Microsoft's C++ bigotry - Page 9


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 9 of 43 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 633

Thread: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

  1. #121
    Bob Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:02:24 -0600, Dan Barclay <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote:
    >
    >>Do you think, having looked at the path MS provided for transition,
    >>that these people really want a move that will (possibly/likely) set
    >>them up for this situation again?

    Who cares? The choice is move to Java or suck it up and learn a .Net language.
    M$ ain't gonna go out of business because a few diehard VB 6 developers refuse
    to learn a modern language. Most of the .NOT'ers aren't moving because they
    have existing vertical application code. But those vertical applications
    don't affect M$ income at all. VB 6 applications will progressively become
    more and more outdated until they _have_ to be rewritten.

    >And this is where Microsoft is really between a rock and a hard place.
    >The less VB.Net is able to capture the enthusiasm of a considerable,
    >significant band of brothers, happily coding away, the more likely it
    >is that Microsoft will order the grim reaper to pay another visit.
    >Well, the potential is there that even Microsoft would eventually have
    >to throw in the towel, otherwise they'd have a lame dog product
    >limping around after them into the future wherever they go. But in
    >order for the above not to happen, they need to generate that
    >enthusiasm! In the millions of programmers who have just had the rug
    >pulled out from under. Not exactly the most trusting bunch of would-be
    >converts, I'd guess.

    .Net has already "captured the enthusiasm of a considerable, significant
    band of brothers." Dont' be blinded just because they aren't the same set
    of "brothers" who happily coded away in VB 6.

    >I still say that the entire .Net thing is not needed. Whatever $ signs
    >Bill might have on his eyeballs when he dreams at night with respect
    >to web services and pay-by-the-minute, I just can't see how web
    >services are taking off to any significant extent and, moreover, I
    >reckon there are thousands of corporates for which web services will
    >forever remain on someone's esoteric wish-list, i.e. could be nice,
    >but we just don't need it.

    You mean _you_ dont' need it. Others do.

    >MM



  2. #122
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:56:10 -0000, "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org>
    wrote:

    >You say that they have shot themselves in the foot by so doing, but I think it
    >might be a little higher up, and more towards the centreline...


    The head?

    MM

  3. #123
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 01:45:12 -0000, "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org>
    wrote:

    >1. A VBClassic.Net (not an improved migration wizard to VB.NET)


    No. The problem there is the ".Net" part. No one appears interested
    enough in it to become a convert. In any case, a "VBClassic.Net"
    sounds like a total abortion to me. Neither fish nor fowl, as the
    saying goes.

    >2. A big public splash about language stability - on the scale of the recent
    >Trustworthy Computing initiative. It would have to be large enough that if
    >Microsoft suffers yet another lapse in institutional memory in the future,
    >even the dimmest computer journalist would remember and start asking awkward
    >questions.


    And Microsoft might just reckon than the dimmest computer journalist
    could be asked to "shaddup your face" by employing the brightest
    computer journalists to paint such lapses in a favourable light.
    Basically, what little trust they once had (actually, to be fair, they
    once had trust *in spades*, even from me) has been diluted to the
    point that it is rapidly becoming a homeopathic oddity.

    MM

  4. #124
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:02:01 -0600, "Larry Serflaten"
    <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote:

    >MS knows about stability, who hasn't seen Windows crash a time or two?


    Two?

    MM

  5. #125
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:52:27 -0000, "John Butler"
    <nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote:

    >(barring one or two minor issues ..like advanced delegates)...there is no


    Omigod! "advanced delegates" (whatever the heck they might be on a
    fine day!) As if a business app programmer of yore working in VB
    versions 1 through 6 would be asking about delegates of any kind,
    whether advanced or just bog-standard ones. There is far too much
    thought being put into the scaffolding and not enough into the
    cladding that actually does the work of keeping the rain off.

    MM

  6. #126
    Jens Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    > Really they should not have made a VB at all and
    > just ran with C# and left well enough alone.


    *** You know, that people don't like VB.NET or even .NET I can understand,
    but I'm just about fed up with all those that deny me the pleasure of having
    a modern capable language that does NOT use curly braces and all those other
    C-isms. If you don't like it, fine, but let us like it. The fact that your
    beloved VB6 is dead does not mean that VB.NET has no right to exist.
    Get over it or go and complain to Bill or Steve ...

    Jens



  7. #127
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:33:10 -0000, "Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es>
    wrote:

    >> Yeah, but the problem was that defaults to ByRef and 16-bit Integers were
    >> stupid (the change to 32-bit Integers really should have been made in VB4;

    >
    >Why? Exactly what difference does it make?


    None, but David's prescriptive attitude is what frightens me. Someone
    says "should have been", and I think, oh no, another horse designed by
    committee.

    >> the ByRef default never should have happened


    There's another one! I totally agree with you that having both ByRef
    and ByVal was a no-brainer, that being able to just stick parentheses
    around a variable to turn it an expression and thus effectively create
    a "ByVal" on the fly was also a no-brainer. Those features of the
    language before it was f***ed up by the OOPificionados were dead
    simple to learn and to apply.

