A moderate view.

[Karl E. Peterson]

"Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:3af8c3ba@news.devx.com...
>
> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:3af875d5@news.devx.com...
> > Hi Tom --
> >
> > > Zane posted before the rollbacks suggesting that if there was a market
> for
> > > Classic VB in .NET (aka VB7) then someone would create one.
> >
> > Cute as that sounds, it's very unlikely to happen. Microsoft *firmly*
> maintains
> > control over anyone producing a language with enough similarity to VB in
> order to be
> > considered interoperable.
>
> Microsoft *can't* actually. You can build a VB clone-ish if you so wish as
> long as you don't call it VB.
> MS has built too many clones itself (i.e. competing products) to be able to
> win such a case.
>
> Kunle
>
> Disclaimer: I ain't no lawyer...

Try it. You'll quickly find the need to hire one. Note that I didn't say *anything*
about MS "winning" such a case. They really don't need to. You lose, regardless.

As an aside, you don't find it all curious that the *only* product that claims to be
capable of importing VB source can only run on the Mac?

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

[Kunle Odutola]

> > > Cute as that sounds, it's very unlikely to happen. Microsoft *firmly*
> > maintains
> > > control over anyone producing a language with enough similarity to VB
in
> > order to be
> > > considered interoperable.
> >
> > Microsoft *can't* actually. You can build a VB clone-ish if you so wish
as
> > long as you don't call it VB.
> > MS has built too many clones itself (i.e. competing products) to be able
to
> > win such a case.
> >
> > Kunle
> >
> > Disclaimer: I ain't no lawyer...
>
> Try it. You'll quickly find the need to hire one. Note that I didn't say
*anything*
> about MS "winning" such a case. They really don't need to. You lose,
regardless.
>
> As an aside, you don't find it all curious that the *only* product that
claims to be
> capable of importing VB source can only run on the Mac?

Perhaps you are right Karl but I the real reason I haven't developed a VB
clone <bg> is that I wouldn't be able to sell it against the real thing. The
threat of a MS lawsuit ruining my day was not a consideration. If MS brought
such a case, I would be guaranteed a huge payoff while MS gets egg and the
DoJ in it's face...

;-)

Kunle

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 8 May 2001 15:44:11 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org>
wrote:

>Cute as that sounds, it's very unlikely to happen. Microsoft *firmly* maintains
>control over anyone producing a language with enough similarity to VB in order to be
>considered interoperable.

What about if it were open source and the result of clean room
technology?

MM

[Karl E. Peterson]

"Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
>
> Perhaps you are right Karl but I the real reason I haven't developed a VB
> clone <bg> is that I wouldn't be able to sell it against the real thing. The
> threat of a MS lawsuit ruining my day was not a consideration. If MS brought
> such a case, I would be guaranteed a huge payoff while MS gets egg and the
> DoJ in it's face...
>
> ;-)

Play it cute, sure. Doesn't change the facts that those who *have* attempted this
found out in unpleasent ways that it wasn't a welcome development.
--
http://www.mvps.org/vb

[Kunle Odutola]

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:3af9dd3f$1@news.devx.com...
> "Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote
in message
> >
> > Perhaps you are right Karl but I the real reason I haven't developed a
VB
> > clone <bg> is that I wouldn't be able to sell it against the real thing.
The
> > threat of a MS lawsuit ruining my day was not a consideration. If MS
brought
> > such a case, I would be guaranteed a huge payoff while MS gets egg and
the
> > DoJ in it's face...
> >
> > ;-)
>
> Play it cute, sure. Doesn't change the facts that those who *have*
attempted this
> found out in unpleasent ways that it wasn't a welcome development.
> --
> http://www.mvps.org/vb

Examples?

Kunle

[Larry Linson]

zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

> . . . Since so
> many people here (Hi Dan!) think that dos basic was good enough
> and is still good enough, that porting some antique version should
> be good enough.

How many is "so many"?

Well, I suppose it _is_ good enough for users who still use DOS, but I haven't
run across but one of those in the last 7 or 8 years -- a retired engineer
who bemoaned the loss of QBasic. He was "like the lightning bug that backed
into the electric fan -- de-lighted no end" when I showed him that he could
load it off his Windows 98 CD. And, as a matter of fact, for all the calculations
he used it for, I guess it was "good enough".

[Karl E. Peterson]

> > > DoJ in it's face...
> > >
> > > ;-)
> >
> > Play it cute, sure. Doesn't change the facts that those who *have* attempted
this
> > found out in unpleasent ways that it wasn't a welcome development.
>
> Examples?

Privileged. Sorry...

[Mark Burns]

"Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
message news:3af6b218@news.devx.com...
> If I can do it, so can anybody else.

Kunle, this is an invalid assumption on your part. Clearly, NOT EVERYONE
_CAN_ do what you can do - or at least not nearly so easily. The mostly
likely pool of "VB programmers" who will fail to meet your challenge of
being able to do what you have been able to do are precisely those in the
lone/small shop environments, most especially those who are largely
self-taught.
That assumption is also the source for much of your disagreement with those
who take positions expressing concern with the apparent "OO-or-death"
direction for the evolution of the VB language.
....care to estimate the %ages of the VB developers out there who fall into
which category: Do/Can't do...what Kunle can...?

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message <news:3af9c369@news.devx.com>...

