They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#? - Page 3


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 291

Thread: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

  1. #31
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
    >J# is the Java language on the .Net engine. Why couldn't MS ship the
    >rumoured VB7 as VB


    Well, for one, Java and .NET use garbage collection whereas VB6 does not.
    The lack of deterministic finalization is a particularly difficult problem
    to get around. A while back, Brian Harry wrote a newsgroup post which explained
    the issues involved....

    http://www.managedworld.com/articles/0003/article.aspx

    /Pat

  2. #32
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    Hi Thomas --

    > So MS pleases strangers, but ignores the relatives?


    Bingo! Company-wide, SOHO users have been abandoned, as they already have been
    consumed. It's "The Enterprise" they're after now, and to **** with the folks
    already in the fold.

    Later... Karl
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


  3. #33
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


    Michael Bennett <mikey0131@mac.com> wrote:
    >In article <3c03a1ca@147.208.176.211>, "Rob Teixeira"
    >>

    >Based on what?


    I'll see if i can dig up the research papers I saw on that topic. But I can
    tell you that I've also seen it from personal experience. Three companies
    I've worked with in the past (two of them being fortune 100 companies with
    over 2000 developers) have nearly dumped all VB development in favor of Java
    (and on a smaller project basis, Delphi as well) for this very reason. I
    still have contacts in one of those companies, and he said the only VB development
    going on is maintenance on a couple of old systems.

    >BTW, I think the lack a true "VB.NET for VB6 programmers" book will be
    >more responsible for classic VB programmers not upgrading than the word


    >"class". Such a book might even be able to introduce them gently to the


    >concept of classes. Something along the lines of "You used to do it this


    >way now you do it this way or with classes you could...


    Dan Appleman will be your hero then.
    Go pick up his book.
    I've also talked to someone else that is writing a VB6 concepts-VB.NET book.

    ><rant>
    >Why can't introductory OOP books use real classes instead of stupid
    >classes like animal and car.


    Amen!
    You are definitely not the only one who has been saying that.

    >Why aren't any OOP books written for the
    >procedural programmer? If there are 2.5 million(wag number) non-OOP VB
    >programmers out here, isn't that a big enough market? Especially now.
    ></rant>


    I think there are definitely books on OOP for procedural programmers. There
    probably aren't many in VB, since VB is essencially weak in that dept. until
    VB.NET. However, a number of VSM authors also have VB OOP books out there.
    I'd be happy to recommend one, but I haven't actually read any of them, since
    i've been doing OOP for nearly a decade now.

    -Rob

  4. #34
    Michael Bennett Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    In article <3c03a1ca@147.208.176.211>, "Rob Teixeira"
    <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> says...
    >
    >
    >
    > And rather than loosing a few hundred thousand classic VB programmers simply
    > due to the word "class" (which you DON'T need to use, btw), I believe it's
    > the lack of OO which *has already* driven hundreds of thousands of classic
    > VB programmers to other languages.
    >
    > -Rob
    >

    Based on what?

    BTW, I think the lack a true "VB.NET for VB6 programmers" book will be
    more responsible for classic VB programmers not upgrading than the word
    "class". Such a book might even be able to introduce them gently to the
    concept of classes. Something along the lines of "You used to do it this
    way now you do it this way or with classes you could...

    <rant>
    Why can't introductory OOP books use real classes instead of stupid
    classes like animal and car. Why aren't any OOP books written for the
    procedural programmer? If there are 2.5 million(wag number) non-OOP VB
    programmers out here, isn't that a big enough market? Especially now.
    </rant>

    Michael

  5. #35
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    > > It is used when dealing with versioning issues. If the Base class later
    > adds
    > > a method that has the same name as one your subclass, you can use

    Shadows
    > to
    > > keep it from breaking everything. Shadows should never be part of the
    > > class's original design.

    >
    > That I don't understand. Why can't the subclass then override it?


