Delphi 6 Personal available for Download - Page 11


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 197

Thread: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download

  1. #151
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download

    Karl,

    >The point is simple, The Language Formerly Known As Visual Basic is dead. To say
    >otherwise is a lie -- one perpetrated by the marketeers at Microsoft.


    I say otherwise and I'm neither a liar nor an MS marketeer. Obviously
    there is subjective evaluation involved - how could it be otherwise there
    has never been a published Standard for VB - but calling people you
    disagree with over such things 'liars' is a bit over the top, IMNSHO.

    >I have nothing against new languages. I consider it very hostile to render a
    >customer's assets less valuable than they once were because "you" think it in their
    >best interest.


    Well, you know how I feel about that since I've responded to that point
    numerous times. But it seems that the purpose of this group is to
    continue discussing the same issues over and over again. So here goes...

    At a fundamental level the evolution of computer technology is about
    providing functionality to *end-users*. From my perspective end-users
    have been programmers who use components. My "assests" have been rendered
    worthless a number of times by Microsoft. Yet, every time that has
    happened sales of my new components have exceeded the old components -
    iow, the new assests are *more* valuable than the old ones were.

    Sure it *might* have been nice to write a bunch of VBXes and sell them
    forever - but I don't think so. VBXes were kind of klunky, requiring for
    instance an Action property since there were no methods. And parameters
    had to be passed in properties, results too. The whole thing was a bit
    primitive. MFC improved on that, but had its own problems such as huge
    dependencies. And ATL further improved on the situation by providing an
    easier way to create components and by not requiring the runtime dlls.

    Each change, VBX->MFC->ATL, has enabled me to provide more functionality
    in my components. That means that programmers using them can provide more
    functionality to their end-users, and *that* is the goal - not protecting
    your or anyone else's assets.

    Now, if .NET succeeds (and I think it will), then programmers using it are
    going to be able to provide newer and better applications to end-users.
    Whether those applications are provided by people with previous
    domain-specific experience (those with existing assets, and specifically
    knowledge-assets) or by new-comers is irrelevant to end-users - they will
    buy the programs which work best for them. Such is the nature of
    evolution and competition, imo.


    >Bad and good are subjective. Wanton destruction is not.


    Yeah, personally I like Wanton soup once in a while.


    >> But there are also the positive aspects of .net - which we both agree on -
    >> and so my question to you is this: Do you think that there are enough
    >> things on the positive side of the scale to outweigh the negatives?

    >
    >That would need to be framed from a number of perspectives. From my own, maybe.


    Of course, which is why I asked.

    >> I wonder how you can make that evaluation without more than "A bit" of
    >> experience working with the .net platform.

    >
    >Maybe leaves things rather open, long-term. I have little to no immediate interest,
    >and that's a relatively easy appraisal to arrive at.


    But then, afaik, you don't create end-user applications for the retail
    market and so - due to lack of competition - you don't have the same
    incentives to enhance the end-user experience that people in the
    commercial domain have. (I don't know exactly what you're doing these
    days or who your "customers" are. Feel free to correct me where I've
    erred in the above (yeah, I know you don't need my permission <g>))



    --
    The nice thing about standards is that
    there are so many of them to choose from.

  2. #152
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download


    "Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3b79838a.578977359@news.devx.com...
    >
    > But then, afaik, you don't create end-user applications for the retail
    > market and so - due to lack of competition - you don't have the same
    > incentives to enhance the end-user experience that people in the
    > commercial domain have.


    In nearly all problem domains that statement is indeed true, but also
    largely irrelevant.

    > (I don't know exactly what you're doing these
    > days or who your "customers" are. Feel free to correct me where I've
    > erred in the above (yeah, I know you don't need my permission <g>))


    This gets at the a key point we've been trying to get you to see for the
    past year, Zane. For YOUR problem domain - that of a component vendor - this
    ..Net, and all the other MFC->ATL et. al. sea-changes wound up being boons
    for your business (despite the discomfort of the changes). The same cannot
    necessarily be said for all other problem domains in the most common
    business scenarios that the vast majority of VB developers work within. In
    some/many<I decline to quantify due to lack of statistical backup
    information> of those problem domains, stability concerns (rightly or
    wrongly) like what Dan has been justifiably arguing about weigh far more
    heavily than do technological keeping-up-with-the-Jones' concerns <for lack
    of a better term>.

