.NOT vs .NET

[Tom Bennet]

Is your last name Gates

"Vinny" <vad@stgroup.net> wrote:
>Its not Microsoft's fault that their software is supperior to others. It
>does not make sense that "many public bodies, charitable organisations,


>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
>
>

[Patrick Troughton]

"Tom Bennet" <fdsfds@fjdslk.com> wrote:
>
>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.

Every so often, somebody says something so amazingly stupid, it boggles the
mind. Unfortunately, this snippet from Tom is one of those statements. I,
for one, am not an author, publisher or trainer. I know this may be hard
for you to believe, Tom, but the fact is that the majority of VB developers
support .NET.

/Pat

[Robert Lantry]

Not that I'm not delighted to hear such news, but uh...I have to ask...what
quantifies the statement :

"...but the fact is that the majority of VB developers support .NET. " Was
there a headcount somewhere and I missed it?


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


"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
news:3c9bb024$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> "Tom Bennet" <fdsfds@fjdslk.com> wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> Every so often, somebody says something so amazingly stupid, it boggles
the
> mind. Unfortunately, this snippet from Tom is one of those statements. I,
> for one, am not an author, publisher or trainer. I know this may be hard
> for you to believe, Tom, but the fact is that the majority of VB
developers
> support .NET.
>
> /Pat

[Patrick Troughton]

No, no headcount per se. That's based on things I've read and my experience
within the VB community over the last two years since .NET was first announced.


/Pat

"Robert Lantry" <Mirth@mirthy.com> wrote:
>Not that I'm not delighted to hear such news, but uh...I have to ask...what
>quantifies the statement :
>
>"...but the fact is that the majority of VB developers support .NET. "
Was
>there a headcount somewhere and I missed it?
>
>
>--
>Robert
>mirth@mirthy.com
>Are you a VB programmer who hates .NET?
>Get a fresh start here!
>http://www.yourfuturestartshere.com/
>

[Robert Lantry]

Okay, thanks. I just wanted to avoid the "lies, **** lies and statistics!"
argument if we could help it.

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


"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
news:3c9bbfdc$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> No, no headcount per se. That's based on things I've read and my
experience
> within the VB community over the last two years since .NET was first
announced.
>
>
> /Pat
>
> "Robert Lantry" <Mirth@mirthy.com> wrote:
> >Not that I'm not delighted to hear such news, but uh...I have to
ask...what
> >quantifies the statement :
> >
> >"...but the fact is that the majority of VB developers support .NET. "
> Was
> >there a headcount somewhere and I missed it?
> >
> >
> >--
> >Robert
> >mirth@mirthy.com
> >Are you a VB programmer who hates .NET?
> >Get a fresh start here!
> >http://www.yourfuturestartshere.com/
> >
>

[Kunle Odutola]

"Tom Bennet" <fdsfds@fjdslk.com> wrote in message
news:3c9b9250$1@10.1.10.29...

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

The parts for the engine in your analogy were for repairs I presume. Else
why would you need them. There is no equivalent in software. Programs don't
have wear and tear [usually]. ActiveX controls et al are add-ons. They offer
additional functionality. Like a new sunroof or chrome blowers.

> 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!

Yes. If the replacement was better.

> 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.

It doesn't reuse it. It evolves the ideas. Entirely natural given that they
caome from the same stable. MS C/C++ and every other MS dev tool has
borrowed heavily from Visual Basic and they all deserve the "Visual" moniker
today. Is that evidence that C/C++ reuses a lot of the VB 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?

If C++ was a better choice for your product and you used VB, the you have
learned a valuable lesson. If you attribute that to .NET then be grateful to
MS for introducing it. OTOH, if VB was the best option and you're just
smarting becsue you don't like the fact that VB has evolved again, then all
I can say is "it's here to stay." You can either use it or move on. No need
to waste futher bandwidth griping about it.

> 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.

If you did, you would never touch Java, Python, Delphi/Kylix, Windows,
Linux, Mac OS/X, VB1-6, VB.NET, COM/DCOM,.......

Have fun,

Kunle

[Michael Carton]

Patrick Troughton wrote:
>
> "Tom Bennet" <fdsfds@fjdslk.com> wrote:
> >
> >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.

And component vendors. Another upgrade cycle, another chance to sell more
licenses.

