Is NET replacing COM ?

[Mike Mitchell]

On 27 May 2002 04:14:45 -0800, "Aaron Sevivas"
<aaronsevivas@hotmail.com> wrote:

>..... (it has more features
>so technically, its better)

Alternatively, it has more features, therefore it's more convoluted,
more complex, more bloated, more *everything" -- except better.

MM

[John Butler]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>Oh, and don't come and tell me "they're *all* doing it"
> because they're not.

OK..who isn't doing it? Please tell us?

I guess your answer would be...Borlan...but then they seem to be trying to
be all things to all people, in the hope that something sticks...and they're
happily preparing to support the DotNet platform with Delphi....so choose
another...

rgds
John Butler

[Mike Mitchell]

On Mon, 27 May 2002 22:48:30 +0100, "John Butler"
<nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote:

>OK..who isn't doing it? Please tell us?
>
>I guess your answer would be...Borlan...but then they seem to be trying to
>be all things to all people, in the hope that something sticks...and they're
>happily preparing to support the DotNet platform with Delphi....so choose
>another...

No, no! Delphi is a fine example. And *very* backward compatible, nota
bene. I wonder how they managed to support DotNet *and* still retain
backward compatibility? Amazing, that. They can hook into DotNet, a
"foreign" (to them) Microsoft technology, they can produce probably a
*better* all-round offering for it, *and* they don't have to screw
over their existing customer base! And when you condescendingly say
"...they seem to be trying to be all things to all people, in the hope
that something sticks..", I view their achievements as something to
applaud, not something to cavil over.

MM

[Zane Thomas]

On 27 May 2002 16:40:36 -0800, "Tom Bennet" <fdfsd@fdfds.com> wrote:

>No, somehow they will continue to manange and enhance the existing product
>while at the same time expanding their horizons to meet the demands of a
>new market.

We can compare vb.net to delphi.net sales in a year and see who really has
the better idea.


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

[Tom Bennet]

"John Butler" <nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote:

>I guess your answer would be...Borlan...but then they seem to be trying
to
>be all things to all people, in the hope that something sticks...and they're
>happily preparing to support the DotNet platform with Delphi....so choose
>another...

However, they're not breaking classic Delphi in the process are they John?
No, somehow they will continue to manange and enhance the existing product
while at the same time expanding their horizons to meet the demands of a
new market. Is that such a revolutionary concept?

Tom

[John Butler]

"Tom Bennet" <fdfsd@fdfds.com> wrote in message
news:3cf2c3f4$1@10.1.10.29...
> However, they're not breaking classic Delphi in the process are they John?
> No, somehow they will continue to manange and enhance the existing
product
> while at the same time expanding their horizons to meet the demands of a
> new market. Is that such a revolutionary concept?

No it isn't. But in Delphi they have a product which is already OO from the
ground up...not with it's limited oo-functionality tacked-on (like VB6's
was). Presumably that might make it easier for them to do what they need to
do map between their object library and the .NET framework.

I don't like the compatibility issue between VB6 and VB.NET either, just for
the record. But fortunately I am one of (quite a few, I suspect) who has
chosen to/haven't had the need to port my entire codebase over. I've ported
quite a lot actually...and it has become quicker as my knowledge of .Net has
increased...but it would have been better not to have had to.

However, I suspect work will continue on easing the transition to
..Net...maybe they'll even get the upgrade wizard working in the next
version...and in the meantime...if you've spent any serious time in the new
system..you'd realise how good it is..and how much potential it has to
become even better. I'm no zealot, and I understand (as do, I think) many
others in this forum, that people have problems with the language
issue...but that shouldn't totally deterr you from looking into using what
is a great tool and one which is (IMO) streaks ahead of "good ol" VB6.

rgds
John Butler

[james]

HOW WOULD YOU KNOW ???
james
"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3cf28402.720700@news.devx.com...
> On 27 May 2002 04:14:45 -0800, "Aaron Sevivas"
> <aaronsevivas@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >..... (it has more features
> >so technically, its better)
>
> Alternatively, it has more features, therefore it's more convoluted,
> more complex, more bloated, more *everything" -- except better.
>
> MM

[Kunle Odutola]

"Tom Bennet" <fdfsd@fdfds.com> wrote in message
news:3cf2c3f4$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> "John Butler" <nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >I guess your answer would be...Borlan...but then they seem to be trying
> to
> >be all things to all people, in the hope that something sticks...and
they're
> >happily preparing to support the DotNet platform with Delphi....so choose
> >another...
>
> However, they're not breaking classic Delphi in the process are they John?

You're speculating right?. I'm yet to receive my copy of Delphi.NET.......

