All this rhetoric is a little perplexing... - Page 3


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 384

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

  1. #31
    Dan Barclay Guest

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

    On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 06:56:40 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas [.NET
    MVP]) wrote:
    >
    >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.


    I think I'll get the opportunity to do that in the near future. Man,
    you should try that on a college campus these days <ggg>. I wouldn't
    suggest doing it in a classroom with the prof around if grades are
    important.

    >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.


    Yup. I'm straight up about mine. If there is something that doesn't
    seem clear, let me know.

    > 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>)


    Yes, and there are others just as anal about that as I am. Most
    vertical app developers are, or they will fail within a couple of
    years. Different world than tools developers. Most tools, including
    yours, spend most of their time dealing with OS and/or hardware
    interfaces so every time those change you've got to dig deep anyway.
    App developers spend a lot of time isolating "interface" code from
    core code. Heck, much of my "careful protection" involves planning
    around component vendor "challenges" (can you spell MH?). Anytime I
    use an external component I have at least a "plan B" and usually go
    further than that.

    Core language shouldn't be an issue though, for either of us. I'd
    hoped to see many Mabry components available in VB. Your continued
    use of C/C++ was a wise one. You've had to deal with library changes
    and interface changes, but not core language changes (though that may
    not matter since you'd have to change so much anyway).

    You choose to be in the component business and a part of that is
    dealing with interface changes... for those of us that don't.
    Component vendors are expected to understand the needs of app
    developers. I presume you spend a fair amount of time on that.

    >in your code didn't get 100%
    >protection this time.


    Heh, yea, maybe 20%? Actually it's low enough that it's effectively
    zero since I'd have to visit every line of code in a serious way.

    >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.


    That's why we pay you. Your external interfaces and libraries change
    and we don't want to deal with that when we can pay someone else to.
    I thought you had that figured out.. Changes in your C/C++ core
    language has been quite limited.

    >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?


    I'm taking instruction in C/C++ and Linux right now. I've been
    tinkering with OP/Delphi as well. I've studied dotnet to the level I
    need for now. Time for action? Yea, for planners. Conversion to
    "something" (whatever that is) will require a lot of coordination and
    planning. Could be dotnet at some point, but right now I'm learning
    stuff I had no intention of studying 18 months ago.

    Dan

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

  2. #32
    Zane Thomas [.NET MVP] Guest

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

    Dan,

    >>There are all sorts of agendas Dan, you and I both know that.

    >
    >Yup. I'm straight up about mine. If there is something that doesn't
    >seem clear, let me know.


    Nope, I think I understand your position reasonably well. I just don't
    happen to agree with all of it as I will describe below. <g>

    >... there are others just as anal about that as I am. Most
    >vertical app developers are, or they will fail within a couple of
    >years. Different world than tools developers.


    I think you've made good choices over the years, and had some considerable
    good luck as well. You had a codebase prior to VB and you were able to
    get into windows reasonably easily.

    However, I think it's a mistake to assume (or even hope) that once you
    have acquired a comfortable niche with a vertical application that things
    will not change - eventually - and I think they are changing now for good
    reasons.

    One of those reasons is that the .net framework with associated languages
    are vastly more productive than anything previously offered by Microsoft,
    a point I'm willing to argue strenuously from my own experience.

    What this would mean to me, if I were you, is that the discomfort I would
    be feeling would be about more than language stability - it would be in
    considerable measure about the threat of potetential by competitors in the
    not-too-distant future. Say, in a few years after the framework is
    pretty-much everywhere.

    This connects with my point about productivity in that newcomers may in
    fact have leverage by *not* having an existing codebase to be concerned
    about. Freeing them to address the problem in new ways for a new
    platform.

    Moreover, I don't agree with the idea that you live in a different world
    than I do. We both have customers and customers have changing
    requirements - if you don't move forward with a productive programming
    tool into the new environment then you may not be able to keep up with
    changing requirements.

    But you're a smart guy, I know that, and I know that you must be
    considering that future. For you, I suppose, part of the issue is which
    tool to go forward with. What I hope, for you, is that the rational
    judgements I know you're able to make are not swayed by the emotions of
    perceived betrayal and abandonment.


