Brain Washing

[Ian R]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b9205ff.8840258@news.devx.com...
>
> Totally agree. Fact is, I never used to call MS stupid. I always
> thought the sun shone out of their collective ***, but times have
> changed. The way they have screwed over classic VB and its
> millions-strong following just shows they don't give a tuppeny ****
> for their customers.
>

How have they screwed over "Classic VB" Mike ? They haven't touched it.

> However, if they ate a morsel of crow and backed down on the
> VB6/VB.NET issues, I would maybe start liking them again.
>

It would be nice for a change if you'd state exactly what issues it is you
have with .NET instead of day afer day spewing the same old crap.

[Ian R]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b920709.9106201@news.devx.com...
>
> Well, I do. Call it whining, call it whingeing, call it what ever you

More like spewing.

> like, but don't come to me the next time your insurance company
> refuses to pay out, or Microsoft revamps VB.NET, or you get bitten in
> some other way.

I won't.

[Ted]

>However, if they ate a morsel of crow and backed down on the
>VB6/VB.NET issues, I would maybe start liking them again.

Holy ****, somebody get on the phone with Bill and let him know that Mike
will come back!!! Mike will save us from that bad, bad .NET.

[Gary Nelson]

Dan,

> Now, it's not clear what is "forward" yet. We're looking at .net and
> other avenues... we also looked (but didn't bite) on OS/2.
>
> Thought it isn't clear whether we'll be moving to .net, it does look
> like VB.net is a dangerous place to put your code assets.


We are watching and waiting, just as we did with OS/2. I never could figure
out what went wrong with OS/2, I would have thought that IBM knew better,
and at one point I was almost sure it would be a success (when Warp came
out), but on the other hand, I never wasted a minute on it.

I don't see any immanent danger in doing the same with .NET. If it
succeeds, the latecommers (like me) should not have a problem jumping on, as
it is not nearly as large a platform shift as MSDOS to Windows. On the
other hand, we will have avoided wasting our precious time.

Gary

[Dan Barclay]

On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 10:17:57 -0400, "Richard Curzon"
<rcurzon@spamcop.net> wrote:

>Well maybe this is a more acceptable viewpoint, even if you agree to
>disagree.
>
>
>(A) VB.net could have hidden the .net framework details, padded everything
>in the framework over so it looks pretty much like VB6. At least from
>inside the special padded IDE.

Maybe I haven't been clear. No need to "hide" the framework at all.
The point is *forward* compatibility of the language. They can
implement the language behavior without affecting the framework
they've exposed.

>Simulating VB6 within dotnot would be akin to:

Nope. MS Basic has, in the past, not prevented me from doing pretty
much anything I wanted to do.

>Other dotnet languages put the programmer is in the driver's seat. In VB,
>the programmer is tied up in the trunk. <g>. Okay, let's say he's on the
>holodeck simulating that he's in VB6, and burning inefficient chunks of
>computing resources to twist reality and preserve the illusion.
>
>Note: this might hide syntax changes (aka "improvements") effectively. Is
>that all there is? I think not....

The idea isn't to remove improvements, but to re-implement existing
syntax so that existing code will still work. I do *not* wish to
block new code or techniques from working.

>
>OR......
>
>(B) or the obvious, best solution: two Basics from MS.
>
>** Give us a REAL dot net language, call it BASIC.NET. Let it even create
>generic types in V2, why not?

Why not? Because they say they don't have the resources to implement
what's needed in the existing framework. Not much chance of another
branch being created. Good idea, I just don't see it.

Dan
Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)

[Dan Barclay]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2001 09:07:15 +0100, "Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es>
wrote:

>Dan,
>
>> Now, it's not clear what is "forward" yet. We're looking at .net and
>> other avenues... we also looked (but didn't bite) on OS/2.
>>
>> Thought it isn't clear whether we'll be moving to .net, it does look
>> like VB.net is a dangerous place to put your code assets.
>
>
>We are watching and waiting, just as we did with OS/2. I never could figure
>out what went wrong with OS/2, I would have thought that IBM knew better,
>and at one point I was almost sure it would be a success (when Warp came
>out), but on the other hand, I never wasted a minute on it.

Users matter. It's a snowball, and it had to reach critical mass to
work. Never did.

>I don't see any immanent danger in doing the same with .NET.

Way too early to tell.

> If it
>succeeds, the latecommers (like me) should not have a problem jumping on, as
>it is not nearly as large a platform shift as MSDOS to Windows. On the
>other hand, we will have avoided wasting our precious time.

It's not a waste of time to explore future options. We're looking at
other languages as a home for our code. Since VB is now changed at
the whim of MS it's not safe for our apps. Secondarily we're looking
at platforms (too far out to be of immediate need).

Applications are what matter, that's what the users need and pay for.
The rest is delivery.

Dan
Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)

[Cali LaFollett]

"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message
news:tkq7ptol5iia6ndjl9lbqfc6aaf1bmr35o@4ax.com...
<cut>
> It's not a waste of time to explore future options. We're looking at
> other languages as a home for our code. Since VB is now changed at
> the whim of MS it's not safe for our apps. Secondarily we're looking
> at platforms (too far out to be of immediate need).
</cut>


Dan,

If you don't mind me asking, what languages have you been considering?

