.NET equals Efficiency - Page 4


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 151

Thread: .NET equals Efficiency

  1. #46
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >
    >The dollar sign represents greed in this case. People have been using
    >it for years.
    >
    >MM


    Exactly, and it still makes you look like a juvinile *** when you use it.
    "You" in a plural sense.

    -Rob

  2. #47
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    "Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
    >"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message
    >news:77o87uohdodf6u26l3hikmqgi77fh4oqut@4ax.com...
    >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:26:49 -0800, "Bill Storage"
    >> <storage@bplusmylastname.com> wrote:

    >
    >> Just how many of the 3,4,5 or 6 million (pick your number) VB
    >> developers do you think program in a big team (larger than 3).

    >
    >Most. Most copies are bought on volume licenses IIRC or by companies. At
    >least for the Prof and Enterprise editions.
    >


    If a large number of these are so-called "non programmers", do we still include
    them in the 3-6 million VB programmers/developers statistic? <g>

    -Rob

  3. #48
    Bill Storage Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3c74c78f.5326220@news.devx.com...

    > >Spelling Microsoft will dollars signs (Micro$oft) IMO makes you look like

    an
    > >***. Companies exist to make money.

    >
    > The dollar sign represents greed in this case. People have been using
    > it for years.


    Mike

    I was aware of that. It is a childish attempt to group an assertion and a
    clear fact together in a way that tricks the opponent into accepting the
    assertion by linking it to something undisputed.

    During the Iran hostage crisis of the seventies, Iran sent several female
    representatives to be interviewed on US news programs. In every case, when
    referring to the hostages, the women used the term "hostage-spies" without
    the slightest hint of pause between the words. Manipulative intent: you
    cannot deny the existence of the hostages, therefore they are spies.

    In the MS case, many people, myself included, do not agree with the greed
    assertion - either that MS's behavior is out of line with average
    businesses, or that profit motive (including aggressive marketing) is bad.

    Orwell had much to say about this sort of thing - good reading.

    Bill






  4. #49
    W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    In article <3c74540f@10.1.10.29>,
    "Bill Storage" <storage@bplusmylastname.com> writes:

    [...]

    > Spelling Microsoft will dollars signs (Micro$oft) IMO makes you
    > look like an ***.


    And calling VB.NET "VB7" has the same effect on your image. Pot,
    kettle.

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  5. #50
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    Hi Bill --

    > Not doing db wasn't my basis for saying Karl was far from normal. Karl and I
    > have known each other for many years and ***** at each other a lot but still
    > have beers. I thought Karl might relish being called unusual in that
    > manner - sort of an intentional ambiguity that could be seen as a compliment
    > or an insult. Sheesh.


    You didn't miss that mark, my friend. Easy to see how others wouldn't have the
    history for a proper interpretation, though. :-)

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


  6. #51
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    "Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote in message news:3c74f623$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    > >
    > >What is? That the ".notters" blame Bill for destroying the language? Of

    > course it
    > >is, that's why I asked for a cite.

    >
    > I seem to remember at least one person (two actually) who made such claims.
    > One even referred to Bill as something like "Bill 'VB-Killer' Storage". Of
    > course, those were all posts back in the happy VB7 newsgroups, which, according
    > to the same person, fell victim to some black-helicopter style conspiracy.


    Ahhhh! I see. So what you're _really_ saying is someone misspelled "nutters", then?
    In that case, I have no argument with the assertion. <g>
    --
    [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


  7. #52
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    Hi Bill --

    > Orwell had much to say about this sort of thing - good reading.


    Funny you should make that reference! I've thought of him often, during this
    debacle.

    Redefining Truth, indeed.

    Later... Karl
    --
    [.NET: It's About Trust!]


  8. #53
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    Hi Bill --

    > You're about 6 standard deviations off the mean in the world of VB
    > programming.


    Thank you, kind sir. :-)

    > without a clue of what commercial development with a big team of coders is
    > about,


    Not a world I inhabit, I readily admit. Nor do *most* VB users, either, I would
    hazard to guess. Are you aware of any stats on such a breakdown that might clarify
    relative universes?

    > yet you claim very strongly to know what will "hose so many customers".


    Without doubt. You're not arguing about the definition of "many" are you? I know
    that, for example, a million-and-a-half downloads of code from my site are out there
    floating around. Does that approach "many" in your book? That's just one little
    website, too.

    > You boasted a few years back of having never done data access in VB,


    Not sure I'd characterize any comments I've made on that subject as a boast, but it's
    true that I find more enjoyment in other sorts of projects. (Assuming I have "never"
    done data access is silly, though.)

    > at a time when the VBPJ poll showed the vast majority of apps were
    > database-centric.


    Did you leave out "reader's" (as in, "its reader's apps") intentionally or on
    purpose?

    > I respect your opinion that VB7 was a wrong move from your perspective.


