They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#? - Page 10


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 291

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

  1. #136
    Thomas Eyde Guest

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

    Hello Dave,

    Thanks for the reading material. I agree with most of your points of view.

    To clear up a little:

    When I refer to VB7 I mean the continuation of VB6 into a fully OO
    environment with the good VB feel, and where the hacks are ripped out and
    weaknesses are strengthened. VB7 is not VB.Net

    VB Classic shielded us from the underlying technology, VB.Net doesn't do
    that. VB.NET adheres to the CRL in a way that forces the developer to do the
    same (I have ranted about that somewhere else). Underlying techology should
    not be an issue because on of a language's responsibilty is to shield us
    from that.

    Then a question:

    Do you reallly believe VB.Net will rule out crappy code?

    /Thomas



  2. #137
    Dave Keighan Guest

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

    Hi Dave

    Very nice! Hate to pick at this after all that work but ...
    [snip]
    > A very nice side-effect of these changes will be to get
    > rid of many of the "fly-by-night coders" who write crappy
    > little bug ridden apps that they think are so wonderful ...

    [snip]
    How many of the "little bug ridden apps" do you figure were written with VB,
    20/30% - tops? The two guys I know are using C++ and Java so it won't affect
    them - don't think I'll tell them you said their stuff is "bug ridden"
    though. C'mon it's not that hard to pick the wheat from the chaff - even
    when a lot of the chaff is from people who hold *professional* credentials.
    What are the *pros* doing using VB anyway, doesn't the B stand for
    Beginners?? OK, OK, I'm joking - I'll leave it alone! IMO: Most people of
    less than the exalted "with certification" don't go public with their stuff
    anyway - they just enjoy working with computers - a lot like, probably, you
    and <just about> everyone else here does.
    .... sorry ranting ...

    Any figures on how many VB users are useless hacks <g> and how many are
    *professionals* (do it to make a living)? I guess 60/40.

    Nice post - enjoyed reading of it!

    --
    Dave



  3. #138
    MarkN Guest

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


    I second that emotion (credit to Smokey Robinson).
    All in favor, say "I". All opposed, keep doing things the hard way.

    >I don't think that a language should shield us from the underlying
    >technology. That's one of the biggest complaints of developers using
    >previous versions of VB. It was either extremely difficult or impossible

    to
    >do things in VB precisely because we couldn't get to the underlying
    >technology.
    >
    >A language should allow access to the underlying technology in a language-
    >friendly manner. By that I mean that the language should allow access to

    the
    >underlying technology in the syntax and mindset of the language.
    >
    >Bob



  4. #139
    Bob Guest

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

    In article <3c1028b1@147.208.176.211>, spammenot@nospam.antispam says...

    > 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.

    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.

    Bob



  5. #140
    Bob Guest

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

    In article <3c104aaa@147.208.176.211>, thomas.eyde@online.no says...
    > Hello Dave,
    >
    > Thanks for the reading material. I agree with most of your points of view.
    >
    > To clear up a little:
    >
    > When I refer to VB7 I mean the continuation of VB6 into a fully OO
    > environment with the good VB feel, and where the hacks are ripped out and
    > weaknesses are strengthened. VB7 is not VB.Net
    >
    > VB Classic shielded us from the underlying technology, VB.Net doesn't do
    > that. VB.NET adheres to the CRL in a way that forces the developer to do the
    > same (I have ranted about that somewhere else). Underlying techology should
    > not be an issue because on of a language's responsibilty is to shield us
    > from that.
    >


    I don't think that a language should shield us from the underlying
    technology. That's one of the biggest complaints of developers using
    previous versions of VB. It was either extremely difficult or impossible to
    do things in VB precisely because we couldn't get to the underlying
    technology.

    A language should allow access to the underlying technology in a language-
    friendly manner. By that I mean that the language should allow access to the
    underlying technology in the syntax and mindset of the language.

    Bob

  6. #141
    Cali LaFollett Guest

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

    Aye!

