.Mistake

[Todd Glenn]

I personally do not have a problem with Microsoft changing from VB 6 to vb.net.
I don't understand why they have to change it. I have been perfectly happy
developing vb applications for years. I know I don't plan changing over
until I have to. Hopefully that day won't come for several more years.
What I do have a problem with is that Microsoft, DevX and any other organization
that is a resource for VB will basiclly forget totally about any other version
of VB with 24 hours of the release of .Net. It is not even released yet
and all VB Programming Journal talks about is vb.net. I am starting to think
VBPJ is not around to support programmers and further people’s knowledge
of VB, but to be a marketing arm of Microsoft. I don't even look at any
more. I might be wrong, but I don't think VBPJ has said one negative thing
about vb.net yet.

[Chloe Jones]

"Todd Glenn" <tglenn@contact-america.com> wrote in message
news:3a8c5aa5$1@news.devx.com...
>
> I don't even look at any more.

Neither do I. That's why I dropped my subscription.

[Robert Scoble]

> > I don't even look at any more.
> Neither do I. That's why I dropped my subscription.

What kind of articles would you like to see in a magazine about Visual
Basic?

Robert Scoble
(I work at Fawcette, but not on the magazines, rather the conference team).

###

[Wally McClure]

I can understand your feelings regarding VBPJ, however, I do feel that they
are working to provide services that we as developers need. From the March
VBPJ Editor's Note, "Regardless of how developers feel about VB.Net's
changes, one point receives universal comment: the documentation, or lack
thereof." From the February issue, they had several people features who are
critical of the who .Net initiative, including Karl Peterson's quote about
VB not being in the .Net framework. I assume that he meant the VB that
people know and love as oppossed to the new VB.Net/VFred.Net/VB.Not product.
I assume that Karl can followup on the quote, if he desires to. BTW, I
thought the quote was pretty appropiate.

There are two things that I have seen that are significant in the VB.Net.
1. Object pooling appears to work. Some tests that I have done appear to
show some significant possibility of performance increases.
2. Threading.

Wally

"Todd Glenn" <tglenn@contact-america.com> wrote in message
news:3a8c5aa5$1@news.devx.com...
>
> I personally do not have a problem with Microsoft changing from VB 6 to
vb.net.
> I don't understand why they have to change it. I have been perfectly
happy
> developing vb applications for years. I know I don't plan changing over
> until I have to. Hopefully that day won't come for several more years.
> What I do have a problem with is that Microsoft, DevX and any other
organization
> that is a resource for VB will basiclly forget totally about any other
version
> of VB with 24 hours of the release of .Net. It is not even released yet
> and all VB Programming Journal talks about is vb.net. I am starting to
think
> VBPJ is not around to support programmers and further people's knowledge
> of VB, but to be a marketing arm of Microsoft. I don't even look at any
> more. I might be wrong, but I don't think VBPJ has said one negative
thing
> about vb.net yet.
>

[Patrick Troughton]

"Todd Glenn" <tglenn@contact-america.com> wrote:
>It is not even released yet
>and all VB Programming Journal talks about is vb.net.

I'm looking at the March 2001 issue and of the 17 articles*, only four are
VB.NET based and three of those are small, 1 page editorials/opinions. Of
the entire issue, only 1 full-length article is VB.NET based.

In the February 2001 issue, there are 18 articles and five are VB.NET based.
Of these five, two are full-length articles and three are small 1 page editorials/opinions,
though VB.NET is the cover story.

I don't have the January 2001 issue handy.

In the December 2000 issue, there are 18 articles and only 4 are VB.NET based*.
Of those four, three are small, 1 page opinion/editorials. Only one full-length
article is VB.NET based.

* (1) When I use the term "articles" above I mean all articles, columns,
notes, guest opinions, etc.. I did not count the letters section since they
involve multiple topics.

* (2) I counted Jeff Hatfield's note as .NET related even though it really
isn't. I figured it would be easier to concede the point rather than argue
it since VB.NET rates as such a small minority of VBPJ coverage.

/Pat

[Paul Clement]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:36:45 -0800, "Robert Scoble" <rscoble@fawcette.com> wrote:

¤ > > I don't even look at any more.
¤ > Neither do I. That's why I dropped my subscription.
¤
¤ What kind of articles would you like to see in a magazine about Visual
¤ Basic?
¤
¤ Robert Scoble
¤ (I work at Fawcette, but not on the magazines, rather the conference team).
¤
¤ ###

Hi Robert,

What could be covered that hasn't already been covered for VB 6.0? New technology? Won't that be
more in line with VB .NET? If not now, then at some point it will be.

If anything, I think VBPJ has been very accommodating in covering topics that have been covered in
the past.


Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

[Patrick Steele]

In article <3a8d4491$1@news.devx.com>, Patrick@Troughton.com says...
>
> I don't have the January 2001 issue handy.

