Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6? - Page 8


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 126

Thread: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

  1. #106
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    In article <3d99bb8c$1@10.1.10.29>,
    "Tom Shelton" <toms@dakcs.com> writes:

    > "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:qlsipu0tfe5hcdpd31hr3npuc7fnvmc93u@4ax.com...


    > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 03:52:42 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
    > > <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:


    > > >Pascal and VB *are* alien to BASIC programmers. VB though isn't
    > > >alien to VB programmers....


    > > "VB is alien to BASIC programmers" ? What nonsense are you
    > > wibbling on about now? Any BASIC programmer who wanted to, could
    > > pick up VB inside of five minutes, no problem. And that includes
    > > BASIC programmers outwith the Microsoft School of B.A.S.I.C. Even
    > > ZX Spectrum BASIC or BBC BASIC programmers would be more
    > > conversant with VB after five minutes exposure than current VBc
    > > programmers are with VB.Net.


    > That's complete and utter bull!


    Not at all.

    > Right now, at my company we have a guy that has been programming in
    > Atari Basic for years, and has been doing IMS/Basic for several
    > months now - and is doing quite well at it. He is supposed to be
    > taking over a VB5 based product. He has been struggling for about
    > 3 wks now trying to come to grips with VB5.


    Are you *certain* that it is VB5 he is struggling with, rather than
    his predecessor's convoluted attempts at OOP or the like? My own
    experience was like Arthur's, as were those of every BASIC-experienced
    VB neophyte I have ever encountered (including my then-10 year old
    daughter).

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  2. #107
    Tom Shelton Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in message
    news:3D9A49CB.8CE75AA7@netzero.net...
    > In article <3d99bb8c$1@10.1.10.29>,
    > "Tom Shelton" <toms@dakcs.com> writes:
    >
    > > "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > > news:qlsipu0tfe5hcdpd31hr3npuc7fnvmc93u@4ax.com...

    >
    > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 03:52:42 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
    > > > <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

    >
    > > > >Pascal and VB *are* alien to BASIC programmers. VB though isn't
    > > > >alien to VB programmers....

    >
    > > > "VB is alien to BASIC programmers" ? What nonsense are you
    > > > wibbling on about now? Any BASIC programmer who wanted to, could
    > > > pick up VB inside of five minutes, no problem. And that includes
    > > > BASIC programmers outwith the Microsoft School of B.A.S.I.C. Even
    > > > ZX Spectrum BASIC or BBC BASIC programmers would be more
    > > > conversant with VB after five minutes exposure than current VBc
    > > > programmers are with VB.Net.

    >
    > > That's complete and utter bull!

    >
    > Not at all.


    Yes it is. I have worked with many people learning VB... I worked as a
    Instructional Assistant (fancy name for tutor) in the computer labs for 2
    years in college. The professor of the VB class had me take over his class
    on several occasions - as a substitute (one time for 3 wks). I'm not saying
    that VB is alien to people with BASIC experience, I don't believe that at
    all, but I am disagreeing with Mike's assertion that any old basic
    programmer can pick it up inside 5 minutes. I have seen to many old style
    basic programmers struggle with VB5/6 to believe it for a second.

    > > Right now, at my company we have a guy that has been programming in
    > > Atari Basic for years, and has been doing IMS/Basic for several
    > > months now - and is doing quite well at it. He is supposed to be
    > > taking over a VB5 based product. He has been struggling for about
    > > 3 wks now trying to come to grips with VB5.

    >
    > Are you *certain* that it is VB5 he is struggling with, rather than
    > his predecessor's convoluted attempts at OOP or the like? My own
    > experience was like Arthur's, as were those of every BASIC-experienced
    > VB neophyte I have ever encountered (including my then-10 year old
    > daughter).


    Yes I'm certain. And since, I at one time was in charge of the maintenance
    of the product in question, I can personally vouche for the fact that there
    is not a single class in the application - it was originally written in VB3.
    I agree that some people may pick it up quickly, I myself didn't have any
    trouble with VB - but that just isn't true of everyone.



