Another Language

[Gregor R. Peisker]

Hi Gary,

> > If that analogy is to make sense, you'd have to liken VB-DOS to "VB7", not
> VB.NET.
> >
>
> I believe both analogies are good. VB7 will exist just as VB-DOS 2 existed.
> If MS continues putting more emphasis on C# than on VB.Net, which obviously
> it will do, VB.Net will probably end up as VB-DOS.
>
> At this moment any flavor of VB has a very uncertain future.

Yes, that's true.

Regards,
Gregor

[Craig Clearman]

Steven,

While everybody else has added their comments on the subject of your
post, I had to point out the thing most interesting to me:

>and have now moved up to being a CIO in a start-up venture.

That's moving up?

Ciao, Craig

[Steven Bell]

My point on the so-called "re-taking" of the exams; is that you have to learn
a new language AND then retake an exam(s).

As far as the "compatibility" issues it would appear that you have not done
your homework. See the following web-sites, for example:

http://www.mvps.org/vb/index.html?rants/dotnot.htm
http://members.home.net/bruce2u2

Also of interest:
http://members.home.net/bruce2u2/vbnet.htm

The upgrade path for "legacy" code is bad at best. So, who pays for that?
My clients? I don't think so. So, who pays for it? Me? Do I take it
on the nose as a "cost-of-doing-business" expense? I don't think so, but
I guess I have to.

The point: if I have re-write/learn a new paradigm (let me re-emphasize this
takes money out of my pocket with the idea of gambling to put it back in),
what keeps me from jumping to a tried-and-true standard language? Java?
Geez, even, gag, Dephi? (Sorry, had trouble spitting that last word out)

The upgrade wizard is a joke. Re-writing sections of code that were upgradeable
from v.3 to 4 to 5 to 6 are not upgradeable to 7.

And yes I have read Microsoft's so-called response:
http://www.mvps.org/vb/rants/vbtransition2.doc

BTW, where I feel we do agree is that the value of the entire MCP/MCSD program
is very much in question. There are so many boot camps, collages, etc. churning
out MCSD's these days that it no longer gives people a leg up. Not worth
the time and money (which for me are the same).

Of interest. I, and several others, have moved off the Intradev world to
Macromedia products. Also, in the process, is an examination of IBM's Websphere
as a replacement to IIS 5.x (even though it is a Java animal).

The upshot of all this rhetoric, though, is that I, and other long-time VB
developers I know, are now looking seriously at Java. Good-bye VB. I'm
afraid that I agree with Bruce McKinney. It was a good hack. It made me
a lot of money. It's time to move on.

Steven Bell
CIO
Momentium Technologies
Dallas, Texas.

"Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote:
>
>"Steven Bell" <sbell@momentiumtech.com> wrote:
>
>[snip rhetorical vent]
>
>>An additional, and I might add: very interesting, side effect is whether
>>I continue with the MCSD program. The answer at this moment is a reluctant
>>no. The reason: I will not pay for my employees to re-take the entire
>plethora
>>of exams (they will have to do it now on the own time and money), I will
>>not do so (not worth my time, it has absolutely no bearing on reality anymore).
>
>But you already had to retake the tests for previous versions every time
>a new one came out. I don't understand how this is different?
>To keep the VB certification current, you had to take the VB3.0, VB4.0,
VB5.0,
>and VB6.0 tests. If there was a VB 7 that looked *exactly* like VB 6.0 but
>with some new additions, they you'd have to take that exam as well. So I
>don't see the difference.
>But to be honest, I've never seen the "reality" bearing of the tests in
the
>first. That's another ball of wax.
>
>>Finally, the majority of application work that I find (especially in the
>>Dallas/Ft. Worth area) is Visual Basic 6.0 client/server or browser/server
>>applications. VB.NET does NOT address this. At all.
>
>How can you possibly say that? What are doing with client/server or browser/server
>in VB6 that you can't do in VB.NET?
>VB.NET uses the Winforms namespace in the Framework, which is a drastic
improvement
>on the old VB "rich" client forms/controls package. Remoting in VB.NET is
>far superior to DCOM. Transaction support is also much better and you can
>take full advantage of COM+ since the product is free-threaded and supports
>object pooling.
>
>>There! I vented. Just and FYI for you career minded folk out there.
I
>>am a consultant and employer and I see no immediate or future need for
VB.NET.
>
>My opinion is far different, but I don't think we'd agree further unless
>we get some common ground here.
>
>> If Microsoft insists, in this huge paradigm shift, then it looks like
a
>>golden opportunity for another company to produce a VB look-alike. Perhaps
>>a cross-platform VB look-alike...ah, well, I can always dream.
>
>Perhaps, but I don't see a need for that.
>
>If anything, someone will produce a cross-platform CLR and your VB.NET code
>would work with that.
>
>-Rob

[Steven Bell]

Craig:

Hmmm, point may be well taken. I don't know yet. Still counting the money.
:-)

Steven.


