.NOT vs .NET


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 89

Thread: .NOT vs .NET

  1. #1
    Robert Lantry Guest

    .NOT vs .NET

    Things I've learned in this NG so far:



    ..NOT: Microsoft broke backwards compatibility in VB.NET!

    ..NET: So don't use it.

    ..NOT: .NET rendered billions of line of code obsolete in one day!

    ..NET: Wow! It's better than we thought.

    ..NOT: .NET will make millions of VB programmers unemployed!

    ..NET: Wow! It's much better than we thought.



    ..NOT: They took Control Arrays away in .NET!

    ..NET: They gave you something better. What's wrong with it?

    ..NOT: It's not the same!

    ..NET: D'uh! What's wrong with it?

    ..NOT: It's not the same!

    ..NET: Whatever.



    ..NOT: They took away variant!

    ..NET: So? Use Object.

    ..NOT: It's not the same!

    ..NET: How does that affect your code?

    ..NOT: Do you mean they're the same?

    ..NET: No, I'm asking how the difference affects you.

    ..NOT: Are you saying they're the same thing?

    ..NET: Never mind.



    ..NOT: They took away Deterministic Finalization!

    ..NET: And this impacts your code how, exactly?

    ..NOT: It's not the same!

    ..NET: Are you just going to say this all the time?

    ..NOT: I don't know the real difference, but it's not the same!



    ..NOT: They're going to charge us to use .NET.

    ..NET: According to whom?

    ..NOT: I don't know, I just made that up.

    ..NET: Uh-huh.



    ..NOT: Web-Services suck! No one in their right mind would use them!

    ..NET: And they suck because?

    ..NOT: They're slow, unreliable, prone to failure, etc.

    ..NET: Compared to?

    ..NOT: I don't know. I've never written one.

    ..NET: Made that one up too, huh?

    ..NOT: Umm.You're not a computer scientist like me so you wouldn't
    understand.



    ..NOT: VB.NET sucks!

    ..NET: So take it back to the store where you bought it and get your money
    back.

    ..NOT: I didn't buy it.

    ..NET: Where did you get it from?

    ..NOT: I didn't. I've never installed it or used it.

    ..NET: Thank you for playing.



    ..NOT: I'm going to make up a lie to tell you today.

    ..NET: And I'm going to believe it because..?

    ..NOT: Because I have a degree..in science!



    ..NOT: Microsoft hurt sun by not distributing Java.

    ..NET: I thought Sun sued them not to distribute it?

    ..NOT: Microsoft was being anti-competitive.

    ..NET: By doing what Sun told them to?

    ..NOT: Microsoft will get what's coming to them.

    ..NET: Hopefully that includes Scott McNealy's head on a stick and his ***
    on a plate.





    ..NOT: Language Stability is the most important feature of a programming
    language.

    ..NET: Okay.

    ..NOT: Language Stability affects us all.

    ..NET: Okay.

    ..NOT: VB.NET broke language stability.

    ..NET: Erm.it just came out? You mean it's not compatible with the beta?

    ..NOT: It's not compatible with VB!

    ..NET: Okay. They are different products after all.

    ..NOT: But they aren't compatible!

    ..NET: Who said they would be?

    ..NOT: Microso.well, Okay, they didn't say it would be, but they provided
    this crap wizard.

    ..NET: Yep. It's crap.

    ..NOT: VB.NET sucks!

    ..NET: So don't use it.

    ..NOT: I don't. I've never even seen it running. In fact, I'm proud to say
    I've never been within at least 5 miles of an installed copy of it.

    ..NET: Whatever.

    --
    Robert
    mirth@mirthy.com
    Are you a VB programmer who hates .NET?
    Get a fresh start here!
    http://www.yourfuturestartshere.com/





  2. #2
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET

    hehehehe

    you have to much time on your hands...


    > .NOT: VB.NET sucks!
    >
    > .NET: So don't use it.
    >
    > .NOT: I don't. I've never even seen it running. In fact, I'm proud to

    say
    > I've never been within at least 5 miles of an installed copy of it.
    >
    > .NET: Whatever.





  3. #3
    Tom Bennet Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET


    I would think that after seeing the large number of posts on backward compatibility,
    that you might get a clue. Backward compatibility is a big deal! It should
    and will affect the acceptance of VB.Net and probably the entire .Net platform.