  3. #108
    Vlad Ivanov Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:

    >> I have started my exposure to programming with C64 as well,

    >
    >I hope that "as well" was a reference to Jens (who did seem to think
    >that the world began in 1982). FWIW, I had well over a decade of
    >programming experience by that time.
    >


    Bad choice of words on my part. C64 was my first computer. Prior to it i
    was more concerned by learning how to talk and receiving potty training.


  4. #109
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    In article <3d9a4ecc@10.1.10.29>,
    "Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> writes:

    > "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in message
    > news:3D9A49CB.8CE75AA7@netzero.net...


    > > In article <3d99bb8c$1@10.1.10.29>,
    > > "Tom Shelton" <toms@dakcs.com> writes:


    > > > "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > > > news:qlsipu0tfe5hcdpd31hr3npuc7fnvmc93u@4ax.com...


    > > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 03:52:42 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
    > > > > <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:


    > > > > >Pascal and VB *are* alien to BASIC programmers. VB though
    > > > > >isn't alien to VB programmers....


    > > > > "VB is alien to BASIC programmers" ? What nonsense are you
    > > > > wibbling on about now? Any BASIC programmer who wanted to,
    > > > > could pick up VB inside of five minutes, no problem. And
    > > > > that includes BASIC programmers outwith the Microsoft School
    > > > > of B.A.S.I.C. Even ZX Spectrum BASIC or BBC BASIC programmers
    > > > > would be more conversant with VB after five minutes exposure
    > > > > than current VBc programmers are with VB.Net.


    > > > That's complete and utter bull!


    > > Not at all.


    > Yes it is. I have worked with many people learning VB...


    So have I. Including the children I have spoken of.

    > I worked as a Instructional Assistant (fancy name for tutor) in the
    > computer labs for 2 years in college.


    And I have both designed and taught a variety of courses for CTG's
    Training Services division. My classes have been contracted at such
    companies as AT&T, Honeywell, Polaroid, Lockheed (before the merger),
    Rockwell, and a variety of smaller companies.

    > The professor of the VB class had me take over his class on several
    > occasions - as a substitute (one time for 3 wks).


    Congratulations. But I assume you were merely following his lesson
    plan and his approach.

    > I'm not saying that VB is alien to people with BASIC experience,
    > I don't believe that at all,


    IOW, you agree with MM's fundamental point: Kunle Trolldotter's
    claim was (as usual) without merit.

    > but I am disagreeing with Mike's assertion that any old basic
    > programmer can pick it up inside 5 minutes.


    That would seem to depend on what you mean by "pick up", and how
    literally you take the "5 minutes". The fundamental syntax
    differences between the older BASIC versions and VB.Classic were
    minimal and easily assimilated (unlike those between VB6 and VB.NET).
    Once you superficially cover the "point and click" features of the
    IDE, experienced BASIC programmers I have seen have all been able to
    fill the "clicked" subroutines in the code window with familiar,
    functional (even complex and sophisticated) code with little or no
    problem. That is a pretty good approximation of Mike's claim.

    However, if you choose to define "pick up" more elaborately - such
    as including the ability to hand-code complete applications without
    the IDE P&C aids, using classes, user defined controls, and the
    like - it will take more than a literal 5 minutes to cover the
    conceptual issues alone. But that is more a matter of "mastery in
    depth" than of "picking up".

    > I have seen to many old style basic programmers struggle with VB5/6
    > to believe it for a second.


    But what parts were they struggling with? Fundamental language
    syntax? Probably not. VB specific, OOP specific, and Windows specific
    concepts, features, and functions? More likely. In your response to
    Arthur, you seem to confirm that with your statement:

    : When I was working as an Instructional Assistant back in college,
    : I found that the biggest problem people had moving to VB was the
    : concept of event driven programming.

    From the viewpoint of "picking up" VB.Classic, that concept can be
    dismissed as "stuff going on under the hood". All they need to know
    is that the IDE produces code which calls the IDE-named subroutines
    at the appropriate times, passing the defined information. Such
    thinking is at odds with the goals of Academic classrooms and the
    like, but entirely in line with "picking up" the language.

    [...]

