.Net: Microsoft's window on Web services

[Rob Teixeira]

And data access was built into VB3. So what?

And BTW, the stripped context of the second sentence makes it misleading.
My Services is NOT integrated into VS.NET or the framework, and nobody is
forced to use them, (just like you don't have to build database applications
in VB3) if that's what you're getting at. By the same token, those services
can be accessed by non MS dev tools such as Java.

Which reminds me, what's your point again?

-Rob


kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>Interesting:
>
>"Making Web services a built-in part of the next-generation Windows
>platform, Microsoft .Net, is a top priority in Redmond."
>
>So's this:
>
>"Combined with the company's own consumer-focused My Services, the
>basics of Web services will be built into .Net from the ground up."
>
>Read the whole article at
>
>http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupda...823418,00.html
>
>MM

[Mike Mitchell]

Interesting:

"Making Web services a built-in part of the next-generation Windows
platform, Microsoft .Net, is a top priority in Redmond."

So's this:

"Combined with the company's own consumer-focused My Services, the
basics of Web services will be built into .Net from the ground up."

Read the whole article at

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupda...823418,00.html

MM

[Patrick Troughton]

It's part of what .NET is about. .NET is also about Windows applications,
web applications, embedded applications, mobile applications and console
applications, not to mention class libraries, user controls and Windows services...not
bad for a version 1 product!

/Pat

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>On 27 Nov 2001 21:16:55 GMT, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Which reminds me, what's your point again?
>
>..NET is about web services. Period.
>
>MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On 27 Nov 2001 21:16:55 GMT, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
wrote:

>Which reminds me, what's your point again?

..NET is about web services. Period.

MM

[Michael Bennett]

In article <3c041de0.9070429@news.devx.com>, kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk
says...
>
> .NET is about web services. Period.
>
> MM
>
No, .NET is about a new way to write Windows applications, Web
applications, Multi-OS distributed applications, PDA applications and
for all I know with something like DirectX.net Xbox game programs.

I can see that and at the moment I'm only .MAYBE

Michael

[max caber]

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>On 27 Nov 2001 21:16:55 GMT, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
>wrote:
".NET is about web services. Period."

Mike,
Do you know that web services will thrive with or without .NET. A web service
can be written in Java, VB6, COBOL, C and even kylix.
Max

[Ed Courtenay]

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>On 27 Nov 2001 21:16:55 GMT, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Which reminds me, what's your point again?
>
>..NET is about web services. Period.
>
>MM

99% of the time, as in the above statement, you talk bollocks. Period.

[Patrick Steele]

In article <3c041de0.9070429@news.devx.com> (from Mike Mitchell
<kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk>),
> On 27 Nov 2001 21:16:55 GMT, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Which reminds me, what's your point again?
>
> .NET is about web services. Period.

LOL!! You're too much.

You really don't have a clue about what .NET is, do you?

--
Patrick Steele
Microsoft .NET MVP

[Ian Drake]

>..NET is about web services. Period.

And the award, for the most shortsighted statement of the year, goes to...

[Patrick Troughton]

"Paulo Costa" <pcosta@esagri.pt> wrote:
>>...not bad for a version 1 product!
>
>Version 1?

Correct.

> When I look at http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/ I can read that
>Visual Basic turns 10 years of age and I ask myself where is language
>stability?

There never was language stabilty.

>Please read this article:
>http://www.mvps.org/vb/tips/stability.htm

I've read enough of Dan Barclay's writings, thank you.

/Pat

[Paulo Costa]

>...not bad for a version 1 product!

Version 1? When I look at http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/ I can read that
Visual Basic turns 10 years of age and I ask myself where is language
stability? Please read this article:
http://www.mvps.org/vb/tips/stability.htm

I hope this helps.

Paulo Costa

[Bob]

In article <3c0655a4$1@147.208.176.211>, pcosta@esagri.pt says...
> >...not bad for a version 1 product!
>
> Version 1? When I look at http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/ I can read that
> Visual Basic turns 10 years of age and I ask myself where is language
> stability?

I know how Dan feels about the subject and I'll still ask: Why would anyone
want language stability? I'd prefer to let the marketplace determine the
proper pace of change to a language, rather than some standards committee.

Bob
> Please read this article:
> http://www.mvps.org/vb/tips/stability.htm
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Paulo Costa
>
>
>

[Paulo Costa]

> There never was language stabilty.

