Converting projects to VB.NET

[Kunle Odutola]

"Dave Doknjas" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3cf52ea5$1@10.1.10.29...

> >I meant who has said "companies need web services" ?
>
> This hype is everywhere

I prefer to deal with the facts.

> >> >*Why* are you committed to .NET?.
> >> >
> >> I'm committed because I want to keep working.

> >You've missed out Java, C++ and COBOL. The other sought-after skills in
> the
> >market.
> >And C# looks set to join them.
> >
> >Kunle
> >
>
> Yeah, but the VB philosophy (that developers should be focused on business
> problems) is still attractive to me. But if Microsoft stays intent on
destroying
> it, I'll switch too.

If to keep working is the goal, I'd suggest that hugging any language's or
tools "philosophy" is a luxury one can ill-afford. I do all those and more.
If VB and indeed VB.NET failed and was withddrawn tomorrow, It's not a
problem. Same for C#, Java, C++, ....

Kunle

[Dave Doknjas]

By the way, the .NET equivalent to VB6's App object is:
System.Diagnostics.FileVersionInfo.GetVersionInfo(System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingA ssembly.Location)

The Java heads must be in heaven...

[Frank Oquendo]

> I don't agree with Dan's position that MS needs to keep *selling*
> and supporting VB6.

I didn't get that from the article at all. He simply said the FUD is
not the way to build a user base for .NET. I agree. If .NET can't
succeed on its own merits, Microsoft has a serious issue.

> MS has already made public it's support plans for VB6 and as long
> as the executables still run on Windows, MS is doing it's part.

I think that's what Dan was saying. All anyone can ask for is that
Microsoft not break VB6 applications on purpose.

--
http://www.acadx.com
"If you want to be somebody else change your mind"

[Phil Weber]

> Huh? Which Dan are you talking about?

Dan: Appleman. He wrote the Guest Op to which I linked in the post to which
Kunle was replying.

Pay closer attention, willya? ;-)
---
Phil Weber

[Dave Doknjas]

>I meant who has said "companies need web services" ?

This hype is everywhere - it's gotten to the point where I talk to developers
who think web services are the new middle tier (which is pretty insane when
you think about it)

>
>> >*Why* are you committed to .NET?.
>> >
>> I'm committed because I want to keep working. I don't think there's a
>lucrative
>> future in VB6 beyond the next year or so.
>
>You've missed out Java, C++ and COBOL. The other sought-after skills in
the
>market.
>And C# looks set to join them.
>
>Kunle
>

Yeah, but the VB philosophy (that developers should be focused on business
problems) is still attractive to me. But if Microsoft stays intent on destroying
it, I'll switch too.

[Frank Oquendo]

> "Frank Oquendo" <franko at acadx dot com> wrote in message
> news:3cf533b0@10.1.10.29...

> <quote>
> Microsoft needs to make a commitment to the industry that it will
> continue to sell and support VB6 as long as necessary.
> </quote>

"As long as necessary" != "indefinitely". Like every product, VB6 will
be discontinued. I believe Dan's point is that the arrival of .NET
should not be allowed to hasten VB6's death.

--
http://www.acadx.com
"If you want to be somebody else change your mind"

[Kunle Odutola]

"Dave Doknjas" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3cf53569$1@10.1.10.29...

> Yes, that's exactly it - web services are hype that isn't relevant to most
> apps out there.

Since no one said otherwise, you're creating your own confusion?

> >If to keep working is the goal, I'd suggest that hugging any language's
> or
> >tools "philosophy" is a luxury one can ill-afford. I do all those and
more.
> >If VB and indeed VB.NET failed and was withddrawn tomorrow, It's not a
> >problem. Same for C#, Java, C++, ....
> >
>
> But the VB philosophy is what got most of the business apps completed in
> the last decade (while the Java/C heads were twiddling their bits).
> I'm not going to give that up so easily.

Seems "to keep working" isn't your goal after all.

Kunle

[Kunle Odutola]

"Frank Oquendo" <franko at acadx dot com> wrote in message
news:3cf533b0@10.1.10.29...

> > I don't agree with Dan's position that MS needs to keep *selling*
> > and supporting VB6.
>
> I didn't get that from the article at all. He simply said the FUD is
> not the way to build a user base for .NET. I agree. If .NET can't
> succeed on its own merits, Microsoft has a serious issue.

