All this rhetoric is a little perplexing... - Page 2


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 384

Thread: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...

  1. #16
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...


    Sure, VB6 interops with .NET quite nicely.

    /Pat

    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On 31 Jan 2002 10:30:50 -0800, "Patrick Troughton"
    ><Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
    >
    >>There is more choice than ever with over 20 languages targetting the .NET
    >>platform....

    >
    >Curious as it may seem to you, Pat, I would like to choose a
    >B.A.S.I.C. which is 100% compatible with VB6 from those 20 you
    >mentioned. Now, does any of them fulfil that role?
    >
    >MM



  2. #17
    John Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...


    "The product's dead, mate! Haven't you heard?"

    VB6.0 is a dying product(not dead yet).VB.net induces a new life to VB otherwise
    vb6.0 will follow the same path of Powerbuilder,GuptaSQL etc...

    As a true VB lover I would like to see VB alive and I totally happy with
    VB.net goodies(oops support,Multithreading etc...)

    JOHN, STOP FUD.

    later....

    John



  3. #18
    John Butler Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3c5921d1.3735104@news.devx.com...
    > > Does anybody really think
    > >they're going to convert one side over to the other? Do the .NOTers think
    > >they're going to persuade Microsoft to see the error of their ways and

    get
    > >cracking on VB 7?

    >
    > Of course. It WILL happen. When three million classic VB users realise
    > what they're buying, Microsoft will have no other option, just like
    > Pepsi and Coke.


    Whatever you're smoking Mike, I'd like some NOW!

    :-}

    rgds
    John Butler




  4. #19
    Miha Markic Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...

    .....

    > Discontinued 15/02/02 203-00768 Microsoft® Visual Basic® Professional
    > 6.0 Win32 English North America CD Refresh
    >
    > The product's dead, mate! Haven't you heard?


    So what?
    My company is still supporting our VB3 apps...

    --
    Miha



  5. #20
    Paulo Costa Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...

    So should we conclude that the creators of the .NET were unable to mantain
    the language stability of one of their products used by more than 3 million
    people? Or should we conclude that for some obscure commercial reason they
    didn't respect their customers?

    I've been using Basic since Basic for DOS (I started with QBasic) and I have
    no problem with learning new languages. This is the same picture of the
    transition between DOS and Windows and sure I will continue programming with
    vb.Net.

    I have been waiting for the cool new features that came with VS.Net but now
    I'll not bet my shirt on vb.Net because in the future I would like to spend
    my time writing exciting new code for making money, not re-writing the code
    I've already writen. So I don't care with the capacity of choice among over
    20 languages targetting the .NET.

    This is an advice for young .NET faithfulls:Ensure that vb.What? (the next
    generation of VB after vb.Net) will be compatible with vb.Net. (NOTE: This
    advice is FOR FREE!!!! he he he)

    Paulo Costa
    ----------
    Vb.Net could have been implemented without losing Language Compatibility
    with Vb6.

    "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
    news:3c598d5a$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > There is more choice than ever with over 20 languages targetting the .NET
    > platform....
    >
    > /Pat
    >
    > kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    > >On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:30:15 -0700, "Luhar" <luhar@liquidvb.com>
    > >wrote:
    > >
    > >>It's like going to a car dealership and buying a brand new corvette.

    > >
    > >At least you had a choice of which car from dozens to buy. Where VB is
    > >concerned it will soon be VB.NET or nothing.
    > >
    > >MM

    >




  6. #21
    Paulo Costa Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...

    Billy Boy should have done the same with VB6...

    Paulo Costa
    ----------
    Vb.Net could have been implemented without losing Language Compatibility
    with Vb6.

    "Miha Markic" <miham@spam=no.spin.com> wrote in message
    news:3c5a4f3b@10.1.10.29...
    > ....
    >
    > > Discontinued 15/02/02 203-00768 Microsoft® Visual Basic® Professional
    > > 6.0 Win32 English North America CD Refresh
    > >
    > > The product's dead, mate! Haven't you heard?

