VB.NET: 3 points of view

[Jay Glynn]

Mike,

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?

Yeah, and...

> 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
> control.

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.


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

[Jay Glynn]

David,

Can you try and explain this to Mike, he seems to be having a hard time with
this ;-)

> 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
Introducing .NET
ISBN: 1861004893
Wrox Press Ltd.

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Jay Glynn" <jay_glynn@agla.com> wrote in message <news:3a832d0a$1@news.devx.com>...

> We're sounding a little bitter here Joe ;-)
>
> If the developers have the *respect* of the management, this doesn't happen
> very often.

So whose head is *supposed* to roll because we failed to find hints
that COM and MTS were deprecated like GoSub, one of the Mahogany Row
types, or the poor sods in the trenches? In boardroom power politics,
respect for developers is on par with loyalty to pawns in chess. Oh
well, this ******* offspring of Victor the Cleaner and Elmer FUD has
no problem being the designated fall guy so long as the checks clear.

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Got Thetans? <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!

[Jay Glynn]

I'm speaking of plans when .NET is released, of course.

>
> You do this NOW? With all the changes that are supposed to happen between
> Beta1 and Beta2? Sucks for all that VB.NET work you have already done,
then.
>
> Or were you speaking theoretically? :-)
>
--
Jay Glynn
Introducing .NET
ISBN: 1861004893
Wrox Press Ltd.

[Jay Glynn]

Joe,

> So whose head is *supposed* to roll because we failed to find hints
> that COM and MTS were deprecated like GoSub, one of the Mahogany Row
> types, or the poor sods in the trenches? In boardroom power politics,
> respect for developers is on par with loyalty to pawns in chess.

No ones head needs to roll. I know it's not the norm, but we don't look for
blame. We learn from the mistake, move on and try not to repeat the mistake.
Pinning blame on someone doesn't solve anything. We made a big investment in
OS/2 6 years ago. Killed the last OS/2 server about 6 mths ago. Everyone's
head is still attached.

>Oh
> well, this ******* offspring of Victor the Cleaner and Elmer FUD has
> no problem being the designated fall guy so long as the checks clear.

I'm with ya on the cleared checks ;-)
--
Jay Glynn
Introducing .NET
ISBN: 1861004893
Wrox Press Ltd.

[Mark Burns]

"Michael (michka) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com> wrote
in message news:3a837df1$1@news.devx.com...
> Actually, the pointy haired bosses never learn.

<I rush in to present the pointy-haird boss's perspective on this comment,
prepared to vigorously defend their position...examine the precept, shrug
helplessly, and turn to leave...>

[Jon Ogden]

do until oPhb <> ABLE_TO_LEARN
iPigsWillFly = iPigsWillFly + 1
loop

leaves iPigsWillFly at zero, huh?

Good Luck
Jon




"Michael (michka) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com> wrote
in message news:3a837df1$1@news.devx.com...
> Actually, the pointy haired bosses never learn.
>
> --
> MichKa
>
> a new book on internationalization in VB at
> http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
>
> "Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net> wrote in message
> news:3a81e732$1@news.devx.com...
> >
> > "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
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[David Kroll]

I've read some of MM's posts and, frankly, I don't understand him very well.


On the one hand, he seems to be arguing against .NET because he doesn't see
the necessity to learn this new tool. He is perfectly happy with the features
in "Classic VB", and he doesn't understand why he needs all of this OO stuff.
While I don't agree with his position, I can understand his logic.

On the other hand, he seems to be pushing Delphi/Kylix as the next big thing,
which would require just as much new learning as VB.NET.


"Jay Glynn" <jay_glynn@agla.com> wrote:
>David,
>
>Can you try and explain this to Mike, he seems to be having a hard time
with
>this ;-)
>

[Mike Mitchell]

On 11 Feb 2001 09:18:53 -0800, "David Kroll"
<dgkroll@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:

>
>I've read some of MM's posts and, frankly, I don't understand him very well.
>
>On the other hand, he seems to be pushing Delphi/Kylix as the next big thing,
>which would require just as much new learning as VB.NET.
>

Ok, David, let me elucidate. If I spend the time I would normally
spend on learning VB.NET by learning a completely different language
and platform, then I experience the following benefits:

1. Add to my computer/programming knowledge.
2. Enhance my CV (=U.S. resume).
3. No confusion between dissimilar versions of Visual Basic ('legacy'
apps still have to be maintained).
4. Delphi 6/Kylix can target Win32 AND Linux platforms from SAME
source code.
5. Delphi 6/Kylix compile to native x86 machine code (no 'runtimes',
VMs, CLRs, pseudo code, byte interpreters - just plain old machine
code).
6. Possibly earn my living by explaining to others how they might move
to Linux/Kylix/Delphi 6 from a VB background.