<quote>
Microsoft needs to make a commitment to the industry that it will continue
to sell and support VB6 as long as necessary.
</quote>

Kunle

[Kunle Odutola]

"Dave Doknjas" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3cf5346e$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> >I don't agree with Dan's position that MS needs to keep *selling* and
> >supporting VB6. For people with code to port, this is a non-issue. If you
> >don't already have VB6, where did you get the codebase that you have to
> >port?
> >
>
> Here's why: suppose the company you work for goes out of business and
you're
> approached by a former client to maintain the app. Unless you had a
version
> for home, you don't have access to VB6 anymore. Pretty simple example
don't
> you think?

IMO any professional VB6 developer that does not have a private copy of VB6
(particularly via MSDN Universal) has worse problems than the VB.NET
changes.

Kunle

[Kunle Odutola]

"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message
news:ufaafu8q4mejgno0qcbn31q6hcifo8pkb5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 May 2002 21:05:59 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
> <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I don't agree with Dan's position that MS needs to keep *selling* and
> >supporting VB6.
>
> Huh? Which Dan are you talking about?

Perhaps if you read the post I replied to?

> FWIW, that's not my position. VB has been advertised as a serious
> development tool. That being the case, MS needs to provide for VB
> code on its strategic platform. That is, and has been, my position.

What does "provide for VB code on its strategic platform" mean?

In plain language please.

Kunle

[Dave Doknjas]

>I don't agree with Dan's position that MS needs to keep *selling* and
>supporting VB6. For people with code to port, this is a non-issue. If you
>don't already have VB6, where did you get the codebase that you have to
>port?
>

Here's why: suppose the company you work for goes out of business and you're
approached by a former client to maintain the app. Unless you had a version
for home, you don't have access to VB6 anymore. Pretty simple example don't
you think?

[Kunle Odutola]

"Frank Oquendo" <franko at acadx dot com> wrote in message
news:3cf53b5c@10.1.10.29...
> > "Frank Oquendo" <franko at acadx dot com> wrote in message
> > news:3cf533b0@10.1.10.29...
>
> > <quote>
> > Microsoft needs to make a commitment to the industry that it will
> > continue to sell and support VB6 as long as necessary.
> > </quote>
>
> "As long as necessary" != "indefinitely". Like every product, VB6 will
> be discontinued. I believe Dan's point is that the arrival of .NET
> should not be allowed to hasten VB6's death.

Why not?. I don't remember any similar comments from Dan when VB4, VB5 and
VB6 were released. The previous versions were discontinued in the same
manner. I don't remember any suggestions of MS "hastening" their
departure.....

Kunle

[Dave Doknjas]

>> >I meant who has said "companies need web services" ?
>>
>> This hype is everywhere
>
>I prefer to deal with the facts.

Yes, that's exactly it - web services are hype that isn't relevant to most
apps out there.

>If to keep working is the goal, I'd suggest that hugging any language's
or
>tools "philosophy" is a luxury one can ill-afford. I do all those and more.
>If VB and indeed VB.NET failed and was withddrawn tomorrow, It's not a
>problem. Same for C#, Java, C++, ....
>

But the VB philosophy is what got most of the business apps completed in
the last decade (while the Java/C heads were twiddling their bits).
I'm not going to give that up so easily.

[Frank Oquendo]

> Why not?. I don't remember any similar comments from Dan when VB4,
> VB5 and VB6 were released. The previous versions were discontinued
> in the same manner. I don't remember any suggestions of MS
> "hastening" their departure.....

Perhaps I'm being too subtle. It's one thing for a product to go the
way of the buffalo due to ripe old age. It's quite another to
cannibalize an existing product's user base in order to establish a
new product.

--
http://www.acadx.com
"If you want to be somebody else change your mind"

[John Butler]

"Dave Doknjas" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3cf4fd4f@10.1.10.29...
> Once you convert, you have to expain to clients why developers will now
need
> machine upgrades to run the excessively bloated and slow .NET IDE, and why
> the users will notice that the apps are much slower. Good Luck!!

I'm curious...what apps have you ported that are slower? My experience is
the opposite. All my apps that talk to and deal with SQL server, for eg,
are _much_ faster than the VB6 versions. Are you using COM interop? GDI+?

Just interested to see where you're seeing this, as I haven't had this
experience.

BTW: I'm talking specifically about the run-speed of apps you build...not
the IDE. The IDE is definitely more demanding on resources, no doubt about
that.

rgds
John Butler