    > I agree that some people may pick it up quickly, I myself didn't
    > have any trouble with VB - but that just isn't true of everyone.


    Again, the chosen definition of "pick it up" would seem to be central
    to the discussion. As would the individual's chosen approach and
    expectations.

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  5. #110
    Tom Shelton Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in message
    news:3D9B491B.11E75DB9@netzero.net...
    > In article <3d9a4ecc@10.1.10.29>,
    > "Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> writes:
    >
    > > "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in message
    > > news:3D9A49CB.8CE75AA7@netzero.net...

    >
    > > > In article <3d99bb8c$1@10.1.10.29>,
    > > > "Tom Shelton" <toms@dakcs.com> writes:

    >
    > > > > "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > > > > news:qlsipu0tfe5hcdpd31hr3npuc7fnvmc93u@4ax.com...

    >
    > > > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 03:52:42 +0100, "Kunle Odutola"
    > > > > > <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

    >
    > > > > > >Pascal and VB *are* alien to BASIC programmers. VB though
    > > > > > >isn't alien to VB programmers....

    >
    > > > > > "VB is alien to BASIC programmers" ? What nonsense are you
    > > > > > wibbling on about now? Any BASIC programmer who wanted to,
    > > > > > could pick up VB inside of five minutes, no problem. And
    > > > > > that includes BASIC programmers outwith the Microsoft School
    > > > > > of B.A.S.I.C. Even ZX Spectrum BASIC or BBC BASIC programmers
    > > > > > would be more conversant with VB after five minutes exposure
    > > > > > than current VBc programmers are with VB.Net.

    >
    > > > > That's complete and utter bull!

    >
    > > > Not at all.

    >
    > > Yes it is. I have worked with many people learning VB...

    >
    > So have I. Including the children I have spoken of.
    >
    > > I worked as a Instructional Assistant (fancy name for tutor) in the
    > > computer labs for 2 years in college.

    >
    > And I have both designed and taught a variety of courses for CTG's
    > Training Services division. My classes have been contracted at such
    > companies as AT&T, Honeywell, Polaroid, Lockheed (before the merger),
    > Rockwell, and a variety of smaller companies.


    That's nice, Bill. I never claimed to be a trainer, just stating that I
    have some experience working with students learning Visual Basic.

    > > The professor of the VB class had me take over his class on several
    > > occasions - as a substitute (one time for 3 wks).

    >
    > Congratulations. But I assume you were merely following his lesson
    > plan and his approach.


    Actually no... He just said, I'm going to be gone so and so a day, would you
    cover X topic. I would then develop the assignment and lesson for the
    day/wks.

    > > I'm not saying that VB is alien to people with BASIC experience,
    > > I don't believe that at all,

    >
    > IOW, you agree with MM's fundamental point: Kunle Trolldotter's
    > claim was (as usual) without merit.


    No. Not really. I agree with Kunle to the point that VB would look rather
    alien to someone used to BASIC from a structural point of view. In other
    words, the microview would probably be fairly familar, but the macroview
    would be alien.

    > > but I am disagreeing with Mike's assertion that any old basic
    > > programmer can pick it up inside 5 minutes.

    >
    > That would seem to depend on what you mean by "pick up", and how
    > literally you take the "5 minutes". The fundamental syntax
    > differences between the older BASIC versions and VB.Classic were
    > minimal and easily assimilated (unlike those between VB6 and VB.NET).
    > Once you superficially cover the "point and click" features of the
    > IDE, experienced BASIC programmers I have seen have all been able to
    > fill the "clicked" subroutines in the code window with familiar,
    > functional (even complex and sophisticated) code with little or no
    > problem. That is a pretty good approximation of Mike's claim.


    Well, Mike makes it sound like a old style BASIC programmer can pop open the
    IDE and in 5 minutes writing useful applications... If that's not what he
    meant then, he should clarify - and I'll apologize. If it is what he meant,
    then I disagree.

    As for your comment about VB6 vs. VB.NET... That is just ridiculous. VB6
    and VB.NET are much more closely related then say QBasic and VB6. If an old
    style BASIC programmer can pick up the essence VB.CLASSIC in a matter of day
    s - which I would find believable - a VB6 programmer could certainly do the
    same with VB.NET - I know I did.

