.NET equals Efficiency - Page 5


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 151

Thread: .NET equals Efficiency

  1. #61
    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.

    >
    > 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?


    Good twist. Bad direction, though. 2 points, mandatory deduction.

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



  2. #62
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    On 21 Feb 2002 03:16:51 -0800, "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com>
    wrote:

    >Actually, having had now several requests for .NET from banking and pharmecuital
    >companies, along with Monsanto Corp. wanting web services written, I think
    >your last statement might be over-statement. Okay, not might...it is.


    But what about the myriad companies who do not want web services
    written? Should they move anyway? Not according to this article

    http://itworld.ca/rpb.cfm?v=20020490001

    "Developers working on the front lines of Microsoft Corp.'s lofty
    Web-based initiative are cautioning IT managers not to upgrade their
    existing applications to .Net unless they're sure they can obtain a
    clear business benefit from it."

    In other words, if companies see no benefit from moving to .NET, why
    should they do it anyway? It's as if I took a long detour on the way
    home, saying, well, it's of no benefit at all, but I'll just do it and
    get it over with.

    MM

  3. #63
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:27:52 -0800, "Bill Storage"
    <storage@bplusmylastname.com> wrote:

    >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.


    Well, it's not what the courts found, is it? Sure, they had another
    'buzzword' for it: monopoly.

    MM
    "Crikey, Doreen! We're down to our last $36 bn in readies! Quick, run
    the presses!"



  4. #64
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On 21 Feb 2002 03:16:51 -0800, "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Actually, having had now several requests for .NET from banking and pharmecuital
    >>companies, along with Monsanto Corp. wanting web services written, I think
    >>your last statement might be over-statement. Okay, not might...it is.


    >
    >But what about the myriad companies who do not want web services
    >written? Should they move anyway? Not according to this article
    >
    >http://itworld.ca/rpb.cfm?v=20020490001
    >
    >"Developers working on the front lines of Microsoft Corp.'s lofty
    >Web-based initiative are cautioning IT managers not to upgrade their
    >existing applications to .Net unless they're sure they can obtain a
    >clear business benefit from it."
    >
    >In other words, if companies see no benefit from moving to .NET, why
    >should they do it anyway? It's as if I took a long detour on the way
    >home, saying, well, it's of no benefit at all, but I'll just do it and
    >get it over with.
    >
    >MM


    Your analogy is flawed. Businesses make the choice to move to .NET because
    they find a compelling reason to do so. Just like they make the decision
    to use Java or any other tool. But tools don't drive the solutions. It's
    the other way around. Companies will still need n-tier apps and web-based
    applications and dinky thin-clients and hand-held apps and a myriad of other
    things that may or may not be a good fit for .NET technology. You claim
    there's no benefit. Well, then you're simply limiting what you are personally
    able to accomplish.

    The flaw in your analogy is that there is no single route "home." You must
    pick the best route for you to take. If you need groceries and the store
    isn't on your route and out of stubborness you refuse to take a different
    path then I guess you starve.

  5. #65
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    "Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message
    news:8tha7u4b13537at27nbls3bdqsdk102v4i@4ax.com...

    > >> 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?


    Your definition of team-coding mandates working on the same file?
    Simultaneously?

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


    See above. Free clue:Your question was FUD. My answer wasn't. If you have a
    more accurate measure of team-size let me know.

    Kunle



  6. #66
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    Robert,

    > Companies will still need n-tier apps and web-based
    > applications and dinky thin-clients and hand-held apps and a myriad of other
    > things that may or may not be a good fit for .NET technology.


    I don't care how good .NET is in the short term, I'm concerned about the long
    term. Has anyone in the group besides me studied Standard Oil's business
    practices that got them broken up into Standard Oil of Ohio, Standard Oil of
    California, etc.?

    Mark Jerde
    Biometrics - www.idtechpartners.com



  7. #67
    W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    In article <3c74bdfa$1@10.1.10.29>,
    "Bill Storage" <storage@bplusmylastname.com> writes:

    > "W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in message
    > news:3C74AF16.6BD0A00F@netzero.net...


    > > > You boasted a few years back of having never done data access in
    > > > VB, at a time when the VBPJ poll showed the vast majority of apps

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > > > were database-centric.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > > For someone who uses phrases like "You're about 6 standard
    > > deviations off the mean," you certainly are quick to make invalid
    > > characterizations of such statistics. The poll did not represent

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > > a random sampling of VB users. Instead, the sampling involved two

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > > significant sources of bias, as the article itself noted.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    > > In the end, all it showed was that a large percentage of
    > > responding readers (of a magazine with heavy coverage of

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > > database apps) described database related apps.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    > Not doing db wasn't my basis for saying Karl was far from normal.


