Will VB.NET be more stable than VB6?

[Tom Shelton]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u7mppukrq97ft9e4tu1dtg3fpca09sttum@4ax.com...
> 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

Yes, thank you... I saw it after this post.

Tom Shelton

[Jay Glynn]

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2imppu81do6k1fi0k53gest13lmc4oc7ir@4ax.com...
> 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


All things considered I think .NET has been successful. I was talking with
someone that works with a contracting firm in town and he said that there is
more .NET work then they can deal with. He's been through 3 projects,
working on his 4th. They currently have 40 developers and the only ones on
the bench are 4 Java guys. Microsoft may have stumbled a bit with the
marketing of .NET, calling everything that comes from Redmond something .NET
has only confused. The My Services thing was doomed from the start, and
again Microsoft has marketed things so that some think the only thing you
can do is web services with .NET. .NET is a big shift, I never claimed it
wasn't. It will take large corps a while to grasp the bull by the horns as
it were. I work for one of the largest financial services companies in the
world and as of today I am the only person in the company actively writing
..NET code AFAIK. There are several projects in the pipeline that will
probably use .NET, depending on the results of the project that I am working
on now. I'm sure a lot of organizations are taking the same path to .NET.
New stuff, a couple of pilot projects and then when they can see the benfits
things really start to take off.

[Jason]

Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>....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

Why does it matter, Mike, when you have already said that you refuse to use
Visual Studio .NET for philosophical reasons? If you aren't going to use
the product, then why worry about the benefits?

[Bob]

In article <3d9973dc@10.1.10.29>, jens@esalar.be says...
<snip>
> And MM, if you don't want to call VB.NET BASIC anymore, then VB.CLASSIC
> isn't BASIC either. VB Classic is much further away from C64 of TI99/4A or
> even ZX Spectrum BASIC than it is from VB.NET. Think about it.
>
> Jens
>
Jens,

BASIC splintered almost as bad as the various UNIXes did in the early years.
While you were using your C64 or TI99/4A I was writing in a BASIC that had
subroutines, functions, could invoke functions and subroutines written in
other languages, compiled to object modules that could be called by other
languages, etc. It was called VAX BASIC.

Bob

[Jason]

Bob <tooslow42junk@yahoo.com> wrote:
>BASIC splintered almost as bad as the various UNIXes did in the early years.

>While you were using your C64 or TI99/4A I was writing in a BASIC that had

>subroutines, functions, could invoke functions and subroutines written in

>other languages, compiled to object modules that could be called by other

>languages, etc. It was called VAX BASIC.
>
>Bob

Anybody remember COMAL? It was a basic-like language for C64 that supported
structured programming. It was a nice language, but it never really took
off.

How about Forth? They called it a "threaded" language (having nothing to
do with process threads), but it just looked like spaghetti to me.

[Mike Mitchell]

On 4 Oct 2002 13:25:46 -0700, "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Why does it matter, Mike, when you have already said that you refuse to use
>Visual Studio .NET for philosophical reasons? If you aren't going to use
>the product, then why worry about the benefits?

I'm not worrying about the benefits because I don't see any.
Obviously, not many others do either, else they'd be falling over
themselves to compete with each other. Seems to me that what they're
already using provides enough competition. It's the same old
punchline, I'm afraid: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

MM