Also, I am assuming that the term platform in this context refers to OSes?
Definitely a few choices there. Can't beat the $ costs either! :-) Although
the redevelopment and learning curve cost could be a pain. :-(

--
Regards,
Cal

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message <news:tkq7ptol5iia6ndjl9lbqfc6aaf1bmr35o@4ax.com>...

> On Mon, 3 Sep 2001 09:07:15 +0100, "Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es>
> wrote:

> >We are watching and waiting, just as we did with OS/2. I never could figure
> >out what went wrong with OS/2, I would have thought that IBM knew better,
> >and at one point I was almost sure it would be a success (when Warp came
> >out), but on the other hand, I never wasted a minute on it.
>
> Users matter. It's a snowball, and it had to reach critical mass to
> work. Never did.

I don't remember any compelling apps for OS/2 which were not also
available for Windows. No "killer apps", no users. Where was
OS/2's VisiCalc or Visual Basic? OTOH, perhaps OS/2 was always
doomed, if this is still IBM's idea of usability:

"Tip of the Day
Monday, September 03, 2001
To change the name of a file without having to go to the Properties
Notebook every time, hold down Alt when you left click the icon, or
press Shift-F9 with the focus on the icon. Esc aborts, Enter shifts
to a new line, and Ctrl-Shift-Enter or clicking outside the box
saves the new name." -- http://www.os2ss.com/ (keep scrolling!)

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> 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!

[Gary Nelson]

Dan,

> >We are watching and waiting, just as we did with OS/2. I never could
figure
> >out what went wrong with OS/2, I would have thought that IBM knew better,
> >and at one point I was almost sure it would be a success (when Warp came
> >out), but on the other hand, I never wasted a minute on it.
>
> Users matter. It's a snowball, and it had to reach critical mass to
> work. Never did.
>

Actually, as Joe mentions, I think Visual Basic was a key. Windows had an
easy way to create programs and OS/2 didn't.

> It's not a waste of time to explore future options. We're looking at
> other languages as a home for our code. Since VB is now changed at
> the whim of MS it's not safe for our apps. Secondarily we're looking
> at platforms (too far out to be of immediate need).

It depends on how much time you have available to explore. I'm rather
limited, so I'll watch from a distance to see how things shake out.

> Applications are what matter, that's what the users need and pay for.
> The rest is delivery.

And they need them now, not two years from now.

Gary

[Dan Barclay]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2001 18:41:45 -0400, "Cali LaFollett"
<cali@No-Spam-Please-visionized.com> wrote:

>"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message
>news:tkq7ptol5iia6ndjl9lbqfc6aaf1bmr35o@4ax.com...
><cut>
>> It's not a waste of time to explore future options. We're looking at
>> other languages as a home for our code. Since VB is now changed at
>> the whim of MS it's not safe for our apps. Secondarily we're looking
>> at platforms (too far out to be of immediate need).
></cut>
>
>
>Dan,
>
>If you don't mind me asking, what languages have you been considering?

Looking at lots of things. Delphi gives us the ability to do Linux
stuff using Kylix. There is also a VB converter that's beginning to
work fairly well. See http://www.deluxsoftware.com/

Also considering C++ and C# if dotnet catches on and we need to go
there.

>Also, I am assuming that the term platform in this context refers to OSes?
>Definitely a few choices there. Can't beat the $ costs either! :-) Although
>the redevelopment and learning curve cost could be a pain. :-(

Re: platforms, I include OS's (including dotnet <g>). Yes, as we
learn more about Delphi/Kylix we're beginning to see some real
advantage in doing server portions on Linux. I'd much rather
customers spend their money on applications than OS's <g>. There is
something to be said for an OS/machine cheap enough to dedicate to a
specific serverapp.

But, no permanent moves yet. Like I said, it's *way* too early in the
game. This is the first time in a long time we've even put much
thought into other options. Until now it's been easy just to follow
MS and even lead customers into new platforms.

Dan
Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)

[Dan Barclay]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:32:04 +0100, "Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es>
wrote:

>Dan,
>
>> >We are watching and waiting, just as we did with OS/2. I never could
>figure
>> >out what went wrong with OS/2, I would have thought that IBM knew better,
>> >and at one point I was almost sure it would be a success (when Warp came
>> >out), but on the other hand, I never wasted a minute on it.
>>
>> Users matter. It's a snowball, and it had to reach critical mass to
>> work. Never did.
>>
>
>Actually, as Joe mentions, I think Visual Basic was a key. Windows had an
>easy way to create programs and OS/2 didn't.

I agree. Not only was it easy to program in VB, developers could take
*existing DOS apps* and get them up very quickly with little effort on
the code end. It led to a flood of apps for Win.

>> It's not a waste of time to explore future options. We're looking at
>> other languages as a home for our code. Since VB is now changed at
>> the whim of MS it's not safe for our apps. Secondarily we're looking
>> at platforms (too far out to be of immediate need).
>
>It depends on how much time you have available to explore. I'm rather
>limited, so I'll watch from a distance to see how things shake out.

