Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!

[jrich3]

And stop your whining about change. People like you are holding the computer
industry back. The change is what will make you money. So stop the whining
and keep on innovating.

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"jrich3" <jrich3@txdirect.net> wrote in message <news:3ba0a881$1@news.devx.com>...

> And stop your whining about change. People like you are holding the computer
> industry back. The change is what will make you money. So stop the whining
> and keep on innovating.

So you advocate the "Continuous Obsolescence", "Wolf Ticket", and "Vendor
Lock-In" AntiPatterns? Are you a "Corncob" or just a "Warm Body"? You'll
have to do better than that to play DevX-style "Intellectual Violence"!

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

[John Timney \(MVP\)]

I still use DOS - is there anything newer out there?

--

Regards

John Timney (Microsoft MVP)
----------------------------------------------
<author plug>
Professional JSP
ISBN: 1861003625
Beginning JSP Web Development
Out Sept 1st.
Professional Windows Forms
Out Soon
</author plug>
----------------------------------------------
"jrich3" <jrich3@txdirect.net> wrote in message
news:3ba0a881$1@news.devx.com...
>
> And stop your whining about change. People like you are holding the
computer
> industry back. The change is what will make you money. So stop the whining
> and keep on innovating.

[Patrick Steele]

In article <3ba11381@news.devx.com> (from "John Timney \(MVP\)"
<xyztimneyj@btinternet.com> <"John Timney \(MVP\)"
<xyztimneyj@btinternet.com>>),
> I still use DOS - is there anything newer out there?

OS/2!

--
Patrick Steele

[W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD]

In article <3ba0a881$1@news.devx.com>,
"jrich3" <jrich3@txdirect.net> writes:

> And stop your whining about change. People like you are holding the
> computer industry back. The change is what will make you money.

No, the change is what will (they hope) make money for Micro$oft and
the resellers. Even Bill Gates admitted that:

http://www.varbusiness.com/sections/...rticleid=29647

While the change MAY create a Y2K-style temporary aberration in
employment, it will mostly just such up resources that would have
otherwise been devoted to development and improvement of end products.

> So stop the whining and keep on innovating.

On the contrary, the more time and effort we have to expend emulating
the White Queen (running as fast as we can just to stay in place),
the fewer resources we have available for innovation in our
applications. Such infrastructure changes do not encourage innovation,
they stifle it.

--

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
* CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
* * *
* Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
* Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
* or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
* * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

[Bob]

"W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BA63B15.134844AC@earthlink.net...
> In article <3ba0a881$1@news.devx.com>,
> "jrich3" <jrich3@txdirect.net> writes:
>
> > And stop your whining about change. People like you are holding the
> > computer industry back. The change is what will make you money.
>
> No, the change is what will (they hope) make money for Micro$oft and
> the resellers. Even Bill Gates admitted that:
>
> http://www.varbusiness.com/sections/...rticleid=29647
>
> While the change MAY create a Y2K-style temporary aberration in
> employment, it will mostly just such up resources that would have
> otherwise been devoted to development and improvement of end products.
>
> > So stop the whining and keep on innovating.
>
> On the contrary, the more time and effort we have to expend emulating
> the White Queen (running as fast as we can just to stay in place),
> the fewer resources we have available for innovation in our
> applications. Such infrastructure changes do not encourage innovation,
> they stifle it.

Bill,

I disagree. Ask Zane how much innovation he is doing while he converts his
products to use .NET.

As part of my self-taught intro to VB.NET, I'm writing a service that uses a
timer that exists only in code. There is no way to do that in VB6 without
third party tools. Since the current app has to run on a logged in console,
there is always the chance someone will accidentially log off the console,
causing the app to go away. This will obviously not be a problem with the
service. You may not consider this an 'innovation', but both my manager and
I view it as a major enhancement to our systems.

Bob

>
> --
>
> W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD
>
> *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
> * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
> * * *
> * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
> * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
> * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
> * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
> *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

[W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD]

In article <3ba64afd$1@news.devx.com>,
"Bob" <tooslow42@yahoo.com> writes:

> "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3BA63B15.134844AC@earthlink.net...