    >Core language shouldn't be an issue though, for either of us. I'd
    >hoped to see many Mabry components available in VB. Your continued
    >use of C/C++ was a wise one. You've had to deal with library changes
    >and interface changes, but not core language changes (though that may
    >not matter since you'd have to change so much anyway).


    The core language has been utterly irrelevant, its stability (a bit
    overstated, the transition to vbx->mfc also include c->c++) never bought
    us a free trip to europe or even a good meal. The technology we had to
    work with "under the covers" changed significantly three times and we had
    to essentially rewrite each component we wanted to carry forward.


    >>in your code didn't get 100%
    >>protection this time.

    >
    >Heh, yea, maybe 20%? Actually it's low enough that it's effectively
    >zero since I'd have to visit every line of code in a serious way.


    Been there, done that, wrote the self-help book. See above.

    >>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.

    >
    >That's why we pay you.


    And that's why your customers pay you. They want new features as they can
    afford them - and the .net system makes it less expensive to provide those
    new features. Build it and they will come, or something like that. :-)



    >Changes in your C/C++ core language has been quite limited.


    And pretty much irrelevant as I pointed out.

    >I'm taking instruction in C/C++ and Linux right now.


    I've got to say that most of the things you've written are rational - if
    misguided <g> - but that has got to be a huge mistake. C++ is *not* an
    easy language to write in, debug, or enhance. I can't tell you how glad I
    am to be using c# instead of c++ to write components, I can provide a lot
    more functionality, more reliably, and in a fraction of the time.

    Don't go there Dan, trust me on this one.

    >I've been tinkering with OP/Delphi as well.


    Rumor has it there's going to be a Delphi.NET - do you see yourself using
    that? What guarantee do you have that *it* would be stable. If you want
    a .net language which will be somewhat stable then you should choose c#
    since the participation of the ECMA will tend to put a damper on what
    y'all down there call "gratuitous incompatabilites". Of course nothing
    will prevent MS from extending the language whenever they feel like it,
    but backwards compatability will be important - for at least as long as MS
    chooses to play the ECMA game. Admittedly there's no predicting that
    there couldn't be some major disagreement between MS and the ECMA. But
    there are no guarantees in life, not even from Borland. LOL

    >Could be dotnet at some point, but right now I'm learning
    >stuff I had no intention of studying 18 months ago.


    Not C++ - please Dan! Take my advice, and send me a check after you
    realize how good it was! :-)


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

  3. #33
    Zane Thomas [.NET MVP] Guest

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

    On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:03:11 -0600, Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:

    >Core language shouldn't be an issue though, for either of us.


    I'd like to add one more comment to that; core languages are *not* an
    issue for me.

    Even if I'd had to change languages each time the component architecture
    changed it really wouldn't have bothered me a whole lot (unless I had to
    use Pascal, now *that* would have been so annoying that I might gone off
    to the legal profession).

    Over the years I have programmed using probably in excess of a dozen
    assembler languages of various sorts; things like the 4040, 6800, 6502,
    8080, z80, 8086 etc, pdp-11, 68000, and more esoteric processors such as
    the bit-slice 2901. To name a few. I've written compilers and
    interpreters, and programmed using just about every high-level language
    most progammers have used (fortran.NOT, cobol.NOT! ) - and at least one
    most programmers probably haven't heard of at all.

    In short, programming languages are entirely beside the point. One
    evening's reading is that's all that's required to get started evaluating
    any high-level language, and any competent programmer should be
    well-underway within a week.

    The point is: What are the best tools I can use to develop for the market
    I want to sell products into, given the operating system that market uses?


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

  4. #34
    Ray Collins Guest

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

    I'm just so glad that you are a programming God, and because Microsoft
    listened to people like you VB is completely F#$%ed !!!!

    You annoy the **** out of me sitting in your ivory tower telling the rest of
    the world how bad it is and if they only listened to you we will all be in
    the promised land of programming ! Did it ever occur to you Gods that the
    average yobs idea of programming nirvana is nothing like yours ?

    I have no doubt that you are extremely good at what you do but the world is
    not full of Zanes, the average programmer has been hurt by the changes that
    the VB Gods told Microsoft had to be there.

