Microsoft's C++ bigotry

[Ed Courtenay]

"Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:3e3e821c$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
>
>
> It's a bit of a pity that your opinion on the change in language can be
> paraphrased as "it's better because I think it ought to be that way",
given
> that you haven't suggested one single tangible benefit that has come from
> it. Consistency is not an end in itself. You have already agreed with me
> that consistency is sometimes an impediment to readability. In fact, that
is
> the case in this specific instance. Consider:
>
> - VB.NET was (supposedly) targetted at the VB6 developer community
> - The VB6 developer community already knows Wend, and so has no
> trouble reading it

I for one (a QB/VB1/2/3/4/5/6/.NET developer) simply cannot remember ever
using Wend. I know I must have done in the past, but I cannot remember ever
using it. It bothers me not one iota that Wend has been dropped; I always
used the:

Do While (condition)
...
Loop

and the converse:

Do
...
Loop Until (condition)

constructs anyway. For some reason I always found it made more sense.


> - With End While, it is not until you read the second word that you
> can distinguish the statement from several other similar ones,
> which means that it takes marginally longer to read and
> comprehend the statement.
>

That's just about the most spurious argument for Wend I've yet seen. You're
seriously telling me that the nanosecond that it takes you to read two short
words is going to hold up your productivity? That's just ridiculous.

[David Rothgery]

"Ed Courtenay" <my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e3ea2cf@tnews.web.devx.com...
>
> "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:3e3e821c$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
> > - VB.NET was (supposedly) targetted at the VB6 developer community
> > - The VB6 developer community already knows Wend, and so has no
> > trouble reading it
>
> I for one (a QB/VB1/2/3/4/5/6/.NET developer) simply cannot remember ever
> using Wend. I know I must have done in the past, but I cannot remember
ever
> using it. It bothers me not one iota that Wend has been dropped; I always
> used the:
>
> Do While (condition)
> ...
> Loop
>
> and the converse:
>
> Do
> ...
> Loop Until (condition)
>
> constructs anyway. For some reason I always found it made more sense.

It's not surprising. Do/Loop is the most powerful looping construct in VB,
as it can be positively or negatively tested at the beginning or the end of
the loop. VB developers should be nearly as tempted to use Do/Loop for
everything as C/C#/C++/Java developers are to use for loops for everything.
I always cringed when I read VB6/VBScript code examples that used While
Not/Wend to loop through a Recordset instead of Do Until/Loop.


--
Dave Rothgery
drothgery@alum.wpi.edu

[Jonathan West]

"Ed Courtenay" <my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e3ea2cf@tnews.web.devx.com...

>
>
> > - With End While, it is not until you read the second word that you
> > can distinguish the statement from several other similar ones,
> > which means that it takes marginally longer to read and
> > comprehend the statement.
> >
>
> That's just about the most spurious argument for Wend I've yet seen.
You're
> seriously telling me that the nanosecond that it takes you to read two
short
> words is going to hold up your productivity? That's just ridiculous.

Are you going to tell me that the converse is true - that End While is
easier to read?

--
Regards
Jonathan West

[Ed Courtenay]

"Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:3e3ea878$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
>
> "Ed Courtenay" <my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3e3ea2cf@tnews.web.devx.com...
> >
> > That's just about the most spurious argument for Wend I've yet seen.
> You're
> > seriously telling me that the nanosecond that it takes you to read two
> short
> > words is going to hold up your productivity? That's just ridiculous.
>
> Are you going to tell me that the converse is true - that End While is
> easier to read?
>

In my personal opinion, yes - because it means exactly what it says. Wend,
although it is English, doesn't.

> --
> Regards
> Jonathan West
>

[Jonathan West]

"Ed Courtenay" <my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e3eabaf$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
>
> "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:3e3ea878$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
> >
> > "Ed Courtenay" <my-first-name@edcourtenay.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3e3ea2cf@tnews.web.devx.com...
> > >
> > > That's just about the most spurious argument for Wend I've yet seen.
> > You're
> > > seriously telling me that the nanosecond that it takes you to read two
> > short
> > > words is going to hold up your productivity? That's just ridiculous.
> >
> > Are you going to tell me that the converse is true - that End While is
> > easier to read?
> >
>
> In my personal opinion, yes - because it means exactly what it says. Wend,
> although it is English, doesn't.

