Microsoft's C++ bigotry - Page 10


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 10 of 43 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 633

Thread: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

  1. #136
    Jonathan West Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote in message
    news:3ejq2v0oj1nk98cmkeal9kji4keln34qrp@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:03:06 -0000, "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org>

    wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote in message
    > news:3e2ad2ff@tnews.web.devx.com...
    > > > No, no! We need to get Microsoft to admit it!
    > >
    > > Mike: That's actually why I wrote the piece that started this thread.

    I'm
    > > going to use what little influence I have to try to get MS to make the
    > > VB6-to-VB.NET transition more similar to the VC++-to-MC++ transition:

    "It
    > > Just Works."
    > >
    > > If MS won't do it, I think there's a market for a third-party

    conversion
    > > wizard that does a better job.
    >
    > Microsoft will do it, if they perceive that the following three

    conditions
    > are met
    >
    > 1. Sales & usage figures are bad for VB.NET
    > 2. They believe this is having a significant negative impact on the

    chances
    > of success for the .NET platform overall.
    > 3. They believe fixing it will retrieve the situation.
    >
    > I don't have access to Microsoft's sales figures, but I have been

    keeping an
    > eye on newsgroup volumes in the dotnet groups on the msnews server,

    which
    > probably serve as a reasonable indication of usage. The C# groups have

    about
    > 50% more traffic than the VB.NET groups. I once took a look at a sample

    of
    > the posts on the framework groups, to see which languages were being

    used
    > more there, and the same ratio seemed to hold.
    >
    > Of course you're assuming that more posts mean higher popularity. That's

    statistical
    > oversimplification. It could mean instead that more folks need help with

    C# than VB.NET.

    That's true - but its not going to make an order-of-magnitude difference, so
    the approximation is good enough. I've seen figures which suggest there are
    (roughly) 10 times as many VB6 users as VC++ users, so if migration rates
    from VB6 to VB.NET were even remotely comparable to those of C+= to C#, we
    should be seeing the VB.NET volumes completely swamping the C# volumes. It
    isn't happening.

    In any case, even in the language groups, most of the questions involve the
    use of the new elements in the framework, both for C# and VB.NET. Since the
    framework is common to both, there's no particular reason to ascribe the
    higher posting rate in the C# groups to the idea that C# is more difficult
    to use. After all, other things being equal, C# ought to be *easier* to use
    with the framework, since they were designed for each other.

    > After all
    > that is the purpose for posting a question in the first place. You have to

    consider other factors.
    >
    > ASP.NET uses both VB.NET and C# so you may want to eval the posts there as

    well.

    I already did. To +/- 10% or so, the ratio still holds (admittedly with a
    fairly small sample, maybe a couple of hundred threads.)


    --
    Regards
    Jonathan West


  2. #137
    Kent Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    "Bob" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote:
    >
    >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.


    Very true you have choices. On the topic of learning a ".Net Language" have
    you noticed how they all feel and start to look a lot like C# What is the
    point of having multiple languages when they are all pretty much the same?

    >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.


    Yep true again and this point helps make the case against the monopolist.
    Having to perform an entire rewrite is not acceptable. Yet because they
    use their monopoly power they strong arm us into it. This hurts all of their
    customers and is bad for the software industry.

    >>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.


    .Net has failed to become the next big thing. There has not been a mass exit
    from traditional Windows programming or Java programming to .Net that was
    expected and needed to make .Net the next big thing in software engineering.
    VB is getting the short end here for sure. C# is the closest thing to the
    "next big thing" that Microsoft has come up with.


  3. #138
    Kent Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:
    >On 17 Jan 2003 19:28:05 -0800, "Kent" <kp@kp.org> wrote:
    >
    >
    > VB.Net is similar in syntax only... It may not be a completely new language,
    > but it is only a shadow of what VB once was.
    >
    >Well I suppose we could say the same of Visual Basic and Quick Basic. Is

    there a point?

    Point being, at least with QB to VB you were at least moving from DOS to
    Windows. With .Net your moving from Windows to a different (not better)
    way of programming on Windows. Where is the point in that? How do you pitch
    it to your customers?

    >
    > There have been enough posts here the past two days to support the difficulty
    > in moving from VB to VB.Net. Don't try and make it seem trivial because
    > it's not a trivial issue.
    >
    >Except I wasn't trivializing the upgrade which involves much more than the

    core language.
    >I think
    >that was pretty clear in my first post.


    I'm too busy to go back and read the post, so I digress. We can say we agree
    that it is complicated and non trivial to port VB6 code to .Net.


  4. #139
    Dan Barclay Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

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

    > I know you've heard it before, but I just thought I would add
    >that 'language stability' is (AFAICT) a term commandeered by Dan Barclay.
    >I would be real surprised to see MS using it in to mean backward compatability.


    Commandeered? How about "defined". I was careful to explain my usage
    of the term and how it applies.