Craig Clearman <chclear@nospam.please> wrote:
>Steven,
>
>While everybody else has added their comments on the subject of your
>post, I had to point out the thing most interesting to me:
>
>>and have now moved up to being a CIO in a start-up venture.
>
>That's moving up?
>
>Ciao, Craig
>

[Steven Bell]

Larry:

Good points all. Yes, VB.NET is probably targeted at Enterprise-level development.
I make ALL of my money off of the $3 Million to $50 Million range of companies
here in DFW. VB.NET does not allow me to quickly build/port existing applications
(i.e. Alpha 4, Paradox 4/5, Powerbuilder, Delphi, etc.) like VB 6 does.
Period. End-of-discussion.

The acerbic wording of some of the unwashed masses that have responded to
my first note; must mean that I have hit a vital spot and it hurt them (thus
the crying). Rather than nicely pointing out my "inaccuracies" ;-) the majority
alienate any possibility of convincing me (or others) of their sincere wish
to win me and mine over to their cause.

I appreciate your comments.

Steven Bell
CIO
Momentium Technologies
Dallas, Texas

"Larry Linson" <larry.linson@ntpcug.org> wrote:
>
>Gee, it's amazing to me that the proponents of VB.NET seem to be able only
>to deprecate those who aren't thrilled with it, but not to explain _how_
>it is better for, or makes it easier to develop, standalone and client-server
>applications. But, I agree with the statement that it _does_ address standalone
>applications, client-server, and browser-server applications, in its way.
>(So do a goodly list of other tools, see below for some that I opted not
>to use in the past.)
>
>It certainly doesn't provide the compiled code that was such a terrific
thing
>not long ago when Microsoft got around to it, and a number of other useful
>features -- like variants. It certainly does require an object-oriented
view
>if you are to make good (not just best) use of it. It certainly does require
>a significant re-learning process. And, I'd emphasize again, no one has
convinced
>me that it addresses the standalone and client-server areas any _better_
>than previous versions, and those are the ones clients have called on me
>to handle since 1991. And, I am eager to be convinced... I keep being told
>that it handles the "small stuff" just fine, but what I read, and what I
>hear applauded, are all the things that make it better for huge, team-developed,
>code-intensive, distributed applications.
>
>Prior to 1991, I _was_ involved with Enterprise-wide, some international-in-scope,
>distributed applications of enormous magnitude, even before IBM introduced
>the PC (without a single "object" in any of those, FYI). But, after I retired
>from IBM, I was quite happy to solve a different class of business problems
>and I was quite happy to have tools like 'classic VB' and Access that would
>let me solve them with a minimum of fuss and bother.
>
>I'll say it again, because it's true: Microsoft has taken the most popular
>and successful Development Tool of all time and turned it into just another
>object-oriented language. If I'd wanted to develop standalone and client
>applications in an object-oriented language, there were a plethora available.
>But, I didn't opt for Delphi, I didn't opt for C++ Builder, I didn't opt
>for JBuilder, for Pascal, for C++, or one of the others.
>
>I'll say this again, too: object oriented tools can be very useful for code-intensive
>environments, but my appreciation of VB and Access was because they didn't
>_have to be_ code-intensive environments. I could be wrong, but it certainly
>appears to me that VB.NET, by its nature, is going to be a more code-intensive
>environment than classic VB.
>
>VB.NET has pulled the rug out from under a very significant portion (while
>I don't have figures, my guess from the user groups to which I belong would
>be, the majority) of VB developers.
>
>If VB.NET's not, as its proponents claim, a new language with a few familiar
>statements, it is certainly much different than "classic VB". It is going
>to cost those who move to it an investment in learning and adjusting their
>'paradigm' to take advantage of the object orientation. I speak from long
>experience: in my 43 years in the computer business, I've learned language
>after language. The difference? Before, there was a _reason_, there was
some
>benefit to each, not just because "the language had to change" because the
>vendor decided it should, nor because a group of elitists decided that it
>had too many flaws, despite it being useful and perfectly well-suited to
>the applications at hand. Always before, when I experienced this significant
>a change, the vendor/author at least had the honesty to give the new language
>a new name.
>
>Perhaps, because of those long years, and, perhaps, because I saw the beginnings
>of objects and wasn't impressed (because OO simply codified and partially
>automated what had been good programming practices since the beginning),
>I'll be dismissed as just another old codger who ought to give it up because
>the world is changing around him. But, perhaps someone will see that the
>old codger has lived through a few 'world changing around him' times, has
>been there, done that, and got the T-shirt (which says, "Change for change's
>sake isn't new, it's just bad.", said with apologies to Bill Vaughn for
coopting
>and reversing his refrain).
>
>
>"Paul Mc" <paulmc@nospam.thehub.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Finally, the majority of application work that I find (especially in the
>>>Dallas/Ft. Worth area) is Visual Basic 6.0 client/server or >browser/server
>>applications. VB.NET does NOT address this. At all.
>>
>>Well this gives me a giggle. VB.Net does not address browser/server apps
>>huh? Have you actually seen VB.Net?
>>
>>>Well, Steven, I keep telling 'em the same thing, but do they listen?
>>>Do they hear? Know those three wise monkeys with their hands covering
>>>their ears, their eyes, their mouths? Recognise a parallel here?
>>
>>Actually I recognise a parrallel. Perhaps not exactly the one you are attempting
>>to imply, ironically enough....
>>
>>And yes, we do listen - well, read. It is just that we know otherwise -
>having,
>>you know, actually spent some time and effort to get to know the subject
>>matter.
>>
>>Paul Mc
>

