VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)

  1. #1
    Patrice Scribe Guest

    VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)

    VB Classic is still there Joe and you have probably still some time to check
    what you could do about .NET.

    Are you in the (probably worst) case where VB Classic is just perfect and
    you need nothing from .NET though you would like to work in few years with a
    product that is still under maintenance ? You could for example still use VB
    6 one or two years but prepare a possible switch by taking out from your VB6
    apps what could cause a major problem when migrating to VB.NET (if you don't
    have already another plan).

    Patrice

    "Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
    news:3bb0b91f@news.devx.com...
    > "Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com> wrote in message

    <news:3bb055b4@news.devx.com>...
    >
    > > ...though I
    > > have no problem if you choose something else (just asking letting us

    choose .NET if we
    > > want).

    >
    > Meaning, "letting us destroy VB Classic if we want", right?
    >
    > news://news.devx.com/3b4cda9b$1@news.devx.com
    >
    > --
    > 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!
    >
    >




  2. #2
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)

    "Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com> wrote in message <news:3bb0bcf2$1@news.devx.com>...

    > VB Classic is still there Joe and you have probably still some time to check
    > what you could do about .NET.
    >
    > Are you in the (probably worst) case where VB Classic is just perfect and
    > you need nothing from .NET though you would like to work in few years with a
    > product that is still under maintenance ? You could for example still use VB
    > 6 one or two years but prepare a possible switch by taking out from your VB6
    > apps what could cause a major problem when migrating to VB.NET (if you don't
    > have already another plan).


    VB Classic isn't "just perfect", and I think you'd know the difference
    between an incremental upgrade with minimal disruption and "The End
    Of Visual Basic As We Know It".NET. We've already been over the DF
    disaster in his ng, in which the Zealots.NET browbeat me for failing
    to obey the MTS "Pure Stateless" Religion, even in classes for which
    MTS made no sense! Perhaps I should also use my left hand exclusively
    for "personal hygiene", never my right, even when soap and water are
    readily available?

    --
    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!



  3. #3
    Patrice Scribe Guest

    Re: VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)

    I see myself .NET rather as a platform change similar to using a new OS whose capabilities
    are available through the Framework Class Library rather than just a language change. If
    you are using a database product such as SQL Server, it seems you could be able in a next
    release to use just a .NET based language to write your stored procedures... The change is
    really IMO at a higher level than just a language.

    As for DF, you can AFAIK implement DF under .NET if you really need though I admit it
    requires some additional work.

    Being so unhappy with .NET what are you considering now ? Do you still investigate .NET or
    do you intend to leave soon this newsgroup ?

    --
    Patrice Scribe



  4. #4
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)

    On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:21:45 +0200, "Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com>
    wrote:

    >Are you in the (probably worst) case where VB Classic is just perfect and
    >you need nothing from .NET though you would like to work in few years with a
    >product that is still under maintenance ? You could for example still use VB
    >6 one or two years but prepare a possible switch by taking out from your VB6
    >apps what could cause a major problem when migrating to VB.NET (if you don't
    >have already another plan).


    While being aware of the differences between VB.NET and the original
    version may be beneficial to some if they plan to migrate at some
    point, I doubt it, really. I believe most VB.NET supporters agree that
    there is only one way to get the best out of VB.NET and that is to
    learn how to use all the new features, such as OOP. This means a
    fundamental redesign of most classic VB apps. Just changing a few
    minor things isn't going to achieve this redesign, and so I think
    people will be better off, should they wish to go down the VB.NET
    road, to bite the bullet and start redesigning.

    MM

  5. #5
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)

    "Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com> wrote in message <news:3bb4339d$1@news.devx.com>...

    > I see myself .NET rather as a platform change similar to using a new OS whose capabilities
    > are available through the Framework Class Library rather than just a language change. If
    > you are using a database product such as SQL Server, it seems you could be able in a next
    > release to use just a .NET based language to write your stored procedures... The change is
    > really IMO at a higher level than just a language.
    >
    > As for DF, you can AFAIK implement DF under .NET if you really need though I admit it
    > requires some additional work.


    "Some additional work" on the part of whom? I'm OK with my having to do
    "some additional work", but I'm certainly not OK with forcing the users
    of my classes to remember when to call Close, Dispose, or what have you.

    > Being so unhappy with .NET what are you considering now ? Do you still investigate .NET or
    > do you intend to leave soon this newsgroup ?


    Hah! No, when yet another shoe drops, chances are I'll hear about it in
    some dotnet newsgroup first.

    --
    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!



  6. #6
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)

    On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:18:23 -0700, "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster"
    <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:

    >I'm OK with my having to do
    >"some additional work", but I'm certainly not OK with forcing the users
    >of my classes to remember when to call Close, Dispose, or what have you.


    Users of your classes? How many users are there Joe? My guess: two, you
    and your imaginary friend.


