Self-Interest & VS.NET - Page 10


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 136 to 148 of 148

Thread: Self-Interest & VS.NET

  1. #136
    James D. Foxall Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    I AM NOT ALONE!!!! <vbg>

    --

    James D. Foxall
    Microsoft Certified Solution Developer

    "Vlad Ivanov" <vivanov@polarisconsulting.com> wrote in message
    news:3a771b17@news.devx.com...
    > I posted very similar message long time ago. I guess you and me are
    > exceptions to this "just leave it in VB6, it works" practice that the
    > .Net-kiddies are preaching. I am all for the evolution, i lke dontnet, but

    i
    > think Microsoft demonstrates a blatant disregard for "codebases" of their
    > users. And the "migration wizard" excuse doesn't cut it.
    >
    >
    > "James D. Foxall" <jamesf@tigerpawsoftware.com> wrote in message
    > news:3a7713ee$1@news.devx.com...
    > > Sorry Jonathon, I must have not made myself clear, or you didn't

    > understand.
    > >
    > > > I too have some legacy apps.

    > >
    > > This is not a legacy app - geesh! This is a commercial application that

    > goes
    > > through annual revs. Microsoft doesn't rewrite every office app from
    > > scratch, they build on what they had before. Why is it so hard for

    people
    > to
    > > imagine having a continually evolving code base? Is everyone else

    building
    > > projects on a consulting bases and then moving on? If you're developing
    > > shrink-wrapped products, you move your code base forward - it evolves.
    > >
    > > > Good, then you won't need to port it to VB.Net.

    > >
    > > Huh? How will we continue to evolve our product over the years, giving

    our
    > > customers the features they require, if we continue to use a dead

    language
    > > (VB6)? We will eventually have to move it to <something>.
    > >
    > > --
    > >

    >
    >
    >




  2. #137
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET


    "James D. Foxall" <jamesf@tigerpawsoftware.com> wrote in message
    news:3a77141c$1@news.devx.com...
    > "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote in message
    > news:3a75f1d6@news.devx.com...
    > > So...that sounds like a "yes" sort of response....?<g> <maneuvering to

    pin
    > > ya into that corner _really good_ this time...<g>>

    >
    > Getting closer to a 'yes' I'd say.
    >
    > How about that? <g>


    Close, but...<and having said that I dangle before you the Platinum-Level
    ".Not-er" membership medallion...> ...just a leeeeetle closer, and...<g>



  3. #138
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET


    "James D. Foxall" <jamesf@tigerpawsoftware.com> wrote in message
    news:3a771bde$1@news.devx.com...
    > I AM NOT ALONE!!!! <vbg>


    **** no!...<as if you couldn't tell...<g>>




  4. #139
    James D. Foxall Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    Platinum??? er...

    --

    James D. Foxall
    Microsoft Certified Solution Developer

    "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote in message
    news:3a773f6d@news.devx.com...
    >
    > "James D. Foxall" <jamesf@tigerpawsoftware.com> wrote in message
    > news:3a77141c$1@news.devx.com...
    > > "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote in message
    > > news:3a75f1d6@news.devx.com...
    > > > So...that sounds like a "yes" sort of response....?<g> <maneuvering to

    > pin
    > > > ya into that corner _really good_ this time...<g>>

    > >
    > > Getting closer to a 'yes' I'd say.
    > >
    > > How about that? <g>

    >
    > Close, but...<and having said that I dangle before you the Platinum-Level
    > ".Not-er" membership medallion...> ...just a leeeeetle closer, and...<g>
    >
    >




  5. #140
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    If I were you James, I would lie low until that post expires.

    --
    Jonathan Allen


    "Patrick Steele" <psteele@ipdsolution.com_> wrote in message
    news:MPG.14e0df0944bfa2fc989699@news.devx.com...
    > In article <3a771289@news.devx.com>, jamesf@tigerpawsoftware.com says...
    > > **** spell checker. What the **** does effeminately mean anyway? <g>

    >
    > http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/di...m=effeminately
    >
    > "1. Having qualities or characteristics more often associated with women
    > than men."
    >
    > "2. Characterized by weakness and excessive refinement"
    >
    > Hmmm....
    >
    > --
    > Patrick Steele
    > (psteele@ipdsolution.com)
    > Lead Software Architect




  6. #141
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    > This is not a legacy app - geesh! This is a commercial application that
    goes
    > through annual revs.


