Over on the MS VB.NET group...


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40

Thread: Over on the MS VB.NET group...

  1. #1
    Tom Shelton Guest

    Over on the MS VB.NET group...

    Hey, I was just reading a thread over on
    microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb titled "Is VB Dead?". I saw what I
    thought was an interesting reply from Ed Hickey of MS. Here is the text of
    his post - but I think this is may be considered a case of MS eating there
    own dogfood:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I can't reply with specifics, as we don't discuss our future releases due
    to legal reasons, but parts of VB.Net itself will be written in VB.Net this
    time around! I will try to make a big deal of it when I can talk more
    openly about it.

    Ed Hickey

    PM Community - VB

    This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    Tom Shelton



  2. #2
    Larry Serflaten Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...

    "Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message
    > Hey, I was just reading a thread over on
    > microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb titled "Is VB Dead?". I saw what I
    > thought was an interesting reply from Ed Hickey of MS. Here is the text of
    > his post - but I think this is may be considered a case of MS eating there
    > own dogfood:
    >
    > I can't reply with specifics, as we don't discuss our future releases due
    > to legal reasons, but parts of VB.Net itself will be written in VB.Net this
    > time around! I will try to make a big deal of it when I can talk more
    > openly about it.



    That will go quite a ways in lowering the fears that VB.Net might not stay
    fairly consistant over version releases. I see it as a big plus in VB's favor!

    (Yipee!)
    LFS





  3. #3
    Tom Shelton Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...


    "Larry Serflaten" <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote in message
    news:3dc759a1@tnews.web.devx.com...
    > "Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message
    > > Hey, I was just reading a thread over on
    > > microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb titled "Is VB Dead?". I saw what I
    > > thought was an interesting reply from Ed Hickey of MS. Here is the text

    of
    > > his post - but I think this is may be considered a case of MS eating

    there
    > > own dogfood:
    > >
    > > I can't reply with specifics, as we don't discuss our future releases

    due
    > > to legal reasons, but parts of VB.Net itself will be written in VB.Net

    this
    > > time around! I will try to make a big deal of it when I can talk more
    > > openly about it.

    >
    >
    > That will go quite a ways in lowering the fears that VB.Net might not stay
    > fairly consistant over version releases. I see it as a big plus in VB's

    favor!
    >
    > (Yipee!)
    > LFS


    That was my reaction as well...

    Tom Shelton



  4. #4
    Eddie Burdak Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...

    Tom,

    <Snip>

    > I can't reply with specifics, as we don't discuss our future

    releases
    > due to legal reasons, but parts of VB.Net itself will be written in
    > VB.Net this time around! I will try to make a big deal of it when I
    > can talk more openly about it.
    >
    > Ed Hickey
    >
    > PM Community - VB


    Which parts? Come on can't you do VB Add Ins in VB itself? Guess
    we're going to have to wait but I dont see what the big deal is about.

    Eddie


  5. #5
    Tom Shelton Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...


    "Eddie Burdak" <eburdak@pilatus-aircraft.com> wrote in message
    news:3dc76fee@tnews.web.devx.com...
    > Tom,
    >
    > <Snip>
    >
    > > I can't reply with specifics, as we don't discuss our future

    > releases
    > > due to legal reasons, but parts of VB.Net itself will be written in
    > > VB.Net this time around! I will try to make a big deal of it when I
    > > can talk more openly about it.
    > >
    > > Ed Hickey
    > >
    > > PM Community - VB

    >
    > Which parts? Come on can't you do VB Add Ins in VB itself? Guess
    > we're going to have to wait but I dont see what the big deal is about.
    >
    > Eddie


    Well,

    I assume he's talking about the compiler and the code environment - just as
    parts of the C# stuff is coded in C#...

    Tom Shelton



  6. #6
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...

    On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 23:52:27 -0600, "Larry Serflaten"
    <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote:

    >"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message
    >> Hey, I was just reading a thread over on
    >> microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb titled "Is VB Dead?". I saw what I
    >> thought was an interesting reply from Ed Hickey of MS. Here is the text of
    >> his post - but I think this is may be considered a case of MS eating there
    >> own dogfood:
    >>
    >> I can't reply with specifics, as we don't discuss our future releases due
    >> to legal reasons, but parts of VB.Net itself will be written in VB.Net this
    >> time around! I will try to make a big deal of it when I can talk more
    >> openly about it.