Are you kiding? Language stabilty and code compatibility has allways been
assumed as a characteristic of MS programming products. Or do you suggest
that a programmer should re-write all his reusable code every version 1 of
Visual Basic? I am thinking about the next version 1 of Visual Basic to be
distributed in 2003...

Paulo

[Patrick Troughton]

"Paulo Costa" <pcosta@esagri.pt> wrote:
>> There never was language stabilty.
>
>Are you kiding?

No, Microsoft has added/dropped/changed key parts of the BASIC language,
including Visual Basic, more than once over the years.

> Language stabilty and code compatibility has allways been
>assumed as a characteristic of MS programming products.

Well, you know what they say about assumptions.

> Or do you suggest
>that a programmer should re-write all his reusable code every version 1
of
>Visual Basic?

No, I'm not suggesting you do anything. I'm just saying this isn't the first
time compatibility has been broken. Microsoft has done this several times,
especially when porting their BASIC product to a new platform. The last time
this happened was in 1995 when Microsoft ported 16-bit Windows Visual Basic
to 32-bit Windows. Some developers kicked and screamed then too. Six years
of relative stability may have given a false sense of security.

> I am thinking about the next version 1 of Visual Basic to be
>distributed in 2003...

2003 seems premature.

/Pat

[Patrick Troughton]

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>On 29 Nov 2001 18:10:48 GMT, "Patrick Troughton"
><Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>
>>No, Microsoft has added/dropped/changed key parts of the BASIC language,
>>including Visual Basic, more than once over the years.
>
>Please stick to the point. We are discussing VB.NET and classic VB.

I did. I said "including Visual Basic".

>You cannot use the fact that there were changes between QuickBASIC and
>VB version 1 to justify the changes between VB6 and VB.NET.

Well, to clarify, I did not say "justify" - that is a judgement call. I'm
simply stating the fact that it has happened in the past. I did not say this
was good, nor did I say that it was bad...only that it has happened before.

> For a
>start, Microsoft was moving from a completely different platform,
>namely DOS, to Windows with VB.

Right, as I said, Microsoft has done this several times, especially when
porting their BASIC product to a new platform...

- DOS to 16-bit Windows
- 16-Bit Windows to 32-Bit Windows
- 32-bit Windows to .NET

>>> Language stabilty and code compatibility has allways been
>>>assumed as a characteristic of MS programming products.
>>
>>Well, you know what they say about assumptions.
>
>No, let's hear what *you* want to say about that assumption,

I don't agree with that assumption.

> which, by
>the way, is a true fact and hardly an assumption, since Microsoft have
>bent over backwards in the past and moved heaven and earth to maintain
>backward compatibility in just about every previous product family. I
>know, because I bought every new version they came out with. They
>truly excelled in this regard. They could have done it this time, too,
>if it hadn't been for certain folks who wanted BASIC to look like C.

That may have been your experience but it has not been the experience of
others.

>Yeah, right! From DOS to Windows!

In addition to DOS to 16-bit Windows, there was also broken compatibility
in the transition from 16-bit Windows to 32-bit Windows and again from 32-bit
Windows to .NET.

> Tell me, what is the .NET framework
>going to run on? That's right, Windows.

.NET can be ported to other platforms and several Unix efforts are currently
underway. Also, keep in mind that a platform can run on other platform. Java,
for example, also runs on Windows.

> So they are 'porting' classic
>VB from Windows to Windows

No. See above.

> and completely changing it in the process,
>killing backward compatibility,

No, not completely. There are a few more things I would like to see Microsoft
break.

> losing literally millions of
>still-effective lines of code which won't get ported,

The interoperability layer will let COM code call .NET code and visa versa.

> losing millions
>of occasional programmers/users,

That has yet to be seen. But so far, so good.

> and outright developers, too, and all
>for what? For .NET.

That's right. For .NET.

>Are you seriously suggesting here that the changes between 16-bit and
>32-bit VB were comparable to the changes between VB6 and VB.NET?

Yes and no. Yes, they're comparable in the sense that backwards compatability
had been broken. But no, the changes are bigger in VB.NET. But either way,
as Dan Barclay loved to say, either you have compatibilty or you don't.

>Yes, there were *some* changes in the
>transition between 16 and 32 bit, but on nothing like the scale of
>changes we are now confronted with.

Correct. VB.NET is the biggest, best upgrade to Visual Basic yet.

/Pat