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

[Ian R]

"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?
>

Joe, you're out to lunch again. I've been using both "VB classic" and VB.NET
(among other languages) for some time now. It's a **** of a lot more
productive. Have you actually installed it or have you and Mikee been too
busy together ?

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

In article <3be1fe0e.347955343@news.devx.com>,
zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) writes:

> 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.

The "converting" characterization came from "Bob" <tooslow42@yahoo.com>,
as indicated by the attributions and quotes that you snipped. I simply
responded to his wording.

> 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.

In San Fransisco, a gentleman retired (relatively) recently. His
entire career had consisted of painting the Golden Gate Bridge. While
the Port Authority had attempted to increase productivity with various
upgrades of equipment and paint, the fact remained that by the time
the last part of the bridge was painted the first part of the bridge
was overdue for repainting.

> 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.

Interesting article of faith. But now that you think about it, how
much of that time will you spend trying to catch up with the
differences between the current Beta and the (eventual) first couple
of "real" releases? The differences between the Betas have already
caught a number of people flat-footed.

> 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),

Charge who? Because you were too expensive, or because you are on too
small of a margin?

> and the net result can hardly be called a "waste of time".

But the exercise can.

--

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 *
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

[Mike Mitchell]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:04:05 -0600, "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD"
<bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote:

>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.

Yeah, when I see just how many of the flash-in-the-pan ideas Microsoft
has brought to the programming table over the past ten years, all the
acronyms, all the changes, sometimes from one week to the next, all
the myriad servers...

.....and all we (or, rather, the customer who buys our code) need is to
write some bytes at A, move them to B, then read them again.

Most of those hundreds of "initiatives" were just ploys to feed the
money machine, just ways of getting as many people as possible to pay
up and buy more of the crapola. It sucks, it really does. Microsoft
doesn't have a single innovating bone in its body. Even .NET is a
rip-off of Java (and since Java stinks even worse, it's no surprise
just how much .NET = complexity).

Why can they not, for once, just *improve* what is already out there?
Just get rid of the bugs for once? Is it any wonder that the Q numbers
have long since exceeded the 200,000 mark? Not all of them are about
bugs, granted. But an awfully large number of them are. There is *so*
much about Windows that utterly stinks, *so* much that they *could*
refine, but don't. Instead, it's another baby and another bath. Chuck
'em both out, then introduce some new whizzo novelty and whack a 2002
badge on it. The suckers will pay up. They always do!

Take NTFS. Ntoskrnl.exe blown again? Can you boot from a floppy and
simply replace it or edit boot.ini? 'course not! That would be toooo
simple for Microsoft. Sure, I can buy an expensive bit of software to
do it (*not* from Microsoft, nota bene). They're always banging on
about innovation and "where do I want to go today", but their systems
are a total, convoluted, disorganised mess which we all pay for in
spades long after we've paid for the actual software.

MM K.I.S.S.

[Zane Thomas]

"W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote:


>In San Fransisco, a gentleman retired (relatively) recently. ...

That's a poor analogy, and I have some serious reservations about the
accuracy of your little story.

Over the past 26 years I've been programming tools and platforms have
evolved. The types of applications which are practical to write, and the
increasing understanding of what *can* be done with applications, has
resulted in ever-increasing functionality. It seems that your logic leads
to the conclusion that we should all still be programming in assembler.

>> 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.
>
>Interesting article of faith.

Article of faith? Statement of fact.

Based on what you've written so far it appears you aren't qualified to
discuss the differences between com/atl and .net authored components.
What exactly is your experience which prompts you to make the sorts of
claims you're making?

If you're concerned about everyone's wasting their time you might like to
make arguments which don't waste everyone's time.


>But now that you think about it, how
>much of that time will you spend trying to catch up with the
>differences between the current Beta and the (eventual) first couple
>of "real" releases?

You're really grasping at straws there W. E (Bill) Goodrich, Phd. - I
don't expect there will be another beta before the first release, and I
have every reason to expect that any changes to the interfaces presented
by the framework - if any - will be very minor.

As to your implication of crushing changes for the next release I have one
thing to say: FUD.


>The differences between the Betas have already
>caught a number of people flat-footed.

Some people just have flat feet. The changes from beta1 to beta2 weren't
that serious viewed from the perspective of my uses, and anyone who
expects a beta 1 of an entirely new product to be cast in concrete is just
plain foolsih.

>> 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),
>
>Charge who? Because you were too expensive, or because you are on too
>small of a margin?

