VB.NET: 3 points of view


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Thread: VB.NET: 3 points of view

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    David Kroll Guest

    VB.NET: 3 points of view


    I've been following this whole VB.NET vs. VB.NOT debate for awhile, and I'd
    like to offer another point of view. In fact, I'll offer THREE points of
    view for the price of one. It seems like there are at least three different
    ways to look at this whole VB.NET/.NET debate.

    1. Developer point of view

    To the individual developer, VB.NET is just another language to be learned
    and just another tool to add to ones toolbox. Anybody who has been in this
    field for any length of time realizes that there will always be changes,
    and it is up to the developer to keep up with those changes, lest he/she
    get left behind. When I was in high school, the "hot" language was Pascal.
    By college, it seems like the world had moved over to C. After college,
    C++, VB, and Java were all the rage. Now that we are entering the new century,
    it's not surprising that something else is looming on the horizon. From
    what I've seen and read, it seems like there are a lot of nice new features
    in VB.NET which make it a more powerful and versatile language. Of course,
    that is just my opinion. No matter what I think of the language, the fact
    is .NET is the direction that Microsoft is taking, so that's reason enough
    to add it to my "bag of tricks".

    2. Corporate point of view

    Things look a lot bleaker for those who have invested time and resources
    to build up a VB code base. Because code written in VB6 won't work under
    VB.NET, these groups are faced with a dilema. They can either keep their
    code in VB6 or move it to VB.NET.

    I understand that the "party line" is VB.NET is for "new code". However,
    the reality of the situation is that there is a serious downside to keeping
    code in VB6. What people forget is that most places follow an evolutionary
    development model where new products are based on existing code. Microsoft
    follows this model. When they come out with a new version of Office, it
    isn't a "ground up" rewrite. They take the code from the previous version
    and use it as a basis for the next version. The VB6 code is effectively
    locked out of any .NET features. If there is some new feature that is added
    to .NET and you want to incorporate into your VB6 project, forget about it.
    Furthermore, the VB6 code cannot use any new controls or components that
    are produced with .NET. This effectively limits how much your VB6 code can
    evolve.

    Furthermore, there may come a time when Microsoft scraps support for "Classic
    VB" applications in their future operating systems. It's possible that Windows
    2010 will be totally dependent upon .NET so any all all apps running under
    it will require its features. It may or may not actually happen, but it
    is a risk you run by keeping your app in VB6.

    The alternative, of course, is to bite the bullet and port your app to this
    new framework - not a trivial task.

    3. Microsoft shareholder's point of view

    I think shareholders of Microsoft stock have some reason to view .NET with
    trepidation. .NET is forcing Microsoft's customers to revisit their investment
    in Microsoft tools. Because of this, there is an opportunity for Microsoft's
    competitors to capitalize on this. All of the usual suspects (IBM, Borland,
    Sun, etc) can use this moment of uncertainty to tell their respective products
    (if they are smart which of course isn't a forgone conclusion). They can
    call up corporations and say, "now that Microsoft is making you rewrite your
    apps to conform to .NET anyway, maybe you should consider our shiny widgets
    instead."

    To their credit, Microsoft has sold their changes pretty well up until now
    (DOS-->Windows 3.0-->Windows 32 bit), so that's in their favor. However,
    they have always maintained a smooth migration path. This time, the migration
    path seems a lot bumpier.

    I would guess that most of the "friction" on VB.NET vs. VB.NOT is between
    people in the 1. category and people in the 2. category. One thing I find
    disturbing (maybe that's too strong a word but I can't think of anything
    better at the moment) is that certain individuals can't seem to acknowledge
    that somebody else could approach the issue from a different point of view.


    Case in point: Russell Jones.

    It is clear that he is strongly in the 1. category which is his perogative.
    Yet, he assumes that everyone must also be in the 1. category otherwise
    they are somehow "wrong". I am also in the 1. category (with mutual funds
    holdings in the 3. category); however, I understand the point of view of
    those in the 2. category, and they are perfectly valid and rational and need
    to be addressed.