    > How will we continue to evolve our product over the years, giving our
    > customers the features they require, if we continue to use a dead language
    > (VB6)?


    VB6 isn't disappearing at midnight. As long the features they ask for is
    within the capabilities of VB6, you can continue to use it. I have an active
    project in VB6 that I intend to add functionality to for at least the next
    few years. Since it was designed with VB6 in mind, all the features planned
    for it will work just fine.

    You are acting like you can't touch your project once VB.Net is released,
    which is nonsense. There is no reason why you can't continue to use VB6 to
    support and expand existing projects, In fact, you can even create new
    projects in VB6 if you want to.

    --
    Jonathan Allen


    "James D. Foxall" <jamesf@tigerpawsoftware.com> wrote in message
    news:3a7713ee$1@news.devx.com...
    > Sorry Jonathon, I must have not made myself clear, or you didn't

    understand.
    >
    > > I too have some legacy apps.

    >
    > This is not a legacy app - geesh! This is a commercial application that

    goes
    > through annual revs. Microsoft doesn't rewrite every office app from
    > scratch, they build on what they had before. Why is it so hard for people

    to
    > imagine having a continually evolving code base? Is everyone else building
    > projects on a consulting bases and then moving on? If you're developing
    > shrink-wrapped products, you move your code base forward - it evolves.
    >
    > > Good, then you won't need to port it to VB.Net.

    >
    > Huh? How will we continue to evolve our product over the years, giving our
    > customers the features they require, if we continue to use a dead language
    > (VB6)? We will eventually have to move it to <something>.
    >
    > --
    >
    > James D. Foxall
    > Microsoft Certified Solution Developer
    >





  7. #142
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:19:29 -0600, "James D. Foxall"
    <jamesf@tigerpawsoftware.com> wrote:

    >**** spell checker. What the **** does effeminately mean anyway? <g>
    >

    What happens when you allow your neighbour's pit bull terrier to get
    too close...

    MM

  8. #143
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:10:18 -0800, "Jonathan Allen"
    <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote:

    >> To say the whole language needed to be trashed and started over is nuts.

    >
    >Maybe so, but some of us have been saying it for years.


    Yes, some have. Around five million have not. Remember the figure: 60%
    have never used a class. The great and silent majority have just
    enjoyed using VB as the RAD tool of the millenniums (last and
    current), and for those bored with structured programming and wanting
    more, well, there have always been many other languages for them to
    move into.

    The changes have most definitely NOT happened because relatively few
    programmers kept demanding inheritance and all the other OOP bloat
    which BASIC was never, ever designed or intended to do. If any
    programmer wanted to program the OOP way, then using the bolt-ons in
    Classic VB was always a kludge, a cop-out. They always did have the
    chance to move into true OOP languages like Java and Delphi. So why
    didn't they do so, and allow the six million happy souls to continue
    creating great solutions for their corporate employers in away that
    worked for them?

    >
    >>That app works great, has a comparatively
    >> low support requirement,

    >
    >Good, then you won't need to port it to VB.Net.


    He explained exactly why he would need to move it into VB.NET at great
    cost and at great risk of new bugs. Supposing an app has a life span
    of twenty years. You don't want to develop it for, say, three years,
    and then freeze it for seventeen. You want to add new functionality as
    and when required. But there will inevitably come a time when VB6 is
    no longer supported by Microsoft. Even if we could persuade Microsoft
    to clarify just how long they are prepared to support it, sooner or
    later they will cease to support it.

    But your app is still working, still providing a solution to your
    clients. Everything fine so far.

    However, as life moves along on separate threads, your client upgrade
    to .NET. Your app still carries on working, no problem. But then your
    client starts wondering, if everything about this new .NET stuff is
    great, why isn't Company XYZ (i.e. you) bringing me an updated
    .NET-based version to take advantage of [insert benefits of .NET
    here].