You don't have to bury yourself permanently in the effort, but I would
suggest you spend a few days here and there on it. What's good for me
(or someone else) may not be good for you.

>> Applications are what matter, that's what the users need and pay for.
>> The rest is delivery.
>
>And they need them now, not two years from now.

Yup. Strangely enough, we'll probably have Kylix versions of our
server software up before we have dotnet. It is simply too hard to
convert VB to VB.net.

It would seem to me that MS would have placed a very high priority on
migration of existing apps to flood the dotnet appspace. Didn't
happen.

Dan

Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)

[Cal LaFollett]

> Looking at lots of things. Delphi gives us the ability to do Linux
> stuff using Kylix. There is also a VB converter that's beginning to
> work fairly well. See http://www.deluxsoftware.com/

Yes, I think I had seen somewhere earlier where you (or someone else) had
mentioned this converter. I went and checked out that site over the weekend.
Looks pretty interesting. I have been working in Delphi for a bit now and
just purchased Kylix a month ago. Would be nice to be able to take some of
my VB apps and port them failry easily with the converter.

> Re: platforms, I include OS's (including dotnet <g>). Yes, as we
> learn more about Delphi/Kylix we're beginning to see some real
> advantage in doing server portions on Linux. I'd much rather
> customers spend their money on applications than OS's <g>. There is
> something to be said for an OS/machine cheap enough to dedicate to a
> specific serverapp.

Absolutely agree with you. Actually, there was an article on Anandtech
(http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1527&p=1) that covred such a
topic. Rather interesting read. It would definitely be nice to see those
companies have the ability to spend more money in a productive manner vs.
liscenses for OSes.

Cal

[Patrick Steele]

In article <aa3apt8j99k494npj2p5l8udrtite5gt5o@4ax.com> (from Dan
Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org>),
> Strangely enough, we'll probably have Kylix versions of our
> server software up before we have dotnet. It is simply too hard to
> convert VB to VB.net.

Has the transition from VB to Delphi been easy (in terms of syntax,
built-in functions, etc..)?

--
Patrick Steele

[Cal LaFollett]

> Has the transition from VB to Delphi been easy (in terms of syntax,
> built-in functions, etc..)?

Patrick,

I can't speak for Dan but I was able to get up to speed in Delphi in about a
month (in my spare time even) and I have a VB back ground. Of course that
doesn't cover everything Delphi has to offer but I had a very good foot hold
of the language syntax and how to use it. Borland's VCL (Visual Component
Library) is very robust and fairly well documented. The thing that I like
about it too is that you get the SOURCE CODE for the VCL if you purchase
Professional or Enterprise. This is typical of most components you by for
Delphi, Kylix or C++ Builder. Makes for a great learning tool.

Cal

[Dan Barclay]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 13:37:14 -0400, "Cal LaFollett"
<cali@no-spam-please-visionized.com> wrote:

>> Looking at lots of things. Delphi gives us the ability to do Linux
>> stuff using Kylix. There is also a VB converter that's beginning to
>> work fairly well. See http://www.deluxsoftware.com/
>
>Yes, I think I had seen somewhere earlier where you (or someone else) had
>mentioned this converter. I went and checked out that site over the weekend.
>Looks pretty interesting. I have been working in Delphi for a bit now and
>just purchased Kylix a month ago. Would be nice to be able to take some of
>my VB apps and port them failry easily with the converter.

I think it's getting there. One guy here is working with them to get
the conversions right using our code base (around 3 megs). They've
come a *long* way... still a ways to go for what we need but it's
looking good.

FWIW, "right" for us means being able to designate core modules and
have them convert by rote so we can keep parallel code ("source" in
VBClassic). That's where they need to be, and they appear very
interested in getting there. To do real conversions on existing
(supported) apps means you'll parallel the code for a *minimum* of a
year and likely longer.

We've done conversion before with completely parallel code. The
process that works goes something like:

1. Converter that will convert nearly all your code "as is".
2. Make minor modifications in your original source so that (1)
will work.
3. Where 1,2 won't work, create a preprocessor/macro that will let
you imbed change instructions in the original source and still have it
work in the original environment.

Their original process was targeted at 1,(2). They've made a lot of
progress on that and are working with us on (3). Soon we'll be back
on (1) for more cleanup I think.

Even if you don't have existing apps, using something like this looks
like it will be a good way to "learn" the new environment.

>> Re: platforms, I include OS's (including dotnet <g>). Yes, as we
>> learn more about Delphi/Kylix we're beginning to see some real
>> advantage in doing server portions on Linux. I'd much rather
>> customers spend their money on applications than OS's <g>. There is
>> something to be said for an OS/machine cheap enough to dedicate to a
>> specific serverapp.
>
>Absolutely agree with you. Actually, there was an article on Anandtech
>(http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1527&p=1) that covred such a
>topic. Rather interesting read.

Yea, common sense isn't always so common <g>.

>It would definitely be nice to see those
>companies have the ability to spend more money in a productive manner vs.
>liscenses for OSes.

Yes, and we'd like to help them with that <vbg>.

Dan

Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)