  2. #2
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view


    "David Kroll" <dgkroll@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
    news:3a80af3a$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > I've been following this whole VB.NET vs. VB.NOT debate for awhile, and

    I'd
    > like to offer another point of view. In fact, I'll offer THREE points of
    > view for the price of one. It seems like there are at least three

    different
    > ways to look at this whole VB.NET/.NET debate.
    >
    > 1. Developer point of view
    >
    > To the individual developer, VB.NET is just another language to be learned
    > and just another tool to add to ones toolbox. Anybody who has been in

    this
    > field for any length of time realizes that there will always be changes,
    > and it is up to the developer to keep up with those changes, lest he/she
    > get left behind. When I was in high school, the "hot" language was

    Pascal.
    > By college, it seems like the world had moved over to C. After college,
    > C++, VB, and Java were all the rage. Now that we are entering the new

    century,
    > it's not surprising that something else is looming on the horizon. From
    > what I've seen and read, it seems like there are a lot of nice new

    features
    > in VB.NET which make it a more powerful and versatile language. Of

    course,
    > that is just my opinion. No matter what I think of the language, the fact
    > is .NET is the direction that Microsoft is taking, so that's reason enough
    > to add it to my "bag of tricks".


    Ok, fine - no problem here, so far as you took that, from this ".Not-er".

    > 2. Corporate point of view
    >
    > Things look a lot bleaker for those who have invested time and resources
    > to build up a VB code base. Because code written in VB6 won't work under
    > VB.NET, these groups are faced with a dilema. They can either keep their
    > code in VB6 or move it to VB.NET.
    >
    > I understand that the "party line" is VB.NET is for "new code". However,
    > the reality of the situation is that there is a serious downside to

    keeping
    > code in VB6. What people forget is that most places follow an

    evolutionary
    > development model where new products are based on existing code.

    Microsoft
    > follows this model. When they come out with a new version of Office, it
    > isn't a "ground up" rewrite. They take the code from the previous version
    > and use it as a basis for the next version. The VB6 code is effectively
    > locked out of any .NET features. If there is some new feature that is

    added
    > to .NET and you want to incorporate into your VB6 project, forget about

    it.
    > Furthermore, the VB6 code cannot use any new controls or components that
    > are produced with .NET. This effectively limits how much your VB6 code

    can
    > evolve.
    >
    > Furthermore, there may come a time when Microsoft scraps support for

    "Classic
    > VB" applications in their future operating systems. It's possible that

    Windows
    > 2010 will be totally dependent upon .NET so any all all apps running under
    > it will require its features. It may or may not actually happen, but it
    > is a risk you run by keeping your app in VB6.
    >
    > The alternative, of course, is to bite the bullet and port your app to

    this
    > new framework - not a trivial task.


    Again, Ok, fine - no problem here from this ".Not-er", you are in reasonable
    good command of the issues here.

    > 3. Microsoft shareholder's point of view
    >
    > I think shareholders of Microsoft stock have some reason to view .NET with
    > trepidation. .NET is forcing Microsoft's customers to revisit their

    investment
    > in Microsoft tools. Because of this, there is an opportunity for

    Microsoft's
    > competitors to capitalize on this. All of the usual suspects (IBM,

    Borland,
    > Sun, etc) can use this moment of uncertainty to tell their respective

    products
    > (if they are smart which of course isn't a forgone conclusion). They can
    > call up corporations and say, "now that Microsoft is making you rewrite

    your
    > apps to conform to .NET anyway, maybe you should consider our shiny

    widgets
    > instead."
    >
    > To their credit, Microsoft has sold their changes pretty well up until now
    > (DOS-->Windows 3.0-->Windows 32 bit), so that's in their favor. However,
    > they have always maintained a smooth migration path. This time, the

    migration
    > path seems a lot bumpier.


    This is a good point, but I generally just lump this perspective in with #2
    because the business-mindedness of thes #2 & #3 groups are generally more
    similar than they are dissimilar, and they tend to understand each others
    problems/perspectives more readily <yeah, yeah...*overgenerization
    alert!*<g>>

    > I would guess that most of the "friction" on VB.NET vs. VB.NOT is between
    > people in the 1. category and people in the 2. category. One thing I find
    > disturbing (maybe that's too strong a word but I can't think of anything
    > better at the moment) is that certain individuals can't seem to

    acknowledge
    > that somebody else could approach the issue from a different point of

    view.
    >
    >
    > Case in point: Russell Jones.
    >
    > It is clear that he is strongly in the 1. category which is his

    perogative.
    > Yet, he assumes that everyone must also be in the 1. category otherwise
    > they are somehow "wrong".


