They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#? - Page 9


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 291

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

  1. #121
    Rob Teixeira Guest

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



    Actually, .NET will be released this month. Anyone with an MSDN subscription
    and select partners will have the final production copy.
    .NET goes to general release (release as a boxed product to the public) in
    February.

    -Rob

    zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
    >On 4 Dec 2001 21:32:32 GMT, "MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >>It is not a production(For sale) release - yet.

    >
    >That's irrelevant, lots of companies are using it for production work now.
    >Besides, it *is* for sale now:
    >
    >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...238864-9633461
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >--
    >It's never too late to have
    >a happy childhood.



  2. #122
    MarkN Guest

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


    "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >Actually, .NET will be released this month. Anyone with an MSDN subscription
    >and select partners will have the final production copy.
    >.NET goes to general release (release as a boxed product to the public)

    in
    >February.


    Rob,
    Thank you for the useful info. Is that allowed in this discussion?

    How much do you know about .Net? Are you an insider(MSer)?



  3. #123
    Rob Teixeira Guest

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


    "MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >Rob,
    >Thank you for the useful info. Is that allowed in this discussion?


    Yes. It has been public.

    >How much do you know about .Net?


    Enough to be dangerous

    >Are you an insider(MSer)?


    Not at all.

    -Rob

  4. #124
    Patrick Troughton Guest

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


    "Who Cares?" <venetian7@home.net> wrote:
    > Strange. You claim that "lots of companies are using"
    > it, yet I see no change in the # of job listings on Dice.
    >
    > Ooops, I take that back, there was a change,
    > but not a positive one.


    Wow. Talk about a gap in logic. What does the number of unfilled jobs have
    to do with the number of companies using .NET?

    /Pat

  5. #125
    Patrick Troughton Guest

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


    zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
    >you're going to be a Mike.


    Ouch!

    /Pat

  6. #126
    Rob Teixeira Guest

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


    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
    >
    >Wow. Talk about a gap in logic. What does the number of unfilled jobs have
    >to do with the number of companies using .NET?
    >
    >/Pat


    Apparently, any company that wants to use .NET must hire a completely new
    staff.

    -Rob

  7. #127
    MarkN Guest

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


    "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote:
    >
    >"MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>Rob,
    >>Thank you for the useful info. Is that allowed in this discussion?


    >
    >Yes. It has been public.


    So, am I going to have to put subtitles in my comments(he asks incredulously)?
    What I meant was is useful information allowed in this discussion (He asks
    rhetorically and half jokingly)?

  8. #128
    Rob Teixeira Guest

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


    Ah, ok

    People have asked me before if the December release was public info.
    I thought that's what you meant.

    -Rob

    "MarkN" <mnuttall@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >What I meant was is useful information allowed in this discussion (He asks
    >rhetorically and half jokingly)?



  9. #129
    stever Guest

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

    hey, how come you never addressed the fact that i find about 90% fewer VB
    postings in my area on DICE (compared to last year), and reconcile that with
    your claim that the number of .NET jobs on DICE are about half of what they
    used to be. Gee, might this have something to do with something called the
    economy?

    Anyway, using your "reasoning", doesn't that logically mean that .NET jobs
    are gaining in popularity over "classic" VB? Or is your method of
    determining the future viability of .NET just plain dumb?



    "Who Cares?" <venetian7@home.net> wrote in message
    news:3c0daf02$1@147.208.176.211...
    >
    >
    > Strange. You claim that "lots of companies are using"
    > it, yet I see no change in the # of job listings on Dice.
    >
    > Ooops, I take that back, there was a change,
    > but not a positive one.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >




  10. #130
    Who Cares? Guest

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


    "stever" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
    news:3c0eaf51$1@147.208.176.211...
    > hey, how come you never addressed the fact that i find about 90% fewer VB
    > postings in my area on DICE (compared to last year), and reconcile that

    with
    > your claim that the number of .NET jobs on DICE are about half of what

    they
    > used to be. Gee, might this have something to do with something called

    the
    > economy?



    I'll explain it once again. I measure rates of change,
    not absolute numbers. If a technology is gaining
    market share, its relative numbers will rise when
    compared to competing technologies.

    There is no great rate of change for .Net yet,
    based on Dice.com job listings. But I wouldn't
    expect one yet, due to risk factors.


    > Anyway, using your "reasoning", doesn't that logically mean that .NET jobs
    > are gaining in popularity over "classic" VB? Or is your method of
    > determining the future viability of .NET just plain dumb?



    <shrug> Whatever.. VB jobs have dropped about 50% in
    the past few months. So have .Net jobs, or my proxy for them,
    since you can't even *search* for freaking "C#" because MS
    was more interested in kewl market ploys.

    http://www.eclipse.org/org/launch/index.html

    One commong IDE and tool framework. As MS is busy
    recreating the same things over and over again,
    the Eclipse.org companies can focus on adding
    real value.

    My beta version of WSAD has profiling, build
    management, unit testing, version control all
    built in. Now. Today.

    Pure java. Zero risk. I can port my code
    to a competing tool if WebGain fails.