[Daniel Pratt]

Hi Steve,

I'm not sure I'm even on the totem pole, so you can take what I have to
say with the proverbial grain of salt, but...
I'm surprised, given your experience in this area, that you are willing
to base your decision on the current propaganda alone, which is, itself,
based on assumptions, as much as fact. Whereas .NET is the most significant
development from the company with the most successful developer tools, I'd
think it deserves some serious, hands-on research before you decide not to
use it.
Also, you seem to want to put people in a position of "proving" that
you're wrong. As you probably realize, this is basically impossible because:

a. amoung this group, only you know your business, and
b. you have a predisposition.

I am not interested in trying to convince anyone that .NET is the
"platform" they should use -- especially someone who's already made up their
mind (except my employer <g>). Neither do I believe that the .NET platform
is right for everyone. OTOH, I'll admit that it bugs me when people make
(what seem to be) willfully uninformed decisions.
Finally, a question. Given that VB6 is a product already in existence
and seems to be meeting your needs, what would a tool have to "look like"
before you'd decide to adopt it?

Regards,
Dan

"Steven Bell" <sbell@momentiumtech.com> wrote in message
news:3aed9fbe$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Larry:
>
> Good points all. Yes, VB.NET is probably targeted at Enterprise-level
development.
> I make ALL of my money off of the $3 Million to $50 Million range of
companies
> here in DFW. VB.NET does not allow me to quickly build/port existing
applications
> (i.e. Alpha 4, Paradox 4/5, Powerbuilder, Delphi, etc.) like VB 6 does.
> Period. End-of-discussion.
>
> The acerbic wording of some of the unwashed masses that have responded to
> my first note; must mean that I have hit a vital spot and it hurt them
(thus
> the crying). Rather than nicely pointing out my "inaccuracies" ;-) the
majority
> alienate any possibility of convincing me (or others) of their sincere
wish
> to win me and mine over to their cause.
>
> I appreciate your comments.
>
> Steven Bell
> CIO
> Momentium Technologies
> Dallas, Texas
>

[Mike Mitchell]

On 30 Apr 2001 10:06:43 -0700, "Steven Bell" <sbell@momentiumtech.com>
wrote:

>The upshot of all this rhetoric, though, is that I, and other long-time VB
>developers I know, are now looking seriously at Java. Good-bye VB. I'm
>afraid that I agree with Bruce McKinney. It was a good hack. It made me
>a lot of money. It's time to move on.

Ya see, folks! It's happening! But you still won't believe it, will
ya?!! People are expressing well-argued views about the merits of
classic VB, and a lot of 'em are walking already.

Don't say I didn't warn ya!

MM

[Zane Thomas]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:55:40 GMT, kylix_is@hotmail.com (Mike Mitchell)
wrote:

>Ya see, folks! It's happening! But you still won't believe it, will
>ya?!! People are expressing well-argued views about the merits of
>classic VB, and a lot of 'em are walking already.

Where's the rigorous methodology you demanded someone else produce in
support of oop as being a more productive programming tool than
old-fashioned procedural programming?

It's so typical of you, to go back and forth between standards of evidence
depending upon the 'point' you're hoping to make. It's such blatant
intellectual dishonesty which has me branding you a fool.


