Mike,

Makes sense to me!

Kent

Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:17:46 -0800, "David Rothgery"
><drothgery@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:
>
>>It's more that
>>- VB6 lacked certain basic features necessary to the .NET framework (single
>>inheritence, exception handling, etc.), so the language had to be changed,

>
>Yeah? So obviously Microsoft went completely the wrong way about it!
>
>Consider what they could have done.
>
>1. Concentrate on their Java killer, .Net, and get it to market pronto
>with the one language C#.
>
>2. Announce at the launch of .Net that their exciting new platform and
>development system for nifty web services - the thing of the future
>(okay, so I wear a different hat occasionally, so shoot me) - would
>include C# out of the box and that they were working on introducing
>other languages on an ongoing basis.
>
>3. While .Net was bedding down amongst the C# community, produce one
>or more interim versions of VB6, e.g. 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, with each version
>steadily moving more towards the .Net paradigm internally (outwardly
>maintaining full compatibility with previous classic VB versions as
>per usual).
>
>4. After, say, two years, by which time the new .Net would have been
>seen to succeed and may by now have enjoyed wide acceptance, they
>could have announced VB.Net with as near as dammit full compatibility
>with VB7.5. Result? VB programmers would have not seen anything like
>such an insurmountable problem in moving over to .Net, because they
>would have largely seen the migration as just more of the same kind of
>upgrade that they had entertained since VB1.
>
>MM