    You and the other VB Gods are so good why didn't you leave VB to the average
    programmers and beginners and piss off to some other language that did what
    you wanted (like maybe C#). You are so goddam clever you could have learnt
    it without costing you anything, while we mere mortals may not have the time
    or resources to keep learning everything from scratch. Incremental learning
    may fit into the available resources, wholesale re-education doesn't.

    Takes a deep breath and tries to calm down ......


    "Zane Thomas [.NET MVP]" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3c79faf3.1044351390@news.devx.com...
    > On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:03:11 -0600, Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:
    >
    > >Core language shouldn't be an issue though, for either of us.

    >
    > I'd like to add one more comment to that; core languages are *not* an
    > issue for me.
    >
    > Even if I'd had to change languages each time the component architecture
    > changed it really wouldn't have bothered me a whole lot (unless I had to
    > use Pascal, now *that* would have been so annoying that I might gone off
    > to the legal profession).
    >
    > Over the years I have programmed using probably in excess of a dozen
    > assembler languages of various sorts; things like the 4040, 6800, 6502,
    > 8080, z80, 8086 etc, pdp-11, 68000, and more esoteric processors such as
    > the bit-slice 2901. To name a few. I've written compilers and
    > interpreters, and programmed using just about every high-level language
    > most progammers have used (fortran.NOT, cobol.NOT! ) - and at least one
    > most programmers probably haven't heard of at all.
    >
    > In short, programming languages are entirely beside the point. One
    > evening's reading is that's all that's required to get started evaluating
    > any high-level language, and any competent programmer should be
    > well-underway within a week.
    >
    > The point is: What are the best tools I can use to develop for the market
    > I want to sell products into, given the operating system that market uses?
    >
    >
    > --
    > When freedom is outlawed
    > only outlaws will be free.




  5. #35
    Ian R Guest

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


    "Ray Collins" <Ray.CollinsNoSpam@Bigpond.com> wrote in message
    news:3c5d0cb9@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > I have no doubt that you are extremely good at what you do but the world

    is
    > not full of Zanes, the average programmer has been hurt by the changes

    that
    > the VB Gods told Microsoft had to be there.
    >


    In what way have we been hurt ? If anything we've been given a better and
    easier tool.
    There seems to be one re-ocurring theme here. Those who appear to be against
    VB.NET and .NET in general don't seem to have bothered to try it out and
    those who have appear to like it. hmm....

    > it without costing you anything, while we mere mortals may not have the

    time
    > or resources to keep learning everything from scratch. Incremental

    learning
    > may fit into the available resources, wholesale re-education doesn't.


    What do you have to learn from scratch ? The syntax is pretty much the same.
    If you can develop in VB6 you can develop in VB.NET. Where these myths that
    say otherwise keep appearing from is beyond me.



  6. #36
    Kunle Odutola Guest

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


    "Ray Collins" <Ray.CollinsNoSpam@Bigpond.com> wrote in message
    news:3c5d0cb9@10.1.10.29...
    > I'm just so glad that you are a programming God, and because Microsoft
    > listened to people like you VB is completely F#$%ed !!!!


    Ray, "people like Zane" are the _only_ reason you ever had VB, MS BASIC or
    any other BASIC in the first place. Some "programming God" had to develop
    the VB compiler, IDE etc in the first place......seems only fitting that the
    "God" gets to change it too!! <vbg>

    Kunle

    [*chuckles* - what makes a person "like Zane"? ]



  7. #37
    Ray Collins Guest

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


    "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> wrote in message news:3c5d0f4a$1@10.1.10.29...

    > In what way have we been hurt ? If anything we've been given a better and
    > easier tool.
    > There seems to be one re-ocurring theme here. Those who appear to be

    against
    > VB.NET and .NET in general don't seem to have bothered to try it out and
    > those who have appear to like it. hmm....


    I have tried it starting with Beta 2, I tried 4 different apps of ours and
    none of them came thru the conversion process in a usable form. As we
    currently don't have any new features to put into the apps there is no point
    working on them in VB.NET.
    In previous versions of VB ours apps could be opened and recompiled in VB
    with little or no change and then shipped out. We could then add new
    features or rewrite bits of code to take advantage of new things as we had
    the resources available.
    Why do this ? Becuase when some "clever" client asks we can say it is
    developed in the current version.