    So you get a call one day from your client, who sounds a bit on edge,
    and you ask him why, and he says, well, it's like this, we're using
    your fabulous app and it hardly ever fails us, and it's great! So
    (puzzled) you ask, yeah, so what's the problem? And your client says,
    well we've gone over to .NET, but you haven't said anything about
    providing a .NET-compatible app to replace the 'old' one. And you
    chuckle and say, ah, it may be old, but it'll still work in
    conjunction with .NET, so where's the problem? And your client says,
    well, if there isn't a problem, why can't you just supply a .NET-based
    version anyway? And sooner or later you'd have to tell him, or he'd
    find out another way, that the app would have to be almost completely
    rewritten if it were to be ported into .NET.

    Your client is hardly going to be reassured by this news, is he? He
    might have been planning to tender for a new, different app with you,
    but is now doubtful that you're the right firm to do the job, if you
    cannot move that 'old' app into the new paradigm. Okay, so *you* know
    that you *could* do a new app in VB.NET, but how do you reassure your
    client? On the one hand you have admitted that the 'old' app, though
    working perfectly fine, is effectively frozen for ever - unless lots
    of money changes hands; while on the other hand your client is
    desperate to know whether he might be in bed with the wrong company
    after all. And no matter how good you might be and how much you try to
    convince your client that the mix of 'old' VB6 and new VB.NET is a
    totally acceptable way to proceed, it's you who have to do the
    convincing of HIM, not the other way around. And of course he has the
    perfect right to decide to place that new app with another software
    house. Said software house MIGHT EVEN do it in VB.NET, but the client
    still feels happier to get the new app written by .NET specialists,
    while still trusting you enough to carry on 'supporting' the old app.

    This is but one scenario. There are many derivations.

    MM


  9. #144
    Jason Kaczor Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET


    kylix_is@hotmail.com (Mike Mitchell) wrote:

    >Remember the figure: 60% have never used a class.


    Is that Microsoft's fault?

    Gee, I guess they are simply going to easily "switch" over to Delphi or Java,
    right?

    >which BASIC was never, ever designed or intended to do. If any
    >programmer wanted to program the OOP way, then using the bolt-
    >ons in Classic VB was always a kludge, a cop-out.


    Correct. VB had a very poor OOP-graft. VB.NET get's it right.

    >They always did have the chance to move into true OOP languages >like Java

    and Delphi. So why didn't they do so, and allow the
    >six million happy souls to continue creating great solutions
    >for their corporate employers in away that worked for them?


    Perhaps because their corporate employers prefer buying Microsoft tools?


    For anyone who has used Delphi, there is no question of it's RAD capabilities.
    For years it has had RAD features prior to VB (live data-bound designers?),
    yes it has played catch-up in others (IntelliSense), but overall it is a
    very clean syntax, suitable for all manner of RAD programming.

    So why isn't it king? Why do we not have "beta" VCR's?

    Where is PowerBuilder? Clarion?

    At one point it was "kosher" and correct for companies to simply buy IBM
    tools, software and services. In the last decade it was Microsoft. Maybe
    in the next it will be Java/Sun/IBM.

    >He explained exactly why he would need to move it into VB.NET
    >at great cost and at great risk of new bugs.


    Of course, "moving" something to a new platform is prone to error.

    >Supposing an app has a life span of twenty years. You don't
    >want to develop it for, say, three years, and then freeze it
    >for seventeen.


    Wow, you want a vendor to support a development environment, and toolset
    for their own custom language for that long?

    Welcome back COBOL.

    >You want to add new functionality as and when required. But
    >there will inevitably come a time when VB6 is no longer
    >supported by Microsoft. Even if we could persuade Microsoft
    >to clarify just how long they are prepared to support it,
    >sooner or later they will cease to support it.


    Correct, I'm sure in 20 years Sun/IBM/Java will have also "moved" on.

    >But your app is still working, still providing a solution to
    >your clients. Everything fine so far.


    Who are meanwhile running "terminal-emulator" software to execute it on their
    "256-bit" processors.

    >But then your client starts wondering, if everything about this
    >new .NET stuff is great, why isn't Company XYZ (i.e. you)
    >bringing me an updated .NET-based version to take advantage of
    >[insert benefits of .NET here].


    20 years, and they haven't clued into the marketing speak. ****, my physician
    knows what object-oriented programming is, NOW!