Do you have any real business experience? I wonder because I thought the
above was perfectly clear. For any given price there is a certain amount
of work that can be put into components. The more functionality a
programming gives per unit of work the more bang-for-the buck irregardless
of how many bucks we're talking about. Didn't they cover Economics 101 in
school?

>> and the net result can hardly be called a "waste of time".
>
>But the exercise can.

Yawn. Let me guess, you have a PhD in philosophy right? Go ahead, admit
it, lots of people didn't learn anything useful in school.


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

[Cali LaFollett]

> > 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.


Bob is absolutesly correct! MS DOES NOT support Visual Basic written
services and here is the link incase you are interested Bill:
http://support.microsoft.com/directo...;EN-US;Q175948

(watch for breaks)

Of course Bill, you CAN create them in VB 4/5/6 but YOYO (Your On Your Own)
and you'll have to CYOA (Cover Your Own ***) when those threads don't
cooperate!

There are a few that can probably make it work but not without major hacks.
Mathew Currland comes to mind but this is a guy that also throws in psuedo
inline Assembly too! So hey more power too him. My guess is that even he
would recommend NOT to use VB to do this!

--
Regards,
Cal

[Ian R]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ba7b5af.6062859@news.devx.com...
>
> Yeah, when I see just how many of the flash-in-the-pan ideas Microsoft
> has brought to the programming table over the past ten years, all the
> acronyms, all the changes, sometimes from one week to the next, all
> the myriad servers...

Of course you're forgetting how many advancements came from many of those
"flash-in-the-pan" ideas. Between you and Sun we'd still be sitting at a
command prompt.

> Most of those hundreds of "initiatives" were just ploys to feed the
> money machine, just ways of getting as many people as possible to pay
> up and buy more of the crapola. It sucks, it really does. Microsoft
> doesn't have a single innovating bone in its body. Even .NET is a

And exactly how many "innovative" competative OS' are out there ? Exactly
how many "innovative" competative technologies are out there ? Microsoft
isn't the dominant player solely because of it's marketing department
despite claims to the contrary.

> rip-off of Java (and since Java stinks even worse, it's no surprise

And now you're an expert in Java as well Mike ?

> just how much .NET = complexity).

You're confusing complexity with not being bothered to inform ones self.

> Why can they not, for once, just *improve* what is already out there?

They have Mike. It's called .NET.

> Just get rid of the bugs for once? Is it any wonder that the Q numbers
> have long since exceeded the 200,000 mark? Not all of them are about
> bugs, granted. But an awfully large number of them are. There is *so*
> much about Windows that utterly stinks, *so* much that they *could*

And there's a lot about it that doesn't. You're actually going to compare
your Linux box (or was that just another fad for you ?) to Windows ?

> Take NTFS. Ntoskrnl.exe blown again? Can you boot from a floppy and
> simply replace it or edit boot.ini? 'course not! That would be toooo

It's called a repair disk. But you obviously haven't bothered to read the
docs much less look through the menus.

> simple for Microsoft. Sure, I can buy an expensive bit of software to
> do it (*not* from Microsoft, nota bene). They're always banging on
> about innovation and "where do I want to go today", but their systems
> are a total, convoluted, disorganised mess which we all pay for in
> spades long after we've paid for the actual software.
>

And you'd rather mess with a load of *nix scripts and drivers written by a
bunch of 15 yr olds on the week-ends ? You'd rather use applications that
even my 10 yr old daughter could have done better ? Uh huh.. sure Mike,
you'd better ease up on Joe's medication.

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:03:56 -0400, "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote:

>And you'd rather mess with a load of *nix scripts and drivers written by a
>bunch of 15 yr olds on the week-ends ? You'd rather use applications that
>even my 10 yr old daughter could have done better ? Uh huh.. sure Mike,
>you'd better ease up on Joe's medication.

So how come is Linux (not that I was talking about Linux, but since
you brought it up implicitly in your reference to "'nix scripts") 1000
percent more reliable than Windows?

MM K.I.S.S.

[Larry Linson]

zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

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

Since you can't even keep straight the difference between an abacus and an
electronic computer, Zaney, I see no point in _anyone_ trying to discuss
anything with _you_.

[Larry Linson]

zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

> Yawn. Let me guess, you have a PhD
> in philosophy right? Go ahead, admit
> it, lots of people didn't learn anything
> useful in school.

Unless I am sadly mistaken, Zaney, PhD does stand for "Doctor of Philosophy"
so that every PhD has a "Philosophy" degree. It doesn't take a lot of mental
acuity to state the obvious, but it does indicate something about you when
you state the obvious and don't realize that's what you've done.

