MMFAN Retires


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: MMFAN Retires

  1. #1
    MMFAN Guest

    MMFAN Retires


    After looking at the current state of the job market and speaking with other
    developers, I've concluded that the VB market is pretty much dead and the
    VB.Net market may never materialize.

    Since there is nothing left to say here that hasn't been said repeatedly,
    I shall turn my attentions instead to fantasy football.

    In closing...

    The .Net framework is a java ripoff and a victory for Sun, as Java has now
    killed off VB.

    VB.Net is harder to use and master than VB1-6 ever was.

    There is little or no productivity advantage in using VB.Net over C# or J#.

    The migration wizzard is crap and pretty much useless

    The .Net framework brings nothing new or revolutionary to the market and
    offers little in the way of benefits to the enduser. This is even more true
    of traditional forms based Windows applications.

    Since .Net has killed off the VB market, many current VB6 developers will
    be unable to continue in software development and will have to seek other
    vocations.

    VB.Net has not had the impact that the original VB had when it was released.
    There may still be life in the VB market if it had

    Since .Net is nothing more than a rip off of Java, corporations would be
    wise to adopt the original Java rather than .Net, since all of the Java technologies
    are managed by the Java community process, which controls the specifications.
    This should ensure that what happened to VB does not happen to Java.


  2. #2
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires

    "Those grapes were sour anyway!" said Foxy Loxy.


    "MMFAN" <mmf@mmf.org> wrote in message news:3d782b47$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > After looking at the current state of the job market and speaking with

    other
    > developers, I've concluded that the VB market is pretty much dead and the
    > VB.Net market may never materialize.
    >
    > Since there is nothing left to say here that hasn't been said repeatedly,
    > I shall turn my attentions instead to fantasy football.
    >
    > In closing...
    >
    > The .Net framework is a java ripoff and a victory for Sun, as Java has now
    > killed off VB.
    >
    > VB.Net is harder to use and master than VB1-6 ever was.
    >
    > There is little or no productivity advantage in using VB.Net over C# or

    J#.
    >
    > The migration wizzard is crap and pretty much useless
    >
    > The .Net framework brings nothing new or revolutionary to the market and
    > offers little in the way of benefits to the enduser. This is even more

    true
    > of traditional forms based Windows applications.
    >
    > Since .Net has killed off the VB market, many current VB6 developers will
    > be unable to continue in software development and will have to seek other
    > vocations.
    >
    > VB.Net has not had the impact that the original VB had when it was

    released.
    > There may still be life in the VB market if it had
    >
    > Since .Net is nothing more than a rip off of Java, corporations would be
    > wise to adopt the original Java rather than .Net, since all of the Java

    technologies
    > are managed by the Java community process, which controls the

    specifications.
    > This should ensure that what happened to VB does not happen to Java.
    >




  3. #3
    Jason Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires


    "Frank Oquendo" <nospam@please.com> wrote:
    >Robert Lantry had this to say:
    >
    >> "Those grapes were sour anyway!" said Foxy Loxy.

    >
    >So I wasn't the only one who took all that to mean "I can't evolve so I'm
    >gonna blame the tools"?


    No, that is kinda how I took it too.

  4. #4
    Frank Oquendo Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires

    Any chance you could take MM with you?

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people:
    Those who understand binary and those who don't
    http://www.acadx.com
    http://vbxtender.sourceforge.net



  5. #5
    Frank Oquendo Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires

    Robert Lantry had this to say:

    > "Those grapes were sour anyway!" said Foxy Loxy.


    So I wasn't the only one who took all that to mean "I can't evolve so I'm
    gonna blame the tools"?

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people:
    Those who understand binary and those who don't
    http://www.acadx.com
    http://vbxtender.sourceforge.net



  6. #6
    Jason Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires


    "MMFAN" <mmf@mmf.org> wrote:
    >
    >After looking at the current state of the job market and speaking with other
    >developers, I've concluded that the VB market is pretty much dead and the
    >VB.Net market may never materialize.