---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Steven Bell]

Daniel:

Thanks for the response.

No, I _have_ evaluated the product. I have been an MSDN guy since it's beta
inception, but I'm dating myself.

Of the websites that I mentioned. The first by Karl Peterson has this in
the text:

... All points are considered to be factual and correction is indeed welcome
...

So, if he (Peterson) is indeed all "hype" then please, feel free to correct
him. I have found everything there to be factual.

As for my business, <<shrug>>, the name of the game is to stay ahead of the
game. To do that I must look forward and try to divine which direction I
should turn to make a living and succeed. That is difficult. I read a _lot_,
and try to stay on top of the latest trends. Every rag out there is having
difficulty with VB.NET. So, it isn't just me. I am also _not_ the only
one that is "walking". Most of my team spent awhile just convincing me that
I should. My team is a group of heavy-duty long-term career VB people.
They are in the process or already have "walked". I'm the slow one. I have
yet to start (still busily programming VB6).

When Microsoft decided to give us what we "wanted", an OO language, they
did what they had to do. It required a re-write and a paradigm shift. I
hope it takes off. All indicators are that it will be 50/50 at best. It
is still a "new" language. I'll use VB6 until it won't work on the existing
MS platforms. Until then I'll be learning a "new" language.

Steven Bell
CIO
Momentium Technologies
Dallas, Texas


"Daniel Pratt" <dprREMOVETHISatt71@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Steve,
>
> I'm not sure I'm even on the totem pole, so you can take what I have
to
>say with the proverbial grain of salt, but...
> I'm surprised, given your experience in this area, that you are willing
>to base your decision on the current propaganda alone, which is, itself,
>based on assumptions, as much as fact. Whereas .NET is the most significant
>development from the company with the most successful developer tools, I'd
>think it deserves some serious, hands-on research before you decide not
to
>use it.
> Also, you seem to want to put people in a position of "proving" that
>you're wrong. As you probably realize, this is basically impossible because:
>
> a. amoung this group, only you know your business, and
> b. you have a predisposition.
>
> I am not interested in trying to convince anyone that .NET is the
>"platform" they should use -- especially someone who's already made up their
>mind (except my employer <g>). Neither do I believe that the .NET platform
>is right for everyone. OTOH, I'll admit that it bugs me when people make
>(what seem to be) willfully uninformed decisions.
> Finally, a question. Given that VB6 is a product already in existence
>and seems to be meeting your needs, what would a tool have to "look like"
>before you'd decide to adopt it?
>
>Regards,
>Dan
>
>"Steven Bell" <sbell@momentiumtech.com> wrote in message
>news:3aed9fbe$1@news.devx.com...
>>
>> Larry:
>>
>> Good points all. Yes, VB.NET is probably targeted at Enterprise-level
>development.
>> I make ALL of my money off of the $3 Million to $50 Million range of
>companies
>> here in DFW. VB.NET does not allow me to quickly build/port existing
>applications
>> (i.e. Alpha 4, Paradox 4/5, Powerbuilder, Delphi, etc.) like VB 6 does.
>> Period. End-of-discussion.
>>
>> The acerbic wording of some of the unwashed masses that have responded
to
>> my first note; must mean that I have hit a vital spot and it hurt them
>(thus
>> the crying). Rather than nicely pointing out my "inaccuracies" ;-) the
>majority
>> alienate any possibility of convincing me (or others) of their sincere
>wish
>> to win me and mine over to their cause.
>>
>> I appreciate your comments.
>>
>> Steven Bell
>> CIO
>> Momentium Technologies
>> Dallas, Texas
>>
>
>
>

[Patrick Steele]

In article <3aedd888$1@news.devx.com> (from Steven Bell
<sbell@momentiumtech.com>),
> I hope it takes off. All indicators are that it will
> be 50/50 at best.

I'm curious -- which indicators are those?

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

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Steven --

> Of the websites that I mentioned. The first by Karl Peterson has this in
> the text:
>
> .. All points are considered to be factual and correction is indeed welcome
> ..
>
> So, if he (Peterson) is indeed all "hype" then please, feel free to correct
> him. I have found everything there to be factual.

And as I told Dave Mendlin, I stand firmly by that! I welcome corrections! He
didn't offer any.

Thanks... Karl
--
http://www.mvps.org/vb

[Rob Teixeira]

>> Despite your and others' advocacy, it is possible that VB.NET
>> will not really maintain enough users to keep Microsoft interested in
continuing
>> it. The Boys and Girls in Redmond demonstrated back in nineteen-ought-ninety-something
>> that lack of a groundswell will prevent a second release or continuing
support
>> -- heard anything about VB-DOS lately? Did anyone ever hear about VB-DOS
>> 2.0?
>

For the record, I don't think there was ever any plans to make a VB-DOS 2.0
(unless of course, it generated millions). VB-DOS was a product meant to
target DOS programmers and convert them to a more UI-centric/event-driven
environment, which would hopefully bring them into the Windows world.