    > > it without costing you anything, while we mere mortals may not have the

    > time
    > > or resources to keep learning everything from scratch. Incremental

    > learning
    > > may fit into the available resources, wholesale re-education doesn't.

    >
    > What do you have to learn from scratch ? The syntax is pretty much the

    same.
    > If you can develop in VB6 you can develop in VB.NET. Where these myths

    that
    > say otherwise keep appearing from is beyond me.


    It's nothing like it ! I am sure that somebody who has never used VB will
    pick it up quicker that somebody that has used VB for years (in my case
    since version 1), I spent more time fighting with the thing than getting
    anything done. Not having the break continue is THE BIGGEST FAULT with
    VB.NET as this feature made it so easy to stop, fix the mistake and go
    again. I don't think M$ realised what a major part of the learning process
    it was.

    By the way I don't give a rats arse about the rest of .NET, I would have
    used VB and a little bit of asp but that's it. Currently when I want
    something done that is outside what VB6 can do (apart from the odd API call)
    I either buy the bit or hire somebody to write it for me.




  8. #38
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:03:11 -0600, Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:

    >Heh, yea, maybe 20%? Actually it's low enough that it's effectively
    >zero since I'd have to visit every line of code in a serious way.


    So if you as a respected MVP can see that, how come the apostles of
    VB.NET will swear black is white in order to try and convince us that
    the VB6 --> VB.NET migration is just a minor hiccup? What do you
    imagine they hope to gain by telling lies? Do they expect that people
    will just believe in their evangelism?

    MM

  9. #39
    Zane Thomas [.NET MVP] Guest

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

    Ray,

    >I'm just so glad that you are a programming God, and because Microsoft
    >listened to people like you VB is completely F#$%ed !!!!


    Wow, temper temper d00d. I don't know who MS was listening to but I can
    tell you it certainly wasn't me, or VB would look even more like C#. <g>

    >You annoy the **** out of me sitting in your ivory tower telling the rest of
    >the world how bad it is and if they only listened to you we will all be in
    >the promised land of programming !


    Hmmm, I don't sit in an ivory tower (I'm completely self-taught, btw) so I
    don't really know what you're refering to there.

    >I have no doubt that you are extremely good at what you do but the world is
    >not full of Zanes, the average programmer has been hurt by the changes that
    >the VB Gods told Microsoft had to be there.


    I don't see what you're going on about, really. I'm teaching my 13
    year-old son to program, I am using c# - although, arguably, vb might be a
    tad easier for him.

    >You and the other VB Gods are so good why didn't you leave VB to the average
    >programmers and beginners and piss off to some other language that did what
    >you wanted (like maybe C#).


    Uhm, Ray, news flash: I am not a "VB God" and I had Nothing to do with
    the changes which were made. However, I think that the changes were on
    balance good for vb and provide a future for the language. Without
    significant changes I think it would have been doomed.

    >You are so goddam clever you could have learnt
    >it without costing you anything ...


    B-b-b-but I *did* learn c#.

    >...while we mere mortals may not have the time
    >or resources to keep learning everything from scratch. Incremental learning
    >may fit into the available resources, wholesale re-education doesn't.


    I don't see, as I said in the post which has shaved a year or so off your
    life, that the language issue is significant. The huge learning curve
    associated with vb.net is exactly the same huge learning curve associated
    with c#, and that is: learning the base classes.

    >Takes a deep breath and tries to calm down ......


    There ya go. It's just programming and not a religion, right?

    Zane

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

  10. #40
    Zane Thomas [.NET MVP] Guest

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

    On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 21:52:10 +1100, "Ray Collins"
    <Ray.CollinsNoSpam@Bigpond.com> wrote:

    >I have tried it starting with Beta 2, I tried 4 different apps of ours and
    >none of them came thru the conversion process in a usable form. As we
    >currently don't have any new features to put into the apps there is no point
    >working on them in VB.NET.