    Why not? Java can't keep up with VB4 in terms of GUI development, and VB6
    is getting long in the tooth. Why not VB.NET?

    >Since there is nothing left to say here that hasn't been said repeatedly,
    >I shall turn my attentions instead to fantasy football.


    You've been doing fantasy programming, so it should not be much of a stretch.
    Heh. :-)

    >In closing...
    >
    >The .Net framework is a java ripoff and a victory for Sun, as Java has now
    >killed off VB.


    VB killed off VB. Software becomes obsolete over time. Comparing C# to
    Java, you can see that Java is starting to show its age as well. VB had
    a good run, but the VB-classic product does not suit the market. If Microsoft
    stood behind it despite better judgement, they would eventually lose anyway
    (though I am still not sure Java will ever be able to match VB-classic for
    GUI development - I just have not seen it).

    >VB.Net is harder to use and master than VB1-6 ever was.


    This is bunk. I personally find even C#, which is harder to use than VB.NET,
    to be easier to use than VB1-6. Why? Because the framework has already
    taken care of many of the mundane tasks I always had to code in the old VB.

    It is different, yes. Why don't you just say you are unwilling to learn
    something new at this point in your life, instead of dancing around the point?

    >There is little or no productivity advantage in using VB.Net over C# or

    J#.

    There is maybe a little. Not much. Certainly, though, I would choose C#
    or VB.NET over J# for Windows-specific tasks, and use J# for things where
    I want to have a common code base that works in both Java and .NET. It is
    a great tool for getting the JVM and the CLR talking to one another.

    I happen to like the fact that I am not (1) limited to a single language,
    and (2) not forced to learn a whole new IDE for each language, as with VB6
    and C++ 6.


    >The migration wizzard is crap and pretty much useless


    There is no easy migration solution for VB6 to VB.NET. Get over it.

    >The .Net framework brings nothing new or revolutionary to the market and
    >offers little in the way of benefits to the enduser. This is even more

    true
    >of traditional forms based Windows applications.


    You obviously judged the product without using it. The controls are much
    more complete, and the forms engine is much better thought out. And you
    can use controls and forms from C#, C++, VB.NET, and even J#. And JavaScript.
    And Cobol. And Eiffel.

    With some extra work, you can get the same thing out of VB6, but I am really
    impressed with how much new functionality they have put into these controls.
    And forms.

    And now at least there is some consistency to forms and controls, how they
    work and how you use them. Much cleaner than the VB evolutionary design.

    If you don't write anything other than toy programs, though, you would have
    a hard time understanding the differences.

    >Since .Net has killed off the VB market, many current VB6 developers will
    >be unable to continue in software development and will have to seek other
    >vocations.


    If you can't program in any other language than VB, you were never a programmer
    to begin with. You really have no idea how much you don't know if you have
    never stepped outside the VB box.

    >VB.Net has not had the impact that the original VB had when it was released.


    Actually, .NET seems to be having that impact. But VB.NET, per se, is just
    one language of many.

    > There may still be life in the VB market if it had


    You are too hung up on VB. It's just a language.


    >Since .Net is nothing more than a rip off of Java, corporations would be
    >wise to adopt the original Java rather than .Net, since all of the Java

    technologies
    >are managed by the Java community process, which controls the specifications.


    You are not talking from experience here, and that is readily apparent.
    Sun controls the Java standards. Members in the community control standards
    for different libraries and frameworks that can be added to Java. But Java
    is a proprietary language that is licensed to suppliers. Sun actually went
    to court to revoke Microsoft's license, if you remember.

    And if you ever programmed anything seriously in Java, you would also understand
    that the community process has its problems as well. You want to talk about
    breaking backward compatibility - don't even get me started! Java as a language
    has not broken compatibility in several years, but those libraries keep breaking
    code left and right!

    > This should ensure that what happened to VB does not happen to Java.


