.NOT vs .NET

[Robert Lantry]

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/

[Jay Glynn]

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.

[Tom Bennet]

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.
>

[Robert Lantry]

"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/

[Robert Lantry]

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.
>

[Miha Markic]

LOL

--
Miha

[Mark Jerde]

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

[Vinny]

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
>
>

[Tom Bennete]

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.

[John]

Title should have been "MM vs .Net"

[Kunle Odutola]

"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

[Tom Bennet]

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
>
>

[Rob Teixeira]

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

[Mike Mitchell]

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

[Vinny]

> 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