    >
    >
    >That will go quite a ways in lowering the fears that VB.Net might not stay
    >fairly consistant over version releases. I see it as a big plus in VB's favor!
    >
    >(Yipee!)


    But what do "parts of VB.Net itself will be written in VB.Net"
    signify? What "parts"? How many "parts"? Or maybe only a few "parts"!
    Isn't this just a marketing ploy to enable the brochure and ad writers
    to compose wording like "Now VB.Net is written in VB.Net!" ?

    Unless the WHOLE of VB.Net is written in VB.Net, what are they trying
    to prove? Where are the benefits doing it in VB.Net, given that most
    ..Netters prefer C#? No, I see it as a marketing ploy, plain and
    simple.

    MM

  7. #7
    Tom Shelton Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:8hufsu06cnikameu6ci8ir2aebspr2folo@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 23:52:27 -0600, "Larry Serflaten"
    > <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote:
    >
    > >"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message
    > >> Hey, I was just reading a thread over on
    > >> microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb titled "Is VB Dead?". I saw what

    I
    > >> thought was an interesting reply from Ed Hickey of MS. Here is the

    text of
    > >> his post - but I think this is may be considered a case of MS eating

    there
    > >> own dogfood:
    > >>
    > >> I can't reply with specifics, as we don't discuss our future releases

    due
    > >> to legal reasons, but parts of VB.Net itself will be written in VB.Net

    this
    > >> time around! I will try to make a big deal of it when I can talk more
    > >> openly about it.

    > >
    > >
    > >That will go quite a ways in lowering the fears that VB.Net might not

    stay
    > >fairly consistant over version releases. I see it as a big plus in VB's

    favor!
    > >
    > >(Yipee!)

    >
    > But what do "parts of VB.Net itself will be written in VB.Net"
    > signify? What "parts"? How many "parts"? Or maybe only a few "parts"!
    > Isn't this just a marketing ploy to enable the brochure and ad writers
    > to compose wording like "Now VB.Net is written in VB.Net!" ?
    >
    > Unless the WHOLE of VB.Net is written in VB.Net, what are they trying
    > to prove? Where are the benefits doing it in VB.Net, given that most
    > .Netters prefer C#? No, I see it as a marketing ploy, plain and
    > simple.


    Of course you do, Mike. I expected no less.

    Tom Shelton



  8. #8
    David Rothgery Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...


    "Tom Shelton" <toms@dakcs.com> wrote in message
    news:3dc7fa95$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
    >
    > "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:8hufsu06cnikameu6ci8ir2aebspr2folo@4ax.com...
    > > But what do "parts of VB.Net itself will be written in VB.Net"
    > > signify? What "parts"? How many "parts"? Or maybe only a few "parts"!
    > > Isn't this just a marketing ploy to enable the brochure and ad writers
    > > to compose wording like "Now VB.Net is written in VB.Net!" ?


    IIRC, the Microsoft.VisualBasic namespace is already written in VB.NET. So
    VB.NET - in - VB.NET isn't going from zero to X%, it's going from X% to
    X+N%.

    > > Unless the WHOLE of VB.Net is written in VB.Net, what are they trying
    > > to prove?


    If large portions (or all) of vbc (the VB.NET compiler) is going to be
    written in VB.NET post-Everett (the 1.1 versions of the .NET framework and
    VS.NET, which are due later this year or very early next year), it's
    probably just a case of 'eating their own dogfood' -- the idea that you
    should actually use the product that you're working on.

    > > Where are the benefits doing it in VB.Net, given that most
    > > .Netters prefer C#?


    Two big things: it gives the VB.NET team a large commercial application to
    test things on, and it makes sure that the VB.NET team has a lot of
    experience actually coding in VB.NET .

    They can't easily write "all" of VB.NET in VB.NET; the .NET framework
    (shared by all .NET languages) is written in a mix of C# and C++, and is
    probably going to stay that way. And much of the Visual Studio.NET IDE is
    shared among all of Microsoft's .NET languages.

    > > No, I see it as a marketing ploy, plain and
    > > simple.

    >
    > Of course you do, Mike. I expected no less.



    --
    Dave Rothgery
    drothgery@alum.wpi.edu



  9. #9
    blob Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...


    "Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@REMOVETHISokocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
    >Mike Mitchell wrote:
    >
    >> Unless the WHOLE of VB.Net is written in VB.Net, what are they trying
    >> to prove? Where are the benefits doing it in VB.Net, given that most
    >> .Netters prefer C#? No, I see it as a marketing ploy, plain and
    >> simple.