    However, these two POVs are most likely not equally represented in the
    numbers of voices speaking in those listening ears at Microsoft for the
    simple reason that people who think in the problem domains more like yours
    are statistically more likely to _want_ to communicate with Microsoft on
    future direction topics than those to whom stability concerns come more
    highly.

    So, assuming the above is anywhere near correct, of the
    "stability"/"advancement"-leaning thinkers, which, generally, is most likely
    to have their oxes gored when MS announces their latest and greatest new
    thang?
    Does MS take enough precautions to see that doesn't happen? VB's History
    seems to argue against that.



  3. #153
    Michael Bennett Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download

    In article <3b6f8172@news.devx.com>, greywolf@cts.com says...
    >
    > I know a lot of people talking about how cool it is not to have to worry
    > about signing in any more. As a developer I worry about MS's ability to keep
    > the passport servers operational, but as user I think it is a great idea.
    >
    > --
    > Jonathan Allen
    >
    >

    As both a developer and a user I worry more about MS's ability to keep
    the data secure and their willingness to keep it private.

    What is your liability if you use passport in your application and MS
    screws up.

    Michael

  4. #154
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download

    Karl,

    >Each change, VBX->MFC->ATL, has enabled me to provide more functionality
    >in my components.


    Btw, I had intended to mention that I *am* using .NET to write components
    and that the new components are - once again - better than the old ones.

    I've just about finished MIME/NET, for instance, and it takes good
    advantage of the tools .net provides. Multiple constructors make it easy
    to create messages, as in:

    MIMEMessage foo = new MIMEMessage("multipart", "alternative");

    foo.To = "yall@mabry.com";
    foo.From = "zane@mabry.com";
    foo.Date = DateTime.UtcNow.ToString();

    foo.Parts.Add(new MIMEPart("text", "plain", "Body of the message"));
    foo.Parts.Add(new MIMEPart("text", "html", "<HTML><BODY>Body of the
    message</BODY></HTML>"));

    [MIMEMessage and MIMEPart are both derived from MIMECore and support the
    same set of constructors]

    I also added on-the-fly parsing of messages as they arrive over the wire
    and a number of other features.

    Sure I *could* have done some of that (but not the multiple constructors)
    in COM using ATL - but it would have taken time and the code would have
    been gnarly.

    So, when I say that .net is better for *end-users* that's what I mean. It
    is possible for me to provide more bang-for-the-buck and consequently
    applications developers using my components can do the same. The
    *end-user* wins, and that's what technology is all about imo.


    --
    The nice thing about standards is that
    there are so many of them to choose from.

  5. #155
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download

    On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 18:59:23 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

    > foo.Date = DateTime.UtcNow.ToString();


    Yes, for the attentive, that is *not* how a MIME date should be formatted.
    I'll need to add a method which takes care of that. :-)


    --
    The nice thing about standards is that
    there are so many of them to choose from.

  6. #156
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download

    On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:51:15 -0400, "Mark Burns" <mark@nospam.iolofpa.com>
    wrote:

    >This gets at the a key point we've been trying to get you to see for the
    >past year, Zane.


    Oh, and you think that after a year I don't "get it"? That's pretty
    arrogant of you, I "get it" just fine. However it just so happens that I
    disagree with you - a point you seem to be unwilling to get.

    >For YOUR problem domain - that of a component vendor - this
    >.Net, and all the other MFC->ATL et. al. sea-changes wound up being boons
    >for your business (despite the discomfort of the changes). The same cannot
    >necessarily be said for all other problem domains in the most common
    >business scenarios that the vast majority of VB developers work within.


    Without statistics, like you, I question the truth of your assertion that
    "the vast majority of VB developers" are working in domains where an
    application is written once and is Good Forever. However I'm glad you
    raised the issue, I was expecting someone would.

    People producing applications for specific business/government users do
    not face the same sorts of competitive pressure that people providing
    vertical/horizontal applications do. However, depending upon the
    sophistication of the end-user environment, there are *still* forces which
    demand better applications.

    So I don't see *any* reason to suppose that today's VB6 applictions would
    be Good Forever, which is another reason I don't buy the "asset
    protection" line. My primary asset when moving to .NET is what I know -
    knowledge is my most important asset. The opportunity to reexpress that
    knowledge in a more powerfull and supportive programming environment seems
    like a Good Thing to me - because, as I've said, it means that *my*
    end-users get more. I would think that all developers would have their
    end-users' interests in mind, that's how assets are really protected.