    Java was a better "language" than VB from the outset. It really has not
    changed much since its introduction. VB on the other hand was a procedural
    language that has been adapted to OO, components (OCX, ActiveX), the Win32
    API, and several major revisions of Windows (to which VB is inextricably
    tied). The language changed a lot from version to version, and the design
    decisions were often made by different marketing factions. This has lead
    to a language that is quite fractured and arbitrary.

    VB and Java have a lot of similarities, but they have a lot of differences
    as well. They are not the same, and Java will not go down the same path
    as VB. Neither will .NET. It's a whole new road ahead of us.

    And anyway, what do you care about Java? You are retiring because you can't
    understand anything but VB, right?


  7. #7
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires

    "Frank Oquendo" <nospam@please.com> wrote in message <news:3d783139$1@10.1.10.29>...

    > Robert Lantry had this to say:
    >
    > > "Those grapes were sour anyway!" said Foxy Loxy.

    >
    > So I wasn't the only one who took all that to mean "I can't evolve so I'm
    > gonna blame the tools"?


    Just like all wolves really ought to "evolve" into little yap-dogs,
    right? Micro$haft dipped a chihuahua in grey paint and called it a
    "Wolf .NET", and as usual, y'all fell for it:

    URL:http://micro-workflow.com/PDF/JavaIs...rkLanguage.pdf

    Where Sun leads, (to a dead end) .NET "innovations" follow...

    URL:http://cookcomputing.com/blog/archives/000078.html

    The Great Java/.NET Swindle:

    URL:http://linux.sarang.net/ftp/mirror/d...whitepaper.pdf

    Gonna program like it's 1969...

    URL:http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...-jtc0319a.html

    --
    Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Wanna buy a Bridge? <http://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!



  8. #8
    Eddie Burdak Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires

    MMFAN,

    I guess than means you ain't bothering with Java either because the
    writing is on the wall?

    Good luck on the footy!

    Eddie

    MMFAN wrote:
    > After looking at the current state of the job market and speaking
    > with other developers, I've concluded that the VB market is pretty
    > much dead and the VB.Net market may never materialize.
    >
    > Since there is nothing left to say here that hasn't been said
    > repeatedly, I shall turn my attentions instead to fantasy football.
    >
    > In closing...
    >
    > The .Net framework is a java ripoff and a victory for Sun, as Java
    > has now killed off VB.
    >
    > VB.Net is harder to use and master than VB1-6 ever was.
    >
    > There is little or no productivity advantage in using VB.Net over C#
    > or J#.
    >
    > The migration wizzard is crap and pretty much useless
    >
    > The .Net framework brings nothing new or revolutionary to the market
    > and offers little in the way of benefits to the enduser. This is
    > even more true of traditional forms based Windows applications.
    >
    > Since .Net has killed off the VB market, many current VB6 developers
    > will be unable to continue in software development and will have to
    > seek other vocations.
    >
    > VB.Net has not had the impact that the original VB had when it was
    > released. There may still be life in the VB market if it had
    >
    > Since .Net is nothing more than a rip off of Java, corporations

    would
    > be wise to adopt the original Java rather than .Net, since all of

    the
    > Java technologies are managed by the Java community process, which
    > controls the specifications. This should ensure that what happened
    > to VB does not happen to Java.



  9. #9
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires

    On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 23:35:26 -0700, "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster"
    <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:

    >Gonna program like it's 1969...
    >
    > URL:http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...-jtc0319a.html


    I especially enjoyed that one on why finalizers should (and can) be
    avoided! In particular, this:

    .. There is no guarantee of the order in which finalizers will be run.

    .. There is no guarantee of when a finalizer will run.

    .. There is no guarantee of whether a finalizer will be run at all.

    Now the article applied to Java, but I wonder just how pertinent its
    commentary is to .Net. Quite a lot, I should think.

    MM

  10. #10
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires

    On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 23:56:06 -0500, "Frank Oquendo" <nospam@please.com>
    wrote:

    >Any chance you could take MM with you?