Well, that's enough benefits to be going along with! Actually, I
suppose I have to thank Microsoft for forcing this upon me, because if
there *had* been a VB7 which was fully backward compatible with VB6,
just like VB6 was to VB5, then I probably would not have stired from
under my stone...

As it is, the Kraken wakes...and he is pretty pissed off. And so I
shall take full advantage of the .NET initiative in a pretty
'monstrous' manner - by moving on to pastures new. If, for some as yet
incomprehensible reason, the corporate world should beat a path to One
Microsoft Way in 2003/4/5, making .NET the world beater Microsoft
hopes it will become, then fair do's, I can pick up VB.NET at any
time, which by then will have had the benefit of Service Pack
stability being thrust upon it.

You see only benefits here!

MM

[David Kroll]

kylix_is@hotmail.com (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>Ok, David, let me elucidate. If I spend the time I would normally
>spend on learning VB.NET by learning a completely different language
>and platform, then I experience the following benefits:
>

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.

>1. Add to my computer/programming knowledge.

Always a good thing, although I wonder about the applicability of Delphi/Kylix
in the corporate world. It seems like more companies are in the Microsoft
camp than in the Borland camp. My guess is they would have as many issues
migrating to Kylix as they would with .NET.

>2. Enhance my CV (=U.S. resume).

See comment to #1.

>3. No confusion between dissimilar versions of Visual Basic ('legacy'
>apps still have to be maintained).

Yes that is an issue that corporations will need to consider. If the changes
are subtle enough, it may lead to bugs.

>4. Delphi 6/Kylix can target Win32 AND Linux platforms from SAME
>source code.

If you need to support both Windows and Linux, then that would preclude VB
I suppose. However, I think cross platform compatibility is somewhat of
a red herring. Most shops that I've had experience with commit to one or
the other.

>5. Delphi 6/Kylix compile to native x86 machine code (no 'runtimes',
>VMs, CLRs, pseudo code, byte interpreters - just plain old machine
>code).

Actually, I think that's one of the funnier aspects about .NET. VBers had
clamored for native code compilation for several versions, finally got it
in VB5, and now with .NET it seems like the "run-time" is back!

>6. Possibly earn my living by explaining to others how they might move
>to Linux/Kylix/Delphi 6 from a VB background.
>

Well, if you can make a living at it, more power to you!

I guess my point was that on the one hand, your posts talk about how "if
it ain't broke, don't fix it." You talk about how there are millions of
average VBers out there who don't care about OO or design patterns or fancy
stuff like that, and how they are going to be totally disenfranchised with
all of the .NET "improvements". These people, the non-programming scientists,
engineers, etc, who use VB now don't have a language for their work. Yet,
on the other hand, you are strongly embracing this new platform which probably
(I say probably because I am not familiar with Delphi - correct me if I'm
wrong) is just as foreign to "Classic VBers" as as VB.NET is.

[David Bayley]

> 1. Add to my computer/programming knowledge.

Some people still write procedural C code in C++, so I wouldn't bank on it.

> 2. Enhance my CV (=U.S. resume).

Cowboy.

> 3. No confusion between dissimilar versions of Visual Basic ('legacy'
> apps still have to be maintained).

No argument there. It's a new platform.

> 4. Delphi 6/Kylix can target Win32 AND Linux platforms from SAME
> source code.

You target Borland's CLX platform, and are stuck with it. The advantages
are no different to Win32 targetting AMD, Cyrix, Transmeta and Intel
platforms. HTH.

> 5. Delphi 6/Kylix compile to native x86 machine code (no 'runtimes',
> VMs, CLRs, pseudo code, byte interpreters - just plain old machine
> code).

Code in assembly if you want x86 machine code.