-Rob

[Rob Teixeira]

Before anyone reads more into this than was intended, all I mean to say is
that MS didn't plan on a continued line for VB-DOS. They were closing the
curtains on DOS, and VB-DOS represented a migration product.
It was only meant to do that job, at which point the plug would be pulled
since it's perceived need would be over. This is a bit unlike QB for Mac,
which simply lost out to politics and other interests.

In either case, I'm sure MS has more than enough incentive to keep VB alive
and well, so I don't think any of it has any real bearing to the current
situation.

-Rob

"Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>> Despite your and others' advocacy, it is possible that VB.NET
>>> will not really maintain enough users to keep Microsoft interested in
>continuing
>>> it. The Boys and Girls in Redmond demonstrated back in nineteen-ought-ninety-something
>>> that lack of a groundswell will prevent a second release or continuing
>support
>>> -- heard anything about VB-DOS lately? Did anyone ever hear about VB-DOS
>>> 2.0?
>>
>
>For the record, I don't think there was ever any plans to make a VB-DOS
2.0
>(unless of course, it generated millions). VB-DOS was a product meant to
>target DOS programmers and convert them to a more UI-centric/event-driven
>environment, which would hopefully bring them into the Windows world.
>
>-Rob

[Larry Linson]

"Gregor R. Peisker" <gregor@peisker.de> wrote:
>Hi Larry,

>> The Boys and Girls in Redmond demonstrated back in nineteen-ought-
>> ninety-something that lack of a groundswell will prevent a second
>> release or continuing support -- heard anything about VB-DOS lately?
>> Did anyone ever hear about VB-DOS 2.0?
>
> If that analogy is to make sense, you'd have to liken VB-DOS to
> "VB7", not VB.NET.

Gregor, your statement doesn't make sense to me. How could The Boys and Girls
in Redmond release _another_ version of "VB7", since there has not and presumably
will not be any release of VB7.

The point I make is that if the acceptance of VB.NET, or anything else, doesn't
meet Microsoft's expectations, the have shown that they can drop it like
a hot rock. VB7 can't possibly NOT meet Microsoft's expectations if they
don't produce and release a VB7, so is not at issue.

And, who knows whether the promised support for VB6 will follow the VB-DOS
pattern or the Access 2.0 pattern (a patch was released for Y2K issues in
Access 2.0 in 1999, some 4 or more years after Access 2.0 had ceased to be
the current release of Access).

[Larry Linson]

"Ian Lowe" <idlowe@greenlawncare.com> wrote:

Ian, you seem to miss my point. Most of the things you praise as such advances
are things I don't need nor want for the kind of straightforward standalone
and client business database applications that I do. But a GUI certainly
is necessary -- at least in the "real world of business" for which I develop,
you would be laughed out of the client's office, if not bodily thrown out,
for even suggesting a character-mode, DOS-like interface. The GUI is for
the benefit of the users.

I don't hack or fake OO features, I don't drive controls via API, I don't
need to multithread. I do not believe as many do, these days, "if it ain't
OO, it don't compute". While a generation or two of programmers were being
indoctrinated with that philosophy, a previous generation or two of us old-timer
programmers were outside the "halls of Academe", creating object-free programs
that ran the world in a perfectly satisfactory fashion for those "preaching"
that doctrine.

>By "code intensive", I take you to mean multiple programmers working on
>"enterprise" level applications.

No, "code intensive" means "lots of code". I'm perfectly capable of typing
"team development environment" if that's what I meant. You see, Ian, I've
already written "lots of code" in various Assembler languages, Fortran, COBOL,
PL/1, ALGOL, and a host of other languages, many of which are now mere footnotes
to computer history. I don't want to write "lots of code" now, I want to
create solutions to my clients' business problems by pointing-and-clicking
my way to a friendly UI, then sprinkling just enough code behind that UI
to make it work smoothly. Classic VB and Access work very nicely to accomplish
just that end. VB.NET, if I am not sadly mistaken, would make my job more
difficult, not easier.

I can't claim nor judge that it will not make your job easier, as you seem
convinced. But, I think I've examined it closely enough, and learned enough
about how it works and what it does to know that is not the case for what
I do. I'm still open to being convinced, but your arguments don't come close
to convincing me.