Brain Washing - Page 9


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 153

Thread: Brain Washing

  1. #121
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 21:55:20 GMT, kylix_is@hotmail.com (Mike Mitchell)
    wrote:

    >But
    >I would have thought my argument was plain for anyone to see by now,
    >since I have been advancing it most every day since January. And that
    >is, that I fundamentally reject VB.NET in any shape or form as a
    >replacement for classic Visual Basic.


    That's not an argument, that's a pronouncement. There is a difference.


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

  2. #122
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 20:52:38 -0400, "Mark Jerde"
    <jerde@sanspamcompuserve.com> wrote:

    >> I fundamentally reject VB.NET in any shape or form as a
    >> replacement for classic Visual Basic.

    >
    >Isn't there room in the world for both?
    >


    Absolutely! I could find nothing to gripe about IF Microsoft had
    released the whole VB.NET caboodle as a separate strand from classic
    VB and kept classic VB and continued to maintain and develop it
    completely separately. While I appreciate that some developers will
    want to develop web services (whatever they actually are), a huge
    number of devs and their clients will NOT want to. But THEIR choice is
    being taken away from them. For a huge number of devs previously
    steeped in ten years of classic VB, knowing it backwards, forwards and
    sideways, there is now just an enormous Berlin wall suddenly errected
    overnight by the Microsoft Stasi, and you have to climb the wall and
    join their laager or learn another language and maybe another
    platform. That is the stark choice facing most VB devs today.

    On the other hand, this could be for some the ideal opportunity for
    getting out of the Microsoft rut and into the wider world of
    computing, using a myriad of products from different suppliers. That
    way, if one of those suppliers screws you over (e.g. by obsoleting
    your main development tool that has been keeping you and your familily
    fed and watered), you're not going to have nearly so much a problem
    finding a replacement.

    MM

  3. #123
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 01:23:06 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

    >On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 21:55:20 GMT, kylix_is@hotmail.com (Mike Mitchell)
    >wrote:
    >
    >>But
    >>I would have thought my argument was plain for anyone to see by now,
    >>since I have been advancing it most every day since January. And that
    >>is, that I fundamentally reject VB.NET in any shape or form as a
    >>replacement for classic Visual Basic.

    >
    >That's not an argument, that's a pronouncement. There is a difference.
    >


    Okay, here's the thing: You take my pronouncement and argue against
    it. Ergo, we have an argument. Now it's my argument as much as yours.

    By the way, just so that people don't think I'm making it all up,
    here's what the revered Tom Button at Microsoft said, ooh, ten years
    ago*: "Ours is an evolutionary approach, not a revolutionary approach
    that suddenly makes old software obsolete." Sounds like another
    pronouncement to me. Doesn't it to you?

    MM

    *BASICPro Guest Opinion, May/June 1992

  4. #124
    Ian R Guest

    Re: Brain Washing


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3b99e1d4.1402089@news.devx.com...
    >
    > Okay, here's the thing: You take my pronouncement and argue against
    > it. Ergo, we have an argument. Now it's my argument as much as yours.
    >


    I think the point that was being made Mike (at least from my side) is not
    that anyone has anything against you for liking or disliking .NET but that
    you keep making statements not based on actual facts or experience. You may
    or may not like Microsoft, you may or may not like the direction .NET is
    going, but to make off the wall claims that are inaccurate (at least with
    regards to VB.NET and the framework) simply doesn't make sense (at least not
    to me). The language is essentially the same plus there are some vast
    improvements. For example the new Forms package is completely superior to
    the old one (docking,
    anchoring,autoscaling,autoscrolling,transparency,regions,mdi,window
    procedure .. the list goes on) yet is still similar to the old one. For
    those of us who need it, we now have a pretty good OOP language, we now have
    threading, we now have a pretty good framework library to back us up etc...
    If you don't need these features, then you don't use them. With a couple of
    exceptions you can still write VB6 style code. You claim that there are too
    many changes, yet you go out and jump on the Delphi bandwagon ?