    Then leave them in VB6 ... and, if you choose, consider doing new apps
    using vb.net (or c# if you want to be really fashionable <g>).


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

  11. #41
    Zane Thomas [.NET MVP] Guest

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

    On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:45:13 -0000, "Kunle Odutola"
    <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

    >what makes a person "like Zane"


    Some days I don't think anyone does. <sniffle><g>


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

  12. #42
    Zane Thomas [.NET MVP] Guest

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

    On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 11:00:07 GMT, kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell)
    wrote:

    >What do you imagine they hope to gain by telling lies?


    Who are you accusing of lying Mike, and what evidence do you have to back
    up your slanderous remark?



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

  13. #43
    Kunle Odutola Guest

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


    "Zane Thomas [.NET MVP]" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3c8218eb.1052023359@news.devx.com...

    > >You annoy the **** out of me sitting in your ivory tower telling the rest

    of
    > >the world how bad it is and if they only listened to you we will all be

    in
    > >the promised land of programming !

    >
    > Hmmm, I don't sit in an ivory tower

    ^
    just

    It's way cool to slide down the tower's banisters......or explore the
    dungeons
    ;-)

    Kunle



  14. #44
    Ray Collins Guest

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


    "Zane Thomas [.NET MVP]" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3c8218eb.1052023359@news.devx.com...

    > Hmmm, I don't sit in an ivory tower (I'm completely self-taught, btw) so I
    > don't really know what you're refering to there.


    I am just sick of the way you and the other .NET evangelists keep telling us
    that we are all stupid because we can't see how good VB.NET is for us. I
    also note with some amusement that most of your defence is of .NET, not
    specifically VB.NET.

    >
    > >I have no doubt that you are extremely good at what you do but the world

    is
    > >not full of Zanes, the average programmer has been hurt by the changes

    that
    > >the VB Gods told Microsoft had to be there.

    >


    So far my experience with VB.NET sucks. I am now having to divert resources
    to researching other options such as Power Basic. I, like others have a lot
    invested in VB code and I don't appreciate M$ costing me money on their
    whims

    > >You and the other VB Gods are so good why didn't you leave VB to the

    average
    > >programmers and beginners and piss off to some other language that did

    what
    > >you wanted (like maybe C#).

    >
    > Uhm, Ray, news flash: I am not a "VB God" and I had Nothing to do with
    > the changes which were made. However, I think that the changes were on
    > balance good for vb and provide a future for the language. Without
    > significant changes I think it would have been doomed.
    >
    > >You are so goddam clever you could have learnt
    > >it without costing you anything ...

    >
    > B-b-b-but I *did* learn c#.


    Good, so piss off and leave VB alone. Oh too late its already f#&*ed.
    Stop trying to tell us how wonderful VB.NET is when you don't even use it.
    The word hypocrite comes to mind here.

    And no it's not a religion.
    And yes I know there are some .NOTS here that speak utter rubbish in this
    newsgroup but I don't appreciate the .NET evangelists asserting that all
    against VB.NET are stupid and/or ignorant and don't want to or can't learn
    anything new.

    Get it thru your heads not everybody enjoys learning new technologies just
    for sake of it !
    It's all a matter of opportunity cost and the cost is too high.




  15. #45
    Mike Mitchell Guest

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

    On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 08:47:22 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas [.NET
    MVP]) wrote:

    >One of those reasons is that the .net framework with associated languages
    >are vastly more productive than anything previously offered by Microsoft,
    >a point I'm willing to argue strenuously from my own experience.


    But by your own admission several months ago, your experience is not
    in producing applications in VB, which is what this ng is supposed to
    be about. You see only the relatively narrow world of component
    production, which you do in C++ anyway. So how does your experience
    count for *VB* programmers who want to know how VB.NET will affect
    *their* productivity?

    >What this would mean to me, if I were you, is that the discomfort I would
    >be feeling would be about more than language stability - it would be in
    >considerable measure about the threat of potetential by competitors in the
    >not-too-distant future. Say, in a few years after the framework is
    >pretty-much everywhere.