    >
    > So what?
    > My company is still supporting our VB3 apps...
    >
    > --
    > Miha
    >
    >




  7. #22
    Miha Markic Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...

    Whatever. My point was, that VB3 is still runing and kickin'.
    Good thing for being dead, huh?

    --
    Miha Markic

    "Paulo Costa" <pcosta@esagri.pt> wrote in message
    news:3c5a7993$1@10.1.10.29...
    > Billy Boy should have done the same with VB6...
    >
    > Paulo Costa
    > ----------
    > Vb.Net could have been implemented without losing Language Compatibility
    > with Vb6.
    >
    > "Miha Markic" <miham@spam=no.spin.com> wrote in message
    > news:3c5a4f3b@10.1.10.29...
    > > ....
    > >
    > > > Discontinued 15/02/02 203-00768 Microsoft® Visual Basic® Professional
    > > > 6.0 Win32 English North America CD Refresh
    > > >
    > > > The product's dead, mate! Haven't you heard?

    > >
    > > So what?
    > > My company is still supporting our VB3 apps...





  8. #23
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...


    "Paulo Costa" <pcosta@esagri.pt> wrote:
    >So should we conclude that the creators of the .NET were unable to mantain
    >the language stability of one of their products used by more than 3 million
    >people?


    There never was "language stability". This is one of the Great Myths of the
    Anti-.NET Religion and has been debunked many times in this newsgroup.


    >>I've been using Basic since Basic for DOS (I started with QBasic) and I

    have
    >no problem with learning new languages. This is the same picture of the
    >transition between DOS and Windows and sure I will continue programming

    with
    >vb.Net.
    >
    >I have been waiting for the cool new features that came with VS.Net but

    now
    >I'll not bet my shirt on vb.Net because in the future I would like to spend
    >my time writing exciting new code for making money, not re-writing the code
    >I've already writen.


    Then don't. Most people are using .NET for new development and legacy VB6
    for maintaining existing applications.

    >So I don't care with the capacity of choice among over
    >20 languages targetting the .NET.


    I wasn't talking to you MM had claimed there was a lack of choice - I
    was merely pointing out to him that there was more choice than ever. And
    if you do care about "writing exciting new code for making money", the fact
    that you can more easily transition between different .NET languages means
    more job opporuntities and therefore more money.


    >This is an advice for young .NET faithfulls:Ensure that vb.What? (the next
    >generation of VB after vb.Net) will be compatible with vb.Net. (NOTE: This
    >advice is FOR FREE!!!! he he he)
    >
    >Paulo Costa
    >----------
    >Vb.Net could have been implemented without losing Language Compatibility
    >with Vb6.


    This is another of the Great Myths of the Anti-.NET Religion and it too has
    been debunked many times in this newsgroup.

    /Pat


  9. #24
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...

    On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:13:02 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas [.NET
    MVP]) wrote:

    >Then use VB6 ... of course you will become obsolete, but that's going to
    >happen anyway given your resistance to learning new technologies.


    So Linux is going to become obsolete?

    MM

  10. #25
    Zane Thomas [.NET MVP] Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...

    On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:34:20 GMT, kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell)
    wrote:

    >So Linux is going to become obsolete?


    Yes, all current technology will become obsolete. Someday.


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

  11. #26
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...

    On 1 Feb 2002 04:33:58 -0800, "Patrick Troughton"
    <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:

    >There never was "language stability".


    I don't know how you can claim that with a straight face or without
    rewriting history. VB1 through 6 gave the vast majority of VB
    developers excellent language stability over a ten year period, and
    pretty fair backward compatibility with BASICs before that. Others
    have pointed out that a lot of MSBASIC code from the days of the
    TRS-80 can easily be reused even in VB6, so the language stability you
    refuse to recognise (it's there, but you don't want to recognise it)
    is even longer in evidence.

    > This is one of the Great Myths of the
    >Anti-.NET Religion and has been debunked many times in this newsgroup.


    Capital Letters, such as those in your "Great Myths" claim do not
    veracity make. If you want to debunk, go ahead and try! Let's see how
    you bridge the chasm between VB6 and VB.NET, as opposed to a few
    stepping stones across the streams that join those previous versions.

