Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry
Makes sense to me!
Mike Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:17:46 -0800, "David Rothgery"
>>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
>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.
Top DevX Stories
Easy Web Services with SQL Server 2005 HTTP Endpoints
JavaOne 2005: Java Platform Roadmap Focuses on Ease of Development, Sun Focuses on the "Free" in F.O.S.S.
Wed Yourself to UML with the Power of Associations
Microsoft to Add AJAX Capabilities to ASP.NET
IBM's Cloudscape Versus MySQL