So, are you suggesting that End While is appreciably quicker to read than
Wend, even where the programmer reading it is fully aware of the meaning of
Wend in this context and though End While is 2 words, one of which is the
same as for many other structures? Is it sufficiently quicker as to have a
meaningful effect on productivity when coding &/or debugging?

--
Regards
Jonathan West

[Phil Weber]

> Remember that this whole thread started with Phil
> Weber being mightily pissed off...

Jonathan: Not really. The word I used to describe my feelings was
"dismayed." I think it's unfortunate that VB developers didn't receive the
same consideration as C++ developers, and I'd like to do something practical
to help remedy the situation, such as create a better upgrade wizard or a
VB6.NET compiler.

I don't think endlessly complaining and arguing against changes that have
already been made helps anyone. Why don't you spend all this time and effort
doing something useful?
--
Phil Weber

[Kent]

Phil,

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
> > Remember that this whole thread started with Phil
> > Weber being mightily pissed off...
>
>Jonathan: Not really. The word I used to describe my feelings was
>"dismayed." I think it's unfortunate that VB developers didn't receive the
>same consideration as C++ developers

When have they ever?

, and I'd like to do something practical
>to help remedy the situation, such as create a better upgrade wizard or
a
>VB6.NET compiler.

This should never have had to be an after thought.

>I don't think endlessly complaining and arguing against changes that have
>already been made helps anyone. Why don't you spend all this time and effort
>doing something useful?
>--

Not saying something is worse Phil. They need to know that this will not
stand! I doubt they really do care though. More people should be voicing
their opinions. It would also help if their weren't so many bootlickers
out their telling them how great they are.

They are not on our side, and they don't face the same problems we do. Someone
has to be brave enough to stand up and tell it to them straight loud and
proud until they listen.

If you are tired of it turn your attention to another news group where you
can feel your time is better spent. Those of us who complain and whine feel
right at home here.

[Bob]

"Kent" <KP@KP.org> wrote:
>
>They are not on our side, and they don't face the same problems we do.
Someone
>has to be brave enough to stand up and tell it to them straight loud and
>proud until they listen.
As if _you_ are on _our_ side. All you ever do is rail agains M$. I dont'
think you care about VB.NET at all.


>Those of us who complain and whine feel
>right at home here.
>
Well that's true.

[Jonathan West]

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote in message
news:3e3eae07$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
> > Remember that this whole thread started with Phil
> > Weber being mightily pissed off...
>
> Jonathan: Not really. The word I used to describe my feelings was
> "dismayed."

Sufficiently so to post your dismay to at lest 3 different forums. I'll
accept your choice of words though.

> I think it's unfortunate that VB developers didn't receive the
> same consideration as C++ developers, and I'd like to do something
practical
> to help remedy the situation, such as create a better upgrade wizard or a
> VB6.NET compiler.

Microsoft is probably alrady working on a better wizard. If you want to
duplicate that work you're welcome, but I don't think it will interest me.

Anybody other than Microsoft who tries to do a VB6.NET compiler will
probably feel Microsoft Legal Dept's hot breath on their necks after a
fairly short time. MS is not going to give up the IPR over the VB6 syntax if
by doing so they increase the chance that people will migrate to a competing
product instead of to VB.NET.

Therefore, if you want a VB6.NET compiler, then the only option is to lobby
Microsoft to do it themselves. Effectively, the only way to do that is to
decide not to upgrade to VB.NET and wait until you really have to move on
from VB6 (making your feelings clear about the situation in the meantime).
If enough people decide not to migrate then Microsoft may get the message
eventually.

Of course, the decision as to whether, when and where to migrate is a
commercial one that needs to be taken by each organisation with a VB^
codebase, according to their own requirements. By the looks of things, there
are a heck of a lot of people in "wait & see" mode. Of course, for as long
as they remain like that, they aren't buying new developer products from MS,
and aren't contributing to the momentum behind dotnet by moving their
applications there. Both of those actions can hurt Microsoft financially.
That's just the way things are.