    >>>I've been using Basic since Basic for DOS (I started with QBasic) and I

    >have
    >>no problem with learning new languages. This is the same picture of the
    >>transition between DOS and Windows and sure I will continue programming

    >with
    >>vb.Net.
    >>
    >>I have been waiting for the cool new features that came with VS.Net but

    >now
    >>I'll not bet my shirt on vb.Net because in the future I would like to spend
    >>my time writing exciting new code for making money, not re-writing the code
    >>I've already writen.

    >
    >Then don't. Most people are using .NET for new development and legacy VB6
    >for maintaining existing applications.


    I want to write NEW applications in VB6. So do my clients. I know that
    VB6 will do the job. But because I am being fair with them, I have to
    explain that the language I will be using is no longer an official
    product and will shortly be discontinued. You will understand that not
    all clients will want to risk a chunk of money which involves working
    with obsolete tools.

    >
    >>So I don't care with the capacity of choice among over
    >>20 languages targetting the .NET.

    >
    >I wasn't talking to you MM had claimed there was a lack of choice


    I was claiming that there is a lack of choice *OF B.A.S.I.C.s* in
    those 20 languages. In fact, there is only the *ONE* choice, which is
    obviously not a choice for me.

    > - I
    >was merely pointing out to him that there was more choice than ever.


    "merely pointing out" means here that you ignored what I said, simply
    took the number 20 as significant, and derived "more choice than ever"
    therefrom. This is not "merely pointing out", this is twisting the
    facts to fit your argument.

    > And
    >if you do care about "writing exciting new code for making money", the fact
    >that you can more easily transition between different .NET languages means
    >more job opporuntities and therefore more money.


    Yes, it may very well mean that for some.

    >>This is an advice for young .NET faithfulls:Ensure that vb.What? (the next
    >>generation of VB after vb.Net) will be compatible with vb.Net. (NOTE: This
    >>advice is FOR FREE!!!! he he he)
    >>
    >>Paulo Costa
    >>----------
    >>Vb.Net could have been implemented without losing Language Compatibility
    >>with Vb6.

    >
    >This is another of the Great Myths of the Anti-.NET Religion and it too has
    >been debunked many times in this newsgroup.


    I don't think ANY of us, even top-flight gurus like Karl and Zane, can
    really know how difficult and complex both VB6 and VB.NET are under
    their C++ hoods, but I do think it's fair to claim that Microsoft
    *could* have made a much better stab at code compatibility. I don't
    believe it was by accident that VB.NET turned out this way; I believe
    there are still ulterior motives at work here.

    MM

  12. #27
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...

    On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:09:07 -0000, "John Butler"
    <nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote:

    >> Of course. It WILL happen. When three million classic VB users realise
    >> what they're buying, Microsoft will have no other option, just like
    >> Pepsi and Coke.

    >
    >Whatever you're smoking Mike, I'd like some NOW!


    I believe that's what the Pepsi and Coke executives were saying, too!

    MM

  13. #28
    Patrick Troughton Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On 1 Feb 2002 04:33:58 -0800, "Patrick Troughton"
    >
    >I don't know how you can claim that with a straight face or without
    >rewriting history. VB1 through 6 gave the vast majority of VB
    >developers excellent language stability over a ten year period, and
    >pretty fair backward compatibility with BASICs before that. Others
    >have pointed out that a lot of MSBASIC code from the days of the
    >TRS-80 can easily be reused even in VB6, so the language stability you
    >refuse to recognise (it's there, but you don't want to recognise it)
    >is even longer in evidence.


    There never was "language stability" and we've gone over this ad repeatedly.
    we could explain it to you again, but apparently you didn't pay attention
    any of the other times so we have no reason to believe you'll pay attention
    now. If you really want to know, simply search the newsgroups.

    >> This is one of the Great Myths of the
    >>Anti-.NET Religion and has been debunked many times in this newsgroup.

    >
    >Capital Letters, such as those in your "Great Myths" claim do not
    >veracity make. If you want to debunk, go ahead and try!


