Interesting Infoworld Articles


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 49

Thread: Interesting Infoworld Articles

  1. #1
    Greg Brunet Guest

    Interesting Infoworld Articles

    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


  2. #2
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles


    "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



  3. #3
    Phil Weber Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles

    > 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



  4. #4
    MMFAN Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles


    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
    >



  5. #5
    MMFAN@MM.COM Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles


    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
    >
    >



  6. #6
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles



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

    market.

    Such as?


  7. #7
    MMFAN Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles


    "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.

  8. #8
    Dan Barclay Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles

    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
    ....

  9. #9
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles

    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

  10. #10
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles

    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

  11. #11
    elliferg Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles


    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


  12. #12
    Dan Barclay Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles

    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
    ....

  13. #13
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles

    "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!



  14. #14
    Mark Gonzales Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles

    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




  15. #15
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Interesting Infoworld Articles

    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center