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

  7. #7
    Kathleen Dollard Guest

    Re: VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)

    Mike,

    > I believe most VB.NET supporters agree that
    > there is only one way to get the best out of VB.NET and that is to
    > learn how to use all the new features, such as OOP.


    Yep, and to get the best out of VB6 you needed to learn to use all the
    features (no reason to restrict it to new features in either case) including
    OOP and components.

    > Just changing a few
    > minor things isn't going to achieve this redesign, and so I think
    > people will be better off, should they wish to go down the VB.NET
    > road, to bite the bullet and start redesigning.


    I have agreed with you twice this week. I think one of us needs a change in
    meds.

    I think the goal of writing in VB.NET is to get a fast development cycle to
    a stable and easily maintained application. I think it is easier to do this
    in .NET or I would not be programming in it. Redesign is a critical factor
    in meeting this goal, because often it is the designs themselves that lead
    to fragility.

    MS supports moving applications in pieces to .NET by using COM Interop. (COM
    to .NET or .NET to COM). For componentized applications, it seems logical to
    migrate with redesign a piece at a time. Non-componentized applications will
    not support this migration path. If the app is small a one phase redesign
    should not be a problem. If the app is not small, then redesign should
    probably be considered as part of any major effort.

    --
    Kathleen
    (MS-MVP)
    Reply in the newsgroup so everyone can benefit
    --



  8. #8
    Patrice Scribe Guest

    Re: VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)

    > "Some additional work" on the part of whom? I'm OK with my having to do
    > "some additional work", but I'm certainly not OK with forcing the users
    > of my classes to remember when to call Close, Dispose, or what have you.


    I suggested in another thread that it could be perhaps possible to raise an exception (or
    at least issue a warning) if resources are released at Finalization step. This information
    would remember the user that he should call explicitely the appropriate method to release
    resources earlier.

    Do you think it is doable ?

    Patrice



  9. #9
    Phil Weber Guest

    Re: VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)

    > Do you think it is doable ?

    Patrice: Not in v1.0.
    ---
    Phil Weber



  10. #10
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)



    Well, you can't affect the class library, but you can inject this behavior
    into your own classes. However, rather than raising an exception, my recommendation
    is to do something like call:

    Debug.Fail("Please call the Dispose method of [classname] class.")

    (or something like that).
    Using the Debug methods are only valid in devlopment (the important part
    in this case), and are stripped from release code.

    -Rob


    "Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com> wrote:
    >
    >I suggested in another thread that it could be perhaps possible to raise

    an exception
    >(or
    >at least issue a warning) if resources are released at Finalization step.

    This information
    >would remember the user that he should call explicitely the appropriate

    method to release
    >resources earlier.
    >
    >Do you think it is doable ?
    >
    >Patrice
    >
    >



  11. #11
    Patrice Scribe Guest

    Re: VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)

    Precisely I thought it could be interested for those, such as Joe, who seems
    to prefer to wait for a significant period of time before diving into .NET,
    to use this period of time to start redesign a bit their existing VB6
    application using their growing knowledge of .NET.

    For example it is IMO much easier to redesign a VB6 app that uses data
    access code isolated in its own layer than one that would have data access
    dispersed all over the code. For those who are still with their VB6 apps for
    months if not years, it could be a good move to start thinking this way to
    ease a future transition to .NET...

    One of the key point in the migration of those relunctant people is
    certainly to head to a modular application rather than monolothic
    application if not already done.

    Patrice

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
    3bb4ce96.14037492@news.devx.com...
    >
    > While being aware of the differences between VB.NET and the original
    > version may be beneficial to some if they plan to migrate at some
    > point, I doubt it, really. I believe most VB.NET supporters agree that
    > there is only one way to get the best out of VB.NET and that is to
    > learn how to use all the new features, such as OOP. This means a
    > fundamental redesign of most classic VB apps. Just changing a few
    > minor things isn't going to achieve this redesign, and so I think
    > people will be better off, should they wish to go down the VB.NET
    > road, to bite the bullet and start redesigning.
    >
    > MM






  12. #12
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: VB Classic Destroyed (was Re: Truce?)

    On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 23:48:20 +0200, "Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com>
    wrote:

    >One of the key point in the migration of those relunctant people is
    >certainly to head to a modular application rather than monolothic
    >application if not already done.


    Let me quickly disabuse you of any idea that I am somehow in favour of
    this redesign, for I am not in any way persuaded of this. Classic
    Visual Basic may have its faults, but it far and away more accessible
    to far more people than VB.NET ever will be. However, advocates of
    VB.NET will have to make use of "their" new language in the best way
    they can, otherwise they might as well stick with the classic form and
    be thus able to at least build upon what they have already achieved,
    instead of demolishing the building and starting with new foundations.

    MM

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