    Where I work, It's going to be difficult for us to continue to enhance a
    recently released product created in VB6, when the rest of the industry is
    moving on. Customers can and do make enhancement requests and unless we
    come through they'll go somewhere else. They don't care that the software
    is written in the latest and greatest programming language and sadly they
    don't care about all of the man hours it took to write the package.

    Also, assuming none of us have played with .Net is not a sound assumption.

    I ran all of the betas and release candidates and I will admit that .Net
    is vastly superior to VB6 in most ways. However, I've played with the migration
    wizard on modules of our current product. The result was hardly worth the
    time it took to run. If we were to port our app today, there would be a
    ton of code needed for the com interop to support controls that do not yet
    exist in .Net. Seems like a waste to me.

    I am aware that MS has said they will support VB6 for a good long time.
    However, there is more to the compatibility issue than just MS breaking VB.
    I'm talking about all of the third party tools that we use that are slowly
    dropping support for ActiveX. After all, who still wants to maintain ActiveX
    components when .Net has a superior form of code reuse and the pressure is
    on to port controls and components. I can think of one vendor that shall
    remain nameless who promised a feature in the next release of a component.
    Guess what? there will not be another feature based release of this component
    for ActiveX just a .Net version. I also have my doubts about MDAC and OS
    compatibilities and bug fixes, but that is just speculation on my part.

    There are those here who think enough has been said about compatibility.
    I think this stems from fear that .Net will not be accepted by the industry.
    If they keep hushing us, sooner or later we will see just how great the
    platform is and accept the change.

    The road ahead looks very bumpy. One thing is clear, VB6 has become the
    next powerbuilder... Obsolete.

    "Robert Lantry" <Mirth@mirthy.com> wrote:
    >Things I've learned in this NG so far:
    >
    >
    >
    >..NOT: Microsoft broke backwards compatibility in VB.NET!
    >
    >..NET: So don't use it.
    >
    >..NOT: .NET rendered billions of line of code obsolete in one day!
    >
    >..NET: Wow! It's better than we thought.
    >


  4. #4
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET

    "Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3c9a8ed0$1@10.1.10.29...
    > hehehehe
    >
    > you have to much time on your hands...
    >

    It's true; I do right now. I'm moving to Seattle this weekend and I'm at
    the "twiddling-thumbs" phase of the move where the packings packed, the
    movers, moved and now it's just wrapping up the g'bye, seeyalaters and
    stuff. And dang it, they took the TV yesterday!




    --
    Robert
    mirth@mirthy.com
    Are you a VB programmer who hates .NET?
    Get a fresh start here!
    http://www.yourfuturestartshere.com/



  5. #5
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET

    I'm sorry if it upset you Tom. While I feel your points are valid, I don't
    share your pain. VB.NET is what it is. VB6 is what it is. Never the twain
    shall meet. Stupid upgrade wizard or not.



    --
    Robert
    mirth@mirthy.com
    Are you a VB programmer who hates .NET?
    Get a fresh start here!
    http://www.yourfuturestartshere.com/


    "Tom Bennet" <fdsfds@fdsfsd.com> wrote in message
    news:3c9ab65a$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > I would think that after seeing the large number of posts on backward

    compatibility,
    > that you might get a clue. Backward compatibility is a big deal! It

    should
    > and will affect the acceptance of VB.Net and probably the entire .Net

    platform.
    >
    > Where I work, It's going to be difficult for us to continue to enhance a
    > recently released product created in VB6, when the rest of the industry is
    > moving on. Customers can and do make enhancement requests and unless we
    > come through they'll go somewhere else. They don't care that the software
    > is written in the latest and greatest programming language and sadly they
    > don't care about all of the man hours it took to write the package.
    >
    > Also, assuming none of us have played with .Net is not a sound assumption.
    >
    > I ran all of the betas and release candidates and I will admit that .Net
    > is vastly superior to VB6 in most ways. However, I've played with the

    migration
    > wizard on modules of our current product. The result was hardly worth the
    > time it took to run. If we were to port our app today, there would be a
    > ton of code needed for the com interop to support controls that do not yet
    > exist in .Net. Seems like a waste to me.
    >
    > I am aware that MS has said they will support VB6 for a good long time.
    > However, there is more to the compatibility issue than just MS breaking