    > However, if you choose to define "pick up" more elaborately - such
    > as including the ability to hand-code complete applications without
    > the IDE P&C aids, using classes, user defined controls, and the
    > like - it will take more than a literal 5 minutes to cover the
    > conceptual issues alone. But that is more a matter of "mastery in
    > depth" than of "picking up".
    >
    > > I have seen to many old style basic programmers struggle with VB5/6
    > > to believe it for a second.

    >
    > But what parts were they struggling with? Fundamental language
    > syntax? Probably not. VB specific, OOP specific, and Windows specific
    > concepts, features, and functions? More likely. In your response to
    > Arthur, you seem to confirm that with your statement:


    No, it isn't really usually a syntax issue - I'll agree with that, but it
    rarely is a syntax issue when moving from one language to another (exept for
    maybe VB to Perl.... VB is still BASIC enough for that to not be much of
    an issue. The biggest stumbling block I have seen is really understanding
    the concepts of events, and the structure of a VB program that results.
    Scoping issues also often seem to be a problem.

    > : When I was working as an Instructional Assistant back in college,
    > : I found that the biggest problem people had moving to VB was the
    > : concept of event driven programming.
    >
    > From the viewpoint of "picking up" VB.Classic, that concept can be
    > dismissed as "stuff going on under the hood". All they need to know
    > is that the IDE produces code which calls the IDE-named subroutines
    > at the appropriate times, passing the defined information. Such
    > thinking is at odds with the goals of Academic classrooms and the
    > like, but entirely in line with "picking up" the language.
    > [...]
    >
    > > I agree that some people may pick it up quickly, I myself didn't
    > > have any trouble with VB - but that just isn't true of everyone.

    >
    > Again, the chosen definition of "pick it up" would seem to be central
    > to the discussion. As would the individual's chosen approach and
    > expectations.


    Maybe we should have Mike clarify his position, before we continue this any
    farther. I assumed from the tone of his post that he literally meant that a
    BASIC programmer could pop open VB and in 5 minutes start writing useful
    code. Now, if he didn't mean 5 minutes literally, and meant it to be a
    metaphor for a "short amount of time" (like a few days) then I can totally
    dig that.

    Tom Shelton



  6. #111
    Ken Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    Jason, you might as well give it up.

    Everyone of these religious flame wars about VB6 vs. VB.Net is entirely explained
    by the Morlock vs. Eloi concepts in Animal Farm. The two sides will never
    agree.

    Meantime, MS has promised to support VB6 for some reasonable time, and it
    will probably work ok for a few OS releases thereafter.

    My own opinion having developed now in both:

    The big difference between VB6 and VB.NET is not the language syntax, but
    the surrounding libraries (.NET Framework in the one case and DAO, ADO, OLEDB,
    VB6 objects, etc.). Most of the complaints about VB.Net are really complaints
    about having to deal with the new framework, it IS different.

    After the initial shock of the Framework differences, however, the development
    environment and language are pretty nice to live with.

    The real issue comes down to the following two questions:

    1. Should MS have developed the .NET Framework? Well, with .NET, for the
    first time in their history, MS has attempted and mostly succeeded in getting
    all of their development stuff into one well-designed, integrated sock.
    It was the right move, the future will prove that.

    2. Should MS have made the next version of VB compatible with .NET?
    Well, would you want your favorite language left out of the MS future? If
    not, then better bite the bullet and learn the .NET Framework, it's here
    to stay.




  7. #112
    Tim Overbay Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    "Ken" <kblood@aboutcsa.net> wrote in message news:3d9b654a$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > Jason, you might as well give it up.
    >
    > Everyone of these religious flame wars about VB6 vs. VB.Net is entirely

    explained
    > by the Morlock vs. Eloi concepts in Animal Farm. The two sides will never
    > agree.
    >


    I think my humour center is out of whack this week. Was this a joke? I don't
    get it. Morlocks and Eloi are from "The Time Machine".