    >Why? I never had any problems with it. When I needed ByVal I used ByVal. I
    >have a lot of subs that transform variables, therefore I find nothing wrong
    >in the ByRef default. Lately I've been transforming some of my thousand or
    >so gosubs into subs, and many require a long string of ByRef variables.
    >
    >> and the thousand and one variations on how to call a method were insane.

    >
    >Personally that was never one of my complaints.


    Nor one of mine. Maybe it's because I'm not a guru, but just a bloke
    with the standard amount of common sense. Perhaps Microsoft needs more
    like us - who are prepared to just suck it and see. I was once a
    grease monkey. Maybe that's what Microsoft could do with - more grease
    monkeys, more hands-on exponents and fewer idealistic theoreticians.

    >VB6 is far from perfect, and I would guess I spend a good amount of time on
    >workarounds, optimization, etc., and there are a lot of things that could be
    >better, but I find many of these issues irrelevant.


    VB6 was, however, far more perfect than, say, VB1 or 2. It became so
    over several versions, as Microsoft listened to the kind of feedback
    it got through publications like the now defunct Visual Basic
    Programmer's Journal. I see no reason that could have prevented them
    from continuing the upgrade path for another 20 years. Car makers do.
    Plane makers do. Seen a Boeing 737 lately? Oh, it's only *still* the
    world's workhorse airplane, flying now since 1967! So why not little
    old VB, too?

    MM

  8. #128
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:05:52 -0800, David A. Rothgery
    <drothgery@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:

    >Lots of people claim that they never had any problems with GOTOs,
    >GOSUBs, C-style pointers, or self-modifying code, but it doesn't keep
    >them from being errors waiting to happen either.


    You forgot the words "in my view" there. In any case, VB never had
    C-style pointers - that was one of its strengths. You didn't have to
    negotiate mountain passes without barriers as in C/C++, but could
    always rely on there being a crash barrier present as in VB. (After
    all, you'd paid your taxes!)

    MM

  9. #129
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:33:35 -0000, "John Butler"
    <nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote:

    >...because they were right...


    Like, how?

    MM

  10. #130
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:30:46 -0600, Paul Clement
    <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:

    >On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:26:23 -0800, "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:
    >
    > "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote in message <news:vhfg2v08epetnva1f0elcjjjlv7eq8jmm7@4ax.com>...
    >
    > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:49:49 +0000, Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    > >
    > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:24:37 -0600, Paul Clement
    > > <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > >Unfortunately the foundation on which it was built was beginning to crumble. There were way too many
    > > >half-baked implementations in Classic Visual Basic that really didn't make much sense to carry over
    > > >into .NET.
    > >
    > > Why carry anything over from classic VB into a *new* language?
    > >
    > > VB.NET isn't a new language. It's a next generation of the previous just as VB 1.0 was to BASIC.
    > > Once again, if you can identify the changes in the language elements that justify calling it a new
    > > language feel free to do so.
    >
    >You know it's really tough talking to folks who don't use .NET since they don't seem to be able to
    >distinguish between the language and the extensions to the language.


    Paul, you know, I don't usually criticise people personally, but what
    the heck's with your quoted passages?!!! They must be the most
    difficult to read in the entire ng! I enjoy seeing your point of view,
    but I dread it when I see the name (as you probably very well do, too,
    when you see mine...), as I know there will be this huge melange of
    stars and chevrons and...and...

    Why is this? <g>

    MM

  11. #131
    Jens Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    > There's another one! I totally agree with you that having both ByRef
    > and ByVal was a no-brainer, that being able to just stick parentheses
    > around a variable to turn it an expression and thus effectively create
    > a "ByVal" on the fly was also a no-brainer.

    *** Yeah right, try and explain that to anybody who had a programming class
    at school.
    I started using VBA in 96 and VB5 in 97 or 98 and before I moved to VB.NET
    and read all this discussions I never even knew that putting parentheses
    around a variable made it a ByVal or ByRef variable. But off course I
    learned programming with Pascal, so I always explicitly say if a variable is
    ByVal or ByRef. That is something that is called good coding practice.
    The beauty of languages like Pascal and VB is that they are verbose and not
    cryptic. Getting rid of that parentheses thing is something I support,
    ByRef and ByVal are much much cleaner.
    I find it hilarious that you of all people are defending something so
    crytpic as the usage of parenthesis to pass a variable as ByVal.

    > Those features of the
    > language before it was f***ed up by the OOPificionados were dead
    > simple to learn and to apply.

    *** Simple to learn ? What planet do you come from ?



  12. #132
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:35:31 -0600, Paul Clement
    <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:

    >Well I suppose we could say the same of Visual Basic and Quick Basic. Is there a point?


    I hope you're not suggesting that the migration from QuickBASIC to VB
    was as fraught as the one from VB to VB.Net.