    VB.
    > I'm talking about all of the third party tools that we use that are

    slowly
    > dropping support for ActiveX. After all, who still wants to maintain

    ActiveX
    > components when .Net has a superior form of code reuse and the pressure is
    > on to port controls and components. I can think of one vendor that shall
    > remain nameless who promised a feature in the next release of a component.
    > Guess what? there will not be another feature based release of this

    component
    > for ActiveX just a .Net version. I also have my doubts about MDAC and OS
    > compatibilities and bug fixes, but that is just speculation on my part.
    >
    > There are those here who think enough has been said about compatibility.
    > I think this stems from fear that .Net will not be accepted by the

    industry.
    > If they keep hushing us, sooner or later we will see just how great the
    > platform is and accept the change.
    >
    > The road ahead looks very bumpy. One thing is clear, VB6 has become the
    > next powerbuilder... Obsolete.
    >





  6. #6
    Miha Markic Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET

    LOL

    --
    Miha




  7. #7
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET

    Tom,

    > Customers can and do make enhancement requests and unless we
    > come through they'll go somewhere else. They don't care that the software
    > is written in the latest and greatest programming language and sadly they
    > don't care about all of the man hours it took to write the package.


    Everyone thinks in object-oriented terms outside their own efforts. ;-)

    For example, unless you've studied mechanical engineering or have an
    interest in the history of the automobile, you've probably no appreciation
    for the miracle of reliability that is the modern motor car. Most of us
    have this mindset:
    With MyCar
    .Start
    .Drive
    If ... .JiffyLube
    If ... .MakePayment ' <G>
    End With

    I have a set of 1919 encyclopedias and a bus repair manual from the 1920's.
    Common garage repairs included welding broken axles. Bus lines and
    passengers expected breakdowns of the stranded-passengers variety every 3000
    miles. Tires were much better than the 1910's, but a flat tire every
    100-500 miles wasn't that unexpected. (In the very early days, according to
    one source, 2 flat tires in 10 miles wasn't uncommon.)

    Because of my historical interest in autos (and parallels to computers ;-)
    and 2/3 of a mechanical engineering degree, I technically appreciate the
    fact my Firebird is running strong at 120,000 miles and still has lots of
    tread left on just the 2nd set of tires. I don't think anyone else on the
    block gives a rip beyond
    MyCar.Drive
    Most are abstracted further than that:
    Me.GetWhereIWantToGo (Whatever)

    Mark Jerde
    Biometrics - www.idtechpartners.com



  8. #8
    Vinny Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET

    If you look at things that way, and there is nothing wrong with that, then
    in a way, we are all wasting our times.

    i am sure that before i was even born there were issues with langauges of
    those days with compatibiliy and what not. Do those conversations even
    matter now? do you think that our conversations of today are gonna matter
    comes 30 years from now when developers argue and discuss the next problems
    in software development.

    So, Microsoft owns the universe, what else is new? I think that allot of
    people here owe allot to MS with what they have done for the industry.

    like the dude before me said, no one else in his neighbor hood really gives
    a crap if his tires are ok or even if he has a car at all. We all have
    different problems with different solutions. take control of the things you
    can take control over, everything else, let it fall into place because you
    cant change it. no matter how much you ***** about it, VB.Net is not gonna
    go away.

    If you dont like change, than go lock up yourself in a cage of apes. No one
    ever complains about the thousands of years of evolution that it took for
    humans to get where they are, change is a necesity, except it and stop
    *****ing. no one gives a **** about how much its gonna cost you, except you,
    maybe your company, and possibly the apes in your cage.

    i thought that Robert's post was comical, i forwarded to my friends.

    Remember pain is nothing but change we refuse to except.


    "Mark Jerde" <mark.jerde@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
    news:VA.000000cb.0595fb05@nospamverizon.net...
    > Tom,
    >
    > > Customers can and do make enhancement requests and unless we
    > > come through they'll go somewhere else. They don't care that the

    software
    > > is written in the latest and greatest programming language and sadly

    they
    > > don't care about all of the man hours it took to write the package.

