Addition to the VB Community - Page 3


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 195

Thread: Addition to the VB Community

  1. #31
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:38:47 -0800, "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org>
    wrote:

    >Yeah, if Microsoft decides they'd rather have the equivalent of TeamB, I have little
    >doubt you're right.


    Hey don't be dissing TeamB, you may become a member some day. <eg>


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

  2. #32
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    Karl,

    >> transition interesting and worthwile.

    > ^^^^^^^^^^
    >
    >Keyword, there.


    I think it's entirely appropriate. VB6 has not been *killed* as some
    claim, there is a several-year transition period during which people and
    applications may migrate to .net if they choose. And if they don't choose
    to do so they may essentially be tomorrow's cobol programmers.

    >I've said on many occassions, and in print, that the new platform is pretty dang
    >cool -- I just wish they'd included VB in it, rather than deciding to kill it.


    The problem I have with that statement is that there is not agreement
    about whether MS *did* "kill it" or not. Some people think it's alive and
    well, others think it's wounded by still able to function, some think it's
    wounded but look forward to at least a partial recovery next version, and
    still others think it's dead - completely.

    >That's the issue they need to confront.


    From my perspective the issue is already behind us, except to the extent
    that MS may be able to divine - using psychics perhaps - exactly what it
    is about the Heart & Soul of VB which some of y'all think has been killed.

    You and I have had this discussion before - said for the sake of the
    readers - and I still have trouble understanding what it is about VB that
    you think has died.

    >The disgust in the community really has next
    >to nothing (MM aside, of course) to do with OOP.


    This too is a discussion which has been had before, it seems to me that in
    order to become more oop-like - and especially to blend in with the .net
    environment - it *had* to be changed some.


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

  3. #33
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    Hi Zane --

    > >Yeah, if Microsoft decides they'd rather have the equivalent of TeamB, I have

    little
    > >doubt you're right.

    >
    > Hey don't be dissing TeamB, you may become a member some day. <eg>


    LOL! Hey man, they don't pay *that* well! <vbg>

    Later... Karl
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


  4. #34
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    Hi Kunle --

    > > > Many VB users (I'd guess a _very_ significant monority at the least) have
    > > > problems with VB6, they also had problems with VB5, VB4 and all other
    > > > previous versions.

    > >
    > > If you're saying the ones opposed to VFred are only so out of ignorance,
    > > one word, and only one word, applies: Bullshit.

    >
    > I wasn't saying that anyone opposed to VB.NET is ignorant. I said a great
    > percentage of VB users have problems with all upgrades to VB regardless.


    Gotta disagree with that almost as vehemently. Unless by "great" you mean something
    in the sub-10% category or by "problems" you mean things not using InstrRev when a
    backwards For-Next loop works "just as well"?

    > also said that this is an area where MVPs play a significant role by helping
    > others to come to better manage the change.


    Could be. <shrug>

    > I am not surprised that such a large percentage of MVPs have at least mixed
    > feelings about VB.NET Karl. It is a radical upgrade to VB that IMO fixes a
    > lot of overdue issues with VB. I hope whatever percentage of MVPs choose to
    > remain with VB continue to help the community in the time honoured
    > tradition.


    I really don't see that being affected much, if at all, because (other than a very
    few over the years) most MVPs are so because they really enjoy helping others out.
    In this case, however, I think you need to recognize the community-shattering effect
    Microsoft has brought on. There no longer _is_ "a" VB community. Odds are, given
    your expressed preferences, you probably won't see a lot of those you know as VB
    MVPs, because their and your interests simply no longer coincide.

    Later... Karl
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


  5. #35
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    Hi Zane --

    > >> transition interesting and worthwile.

    > > ^^^^^^^^^^
    > >Keyword, there.

    >
    > I think it's entirely appropriate. VB6 has not been *killed* as some
    > claim, there is a several-year transition period during which people and
    > applications may migrate to .net if they choose. And if they don't choose
    > to do so they may essentially be tomorrow's cobol programmers.


    Don't wanna get into that with you. MSBasic is dead. Dead as Cobol, as you aptly
    point out. There will be no advancement from this point on, and in this industry we
    both know what that means.

    > >I've said on many occassions, and in print, that the new platform is pretty dang
    > >cool -- I just wish they'd included VB in it, rather than deciding to kill it.

    >
    > The problem I have with that statement is that there is not agreement
    > about whether MS *did* "kill it" or not.


