Interesting Infoworld Articles

[Greg Brunet]

Just read some interesting articles about MS & VB6 / VB.NET issues in
InfoWorld:

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl...729plvbdev.xml
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl...9plvbtrans.xml


--
Greg

[Kunle Odutola]

"Greg Brunet" <gbrunet@semper_soft.com> wrote in message
news:3d460637$1@10.1.10.29...
> Just read some interesting articles about MS & VB6 / VB.NET issues in
> InfoWorld:
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl...729plvbdev.xml
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl...9plvbtrans.xml

As usual, more FUD than facts. Can't use DHTML with VB.NET?. Even if one
embeds a browser object in a form. Just like would be done with VB6 ?

Oh well....

Kunle

[Phil Weber]

> As usual, more FUD than facts.

Kunle: Actually, I found the latter article to be pretty accurate, overall.
If you read it with the understanding that the author is likely a writer,
not a developer, it's about as good as can be expected.

> Can't use DHTML with VB.NET?

In context, it's clear that the author is referring to VB6's DHTML project
type, which is no longer supported in VB.NET (nor do I know anyone who
misses it).
---
Phil Weber

[MMFAN]

The articles say it all. There is more and more evidence coming out everyday
that .Net has been a big failiure. By the time the industry catches up M$
will have lost a ton of money on it. What a waste.

.Net would be huge if it actually brought new ideas and concepts to the market.
Java has had everything .Net has for years. Web Services are easy to create
in Java and you don't have to rewrite your J2EE code in the process... It's
evolution not revolution.

"Greg Brunet" <gbrunet@semper_soft.com> wrote:
>Just read some interesting articles about MS & VB6 / VB.NET issues in
>InfoWorld:
>
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl...729plvbdev.xml
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl...9plvbtrans.xml
>
>
>--
>Greg
>

[MMFAN@MM.COM]

Keep dreaming bud. You can wish in one hand and crap in the other. Tell
me which one gets filled first.


"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Greg Brunet" <gbrunet@semper_soft.com> wrote in message
>news:3d460637$1@10.1.10.29...
>> Just read some interesting articles about MS & VB6 / VB.NET issues in
>> InfoWorld:
>>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl...729plvbdev.xml
>> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl...9plvbtrans.xml
>
>As usual, more FUD than facts. Can't use DHTML with VB.NET?. Even if one
>embeds a browser object in a form. Just like would be done with VB6 ?
>
>Oh well....
>
>Kunle
>
>

[Jay Glynn]

>.Net would be huge if it actually brought new ideas and concepts to the
market.

Such as?

[MMFAN]

"Jay Glynn" <agfgdev@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>.Net would be huge if it actually brought new ideas and concepts to the
>market.
>
>Such as?
>
New concepts.... things that haven't been done already... You know instead
of making us reinvent the wheel.

Isn't M$ releasing version 2.0 of the wheel? Wheel.Net will be so great that
all vehicle owners in the world will rush on out to get them installed even
thought their current wheels still work fine.

[Dan Barclay]

Elli, PMJI:

>I would not have much problem using a hello world program from a fry cook
>that hacks vb code out, but i wouldn't want to trust anything much more complex
>to them. they are not really developers, they're coders.

You miss the issue of subject matter experts being involved in
development of applications steeped in the subject itself.

To argue that code must be difficult, elegant, or complex to be good
is absurd.

>to develop complex
>code you need to follow some kind of development methodolgy. if you are
>already using oo, then the jump to .net shouldn't be too evil.

The most elegant code in the world is useless unless it accomplishes
an end task. Sometimes it's best done by a deeply geek coder,
sometimes it's best done by someone who knows the application domain
inside and out. Neither is perfect, each has its own downside, and
there is no "one solution fits all".

In the rare event you find a deeply geek coder that also knows the
subject matter you end up with a truly magnificent piece. It just
doesn't happen often. In fact, I haven't seen it happen. It didn't
even happen with VB itself... MS doesn't really understand it.