    Did you even *read* what I wrote? I did not address your
    characterization of Karl (he's a big boy, and can address any such
    issues himself). I specifically - explicitly - addressed your
    misrepresentation of the nature and results of the VBPJ poll. Your
    claim about the poll is not supported by the nature of the poll or
    by the VBPJ article the poll appeared in.

    --

    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 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  8. #68
    W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    In article <3c74e35a$1@10.1.10.29>,
    "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com> writes:

    > What do web-services have to do with "lots of traditional programming
    > applications?"


    Very little. Which is exactly the point we were making.

    > You honestly seem to think that just because the tool can be used to
    > write web-services you can't write "traditional" apps


    You have it backwards. VB.NET is unsuited to such apps because of the
    things Micro$oft *eliminated* from VB - things like DF, NC compile,
    and a variety of constructs we have addressed - rather than because
    of anything they added. The point there was that people with a narrow
    focus on "their world of XML web services" keep trying to claim that
    those excisions are non-issues (because they are not important in
    *their* little slice of the world).

    > (whatever the **** that means.).


    Self contained programs which run entirely on one machine, with little
    or no communication with outside machines. One large category of such
    apps is described as "shrink wrap" apps.

    > You honestly haven't used VB.NET have you?


    Mike hasn't (that I know of). I have. It is completely inapropriate
    for the kinds of applications I described.

    --

    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 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  9. #69
    Tim Overbay Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    Are you being obtuse on purpose?

    Of course VB.NET is not perfect. It's a marked improvement over the previous
    version of VB, to be sure, but not perfect. It's also not Satan in ones and
    zeroes as you'd like everybody to believe.

    My point is that bright programmers such as Karl shouldn't feel so
    threatened by all the changes to the language. It's evident from his website
    that Karl is the type of person who loves to solve problems in creative
    ways--as are, I imagine, most programmers. I just don't understand why
    people like you and Karl mewl about the good ol' days of VB6 instead of
    figuring out creative ways of using VB.NET and helping others through the
    transition.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but your camp's main gripe is that Microsoft
    betrayed the VB community by breaking compatibility with VB6. Now, let me
    ask you a hypothetical question: If MSFT had gone down the other path and
    made it 100% compatible with VB6, what benefits would be gained from
    migrating existing apps to it?

    Tim

    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3c755dc9.5824907@news.devx.com...
    > 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




  10. #70
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    "W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:
    >
    >You have it backwards. VB.NET is unsuited to such apps because of the
    >things Micro$oft *eliminated* from VB - things like DF,


    You can't write a "traditional" application without DF? Quick! Call the press!
    This is bigger than the collapse of communism...

    Any credability you may have *had* as a technically competent person just
    floated the drain.

    >Self contained programs which run entirely on one machine, with little
    >or no communication with outside machines. One large category of such
    >apps is described as "shrink wrap" apps.


    "shrink wrap" apps <> apps that run solely on one machine.
    But even if that were the case, what's your point?

    >> You honestly haven't used VB.NET have you?

    >
    >Mike hasn't (that I know of). I have.


    Right.
    Sounds like you define "use" the same way Clinton defines "sex".

    >It is completely inapropriate
    >for the kinds of applications I described.


    In your obviously enlightened opinion, maybe.

    -Rob


  11. #71
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    "W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:
    >In article <3c74e35a$1@10.1.10.29>,
    >"Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com> writes:
    >
    >> What do web-services have to do with "lots of traditional programming


    >> applications?"

    >
    >Very little. Which is exactly the point we were making.
    >
    >> You honestly seem to think that just because the tool can be used to


    >> write web-services you can't write "traditional" apps

    >
    >You have it backwards. VB.NET is unsuited to such apps because of the
    >things Micro$oft *eliminated* from VB - things like DF, NC compile,
    >and a variety of constructs we have addressed - rather than because
    >of anything they added. The point there was that people with a narrow
    >focus on "their world of XML web services" keep trying to claim that
    >those excisions are non-issues (because they are not important in
    >*their* little slice of the world).