    I think I need a vacation...

    Tim



  8. #113
    Jonathan West Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    "Ken" <kblood@aboutcsa.net> wrote in message news:3d9b654a$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > The big difference between VB6 and VB.NET is not the language syntax, but
    > the surrounding libraries (.NET Framework in the one case and DAO, ADO,

    OLEDB,
    > VB6 objects, etc.). Most of the complaints about VB.Net are really

    complaints
    > about having to deal with the new framework, it IS different.


    Sorry, but that is a load of male bovine excrement.

    Yes, the framework is new. It is an extension to the language. A most
    powerful and useful extension. Underlying the object model of the framework
    is a new platform.

    The availability of the framework does not of itself affect the ability of
    existing code to be recompiled and run. The only thing that can do that is
    the loss or modification of existing language features.

    If you haven't yet grasped that point, then you have misunderstood the whole
    nature of the discussion about the VB6 to VB.NET transition.

    --
    Regards
    Jonathan West


  9. #114
    Eddie Burdak Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    David,

    David Rothgery wrote:
    > All I'm saying is that a radical overhaul of both language and
    > platform, on the same level as VB6->VB.NET isn't likely to happen in
    > the near future, because VB.NET is, by design, more compatible with
    > future change than VB6 is. I don't think this is an unreasonable
    > statement.


    Yes, its not unreasonable. Estimates have it in about 10 years. Non MS
    estimatest that is.

    Eddie



  10. #115
    Paul Clement Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 00:18:51 +0100, "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:


    "Ken" <kblood@aboutcsa.net> wrote in message news:3d9b654a$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > The big difference between VB6 and VB.NET is not the language syntax, but
    > the surrounding libraries (.NET Framework in the one case and DAO, ADO,
    OLEDB,
    > VB6 objects, etc.). Most of the complaints about VB.Net are really
    complaints
    > about having to deal with the new framework, it IS different.

    Sorry, but that is a load of male bovine excrement.

    Yes, the framework is new. It is an extension to the language. A most
    powerful and useful extension. Underlying the object model of the framework
    is a new platform.

    Well actually VB.NET is an extension of the framework not vice versa.


    The availability of the framework does not of itself affect the ability of
    existing code to be recompiled and run.

    Well yes I think we know that it does since there are features that replace those supported in VB
    6.0 that would be considered extensions of the platform. There is less distinction as the language
    and extensions to it have become inextricably intertwined.


    Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
    Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

  11. #116
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    In article <3d9b78ba$1@10.1.10.29>,
    "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> writes:

    > "Ken" <kblood@aboutcsa.net> wrote in message
    > news:3d9b654a$1@10.1.10.29...


    > > The big difference between VB6 and VB.NET is not the language
    > > syntax, but the surrounding libraries (.NET Framework in the one
    > > case and DAO, ADO, OLEDB, VB6 objects, etc.). Most of the
    > > complaints about VB.Net are really complaints about having to deal
    > > with the new framework, it IS different.


    > Sorry, but that is a load of male bovine excrement.


    Agreed. But what do you expect from someone who can't tell the
    difference between Herbert George Wells (The Time Machine) and
    George Orwell (Animal Farm)?

    Old fashioned Freudians would have a field day with his comparison to
    the Wells characters. Who do you suppose would really be the Eloi, the
    peaceful, unthinking group with no sense of history and a passive
    acceptance of the violations visited on them by the technocratic
    Morlocks?

    [...]

    > The availability of the framework does not of itself affect the
    > ability of existing code to be recompiled and run. The only thing
    > that can do that is the loss or modification of existing language
    > features.


    > If you haven't yet grasped that point, then you have misunderstood
    > the whole nature of the discussion about the VB6 to VB.NET
    > transition.


    Like many of the Cheerleaders.NET, the real question is whether he
    really misunderstood those discussions or is simply misrepresenting
    them. And there are gray areas in the classification: Are complaints
    about the loss of Native Code compile really "complaints about having
    to deal with the new framework" in any meaningful way? Only if you
    really stretch credibility. Same for complaints about the loss of
    Win 95 support. But it is somewhat less of a stretch to apply that
    characterization to the complaints about 20+ MB runtime sizes. Still
    a stretch, but a somewhat smaller one.