> Perhaps you are right Karl but I the real reason I haven't developed a VB
> clone <bg> is that I wouldn't be able to sell it against the real thing. The
> threat of a MS lawsuit ruining my day was not a consideration. If MS brought
> such a case, I would be guaranteed a huge payoff while MS gets egg and the
> DoJ in it's face...
>
> ;-)

But can you keep your shirt on your back and a roof over your head until
that happens? Even if you eventually win, you'll lose. There are plenty
of more worthy ways to spend a few billion in legal fees.

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> DC8s in Spaace: <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!

[Zane Thomas]

Mark,

>... most especially those who are largely self-taught.

And that's an assumption on your part - plenty of assumptions to go around
it seems. :-)

Zane

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message <news:3afda460$1@news.devx.com>...

> Mark,
>
> >... most especially those who are largely self-taught.
>
> And that's an assumption on your part - plenty of assumptions to go around
> it seems. :-)

Not that they're confined to politicians, pundits, and programmers...

--
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!

[T. Hoskins]

I don't think Mark was making an assumption -- just like me he was just expressing
a viewpoint.

Topics such as the .NET platform and OO development don't seem to be on the
radar screen for many business organizations. That is most developers/technical
IT workers that I talk to are still struggling to comprehend Microsoft's
current technologies (VB, C++, ASP, COM/COM+/DCOM, SQL Server, Windows 2000,
ADO/DAO/RDO, etc.) and most employers still seem to be looking for employees
who have x number of years worth of experience with all the Microsoft buzzword
I just mentioned.

Like Mark, I too question the percentage of developers capable of taking
a small OO project from concept to code. I mean it all depends on an individual's
background and their job situation (FTE, consultant, contractor, maintenance).
OO development is a valid paradigm, however, it takes a lot of time before
an individual can grok all that is involved with it and the areas where it
falls short. Look, I am NOT a fan of RAD development, however, it seems to
work best (for both the developer and the organization) in many situations.
Why? Because as I mentioned earlier many developers spend most of their "free"
time attempting to master several technologies or programming languages and
don't have/take the time to learn all the other stuff that is involved with
software development. Also, most organizations just don't understand software
development. I think most of us here have heard some upper manager make a
proclamation that is totally unrealistic and expect you to implement it.

From a technology perspective, there really isn't anything out there that
is brand spanking new. However, the speed of change (for PC software development)
in all its forms has definately increased. In other words, it appears that
are many developers/technical IT workers who haven't had the opportunity
to specialize (and then expand on what they know) in some manner are spending
most of their time trying to keep their head above the water.

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote:
>
>Mark,
>
>>... most especially those who are largely self-taught.
>
>And that's an assumption on your part - plenty of assumptions to go around
>it seems. :-)
>
>Zane
>

[Mark Burns]

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
news:3afda460$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Mark,
>
> >... most especially those who are largely self-taught.
>
> And that's an assumption on your part - plenty of assumptions to go around
> it seems. :-)

It's not so large an assumption as you think.
Think about it: Why would an "IT Professional" be largely self-taught? and:
because they are not getting the support they should from the
organization(s) they are part of. (see T. Hoskins reply to you for a
somewhat corroborating view). Logically, if an organization is not going to
adequately support an IT professional who is "on staff" with
education/training as they should, it most likely means that they do not
understand the need to do so, and therefore, by extension, they most likely
do not understand the software development/technology development models
very well at all either. MANY of the businesses I have interfaced with have
large failings in this area, but that is what helps consultants charge (and
earn) big $$...

[Zane Thomas]

"T. Hoskins" <thoskins@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I don't think Mark was making an assumption -- just like me he was just expressing
>a viewpoint.

The fact of expressing an opinion has no bearing upon whether or not that
opinion is based on one or more assumptions.

The assumption I was taking issue with is that "those who are largely
self-taught" "will fail to meet your challenge of being able to do
what you have been able to do".

As a generality that's obviously a false assumption since there are a
number of self-taught programmers who are embracing .net and doing well
with it.

>Like Mark, I too question the percentage of developers capable of taking
>a small OO project from concept to code.

I think there is too often a discrepancy between capability and
willingness. It takes effort to learn new technologies and having
achieved a comfortable niche which provides a good income people are
understandably resistant to change, as a generality.

When I started programming in the mid 70s Everyone in the microprocessor
revolution - and yes that's the way we viewed it - was excited about what
they were doing and highly motivated to acquire new concepts and apply
them. As the early 80s came along we started seeing people who went to
school and "learned" programming solely because it represented a good
career opportunity. I've had more than one "programmer" with a master's
working for me who couldn't program Hello World! without help.


>I mean it all depends on an individual's background ...

Which includes their motivation.

As you point out, we're in a period of rapid technological change (which I
hope never ends). The sorts of people who dove into the deep end of the
pool in the 70s (and didn't drown) are still in the deep end happily
treading water and occasionaly diving to the bottom for pearls.

Meanwhile the kids on the edge of the pool are looking for their
water-wings and anticipating another unpleasant lesson. That's the way
the world works it seems.


---
Ice Z - Straight Outta Redmond

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Mark Burns" <mark@iolofpa.com> wrote in message <news:3affef2c@news.devx.com>...

> "Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
> news:3afda460$1@news.devx.com...
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > >... most especially those who are largely self-taught.
> >
> > And that's an assumption on your part - plenty of assumptions to go around
> > it seems. :-)
>
> It's not so large an assumption as you think.
> Think about it: Why would an "IT Professional" be largely self-taught? and:
> because they are not getting the support they should from the
> organization(s) they are part of. (see T. Hoskins reply to you for a

When my organization wants to teach me something, they give me a keyword,
a product license, and/or a decent help file (and none of this HTML Help
swill either) and go away and leave me alone for a while.

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> On the cans? <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!