So, now there are 97 ways for a deep geek to work with .Net.
Hopefully they'll learn to speak Application.

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

[Mike Mitchell]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:43:49 -0500, "Greg Brunet"
<gbrunet@semper_soft.com> wrote:

>Just read some interesting articles about MS & VB6 / VB.NET issues in
>InfoWorld:
>
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl...729plvbdev.xml
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl...9plvbtrans.xml

Interesting and valid articles, which highlight so many of the things
I have been saying for ages. I have a few comments based on those
articles:

A Visual Studio .Net product manager stated: "Our developers are an
important asset,..."

Yeah, well why not put your money where your mouth is and give us an
upgrade that allows 95% of existing code to run - just like it did
under VB/2/3/4/5 and 6.

Steve Ballmer said: "What we are trying to do for the health of .Net,
and the health of the company, and the sanity of people who work [with
our products], and the quality of the product produced is to really
have a more orchestrated road map of where we are going,"

So, basically, they don't really know yet where they're going with
.Net - hence the need for road maps? As for the sanity of the people,
this would have been protected if the people didn't suddenly have a
massive rewrite to contend with should they wish to port their apps to
the new language.

"The difference between VB 6 and VB .Net is very big. The whole
language is a lot more like C now," according to one application
developer.

The difference is huge. But we have had numerous cheerleaders for
VB.Net trying to play down the changes and put them roughly on a par
with those that occurred in earlier VB upgrades, which is simply
laughable. Trouble is, some "newbies" will believe them and take such
propaganda at face value - and then become mightily disappointed and
disillusioned when the truth (that is -1, by the way) hits them.

Again the Microsoft product manager opined: "We're notorious for
putting our developers through learning curves."

Well, I have to say, is this something to be proud of? Imagine a Ford
or a General Motors admitting that their customers would always have
learning curves to "look forward" to! How about the guy who does DIY
and has to keep learning how to use the next new-fangled router or
planer-thicknesser? "But I only wanna do what I've been doing for
twenty years, for God's sake!" Sorry fellah, it's the learning curves,
you see. We're notorious for 'em. What about chefs, short-order cooks,
hairdressers, airline pilots: Man, those learning curves are a real
pisser. I always thought a pancake was a pancake, but no - they've
changed the recipe yet again.

And so to the second article, which includes this: "Anyone learning VB
now is under enormous pressure to learn VB .Net."

This is my answer to those who keep on about how we can just keep on
using VB6 for ever! Fact is, VB6 is now a lingua non grata in a world
where Microsoft = .Net. Sure, they were dragged kicking and screaming
into making some positive noises about supporting the discontinued
product for a number of years (how kind of them; I can buy spares for
forty-year-old motor vehicles, no problemo). Second fact is, whenever
now consultants talk VB with corporations, does anyone think they're
going to be extolling the virtues of VB6? Of course not! Everyone is
being sold the message that VB.Net is "the replacement" of classic VB.
Anyone who is still using VB6 is being "left behind". And because many
people (corporations, developers, individual customers) will not want
to be categorised within this bracket, they will be uncomfortable
staying put, feeling that they really have little choice but to move
up behind the juggernaut and dutifully assume the position.

Another important point from the second article is: "There is a large
contingency of VB coders who picked up the language purely to get work
done..."

This, again, is what I have been claiming for a long time, too. Not
everyone who uses Visual Basic thinks of him or herself as a computer
scientist, to whom Dijkstra and Knuth are names one bandies about at
the breakfast table, among the empty Jolt cans and reefer butts. They
don't really give a toss for OOP, let alone the funny, arcane syntax
of a C or a C++. That's why B.A.S.I.C. appealed to them and became the
most widely used (and once upon a time, taught) computer languages
ever. Simple. Effective. Productive. These features stick in the craw
of those computer scientists, though. They take the view that the
purist way is the only way. Probably the real reason why they've
always rubbished B.A.S.I.C. is that they're just miffed at the ease
with which useful applications may be developed, when they have had to
spend years making some kind of sense out of that arcaneness they
supposedly know and love! Then along comes Visual Basic for Windows,
and the squit really hits the pan, in C++ land. Instead of days to
produce a Hello world kind of app, the VB coders, who maybe double up
as short-order cooks in their spare time, can serve up Hello world in
about five minutes - and the app looks just as good as, if not better
than, the C++ version. Miffed, or what!