    No, for the sake of the gene pool we always travel separately.

    MM

  11. #11
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires

    On 5 Sep 2002 22:18:05 -0700, "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >"MMFAN" <mmf@mmf.org> wrote:
    >>
    >>After looking at the current state of the job market and speaking with other
    >>developers, I've concluded that the VB market is pretty much dead and the
    >>VB.Net market may never materialize.

    >
    >Why not? Java can't keep up with VB4 in terms of GUI development, and VB6
    >is getting long in the tooth. Why not VB.NET?


    Or, better still, why not VB6, if Java (and by implication .Net, since
    the latter is a rip-off of it) cannot keep up even with VB4?

    [snip]

    >VB killed off VB. Software becomes obsolete over time.


    Yet below you include Cobol as a viable language! How does software
    become obsolete? People's ideas about software change, sure, but the
    fundamental If-Then-Else of computing never changes. Why do you think
    there are many once-retired Cobol programmers who were treated like
    kings during the millennium bug fixes and are now enjoying quite a lot
    of windfall cash after they came back for a few months to help sort
    out the date problem? Those Cobol apps are still functioning now and
    likely will do so for years yet.

    > Comparing C# to
    >Java, you can see that Java is starting to show its age as well. VB had
    >a good run, but the VB-classic product does not suit the market. If Microsoft
    >stood behind it despite better judgement, they would eventually lose anyway
    >(though I am still not sure Java will ever be able to match VB-classic for
    >GUI development - I just have not seen it).


    If thousands of corporations are still deploying classic VB
    applications, and if people, even some of the .Netizens here, are
    developing new apps in VB6, where is your evidence that the
    "VB-Classic product does not suit the market"? It may not suit some
    portions of the market, but business practices just don't change that
    much over such a short time. It's as if a year ago classic VB took the
    long drop and at the same time businesses everywhere suddenly changed
    their working practices, requiring completely different approaches in
    their software provision! It's just too simplistic a diagnosis. Word 6
    behaves as a word processor exactly like most any word processor
    anywhere. The fundamental job of word processing hasn't changed for
    30, 40, not even for fifty years! All it is, is software vendors
    *deciding* a change is necessary, thus necessitating new software,
    which corporations are then "invited" to upgrade to. In any case,
    Microsoft has shown how it had enhanced VB over six versions, and I
    don't believe you'd find many classic VB programmers who would deny
    that the product steadily got better and better. Therefore, it is
    reasonable to assume that Microsoft could have taken the product still
    further, while maintaining its ethos of Rapid Application Development
    and near-100% backward compatibility. They completely rewrote at least
    one of the classic VB versions anyway, and *still* retained that
    compatibility and the transition for programmers was almost completely
    seamless. Thus, they *could* have rewritten it again (and again) to
    rearrange the internals and bring them up to date, while giving them
    much more wriggle room for later enhancements - even more OOP,
    perhaps, for those who wanted it.

    >>VB.Net is harder to use and master than VB1-6 ever was.

    >
    >This is bunk.


    If you had said "This is a bunk." then I'd say, great! I can sleep on
    it! But without the indefinite article it's just balderdash, and you
    definitely can't sleep on that. I think by now there is enough common
    knowledge among those having exposed themselves to VB.Net to know
    bunkum when they see it.

    > I personally find even C#, which is harder to use than VB.NET,
    >to be easier to use than VB1-6. Why? Because the framework has already
    >taken care of many of the mundane tasks I always had to code in the old VB.


    Maybe you weren't using "old" VB in the way intended, but trying to
    treat it like C++ or something equally arcane. But simply the
    mandatory requirement of empty parentheses now is ridiculous enough to
    claim the new language is Just Plain Nutz.

    >It is different, yes. Why don't you just say you are unwilling to learn
    >something new at this point in your life, instead of dancing around the point?


    I'm not unwilling to learn something new, but it has to be something I
    consider to be worthwhile and to have a point.

