Self-Interest & VS.NET

[Zane Thomas]

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

[Rob Jolt]

"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.

[Zane Thomas]

"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

[Rob Jolt]

"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?

[Dan Barclay]

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)

[Zane Thomas]

"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

[Mike Frap]

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/
>
>
>

[Karl E. Peterson]

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

[Zane Thomas]

"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

[Jay Glynn]

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.

[Zane Thomas]

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

[Jon Ogden]

"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

[Zane Thomas]

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

[Mike Mitchell]

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

[Ray Collins]

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