    Even though the two methods have the same name, there is a good chance that
    they do widely different things. Don't forget, when you override something
    you alter the base class as well. Any call to BaseClass.Foo will call
    SubClass.Foo instead. If SubClass.Foo was not specifically designed as a
    replacement for BaseClass.Foo, then there is a good chance of breaking other
    BaseClass methods.

    Also, the method may not be overrideable. Since NotOverridable function
    calls are faster*, people will then to use it.

    --
    Jonathan Allen

    *: Overridable functions require the use of a V-Table to determine the
    correct version to call.

    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
    news:3c03d299$1@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
    > news:3c0356a1@147.208.176.211...
    > > > - The combination of Overrides Overloads looks stupid, you can't have

    > one
    > > > without another.

    > >
    > > Overloads should have nothing to do with Overrides.

    >
    > Agree, but when you are overloading a member of the base class, aren't you
    > also overriding it?
    >
    > > > - When do we really need Shadows?

    > >
    > > It is used when dealing with versioning issues. If the Base class later

    > adds
    > > a method that has the same name as one your subclass, you can use

    Shadows
    > to
    > > keep it from breaking everything. Shadows should never be part of the
    > > class's original design.

    >
    > That I don't understand. Why can't the subclass then override it?
    >
    > > For example, Abstract, not Virtual, means MustInherit. I have lost track

    > of
    > > how many times people got that wrong.

    >
    > I made it wrong. Sorry.
    >
    > > Consider the keyword "static". In English, it basically means unchanging

    > or
    > > constant. So the logical equivalent in VB is Const. However, C# uses

    > static
    > > to mean something that is shared between instances of a class. A

    "static"
    > > property is simply not static.

    >
    > That's not good either. Why invent new terms or give them non intuitive
    > meaning?
    >
    > /Thomas
    >
    >






  6. #36
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On 27 Nov 2001 20:05:11 GMT, "Patrick Troughton"
    ><Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
    >
    >>.... A while back, Brian Harry wrote a newsgroup post which explained
    >>the issues involved....

    >
    >And a while further back, in 1992, Tom Button, who, I believe still
    >works for Microsoft, said in a Guest Opinion slot for BASICPro
    >magazine: "Ours is an evolutionary approach, not a revolutionary
    >approach that suddenly makes old software obsolete. We're committed to
    >making it as easy as possible to adapt current software, without
    >losing anything in the process."
    >
    >So why didn't they with VB/VB.NET?


    This has been covered many times before, including in part, the post you're
    responding to. Here's the link I posted which explains why they didn't in
    regards to the DF issue....

    http://www.managedworld.com/articles/0003/article.aspx

    Please read the above article.

    >Was that just marketing speak that
    >he was spouting?


    I didn't read that article in 1992, nor do I know who Tom Button is. Was
    it just marketing speak? Perhaps.

    >Should we believe anything they tell us?


    You should always have a healthy sense of skepticism whenever someone tells
    you something.

    /Pat

  7. #37
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On 27 Nov 2001 14:23:06 GMT, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >And rather than loosing a few hundred thousand classic VB programmers simply
    >due to the word "class" (which you DON'T need to use, btw), I believe it's
    >the lack of OO which *has already* driven hundreds of thousands of classic
    >VB programmers to other languages.


    Well, you can believe it if you want to!

    MM

  8. #38
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:56:22 +0100, "Thomas Eyde"
    <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:

    >I can't see how VB.Net is meant to have a future. It's designed to attract
    >supporters it does not have and drive away the ones it could have.


    You kinda hit the nail on the head there, Thomas. Couldn't have said
    it better myself!

    MM

  9. #39
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:11:37 -0500, "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote:

    >I'm sure you'd find some other thing to ***** about.


    Yeah, you're probably right!

    MM

  10. #40
    Jonathan Allen Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    > <rant>
    > Why can't introductory OOP books use real classes instead of stupid
    > classes like animal and car.