The key point is that those not migrating are mostly not against the dotnet
platform, but simply against the need to spend the amount of effort
currently involved in moving their existing code there, and suspicious of
the probablity that this mess will be repeated yet again in a few years
time, requiring yet another rewrite.

>
> I don't think endlessly complaining and arguing against changes that have
> already been made helps anyone. Why don't you spend all this time and
effort
> doing something useful?

I'll be the judge of what I decide is useful.

--
Regards
Jonathan West

[Paul Clement]

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:19:29 -0000, "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:

¤
¤ "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
¤ news:3e3abd44@tnews.web.devx.com...
¤ >
¤ > I wasn't the one dumb enough to keep using GoSubs long after it was clear
¤ > they were obsolete. You have no one to blame but yourself. Do everyone a
¤ > favor, and go troll somewhere else.
¤
¤ Were you dumb enough to use the Line or Circle methods on Forms? Silly you,
¤ even though there was no alternative, and no warning they were for the chop.
¤ Were you dumb enough to use the Printer object or Printers collection? You
¤ must have been nuts - even though there was no alternative. The Clipboard
¤ object? Even worse. Windowless controls?
¤
¤ You should have plainly realised that all these were completely obsolete and
¤ were never going to get included in a new version of VB. After all,
¤ Microsoft told you this ahead of time, didn't they? They didn't? Really?

And of course we all know those were never a part of the language but serve as extensions to it.
This fact has been repeated over and over again and yet this issue is still used as a spin-off to
the language change argument.

I'm trying not to be as blunt as Patrick, but what *is* the excuse for continually raising the
issue? The Forms model is the worst example to use as there were at least three of more incompatible
variations amongst Visual Basic and the Office products.

Language extensions change. They've been changing over the last decade.


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

[Bob]

"Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote in message
>news:3e3eae07$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
>> > Remember that this whole thread started with Phil
>> > Weber being mightily pissed off...
>>
>> Jonathan: Not really. The word I used to describe my feelings was
>> "dismayed."
>
>Sufficiently so to post your dismay to at lest 3 different forums. I'll
>accept your choice of words though.
>
>> I think it's unfortunate that VB developers didn't receive the
>> same consideration as C++ developers, and I'd like to do something
>practical
>> to help remedy the situation, such as create a better upgrade wizard or
a
>> VB6.NET compiler.
VB developers got even more consideration than C++ developers. M$ changed
VB from a second-class to a first-class language.

>Microsoft is probably alrady working on a better wizard. If you want to
>duplicate that work you're welcome, but I don't think it will interest me.
So you just want to complain, not really do anything.

>Therefore, if you want a VB6.NET compiler, then the only option is to lobby
>Microsoft to do it themselves. Effectively, the only way to do that is to
>decide not to upgrade to VB.NET and wait until you really have to move on
>from VB6 (making your feelings clear about the situation in the meantime).
>If enough people decide not to migrate then Microsoft may get the message
>eventually.
Or they may just drop VB entirely. And then where would you be?

>Of course, the decision as to whether, when and where to migrate is a
>commercial one that needs to be taken by each organisation with a VB^
>codebase, according to their own requirements. By the looks of things, there
>are a heck of a lot of people in "wait & see" mode.
And a heck of a lot of people who are alredy using .Net

> Of course, for as long
>as they remain like that, they aren't buying new developer products from
MS,
>and aren't contributing to the momentum behind dotnet by moving their
>applications there. Both of those actions can hurt Microsoft financially.
>That's just the way things are.
You must not have any idea how much the programming tools division contributes
to M$ bottom line.

>The key point is that those not migrating are mostly not against the dotnet
>platform, but simply against the need to spend the amount of effort
>currently involved in moving their existing code there, and suspicious of
>the probablity that this mess will be repeated yet again in a few years
>time, requiring yet another rewrite.
If you are an example, you could have migrated 2 or 3 apps already in about
the same amount of time as you have spend complaining here.
>
>I'll be the judge of what I decide is useful.
Fine. we'll be the jury and executioners. CHOP!