    --
    The nice thing about standards is that
    there are so many of them to choose from.

  7. #157
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download

    Hi Michael --

    > As both a developer and a user I worry more about MS's ability to keep
    > the data secure and their willingness to keep it private.


    Good concerns, both. How about their ability to simply keep it accessible? IOW, do
    you think they understand how to run a server farm?

    > What is your liability if you use passport in your application and MS
    > screws up.


    You're kidding, right? I mean, you're not proposing they're liable if you happen to
    rely on them? <LOL>

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



  8. #158
    Mike Bethany Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download


    zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
    >So *** is up with these Borland guys coming over...


    Borland is brillent for giving away a personal use only copy of Delphi.
    They know there are a bunch of us VB'ers that aren't so keen on .Net and
    we'll have no problem downloading a free version that is only limited by
    the license. Where better to let VB'ers know about it than here?

    ...Plus I don't have to install some crazy beta .Framework on my system and
    risk frying my development machine.


  9. #159
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download

    Hi Zane --

    > >The point is simple, The Language Formerly Known As Visual Basic is dead. To say
    > >otherwise is a lie -- one perpetrated by the marketeers at Microsoft.

    >
    > I say otherwise and I'm neither a liar nor an MS marketeer.


    Then you're confused. The *langauge* is dead. Previous usage is not supported.

    > Obviously
    > there is subjective evaluation involved - how could it be otherwise there
    > has never been a published Standard for VB - but calling people you
    > disagree with over such things 'liars' is a bit over the top, IMNSHO.


    Calling something by a name widely recognized to apply to something else is...?

    I don't consider you a liar, but you're propogating misinformation here. The
    langauge is *not* supported in VS.NET -- this is clear from their own literature.

    > Now, if .NET succeeds (and I think it will), then programmers using it are
    > going to be able to provide newer and better applications to end-users.


    That's a matter of speculation. I know you're pondering a few broadband areas. And,
    yes, I'm sure a few new niches are going to open here and there. Some may even be
    huge. But, as a general statement, this one fails. There is nothing intrinsically
    better about an application just because it was built with a different language.

    > >Bad and good are subjective. Wanton destruction is not.

    >
    > Yeah, personally I like Wanton soup once in a while.


    <g>

    > >> I wonder how you can make that evaluation without more than "A bit" of
    > >> experience working with the .net platform.

    > >
    > >Maybe leaves things rather open, long-term. I have little to no immediate

    interest,
    > >and that's a relatively easy appraisal to arrive at.

    >
    > But then, afaik, you don't create end-user applications for the retail
    > market


    Neither do 99% of all VB users. ****, probably 99.98%, eh? (That's 600 using the
    more conservative 3 million figure.) By far, the vast majority -- nearly *all* -- VB
    users are corporate, inhouse devs. They're using VB to solve their own problems. Al
    Meadows is the rare example of someone doing retail VB work. **** rare. Ask him
    what percentage of folks at his shareware conventions are using VB vs. Delphi. His
    answer will likely be that he's the only one.

    > and so - due to lack of competition - you don't have the same
    > incentives to enhance the end-user experience that people in the
    > commercial domain have.


    Neither do most VB users. Hence the bad rap?

    > (I don't know exactly what you're doing these
    > days or who your "customers" are. Feel free to correct me where I've
    > erred in the above (yeah, I know you don't need my permission <g>))


    <bg>

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



  10. #160
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download

    Hi Zane --

    > >Each change, VBX->MFC->ATL, has enabled me to provide more functionality
    > >in my components.

    >
    > Btw, I had intended to mention that I *am* using .NET to write components
    > and that the new components are - once again - better than the old ones.
    >
    > I've just about finished MIME/NET, for instance, and it takes good
    > advantage of the tools .net provides. Multiple constructors make it easy
    > to create messages, as in:


    Brings to mind that old advertising adage, "No one ever went broke underestimating
    the intelligence of the average amerikan." <g> Methinks it's just possible you're
    overestimating your potential audience, and their willingness to go that route.

    > foo.Date = DateTime.UtcNow.ToString();


    Hey! Whazzup there? <g>

    > So, when I say that .net is better for *end-users* that's what I mean. It
    > is possible for me to provide more bang-for-the-buck and consequently
    > applications developers using my components can do the same. The
    > *end-user* wins, and that's what technology is all about imo.