    You're totally nuts. I can sit down right now and right a windows .NET application
    that does anything I could do in VB6. And it doesn't have to talk to other
    machines or use a network or do anything more than VB6 could do. More, I
    can write the application easily, plainly and with no complications of DF
    or NC Compile or any other crap you think is so vital to your identity as
    a programmer. You cannot name an application written in VB6 that I couldn't
    write in VB.NET. If you think that the .NET part of VB.NET hamstrings the
    language in some weird way you're just not in touch with it.

    >
    >> (whatever the **** that means.).

    >
    >Self contained programs which run entirely on one machine, with little
    >or no communication with outside machines. One large category of such
    >apps is described as "shrink wrap" apps.
    >

    And you think you can't write shrink wrap with .NET? Moreover, there are
    more types of apps that I can write in VB.NET then you could even wish to
    write in VB6 and NONE of them have anything to do with networking or web
    services or XML or anything else. All the tools are there. Everything you
    need is there. Go ahead, write a console based app in VB6. You'll have
    some fun. And I would love to see your attempts at creating threads under
    VB6. Bill Storage wrote a great app for manipulating JPG headers...no networking
    in there. I wrote one that plays video and mp3s. Strange...no xml in that...Can't
    find a web-service anywhere. Just finished an app that catalogs my DVD collection...Well,
    okay it's modular so I did pop the front end off and replace it with an APS.NET
    page.

    >> You honestly haven't used VB.NET have you?

    >
    >Mike hasn't (that I know of). I have. It is completely inapropriate
    >for the kinds of applications I described.


    Your analysis is flawed. VB.NET can do exactly what VB6 can do, you simply
    don't know how.


    >--
    >
    >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 *
    >*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*



  12. #72
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    "W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in message
    news:3C757860.1180E375@netzero.net...

    > > You honestly seem to think that just because the tool can be used to
    > > write web-services you can't write "traditional" apps

    >
    > You have it backwards. VB.NET is unsuited to such apps because of the
    > things Micro$oft *eliminated* from VB - things like DF, NC compile,
    > and a variety of constructs we have addressed - rather than because
    > of anything they added.


    "Traditional" apps need DF and Native compilation?. So before VB5, VB was
    also unsuited right?. Get a clue PhD.

    Kunle


  13. #73
    Tim Overbay Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    This sounds like a challenge. I'd dearly love to see the .NETers go
    head-to-head against the .NOTers in a programming bout. Would any of the big
    boys be interested in this?

    To be fair, I think the .NOTers should be allowed to define the parameters
    since VB.NET can do everything VB6 can do and much much more.

    Tim

    "Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com> wrote in message
    news:3c757d65$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > "W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:
    > >In article <3c74e35a$1@10.1.10.29>,
    > >"Robert Lantry" <mirth@mirthy.com> writes:
    > >
    > >> What do web-services have to do with "lots of traditional programming

    >
    > >> applications?"

    > >
    > >Very little. Which is exactly the point we were making.
    > >
    > >> You honestly seem to think that just because the tool can be used to

    >
    > >> write web-services you can't write "traditional" apps

    > >
    > >You have it backwards. VB.NET is unsuited to such apps because of the
    > >things Micro$oft *eliminated* from VB - things like DF, NC compile,
    > >and a variety of constructs we have addressed - rather than because
    > >of anything they added. The point there was that people with a narrow
    > >focus on "their world of XML web services" keep trying to claim that
    > >those excisions are non-issues (because they are not important in
    > >*their* little slice of the world).

    >
    > You're totally nuts. I can sit down right now and right a windows .NET

    application
    > that does anything I could do in VB6. And it doesn't have to talk to

    other
    > machines or use a network or do anything more than VB6 could do. More, I
    > can write the application easily, plainly and with no complications of DF
    > or NC Compile or any other crap you think is so vital to your identity as
    > a programmer. You cannot name an application written in VB6 that I

    couldn't
    > write in VB.NET. If you think that the .NET part of VB.NET hamstrings the
    > language in some weird way you're just not in touch with it.
    >
    > >
    > >> (whatever the **** that means.).