    >
    > Everyone thinks in object-oriented terms outside their own efforts. ;-)
    >
    > For example, unless you've studied mechanical engineering or have an
    > interest in the history of the automobile, you've probably no appreciation
    > for the miracle of reliability that is the modern motor car. Most of us
    > have this mindset:
    > With MyCar
    > .Start
    > .Drive
    > If ... .JiffyLube
    > If ... .MakePayment ' <G>
    > End With
    >
    > I have a set of 1919 encyclopedias and a bus repair manual from the

    1920's.
    > Common garage repairs included welding broken axles. Bus lines and
    > passengers expected breakdowns of the stranded-passengers variety every

    3000
    > miles. Tires were much better than the 1910's, but a flat tire every
    > 100-500 miles wasn't that unexpected. (In the very early days, according

    to
    > one source, 2 flat tires in 10 miles wasn't uncommon.)
    >
    > Because of my historical interest in autos (and parallels to computers ;-)
    > and 2/3 of a mechanical engineering degree, I technically appreciate the
    > fact my Firebird is running strong at 120,000 miles and still has lots of
    > tread left on just the 2nd set of tires. I don't think anyone else on the
    > block gives a rip beyond
    > MyCar.Drive
    > Most are abstracted further than that:
    > Me.GetWhereIWantToGo (Whatever)
    >
    > Mark Jerde
    > Biometrics - www.idtechpartners.com
    >
    >




  9. #9
    Tom Bennete Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET


    Thanks to all that responded, even the slightly rude posts.

    Sometimes the logic used here frightens and amuses me at the same time.


    Last I checked, the Ford motor company still makes parts for the 302 engine
    and still uses it in some of it's automobiles. Even though GM discontinued
    Oldsmobile, I can still get parts for one. Why? because the technology has
    not changed very much over the years. We still use an internal combustion
    engine. Why do you suppose that is?

    Because engines and cars were build in away that promotes reuse from a solid
    foundataion, we don't have to throw our cars away every year. Somehow we
    have all managed to get to where we are going without a better platform for
    building cars being introduced every couple of years.

    I can't remember the last time I heard a Cobol programmmer complain of a
    new release the broke anything other than a small portion of a program.

    If people reading this message are tired of hearing the same old complaint,
    then don't reply to the post. Maybe I'm wrong and the problem will just
    go away.


  10. #10
    John Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET


    Title should have been "MM vs .Net"

  11. #11
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET


    "Tom Bennete" <fjdskl@fdjsl.com> wrote in message
    news:3c9b5c32@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > Thanks to all that responded, even the slightly rude posts.
    >
    > Sometimes the logic used here frightens and amuses me at the same time.
    >
    >
    > Last I checked, the Ford motor company still makes parts for the 302

    engine

    Luckily software doesn't need "parts". VB6 works fine and needs no parts.

    > We still use an internal combustion
    > engine. Why do you suppose that is?


    No one has figured out how to improve on it *and* make money from the
    results yet.

    > Because engines and cars were build in away that promotes reuse from a

    solid
    > foundataion, we don't have to throw our cars away every year. Somehow we
    > have all managed to get to where we are going without a better platform

    for
    > building cars being introduced every couple of years.


    A better platform for building cars *is* introduced quite regularly. The
    basic technology that underlies the engine in most cars is a highly refined
    update to what has been used for years. Same can be said for computing. The
    old valve-based computers and todays CPUs aren't that different. One is a
    refinement of the other. And in software, all these high level languages are
    just refinements of the assembly languages and previous high level
    languages.

    > I can't remember the last time I heard a Cobol programmmer complain of a
    > new release the broke anything other than a small portion of a program.


    Can't remember the last time I heard a COBOL programmer ;-)

    Seriously though, if you inherited a car hire or car courier company that
    uses old model vehicles (say COBOL's lineage). Will you keep buying the same
    model cars since you already use them and you therefore already know how to
    run/maintain/repair them?.

    Most of the arguments for keeping most COBOL codebases alive - we have a
    larger existing codebase using it - aren't very smart but, to each their
    own.....

    Kunle



  12. #12
    Tom Bennet Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET


    No parts in VB eh? What about ActiveX controls and com libraries?

    The automobile industry has standardized on the internal combustion engine.
    It is the foundation for what they produce. If someone told them they
    had to drop it tomorrow would they be happy? **** no!