    Cal



  7. #142
    Kathleen Dollard Guest

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

    Jonathan,

    Well, I suppose if they wanted to create a _NEW_ type and call it
    "cardinal32" or something, then I wouldn't object. But integers are bit
    fields by nature. I see no reason to hinder their use. The suggestion of
    changing the meaning of a data type in the course of .NET I find quite
    surprising from you. You really think it makes sense to break .NET code from
    V1 to V2? Do you have any sense of continuity?

    BTW, dates are not Real (floating points) behind the scenes.

    Pointer type does not exist to avoid confusion with integer. It exists to
    allow the size to be dependent on the underlying pointer. An attempt I
    believe will prove insufficient as various libraries move haphazardly to 64
    bit in the next 5 years.

    Kathleen



  8. #143
    Kathleen Dollard Guest

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

    Jay,

    K, great. Zane was there, Jonathan was there, I was there, but you have the
    straight story. Fine.

    Of course the MVP's talked about how difficult those changes were going to
    be for people porting code. The dev team looked at all of the
    incomptabilities discussed (over 60), decided on some that had little or no
    downside and that would have created subtle, transitory and very difficult
    to track problems as opposed to the more obvious problems caused by the
    aliasing of Integer, Long, and Date (which obviously would have been tons
    easier to fix, if you were correct that all they cared about was what was
    easy to do). The purpose of a beta is to find out what is wrong with a
    product and fix it and they did. Last I heard the dev team stood behind
    their decision which was made with a variety of input. Sounds like you think
    I am far more important than I would ever dream of bieng.

    Kathleen



  9. #144
    Jonathan Allen Guest

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

    > You really think it makes sense to break .NET code from
    > V1 to V2? Do you have any sense of continuity?


    No, it is probably too late to make the change now.

    --
    Jonathan Allen



    "Kathleen Dollard" <kathleen@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:3c10f680@147.208.176.211...
    > Jonathan,
    >
    > Well, I suppose if they wanted to create a _NEW_ type and call it
    > "cardinal32" or something, then I wouldn't object. But integers are bit
    > fields by nature. I see no reason to hinder their use. The suggestion of
    > changing the meaning of a data type in the course of .NET I find quite
    > surprising from you. You really think it makes sense to break .NET code

    from
    > V1 to V2? Do you have any sense of continuity?
    >
    > BTW, dates are not Real (floating points) behind the scenes.
    >
    > Pointer type does not exist to avoid confusion with integer. It exists to
    > allow the size to be dependent on the underlying pointer. An attempt I
    > believe will prove insufficient as various libraries move haphazardly to

    64
    > bit in the next 5 years.
    >
    > Kathleen
    >
    >



  10. #145
    Zane Thomas Guest

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

    On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:34:52 -0700, "Kathleen Dollard" <kathleen@mvps.org>
    wrote:

    >Sounds like you think
    >I am far more important than I would ever dream of bieng.


    Tsk, such modesty! I was there, I remember what happened. :-)



    --
    When freedom is outlawed
    only outlaws will be free.

  11. #146
    Vlad Ivanov Guest

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


    Mike makes alot of sense by the way. Let me ask a rethorical question - have
    you tried using upgrade wizard on VB6 UserControls? If not you have a surprise
    coming. I like the language and all - but oh boy does it suck to have to
    rethink-recode-rearchitect-retype all of my libs for .Net considering the
    fact that i don't even know a quarter of the documentation yet. I see nothing
    wonderful about that - coz it wasn't like that during previous upgrades.
    Not even close.

  12. #147
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:14:25 -0700, "Kathleen Dollard"
    <kathleen@mvps.org> wrote:

    >.... Do you have any sense of continuity?


    Ha, ruddy, ha!

    Having a sense of continuity would imply an upwardly compatible code
    migration path from classic VB to VB.NET. But I suppose having *that*
    sense of continuity would be....nonsense, right?