    <sign> Well, what can I say monoptical views of any situation are seldom
    complete or entirely correct. Hopefully, he will learn prior to somebody
    feeling the need to introduce him to Zane's Off.Ramp "cluestick".

    > I am also in the 1. category (with mutual funds
    > holdings in the 3. category); however, I understand the point of view of
    > those in the 2. category, and they are perfectly valid and rational and

    need
    > to be addressed.


    Thank You. About all I can add to your analysis here is to observe that #2
    pays the wages of the #1 group people, and the #1 people had best remember
    that the problems of the #2 people had BETTER be paid attention to by those
    #1-ers or those same #2 people may well just steamroll the #1-ers somehow.

    Now, if we could just get that upgrade story improved _*somehow*_...



  3. #3
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view

    > > 1. Developer point of view
    > > 2. Corporate point of view
    > > 3. Microsoft shareholder's point of view



    > Thank You. About all I can add to your analysis here is to observe that #2
    > pays the wages of the #1 group people, and the #1 people had best remember
    > that the problems of the #2 people had BETTER be paid attention to by

    those
    > #1-ers or those same #2 people may well just steamroll the #1-ers somehow.


    But you forget that it's the job of the #1 group to make sure that the #2
    group understands the pros and cons of making the move. Otherwise the #1
    group gets what they deserve.

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




  4. #4
    Jason Kaczor Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view

    "Jay Glynn" <jay_glynn@agla.com> wrote in message
    news:3a813f68$1@news.devx.com...
    > > > 1. Developer point of view
    > > > 2. Corporate point of view
    > > > 3. Microsoft shareholder's point of view

    >
    > But you forget that it's the job of the #1 group to make sure that the #2
    > group understands the pros and cons of making the move. Otherwise the #1
    > group gets what they deserve.


    Couldn't agree with you more. When I am brought into a client to evaluate
    current systems, and look at alternatives, the client is relying on my
    technical expertise to inform them in an intelligent fashion.

    I had clients push for VJ++, which I could never recommend, which was a good
    choice... Sigh, thankfully I never had clients request technical proposals
    for OS/2, Newton, Be, all of which would have been disasters, I personally
    looked into these, and thankfully not too much money was spent. But,
    knowledge was gained, school of "hard knocks" handed me a diploma, etc...

    Again, it depends on #2's future plans. Yes there are many, many
    organizations with huge VBx code-bases. But not all of them expect to keep
    them with a simple port in the future. If the company's strategic direction
    is Java (or Delphi), they are going to loose their code-base. Ok, now your
    going to throw "interoperability" at me, but .NET has that with COM, SOAP
    and XML. Just because Fujitus COBOL.NET may be delivered, does not mean a
    sudden increase in mainframes filling landfills...

    As for #3, these folks have seen the success of other, non-Microsoft
    companies, technologies and visions. Chances are the wisest of them had
    already diversified their portfolios, prior to "uncle Sam's" battle.
    However, now Microsoft seems to have a coherent future vision, it's a good
    bet they'll be back.

    Does your company have a strategic direction? (rhetorical) Or is it just
    business as usual, cobble along whatever existing technology we built things
    with in the last 30 years, and hope for the best?

    > --
    > Jay Glynn
    > Introducing .NET


    Regards
    Jason Kaczor



  5. #5
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view

    "Jay Glynn" <jay_glynn@agla.com> wrote in message
    news:3a813f68$1@news.devx.com...
    > > > 1. Developer point of view
    > > > 2. Corporate point of view
    > > > 3. Microsoft shareholder's point of view

    >
    >
    > > Thank You. About all I can add to your analysis here is to observe that

    #2
    > > pays the wages of the #1 group people, and the #1 people had best

    remember
    > > that the problems of the #2 people had BETTER be paid attention to by

    > those
    > > #1-ers or those same #2 people may well just steamroll the #1-ers

    somehow.
    >
    > But you forget that it's the job of the #1 group to make sure that the #2
    > group understands the pros and cons of making the move. Otherwise the #1
    > group gets what they deserve.