> > In article <3ba0a881$1@news.devx.com>,
> > "jrich3" <jrich3@txdirect.net> writes:

[...]

> > > So stop the whining and keep on innovating.

> > On the contrary, the more time and effort we have to expend emulating
> > the White Queen (running as fast as we can just to stay in place),
> > the fewer resources we have available for innovation in our
> > applications. Such infrastructure changes do not encourage innovation,
> > they stifle it.

> Bill,

> I disagree. Ask Zane how much innovation he is doing while he converts
> his products to use .NET.

Ask Zane how many man-hours he is wasting DOING that conversion, and how
many innovative new features he could have added to those products - and
how many innovative new products he could have added - with those hours.

> As part of my self-taught intro to VB.NET, I'm writing a service that
> uses a timer that exists only in code. There is no way to do that in
> VB6 without third party tools.

Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of that, or is it simply that you have not come
up with a way to do so? If the third party tools can do it, it obviously
MUST be possible to do. Your description is ambiguous enough that it is
not practical to point you in the right direction.

> Since the current app has to run on a logged in console, there is always
> the chance someone will accidentially log off the console, causing the
> app to go away. This will obviously not be a problem with the service.

From your description, it sounds like a number of self-imposed limitations
rather than a serious technical problem.

> You may not consider this an 'innovation', but both my manager and
> I view it as a major enhancement to our systems.

One which you do not really know could - or could not - have been done
with VB6. It is nice that your company has so much spare money that it can
afford to pay you to play with your "self-taught intro to VB.NET", but
with all the recent cutbacks many companies do not have such luxuries. And
again, I am forced to wonder what innovations you could otherwise have made
in that time.

--

W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
* CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
* * *
* Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
* Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
* or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
* * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

[Zane Thomas]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:28:10 -0600, "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD"
<bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Ask Zane how many man-hours he is wasting DOING that conversion, and how
>many innovative new features he could have added to those products - and
>how many innovative new products he could have added - with those hours.

First, we're not converting. We are rewriting from scratch - converting
would have been a relatively painful move into managed c++. Instead we're
rewriting all of the protocols in c# and developing entirely new
components.

The productivity of the .net environment is so much greater for writing
components than COM/ATL that it won't be long before our rewrites and new
components, all together, require less time than would have been wasted
doing the new products in COM/ATL.

Add to that the fact that we can put in new functionality which was just
to much of a pita to do (for the price we charge), and the net result can
hardly be called a "waste of time".


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

[Ian R]

"W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BA6E97A.3BAC558B@earthlink.net...
>
> One which you do not really know could - or could not - have been done
> with VB6. It is nice that your company has so much spare money that it can
> afford to pay you to play with your "self-taught intro to VB.NET", but
> with all the recent cutbacks many companies do not have such luxuries. And
> again, I am forced to wonder what innovations you could otherwise have
made
> in that time.
>

The point is not that it can't be done. Given enough time, resources, money
and hacks, pretty much anything can be done. VB.NET and .NET in general
represent a major improvement in terms of development. Your thinking would
still have us developing in K&R C and ASM.

[Bob]

> > I disagree. Ask Zane how much innovation he is doing while he converts
> > his products to use .NET.
>
> Ask Zane how many man-hours he is wasting DOING that conversion, and how
> many innovative new features he could have added to those products - and
> how many innovative new products he could have added - with those hours.
>

O.K. Zane, will you please answer the question above.

> > As part of my self-taught intro to VB.NET, I'm writing a service that
> > uses a timer that exists only in code. There is no way to do that in
> > VB6 without third party tools.
>
> Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of that, or is it simply that you have not come
> up with a way to do so? If the third party tools can do it, it obviously
> MUST be possible to do. Your description is ambiguous enough that it is
> not practical to point you in the right direction.
>

This application is 24/7. You can do a timer in VB6, with unacceptable
limitations. You can't write a service in VB6. It's been a few years since I
looked at the kludge that MS made available that tries to serve as a Service
wrapper for programs and if I remember correctly, is unsupported.

<snip>

> > You may not consider this an 'innovation', but both my manager and
> > I view it as a major enhancement to our systems.
>
> One which you do not really know could - or could not - have been done
> with VB6.