    How do you know the framework will be "pretty much" everywhere? I
    think that is bluesky thinking in a cloudless vista of ideology! You
    have absolutely no evidence for this claim. And anyway what does "a
    few years" mean? As we know now to our cost, a few years in Microsoft
    years mean possibly no time at all before they change it yet again.
    Many, many VB programmers are only now starting to look at VB6 --
    because VB5 was all they needed. And equally for many, VB6 is a "new"
    product, even though on paper it's been out for three years or so. Are
    you confident that your well-earned daily crust in component
    production won't start to acquire those little green spots of mould
    in, say, 2003, as Microsoft announces yet another Next Big Thing and
    .NET goes to .NET Mark II? And this may be for or around the time of
    the release of Longhorn, which will change everything again. Are you
    confident that punch-drunk users the world over are going to keep
    playing ball and forking over their cash? Maybe they'll be listening
    more and more to people like me, who never tire of telling them to
    watch out for the emperor's new clothes -- they're transparent,
    folks!

    As you read this, by this time your brain will be forming the letters
    r - a - n - t, as you seek to demolish my arguments, but fail to find
    any holes in them. But, for once, why not tell us, the VB world as it
    really is, why you think .NET will not mean more hegemony, more
    lock-in, more cost, and less choice?

    >This connects with my point about productivity in that newcomers may in
    >fact have leverage by *not* having an existing codebase to be concerned
    >about. Freeing them to address the problem in new ways for a new
    >platform.
    >
    >Moreover, I don't agree with the idea that you live in a different world
    >than I do. We both have customers and customers have changing
    >requirements - if you don't move forward with a productive programming
    >tool into the new environment then you may not be able to keep up with
    >changing requirements.


    "keep up with" implies that there will be something to "keep up" with.
    And that indefinable something, that smoke and mirrors apparition we
    are all just supposed to accept and evangelise for, will not exist for
    several years yet, if it happens at all. In the meantime there won't
    *be* anything the newcomers will be able to "keep up" with, except
    lots of marketing hype, which won't pay the bills, and they'd be
    better off doing what it appears many others new to the game are
    actually doing, and that is learning VB6. At least, while the
    recession lasts, employers who already use VB6 will be more willing to
    invest smaller amounts of cash in something which has already proved
    itself -- unlike VB.NET, which has yet to be released, let alone
    achieve penetration.

    >But you're a smart guy, I know that, and I know that you must be
    >considering that future. For you, I suppose, part of the issue is which
    >tool to go forward with. What I hope, for you, is that the rational
    >judgements I know you're able to make are not swayed by the emotions of
    >perceived betrayal and abandonment.


    Even as you formulate the words betrayal and abandonment and then play
    them down as only "perceived", you are subconsciously recognising
    their relevance to the actual situation. These conflicts must be hard
    to contend with. You obviously do agree, deep down, that many millions
    will be inconvenienced by such betrayal and abandonment, but you feel
    that the outcomes are going to be worth it, yes?

    >>Core language shouldn't be an issue though, for either of us. I'd
    >>hoped to see many Mabry components available in VB. Your continued
    >>use of C/C++ was a wise one. You've had to deal with library changes
    >>and interface changes, but not core language changes (though that may
    >>not matter since you'd have to change so much anyway).

    >
    >The core language has been utterly irrelevant, its stability (a bit
    >overstated, the transition to vbx->mfc also include c->c++) never bought
    >us a free trip to europe or even a good meal. The technology we had to
    >work with "under the covers" changed significantly three times and we had
    >to essentially rewrite each component we wanted to carry forward.


    And you never, ever queried Microsoft's intentions here? You just
    quietly accepted their earthquake of ideas, where the ground is never
    stable enough to tread on for more than five minutes? Well, no wonder
    they just did it anyway! I mean, is there *anyone* else apart from
    Microsoft, who forced those rewrites upon you? Are you just *willing*
    to roll over again and again until you hang up your keyboard for the
    last time? Imagine doctors having to rethink their entire careers
    every few years, moving from classic Western medicine to acupuncture,
    through homeopathy, and so on. How can anyone become a guru if God
    keeps changing the Buddhas?

    >>>in your code didn't get 100%
    >>>protection this time.

