Another Language - Page 3


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 261

Thread: Another Language

  1. #31
    Gregor R. Peisker Guest

    Re: Another Language

    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.


    Well, my point was a hypothetical one. *If* they released a VB7, I'm sure it would fade away
    eventually (though not right away), and there wouldn't be another version ("VB8"), because the
    underlying COM layer (equating COM to DOS) will eventually give way to .NET. A "VB7" would, IMO, be
    destined for a very short ride, just like VB-DOS was.

    > 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.


    In this general sense, your analogy holds. If everybody moved to C#, I'm sure they'd drop VB.NET as
    well, eventually.

    > VB7 can't possibly NOT meet Microsoft's expectations if they
    > don't produce and release a VB7, so is not at issue.


    As for "VB7", that's of course hypothetical (although, with a few more rollbacks, Beta 2 might just
    qualify for this).

    Anyway, the point was about the number of users of VB.NET. I agree the number will be considerably
    lower than for classic VB. I just don't think that a 100 per cent compatible version would help very
    much in the medium and long term future.

    Now, compatibility with large code bases, and developers' being familiar with the tool, could be
    advantages that help VB survive. As I see it, MS should aim for a better balance between portability
    and better language design.

    Regards,
    Gregor







  2. #32
    Daniel Pratt Guest

    Re: Another Language

    Hi Steve,

    "Steven Bell" <sbell@momentiumtech.com> wrote in message
    news:3aedd888$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > Daniel:
    >
    > Thanks for the response.


    Likewise.

    > No, I _have_ evaluated the product. I have been an MSDN guy since it's

    beta
    > inception, but I'm dating myself.


    I _was_ under the impression that you hadn't evaluated Beta 1, yet (why
    else would you not think it was great <g>). I am apparently guilty of
    confusing someone else's comments with yours.
    OTOH, I consider that Beta 1 is .NET "through a glass, darkly". In my
    way of thinking, the language is the foundation, but the IDE is the real
    measure of productivity, especially for the kind of apps that VB6 has
    traditionally been adept at creating. I say this because I think these
    critical areas are the most likely to change between now and the final
    product.

    > 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.

    <snip>

    Karl's facts aren't the problem, his opinions are <g>. Seriously, there
    aren't enough facts to overwhelm any one side of any debate. So much of the
    substance of these discussions are about "facts" that no one really knows
    (the number of VB developers, the skill of VB developers, the %-age of VB
    developers who use classes, the difficulty of migration, etc). We _must_
    make assumptions in order to ever come to decisions, but I'm not going to
    rely on someone else's assumptions (if I don't have to), and neither,
    apparently, are you. Apparently, not everyone <subliminal>MM</subliminal>
    feels that way.

    One more question. Is .NET out of your consideration or just VB.NET?

    Regards,
    Dan




  3. #33
    Sjoerd Verweij Guest

    Re: Another Language

    > 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.


    What, just that?




  4. #34
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Another Language

    On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:00:34 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

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


    Yes, where is it?

    MM

  5. #35
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Another Language

    On Tue, 1 May 2001 09:42:35 -0400, "Daniel Pratt"
    <dprREMOVETHISatt71@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >(the number of VB developers, the skill of VB developers, the %-age of VB
    >developers who use classes, the difficulty of migration, etc).


    Number: Approx. 4 to 6 million, including all variants of classic VB.
    (I doubt no more than a few thousand active VB.NET Beta 1 triallists.)

    Skill: Mostly moderate - but good enough to get the job done. Some
    advanced. A very few very advanced. (Do they produce anything though,
    or just keep advancing?)

    %-age: 40%

    Difficulty: Huge, horrendous, unnecessary, costly, buggy

    MM

  6. #36
    Jon Ogden Guest

    Re: Another Language


    "Larry Linson" <larry.linson@ntpcug.org> wrote in message
    news:3aecd664$1@news.devx.com...

    >For example, I do not, for a moment, doubt Zane's enthusiasm,
    > but considering the business that Mabry is in, would he not have to be at
    > least supportive even if he had some serious reservations?


    Since Zane is too bright for you to dare to argue with him regarding the
    technical capabilities of .NET,
    and he's too successful for you to dare to suggest that your judgment
    regarding the future is better than his,
    you decide to suggest that he must be a greedy liar?