    Understood. They did. HTH! ;-)

    > Some people think it's alive and
    > well, others think it's wounded by still able to function, some think it's
    > wounded but look forward to at least a partial recovery next version, and
    > still others think it's dead - completely.


    No existing (and to prevent Phil from posting a MsgBox sample, I might add
    "meaningful" as a qualifier) code runs "as is". That's pretty damning, right there.
    Very few are saying that VFred sucks outright. I'm not. It's just not MSBasic --
    only a couple of recycled keywords and a misbegotten name.

    > >That's the issue they need to confront.

    >
    > From my perspective the issue is already behind us, except to the extent
    > that MS may be able to divine - using psychics perhaps - exactly what it
    > is about the Heart & Soul of VB which some of y'all think has been killed.


    I know you're frustrated with the expression of a few some 12-16 months ago, in that
    regard. Fact: It's MSBasic when MSBasic code can run in it. Hey, I'm easy-going on
    this point, too. I'm not clamoring for 100% backwards compatability. Wouldn't take
    a psychic to divine that 50% would be a pivotal mark, however. Think they came
    anywhere close to that?

    > You and I have had this discussion before - said for the sake of the
    > readers - and I still have trouble understanding what it is about VB that
    > you think has died.


    I know. That's okay. I'm trying, by using "existing source compatability" as a
    benchmark, but I know that's not gonna weigh on your scales. It will for many,
    though.

    > >The disgust in the community really has next
    > >to nothing (MM aside, of course) to do with OOP.

    >
    > This too is a discussion which has been had before, it seems to me that in
    > order to become more oop-like - and especially to blend in with the .net
    > environment - it *had* to be changed some.


    No disagreement there. (Said for benefit of readers. <g>)

    Later... Karl
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


  6. #36
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    Karl,

    >Don't wanna get into that with you.


    Down with the flu today? <g>

    >MSBasic is dead.


    Is that something that existed before VB?

    >Fact: It's MSBasic when MSBasic code can run in it.



    So that leaves VB1 out, except ....

    >Hey, I'm easy-going on
    >this point, too. I'm not clamoring for 100% backwards compatability.



    That now there's room for compromise. <vbg>

    >Wouldn't take
    >a psychic to divine that 50% would be a pivotal mark, however. Think they came
    >anywhere close to that?


    I have no way of judging that. If you want to simply count lines of code
    which require no change then that mark would vary depending upon the type
    of application, I guess.

    My view of the situation is that rather than giving Basic the Kiss Of
    Cobol they've given it a future. In order to get Basic into that future
    it *had to be changed*. There's certainly room for differing evaluations
    on what that change should have been like, or might have been like, but
    that's water under the bridge now. It's released, people need to make
    their choices and get on with their lives.


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

  7. #37
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    Hi Zane --

    > >Don't wanna get into that with you.

    >
    > Down with the flu today? <g>


    Whoa! You *are* spending time with Psychic Friends, aren't you??? <bg>

    > >MSBasic is dead.

    >
    > Is that something that existed before VB?


    Yep. It was the product they founded the company on. But you knew that.

    > >Fact: It's MSBasic when MSBasic code can run in it.

    >
    > So that leaves VB1 out, except ....


    Why do you say that? It was pretty easy sharing -- note: not porting, but
    *sharing* -- code between VB1 and prior versions. I had lots of code written to
    access DBF files, and used it seemlessly between VB1/VBDOS/PDS7x/QB4x. In fact, it
    didn't break until VB4/32 changed the definition of the fundamental String datatype.

    > >Hey, I'm easy-going on
    > >this point, too. I'm not clamoring for 100% backwards compatability.

    >
    > That now there's room for compromise. <vbg>


    Heheheh... of course!

    > >Wouldn't take
    > >a psychic to divine that 50% would be a pivotal mark, however. Think they came
    > >anywhere close to that?

    >
    > I have no way of judging that. If you want to simply count lines of code
    > which require no change then that mark would vary depending upon the type
    > of application, I guess.


    I'd guess that with *any* application, you'd be **** hard-pressed to find that mark
    even approach 10%.

    > My view of the situation is that rather than giving Basic the Kiss Of
    > Cobol they've given it a future. In order to get Basic into that future
    > it *had to be changed*.


    Cobol is backwards compatible. That's why programs written 40 years ago still run.
    I don't necessarily have a problem with being able to assure a customer that my work
    will still work in a couple-few years. That simply is not possible if you use
    Microsoft tools today, however.