    MM

  13. #133
    Jens Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    > >...because they were right...
    >
    > Like, how?
    >

    *** You'll never know unless you try. But off course the chance off ****
    freezing over is greater...



  14. #134
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:26:12 -0000, "John Butler"
    <nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    >news:bvpo2vg1lc5b28qlhlmnhasfqb7t6tm8s6@4ax.com...
    >> I still say that the entire .Net thing is not needed.

    >
    >You see Mike...that is the kind of thing only someone who hasn't used .net
    >could say. You're still all hung up on the web services marketing hype. I've
    >used .Net for a while, have even built a few web services which are deployed
    >as part of a commercial app....but the Framework itself is what is so great.


    The web services marketing hype *was* what it was all about, period!
    Later modified somewhat to "XML web services" (I refuse to capitalise
    the w in web!) The "Framework" (I'll let 'em have their capital F; it
    is theirs, after all) is just an underlying platform, which used to be
    called "an OS". But we've already got an underlying platform, namely
    Windows! And under that on many versions of Windows is DOS or parts of
    it. So why do we need yet another layer to swim through? I could kind
    of understand a completely brand-new Windows that simply *was* .Net,
    i.e. no DOS, no config.sys etc etc, no win.ini, no system.ini etc etc,
    no user.dat, no system.dat etc etc, but .Net, .Net, .Net all the way
    right from the instant I press the start button. Maybe that's what
    Microsoft envisages long-term. But what is so great about having yet
    another layer on top of all the other layers? I see Windows nowadays
    as a vast underground relay race with hundreds of subterranean runners
    all passing the baton as they exhaust their particular circuit. But
    each baton has the potential for being dropped, and then that's the
    whole race finished. No wonder there are so many vulnerabilities with
    so many batons being passed and the inevitable few being dropped.

    >I could list some of the things that are good...but I know I'm wasting my
    >time with you...so I won't bother.


    No, you really should bother, as I would be interested to know what
    those good things are and why they are not achievable any other way
    with what thousands upon thousands of businesses already have at their
    disposal.

    > You don't really hate .NET...you just
    >hate Microsoft, particularly it's marketing department...that is what it
    >boils down to in the end.


    Don't worry. It's not personal.

    > Even Microsoft has distilled it's whole web
    >services hype by now...it's dropping of the whole .NET moniker on everything
    >is clear proof that sanity is prevailing...


    Hey, wait a mo! Seems like you're making my case for me! If .Net was
    so brilliant, surely it would have sold itself by now? The very fact
    that the moniker appears if anything more confusing to some folks than
    explanatory says a lot.

    >and yet you still ramble on about
    >web services....How many "Netizens" on this forum have rambled on about Web
    >services?? Not many.....lots of people have been positive about the
    >platform...but that is because they've used it and experienced some of the
    >benefits that a well thought out class library can bring about.


    But it *was* all about web services. I've read enough comments from
    Bill et al to confirm that.

    >The .NET platform is a great thing. Think what you like about VB.NET...but
    >criticising the literally thousands of improvements and enhancements offered
    >by the platform...is just ignorant.


    Okay, then. Sell it to me! What can I save? What will it cost? What do
    I need it for? What do I do now?

    For starters, like.

    MM

  15. #135
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:41:51 -0000, "John Butler"
    <nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote:

    >What is bad about a reliance on libraries? At least there is only one
    >framework to deal with. When last did you look at Java? You didn't use COM
    >libraries in VB6? Our projects were riddled with dozens of COM add-ins, to
    >do all the things VB6 didn't do. Unless you were building some mickey mouse
    >app that didn't do much at all, you would have had 5 or more references to
    >third party controls and libraries in any given VB6 commercial app....and
    >the corresponding DLL **** and huge installation projects
    >(Wise/Installshield) to try and manage it all on 95/98/NT/2000 platforms.


    This again reminds me of DLL **** and why no one dares adopt a simple
    solution such as standalone Exes. Most of the programming problems we
    have faced over the past decade were due to certain kinds of
    assumptions being made by the Powers That Be, one of which was that we
    should only share functionality, but never duplicate it. On the face
    of it, it sounds like a laudable aim, especially when memory was
    horrendously expensive as yet another Taiwanese factory magically
    "caught fire". But in practice it has caused no end of heartache, and
    is still doing so.

    I have in the past requested a return to standalone apps, which were
    the norm two decades ago. Now that memory and disk space is as cheap
    as the perspiration on a horse, we should still worry? Why not
    experiment a bit with writing one single app and *no* dependencies?
    Just think how simple life would be if you only needed to check a
    simple version number or CRC, then replace it (alongside, if need be)
    with the latest version. Just think how much redundancy there is in
    nature. And then ask, why not also in software? Maybe the problems we
    are continually trying to solve with more and more complex and bloated
    software are only because we keep seeing them as problems, when in
    reality they long since grew up and left home.

    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