On the other hand, from posts elsewhere (unsponsored newsgroups where you
might actually help some people, and, in doing so, sell some product, but
your business expertise seemingly doesn't extend far enough for you to see
that), I believe Bill's major subject of study was not philosophy, per se.

It's just another instance of your making wrong guesses to try to denigrate
those who don't agree with you, like your wrong guesses about people's religious
beliefs over in the off.ramp. But, in your view, what would be wrong, by
the way, with someone having a degree in Philosophy?

Yes, I do think this is off-topic, but it was, after all, an "esteemed" Section
Leader who introduced it into this discussion group.

[Zane Thomas]

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.206.250.63
X-Trace: 18 Sep 2001 19:54:17 -0700, 209.206.250.63
Lines: 13
X-Authenticated-User: zthomas
Path: news.devx.com
Xref: news.devx.com vb.dotnet.discussion:30628

On 18 Sep 2001 18:35:27 -0700, "Larry Linson" <larry.linson@ntpcug.org>
wrote:

>Since you can't even keep straight the difference between an abacus and an
>electronic computer, Zaney

Zaney eh? Larry, you're already in the bozo-bin so there's no need to
expend additional effort.


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

[Zane Thomas]

Larry,

>Unless I am sadly mistaken, Zaney, PhD does stand for "Doctor of Philosophy"
>so that every PhD has a "Philosophy" degree.

That's silly Larry, although I admire your attempt to overcome your
handicap.

>It's just another instance of your making wrong guesses to try to denigrate
>those who don't agree with you, like your wrong guesses about people's religious
>beliefs over in the off.ramp.

Ooops, you are apparently unaware of off.ramp etiquette. But since you
don't appear to be aware of anything else that's not a huge surprise.


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

[Ian R]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ba7d7ee.14831198@news.devx.com...
>
> So how come is Linux (not that I was talking about Linux, but since
> you brought it up implicitly in your reference to "'nix scripts") 1000
> percent more reliable than Windows?
>

I used Linux as an example because you mentioned that you installed it.
I run several OS' here including Linix and Solaris and I don't find them any
more or any less unreliable than NT.
Improperly written drivers can crash any OS. What exactly do you find about
Windows that "utterly stinks" as opposed to other OS's ?

[Thomas Eyde]

Yes, I am ashamed.

But, seriously: If you feel my remarks belongs to the off.ramp, then I'll
stop pursuing it.

/Thomas

"Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
news:3ba7af49@news.devx.com...
> "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
<news:3ba7acb5$1@news.devx.com>...
> 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!

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

In article <3ba7fb84@news.devx.com>,
"Larry Linson" <larry.linson@ntpcug.org> writes:

> zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

> > Yawn. Let me guess, you have a PhD
> > in philosophy right? Go ahead, admit
> > it, lots of people didn't learn anything
> > useful in school.

> Unless I am sadly mistaken, Zaney, PhD does stand for "Doctor of
> Philosophy" so that every PhD has a "Philosophy" degree. It doesn't
> take a lot of mental acuity to state the obvious, but it does
> indicate something about you when you state the obvious and don't
> realize that's what you've done.

> On the other hand, from posts elsewhere (unsponsored newsgroups where
> you might actually help some people, and, in doing so, sell some
> product, but your business expertise seemingly doesn't extend far
> enough for you to see that), I believe Bill's major subject of study
> was not philosophy, per se.

The Ph.D. was in Psychology (which gives a good insight into Z's
defensiveness). Also a BS in CS.

> It's just another instance of your making wrong guesses to try to
> denigrate those who don't agree with you,

Such attempts at ad hominem are very common among people who are trying
to defend and even promote beliefs (or products) despite their own
growing doubts. It is a way to try and hide from those doubts - to deny
them.


--

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 *
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

[Thomas Eyde]

Hello Ian,

Seems like I expressed my self badly.

My remarks are not about inheritance or not, but about exploiting this
feature effectively and without introducing bugs.

By standard OO I mean .NET is the first language I have encountered that
does not override/overload by default, that Shadows is implied/default when
nothing is specified. What is your definition of OO?

And the mix of keywords are more confusing than elaborating. Overrides and
Overloads are nearly identical, Shadows breaks polymorphism.

I was not refering to bugs in .NET, Microsoft has done a good job there, no
doubt. I was refering to bugs introduced by programmers due to, IMO,
confusing keywords.

I am not very experienced in "real" OO, but I am very experienced in class-
and interface-based programming in VB. I am experienced in simplicity and
fast development, but all landmarks tells me: .NET is reducing my speed.

/Thomas