> 6. Possibly earn my living by explaining to others how they might move
> to Linux/Kylix/Delphi 6 from a VB background.

Scraping the barrel there.

> Microsoft Way in 2003/4/5, making .NET the world beater Microsoft
> hopes it will become, then fair do's, I can pick up VB.NET at any
> time, which by then will have had the benefit of Service Pack
> stability being thrust upon it.

Ahhh, the truth comes out. You'll only back .NET if it wins... what a
loser!

--
David.

[Jason Kaczor]

"David Kroll" <dgkroll@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>I guess my point was that on the one hand, your posts talk about how "if
>it ain't broke, don't fix it." You talk about how there are millions of
>average VBers out there who don't care about OO or design patterns or
>fancy stuff like that, and how they are going to be totally
>disenfranchised with all of the .NET "improvements". These people, the

>non-programming scientists, engineers, etc, who use VB now don't have a

>language for their work. Yet, on the other hand, you are strongly
>embracing this new platform which probably (I say probably because I am

>not familiar with Delphi - correct me if I'm wrong) is just as foreign
>to "Classic VBers" as as VB.NET is.

*I think*, though that his logic is that if he has to learn a "new platform"
anyway, his time is better spent with Delphi/Kylix. Unfortunately, as a
Delphi developer I think that it has yet to prove itself in the market, and
frankly most corporations aren't moving to Delphi any time soon...

Maybe that will change with Kylix. Maybe not. It sure hasn't taken the
market by storm in the last 5/6 years...

Personally, I think if "changing platforms" is the greatest "personal" reason
to "hold-off" on .NET technologies, your time would be better spent learning
Java. Businesses are using it now, it has a far larger market than Delphi,
and there are enough large vendors behind it, that if Sun disappeared tomorrow,
it would still be around... ****, if *I* legally can (and did) obtain the
full source code to the Java 2 platform, any large organization that is dependant
on those tools could do the same. It may not be fully "opensource", but
it's a great risk management strategy for larger organizations.

Regards
Jason Kaczor

[Mike Mitchell]

On 11 Feb 2001 17:09:23 -0800, "David Kroll"
<dgkroll@hotmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:

>I guess my point was that on the one hand, your posts talk about how "if
>it ain't broke, don't fix it." You talk about how there are millions of
>average VBers out there who don't care about OO or design patterns or fancy
>stuff like that, and how they are going to be totally disenfranchised with
>all of the .NET "improvements". These people, the non-programming scientists,
>engineers, etc, who use VB now don't have a language for their work. Yet,
>on the other hand, you are strongly embracing this new platform which probably
>(I say probably because I am not familiar with Delphi - correct me if I'm
>wrong) is just as foreign to "Classic VBers" as as VB.NET is.

Yes, but now it *is* broke! I am not going to waste my time learning
VB.NET in its current very much preliminary beta state, with .NET
merely a dream in the Microsoft shipping department's eye, when Delphi
5 is here now, and available soon (as Kylix) for Linux, too. Moreover,
since I have started to become more interested in Delphi, it is
obviously considerably more powerful than Classic VB or VB.NET. It
speaks for itself that Delphi is written in ........ Delphi!

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:12:48 -0000, "David Bayley"
<dbayley@aebacus.com> wrote:

>> Microsoft Way in 2003/4/5, making .NET the world beater Microsoft
>> hopes it will become, then fair do's, I can pick up VB.NET at any
>> time, which by then will have had the benefit of Service Pack
>> stability being thrust upon it.
>

>Ahhh, the truth comes out. You'll only back .NET if it wins... what a
>loser!

So....you're the winner if it loses?

Now I'm *really* puzzled. Is pollution really bad where you live?

MM

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"David Bayley" <dbayley@aebacus.com> wrote in message <news:3a8763ca@news.devx.com>...

> > Microsoft Way in 2003/4/5, making .NET the world beater Microsoft
> > hopes it will become, then fair do's, I can pick up VB.NET at any
> > time, which by then will have had the benefit of Service Pack
> > stability being thrust upon it.
>
> Ahhh, the truth comes out. You'll only back .NET if it wins... what a
> loser!

What are we supposed to do then, bet the mortgage on it *now*? Do you
remember OS/2?

--
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!