    See: http://www.mvps.org/vb/index2.html?tips/stability.htm
    "What does it mean?"

    It's pretty much at the beginning of the paper, and the term is not
    that hard to comprehend.

    What we're interested in here, though, is *forward* compatibility of
    completed code.

    >Type in; 'IBM stability' at google and see what turns up...
    >
    >You'll get things like:


    Different usage of the term stability, yup. What's the point?

    Dan

    Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
    (#6)
    Error 51
    Error 3
    Error 9
    ....

  5. #140
    Phil Weber Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    > 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?


    Mike: That's exactly what we try to tell you about multiple versions of the
    ..NET Framework. Curious that you can see a fact when it supports your
    argument, but blithely ignore it otherwise...
    --
    Phil Weber



  6. #141
    Dan Barclay Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

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

    >
    >Type in; 'IBM stability' at google and see what turns up...


    I thought maybe this may be of help to you as well:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stability

    The first definition is:
    ==========================================
    1. The state or quality of being stable, especially:
    Resistance to change, deterioration, or displacement.
    Constancy of character or purpose; steadfastness.
    Reliability; dependability.
    ==========================================

    Do you think that, just possibly, this may apply to programming
    languages and environments?

    Dan
    Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
    (#6)
    Error 51
    Error 3
    Error 9
    ....

  7. #142
    Larry Serflaten Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    "Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote

    > > I know you've heard it before, but I just thought I would add
    > >that 'language stability' is (AFAICT) a term commandeered by Dan Barclay.
    > >I would be real surprised to see MS using it in to mean backward compatability.

    >
    > Commandeered? How about "defined". I was careful to explain my usage
    > of the term and how it applies.


    Take note of the multiple first person pronouns in that statement. You can call
    an apple an orange if you want, that does not mean everybody else should.


    > What we're interested in here, though, is *forward* compatibility of
    > completed code.


    No, that does not even fit your own listed definition. Forward compatibility
    would mean VB6 is able to access managed code objects and functions.
    You specifically want your old code to work in the new language, that is
    backward compatibility.


    > Different usage of the term stability, yup.


    No kidding! Do you suppose these guys have a web page up somewhere
    defining what they mean by their use of the term? Do you think they need one?

    > What's the point?


    You can call an apple an orange if you want, that does not mean everybody
    else should.

    LFS



  8. #143
    Paul Clement Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:33:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


    >
    >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...


    It's not a star it's a bug. ;-)

    I use it because it's easier to differentiate between my replies and those of others. Kind of like
    an OO hierarchy, only you see everything at once. ;-)

    And no I don't dread seeing your name. I know at least I have a suitable target. ;-)


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

  9. #144
    Bob Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    "Kent" <kp@kp.org> wrote:
    >
    >
    >Very true you have choices. On the topic of learning a ".Net Language"

    have
    >you noticed how they all feel and start to look a lot like C# What is the
    >point of having multiple languages when they are all pretty much the same?

    Because Java where you only have one language to choose from sucks worse.

    >.Net has failed to become the next big thing. There has not been a mass

    exit
    >from traditional Windows programming or Java programming to .Net that was
    >expected and needed to make .Net the next big thing in software engineering.
    > VB is getting the short end here for sure. C# is the closest thing to

    the
    >"next big thing" that Microsoft has come up with.
    >

    You're an idiot. You can't have it both ways. If "they all feel and start
    to look a lot like C#" then VB.Net is just as close to the "next big thing"
    as C# is. You might equally as well say that Java has failed to become the
    next big thing because there hasn't been a "mass exit" from VB to Java. And
    you'd be just as big an idiot to say that.

  10. #145
    Paul Clement Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:34:31 +0000, Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> 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.

    I can't speak for myself because I didn't migrate any Quick Basic apps. However, I'm fairly certain
    anything with a user interface had to be re-written.

    While Visual Basic wasn't particularly difficult there were quite a few new concepts to grasp, in
    addition to understanding that you were developing applications in an event and message based
    system. The same applies to .NET although there is certainly more to learn, but quite a bit more
    capable.


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

  11. #146
    Paul Clement Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On 21 Jan 2003 10:31:01 -0800, "Kent" <kp@kp.org> wrote:


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

    Point being, at least with QB to VB you were at least moving from DOS to
    Windows. With .Net your moving from Windows to a different (not better)
    way of programming on Windows. Where is the point in that? How do you pitch
    it to your customers?

    That would depend upon the needs of your customer. I think it's safe to say that .NET provides
    considerably more development and implementation options than Visual Studio. Web and desktop
    application development is much more complimentary than before.


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

  12. #147
    Jonathan West Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry


    "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:7pqq2voakeirccp252rid1gcqi62iv2p9d@4ax.com...
    > 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.


    I think you should rephrase that, so that it says that *you* aren't
    interested enough in it to become a convert. I am interested enough, and
    therefore your statement that "No one appears interested enough" is
    factually incorrect.

    > In any case, a "VBClassic.Net"
    > sounds like a total abortion to me. Neither fish nor fowl, as the
    > saying goes.