    MM

  13. #148
    Dave Lewis Guest

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

    Thomas,

    Comments inline...

    > Thanks for the reading material. I agree with most of your points of view.


    Thanks. I know it was a bit wordy, but it's been driving me nuts recently
    with all the bickering. I decided that my enforced absence from these news
    groups should end and I should speak up.

    > To clear up a little:
    >
    > When I refer to VB7 I mean the continuation of VB6 into a fully OO
    > environment with the good VB feel, and where the hacks are ripped out and
    > weaknesses are strengthened. VB7 is not VB.Net


    Fair enough. Except, what kind of language or product do you think we
    would have ended up with then??? A lobotomised version of a rather good
    development tool, that did nothing but did it really well and quite quickly.
    <g>

    > VB Classic shielded us from the underlying technology, VB.Net doesn't do
    > that. VB.NET adheres to the CRL in a way that forces the developer to do

    the
    > same (I have ranted about that somewhere else). Underlying techology

    should
    > not be an issue because on of a language's responsibilty is to shield us
    > from that.


    Sorry, I have to disagree there. First, if you wanted to do any serious
    COM work, you still had to know a lot about the underlying stuff. Second,
    I think that the developer should ONLY be shielded from the underlying
    technology if they want to be. To enforce that in VB 6 was wrong.

    > Then a question:
    >
    > Do you reallly believe VB.Net will rule out crappy code?


    Not altogether, but it will keep a lot of the crappy coders out of VB and
    hence, get rid of a lot of the crappy code in the future. If people want
    to write poor code, no language on earth will stop them (except maybe
    Eifel.... <g>).

    > /Thomas


    Dave Lewis
    "Nothing is foolproof to a talented fool"



  14. #149
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 03:27:52 -0000, "Dave Lewis"
    <spammenot@nospam.antispam> wrote:

    [snip]

    >I have a lot of time and effort invested in Visual Basic and I was somewhat
    >annoyed that now MS had come along and changed the rules! But VB was
    >beginning to run the risk of becoming a little-used footnote in the annals
    >of Windows history. Why? Because the main strength of VB is also one of
    >it's biggest weaknesses - the very shallow learning curve. by which I mean
    >that it is very easy for someone who has absolutely no concept of
    >programming at all to look at the help files and start cutting code in 5
    >minutes. And for some people (myself included) that works very well. But
    >for others it is a disaster leading to nightmare code-bases and almost
    >un-maintainable apps.


    Well, of course, I don't agree with you about classic VB one little
    bit. Sure, there may be some very poor VB programmers with big egos
    and little sense of responsibility. You will know that exactly the
    same could be said about C programmers, Java programmers -- you name
    it, any language will have a number of persistent, thoughtful,
    considerate and productive programmers; and a number in the opposite
    cubicle. This is the case in many other professions, too. Take
    medicine. Some surgeons are adept; others just kill people. It goes
    with the job.

    Now, because *you* have experienced a few (how many, exactly? A dozen,
    maybe, 20, tops?) badly written VB programs you want to chuck it out
    and deny all the other 2.99 million-odd VB users who are highly
    appreciative of VB because it gets the job done for them. Instead of
    shouting your approval of Microsoft for delivering such a wonderful
    product that has a "very shallow learning curve" you want to replace
    it with a language that has anything but. And this is supposed to be
    the logical conclusion of all that thinking you did which led up to
    your post? The world is crying out for ease of use, simplicity,
    accessibility, but when a company such as Microsoft actually delivers
    a product which could be the very epitome of these criteria, you say
    "that's its weakness"? What a peculiar Alice In Wonderland world this
    is, where what the overwhelming majority would see as a good thing,
    you appear to denigrate it as a bad thing.