    But there is no question that the major thrust of the public
    complaints has been the loss and modification of existing language
    features.

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  12. #117
    Tim Overbay Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    I see where you're going with that, but it doesn't really apply to .NETers
    vs. .NOTers. Your comparison is more like Eloi = .NETers and Morlocks =
    Microsoft.

    Either way, it's a poor comparison, imo. A more appropriate and simpler
    allusion would be the grasshopper and the ant. The .NETer (ant) seems to be
    better prepared for the change of seasons than the .NOTer (grasshopper).

    Tim

    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in message
    news:3D9C71E1.660A4AB1@netzero.net...
    > In article <3d9b78ba$1@10.1.10.29>,
    > "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> writes:
    >
    > > "Ken" <kblood@aboutcsa.net> wrote in message
    > > news:3d9b654a$1@10.1.10.29...

    >
    > > > The big difference between VB6 and VB.NET is not the language
    > > > syntax, but the surrounding libraries (.NET Framework in the one
    > > > case and DAO, ADO, OLEDB, VB6 objects, etc.). Most of the
    > > > complaints about VB.Net are really complaints about having to deal
    > > > with the new framework, it IS different.

    >
    > > Sorry, but that is a load of male bovine excrement.

    >
    > Agreed. But what do you expect from someone who can't tell the
    > difference between Herbert George Wells (The Time Machine) and
    > George Orwell (Animal Farm)?
    >
    > Old fashioned Freudians would have a field day with his comparison to
    > the Wells characters. Who do you suppose would really be the Eloi, the
    > peaceful, unthinking group with no sense of history and a passive
    > acceptance of the violations visited on them by the technocratic
    > Morlocks?
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > > The availability of the framework does not of itself affect the
    > > ability of existing code to be recompiled and run. The only thing
    > > that can do that is the loss or modification of existing language
    > > features.

    >
    > > If you haven't yet grasped that point, then you have misunderstood
    > > the whole nature of the discussion about the VB6 to VB.NET
    > > transition.

    >
    > Like many of the Cheerleaders.NET, the real question is whether he
    > really misunderstood those discussions or is simply misrepresenting
    > them. And there are gray areas in the classification: Are complaints
    > about the loss of Native Code compile really "complaints about having
    > to deal with the new framework" in any meaningful way? Only if you
    > really stretch credibility. Same for complaints about the loss of
    > Win 95 support. But it is somewhat less of a stretch to apply that
    > characterization to the complaints about 20+ MB runtime sizes. Still
    > a stretch, but a somewhat smaller one.
    >
    > But there is no question that the major thrust of the public
    > complaints has been the loss and modification of existing language
    > features.
    >
    > --
    >
    > W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD
    >
    > *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    > * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    > * * *
    > * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    > * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    > * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    > * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    > *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*




  13. #118
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?


    >Like many of the Cheerleaders.NET, the real question is whether he
    >really misunderstood those discussions or is simply misrepresenting
    >them.


    Or more likely that some are willing to deal with the differences and shortcomings
    of .NET because we can see the benefits, understand the benefits and take
    advantage of the benefits. And for myself, the benefits far outweigh the
    shortcomings (or at least what you percieve as shortcomings ).


  14. #119
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:20:12 -0600, "Tom Shelton" <toms@dakcs.com>
    wrote:

    >Maybe we should have Mike clarify his position, before we continue this any
    >farther.


    I did. See thread "Re: No subject".

    MM

  15. #120
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

    On 3 Oct 2002 10:41:50 -0700, "Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Or more likely that some are willing to deal with the differences and shortcomings
    >of .NET because we can see the benefits, understand the benefits and take
    >advantage of the benefits. And for myself, the benefits far outweigh the
    >shortcomings (or at least what you percieve as shortcomings ).


    ....but how to get the punters, the buying public, to recognise those
    benefits, if benefits they truly be? That is the really difficult
    question, and one which even Microsoft appears to have trouble getting
    across.

    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