    No, Jay, I don't forget that at all. I just don't assume that they're always
    competent enough or corageous enough <a syndrome I affectionately refer to
    as paycheck cowardice> to do that job - or to do it well ebough to get the
    information through the managements' thick skulls!<g>




  6. #6
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view

    "Jay Glynn" <jay_glynn@agla.com> wrote in message <news:3a813f68$1@news.devx.com>...

    > > > 1. Developer point of view
    > > > 2. Corporate point of view
    > > > 3. Microsoft shareholder's point of view

    >
    >
    > > Thank You. About all I can add to your analysis here is to observe that #2
    > > pays the wages of the #1 group people, and the #1 people had best remember
    > > that the problems of the #2 people had BETTER be paid attention to by

    > those
    > > #1-ers or those same #2 people may well just steamroll the #1-ers somehow.

    >
    > But you forget that it's the job of the #1 group to make sure that the #2
    > group understands the pros and cons of making the move. Otherwise the #1
    > group gets what they deserve.


    No, it's the #1 group's job to keep abreast of what's happening on
    www.dice.com for when, not if, a throwaway comment from #2's golf
    partner undoes the business case #1 slaved away on for weeks. Just
    keep in mind that *any* decision made today, based on information
    available today, will make you look like a drooling idiot within a
    few months. Using today's best practices *will* inevitably prevent
    a smooth migration to the next silver bullet to emerge tomorrow
    from the tools vendors' marketing departments. Your name *will*
    become a curse used to frighten children. The best you can do is
    to make sure your name won't become "mud" for the next few hours.

    --
    Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Space Cooties! <http://www.xenu.net/>
    WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
    because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!



  7. #7
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view


    "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
    news:3a81b123@news.devx.com...
    > "Jay Glynn" <jay_glynn@agla.com> wrote in message

    <news:3a813f68$1@news.devx.com>...
    >
    > > > > 1. Developer point of view
    > > > > 2. Corporate point of view
    > > > > 3. Microsoft shareholder's point of view

    > >
    > >
    > > > Thank You. About all I can add to your analysis here is to observe

    that #2
    > > > pays the wages of the #1 group people, and the #1 people had best

    remember
    > > > that the problems of the #2 people had BETTER be paid attention to by

    > > those
    > > > #1-ers or those same #2 people may well just steamroll the #1-ers

    somehow.
    > >
    > > But you forget that it's the job of the #1 group to make sure that the

    #2
    > > group understands the pros and cons of making the move. Otherwise the #1
    > > group gets what they deserve.

    >
    > No, it's the #1 group's job to keep abreast of what's happening on
    > www.dice.com for when, not if, a throwaway comment from #2's golf
    > partner undoes the business case #1 slaved away on for weeks. Just
    > keep in mind that *any* decision made today, based on information
    > available today, will make you look like a drooling idiot within a
    > few months. Using today's best practices *will* inevitably prevent
    > a smooth migration to the next silver bullet to emerge tomorrow
    > from the tools vendors' marketing departments. Your name *will*
    > become a curse used to frighten children. The best you can do is
    > to make sure your name won't become "mud" for the next few hours.


    HeHe! Now stop that, Dilbert!<g>




  8. #8
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view

    On 6 Feb 2001 18:13:14 -0800, "David Kroll"
    <dgkroll@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:

    >2. Corporate point of view


    This is the *ONLY* one that counts. If corporates don't buy into .NET
    in a big way, it's dead in the water.

    MM

  9. #9
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view

    On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 06:40:44 -0600, "Jay Glynn" <jay_glynn@agla.com>
    wrote:

    >But you forget that it's the job of the #1 group to make sure that the #2
    >group understands the pros and cons of making the move.


    *Now* we are at last getting down to the nitty gritty. As a
    representative of the #1 group, with me playing the part of #2 group,
    how are you going to sell me the .NET initiative?

    Let's see. I have 5,000 desktops (say). Most of them run Windows NT
    4.0 Workstation with SP6. This alone has cost me a huge amount of
    money to supply state-of-the-art Dell machines (say) and purchase all
    the licenses needed for the OS, Office, VB, etc etc. Then I also have
    some Windows 9x machines, and a load of NT 4.0 and 9x laptops, plus I
    have invested heavily in Terminal Server and Citrix, which works very
    well indeed. I have corporate intranets and at least one internet
    host. I also have mainframes which I send and receive data to/from
    every day.

