Bob,

> > Personally, I think that VB.Net should be marketed as "VB.Net version

1"
> > and NOT "VB 7"; because it really isn't.

>
> Who is marketing VB.NET as VB7? I hear a fair number of people complaining
> that VB.NET is NOT VB7. Of course, judging from some of those folks
> criteria, Visual Basic ceased to exist when VB4 came out, but they refuse

to
> admit it.


MS is maketing it as Visual Studio 7 and the langauges as v7. But I really
think that the current versioning should end with v6 and Visual Studio
should be "VS1 for .Net". As for the VB4 thing, well it did what VB3 did,
added new things and created 32 bit code. It wasn't a radical shift and the
langauge stayed the same. The changes involves in that were to do with the
OS changing. this time, we have the tools *before* the OS changes, which
means that we will have the software ready by the time Windows.Net is a
reality. But VB1 to 6 were a straight upgrade path since there major
language or structural changes.

> I view VB.NET as the next logical step in the evolution of Visual Basic.

Did
> Microsoft make some very arbitrary and unnecessary changes to VB? Yep.
> However, when I add up the pros and cons, I'm very glad we have VB.NET and
> not a COM-based VB7.


I also am very glad for .Net, not least of which because it allows me to
carry on using the language of my choice and still get the same results I
was looking for when I considered switching. COM is/was ok and it's a ****
sight better than CORBA or XPCOM. Although I like the assemblies idea.
It'll take a while to learn some of these things, but I'm patient and a
quick study. <g>

--
Dave Lewis
"Nothing is foolproof to a talented fool"