    You guys have never understood why java
    is popular. It's popular for business reasons,
    it minimizes my risk, cost of training and
    employee turnover; it lets me project
    my codebase years into the future, which
    MS was never keen about.









  11. #131
    Mark Hurd Guest

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

    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
    news:3c03f1f7$1@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > "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


    A recommended read for sure.

    I make two rhetorical points from it:

    It seems to imply VB prior to VB.NET couldn't have been useful, which is
    obviously not the case. (Perhaps so few objects were created that the
    reference counting overhead was negligible ;-} )

    Why did C# get the using construct and not VB.NET where existing programmers
    will have a reference counting mindset?!?

    Regards,
    Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)



  12. #132
    Mark Hurd Guest

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

    "Jonathan Allen" <greywolf@cts.com> wrote in message
    news:3c0bd394@147.208.176.211...
    > I think Flagged Enums are quite appropriate. My concern is this...


    I haven't played with these enough: Does the IDE warn you if you do any
    arthmatic with non-flagged enums?

    >
    ><snip>
    >
    > If I showed that to a programmer, we would think I was crazy. But yet, if I
    > do the same thing with Integers, no one gives it a second thought.
    >
    > Number1 = 10 Or 15
    > Number2 = Not 5
    > Number3 = 10 RightShift 3


    I have no problem with this (though I see your point). It is just bitwise
    algebra.

    >
    > What is the difference? Why cannot Integer be a sovereign type like Boolean
    > or Date?
    >
    > We need to have two data types instead of one. The one called Int32 or
    > Integer, would represent integers and only integers. It only supports
    > operations that are mathematically valid, like addition and subtraction. The
    > new one, possibly called Bit32, would be used to represent bit fields and
    > have operations such as Bit-wise Or and Right Shift.


    I DO like this idea.

    >
    > --
    > Jonathan Allen


    It is the same as VB6 and below implementing three-valued logic and confusion
    that causes people expecting normal truth tables. It is a feature. I'd agree
    with an option to disable it. Same with VB.NET when Option Strict On forces
    CType calls where it is definitely a hindrance to readability. With thanks to
    someone from the VB3/4 transition, perhaps we need:

    Option Strict OnButIdidntMeanThatMuch

    You're Bit types could be forced to be used by

    Option NumbersAreCardinal On

    Regards,
    Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)



  13. #133
    Jay Glynn Guest

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

    I seem to remember the same being said for PowerBuilder. hmmmmm....

    >
    > You guys have never understood why java
    > is popular. It's popular for business reasons,
    > it minimizes my risk, cost of training and
    > employee turnover; it lets me project
    > my codebase years into the future, which
    > MS was never keen about.
    >
    >




  14. #134
    stever Guest

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

    so, again using your "logic", then you are saying that .NET is gaining on
    VB6 in market share. even i dont believe that.

    my point is that your own argument for dismissing .NET (basing conclusions
    on relative hits on DICE), actually ends up promoting .NET.

    it would be nice if your argument could be somewhat consistent


    "Who Cares?" <venetian7@home.net> wrote in message
    news:3c0ee8e2@147.208.176.211...
    >
    > "stever" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
    > news:3c0eaf51$1@147.208.176.211...
    > > hey, how come you never addressed the fact that i find about 90% fewer

    VB
    > > postings in my area on DICE (compared to last year), and reconcile that

    > with
    > > your claim that the number of .NET jobs on DICE are about half of what

    > they
    > > used to be. Gee, might this have something to do with something called

    > the
    > > economy?

    >
    >
    > I'll explain it once again. I measure rates of change,
    > not absolute numbers. If a technology is gaining
    > market share, its relative numbers will rise when
    > compared to competing technologies.
    >
    > There is no great rate of change for .Net yet,
    > based on Dice.com job listings. But I wouldn't
    > expect one yet, due to risk factors.
    >
    >
    > > Anyway, using your "reasoning", doesn't that logically mean that .NET

    jobs
    > > are gaining in popularity over "classic" VB? Or is your method of
    > > determining the future viability of .NET just plain dumb?

    >
    >
    > <shrug> Whatever.. VB jobs have dropped about 50% in
    > the past few months. So have .Net jobs, or my proxy for them,
    > since you can't even *search* for freaking "C#" because MS
    > was more interested in kewl market ploys.
    >
    > http://www.eclipse.org/org/launch/index.html
    >
    > One commong IDE and tool framework. As MS is busy
    > recreating the same things over and over again,
    > the Eclipse.org companies can focus on adding
    > real value.
    >
    > My beta version of WSAD has profiling, build
    > management, unit testing, version control all
    > built in. Now. Today.
    >
    > Pure java. Zero risk. I can port my code
    > to a competing tool if WebGain fails.
    >
    > You guys have never understood why java
    > is popular. It's popular for business reasons,
    > it minimizes my risk, cost of training and
    > employee turnover; it lets me project
    > my codebase years into the future, which
    > MS was never keen about.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >




  15. #135
    Dave Lewis Guest

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

    There is actually one very simple reason why there is no "VB7" and that
    people are getting so heated about VB.Net. Namely, that VB is NOT the
    underlying language\technology involved. Before anyone picks that to pieces
    let me elaborate a little. The language\technology that underpins the whole
    thing is .Net and VB.Net\C#\C++.Net\J#, etc are only familiar tools that
    have been provided to us for using this very powerful, very robust new
    development tool\framework.