    The whole caboodle runs like a well-oiled sewing machine, week in,
    week out, month in, month out. I am starting to evaluate the benefits
    of Windows 2000, but don't plan on moving there until at least 2002.

    I could be describing the gist of any one of dozens of similar
    corporates, couldn't I?

    Thus, I have 5,000 mostly happy employees, who do their jobs well,
    manipulating spreadsheets, writing memos and reports, running in-house
    developed apps either through Citrix or by way of the traditional
    client/server approach, and surfing occasionally across the web to
    find information that will help me, my business partners, and my
    customers. There are no web-based apps, our data is stored on our own
    UPS-secured RAIDs or mainframes, and the work gets done. In short, I,
    as Mr Corporate, am an extremely happy (and rich) bunny.

    And now you want me to spend a lot more of my money on .NET, on an
    unknown quantity? Correction: Not a lot, but an awful lot. To take
    advantage of .NET I will need to revisit all of my apps and rewrite
    most of them as .NET-hosted web applications. (If I didn't do that,
    what *would* be the point anyway?)

    Not only do I have to requip my company with costly new machines with
    even more memory (when has a new initiative ever demanded *less*
    memory?), I have to retrain a large number of staff, who could be (a)
    using the new web-based applications, or (b) getting used to
    subscription-based software (Word, Excel etc), or (c) would have to
    continue maintaining 'legacy' systems while learning (on *my* time)
    how to take advantage of all the new stuff for developers in .NET.
    And, note carefully the word 'legacy' there in quotes. It is only
    'legacy' because you want me to go across to .NET. The apps themselves
    aren't legacy apps at all. They would continue to run happily for the
    next five years or more, with minor enhancements or mods to cater for
    changes in tax laws and suchlike. Finally, you will be wanting me to
    entrust some or all of my currently carefully protected data on your
    servers or other third-party servers over which I have absolutely no
    control.

    These are only some of the thoughts that go through my mind when I
    hear about the wonders of .NET. Yet I still have no idea *what* is so
    marvellous about it that I cannot already achieve in spades with a
    system that has followed the evolutionary approach slowly, carefully,
    painstakingly, but surely over the past ten or so years.

    Boy, am I gonna take a lot of convincing!

    MM

  10. #10
    William Cleveland Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view

    Mike Mitchell wrote:
    >
    > On 6 Feb 2001 18:13:14 -0800, "David Kroll"
    > <dgkroll@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
    >
    > >2. Corporate point of view

    >
    > This is the *ONLY* one that counts. If corporates don't buy into .NET
    > in a big way, it's dead in the water.
    >

    No, that's the genius of it. By proclaiming their new language to be
    Visual Basic, they can blindside the Pointy Haired Bosses to the fact
    that they're doing the right thing and destroying the second biggest
    scourge they unleashed upon the earth. (And it sounds like the .Net
    infrastructure will fix most of what makes Windows the biggest, for
    all the new stuff that uses it.)

    To say it a different way, the corporate view would be the one that
    counts, except that they won't understand it enough to have a view.

    Bill

  11. #11
    Jon Ogden Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view


    "William Cleveland" <WCleveland@Mediaone.Net> wrote in message

    > To say it a different way, the corporate view would be the one that
    > counts, except that they won't understand it enough to have a view.


    After awhile, you'll learn. Experience is, after all, a great teacher - but
    the pop quizes you'll be facing will be a *****.

    Good Luck
    Jon




  12. #12
    james Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view

    HEAR ! HEAR !
    At last I read a comment that reflects what I've already been thinking
    ever since I heard about DOTNET... it sounds like a new version of an
    old dream and an old way of doing business, dumb terminals and central
    servers which contain everything including the company jewels. And in the
    case of the new DOTNET thinking, companies like
    Microsoft can hold onto the jewels for you,,,,,,,,for a price.
    james
    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3a81bbd8.2558253@news.devx.com...
    > On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 06:40:44 -0600, "Jay Glynn" <jay_glynn@agla.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >But you forget that it's the job of the #1 group to make sure that the #2
    > >group understands the pros and cons of making the move.