    >>
    >>Heh, yea, maybe 20%? Actually it's low enough that it's effectively
    >>zero since I'd have to visit every line of code in a serious way.

    >
    >Been there, done that, wrote the self-help book. See above.


    Where, "above"? Oh, you mean, I suppose, that book about VB1 you
    collaborated on all those years ago, yes?

    >>>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.

    >>
    >>That's why we pay you.

    >
    >And that's why your customers pay you. They want new features as they can
    >afford them - and the .net system makes it less expensive to provide those
    >new features. Build it and they will come, or something like that. :-)


    "They want new features" -- who says? Where is this claim written
    down? I believe most customers want an easy life. They enjoy the
    status quo. They don't want video recorders that are ever more
    difficult to programme; they don't want new-fangled garden forks you
    twist instead of plunging; they want their cornflakes to keep tasting
    like cornflakes. Above all, they don't want gimmicks. And gimmicks and
    novelty are nowadays what make capitalism work, it seems. Tell us,
    please, about all these "new features"! Because they won't be new for
    much longer. By your standards of ever-renewable novelty, those new
    features will shortly be old features. What about all the supposed
    "new" features of Windows 3.1 (e.g. it didn't crash so much -- where
    have we heard *that* one before?!), or what about the new features in
    any other product range over the last ten years? Edit and continue was
    once a new feature, and *it* turned into an absolutely vital feature
    of RAD as epitomised in classic VB. And how does Microsoft treat that
    once vital, new feature? It edits and DIScontinues it!! So one man's
    new feature is another's reason for change and means to make money --
    that's all most new features are about, a cash crop to feed the
    grinding mills of capitalism.

    >>Changes in your C/C++ core language has been quite limited.

    >
    >And pretty much irrelevant as I pointed out.
    >
    >>I'm taking instruction in C/C++ and Linux right now.

    >
    >I've got to say that most of the things you've written are rational - if
    >misguided <g> - but that has got to be a huge mistake. C++ is *not* an
    >easy language to write in, debug, or enhance. I can't tell you how glad I
    >am to be using c# instead of c++ to write components, I can provide a lot
    >more functionality, more reliably, and in a fraction of the time.


    Yes, but what is the fraction? Is it 1/3? 1/4? Or only 7/8, or 15/16?
    A fraction of the time is just another bar on the menu of zealotry.

    >
    >Don't go there Dan, trust me on this one.


    And with that, you expect him to trust you! More worryingly, you
    expect us to do the same!

    >>I've been tinkering with OP/Delphi as well.

    >
    >Rumor has it there's going to be a Delphi.NET - do you see yourself using
    >that? What guarantee do you have that *it* would be stable. If you want
    >a .net language which will be somewhat stable then you should choose c#
    >since the participation of the ECMA will tend to put a damper on what
    >y'all down there call "gratuitous incompatabilites". Of course nothing
    >will prevent MS from extending the language whenever they feel like it,
    >but backwards compatability will be important - for at least as long as MS
    >chooses to play the ECMA game. Admittedly there's no predicting that
    >there couldn't be some major disagreement between MS and the ECMA. But
    >there are no guarantees in life, not even from Borland. LOL


    There *is* a guarantee in life and that is of being born. Moreover, I
    find your words "chooses to play the ECMA game" too full of import to
    be comfortable with. I infer that you see that move as a "game", a
    ploy, perhaps, with which to keep the critics at bay? Not really a
    guarantee of standards, but just another bazooka in the Microsoft
    Marketing Machine's (mmm!) armoury? Surely, it is vitally important
    that the ECMA involvement should be supported for all time now?
    Otherwise, if you pick and mix your standards, how are users going to
    apply their trust? A dependable partner in business or a fair-weather
    friend, a fickle foe, willing to turn standards to their own advantage
    as they see fit? Indeed, if Microsoft had also entered VB.NET into the
    ECMA "game", I would be more likely to respect their upheavals.

    >>Could be dotnet at some point, but right now I'm learning
    >>stuff I had no intention of studying 18 months ago.

    >
    >Not C++ - please Dan! Take my advice, and send me a check after you
    >realize how good it was! :-)


    "You may well be right!"

    MM

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