    Aside from a few people who have not written much code and thus have no future
    VB6 based releases to worry about, the only people that are truely happy
    right now are the technical trainers, the "Authors" and magazine publishers.
    This is because they may make a killing selling their products and services.
    The wheel goes round and round and I have no problem with it.

    It's not simply a matter of cross training or retraining. I've used Visual
    J++ and the Windows Foundation Classes. I'm sure some of you have noticed
    that .Net reuses a lot of this code base. C# is close enough to Java to
    where our J++ module can be "ported" with ease. Looking back, I would have
    rather had the product written in C++ than VB or has MS decided to drop MFC
    now as well?

    The one thing I feel I have learned from this is that it is more important
    to go with the trends of the industry rather than the trends of someone who
    thinks that they are the industry. I will pay much closer attention to standards
    now than I ever have.

    "Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
    >Can't remember the last time I heard a COBOL programmer ;-)
    >
    >Seriously though, if you inherited a car hire or car courier company that
    >uses old model vehicles (say COBOL's lineage). Will you keep buying the

    same
    >model cars since you already use them and you therefore already know how

    to
    >run/maintain/repair them?.
    >
    >Most of the arguments for keeping most COBOL codebases alive - we have a
    >larger existing codebase using it - aren't very smart but, to each their
    >own.....
    >
    >Kunle
    >
    >



  13. #13
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >
    >Ah, but don't you think it's amazing how the CPU keeps moving forward,
    >while strangely enough still being able to run bog-standard 8086 code?


    Then start writing your code in bog-standard 8086 assembly and stop complaining.

    -Rob

  14. #14
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET

    On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:19:39 -0000, "Kunle Odutola"
    <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

    >A better platform for building cars *is* introduced quite regularly. The
    >basic technology that underlies the engine in most cars is a highly refined
    >update to what has been used for years. Same can be said for computing. The
    >old valve-based computers and todays CPUs aren't that different. One is a
    >refinement of the other. And in software, all these high level languages are
    >just refinements of the assembly languages and previous high level
    >languages.


    Ah, but don't you think it's amazing how the CPU keeps moving forward,
    while strangely enough still being able to run bog-standard 8086 code?
    They kept compatibility because they had to. Software, though, is like
    the Paris fashions. Don't like this year's models? Then there'll be
    another whole new outfit out this time next year, or sooner than that
    even. I've never known an industry where so much is changed so often
    for absolutely no point other than to make money for the software
    vendors. Think how many public bodies, charitable organisations, and
    other outfits that have to work on a limited budget are being
    continually ripped off by the excessive rises in licensing charges.
    It's little wonder that more and more of them are looking for cheaper
    alternatives than the Microsoft pay-as-you-yearn model.

    MM

  15. #15
    Vinny Guest

    Re: .NOT vs .NET

    > Software, though, is like
    > the Paris fashions. Don't like this year's models? Then there'll be
    > another whole new outfit out this time next year, or sooner than that
    > even. I've never known an industry where so much is changed so often
    > for absolutely no point other than to make money for the software
    > vendors.


    In a way i disagree...people STILL use C and C++, quite the popular
    language, and if my PC history is correct they have been around since the
    70s. It is true, the industry changes very, very fast. but i dont think that
    any one particular company is responsible for this. Its technology, its not
    a linear thing, its exponancial(spelled wrong?) . New technology makes it
    easier to develop newer technology which helps develop even newer technolgy.
    it is also true that allot of people cash in on technology, i guess its
    human nature.

    > Think how many public bodies, charitable organisations, and
    > other outfits that have to work on a limited budget are being
    > continually ripped off by the excessive rises in licensing charges.


    Its not Microsoft's fault that their software is supperior to others. It
    does not make sense that "many public bodies, charitable organisations, and
    other outfits that have to work on a limited budget" have for all this time
    been using more expensive inferior software and platforms. MS is where they
    are because no one does what they do. In away it is unfortunate that allot
    of companies that have good software get bought out by MS, but they got the
    money to do it, i know it sucks, but thats capitalism for you.

    > It's little wonder that more and more of them are looking for cheaper
    > alternatives than the Microsoft pay-as-you-yearn model.


    i am all for cheap alternatives, but i do believe you get what you pay for.
    show me a cheaper alternative to donet that is just as powerful and i will
    gladly be the first person to jump ship.

    Vinny



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