    The rumour-mill has it that Borland will be releasing Delphi.Net and C++
    Builder.Net and I will bet dollars to donuts that they won't have to make
    major structural changes to either of those tools to get them to fit in with
    ..Net. Why is that, do you think??? Maybe because until now, VB has
    developed in a rather slap-dash fashion, levering in features here and
    there until we are now at version 6 and there is just nowhere for it to go.
    Personally, I think that VB.Net should be marketed as "VB.Net version 1"
    and NOT "VB 7"; because it really isn't. .Net is here, now and as a
    platform it will be here for some time to come. Future version of windows
    will be built around it using .Net as a core and we NEED tools that take
    advantage of that. Covering our ears, closing our eyes and wishing it
    would go away will not make it do so. .Net is a reality and we should all
    either get used to it, or get out of the game.

    As far as all the changes to VB go, well you shouldn't see this as a VB
    upgrade (even though MS is marketing it that way) but rather as a new
    language that is just VB like or somewhat similar to VB. The changes have
    been made to make the BASIC language fit in with the way in which .Net works
    and this is precisely the reason that C++ and Java haven't needed major
    changes; they already work that way. It is also the reason why devs using
    other languages have sneered at VB (my language of choice for the last 8
    years) as a toy language. They argue vehemently that they don't want to
    sacrifice power for speed and we argue, just as vehemently, that VB is
    great and you should look into it. And we're both wrong! It should be a
    case of the right tool for the right job, but both camps are so blinded by
    their loyalties that they don't see this, usually. This is another thing
    that .Net addresses, by allowing us all to do what we do best (VB coders to
    their corner and other devs to theirs) and mix code to get the best effect
    from ANY language. 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 and that litter servers like
    Download.com or Tucows. Which will be very nice. <bg>

    Speaking for myself, I had recently been considering moving to another
    language like Delphi or C++ Builder or Java. Since I don't get on very well
    with Pascal, it really was going to have to be C++ Builder and\or Java or
    maybe something I had yet to discover. I have had the feeling recently that
    VB 6 was lacking in many fundamental ways. Now .Net has changed my
    perspective somewhat and I am again interested in VB development, along
    with C# and possibly C++.Net. Those who scream and wail about VB need not
    worry just yet, VB 6 will be around for a few years to come (the company
    for which I work still supports VB3 and Access 2 apps!) but new development
    will soon start to dry up for those who don't use .Net. One thing that
    seems very clear to me is that those who refuse to make the change or can't
    make the change will end up like Cobol and Fortran devs; forever fixing
    other peoples bugs in legacy systems that require little or no new
    development. Well, if all you want to do is VB 6 stuff, then that should
    be fine for you, the rest of us can move up the ladder and we'll all be the
    better for it by getting rid of those who can't cut it and write very poor,
    buggy, hard to maintain code. Maybe after 5 years of fixing the same
    crappy code, you'll see why more structured development is a good thing and
    maybe by then you'll be qualified to start using tools like .Net.

    Until I sat down to have a proper think about this, I was somewhat peeved
    about this .Net stuff. I like VB 6, it's very useful in the right hands.
    I have spent eight years using and learning it and I have spent the last
    four years learning a lot about (the now obsolete!) ActiveX\Com technology.
    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.

    For those looking for books on retraining, I can personally recommend
    looking at "Designing Visual Basic.Net Applications" written by David Vitter
    and published by Coriolis. It basically deals with those making the
    transition from VB 6 to VB.Net, highlighting all the changes between the
    two an explaining OO in an easy to understand manner for those who need it
    (and I know devs will skip those bits, but a lot of VB 6 devs could give a
    fig for OO as a rule). I do not have any affiliations with either the
    author or publisher of this book (before someone accuses me), but am just
    trying to pass on something useful to those in a similar position to me. If
    anyone knows of a good C# book, could they post a reply to let me (and
    others) know?

    The bottom line is this: .Net is the future, VB 6 will soon be the past.
    Those who know which tool they'll be using in 6 months time know which
    direction their careers will be travelling for the next five years or so.
    The king is dead (VB 6), long live the king! (VB.Net)

    Hmmmm..... a somewhat long and rambling rant, but I believe my major
    points have been made <g>

    Dave Lewis
    "Nothing is foolproof to a talented fool"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no>
    Newsgroups: vb.dotnet.discussion
    Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:04 AM
    Subject: They created J#, why couldn't they do VB#?


    > J# is the Java language on the .Net engine. Why couldn't MS ship the
    > rumoured VB7 as VB#, instead of offending the VB community with VB.NET?
    >
    > VB.Net is powerful, no doubt, but it lacks the greatness of VB Classic.
    > VB.Net is so strikingly similar to C# that I wonder why they bothered.
    > Surely VB7 would be a better commersial decition?
    >
    > /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