    >
    > *Now* we are at last getting down to the nitty gritty. As a
    > representative of the #1 group, with me playing the part of #2 group,
    > how are you going to sell me the .NET initiative?
    >
    > Let's see. I have 5,000 desktops (say). Most of them run Windows NT
    > 4.0 Workstation with SP6. This alone has cost me a huge amount of
    > money to supply state-of-the-art Dell machines (say) and purchase all
    > the licenses needed for the OS, Office, VB, etc etc. Then I also have
    > some Windows 9x machines, and a load of NT 4.0 and 9x laptops, plus I
    > have invested heavily in Terminal Server and Citrix, which works very
    > well indeed. I have corporate intranets and at least one internet
    > host. I also have mainframes which I send and receive data to/from
    > every day.
    >
    > The whole caboodle runs like a well-oiled sewing machine, week in,
    > week out, month in, month out. I am starting to evaluate the benefits
    > of Windows 2000, but don't plan on moving there until at least 2002.
    >
    > I could be describing the gist of any one of dozens of similar
    > corporates, couldn't I?
    >
    > Thus, I have 5,000 mostly happy employees, who do their jobs well,
    > manipulating spreadsheets, writing memos and reports, running in-house
    > developed apps either through Citrix or by way of the traditional
    > client/server approach, and surfing occasionally across the web to
    > find information that will help me, my business partners, and my
    > customers. There are no web-based apps, our data is stored on our own
    > UPS-secured RAIDs or mainframes, and the work gets done. In short, I,
    > as Mr Corporate, am an extremely happy (and rich) bunny.
    >
    > And now you want me to spend a lot more of my money on .NET, on an
    > unknown quantity? Correction: Not a lot, but an awful lot. To take
    > advantage of .NET I will need to revisit all of my apps and rewrite
    > most of them as .NET-hosted web applications. (If I didn't do that,
    > what *would* be the point anyway?)
    >
    > Not only do I have to requip my company with costly new machines with
    > even more memory (when has a new initiative ever demanded *less*
    > memory?), I have to retrain a large number of staff, who could be (a)
    > using the new web-based applications, or (b) getting used to
    > subscription-based software (Word, Excel etc), or (c) would have to
    > continue maintaining 'legacy' systems while learning (on *my* time)
    > how to take advantage of all the new stuff for developers in .NET.
    > And, note carefully the word 'legacy' there in quotes. It is only
    > 'legacy' because you want me to go across to .NET. The apps themselves
    > aren't legacy apps at all. They would continue to run happily for the
    > next five years or more, with minor enhancements or mods to cater for
    > changes in tax laws and suchlike. Finally, you will be wanting me to
    > entrust some or all of my currently carefully protected data on your
    > servers or other third-party servers over which I have absolutely no
    > control.
    >
    > These are only some of the thoughts that go through my mind when I
    > hear about the wonders of .NET. Yet I still have no idea *what* is so
    > marvellous about it that I cannot already achieve in spades with a
    > system that has followed the evolutionary approach slowly, carefully,
    > painstakingly, but surely over the past ten or so years.
    >
    > Boy, am I gonna take a lot of convincing!
    >
    > MM




  13. #13
    Jon Ogden Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view


    "David Kroll" <dgkroll@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
    news:3a80af3a$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > I've been following this whole VB.NET vs. VB.NOT debate for awhile, and

    I'd
    > like to offer another point of view. In fact, I'll offer THREE points of
    > view for the price of one. It seems like there are at least three

    different
    > ways to look at this whole VB.NET/.NET debate.


    I think you did a pretty **** good job of summarising

    > 1. Developer point of view
    > No matter what I think of the language, the fact
    > is .NET is the direction that Microsoft is taking, so that's reason enough
    > to add it to my "bag of tricks".


    Yep, though there is still a question of C# or VB?

    > 2. Corporate point of view
    >
    > Things look a lot bleaker for those who have invested time and resources
    > to build up a VB code base. Because code written in VB6 won't work under
    > VB.NET, these groups are faced with a dilema. They can either keep their
    > code in VB6 or move it to VB.NET.