    And this is shortly after you tch-tch over the way .NET proponents deprecate
    those who do not agree with them.



  7. #37
    Jon Ogden Guest

    Re: Another Language


    "Larry Linson" <larry.linson@ntpcug.org> wrote

    > 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.


    Well, some of us are working in the real world of today not of 1994. Our
    employers are not interested in us continuing to program the same way we did
    for Win16- and, by the way, if you use VB6, you're using objects all over
    the place - you must have figured that out?

    > 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.


    But what do you do? Monolithic desktop programs? Create new front ends for
    Access? No OOP, No API....Are subs and functions okay?

    > I'm still open to being convinced, but your arguments don't come close to

    convincing me.

    Why should anyone try? If I understand you correctly, you have said that
    you are happy with VB3. So have a ball. There's no need for us to rain on
    your parade. Just stop raining on ours.



  8. #38
    Rich Guest

    Re: Another Language


    "Steven Bell" <sbell@momentiumtech.com> wrote:
    <SNIP>
    >
    >It all boils down to one thing: Learning a new language.

    </SNIP>

    Yes, I am "going back" by using Borland's C++ Builder 5.0. The VCL is an
    elegant framework for building UIs. All of the code, behind the UI, is in
    Standard C++. Using Kylix, it will be ready for Linux by simply compiling
    the code. For the other platforms, I would need to rebuild the UI.


    <SNIP>
    > 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.

    </SNIP>

    There already is a product for Windows and the Mac called RealBASIC. It has
    "all" of the features VB 6 is missing. There is one catch. The last time
    I looked, you must develop on the Mac.

    From http://www.realbasic.com/

    "Compiles stand-alone, double-clickable, royalty-free applications for Macintosh,
    Mac OS X, and Windows.
    REALbasic provides native User Interface elements for each platform, abstracting
    you from the details of UI management.

    One single project can support Mac OS 7.6.1 and newer (PPC or 68k), Carbon,
    Windows, and Mac OS X.
    Runs on Macintosh and Mac OS X
    Compiled, not interpreted
    Conditional compilation so you can add platform-specific code to your application

    Native interface widgets on all platforms
    Object-Oriented BASIC, from the Ground Up
    REALbasic provides powerful OOP features including:

    Properties
    Classes and subclasses
    Methods
    Virtual methods
    Inheritance
    Interfaces
    Constructors
    Destructors
    Export and import classes, modules, and windows"



    Rich

  9. #39
    Ross Anderson Guest

    Re: Another Language


    "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:3aeca991$1@news.devx.com...

    > If anyone still thinks that .NET is nothing but webservices, then there

    are
    > a few bridges I'd like to sell them


    Rob,

    It's funny you should say that.. I was watching a stream from MS recently
    with <name withheld> being interviewed. He said .NET was *all about*
    webservices. He was webservices this and webservices that.. and, I have to
    say, he was terrible. He failed to get any useful information across and
    humm'd and harr'd his was through what was a painful interview. For one who
    was supposed to be in the .NET know, he made an awful job of showing it.

    I think he may even be interested in purchasing one of your bridges.

    Would you care to expand further on why you think .NET is something more
    than just webservices (I'm not disagreeing, I'm just interested).

    Ross



  10. #40
    Patrick Steele Guest

    Re: Another Language

    In article <3af05229@news.devx.com> (from Ross Anderson
    <roscohot@hotmail.com>),
    > Would you care to expand further on why you think .NET is something more
    > than just webservices (I'm not disagreeing, I'm just interested).


    Have you seen the System.WinForms namespace? System.Collections,
    System.Drawing, System.Drawing2D, etc...

    ..NET is a development tool for Win32 apps *and* web stuff
    (html/asp/webservices/sockets/etc...)

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

  11. #41
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Another Language

    Hi Ross --

    > was supposed to be in the .NET know, he made an awful job of showing it.
    >
    > I think he may even be interested in purchasing one of your bridges.
    >
    > Would you care to expand further on why you think .NET is something more
    > than just webservices (I'm not disagreeing, I'm just interested).


    Your perception is totally correct. And invariably followed by the up-and-coming,
    soon-to-be-announced VB operator, YeahBut! Don't let 'em smoke ya.