Please prove me wrong. If it's an acceptable solution, I'll be glad to use
it to upgrade the current application.

> It is nice that your company has so much spare money that it can
> afford to pay you to play with your "self-taught intro to VB.NET", but
> with all the recent cutbacks many companies do not have such luxuries.

I'm sorry you consider making improvements to an application, 'play'. I'll
also note that companies that stop or severly cut back R&D in bad times tend
not to survive over the long haul as this usually gives a large advantage to
their competitors who do keep up their R&D spending.

> And again, I am forced to wonder what innovations you could otherwise
have > made in that time.

Feel free to keep on wondering. In the mean time, I'll keep preparing for
the future as directed by my management.

Bob

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Zane Thomas" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message <news:3be1fe0e.347955343@news.devx.com>...

> The productivity of the .net environment is so much greater for writing
> components than COM/ATL that it won't be long before our rewrites and new
> components, all together, require less time than would have been wasted
> doing the new products in COM/ATL.

So you finally admit that you haven't been comparing VB.NET with VB Classic,
but .NET with C++, COM, and ATL. Any thoughts on whether VB.NET will be a
more productive environment for *VB* programmers, or only more FUD confusing
VB with ATL?

--
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!

[Thomas Eyde]

I don't think VB.NET will be more productive. VB6 doesn't have inheritance
so I don't spend time figuring out when an Overloads is an overload, when it
is Overloads and (implicit) Overrides, why I have to change Overrides to
Overloads on the method I finished last week just because I today overloaded
it with a new member, or figuring out why polymorphism doesn't yield the
desired results (oh Shadows by default, so clumsy of me, I thought this was
state of the art OO programming language).

I rather spend my time writing code and know what I am doing, than debug a
brand new tool working in a non-standard fashion.

My .02.

/Thomas

"Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
news:3ba7a1f5@news.devx.com...
> So you finally admit that you haven't been comparing VB.NET with VB
Classic,
> but .NET with C++, COM, and ATL. Any thoughts on whether VB.NET will be a
> more productive environment for *VB* programmers, or only more FUD
confusing
> VB with ATL?

[Zane Thomas]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:39:07 -0700, "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster"
<joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:

>So you finally admit

I don't admit anything and I see no point in trying to discuss anything
with you.



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

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message <news:3ba7acb5$1@news.devx.com>...

> I don't think VB.NET will be more productive. VB6 doesn't have inheritance
> so I don't spend time figuring out when an Overloads is an overload, when it
> is Overloads and (implicit) Overrides, why I have to change Overrides to
> Overloads on the method I finished last week just because I today overloaded
> it with a new member, or figuring out why polymorphism doesn't yield the
> desired results (oh Shadows by default, so clumsy of me, I thought this was
> state of the art OO programming language).
>
> I rather spend my time writing code and know what I am doing, than debug a
> brand new tool working in a non-standard fashion.

What! And steal the food from the very mouths of the children of the
hard-working consultants, tools vendors, and component developers, who
have all switched over to .NET in anticipation of the thousands and
thousands of developers who will need to entirely replace their current
third-party add-ons in order to play in this Brave New World.NET! Go
to the off.ramp, you obnoxious, worthless infidel!

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

[Ian R]

"Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
news:3ba7acb5$1@news.devx.com...
> I don't think VB.NET will be more productive. VB6 doesn't have inheritance
> so I don't spend time figuring out when an Overloads is an overload, when
it
> is Overloads and (implicit) Overrides, why I have to change Overrides to
> Overloads on the method I finished last week just because I today
overloaded
> it with a new member, or figuring out why polymorphism doesn't yield the
>

I have to disagree. You don't have to use inheritance in VB.NET if you don't
need it. But for those who need and understand it, it makes things a lot
easier. The entire package is a vast improvement over what we have now with
VB6.

> desired results (oh Shadows by default, so clumsy of me, I thought this
was
> state of the art OO programming language).

Depends on what your definition of state of the art and OO are.

> I rather spend my time writing code and know what I am doing, than debug a
> brand new tool working in a non-standard fashion.
>

It's a beta and for a beta it doesn't have quite the number of bugs I
thought it would. As far as non-standard goes, non-standard compared to what
?