    I'm beginning to think it's not quite as bleak as that. If one doesn't
    listen to the folks running around yelling that VB.NET has put a stake
    through the heart of VB, one begins to see that some sort of migration is
    sometimes possible. On the other hand, no corporate project manager is
    going to strip his butt naked by committing to doing a major project on what
    can be seen as a new platform, until there's a real reason to do so. (A new
    version of Word won't do it, look at how long some corporations stuck with
    WP for DOS running in a Window). .NET will need to prove itself before
    either C# or VB will become a major player in the corporate scene. If .NET
    fulfills its promise then it is like that the game-designers will be first
    in in a big way.

    > Furthermore, there may come a time when Microsoft scraps support for

    "Classic
    > VB" applications in their future operating systems. It's possible that

    Windows
    > 2010 will be totally dependent upon .NET so any all all apps running under
    > it will require its features. It may or may not actually happen, but it
    > is a risk you run by keeping your app in VB6.


    Sure, but VB3 isn't supported now. I think anyone who has lived through the
    move to 32-bit recognizes that this isn't the stable world of mainframes and
    cobol.

    > The alternative, of course, is to bite the bullet and port your app to

    this
    > new framework - not a trivial task.


    Made more so by the cost of retraining the porterers.

    > 3. Microsoft shareholder's point of view
    > They can
    > call up corporations and say, "now that Microsoft is making you rewrite

    your
    > apps to conform to .NET anyway, maybe you should consider our shiny

    widgets
    > instead."


    I think group #1 needs to remember this as well. Especially those who spend
    a goodly amount of time chortling over how much harder VB.NET will be to
    learn than VB was. That makes Java sound like a better ROI.

    > I would guess that most of the "friction" on VB.NET vs. VB.NOT is between
    > people in the 1. category and people in the 2. category.


    That's cause we're all stockholders. <grin>

    >One thing I find
    > disturbing (maybe that's too strong a word but I can't think of anything
    > better at the moment) is that certain individuals can't seem to

    acknowledge
    > that somebody else could approach the issue from a different point of

    view.

    Reminds me of the priest and the pastor. The priest said: "We both serve
    God - you in your way, and I in His."

    Good Luck
    Jon



  14. #14
    David Kroll Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view


    "Jay Glynn" <jay_glynn@agla.com> wrote:
    >> > 1. Developer point of view
    >> > 2. Corporate point of view
    >> > 3. Microsoft shareholder's point of view

    >
    >
    >> Thank You. About all I can add to your analysis here is to observe that

    #2
    >> pays the wages of the #1 group people, and the #1 people had best remember
    >> that the problems of the #2 people had BETTER be paid attention to by

    >those
    >> #1-ers or those same #2 people may well just steamroll the #1-ers somehow.

    >
    >But you forget that it's the job of the #1 group to make sure that the #2
    >group understands the pros and cons of making the move. Otherwise the #1
    >group gets what they deserve.
    >


    I agree with you there. As a supposed "technical expert" (expert being a
    relative term in this case), if asked I will explain the technical tradeoffs
    to the #2's to the best of my ability. This is for three reasons: 1. ethics,
    2. pride in my work, 3. reputation.

    On the other hand, if I make my recommendation and the people paying me want
    me to become a "maintenence programmer" in a unsupported language, then that
    would not be a good thing from a career standpoint. I have a responsibility
    to those I support to maintain marketable skills, and to be totally honest,
    I actually "enjoy" learning new things. However, as I mentioned in the previous
    paragraph, that does not excuse me from my responsibilty to present the pro
    and cons of a particular platform honestly. I think developers need to separate
    their own interests from the interests of their patrons.


  15. #15
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view

    Joe,

    > No, it's the #1 group's job to keep abreast of what's happening on
    > www.dice.com for when, not if, a throwaway comment from #2's golf
    > partner undoes the business case #1 slaved away on for weeks. Just
    > keep in mind that *any* decision made today, based on information
    > available today, will make you look like a drooling idiot within a
    > few months. Using today's best practices *will* inevitably prevent
    > a smooth migration to the next silver bullet to emerge tomorrow
    > from the tools vendors' marketing departments. Your name *will*
    > become a curse used to frighten children. The best you can do is
    > to make sure your name won't become "mud" for the next few hours.


    We're sounding a little bitter here Joe ;-)

    If the developers have the *respect* of the management, this doesn't happen
    very often.

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




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