    >
    >You Sir, are truly a shining example of a moron.
    >
    >Kunle
    >

    See there? A feeble attempt to get in you 2cents and the last word all in
    one.


  10. #10
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...

    Mike Mitchell wrote:

    > Unless the WHOLE of VB.Net is written in VB.Net, what are they trying
    > to prove? Where are the benefits doing it in VB.Net, given that most
    > .Netters prefer C#? No, I see it as a marketing ploy, plain and
    > simple.


    You Sir, are truly a shining example of a moron.

    Kunle


  11. #11
    PWilmarth Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...


    "blob" <blob@blobblobblob.com> wrote:
    >
    >"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@REMOVETHISokocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
    >>Mike Mitchell wrote:
    >>
    >>> Unless the WHOLE of VB.Net is written in VB.Net, what are they trying
    >>> to prove? Where are the benefits doing it in VB.Net, given that most
    >>> .Netters prefer C#? No, I see it as a marketing ploy, plain and
    >>> simple.

    >>
    >>You Sir, are truly a shining example of a moron.
    >>
    >>Kunle



    I've never met Mike . . . Is this some sort of "Blonde" Joke?

  12. #12
    james Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...

    Don't insult blonds by comparing them to Mike. He's in a world all his own.
    james

    "PWilmarth" <pwilmarth80231@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:3dc82901$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
    >
    > "blob" <blob@blobblobblob.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@REMOVETHISokocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
    > >>Mike Mitchell wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Unless the WHOLE of VB.Net is written in VB.Net, what are they trying
    > >>> to prove? Where are the benefits doing it in VB.Net, given that most
    > >>> .Netters prefer C#? No, I see it as a marketing ploy, plain and
    > >>> simple.
    > >>
    > >>You Sir, are truly a shining example of a moron.
    > >>
    > >>Kunle

    >
    >
    > I've never met Mike . . . Is this some sort of "Blonde" Joke?




  13. #13
    Tom Shelton Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:8hufsu06cnikameu6ci8ir2aebspr2folo@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 23:52:27 -0600, "Larry Serflaten"
    > <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote:
    >
    > >"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> wrote in message
    > >> Hey, I was just reading a thread over on
    > >> microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb titled "Is VB Dead?". I saw what

    I
    > >> thought was an interesting reply from Ed Hickey of MS. Here is the

    text of
    > >> his post - but I think this is may be considered a case of MS eating

    there
    > >> own dogfood:
    > >>
    > >> I can't reply with specifics, as we don't discuss our future releases

    due
    > >> to legal reasons, but parts of VB.Net itself will be written in VB.Net

    this
    > >> time around! I will try to make a big deal of it when I can talk more
    > >> openly about it.

    > >
    > >
    > >That will go quite a ways in lowering the fears that VB.Net might not

    stay
    > >fairly consistant over version releases. I see it as a big plus in VB's

    favor!
    > >
    > >(Yipee!)

    >
    > But what do "parts of VB.Net itself will be written in VB.Net"
    > signify? What "parts"? How many "parts"? Or maybe only a few "parts"!
    > Isn't this just a marketing ploy to enable the brochure and ad writers
    > to compose wording like "Now VB.Net is written in VB.Net!" ?
    >
    > Unless the WHOLE of VB.Net is written in VB.Net, what are they trying
    > to prove? Where are the benefits doing it in VB.Net, given that most
    > .Netters prefer C#? No, I see it as a marketing ploy, plain and
    > simple.


    Well apparently the VB.NET runtime is already written in VB.NET starting
    with version 7. Here is a quote from one of the VB.NET developer team to
    the post I quoted originally:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Actually, the VB .NET runtime (a.k.a. Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll) was written
    entirely in VB .NET. This is true starting at version 7.0.

    Thanks,
    Cameron
    VB Development Team
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    HTH,
    Tom Shelton



  14. #14
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...

    On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:34:31 -0600, "james" <jamesw2@mesh.net> wrote:

    >Don't insult blonds by comparing them to Mike. He's in a world all his own.


    They'd have a bit of a job! I'm a brunette, duckie!

    MM

  15. #15
    Eddie Burdak Guest

    Re: Over on the MS VB.NET group...

    Tom,

    > I assume he's talking about the compiler and the code environment -
    > just as parts of the C# stuff is coded in C#...


    If he is talking the compiler - then market it away. I'd like to
    think he is talking about something along those lines - if not Mike is
    right its just a ploy.

    Eddie


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