    Later... Karl


  12. #42
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Another Language

    On Wed, 2 May 2001 14:49:19 -0400, Patrick Steele
    <psteele@ipdsolution.com_> wrote:

    >Have you seen the System.WinForms namespace?


    This raises an interesting question: How do you think the concept of
    "namespaces" is going to go down with classic VB'ers who just want an
    easy life without unnecessary complexities? We've lived these long
    years now without them, and even Workspaces could, for the most part,
    convenently be ignored, but suddenly they're going to have to get to
    grips with "namespaces".

    "Gawd, this replacement for VB really hurts mah head, Mom! An' it used
    ter be soooo easy."

    MM

  13. #43
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Another Language

    On Tue, 1 May 2001 19:04:52 -0400, "Jon Ogden" <jon@ogdenco.net>
    wrote:

    >Well, some of us are working in the real world of today not of 1994. Our
    >employers are not interested in us continuing to program the same way we did
    >for Win16


    Mine is. He says "We want you to carry on writing solutions the way
    you've been doing them so successfully without our need to continually
    upgrade our hardware and software and pay expensive retraining and
    restaffing and support costs." And I say. Yep.

    >- and, by the way, if you use VB6, you're using objects all over
    >the place - you must have figured that out?


    *Those* kind of objects I love to bits. Whack an object on to a form,
    fill in the properties, bingo! That'll be 99,999 bucks, please,
    guv'nor!

    What I don't want to do is spend weeks and weeks designing that object
    first, before I can get to the whacking bit (always a keen interest of
    mine) and also risk re-inventing someone else's wheel. No, *those*
    kinds of objects - from ComponentOne, Infragistics, Microsoft,
    Desaware - are fanruddytastic, totally cost effective, and, in the
    case of the first two, a joy to use. (Well, no one can say that the
    toolbar, status bar, list view or tree view controls are terribly well
    thought out, can they?)

    Hey! Perhaps I was really an OOP programmer all along!!

    (Oh, no, Mom just said I now have to wash my mouth out with carbolic
    soap and go to bed without any tea. Duh! See what can befall one as
    soon as the dreaded OOP word is mentioned, even in jest?)

    >> 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.

    >
    >But what do you do? Monolithic desktop programs? Create new front ends for
    >Access? No OOP, No API....Are subs and functions okay?


    Desktop programs, barcode scanning programmings, FTP/HTTP apps, Active
    Server Pages Without The Plus, keyboard scanners, database front ends,
    application servers, schedulers....etc etc. Subs and functions are
    just fine. However, today I *did* write a little class (I call it my
    infant class) to aid storing stuff on the fly in a collection, iterate
    through it and display the keys. So, yes, I will use what is right for
    the task in hand.

    MM

  14. #44
    David Bayley Guest

    Re: Another Language

    Mike Mitchell wrote in message news:3af06d54.6055434@news.devx.com...

    > This raises an interesting question: How do you think the concept of
    > "namespaces" is going to go down with classic VB'ers who just want an
    > easy life without unnecessary complexities?


    Go away already, and take your illegible MMXXXX names with you.
    Mitchell.Sucks is what namespaces are about.

    --
    David.





  15. #45
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: Another Language


    "Rich" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote:
    >
    >There already is a product for Windows and the Mac called RealBASIC. It

    has
    >"all" of the features VB 6 is missing.


    Yeah. Wow! Unlike VB, it even runs on that OS that has less than 5% market
    share!

    >There is one catch. The last time
    >I looked, you must develop on the Mac.


    Oh, it *only* runs on that OS that has less than 5% market share...

    >"Compiles stand-alone, double-clickable, royalty-free applications for Macintosh,
    >Mac OS X, and Windows.


    I'm not attacking the product as it looks solid (for the Mac anyway), but
    I find it amusing that "double-clickable" is a top feature

    >Object-Oriented BASIC, from the Ground Up
    >REALbasic provides powerful OOP features including:
    >
    >Properties
    >Classes and subclasses
    >Methods
    >Virtual methods
    >Inheritance
    >Interfaces
    >Constructors
    >Destructors
    >Export and import classes, modules, and windows"


    Hm, looks strangely like VB.NET's OO capabilities.

    But seriously, it was interesting to see the Mac trying to get in on the
    BASIC bandwagon with a more modern, powerful version of the language.

    -Rob

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