    >So you get a call one day from your client, who sounds a bit on
    >edge,and you ask him why, and he says, well, it's like this,
    >we're using your fabulous app and it hardly ever fails us, and
    >it's great! So (puzzled) you ask, yeah, so what's the problem?
    >And your client says, well we've gone over to .NET, but you
    >haven't said anything about providing a .NET-compatible app to
    >replace the 'old' one. And you chuckle and say, ah, it may be
    >old, but it'll still work in conjunction with .NET, so where's
    >the problem? And your client says, well, if there isn't a
    >problem, why can't you just supply a .NET-based version anyway?


    Meanwhile, whilst you were twiddling your thumbs, looking to "current" revenue
    stream rather than future, a competitor "cloned" your application in 6 monthes
    using compatible "interfaces", OOD/OOA/OOP and "magic-bean-technology" (insert:
    Java/.NET/etc.)

    >And sooner or later you'd have to tell him, or he'd find out
    >another way, that the app would have to be almost completely
    >rewritten if it were to be ported into .NET.


    Right. If they wanted a Unix/Mac/Solaris version, you'd have to PORT to
    a new toolset/technology.

    Customers aren't stupid, they have some idea that "change happens".

    Gee, are these same clients still wonderring if that "internet thang" is
    going to catch on?

    >Your client is hardly going to be reassured by this news, is
    >he? He might have been planning to tender for a new, different
    >app with you, but is now doubtful that you're the right firm to
    >do the job, if you cannot move that 'old' app into the new
    >paradigm.


    He'd have a point. My clients would ask to the numbers, the estimate. And
    then determine if the cost would provide value.

    >Okay, so *you* know that you *could* do a new app in
    >VB.NET, but how do you reassure your client? On the one hand
    >you have admitted that the 'old' app, though working perfectly
    >fine, is effectively frozen for ever - unless lots of money
    >changes hands;


    What happens to apps that are already in place using "dead-technology", those
    clients don't expect a "silver-bullet".

    >while on the other hand your client is desperate to know
    >whether he might be in bed with the wrong
    >company after all.


    If the company has no hard-data, estimates, tests or prototypes of VB6>.NET
    ports, he'd be right. Perhaps this is why the .NET beta will be @1-year
    in length.

    >And no matter how good you might be and how
    >much you try to convince your client that the mix of 'old' VB6
    >and new VB.NET is a totally acceptable way to proceed,


    Is it? What if Windows no longer becomes a viable platform, MS is just a
    .NET vendor.

    >it's you who have to do the convincing of HIM, not the other
    >way around.


    Well most clients that I know who expect a "product", do NOT care what language
    it is written in. Those who demand an Enterprise solution are another story
    completely.

    >new app with another software house. Said software house MIGHT
    >EVEN do it in VB.NET, but the client still feels happier to get
    >the new app written by .NET specialists,while still trusting
    >you enough to carry on 'supporting' the old app.


    Lot of money in support. Except when the entity is replaced.

    >This is but one scenario. There are many derivations.
    >MM


    Yep, client demands Java, Linux, Delphi, Web... If you haven't investigated
    the alternatives already, are you really providing value to the client?

    Regards
    Jason Kaczor


  10. #145
    James D. Foxall Guest

    Re: Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    Nah, that's what the <g> was for.

    Besides, I'll be the first to admit I need a good editor to even write a
    check! <vbg>

    --

    James


    "Jonathan Allen" <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:3a777088@news.devx.com...
    > If I were you James, I would lie low until that post expires.
    >
    > --
    > Jonathan Allen
    >
    >
    > "Patrick Steele" <psteele@ipdsolution.com_> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.14e0df0944bfa2fc989699@news.devx.com...
    > > In article <3a771289@news.devx.com>, jamesf@tigerpawsoftware.com says...
    > > > **** spell checker. What the **** does effeminately mean anyway? <g>

    > >
    > > http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/di...m=effeminately
    > >
    > > "1. Having qualities or characteristics more often associated with women
    > > than men."
    > >
    > > "2. Characterized by weakness and excessive refinement"
    > >
    > > Hmmm....
    > >
    > > --
    > > Patrick Steele
    > > (psteele@ipdsolution.com)
    > > Lead Software Architect

    >
    >




  11. #146
    James D. Foxall Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET

    Sounds good in theory, and in truth we may have to.

    However...