    I don't see it. I can grok what you're up to, there, but I just don't see it.
    <shaking head>

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



  11. #161
    Mark Burns Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download


    "Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3b7c9436.583245343@news.devx.com...
    > >For YOUR problem domain - that of a component vendor - this
    > >.Net, and all the other MFC->ATL et. al. sea-changes wound up being boons
    > >for your business (despite the discomfort of the changes). The same

    cannot
    > >necessarily be said for all other problem domains in the most common
    > >business scenarios that the vast majority of VB developers work within.

    >
    > Without statistics, like you, I question the truth of your assertion that
    > "the vast majority of VB developers" are working in domains where an
    > application is written once and is Good Forever. However I'm glad you
    > raised the issue, I was expecting someone would.


    Whoa fella! ***? Where did this "Good Forever" line come from? Not I! ...or
    are you just practicing your typical bait-and-switch-with-hyperbole debate
    tactic on me here? ...oh, and selective <mis>quoting too, I see.
    I said that the vast majority of VB developers work within the most common
    business scenarios, I did not say what you just said. I left open the
    question of what proportion of these most common business problem domains
    were more-or-less stability-prone than others.

    Even the most ardent stability fan <Cue: Dan> will certainly agree that
    there's a difference between petrification and stability.

    Stability infers continuity over a period of time <an extended period of
    time, that is>, but that period of time is certainly way short of "forever".
    You knew that's what was meant, too.

    > People producing applications for specific business/government users do
    > not face the same sorts of competitive pressure that people providing
    > vertical/horizontal applications do. However, depending upon the
    > sophistication of the end-user environment, there are *still* forces which
    > demand better applications.


    I never said there weren't forces that push towards improvement/change -
    even in "stability-prone" problem domains. I was saying that the balance on
    the stability-vs-change scale was different/reversed in those domains, which
    implies that those changes happen much more gradually within those
    systems/domains, and dramatic "sea change" events are generally avoided as
    much as possible.

    > So I don't see *any* reason to suppose that today's VB6 applictions would
    > be Good Forever, which is another reason I don't buy the "asset
    > protection" line. My primary asset when moving to .NET is what I know -
    > knowledge is my most important asset.


    That's fine for YOU, based on your niche/market. For other businesses, their
    primary asset value is in the SYSTEM and business logic they have
    painstakingly and expensively assembled in code over time, not in the
    CompSci knowledgebase their software people carry around in their heads <a
    mere comodity, to them>.
    The in-place systems expressing their business logic is what they intend to
    BE "Good Forever" until they ****-well decide to change things based on
    their needs and their timing.

    > The opportunity to reexpress that knowledge in a more powerfull and

    supportive programming
    > environment seems like a Good Thing to me - because, as I've said, it

    means that *my*
    > end-users get more. I would think that all developers would have their
    > end-users' interests in mind, that's how assets are really protected.


    For YOU those new capabilities are the asset and what you sell. For others,
    it isn't the code or new capabilities, but what that code expresses in terms
    of business logic and developed systems of doing what they do as efficiently
    as possible. When anybody come along and forces change (read: expense) upon
    them to keep enjoying that which they've painstakingly built already, they
    react not with joy and excited anticipation.

    In short, from my perspective, you're concerned with that new, better Lego
    block thingie, others don't much care about those new Lego blocks, they're
    much more concerned with the house they've built with the old Legos. If the
    new Legos fit in with their house and improve their value picture, Great!
    bring them on!
    ....but if the new Lego's require re-doing the foundation that house sits
    on...that's a whole different kettle of fish.



  12. #162
    Ian R Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download


    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:3b719da0$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > That's a matter of speculation. I know you're pondering a few broadband

    areas. And,
    > yes, I'm sure a few new niches are going to open here and there. Some may

    even be
    > huge. But, as a general statement, this one fails. There is nothing

    intrinsically
    > better about an application just because it was built with a different

    language.
    >


    Not directly no, but you can provide a better end application easier with
    better tools.
    Whether or not that's done is up to us developers.

    >
    > Neither do 99% of all VB users. ****, probably 99.98%, eh? (That's 600

    using the
    > more conservative 3 million figure.) By far, the vast majority -- nearly

    *all* -- VB
    > users are corporate, inhouse devs. They're using VB to solve their own

    problems. Al

    I wouldn't say a vast majority. A good percentage yes. For example in the
    security industry you'll find the majority of the front ends done in VB with
    most of the rest in Delphi.
    Most of the corporations I've worked with or dealt with seem to have an
    application life of around 2 to 3 years. Poor initial design, rapidly
    changing business needs and staff change overs seem to the major
    contributors, but the end result is the same. The only exception that I know
    of to this seems to be the banking industry.