Now, however, the C++ aficiondos have got their own back by
arbitrarily removing classic VB from the scene and putting a weird
chimera with shades of Java and C++ in its place. Well, I suppose it's
one way of trying to get your point across!

Finally, to the concluding summary: "VB .Net is less an evolution of
VB than it is a new, strict language. Migration from VB 6 is
difficult,...."

Perhaps now the .Netizens who regularly take me to task for my
undiluted support for classic VB (and, to be fair, rubbishing of
VB.Net...) will sit up and listen to others who are saying exactly the
same kinds of things, but with the added import of a weighty research
organisation.

MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 05:14:12 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
<kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>As usual, more FUD than facts. Can't use DHTML with VB.NET?. Even if one
>embeds a browser object in a form. Just like would be done with VB6 ?

Oh, ouch!

MM

[elliferg]

kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
...>
>This, again, is what I have been claiming for a long time, too. Not
>everyone who uses Visual Basic thinks of him or herself as a computer
>scientist, to whom Dijkstra and Knuth are names one bandies about at
>the breakfast table, among the empty Jolt cans and reefer butts. They
>don't really give a toss for OOP, let alone the funny, arcane syntax
>of a C or a C++. That's why B.A.S.I.C. appealed to them and became the
>most widely used (and once upon a time, taught) computer languages
>ever. Simple. Effective. Productive. These features stick in the craw
>of those computer scientists, though. They take the view that the
>purist way is the only way. Probably the real reason why they've
>always rubbished B.A.S.I.C. is that they're just miffed at the ease
>with which useful applications may be developed, when they have had to
>spend years making some kind of sense out of that arcaneness they
>supposedly know and love! Then along comes Visual Basic for Windows,
>and the squit really hits the pan, in C++ land. Instead of days to
>produce a Hello world kind of app, the VB coders, who maybe double up
>as short-order cooks in their spare time, can serve up Hello world in
>about five minutes - and the app looks just as good as, if not better
>than, the C++ version. Miffed, or what!
>....
>MM

mike,
I would not have much problem using a hello world program from a fry cook
that hacks vb code out, but i wouldn't want to trust anything much more complex
to them. they are not really developers, they're coders. to develop complex
code you need to follow some kind of development methodolgy. if you are
already using oo, then the jump to .net shouldn't be too evil.

elli

[Dan Barclay]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:45:31 EDT, Mark Jerde
<mark.jerde@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:

>Dan,
>
>> In the rare event you find a deeply geek coder that also knows the
>> subject matter you end up with a truly magnificent piece.
>
>.. but not necessarily on time ... <g>

LOL!

Have you ever seen software on time? I mean, software that sorta
worked?

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

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"elliferg" <fergusej@agedwards.com> wrote in message <news:3d47009a$1@10.1.10.29>...

> I would not have much problem using a hello world program from a fry cook
> that hacks vb code out, but i wouldn't want to trust anything much more complex
> to them. they are not really developers, they're coders. to develop complex
> code you need to follow some kind of development methodolgy. if you are
> already using oo, then the jump to .net shouldn't be too evil.

The fry cook knows what he wants/needs to accomplish. All the
methodology in the world won't save the "Real Developers" from
solving the wrong problems entirely, would it. After all, look
at what Micro$haft hath wrought in the name of banishing those
evil circular reference spirits! Now we get to "inherit" the
problems Delphi and Java developers must face, oh joy:

URL:http://engineeringobjects.com/cpp_hourglass.htm

URL:http://eclipse.org/articles/swt-desi...-design-2.html

In fact, "already using oo" would make VB developers vulnerable
to object finalization issues, wouldn't it, since the CLR's GC
mechanism behaves quite differently from VB/COM's reference
counting, and this will affect the program design.

