Addition to the VB Community

[Kunle Odutola]

"Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
news:3c51b503$3@10.1.10.29...
> What's the benefit of porting UI and not the rest?
> How's the COM Interop my friend when maintaing/extending my VB6 dlls?

In phase uno - phase 1 - of a staged migration.

> I may have read this post completely wrong, but I don't see the benefit of
> this splitting in two different environments. It certainly can't benefit
> deployment?

Rome was not built in a day...

Kunle

[Mike Mitchell]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:59:28 -0600, "Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>........ Some of us are professionals here Mike, and I
>for one am insulted that you would hint that this would happen.

Aw, gee, sorreee!

Seriously, are you telling me that this is NOT going to happen? That a
software house decides (i.e. the CEO decides) to go .NET and "migrate"
all its clients thereto? That is, all its clients it can persuade to
be transitioned. You can speak for all vendors and thus avoid imagined
insults? It was not an insult anyway; you construed it as such. There
we have Microsoft, which is demonstrably calling a halt to classic VB
by replacing it with VB.NET, thus making lots of rewrites inevitable,
but you're saying we can still trust all the *other* vendors for as
long as we want to NOT leave us at the side of the road with the spare
wheel and the jack?

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On 25 Jan 2002 12:38:02 -0800, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
wrote:

>Nope, I *did* think about you said, and that's the carefully thought-out
>response your post deserved. Would you like me to say it again?

If you want to to be rude again, go ahead, knock yourself out!

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On 25 Jan 2002 12:34:58 -0800, "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com>
wrote:

>OK, bye-bye! Have fun!

Ooh, your insouciance is showing again!

MM

[Thomas Eyde]

That's true, but the Romans didn't have to rebuild existing areas when
expanding...
/Thomas

"Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote in
message news:3c51ea57@10.1.10.29...
> Rome was not built in a day...

[Mike Mitchell]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:20:59 +0100, "Thomas Eyde"
<thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:

>If this is true (I buy it) why did MS invest in .NET at all? Seems like a
>recepie for disaster to me, forcing "everyone" into something they don't
>want.

The Microsoft Marketing Machine (mmm!) is extremely good at persuading
folks to buy their stuff. If slowly but surely the whole Windows world
is moved to .NET, what choice will most Windows users eventually have?
This is not something they plan for just 2002, I think, but probably
for the next several years at least. I am convinced that BillG just
takes it as read that everyone wants great software, and since his
software is *the* greatest, ergo, they must want his, and that must
mean anyone who wants any software anywhere. I mean, if you think your
products are the greatest, why would you stop at some arbitrary point
to not persuade folks any longer? So you don't stop until there is no
one left to convince, because by then everyone is running great
software on .NET.

MM

[Thomas Eyde]

You don't like Edit-Save-Continue or don't think the feature add any
benefits? Or was it that I think favouring C# over B# is a smarter strategy?

/Thomas

[Jay Glynn]

> Aw, gee, sorreee!

Apology accepted...

>
> Seriously, are you telling me that this is NOT going to happen? That a
> software house decides (i.e. the CEO decides) to go .NET and "migrate"
> all its clients thereto? That is, all its clients it can persuade to
> be transitioned. You can speak for all vendors and thus avoid imagined
> insults? It was not an insult anyway; you construed it as such. There
> we have Microsoft, which is demonstrably calling a halt to classic VB
> by replacing it with VB.NET, thus making lots of rewrites inevitable,
> but you're saying we can still trust all the *other* vendors for as
> long as we want to NOT leave us at the side of the road with the spare
> wheel and the jack?

Depending on what I'm paying for that software. We have contracts that run 5
and 6 figures a year for software packages. I would expect these companies
to do whatever we ask them to do (within reason), and for the most part they
do. MSFT is not calling a halt to classic VB. Those compilers will still
keep on working. I don't really think you will see everyone rewriting all of
their apps any time real soon. This is the fallacy in your world. I have
half a million lines of VB classic code. I have no plans on rewriting any of
it for quite a while. I'm building new systems with .NET but why would I
need to rewrite something if it is working. I'm going to be using VB6 for
several years to come, and I think it's safe to say that that will be true
for a lot of developers.

[Patrick Troughton]

Not sure I understand your point, assuming you have one. .NET was only released
last week.

/Pat

"Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
>We wouldn't need as much of these things if this where done years ago?
>
>"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
>news:3c4c63d7$1@147.208.176.211...
>>
>> Well, no. There are lots of areas that Microsoft may want feedback so
they
>> better serve us such as better documentation, training, MS Press
>publications,
>> service packs, etc. Not to mention, .NET version 2 and beyond. This is
>just
>> the beginning....
>
>
>

[Patrick Troughton]

Nor do you. HTH!

/Pat

"Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
>That's true, but the Romans didn't have to rebuild existing areas when
>expanding...
>/Thomas
>
>"Kunle Odutola okocha.freeserve.co.uk>" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS> wrote
in
>message news:3c51ea57@10.1.10.29...
>> Rome was not built in a day...
>
>
>

[Thomas Eyde]

We are obviously talking about two different things here. How am I supposed
to do maintenance and bugfixes on Classic VB in .NET?

/Thomas

"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
news:3c528d8b$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> Nor do you. HTH!
>
> /Pat
>
> "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
> >That's true, but the Romans didn't have to rebuild existing areas when
> >expanding...
> >/Thomas

[Thomas Eyde]

I don't have the resources nor the propaganda machine to do that. To
convince my customers to still think my software is great and keep them
buying, I have to make what they want and need.

We obviously need .NET compatible tools when Windows goes .NET all the way,
but since when did we need a completely new language not very compatible
with previous versions?

/Thomas

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c51f1cc.17279386@news.devx.com...
> I mean, if you think your
> products are the greatest, why would you stop at some arbitrary point
> to not persuade folks any longer? So you don't stop until there is no
> one left to convince, because by then everyone is running great
> software on .NET.

[Thomas Eyde]

Released, yes, but not planned, design or built.

My point is I think the help they try to give now will be in vain. A poor
product does not get better by giving more listening or help. It may be more
used, but not better.

/Thomas

"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
news:3c528c65$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> Not sure I understand your point, assuming you have one. .NET was only
released
> last week.
>
> /Pat

[Patrick Troughton]

Same way you always have.

/Pat

"Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote:
>We are obviously talking about two different things here. How am I supposed
>to do maintenance and bugfixes on Classic VB in .NET?
>
>/Thomas
>
>"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
>news:3c528d8b$1@10.1.10.29...
>>
>> Nor do you. HTH!
>>
>> /Pat

[Patrick Troughton]

Shh, Michael. He's already made up his mind. Don't confuse him with the facts!

/Pat

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" <former_mvp@nospam.trigeminal.spamless.com> wrote:
>You are not. Lucky for you that VB6 will still work on your dev machine?
>
>
>--
>MichKa
>
>Michael Kaplan
>Trigeminal Software, Inc. -- http://www.trigeminal.com/
>
>International VB? -- http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
>C++? MSLU -- http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/10/