    > >
    > >Self contained programs which run entirely on one machine, with little
    > >or no communication with outside machines. One large category of such
    > >apps is described as "shrink wrap" apps.
    > >

    > And you think you can't write shrink wrap with .NET? Moreover, there are
    > more types of apps that I can write in VB.NET then you could even wish to
    > write in VB6 and NONE of them have anything to do with networking or web
    > services or XML or anything else. All the tools are there. Everything

    you
    > need is there. Go ahead, write a console based app in VB6. You'll have
    > some fun. And I would love to see your attempts at creating threads under
    > VB6. Bill Storage wrote a great app for manipulating JPG headers...no

    networking
    > in there. I wrote one that plays video and mp3s. Strange...no xml in

    that...Can't
    > find a web-service anywhere. Just finished an app that catalogs my DVD

    collection...Well,
    > okay it's modular so I did pop the front end off and replace it with an

    APS.NET
    > page.
    >
    > >> You honestly haven't used VB.NET have you?

    > >
    > >Mike hasn't (that I know of). I have. It is completely inapropriate
    > >for the kinds of applications I described.

    >
    > Your analysis is flawed. VB.NET can do exactly what VB6 can do, you

    simply
    > don't know how.
    >
    >
    > >--
    > >
    > >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 *
    > >*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

    >




  14. #74
    Ray Collins Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    I don't believe how easy you made this one :-)
    Compatible <> "the same".

    If my VB6 code was compatible I could have opened it up in VB.NET changed
    the bits that were redundant in VB.NET (api calls I didn't need to do
    anymore for example), added some new .NET features that I wouldn't or
    couldn't do in VB6 and compiled the sucker.

    When and if I needed to I could have gone back and reviewed the code and
    "cleaned it up" for .NET.

    I don't have that option, to take my product(s) forward I have to maintain
    two code bases, 1 is VB6, 'cause I want to support my current clients and 1
    for the next release of my product(s) in VB.NET which is a different
    language. Somebody working on the VB6 code is not going to be able to
    switch as quickly to the VB.NET version as the coding will be completely
    different.

    This represents a large cost that at this point in time I don't want to
    commit to.

    Bottom line is Microsoft didn't give me a migration path, they gave me a
    reason to evaluate competitive products.

    "Tim Overbay" <toverbay@pbsj.com> wrote in message
    news:3c757517$1@10.1.10.29...
    > Are you being obtuse on purpose?
    >
    > Of course VB.NET is not perfect. It's a marked improvement over the

    previous
    > version of VB, to be sure, but not perfect. It's also not Satan in ones

    and
    > zeroes as you'd like everybody to believe.
    >
    > My point is that bright programmers such as Karl shouldn't feel so
    > threatened by all the changes to the language. It's evident from his

    website
    > that Karl is the type of person who loves to solve problems in creative
    > ways--as are, I imagine, most programmers. I just don't understand why
    > people like you and Karl mewl about the good ol' days of VB6 instead of
    > figuring out creative ways of using VB.NET and helping others through the
    > transition.
    >
    > Correct me if I'm wrong, but your camp's main gripe is that Microsoft
    > betrayed the VB community by breaking compatibility with VB6. Now, let me
    > ask you a hypothetical question: If MSFT had gone down the other path and
    > made it 100% compatible with VB6, what benefits would be gained from
    > migrating existing apps to it?
    >
    > Tim
    >
    > "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:3c755dc9.5824907@news.devx.com...
    > > 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

    >
    >




  15. #75
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    Hi Tim --

    May I open by requesting that you _please_ not lump me in the same breath as MM.
    Thanks!

    > Are you being obtuse on purpose?


    Yes, he does that, apparently considering it as adding dramatic effect?

    > My point is that bright programmers such as Karl shouldn't feel so
    > threatened by all the changes to the language.


    Right you are. Betrayed, sure. Threatened? Perish the thought. <g>

    > It's evident from his website
    > that Karl is the type of person who loves to solve problems in creative
    > ways--as are, I imagine, most programmers. I just don't understand why
    > people like you and Karl mewl about the good ol' days of VB6 instead of
    > figuring out creative ways of using VB.NET and helping others through the
    > transition.


    Speaking *only* for myself, the reason is quite clear. Trust was broken. I have
    *no* reason to even consider trusting Microsoft with future assets, now that they've
    shown the unconscienable acts they're capable of. I also want others to be aware
    that should they make the mistake of trusting Microsoft, following this debacle,
    they're open themselves up to the inevitable violations that are coming.

    It has nothing to do with "the good ol' days" or "solving problems" or anything like
    that. This is a human relations issue -- customer relations, more specifically.
    Investing in VB.NET now is not at all unlike buying Enron stock today. Would you
    deposit your paychecks in a bank that just randomly swept your account contents into
    some black hole, never to be seen again? Same thing going on here. They have shown
    that they consider the code produced with VB to be disposable.

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


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