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> "Regged" again? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

[Mark Gonzales]

Mike,

I'm the guy who wrote a couple of VB apps for AutoCAD LT
(www.lt-solutions.com). And don't laugh if you look at my site because I
hardly know FrontPage - another challenge in my life!

I learned VB by pacing up and down the kitchen floor at night reading
"Visual Basic 3 for Dummies" with many cups of coffee. I think it took 3 or
4 times reading it cover to cover before I even STARTED to get it. I'm no
computer geek by any stretch of the imagination and I rarely think about
programming in my spare time. I also have no formal education - just barley
getting through HS over 15 years ago. But I've always loved drafting (board
or computer) and I'm fascinated with CAD (basic 2D AutoCAD and
MicroStation - not 3D Modelers or high-end stuff). I taught myself VB
because I wanted to automate AutoCAD LT which has no built-in programming
ability to speak of.

Anyway, VB was easy and simple (or so I was told) and it allowed a regular
Joe like myself to create professional apps. In fact, I upgraded to VB Pro
(while I could still buy it) only about a year ago after working for years
with the Standard / Learning editions which were still waaay overkill for my
needs.

I look at .Net code and I hardly recognize it. I have enough work to do just
to keep up with the AutoCAD changes that affect me. And now I have to learn
what amounts to a whole NEW programming language if I want to keep up with
VB?!?! Well that, sir, SUCKS! Huh huh huh huh (I'm also a Beavis and
Butthead fan).

So I now take the attitude that, for the most part, my stuff is fine-tuned
(you know when everything just seems to work right) and I really don't want
to mess with that too much. And so I'm sticking with VB 6.0.but I am a
little disgruntled. I will no longer benefit from the subtle enhancements of
new releases of my favorite working tool. <sigh> Freggin' Microsoft!
--


Mark - interested in drafting, NOT PROGRAMMING!