    There's that Orwellian aspect rising to the surface, again. <g>

    > We won't know for a while, but I suspect you are in the minority.


    Amongst corporate coders? Could well be! Maybe you need to broaden your own
    perspective a bit? Then again, it could be that given the directions things are
    going, there wouldn't be any point in that anyway, as the only ones left will soon be
    the corporate drones you speak for.

    > It also seems that you're doing everything you can do to convince VB
    > customers to switch to another product (e.g., an eWeek article).


    Huh? I'm not aware of any eWeek articles. Gotta cite? (Or are you talking about
    really, really old stuff, here?)

    I really can't do anything of the sort, of course. Microsoft has done that, and done
    a pretty **** good job of it. They discontinued VB, afterall. "Replaced" it with
    some other language(s) that a lot of folks are seeing little use for.

    > Talk yourself out of a job, but don't take me down with you.


    Do you consider that a possibility? If you do, it certainly seems like you don't
    think this initiative of Microsoft's really stands much of a chance.

    > Are you expecting that if you ***** loud enough, Microsoft might change
    > their minds and roll it all back?


    LOL!

    > Let's remember this discussion, and revisit it in a couple years.


    Sure! :-)

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


  9. #54
    Dan Barclay Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    >
    >> >but you appear to be
    >> >without a clue of what commercial development with a big team of coders

    >is
    >> >about, yet you claim very strongly to know what will "hose so many
    >> >customers".

    >>
    >> Just how many of the 3,4,5 or 6 million (pick your number) VB
    >> developers do you think program in a big team (larger than 3).

    >
    >Most. Most copies are bought on volume licenses IIRC or by companies. At
    >least for the Prof and Enterprise editions.


    I'd guess Word and Excel are bought by large companies in volume as
    well. Do ya think they're working in "teams" on the same document?

    Do you even know what he means by "big team of coders"? Clue: they're
    all working on the same project(s).

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

  10. #55
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    "W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:
    >
    >> Spelling Microsoft will dollars signs (Micro$oft) IMO makes you
    >> look like an ***.

    >
    >And calling VB.NET "VB7" has the same effect on your image. Pot,
    >kettle.


    Except that VB.NET *IS* VB7 according to the manufacturer (unless you think
    there's some private policy that allows you to rename someone's trademarked
    product), whereas Microsoft with a $ is simply childish.
    The very fact that you think you're being clever by renaming VB.NET as something
    other than VB7 makes it all the more childish.

    -Rob

  11. #56
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >Ahhhh! I see. So what you're _really_ saying is someone misspelled "nutters",

    then?
    >In that case, I have no argument with the assertion. <g>
    >--


    That could very well be! <vbg>

    -Rob

  12. #57
    Tim Overbay Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:3c75453a@10.1.10.29...
    > . . .
    >
    > I really can't do anything of the sort, of course. Microsoft has done

    that, and done
    > a pretty **** good job of it. They discontinued VB, afterall. "Replaced"

    it with
    > some other language(s) that a lot of folks are seeing little use for.


    What do you mean by this? A lot of folks are seeing little use for VB.NET?
    Is this WRT upgrading existing VB6 apps or as a programming language in
    general?

    My own experience with VB.NET shows that I have little use for many of the
    workarounds I've had to use with VB6--including some I downloaded from your
    website.

    Are you really concerned with those millions of poor VB6 programmers? You've
    carved out a nice little niche for yourself by offering ways to get around
    VB6's limitations (including undocumented API calls. Tsk Tsk!). Now that a
    lot of this functionality is 'built-in', is your niche starting to crumble?
    Isn't that really what all this *****ing is about?

    I see this as an opportunity to expand your little empire by including
    'fixes' for VB.NET, too. Why can't you see that?

    Tim



  13. #58
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    Hi Tim --

    > I see this as an opportunity to expand your little empire by including
    > 'fixes' for VB.NET, too. Why can't you see that?


    Free clue: If my motives were selfish, I'd be in the cheerleader camp.

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



  14. #59
    Tim Overbay Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    How is helping other programmers overcome limitations being selfish? Does
    that mean everything you've done for the VB6 community was for purely
    selfish reasons?

    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:3c75569f$1@10.1.10.29...
    > Hi Tim --
    >
    > > I see this as an opportunity to expand your little empire by including
    > > 'fixes' for VB.NET, too. Why can't you see that?

    >
    > Free clue: If my motives were selfish, I'd be in the cheerleader camp.
    >
    > Later... Karl
    > --
    > [Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]
    >
    >




  15. #60
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:59:04 -0700, "Tim Overbay" <toverbay@pbsj.com>
    wrote:

    >I see this as an opportunity to expand your little empire by including
    >'fixes' for VB.NET, too. Why can't you see that?


    Hang about! Hold the front page! VB.NET needs 'fixes'? I thought it
    was perfection in bits.

    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