12 Articles (3 Features, 9 Columns) and the only mention of VB.NET was on
the title: "Get the VB.NET Beta!". It simply referred to the Publisher's
note where Jeff Hadfield gave info on how to get the beta from MS.

--
Patrick Steele
(psteele@ipdsolution.com)
Lead Software Architect
Image Process Design

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Wally --

> From the February issue, they had several people features who are
> critical of the who .Net initiative, including Karl Peterson's quote about
> VB not being in the .Net framework. I assume that he meant the VB that
> people know and love as oppossed to the new VB.Net/VFred.Net/VB.Not product.

You got it. Calling a skunk cabbage a rose, doesn't make it smell any better.

> I assume that Karl can followup on the quote, if he desires to. BTW, I
> thought the quote was pretty appropiate.

Thanks... Karl
--
http://www.mvps.org/vb/rants/vfred.htm

[Phil Weber]

> If there is conflict and disagreement in the community, but
> it does not appear in the magazine (beyond a few insults
> directed at people), then some people might feel objectivity
> is not happening here.

Michael: Where have "insults directed at people" appeared in any of FTP's
magazines?
---
Phil Weber

[Phil Weber]

> I might be wrong, but I don't think VBPJ has said one
> negative thing about VB.NET yet.

Todd: Try these...

http://www.devx.com/upload/free/feat...102/go0102.asp
http://www.devx.com/upload/free/feat...103/go0103.asp

---
Phil Weber

[John Cantley]

Todd,

I don't remember all that many articles concerning the bad things about
VB. A magazine like this is to help you understand how to use the tool. I
want to see the limitations but not 'Oh this sucks or that sucks." If you
want articles that tear it down, I am sure that you could find them on Sun's
site.

John

[Jim VanHook]

Robert -

> What kind of articles would you like to see in a magazine about Visual
> Basic?

Real reviews of components, libraries, and utilities.

- Jim

[Patrick Meader]

Hi Michael:

>>I was referring to that online editorial not marked as such, that appeared
on the site? Was that not a guest editorial?<<

You're referring to the Russell Jones piece, right? It was DevX sponsored
content.

Neither FTP nor VBPJ had anything to do with that editorial. Not that anyone
else made the distinction, either...

[Patrick Meader]

Hi Michael:

>>Well, there is not too much to really distinguish [[DevX and FTP]],
right?<<

I have already pointed out one difference: FTP had nothing to do with that
editorial. I've also alluded to the fact we have separate editorial staffs
and charters.

Phil challenged you to name a case where "insults directed at people"
appeared in any of FTP's magazines, " and you pointed to a non-FTP editorial
that appeared on DevX only. If there's so little to distinguish us, finding
another example shouldn't be difficult for you. Otherwise, I'd argue
there's more difference than you've asserted.

Elsewhere, I've seen you distinguish between different development groups at
Microsoft--between the aims of teams at Visual Studio and Office, for
example. I reckon you could appy that same acumen to distinguish between the
content two different companies develop.

That said, I will admit straight away that the two companies don't make it
easy to make such a differentiation. The magazines' home pages do not have
their own look-and-feels online, but instead mirror the rest of DevX in
appearance. Indeed, the DevX logo is featured more prominently on VBPJ's
home page than the VBPJ logo is. DevX sponsored material takes up a
significant percentage of what's displayed on the VBPJ home page, and there
is often nothing to indicate which content was created by which company. For
example, the links down the side of the page all point you to DevX content;
the newsletters that you can subscribe to are created by DevX; and the
discussion groups pointed to from our home page are hosted and managed by
DevX. In the latter two cases, there is nothing on the page that tells you
this material is manufactured by DevX as opposed to VBPJ. In the rightmost
column on the home page, the Resources section points you to DevX-created
content--there's nothing to indicate this. Indeed the content immediately
above and below this is VBPJ-sponsored. I have no clue how someone outside
FTP or DevX would make such a distinction--or why that person would bother,
so I understand the character of your remarks.

There is a meaningful difference in who creates what content, in my opinion.
Besides the obvious point in there being two separate and distinct
companies, we have different editorial staffs and differences in charter.
But our two companies need to do a much better job of making this
distinction clearer if we really want people outside the two companies to
understand this.

Patrick Meader
editor in chief, VBPJ

[Frustrated IT Worker]

As far as .NET is concerned, I would like to read more opinions/interviews
from the 'real' decision makers. For example, what do these folks think about
VB.NET and do they have any plans to use it? Since C++ is the only language
that can produce both managed and unmanaged code, it seems to me that C++/C#
has the brightest future. I would like to see a few opinionated questions
such as mine being asked. I don't hate the VB.NET language, however, before
I spend a considerable amount of my own time learning how to use it, I would
like to have some kind of assurance that I am not just wasting my time (VB.NET
the Delphi of the new millenium? Great product but no market share.). For
viability reasons, it seems that learning C#/C++ is the wiser move for me.


Microsoft's MSDN magazine seems to cover nothing but .NET stuff already,
I hope VBPJ will continue to publish at least a few new 'classic' VB articles.