  5. #125
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    > But THEIR choice is
    > being taken away from them. For a huge number of devs previously
    > steeped in ten years of classic VB, knowing it backwards, forwards and
    > sideways, there is now just an enormous Berlin wall suddenly errected
    > overnight by the Microsoft Stasi, and you have to climb the wall and
    > join their laager or learn another language and maybe another
    > platform. That is the stark choice facing most VB devs today.


    In my case, the size of the change caused me to subscribe to a Linux
    magazine, investigate open source, download & use StarOffice, & look
    into Delphi.

    10 years from now, MS may look back on .NET like IBM looks back on
    Microchannel Architecture: "We were not as dominant as we thought we
    were."

    Given what MS did to Netscape by giving away IE, why would MS be against
    open source? <G>

    -- Mark



  6. #126
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 09:21:06 GMT, kylix_is@hotmail.com (Mike Mitchell)
    wrote:

    >Okay, here's the thing: You take my pronouncement and argue against
    >it.


    No thanks, I prefer the sort of argument where there's reason on both
    sides.


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

  7. #127
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 11:56:58 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

    >On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 09:21:06 GMT, kylix_is@hotmail.com (Mike Mitchell)
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Okay, here's the thing: You take my pronouncement and argue against
    >>it.

    >
    >No thanks, I prefer the sort of argument where there's reason on both
    >sides.


    Well, okay...I'm waiting!

    MM

  8. #128
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 06:16:27 -0400, "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote:

    >
    >"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:3b99e1d4.1402089@news.devx.com...
    >>
    >> Okay, here's the thing: You take my pronouncement and argue against
    >> it. Ergo, we have an argument. Now it's my argument as much as yours.
    >>

    >
    >I think the point that was being made Mike (at least from my side) is not
    >that anyone has anything against you for liking or disliking .NET but that
    >you keep making statements not based on actual facts or experience.


    What statements have I made criticising .NET (more specifically,
    VB.NET) that you believe are wrong?

    > You may
    >or may not like Microsoft, you may or may not like the direction .NET is
    >going, but to make off the wall claims that are inaccurate (at least with
    >regards to VB.NET and the framework) simply doesn't make sense (at least not
    >to me). The language is essentially the same plus there are some vast
    >improvements.


    No, the language is most definitely NOT essentially the same! This is
    where we will, I fear, never agree. I have by now read several books
    and other articles about VB.NET and it is but a distant cousin to real
    VB. And I'm sorry if my use of "real" there gets your goat because by
    implication that makes it look as if I am putting down VB.NET, well,
    I'm sorry, but that is EXACTLY how I do see it. Classic VB is the
    "real" Visual Basic and VB.NET is a Basic-like version of C#.

    > For example the new Forms package is completely superior to
    >the old one (docking,
    >anchoring,autoscaling,autoscrolling,transparency,regions,mdi,window
    >procedure .. the list goes on) yet is still similar to the old one. For
    >those of us who need it, we now have a pretty good OOP language, we now have
    >threading, we now have a pretty good framework library to back us up etc...
    >If you don't need these features, then you don't use them. With a couple of
    >exceptions you can still write VB6 style code. You claim that there are too
    >many changes, yet you go out and jump on the Delphi bandwagon ?


    Are you seriously suggesting that VB.NET is as good or as efficient an
    approach for quick, small apps at which classic VB excelled? Fire up
    classic VB, add controls, write some code, compile to an .Exe and give
    to someone to use? Because to do that kind of thing with VB.NET you
    first have to make sure that someone has

    (a) a PC that is hardware-wise capable of running the .NET framework
    (b) that has the .NET framework installed, or
    (c) if not already installed, can it *be* installed without any
    possible interference with what is already running on that PC?

    Although producing the VB.NET-equivalent app might be as trivial as
    the classic VB original (though I guess classic VB is inherently
    easier to program in), when it comes to deployment, you have
    potentially a huge mountain to climb.

    MM

  9. #129
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote in message <news:3b99f0b7@news.devx.com>...

