Delphi 6 Personal available for Download

[Zane Thomas]

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.

[Mark Burns]

"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.

[Michael Bennett]

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

[Zane Thomas]

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.

[Zane Thomas]

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.

[Zane Thomas]

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.

[Karl E. Peterson]

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

[Mike Bethany]

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.

[Karl E. Peterson]

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

[Karl E. Peterson]

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

[Mark Burns]

"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.

[Ian R]

"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.

[Zane Thomas]

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.

[Kunle Odutola]

> 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

[Karl E. Peterson]

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