    [snip]

    >>The migration wizzard is crap and pretty much useless

    >
    >There is no easy migration solution for VB6 to VB.NET. Get over it.


    That first sentence should be written up in Times Square in Very Large
    Letters. In neon. Flashing. Bright red. Because to hear such a
    statement would make for a lot of bright red faces in Redmond if you
    were forced to state that in public! But then you add insult to
    injury, and say, glibly, "Get over it." ! What a response to those
    countless millions of programmers, corporations, public bodies and end
    users who have millions of lines of working classic VB code they rely
    upon every day! Here's another free clue: Try avoid the need to get a
    job in marketing, because they'll probably explain how they're trying
    to SELL products, not kill them stone dead!

    [snip]

    >>Since .Net has killed off the VB market, many current VB6 developers will
    >>be unable to continue in software development and will have to seek other
    >>vocations.


    >If you can't program in any other language than VB, you were never a programmer
    >to begin with. You really have no idea how much you don't know if you have
    >never stepped outside the VB box.


    I could equally say "If you can't program in any other language than
    Assembler, you were never a programmer to begin with." What did the
    very first versions of VB state on the packaging? "Programming System
    for Windows". This is the official Microsoft documentation for VB 2.0.
    Could you apply your statement to Cobol programmers? How about
    Fortran? Are their proponents not programmers? Many programmers didn't
    start their careers as professional programmers anyway, but came from
    all kinds of vocation. Still, I think you'll have got the point by
    now, so I won't keep rubbing it in...

    >>VB.Net has not had the impact that the original VB had when it was released.

    >
    >Actually, .NET seems to be having that impact. But VB.NET, per se, is just
    >one language of many.
    >
    >> There may still be life in the VB market if it had

    >
    >You are too hung up on VB. It's just a language.


    Not "just" a language. It's the glue that still keeps the corporate
    world ticking over in many cases, that supplies bespoke programming
    solutions to hundreds of thousands of SMEs, the bread and butter for
    over three million developers, the amazing and profitable upswing in
    third-party start-ups over the years, and the most widely used,
    universally accepted computer language ever. Just saying "just" is
    totally unjust.

    >Sun actually went
    >to court to revoke Microsoft's license, if you remember.


    But wasn't that because Microsoft tried its embrace and extend
    tactics, and Sun refused to bend over?

    >And if you ever programmed anything seriously in Java, you would also understand
    >that the community process has its problems as well. You want to talk about
    >breaking backward compatibility - don't even get me started! Java as a language
    >has not broken compatibility in several years, but those libraries keep breaking
    >code left and right!


    Yeah, but who cares? This is not about Java, this is about VB and
    VB.Net at the moment!

    >> This should ensure that what happened to VB does not happen to Java.

    >
    >Java was a better "language" than VB from the outset. It really has not
    >changed much since its introduction. VB on the other hand was a procedural
    >language that has been adapted to OO, components (OCX, ActiveX), the Win32
    >API, and several major revisions of Windows (to which VB is inextricably
    >tied).


    Just goes to show how amenable the language was to enhancements, then!
    That's why I'm convinced that VB6 *could* have been developed further
    and new enhancements added over time, without dumping a city's worth
    of developers in the Pacific. But what is this about VB being
    "inextricably tied" to Windows? Would that it were! Like Internet
    Explorer is inextricably tied. Then they'd NEVER be able to dump it.
    On the other hand, .Net WILL become inextricably tied such that there
    will be NO exit any more once Yukon et al get going.

    > The language changed a lot from version to version, and the design
    >decisions were often made by different marketing factions. This has lead
    >to a language that is quite fractured and arbitrary.


    Where are the fractures? I only saw improvements, new features, native
    compilation, etc etc. No plaster casts needed. But now you will need a
    white coat and laboratory clearance.

    >VB and Java have a lot of similarities,


    Eh?!!! You cannot be serious (apologies to John McEnroe)! Java is
    COMPLETELY different! (Unless you meant to say "VB.Net and Java have a
    lot of similarities," in which case, I'd agree.)