"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d46f343.7165106@news.devx.com...
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:43:49 -0500, "Greg Brunet"
> <gbrunet@semper_soft.com> wrote:
>
> >Just read some interesting articles about MS & VB6 / VB.NET issues in
> >InfoWorld:
> >
> >http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl...729plvbdev.xml
> >http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl...9plvbtrans.xml
>
> Interesting and valid articles, which highlight so many of the things
> I have been saying for ages. I have a few comments based on those
> articles:
>
> A Visual Studio .Net product manager stated: "Our developers are an
> important asset,..."
>
> Yeah, well why not put your money where your mouth is and give us an
> upgrade that allows 95% of existing code to run - just like it did
> under VB/2/3/4/5 and 6.
>
> Steve Ballmer said: "What we are trying to do for the health of .Net,
> and the health of the company, and the sanity of people who work [with
> our products], and the quality of the product produced is to really
> have a more orchestrated road map of where we are going,"
>
> So, basically, they don't really know yet where they're going with
> Net - hence the need for road maps? As for the sanity of the people,
> this would have been protected if the people didn't suddenly have a
> massive rewrite to contend with should they wish to port their apps to
> the new language.
>
> "The difference between VB 6 and VB .Net is very big. The whole
> language is a lot more like C now," according to one application
> developer.
>
> The difference is huge. But we have had numerous cheerleaders for
> VB.Net trying to play down the changes and put them roughly on a par
> with those that occurred in earlier VB upgrades, which is simply
> laughable. Trouble is, some "newbies" will believe them and take such
> propaganda at face value - and then become mightily disappointed and
> disillusioned when the truth (that is -1, by the way) hits them.
>
> Again the Microsoft product manager opined: "We're notorious for
> putting our developers through learning curves."
>
> Well, I have to say, is this something to be proud of? Imagine a Ford
> or a General Motors admitting that their customers would always have
> learning curves to "look forward" to! How about the guy who does DIY
> and has to keep learning how to use the next new-fangled router or
> planer-thicknesser? "But I only wanna do what I've been doing for
> twenty years, for God's sake!" Sorry fellah, it's the learning curves,
> you see. We're notorious for 'em. What about chefs, short-order cooks,
> hairdressers, airline pilots: Man, those learning curves are a real
> pisser. I always thought a pancake was a pancake, but no - they've
> changed the recipe yet again.
>
> And so to the second article, which includes this: "Anyone learning VB
> now is under enormous pressure to learn VB .Net."
>
> This is my answer to those who keep on about how we can just keep on
> using VB6 for ever! Fact is, VB6 is now a lingua non grata in a world
> where Microsoft = .Net. Sure, they were dragged kicking and screaming
> into making some positive noises about supporting the discontinued
> product for a number of years (how kind of them; I can buy spares for
> forty-year-old motor vehicles, no problemo). Second fact is, whenever
> now consultants talk VB with corporations, does anyone think they're
> going to be extolling the virtues of VB6? Of course not! Everyone is
> being sold the message that VB.Net is "the replacement" of classic VB.
> Anyone who is still using VB6 is being "left behind". And because many
> people (corporations, developers, individual customers) will not want
> to be categorised within this bracket, they will be uncomfortable
> staying put, feeling that they really have little choice but to move
> up behind the juggernaut and dutifully assume the position.
>
> Another important point from the second article is: "There is a large
> contingency of VB coders who picked up the language purely to get work
> done..."
>
> This, again, is what I have been claiming for a long time, too. Not
> everyone who uses Visual Basic thinks of him or herself as a computer
> scientist, to whom Dijkstra and Knuth are names one bandies about at
> the breakfast table, among the empty Jolt cans and reefer butts. They
> don't really give a toss for OOP, let alone the funny, arcane syntax
> of a C or a C++. That's why B.A.S.I.C. appealed to them and became the
> most widely used (and once upon a time, taught) computer languages
> ever. Simple. Effective. Productive. These features stick in the craw
> of those computer scientists, though. They take the view that the
> purist way is the only way. Probably the real reason why they've
> always rubbished B.A.S.I.C. is that they're just miffed at the ease
> with which useful applications may be developed, when they have had to
> spend years making some kind of sense out of that arcaneness they
> supposedly know and love! Then along comes Visual Basic for Windows,
> and the squit really hits the pan, in C++ land. Instead of days to
> produce a Hello world kind of app, the VB coders, who maybe double up
> as short-order cooks in their spare time, can serve up Hello world in
> about five minutes - and the app looks just as good as, if not better
> than, the C++ version. Miffed, or what!
>
> Now, however, the C++ aficiondos have got their own back by
> arbitrarily removing classic VB from the scene and putting a weird
> chimera with shades of Java and C++ in its place. Well, I suppose it's
> one way of trying to get your point across!
>
> Finally, to the concluding summary: "VB .Net is less an evolution of
> VB than it is a new, strict language. Migration from VB 6 is
> difficult,...."
>
> Perhaps now the .Netizens who regularly take me to task for my
> undiluted support for classic VB (and, to be fair, rubbishing of
> VB.Net...) will sit up and listen to others who are saying exactly the
> same kinds of things, but with the added import of a weighty research
> organisation.
>
> MM

[Mike Mitchell]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:16:16 -0400, "Mark Gonzales"
<markgonzalesx@attbi.com> wrote:

>So I now take the attitude that, for the most part, my stuff is fine-tuned
>(you know when everything just seems to work right) and I really don't want
>to mess with that too much. And so I'm sticking with VB 6.0.but I am a
>little disgruntled. I will no longer benefit from the subtle enhancements of
>new releases of my favorite working tool. <sigh> Freggin' Microsoft!

It will be posts like this one from Mark which will finally send a
message to Microsoft: Reinstate VB6 now!!!

MM