    > If you don't need these features, then you don't use them. With a couple of
    > exceptions you can still write VB6 style code. You claim that there are too
    > many changes, yet you go out and jump on the Delphi bandwagon ?


    Why the **** not, if he would have to rewrite everything anyway, even
    if he stayed with TEOVBAWKI.NET? Perhaps Borland has learned from
    Netscape's "rewrite it all" debacle, even if Microsoft appears too
    arrogant by far to learn a damned thing from others' mistakes.

    --
    Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> "Regged" again? <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!



  10. #130
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    "Mark Jerde" <jerde@sanspamcompuserve.com> wrote in message <news:3b996b11@news.devx.com>...

    > > I fundamentally reject VB.NET in any shape or form as a
    > > replacement for classic Visual Basic.

    >
    > Isn't there room in the world for both?


    Absolutely not, judging by what happened to VB7. It would have distracted
    too many of us sheep from the new new Microsoft Marketecture which, unlike
    COM, really will be a stable platform upon which to build the "enterprise
    software" architecture of tomorrow. Unlike Windows DNA, .NET really will
    still be around by the time we finish redesigning and rewriting our world.
    Really! Trust us. Resistance is futile.

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



  11. #131
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    "Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message <news:3ba15031.59416296@news.devx.com>...

    > On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 21:07:49 GMT, kylix_is@hotmail.com (Mike Mitchell)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Remember tha crack from Zane about screwing my own sister?

    >
    > Remember that it was in an attempt to point out to you the fallacy in your
    > logic and was no different than "When did you stop beating your wife?"?


    As, no doubt, were "**** off mikee", "stf up", and "foad", right?

    --
    Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> "Regged" again? <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!



  12. #132
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    "Dan Fergus" <dan@vbforest.com> wrote in message <news:3b99481b$1@news.devx.com>...

    > What I am saying is that you are ready to abandon VB because they changed a
    > few (or a lot of) things. But you are willing to use a program that will
    > convert _MOST_ of your VB code to Delphi/Kylix. It is the MOST I am getting
    > at. How much is most? 51%, 60%, 90% or 99%? Anything less than 95% is
    > worse than the .NET upgrade wizard can do.
    >
    > Instead of converting a little VB6 code to VB.NET you are willing to convert
    > _MOST_ of the VB code to Kylix and then fix the rest by hand. That's what I
    > find amazing. Leaner a new language from the ground up and convert ?% of
    > your VB code to the new language.
    >
    > It just doesn't make sense to me. Why not invest a little time in learning
    > VB.NET? It really is not that hard.


    Converting all resource-management classes to the Pure Stateless religion
    is just "a little VB6 code"? Oh right, everything really should have been
    MTS-compliant anyway, including those classes never meant to be remoted,
    like TextStream, right? Oops, silly me!

    --
    Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Greed = God? <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!



  13. #133
    john Guest

    Re: Brain Washing


    "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
    >"Mark Jerde" <jerde@sanspamcompuserve.com> wrote in message <news:3b996b11@news.devx.com>...
    >
    >> > I fundamentally reject VB.NET in any shape or form as a
    >> > replacement for classic Visual Basic.

    >>
    >> Isn't there room in the world for both?

    >
    >Absolutely not, judging by what happened to VB7. It would have distracted
    >too many of us sheep from the new new Microsoft Marketecture which, unlike
    >COM, really will be a stable platform upon which to build the "enterprise
    >software" architecture of tomorrow. Unlike Windows DNA, .NET really will
    >still be around by the time we finish redesigning and rewriting our world.
    >Really! Trust us. Resistance is futile.
    >
    >--
    >Joe Foster


    In that case why give J2EE a shot - it's pretty stable, at least it won't
    be pulling any unexpected changes in the next few years...

    john

  14. #134
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    Joe,

    You and Mike should get a room together.


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

  15. #135
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Brain Washing

    On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 18:13:28 GMT, kylix_is@hotmail.com (Mike Mitchell)
    wrote:

    >Well, okay...I'm waiting!


    Waiting won't work Mike, you have to put effort into it.


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

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