> No, somehow they will continue to manange and enhance the existing
product

It helps if the exisiting product has feature parity with the new model --
Delphi is a true OO product (****, it already has delegates) -- without the
hacks that helpVB6 together.

Kunle

[Patrick Troughton]

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>On Mon, 27 May 2002 22:48:30 +0100, "John Butler"
>
>No, no! Delphi is a fine example. And *very* backward compatible, nota
>bene. I wonder how they managed to support DotNet *and* still retain
>backward compatibility?

Are you sure? The last time I checked Delphi.NET hasn't been released.

/Pat

[Aaron Sevivas]

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>On 27 May 2002 02:29:50 -0800, "Aaron Sevivas"
><aaronsevivas@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>.....) They seem to change
>>their mind every two years..)
>
>Don't you see that as a problem? I certainly do! What other industry
>can you think of which changes so much with the wind like Microsoft
>software?Oh, and don't come and tell me "they're *all* doing it"
>because they're not. Microsoft is the worst at goalpost moving, by
>far.
>
>MM

Can u really compare the software industry with any other industry? If u
think you can, heres a little taste of how wrong you MAY be..

http://www.nr.no/~jason/Research/Pub...sis/Thesis.pdf

Wouldn't it scare you more if a technology was barely moving with the times
and stayed stagnant with only minor improvements? Do they have a greek oracle
on the payroll who can predict future design problems?

~aaron

[Aaron Sevivas]

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

>The deprication methods Sun uses are far better than throwing out the language
>wouldn't you agree? You get full notice of when an API will be depricated
>as the compiler warns you of it. If you don't upgrade at that point, then
>you had fair warning.
>
>When Sun throws out Java and replaces it with a new computing platform,
you
>may have a point.

Visual Basic 1976-2001 before the language was rewritten.. How long has Java
been around? 6 years?.. U would have a point if java was around as long
as vb, then the crust would be appearent.

~aaron

[Mike Mitchell]

On 28 May 2002 00:51:39 -0800, "Aaron Sevivas"
<aaronsevivas@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Wouldn't it scare you more if a technology was barely moving with the times
>and stayed stagnant with only minor improvements? Do they have a greek oracle
>on the payroll who can predict future design problems?

No. What scares me is this continual, head-banging, mind-numbing
tendency for techies in the computer industry to seek out the latest
and greatest when the existing technology is still warm in the Petri
dish. Just look at how many of Microsoft's goalposts have been moved
over the years! And yet, fundamentally, wheat gets sown, bread gets
baked, people get fed, and babies get born. What is sooooo new new new
in ordinary (i.e. non-computing) life that warrants such upheavals in
our software?

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Mon, 27 May 2002 20:40:27 -0500, "james" <jamesw2@mesh.net> wrote:

>HOW WOULD YOU KNOW ???

Same way I know poison ivy is baaad! (Even without rolling in it
personally.)

MM

[Patrick Troughton]

Except of course, the experts in the medical industry might agree with you
that poison ivy is "bad" (your term, not theirs)...whereas the experts in
the computer industry have been giving .NET glowing reviews. PC Magazine
awarded .NET their 18th Annual Award for Technical Excellence to VS.NET....

http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s=0&a=18054,00.asp

Software Development Magazine awarded .NET not one, but two awards...

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...4-25JoltPR.asp

and Information Week and SQL Server magazine also gave VS.NET great reviews
(sorry, don't have links handy). Now of course, I don't need experts/reviews/etc.
to tell me the advantages of .NET. I've been using it for two years now so
I know from personal experience. Since apparently you don't bother reading
the trade magazines and you refuse to listen to the people who actually use
.NET, why not try it for yourself? What are you so afraid of?

/Pat

[Rob Teixeira]

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
>
>No, no! Delphi is a fine example. And *very* backward compatible, nota
>bene.

Hm, that's funny, because I certainly remember a conciderable amount of "classic"
Pascal code I had that didn't compile in Delphi.

>I wonder how they managed to support DotNet *and* still retain
>backward compatibility?

Have they? Because I haven't seen it yet. As of today, all their publically
available product does is communicate with .NET using web services.
Oh, is this from reading something or have you actually tried it yet?

As a side note, Borland is really pushing .NET as part of their strategy.
Since you think .NET sucks, don't you think it's about time to start looking
for another vendor?

Also, I just thought you might like to know that Borland was also one of
the first companies to produce a product with integrated web services support
(even before MS). That's clearly a negative sign, isn't it?

Come to think of it, have you actually EVER used Delphi? I know this question's
come up before.
Is your entire development experience based on periodicals?

I know I *read* somewhere that you might have code in production, but I think
that's a good argument for not believing everything you read.

-Rob