    > Meadows is the rare example of someone doing retail VB work. **** rare.

    Ask him
    > what percentage of folks at his shareware conventions are using VB vs.

    Delphi. His
    > answer will likely be that he's the only one.
    >


    FTD and Daisy are still producing their retail software in PDS. The business
    bureau in Canada is using a system done in VB3. A couple of the banks over
    here are using a VB front end for their ATM machines. The transport ministry
    uses a VB front end for the written driver's exam. There are 2 major voter
    management systems being used (and I use the term loosely ... grin..) by our
    government and opposition. One in VB and the other in Delphi.

    > > and so - due to lack of competition - you don't have the same
    > > incentives to enhance the end-user experience that people in the
    > > commercial domain have.

    >
    > Neither do most VB users. Hence the bad rap?
    >


    I think the bad rep for VB comes from the fact that a good percentage of
    apps done in VB aren't done by knowledgeable developers and they don't have
    a clue about good design and coding. There are some downsides to extremely
    rapid application developement.




  13. #163
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download

    Karl,

    >> I say otherwise and I'm neither a liar nor an MS marketeer.

    >
    >Then you're confused.


    That really isn't necessary Karl.


    >The *langauge* is dead. Previous usage is not supported.


    According to you ... again, that's subjective and calling other people
    liars or confused because they don't agree with you doesn't accomplish
    anything.

    >I don't consider you a liar, but you're propogating misinformation here.


    Bullshit - I'm propogating my view of the situation. I assume, that at
    least when talking with you, I can express my pov without without being
    subjected to ad hominem remarks or other sorts of devices which fail to
    address the point, which is again: that there's a diversity of opinion on
    whether vb.net is Real VB or not.

    >> Now, if .NET succeeds (and I think it will), then programmers using it are
    >> going to be able to provide newer and better applications to end-users.

    >
    >That's a matter of speculation.


    Assuming, arguendo, the success of .net I don't think there's much room
    for speculation there. The .net platform *does* provide a more powerfull
    platform for building applications than Windows+VB6+Components&Etc.

    >I know you're pondering a few broadband areas.


    I'm well beyond the pondering stage.

    >But, as a general statement, this one fails.


    Gotta love those self-referential statements. :-)

    >There is nothing intrinsically
    >better about an application just because it was built with a different language.


    I never said there was. What I did say was that the entire
    platform+base-classes+languages provides the ability to create better
    applications for an given number of development dollars.

    >> >Bad and good are subjective. Wanton destruction is not.

    >>
    >> Yeah, personally I like Wanton soup once in a while.

    >
    ><g>


    Hey, stir it up and ya never know what's going to float to the top.

    >> But then, afaik, you don't create end-user applications for the retail
    >> market

    >
    >Neither do 99% of all VB users. ****, probably 99.98%, eh? (That's 600 using the
    >more conservative 3 million figure.) By far, the vast majority -- nearly *all* -- VB
    >users are corporate, inhouse devs.


    I knew we'd get here. <g> My claim is that nearly everyone writing VB
    apps has end-users other than themselves. Whether those end-users can
    exert pressure to get required functionality is a different issue.

    [It's kind of funny to see large corporations - which chant the Free
    Market Mantra - are unable to create internal competition which would
    presumably, according to the standard dogma of competition, result in
    better applications at a lower cost.]


    >They're using VB to solve their own problems.


    Unless I'm mistaken that's what *you* do. You write GIS apps which are
    used within the county government for whatever they use them for. Right?
    So your "customers" are the people who use your apps (or the maps your
    apps create) - I guess that's right again?

    So, the question is: What's the best tool for you to use to provide the
    best apps you can over the next N years? You can answer that question for
    yourself, and you can tell others how you arrived at the answer you
    arrived at, but you cannot tell other people they are confused or liars
    for choosing other approaches and explaining *their* reasoning.


    --
    The nice thing about standards is that
    there are so many of them to choose from.

  14. #164
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download


    > I mean, how can it be that there's a code conversion wizard to
    > Delphi that's infinitely more capable than the one to VFred? That's just

    pathetic,
    > isn't it?