    Already have. Many times in fact. Search the newsgroup archives if you need
    a rehash.

    >I want to write NEW applications in VB6. So do my clients. I know that
    >VB6 will do the job.


    Then go ahead and write new applications in VB6. I'm just giving my recommendation.
    Ultimately, it's your decision.

    > But because I am being fair with them, I have to
    >explain that the language I will be using is no longer an official
    >product and will shortly be discontinued.


    Since when are you concerned with being fair or accurate?

    > You will understand that not
    >all clients will want to risk a chunk of money which involves working
    >with obsolete tools.


    And they would probably be correct.

    >I was claiming that there is a lack of choice *OF B.A.S.I.C.s* in
    >those 20 languages.
    > In fact, there is only the *ONE* choice, which is
    >obviously not a choice for me.
    >
    >> - I
    >>was merely pointing out to him that there was more choice than ever.

    >
    >"merely pointing out" means here that you ignored what I said, simply
    >took the number 20 as significant, and derived "more choice than ever"
    >therefrom. This is not "merely pointing out", this is twisting the
    >facts to fit your argument.


    LOL! Looking like you don't even remember your own words....

    <QUOTE> At least you had a choice of which car from dozens to buy. Where
    VB is concerned it will soon be VB.NET or nothing. </QUOTE>

    <snip!>

    >I don't think ANY of us, even top-flight gurus like Karl and Zane, can
    >really know how difficult and complex both VB6 and VB.NET are under
    >their C++ hoods, but I do think it's fair to claim that Microsoft
    >*could* have made a much better stab at code compatibility. I don't
    >believe it was by accident that VB.NET turned out this way; I believe
    >there are still ulterior motives at work here.


    Yep, make a better mouse trap. How devious of them!

    /Pat

  14. #29
    Dan Barclay Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...

    On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:33:18 -0700, "Luhar" <luhar@slipnet.net> wrote:

    >Ahh... but I did post it in technical. Everybody's too busy over here
    >ranting about their favorite flavor of VB to look.


    Perhaps you've stumbled on a hidden truth. It's just possible that
    the effort, and "noise" as you see it, is an indication of relative
    importance. Then again, maybe not.

    Dan

    Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
    (#6)

  15. #30
    Zane Thomas [.NET MVP] Guest

    Re: All this rhetoric is a little perplexing...

    On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 23:35:24 -0600, Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:

    >Perhaps you've stumbled on a hidden truth. It's just possible that
    >the effort, and "noise" as you see it, is an indication of relative
    >importance. Then again, maybe not.


    Right, or maybe not. I recall a vb.net related chat not too long ago
    where four participants were pretty vocal - actually I ended up leaving in
    disgust because of the way they were monopolizing the chat - and the rest
    of the participants seemed to be there for what it was supposed to be: a
    chat about vb.net and not yet another *****-fest about what some people
    wish it was.

    At this point I think it's safe to say that vb.dotnet.discussion is about
    as an objective a discussion as you'd get if you put linux and windows
    programmers in the same room - without gloves - and told them that the
    future of the free world *really did* depend upon which OS came out on
    top.

    For, perhaps, a more realistic view of the future the .technical newsgroup
    is good. And the microsoft dotnet newsgroups get a lot of on-topic
    traffic. The occassional trolls like Joe Foster who babble by every once
    in a while are pretty much ignored by all.

    There are all sorts of agendas Dan, you and I both know that. You have
    yours, I have mine, and other people have theirs. But, after several
    iterations of upgrading components from VB1 on you'll forgive me if I
    don't burst out into tears if your carefully protected investment (and I'm
    sure it is, I know how you are <g>) in your code didn't get 100%
    protection this time. Some of us have been going out of our way for years
    to continue providing tools so that some of y'all had the easy upgrade
    path.

    This time everyone gets to upgrade, whether it's to vb.net or whatever is
    immaterial as far as I'm concerned. But now that vb.net is released I
    think the time for talk is over and the time for action has begun. Don't
    you agree?



    --
    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