VB.NET: 3 points of view

[David Kroll]

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.

[Mark Burns]

"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*_...

[Jay Glynn]

> > 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.

[Jason Kaczor]

"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

[Mark Burns]

"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>

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"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!

[Mark Burns]

"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>

[Mike Mitchell]

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

[Mike Mitchell]

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

[William Cleveland]

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

[Jon Ogden]

"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

[james]

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

[Jon Ogden]

"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

[David Kroll]

"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.

[Jay Glynn]

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.