    They could use animal or car if the did it intelligently. The problem is
    their example does not match how we really program. No one creates a class
    Car and a subclass Ford_Escort. The make and model should just be properties
    of class Car. Otherwise you have to create an insane number of classes.

    --
    Jonathan Allen



    "Michael Bennett" <mikey0131@mac.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.166da30a3f76c035989699@news.devx.com...
    > In article <3c03a1ca@147.208.176.211>, "Rob Teixeira"
    > <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> says...
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > And rather than loosing a few hundred thousand classic VB programmers

    simply
    > > due to the word "class" (which you DON'T need to use, btw), I believe

    it's
    > > the lack of OO which *has already* driven hundreds of thousands of

    classic
    > > VB programmers to other languages.
    > >
    > > -Rob
    > >

    > Based on what?
    >
    > BTW, I think the lack a true "VB.NET for VB6 programmers" book will be
    > more responsible for classic VB programmers not upgrading than the word
    > "class". Such a book might even be able to introduce them gently to the
    > concept of classes. Something along the lines of "You used to do it this
    > way now you do it this way or with classes you could...
    >
    > <rant>
    > Why can't introductory OOP books use real classes instead of stupid
    > classes like animal and car. Why aren't any OOP books written for the
    > procedural programmer? If there are 2.5 million(wag number) non-OOP VB
    > programmers out here, isn't that a big enough market? Especially now.
    > </rant>
    >
    > Michael



  11. #41
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >"Ours is an evolutionary approach, not a revolutionary
    >approach that suddenly makes old software obsolete.


    BTW, .NET does not make old software suddenly obsolete. .NET components and
    COM components can interop with each other just fine. At my present company,
    we use .NET for *new* development only, and continue to use VB6 for maintaining
    existing systems.

    /Pat


  12. #42
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On 27 Nov 2001 20:05:11 GMT, "Patrick Troughton"
    <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:

    >.... A while back, Brian Harry wrote a newsgroup post which explained
    >the issues involved....


    And a while further back, in 1992, Tom Button, who, I believe still
    works for Microsoft, said in a Guest Opinion slot for BASICPro
    magazine: "Ours is an evolutionary approach, not a revolutionary
    approach that suddenly makes old software obsolete. We're committed to
    making it as easy as possible to adapt current software, without
    losing anything in the process."

    So why didn't they with VB/VB.NET? Was that just marketing speak that
    he was spouting? Should we believe anything they tell us?

    MM

  13. #43
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    On 27 Nov 2001 20:47:50 GMT, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >Dan Appleman will be your hero then.
    >Go pick up his book.


    No hero of mine (any more). The whole tenet of the book seems to
    rubbish classic VB. Just the right note to win friends and influence
    people. Not!

    MM

  14. #44
    Patrick Steele Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    In article <3c040bac.4409378@news.devx.com> (from Mike Mitchell
    <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk>),
    > And a while further back, in 1992...


    1992?! That's ancient in computer timespan. Are you still upset about
    Bill Gates saying you'll never need more than 640k?

    Time and technology march on.

    --
    Patrick Steele
    Microsoft .NET MVP

  15. #45
    Paulo Costa Guest

    Re: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?

    According to you. MS should continue with VB7.

    Paulo Costa

    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
    news:3c034a5e@147.208.176.211...
    > > Please look into what makes a language .NET compatible, with this

    > knowledge
    > > you might see that it is not as simple as making a VB#. If you map

    > existing
    > > language functionality to .NET functionality then you would see that

    Java
    > > maps easily to .NET and VB doesn't. Because of this, VB needs new OO

    > keywords
    > > to extend its OO abilities.

    >
    > J# conforms to JDK 1.1.4 (I believe, not that into Java). No new keywords
    > there as in VB.Net. So MS pleases strangers, but ignores the relatives?
    >
    > I can't see how VB.Net is meant to have a future. It's designed to attract
    > supporters it does not have and drive away the ones it could have.
    >
    > /Thomas
    >
    >




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