    > There's certainly room for differing evaluations
    > on what that change should have been like, or might have been like, but
    > that's water under the bridge now. It's released, people need to make
    > their choices and get on with their lives.


    Yep. But don't discount the impact influencing those choices may have. The war has
    only just begun, as until now it's been nothing but posturing all around. <g>

    Later... Karl
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


  8. #38
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    Karl,

    >> Down with the flu today? <g>

    >
    >Whoa! You *are* spending time with Psychic Friends, aren't you??? <bg>


    Busted, yes I called 1-900-PSYCHIC.

    >> So that leaves VB1 out, except ....

    >
    >Why do you say that? It was pretty easy sharing -- note: not porting, but
    >*sharing* -- code between VB1 and prior versions. I had lots of code written to
    >access DBF files, and used it seemlessly between VB1/VBDOS/PDS7x/QB4x. In fact, it
    >didn't break until VB4/32 changed the definition of the fundamental String datatype.


    One way to achieve sharing for the transition period <g> is to use COM
    interop, but you already know that. :-)

    >> I have no way of judging that. If you want to simply count lines of code
    >> which require no change then that mark would vary depending upon the type
    >> of application, I guess.

    >
    >I'd guess that with *any* application, you'd be **** hard-pressed to find that mark
    >even approach 10%.


    That's something I just don't know.

    >Cobol is backwards ...


    We agree on that much!


    >Yep. But don't discount the impact influencing those choices may have. The war has
    >only just begun, as until now it's been nothing but posturing all around. <g>


    The problem with framing it as a war is that you then have an enemy.
    <shrug>


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

  9. #39
    Bob Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    In article <3c812bdb.139367640@news.devx.com>, zane@mabry.com says...
    > My view of the situation is that rather than giving Basic the Kiss Of
    > Cobol they've given it a future. In order to get Basic into that future
    > it *had to be changed*. There's certainly room for differing evaluations
    > on what that change should have been like, or might have been like, but
    > that's water under the bridge now. It's released, people need to make
    > their choices and get on with their lives.
    >


    Kiss Of COBOL...I like that!

    Bob

  10. #40
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community


    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >Gotta disagree with that almost as vehemently. Unless by "great" you mean

    something
    >in the sub-10% category or by "problems" you mean things not using InstrRev

    when a
    >backwards For-Next loop works "just as well"?


    I'll respectifully disagree with both of you. There hasn't been great changes
    in *every* version of "Microsoft Basic" (or even in every version of the
    subset called Visual Basic), but there certainly has been extremely substantive
    (great, if you prefer) changes in a number of the versions.

    >I really don't see that being affected much, if at all, because (other than

    a very
    >few over the years) most MVPs are so because they really enjoy helping others

    out.

    I don't think that's changed. All MVP's are MVP's because they freely help
    the community. I intend to help programmers learn and get aquainted with
    VB.NET, so they can do their jobs. That's how I perceive my efforts will
    benefit the community most. You, on the other hand, feel that your contribution
    to help the community is by voicing a strong dislike for the product, hopefully
    preventing as many people as possible from becoming blindly overcome by what
    is obviously a Microsoft marketing scam (I can only assume).

    >In this case, however, I think you need to recognize the community-shattering

    effect
    >Microsoft has brought on. There no longer _is_ "a" VB community.


    That I can agree with completely. And there are more divisions in the community
    than simply like vs. dislike. However, there was a big rift in programming
    community when it came to DOS vs. Windows too, and look were we are.

    If you're saying that "Microsoft Basic" has somehow been this consistant
    entity and that now, this entity no longer exists within the context of VB.NET,
    I'll have to disagree.
    If, on the other hand, you say that "Microsoft Basic" has always been a moving
    target, and therefore, if you want to write your code once and (almost) never
    touch it again, and VB.NET is only further proof that you can't, then "Microsoft
    Basic" is not where you want to be (which seems to be Dan's viewpoint) -
    then I'll agree.

