Re: VB.NET: 3 points of view
Yawn... here we go again.
> 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.
Leave out the Citrix. It doesn't work well.
> I could be describing the gist of any one of dozens of similar
> corporates, couldn't I?
> UPS-secured RAIDs or mainframes, and the work gets done. In short, I,
> as Mr Corporate, am an extremely happy (and rich) bunny.
For the most part...and,
> 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?)
This is where you don't get it, do you. Who said anything about revisiting
old apps. Not me. I've still got stuff in VB3, if it works, don't break it.
As far as web hosted, we avoid that like the yesterday's meatloaf. So,
BUUUZZZZ wrong again Mike old boy.
> 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.
The learning stuff is what you get paid the big bucks for, isn't it? As far
as memory etc etc etc, since I can't discuss benchmarks, I won't tell you
the favorable results we have seen on deployed test applications. The
retraing doesn;t exist because I'm not doing anything to current apps. You
really are having a hard time with this, aren't you.
>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
Where in the world are you getting this???
> Boy, am I gonna take a lot of convincing!
OK, one more time, take notes if you have to.
We utilize .NET on new projects where it makes sense to use it. We migrate
current apps that need to be re-architected for other reasons anyway. We use
VB6 (or 5 for that matter) when the situation calls for it. We use Java if
the situation calls for it. I'll write batch files if the situation calls
for it. Are you keeping up, this isn't real hard.
Wrox Press Ltd.
Top DevX Stories
Easy Web Services with SQL Server 2005 HTTP Endpoints
JavaOne 2005: Java Platform Roadmap Focuses on Ease of Development, Sun Focuses on the "Free" in F.O.S.S.
Wed Yourself to UML with the Power of Associations
Microsoft to Add AJAX Capabilities to ASP.NET
IBM's Cloudscape Versus MySQL