> for one, am not an author, publisher or trainer. I know this may be hard
> for you to believe, Tom, but the fact is that the majority of VB developers
> support .NET.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in quite a while. Not MS, not its
apologists, nobody is currently claiming that; other than you, that is.

--
MikeC

Please reply to the group.

[Zane Thomas]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:33:29 -0500, Michael Carton <MikeC@optonline.net>
wrote:

>And component vendors. Another upgrade cycle, another chance to sell more
>licenses.

Bah! As a component vendor I can tell you that we would much prefer to
continue selling our existing components and write new ones, instead of
rewriting ftp for the third time - for instance.


--
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane@mvps.org

[Patrick Troughton]

Then perhaps you should open your eyes and look around you....

/Pat

Michael Carton <MikeC@optonline.net> wrote:
>Patrick Troughton wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Bennet" <fdsfds@fjdslk.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >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.
>
>And component vendors. Another upgrade cycle, another chance to sell more

>licenses.
>
>> for one, am not an author, publisher or trainer. I know this may be hard
>> for you to believe, Tom, but the fact is that the majority of VB developers
>> support .NET.
>
>That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in quite a while. Not MS, not
its
>apologists, nobody is currently claiming that; other than you, that is.
>
>--
>MikeC
>
>Please reply to the group.

[Tom Bennet]

I will avoid personal attacks, since I believe they are driven by fear.


"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote:
>
>"Tom Bennet" <fdsfds@fjdslk.com> wrote:
>>
>>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.
>
>Every so often, somebody says something so amazingly stupid, it boggles
the
>mind. Unfortunately, this snippet from Tom is one of those statements. I,
>for one, am not an author, publisher or trainer. I know this may be hard
>for you to believe, Tom, but the fact is that the majority of VB developers
>support .NET.
>
>/Pat

[Tom Bennet]

Well I can see there is no point in discussing this matter with you. You're
always right. The automobile annaolgy was to try to make you understand
the expesnse involved in moving to a new platform. The cost involved in
just dropping the internal combustion engine is quite high. The same can
be said for rebuilding a brand new software product on a new platform. That
is what .Net is, is a new platform similar to a new brand of CPU. Just like
Java is platform in and of it's self.

But you say they would just jump to a new engine if it was better. Since
I have never seen you conceede on anyone elses point, you must be right and
I must be wrong.

Again my point is simple. People should and will complain about the compatibility
issue. I'm not going to stand and beat the drum forever, but don't be surprised
when the next person comes along and sounds off louder and longer than I.
Neither of us can wish it away, which is what we would both like to do.


later,

Tom

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Tom Bennet" <fdsfds@fjdslk.com> wrote in message
>news:3c9b9250$1@10.1.10.29...
>
>> No parts in VB eh? What about ActiveX controls and com libraries?
>
>The parts for the engine in your analogy were for repairs I presume. Else
>why would you need them. There is no equivalent in software. Programs don't
>have wear and tear [usually]. ActiveX controls et al are add-ons. They offer
>additional functionality. Like a new sunroof or chrome blowers.
>

[Michael Carton]

Zane Thomas wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:33:29 -0500, Michael Carton <MikeC@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >And component vendors. Another upgrade cycle, another chance to sell more
> >licenses.
>
> Bah! As a component vendor I can tell you that we would much prefer to
> continue selling our existing components and write new ones, instead of
> rewriting ftp for the third time - for instance.

As a developer you might. What do Mabry's marketing people say? How about the
CFO?

--
MikeC

Please reply to the group.

[Cali LaFollett]

> As a developer you might. What do Mabry's marketing people say? How about
the
> CFO?

Michael,

I am sure Zane will be pointing this out but....

Just incase you didn't know, Zane is part owner of Mabry!!!!! So I think
that you are speaking to not only a developer but part of the marketing team
as well as someone that is very in tune with the financial standings of
Mabry. In other words, I think his point is VERY valid.


Cal

[Zane Thomas]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:19:44 -0500, Michael Carton <MikeC@optonline.net>
wrote:

>As a developer you might. What do Mabry's marketing people say? How about the
>CFO?

As president and part owner of Mabry I think I'm in a pretty good position
to offer an opinion on the matter.


--
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane@mvps.org

[Zane Thomas]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:30:35 -0500, "Cali LaFollett"
<cali@please_no_spam_visionized.com> wrote:

>I am sure Zane will be pointing this out

Heh, yep.


--
Turn on, tune in, download.
zane@mvps.org