Converting projects to VB.NET

[Kunle Odutola]

"Frank Oquendo" <franko at acadx dot com> wrote in message
news:3cf54332$1@10.1.10.29...
> > 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.

I am basically saying "there is no evidence of cannibalization so let's stop
the scaremongering". The pattern has been the same for all VB upgrades. Why
should it be different now?

Kunle

[Mike Mitchell]

On Wed, 29 May 2002 22:09:03 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
<kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>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.....

Now you're just being silly and somewhat disingenuous. Here you are
equating the severity of the differences between VB4, VB5, and VB6
with the severity of the differences between VB6 and VB.Net. It is a
given that the former were much less significant than the latter. This
is the reason *why* there is so much anger over Microsoft's cavalier
stance in breaking backward compatibility. In my case, every single
VB5 app I had (some with 400 kloc) was "migrated" to VB6 simply by
opening the project in the VB6 IDE and recompiling.

No one griped then to the extent they are doing now for the very
simple reason that those earlier version changes were in comparison
fairly minor, hardly affected existing code, and the new features
could be added bit by bit, as and when, without first migrating the
whole code into a different language with a different IDE on a
different framework.

*Now* do you see where you lost the plot?

MM

[Phil Weber]

> Why not? I don't remember any similar comments
> from Dan when VB4, VB5 and VB6 were released.

Kunle: VB4, 5 and 6 could easily recompile code from previous versions.
VB.NET cannot, so MS should continue to sell a version of VB that can
compile VB6 code.
---
Phil Weber

[Dan Barclay]

On Wed, 29 May 2002 13:38:43 -0700, "Phil Weber"
<pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:

> > 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? ;-)

Yup. Lately the "Dan" has been me and I missed that one <g>.

Dan

Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)
Error 51
Error 3
Error 9
....

[Kevin Moore]

Kunle,

I wanted to make sure that I am understanding your point. Are you saying
that the migration from VB6 to VB.Net is analagous to the migration from
VB5 to VB6? If you are then I must most definately disagree with your assertion.
If you aren't they can you explain the following comment you made "The pattern
has been the same for all VB upgrades. Why should it be different now?"

Thanks,

Kevin

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Frank Oquendo" <franko at acadx dot com> wrote in message
>news:3cf54332$1@10.1.10.29...
>> > 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.
>
>I am basically saying "there is no evidence of cannibalization so let's
stop
>the scaremongering". The pattern has been the same for all VB upgrades.
Why
>should it be different now?
>
>Kunle
>
>

[Frank Oquendo]

Phil Weber <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> had this to say:

> Kunle: VB4, 5 and 6 could easily recompile code from previous
> versions. VB.NET cannot, so MS should continue to sell a version of
> VB that can compile VB6 code.

Are you saying that VB6 should be an available commercial product
indefinitely? If so, I have to disagree. No company distributes and
supports all versions of their product.

VB6 *will* be discontinued. It is up to developers who require VB6 to
buy it while they still can.

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

[Dave Doknjas]

>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.
>

"More demanding on resources"...? Do you work for Microsoft? The .NET IDE
is a PIG!!! My laptop is now useless since it only allows for 192 MG RAM,
which is still not enough to kickstart some performance out of the .NET IDE!

[Dave Doknjas]

>I am basically saying "there is no evidence of cannibalization so let's stop
>the scaremongering". The pattern has been the same for all VB upgrades.
Why
>should it be different now?
>

Unbelievable...
I've been through the upgrades from VB3 and I can tell you that there were
virtually no issues and no cost to my clients to upgrade (as simple as opening
the project in the new IDE). VB6 to .NET is a major project for any app of
non-trivial size.

[Dave Doknjas]

>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.
>

You and I are geeks, but not every developer codes for fun in their spare
time...

[Karl E. Peterson]

Hi Frank --

> > Kunle: VB4, 5 and 6 could easily recompile code from previous
> > versions. VB.NET cannot, so MS should continue to sell a version of
> > VB that can compile VB6 code.
>
> Are you saying that VB6 should be an available commercial product
> indefinitely? If so, I have to disagree. No company distributes and
> supports all versions of their product.

Right. Some, like Borland, put them on the web for free download after they've
outlived their revenue-producing years.

Later... Karl
--
[Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]


PS -- Anyone else wonder what's so scary if MS continues selling VB6?

[Phil Weber]

> Are you saying that VB6 should be an available commercial
> product indefinitely?

Frank: Not indefinitely, but at least as long as Microsoft supports it.

> VB6 *will* be discontinued.

VB *has* been discontinued, but MS has committed to supporting it for
several years. Wouldn't it make more sense if people were still able to
purchase it easily?
---
Phil Weber

[Kunle Odutola]

"Kevin Moore" <Kevin@MooreSSI.com> wrote in message
news:3cf54a46$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> Kunle,
>
> I wanted to make sure that I am understanding your point. Are you saying
> that the migration from VB6 to VB.Net is analagous to the migration from
> VB5 to VB6? If you are then I must most definately disagree with your
assertion.
> If you aren't they can you explain the following comment you made "The
pattern
> has been the same for all VB upgrades. Why should it be different now?"

MS discontinues the existing version of VB when the a newer version is
released. It has done the same this time too.

Kunle

[Kunle Odutola]

"Dave Doknjas" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3cf54f40$1@10.1.10.29...

> Unbelievable...
> I've been through the upgrades from VB3 and I can tell you that there were
> virtually no issues and no cost to my clients to upgrade (as simple as
opening
> the project in the new IDE).

VB3 to VB4-32?
VB4-16 to VB4-32?

If yes, your projects were probably pretty "small". No offense mind you.

Kunle

[Kunle Odutola]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote in message
news:3cf54a21@10.1.10.29...
> > Why not? I don't remember any similar comments
> > from Dan when VB4, VB5 and VB6 were released.
>
> Kunle: VB4, 5 and 6 could easily recompile code from previous versions.
> VB.NET cannot, so MS should continue to sell a version of VB that can
> compile VB6 code.

Why?. People who have VB6 code that need compiling already have VB6. Others
can get the current version of VB -- VB.NET from the shops. VB3 couldn't do
a great deal with my VB3 code, I didn't ask for VB3 to be kept
alive.....neither did anyone else if memory serves.

Kunle

[Kunle Odutola]

"Dave Doknjas" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3cf54d91$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> >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.
> >
>
> "More demanding on resources"...? Do you work for Microsoft? The .NET IDE
> is a PIG!!! My laptop is now useless since it only allows for 192 MG RAM,
> which is still not enough to kickstart some performance out of the .NET
IDE!

I have run VS.NET in a VMWare machine with 128MB allocated. It runs slow but
is not unusable. I wouldn't recommend that configuration but given what
$500-700 can buy today, I'm not worrying either.

Kunle