[Kent]

You are 100% correct. I don't care about VB.Net not one bit, because it is
useless to me. If I were to start a .Not project right now it sure as well
would not be using an unstable programming language.

I cannot believe how many M$ loyalists just roll with the changes without
so much as shrugging thier shoulders.

I'm not against change, change is constant through evolution. VB.Net however
is evolution starting over from scratch.

"Bob" <vb@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>"Kent" <KP@KP.org> wrote:
>>
>>They are not on our side, and they don't face the same problems we do.

>Someone
>>has to be brave enough to stand up and tell it to them straight loud and
>>proud until they listen.
>As if _you_ are on _our_ side. All you ever do is rail agains M$. I dont'
>think you care about VB.NET at all.
>
>
>>Those of us who complain and whine feel
>>right at home here.
>>
>Well that's true.

[Bob]

"Kent" <kp@kp.org> wrote:
>
>You are 100% correct. I don't care about VB.Net not one bit, because it
is
>useless to me.

Then STF up.

>I cannot believe how many M$ loyalists just roll with the changes without
>so much as shrugging thier shoulders.
>
>I'm not against change, change is constant through evolution. VB.Net however
>is evolution starting over from scratch.

You confused evolution with creationism. HTH

[Kent]

Paul,

Call them what you will "languages extensions" I could care less. If you're
fine with VB.Net then for you it's perfect, you should be happy. Go off
and use it.

VB.Net is a vast departure from VB and so many "Language Extenstions" have
changed that it is impossible to continue a project started in VB6 and make
progress using the current development tools of the day. This is flat out
an injustice and there is no justifiable reason for it.

Maybe the fact that so many here are compalining about it should clue you
into the fact that this is a very big deal.

Not enough has been said about this yet. I wish the media would make a bigger
deal out of it.

Kent

Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:19:29 -0000, "Jonathan West" <jwest@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>¤
>¤ "Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
>¤ news:3e3abd44@tnews.web.devx.com...
>¤ >
>¤ > I wasn't the one dumb enough to keep using GoSubs long after it was
clear
>¤ > they were obsolete. You have no one to blame but yourself. Do everyone
a
>¤ > favor, and go troll somewhere else.
>¤
>¤ Were you dumb enough to use the Line or Circle methods on Forms? Silly
you,
>¤ even though there was no alternative, and no warning they were for the
chop.
>¤ Were you dumb enough to use the Printer object or Printers collection?
You
>¤ must have been nuts - even though there was no alternative. The Clipboard
>¤ object? Even worse. Windowless controls?
>¤
>¤ You should have plainly realised that all these were completely obsolete
and
>¤ were never going to get included in a new version of VB. After all,
>¤ Microsoft told you this ahead of time, didn't they? They didn't? Really?
>
>And of course we all know those were never a part of the language but serve
as extensions
>to it.
>This fact has been repeated over and over again and yet this issue is still
used as
>a spin-off to
>the language change argument.
>
>I'm trying not to be as blunt as Patrick, but what *is* the excuse for continually
raising
>the
>issue? The Forms model is the worst example to use as there were at least
three of more
>incompatible
>variations amongst Visual Basic and the Office products.
>
>Language extensions change. They've been changing over the last decade.
>
>
>Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
>Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

[Jonathan West]

"Bob" <vb@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:3e3ec53c$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
>

> VB developers got even more consideration than C++ developers. M$ changed
> VB from a second-class to a first-class language.

If it keeps changing its syntax and requiring rewrites, then it's going down
from second to third class.

> You must not have any idea how much the programming tools division
contributes
> to M$ bottom line.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware of the minimal contribution of developer tools to
Microsoft's overall revenues. The fact remains that they still have to build
a momentum behind .net in order for the platform to succeed. And leaving the
products of several million VB developers on the table is hardly going to
help them achieve that.

Furthermore, if VB.NET does badly in the marketplace, then Microsoft might
have reason to pause before embarking on the same gamble of changing
languages in Office, which provides Microsoft with about a third of its
gross income.

It's Office and Windows which pay the bills in Microsoft. If Microsoft
starts gambling with embedding VB.NET in Office, it will definitely be time
to short their stock!

--
Regards
Jonathan West