think you ought to talk to a few
    more corporates!

    You only have to think for a few minutes about all the things in your
    personal life which you don't like changing from one year to the next.
    How long have you had the same TV? Washing machine? You can bet that
    your household will contain some widget or other than has long been
    superseded. But do you change all that frequently? I mean, *do* you?
    Perhaps in America it's different from England, Germany, and Holland,
    the countries I know quite well. Perhaps in America, folks change
    their TVs, washing machines, radios, software and suchlike every year
    or so. I doubt it. Apart from the cost, most people just don't want
    the hassle of learning how to reprogram the video or Money 2001 when
    Money 97 works absolutely fine.

    If a company, large or small, is doing great in its chosen
    marketplace, and the computing support is working great and people
    enjoy the working atmosphere and the company is thriving and there are
    great times ahead, why on earth do you think any CEO is going to risk
    all this just to try out a brand-new technology, which is going to
    cost him, his company, his shareholders, and his employees a great
    deal of unnecessary expense and maybe uncalled for grief and upset
    occasioned by the change to something new and novel?

    Okay, you'll probably be saying here "but the company can increase its
    profits, can be more productive, can go with the flow!". But where's
    the proof of that? If existing products, incrementally improved, can
    be totally satisfactory - AFTER applying those service packs, of
    course - what possible motivation other than curiosity and perhaps
    greed could be the force for change for its own sake, i.e. just
    because it's there, just because Microsoft says it is?

    So you are now working hard on delivering .NET components? For a
    product that is NOWHERE NEAR release, not even beta 2. And I am
    expected to view this effort you're putting in as a justification of
    .NET's existence? What if it's wasted effort? What if you were to
    consult with a number of corporates (through e-mail, visits, whatever)
    and tap the marketplace to see where they're going to be putting their
    dollars in a few years' time? I know you detest my talking about Linux
    and Delphi, but it seems to me to be incredibly narrow-minded to
    dismiss those platforms when (a) Linux has been around for years and
    is incredibly stable and (b) Delphi will soon be available to write
    desktop apps with. Okay, so Kylix/Delphi 6 *is* a new product, but it
    isn't as *new* in the same sense that the completely new, from the
    ground up rewritten from scratch VB.NET is. And yet you are still
    convinced that .NET and VB.NET is the ONLY way to go, and you want to
    convince others that they should go this route, too?

    Ask youself, Zane, Why is it that people like Karl especially, but
    others ,too, are, like me, so absolutely dead against VB.NET? Okay, in
    my case, I really *do* detest the evil empire as some people will call
    it, probably Karl et al do not. I detest it because of its unfair
    business practices for which it has been duly called to account by the
    United States, a pretty resounding criticism in my book, and because
    it screws us over the whole time with buggy, bloatware, countless
    upgrades, never-ending service packs, unwieldy impractical MSDN help
    files, Product Recovery Disks...I could go on all night about why I
    think the whole Microsoft edifice truly sucks like a bottom feeder.

    Once I did not feel like this. When I'm using VB6/5/3 (not 4 - it was
    crapola), I can forget Microsoft for a few days at a time and pretend
    it always used to be like this - in the days when Microsoft had
    respect for its customers, produced well-documented, less buggy
    software. In the days when I dabbled with MASM and MS-DOS 2.11, bought
    into the early then-impressive versions of QuickBASIC and so on. Then
    I thought Microsoft could do no wrong. I admired Bill Gates for all
    that he had achieved as a university drop-out. Great guy.

    After the antitrust case, I do not any longer.

    And from the above diatribe you will recognise a person who kind of
    stays with Microsoft products because that's what the whole world
    uses, but is increasingly dissatisfied with the whole Microsoft way of
    doing business - unique in the world, I would suggest. And then along
    they come with a yet another grand idea, when the ink on the
    ActiveX/COM blueprints is barely dry, to totally screw me over with
    the one thing, Classic VB, that I really have spent many years with,
    and you can't understand why?

    What a shame.

    MM

  15. #15
    Ray Collins Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    Zane,

    If you followed the thread I started title "its 2002 and the big questions
    are" you will notice that nobody was able to answer. This suggests the
    risky strategy of a solution looking for a problem. Please read my
    questions and give me your considered opinion.

    I have no issues with the languages of .net except VB. As has been said many
    times before VB was not designed to do the things that the "professionals"
    wanted. In my mind VB was the starting language for programmers and overtime
    they would ether become very good at VB and produce programs that delivered
    the requirements of the small/medium business or home use or they would
    outgrow it and move on to a language better suited to the requirements of
    larger organisations.

    It seems to me that the "professionals" have been unable to leave VB and
    move on, and now mangled a good introductory language.

    Of the millions of VB programmers the "professionals" are the minority, the
    majority of programmers build things that do the job quickly and easily for
    them. If these people leave because of VB.net then VB.net dies because it
    doesn't have market share.

    Rather than the "professionals" telling people to leave VB because they
    don't want to learn VB.net, the "professionals" should leave VB and learn
    another languages that allows them to do the things they want to do. VB has
    a large market share because it allows the most common things to be done
    easily and the difficult to be accomplished with a bit more work, this
    cannot be said of VB.net











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