    The .Net platform is likely to be around for a while. I'd prefer to use it
    than to rely on Windows API hacks to get things done. No doubt in due course
    people will develop new hacks to do things which the .Net platform can't do.

    >
    > >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.


    In that case, I have to ask you 2 questions.

    1. Why do you still care?
    2. What you are trying to achieve by continuing to post here?

    Based on what you are saying, there's nothing of interest to you in anything
    about .Net, either in the platform or the languages which use it.

    --
    Regards
    Jonathan West


  13. #148
    Larry Serflaten Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    "Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote
    >
    > I thought maybe this may be of help to you as well:
    >
    > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stability
    >
    > The first definition is:
    > ==========================================
    > 1. The state or quality of being stable, especially:
    > Resistance to change, deterioration, or displacement.
    > Constancy of character or purpose; steadfastness.
    > Reliability; dependability.
    > ==========================================
    >
    > Do you think that, just possibly, this may apply to programming
    > languages and environments?


    Sure it does, reliability and dependability being chief among them.
    But it could be referring to the the current version's reliablility and
    dependability, as I have explained before.

    You might (with some adjustments) even use the second definition:

    ======================
    The ability of an object, such as a ship or aircraft, (or a Textbox) to maintain
    equilibrium (normal use) or resume its original, upright position after displacement,
    as by the sea or strong winds (errant user input).
    ======================

    Note it says 'The ability of an object..' - an object - is a singular reference, it does
    not say 'The ability of several versions of an object...' as you would intend.

    I already posted one definition of stability, as it specifically applies to computer
    hardware and software, but I see you didn't want to accept that. Instead you'll take
    a more general definition only to turn and twist it into what you want it to say, right?

    As I said, you can use it however you want, but since computer programming is
    about using precise syntax, in a specific order, I would think the terms used to
    describe the work, should also be of a more precise nature. Without your personal
    web page for a definition, 'language stability' is a rather ambigious term. It could
    mean one of a few different things, your (and my) definition included....

    LFS



  14. #149
    Paul Clement Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On 21 Jan 2003 10:23:16 -0800, "Kent" <kp@kp.org> wrote:


    Net has failed to become the next big thing. There has not been a mass exit
    from traditional Windows programming or Java programming to .Net that was
    expected and needed to make .Net the next big thing in software engineering.
    VB is getting the short end here for sure. C# is the closest thing to the
    "next big thing" that Microsoft has come up with.

    You weren't around when VB 1.0 was released were you? It wasn't until version 3.0 that it actually
    started to become popular.

    I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to jump on the .NET bandwagon right away. It simply
    isn't practical.


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

  15. #150
    Dan Barclay Guest

    Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

    On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:17:01 -0600, "Larry Serflaten"
    <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote:

    >"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote
    >
    >> > I know you've heard it before, but I just thought I would add
    >> >that 'language stability' is (AFAICT) a term commandeered by Dan Barclay.
    >> >I would be real surprised to see MS using it in to mean backward compatability.

    >>
    >> Commandeered? How about "defined". I was careful to explain my usage
    >> of the term and how it applies.

    >
    >Take note of the multiple first person pronouns in that statement. You can call
    >an apple an orange if you want, that does not mean everybody else should.


    English is my mother tongue, not my avocation. But, with you being
    such an expert, perhaps you can tell me what multiple first person
    pronouns have to do with apples and oranges?

    >> What we're interested in here, though, is *forward* compatibility of
    >> completed code.

    >
    >No, that does not even fit your own listed definition. Forward compatibility
    >would mean VB6 is able to access managed code objects and functions.
    >You specifically want your old code to work in the new language, that is
    >backward compatibility.


    Certainly it does. What's more (as you've apparently decided to
    ignore):

    ===============
    1. The state or quality of being stable, especially:
    Resistance to change, deterioration, or displacement.
    Constancy of character or purpose; steadfastness.
    Reliability; dependability.
    ===============

    This pretty well keeps apples to apples.

    >> Different usage of the term stability, yup.

    >
    >No kidding! Do you suppose these guys have a web page up somewhere
    >defining what they mean by their use of the term? Do you think they need one?


    You can use Stability in more than one way. Have you considered other
    stated definitions?

    1. The state or quality of being stable, or firm; steadiness;
    firmness; strength to stand without being moved or overthrown; as, the
    stability of a structure; the stability of a throne or a constitution.


    Perhaps they *do* need one! Maybe I didn't. Straightforward
    dictionary definitions work for me. But, I clarified my usage anyway
    just in case someone was unable to comprehend. Looks like I mighta
    caught one of those in the net.

    >> What's the point?

    >
    >You can call an apple an orange if you want, that does not mean everybody
    >else should.


    You can ignore two apples if you want. That doesn't mean they're not
    sitting there.

    Dan

    Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
    (#6)
    Error 51
    Error 3
    Error 9
    ....

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