    ..NET platform vs Win32 platform. In any case the wizard isn't finished
    yet...

    Personally, I don't expect a miracle cure wizard. We're all gonna have to do
    some upgrade work...

    Kunle



  15. #165
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Delphi 6 Personal available for Download

    Hi Zane --

    > >> I say otherwise and I'm neither a liar nor an MS marketeer.

    > >
    > >Then you're confused.

    >
    > That really isn't necessary Karl.


    I'm sorry, it's not meant as harsh as it sounds. I really don't think you understand
    what I'm saying, and it could very well be my fault for not saying it clearly enough.

    > >The *langauge* is dead. Previous usage is not supported.

    >
    > According to you ... again,


    No. According to Microsoft. http://www.mvps.org/vb/rants/VBTransition2.doc

    > that's subjective and calling other people
    > liars or confused because they don't agree with you doesn't accomplish
    > anything.


    -> "Previous usage is not supported." <-

    > >I don't consider you a liar, but you're propogating misinformation here.

    >
    > Bullshit - I'm propogating my view of the situation. I assume, that at
    > least when talking with you, I can express my pov without without being
    > subjected to ad hominem remarks or other sorts of devices which fail to
    > address the point, which is again: that there's a diversity of opinion on
    > whether vb.net is Real VB or not.


    I grant you your last point, but I definitely disagree with you on what I hear you
    implying to be the extent of that diversity. There seems to be extraordinary
    agreement with the notion that VFred is not VB. Really, the only ones I've had
    contact with who don't hold that opinion use other tools principally and
    historically. Your experience may have varied, no doubt.

    > >> Now, if .NET succeeds (and I think it will), then programmers using it are
    > >> going to be able to provide newer and better applications to end-users.

    > >
    > >That's a matter of speculation.

    >
    > Assuming, arguendo, the success of .net I don't think there's much room
    > for speculation there. The .net platform *does* provide a more powerfull
    > platform for building applications than Windows+VB6+Components&Etc.


    Subjective. <g>

    > >I know you're pondering a few broadband areas.

    >
    > I'm well beyond the pondering stage.


    Didn't want to speak for you. <g>

    > >But, as a general statement, this one fails.

    >
    > Gotta love those self-referential statements. :-)


    Heheheh...

    > >There is nothing intrinsically
    > >better about an application just because it was built with a different language.

    >
    > I never said there was. What I did say was that the entire
    > platform+base-classes+languages provides the ability to create better
    > applications for an given number of development dollars.


    Possibly. All other things being equal. (You see the problem there, right?)

    > >> >Bad and good are subjective. Wanton destruction is not.
    > >>
    > >> Yeah, personally I like Wanton soup once in a while.

    > >
    > ><g>

    >
    > Hey, stir it up and ya never know what's going to float to the top.


    LOL

    > >> But then, afaik, you don't create end-user applications for the retail
    > >> market

    > >
    > >Neither do 99% of all VB users. ****, probably 99.98%, eh? (That's 600 using the
    > >more conservative 3 million figure.) By far, the vast majority -- nearly *all* --

    VB
    > >users are corporate, inhouse devs.

    >
    > I knew we'd get here. <g> My claim is that nearly everyone writing VB
    > apps has end-users other than themselves.


    That, I'll agree with.

    > Whether those end-users can
    > exert pressure to get required functionality is a different issue.


    Didn't someone here express the notion of an "internal customer" being a joke,
    recently?

    > [It's kind of funny to see large corporations - which chant the Free
    > Market Mantra - are unable to create internal competition which would
    > presumably, according to the standard dogma of competition, result in
    > better applications at a lower cost.]


    Dilbert at work, yep. Or, more apropos, Wally. <g>

    > >They're using VB to solve their own problems.

    >
    > Unless I'm mistaken that's what *you* do. You write GIS apps which are
    > used within the county government for whatever they use them for. Right?
    > So your "customers" are the people who use your apps (or the maps your
    > apps create) - I guess that's right again?


    No, I have "internal customers" too.

    > So, the question is: What's the best tool for you to use to provide the
    > best apps you can over the next N years? You can answer that question for
    > yourself, and you can tell others how you arrived at the answer you
    > arrived at, but you cannot tell other people they are confused or liars
    > for choosing other approaches and explaining *their* reasoning.


    That, I didn't do. Your *for* clause there is entirely offbase.

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



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