    > but they have a lot of differences
    >as well. They are not the same, and Java will not go down the same path
    >as VB. Neither will .NET. It's a whole new road ahead of us.


    Yeah, like the new bypass round your locality so that you have to make
    huge detours just to cross the highway you skipped over as a child!

    >And anyway, what do you care about Java? You are retiring because you can't
    >understand anything but VB, right?


    What's wrong with wanting to specialise? Brain surgeons don't usually
    dabble in gynecology, except maybe in the home environment.

    MM

  12. #12
    Tom Shelton Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3d7866b5.1058782@news.devx.com...
    > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 23:35:26 -0700, "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster"
    > <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
    >
    > >Gonna program like it's 1969...
    > >
    > >

    URL:http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...ps/j-jtc0319a.
    html
    >
    > I especially enjoyed that one on why finalizers should (and can) be
    > avoided! In particular, this:
    >
    > . There is no guarantee of the order in which finalizers will be run.


    Applies. That's why you shouldn't refer to any external objects, other then
    your base class in your finalizer - you don't know wether or not it has been
    finalized already.

    > . There is no guarantee of when a finalizer will run.


    Applies - other then it will be called, eventually.

    > . There is no guarantee of whether a finalizer will be run at all.


    Does not apply. Finalizers will be called at least on shutdown.

    > Now the article applied to Java, but I wonder just how pertinent its
    > commentary is to .Net. Quite a lot, I should think.


    Yep, most of it applies. Except the part about no guarantee that the
    finalizer will ever run. Fortunately you don't have to worry about this for
    90% of the classes you write. Those that use unmanaged resources, such as
    socket handles, window handles, etc, should implement the IDisposable
    interface. Generally in this situation, you implement the finalizer and the
    Dispose method to clean up the unmanaged resources, but in the Dispose
    method you call GC.SupressFinalize(Me) to remove the object from the
    finalization queue. This way if the client forgets to call Dispose, you
    will eventually get to clean up your mess, but if the do call Dispose you
    don't have to make the GC work harder.

    Tom Shelton




  13. #13
    Frank Oquendo Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires

    Joe had this to say:

    > Just like all wolves really ought to "evolve" into little yap-dogs,
    > right? Micro$haft dipped a chihuahua in grey paint and called it a
    > "Wolf .NET", and as usual, y'all fell for it:


    I don't know where you folks get your "Masters of the Universe" attitude
    from but I can assure you it's unjustified. When the market changes, we
    either change with it or we become unemployed.

    I'm not falling for anything; I'm expanding my marketable skills. You can be
    principled if you like; I prefer to be paid.

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people:
    Those who understand binary and those who don't
    http://www.acadx.com
    http://vbxtender.sourceforge.net



  14. #14
    Patrick Steele [MVP] Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires

    In article <3d78a633$1@10.1.10.29> (from Tom Shelton <toms@dakcs.com>),
    > > . There is no guarantee of whether a finalizer will be run at all.

    >
    > Does not apply. Finalizers will be called at least on shutdown.


    Unless, of course, you specifically call GC.SuppressFinalize on an
    object (but, this is a special case that is coded for).

    --
    Patrick Steele
    Microsoft .NET MVP
    http://radio.weblogs.com/0110109

  15. #15
    Tom Shelton Guest

    Re: MMFAN Retires


    "Patrick Steele [MVP]" <patrick@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:MPG.17e28f29625d7ac79899b2@news.devx.com...
    > In article <3d78a633$1@10.1.10.29> (from Tom Shelton <toms@dakcs.com>),
    > > > . There is no guarantee of whether a finalizer will be run at all.

    > >
    > > Does not apply. Finalizers will be called at least on shutdown.

    >
    > Unless, of course, you specifically call GC.SuppressFinalize on an
    > object (but, this is a special case that is coded for).


    True. I thought that was implied from my comments about IDisposable.
    Thanks for making that clear.

    Tom Shelton



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