    I think the biggest factor is likely to be that of perception. I really hated
    VB.NET when i first looked into it in November of 99. Since then, I've thoroughly
    tested a large part of the framework, written new apps, converted old apps,
    very thoroughly read the documentation, and finally came to the conclusion
    that I had to eat my words, and based on my comparisons of change vs. benefit,
    VB.NET is the future.
    Some have come to quite the opposite conclusion, and still others haven't
    gotten to my conclusion *yet*.
    After all, I know a few DOS programmers that got into Windows programming
    kicking and screaming. However, ask them today whether or not they'd go back


    -Rob

  11. #41
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    Hi Zane --

    > >> Down with the flu today? <g>

    > >
    > >Whoa! You *are* spending time with Psychic Friends, aren't you??? <bg>

    >
    > Busted, yes I called 1-900-PSYCHIC.


    LOL! I knew it! I just knew it... <g>

    > >> So that leaves VB1 out, except ....

    > >
    > >Why do you say that? It was pretty easy sharing -- note: not porting, but
    > >*sharing* -- code between VB1 and prior versions. I had lots of code written to
    > >access DBF files, and used it seemlessly between VB1/VBDOS/PDS7x/QB4x. In fact,

    it
    > >didn't break until VB4/32 changed the definition of the fundamental String

    datatype.
    >
    > One way to achieve sharing for the transition period <g> is to use COM
    > interop, but you already know that. :-)


    Thunk yew very much, noooo...

    > >Yep. But don't discount the impact influencing those choices may have. The war

    has
    > >only just begun, as until now it's been nothing but posturing all around. <g>

    >
    > The problem with framing it as a war is that you then have an enemy.
    > <shrug>


    Not of my own choosing, unfortunately. This enemy "cast the first stone", as it
    were, and all I've done is try to show them the error of their ways. I grant the
    Bully no favor.

    Later... Karl
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


  12. #42
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:14:33 -0800, "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org>
    wrote:

    >Not of my own choosing, unfortunately. This enemy "cast the first stone", as it
    >were, and all I've done is try to show them the error of their ways.


    I guess we'll have to start calling you David then. <vbg>


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

  13. #43
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:24:57 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:

    >I'm currently teaching my soon-to-be 14 year-old son to program using .net
    >and he finds the encapsulation and inheritance very easy to grasp. It
    >seems to me that anyone who is *willing* to step back and consider vb.net
    >and oop for what they are instead of clinging to the past will find the
    >transition interesting and worthwile.


    Ah, willing. Trouble is, I'm not. Some of the characters in Animal
    Farm and Brave New World were not willing either, and they were made
    to toe the line.

    Not me.

    MM

  14. #44
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community


    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:3c4f2813$1@10.1.10.29...
    > Hi Kunle --
    >
    > > > > Many VB users (I'd guess a _very_ significant monority at the least)

    have
    > > > > problems with VB6, they also had problems with VB5, VB4 and all

    other
    > > > > previous versions.
    > > >
    > > > If you're saying the ones opposed to VFred are only so out of

    ignorance,
    > > > one word, and only one word, applies: Bullshit.

    > >
    > > I wasn't saying that anyone opposed to VB.NET is ignorant. I said a

    great
    > > percentage of VB users have problems with all upgrades to VB regardless.

    >


    > Gotta disagree with that almost as vehemently. Unless by "great" you mean

    something
    > in the sub-10% category or by "problems" you mean things not using

    InstrRev when a
    > backwards For-Next loop works "just as well"?


    Juat a [significant]cut-and-paste typo on my part. I actually said a _very_
    significant minority. I suspect the figure is closer to (or even above) 20%
    of VB users. It certainly is higher for the "developer pools" in many large
    institutions.

    By issues I mean everything from getting files upgraded to the new formats
    to, being able to determine and select the best mechanism for achieving any
    particular result using the tools.

    > I think you need to recognize the community-shattering effect
    > Microsoft has brought on.


    I do. I also hope you understand that had MS simply produce a VB7, the
    pleased half would have simply exchanged places with unpleased half.

    > There no longer _is_ "a" VB community.


    There is. It's just a tad more lively than it used to be.

    > Odds are, given
    > your expressed preferences, you probably won't see a lot of those you know

    as VB
    > MVPs, because their and your interests simply no longer coincide.


    I still have your VB Tips book Karl (yours and Zane at al). Might even ask
    you guys to sign it someday. Could fetch a fortune someday when
    archeaologists starting digging up VB4 disks... <g>

    Kunle



  15. #45
    Zane Thomas Guest

    Re: Addition to the VB Community

    On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:27:55 GMT, kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell)
    wrote:

    >Ah, willing. Trouble is, I'm not.


    Yes we know that, so why are you here again? Obviously not to learn
    anything.


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

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