    1. Advances in components will move away from ActiveX components. We use
    over a dozen of these, so we may be unable to get fixes, and may not be able
    to upgrade to take advantage of functionality.
    2. It will be harder to implement technology related features because the
    tool won't support them.
    3. Interfaces change. For instance, the Open File dialog box is different
    in 16-bit and 32-bit - users can see the difference. As other applications
    move forward with new components and features, it starts to become obvious
    when you haven't.
    4 Stability features. As new software and OSs come out, you are more
    likely to encounter new problems. For instance, we're getting ready for the
    Alpha release of a VB6 product. We have a whopper of a problem right now in
    that doing a certain action causes the machine to eat 125 MEG of ram in
    about 2 seconds!!! At times, you can do it again and eat another 125 MEG
    (that's MEG!) and grind the machine to a halt. We'll find and fix this (but
    haven't had luck so far), but the real interesting part is that this app
    doesn't have the problem on a 98 machine, but does on NT and 2000 machines.
    Our problem? Microsoft's problem? The fact is, a language that isn't
    maintained runs the risk of having new problems with each no OS, service
    pack, and component update.

    There are more issues of course. I just wanted to list some of the issues
    that show how this is risky.


    --

    James D. Foxall
    Microsoft Certified Solution Developer
    Vice President - Tigerpaw Software (MCSP) www.tigerpawsoftware.com


    "Jonathan Allen" <greywolfcs@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:3a777089@news.devx.com...
    > > This is not a legacy app - geesh! This is a commercial application that

    > goes
    > > through annual revs.

    >
    > > How will we continue to evolve our product over the years, giving our
    > > customers the features they require, if we continue to use a dead

    language
    > > (VB6)?

    >
    > VB6 isn't disappearing at midnight. As long the features they ask for is
    > within the capabilities of VB6, you can continue to use it. I have an

    active
    > project in VB6 that I intend to add functionality to for at least the next
    > few years. Since it was designed with VB6 in mind, all the features

    planned
    > for it will work just fine.
    >
    > You are acting like you can't touch your project once VB.Net is released,
    > which is nonsense. There is no reason why you can't continue to use VB6 to
    > support and expand existing projects, In fact, you can even create new
    > projects in VB6 if you want to.
    >
    > --
    > Jonathan Allen
    >
    >
    > "James D. Foxall" <jamesf@tigerpawsoftware.com> wrote in message
    > news:3a7713ee$1@news.devx.com...
    > > Sorry Jonathon, I must have not made myself clear, or you didn't

    > understand.
    > >
    > > > I too have some legacy apps.

    > >
    > > This is not a legacy app - geesh! This is a commercial application that

    > goes
    > > through annual revs. Microsoft doesn't rewrite every office app from
    > > scratch, they build on what they had before. Why is it so hard for

    people
    > to
    > > imagine having a continually evolving code base? Is everyone else

    building
    > > projects on a consulting bases and then moving on? If you're developing
    > > shrink-wrapped products, you move your code base forward - it evolves.
    > >
    > > > Good, then you won't need to port it to VB.Net.

    > >
    > > Huh? How will we continue to evolve our product over the years, giving

    our
    > > customers the features they require, if we continue to use a dead

    language
    > > (VB6)? We will eventually have to move it to <something>.
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > James D. Foxall
    > > Microsoft Certified Solution Developer
    > >

    >
    >
    >




  12. #147
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET


    "James D. Foxall" <jamesf@tigerpawsoftware.com> wrote in message
    news:3a783650$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > There are more issues of course. I just wanted to list some of the issues
    > that show how this is risky.


    "risky"? Wow! ...talk about your understatements<g>.
    I think you misspelled "fraught with peril"<g> HTH.




  13. #148
    James D. Foxall Guest

    Re: Self-Interest & VS.NET



    --

    James

    "Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote in message
    news:3a7843cc@news.devx.com...
    >
    > "James D. Foxall" <jamesf@tigerpawsoftware.com> wrote in message
    > news:3a783650$1@news.devx.com...
    > >
    > > There are more issues of course. I just wanted to list some of the

    issues
    > > that show how this is risky.

    >
    > "risky"? Wow! ...talk about your understatements<g>.
    > I think you misspelled "fraught with peril"<g> HTH.
    >
    >
    >




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