    Now, Windows the platform is, I assume, going to be around for a good
    many years yet, and classic VB programs will hopefully continue to
    function well into this decade. However, because Microsoft have
    declared that VB.NET is the next version of Visual Basic, no one is
    going to take classic VB seriously any longer. And it doesn't help
    when potential consumers or clients read that it's a "disaster leading
    to nightmare code-bases". You can say this with a straight face when
    you must surely be aware of all the myriad projects which have failed
    dismally without even a sniff of VB being anywhere near them.

    Fine, so classic VB has its problems. It also has very many strengths.
    Microsoft could have taken the problems and fixed them. Made the
    product more resilient to the fly-by-night coders which seem to
    inhabit your world, and generally enhanced the product as a genuine
    VB7, followed by, say, VB8 in around 2005. This way lies progress.
    This way lies the continuity that Kathleen was banging on about in
    another thread. This would allow VB programmers users to transition
    entirely at their own pace to VB.NET, while still using an officially
    supported and maintained classic VB. It's not much to ask, is it?
    Surely about as much hassle to Microsoft as when Oliver Twist asked
    for another bowl of soup? I mean, they don't have to be such miserable
    old Scrooges, do they? Especially coming up to Christmas. All it needs
    is for His Billness to pass the word to the Bouncer, and bingo! A
    Christmas Present For The World.

    "Keep classic VB running" (Hum it to the Coca Cola Christmas trailer.)

    MM

  15. #150
    Dave Lewis Guest

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

    Dave,

    > Very nice! Hate to pick at this after all that work but ...


    Hey, no problem. This *is* a discussion group after all...... <g>

    > [snip]
    > > A very nice side-effect of these changes will be to get
    > > rid of many of the "fly-by-night coders" who write crappy
    > > little bug ridden apps that they think are so wonderful ...

    > [snip]
    > How many of the "little bug ridden apps" do you figure were written with

    VB,
    > 20/30% - tops? The two guys I know are using C++ and Java so it won't

    affect
    > them - don't think I'll tell them you said their stuff is "bug ridden"
    > though. C'mon it's not that hard to pick the wheat from the chaff - even
    > when a lot of the chaff is from people who hold *professional*

    credentials.
    > What are the *pros* doing using VB anyway, doesn't the B stand for
    > Beginners?? OK, OK, I'm joking - I'll leave it alone! IMO: Most people of
    > less than the exalted "with certification" don't go public with their

    stuff
    > anyway - they just enjoy working with computers - a lot like, probably,

    you
    > and <just about> everyone else here does.
    > ... sorry ranting ...


    There are a great many buggy little pieces of crap out there, sadly. I
    worked on a project for my last company that had been written by someone who
    was a Notes\Domino guru and knew "a bit about VB". Pah!! I spent 9 months
    (count 'em, 9!!!!) debugging that awful collection of hacks to get it into
    a state where we could start to re-write it. As one example, there was a
    little stand alone app that connected to a Notes DB, mined 30,000 records
    out and put them into ODBC compliant DB's. The version that I inherited
    took 20 hours to run!!! And when I tried to modify it to get different
    fields, it broke - completely. So I re-wrote it and the newer version
    could take modifications without breaking and ran the whole operation in
    just 20 minutes.
    But the point of that part of my rant was simply that these "script kiddies"
    were hurting the reputation of those of us who do this for a living by
    writing very poor code. That was one of the major reasons that the so
    called "professionals" considered VB to be a toy language. I have no
    problem with people having fun with VB or any language, but when people
    start releasing horrible bits of crap which are not robust, then I do have
    a problem.
    (Ok, now I'm ranting....)

    > Any figures on how many VB users are useless hacks <g> and how many are
    > *professionals* (do it to make a living)? I guess 60/40.


    I really don't know, but I have worked with a lot of people who I would
    consider to be "hacks", useless or not. For instance, my girlfriend asked
    a little while ago about learning to write code. Which is fine with me,
    she is quite into computers, but if she wants to write code she's gonna
    have to learn a little first and not just jump right in.

    > Nice post - enjoyed reading of it!


    Thanks, I aim to please. <g>

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



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