Do REAL VB programmers want VB.NET?

[Gary Nelson]

Here I see a lot of opinions for and against VB.Net. My question is: Do
REAL VB programmers really want it?

What do I consider a REAL VB programmer?

Someone who has written a REAL program, that compiles to at least 2 MB pcode
or 4 MB native (without images), and that is used by at least a hundred
clients.

I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who create controls for VB.
Why? Most of their code is in C, and will not be lost in the transition,
and the new language will create a new need for new controls, thus
benefiting their businesses.

I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who just write books or magazine
articles on VB. Again the new language will be a boost to their income, and
at any rate they will not loose their old code, as most of it was already
published, and they need new code to publish new articles anyway.

I do not consider REAL VB programmers the academics. Their business will
receive a great push from the new language, and they loose nothing in the
transition.

Opinions?

Gary

[William Cleveland]

Gary Nelson wrote:
>
> Here I see a lot of opinions for and against VB.Net. My question is: Do
> REAL VB programmers really want it?
>
> What do I consider a REAL VB programmer?
>
> Someone who has written a REAL program, that compiles to at least 2 MB pcode
> or 4 MB native (without images), and that is used by at least a hundred
> clients.
>
I've never heard of a VB exectuable that big. I've worked 75% of my
time for the last two years on one program, and the native .Exe
is ~650K.

Bill

[Daniel Pratt]

Hi Gary,

I am a real, blue-collar VB programmer working on a project, the scope
of which easily exceeds your "requirements." Although I would prefer the
greater flexibility of C#, I will _definitely_ take VB.NET as a second
choice for future development. So yes, at least on "real" programmer
_really_ wants VB.NET

Regards,
Dan

"Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es> wrote in message
news:3ab5df57@news.devx.com...
> Here I see a lot of opinions for and against VB.Net. My question is: Do
> REAL VB programmers really want it?
>
> What do I consider a REAL VB programmer?
>
> Someone who has written a REAL program, that compiles to at least 2 MB
pcode
> or 4 MB native (without images), and that is used by at least a hundred
> clients.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who create controls for VB.
> Why? Most of their code is in C, and will not be lost in the transition,
> and the new language will create a new need for new controls, thus
> benefiting their businesses.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who just write books or
magazine
> articles on VB. Again the new language will be a boost to their income,
and
> at any rate they will not loose their old code, as most of it was already
> published, and they need new code to publish new articles anyway.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers the academics. Their business will
> receive a great push from the new language, and they loose nothing in the
> transition.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Gary

[Mark Hurd]

I am, or at least have been, a real programmer, by your definition.

At this stage I would intend to code in VB.NET as soon as it is released,
depending upon where I am in the project life-cycle, of course.

No, or only very minor, upgrades will be peformed on VB5/6 code. We'll have
to buy a full copy, not an upgrade license :-)

Having reviewed a range of newsgroups and also dabbled with Beta 1, it seems
that VB.NET will be the 'better' language of the Microsoft supplied .NET
choices, once Microsoft gives it the support C# is getting now.

Regards,
Mark Hurd

[Rick Barnett]

"Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es> wrote in message
news:3ab5df57@news.devx.com...
> Here I see a lot of opinions for and against VB.Net. My question is:
Do
> REAL VB programmers really want it?

I don't see it as a question of programmers, but rather programming tasks.
The changes will be mostly good for some, but mostly bad for others. If
the job is a "shrink-wrap" app that doesn't care to be a web service, then
VB.Net's huge runtime requirements, VB3-like ease to decompile, and
write-once worry-because-its-compiled-everywhere nature, are big
negatives.

For me personally, it's a wash. I like VB.Net but won't get a chance to
use it soon. The project I'm going to now that was originally planned for
VB6 will instead be mainly C++. The change was made after consideration of
VB.NET.

[Wally McClure]

I want and need VB.Net. I need the multiple threading support. I need the
support for object pooling in COM+. I have developed several applications
with VB5/6 that would have benefited greatly from threading support and
object pooling. By switching, I get those features and my clients get a
more responsive application. Yes, they have to install the .Net runtime,
but that isn't really any different than an NT service pak ( .Net runtime is
suppossed to be approximately 20 - 30 megs vs a service pak being about 80 -
90 megs with Win2k).

Wally

"Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es> wrote in message
news:3ab5df57@news.devx.com...
> Here I see a lot of opinions for and against VB.Net. My question is: Do
> REAL VB programmers really want it?
>
> What do I consider a REAL VB programmer?
>
> Someone who has written a REAL program, that compiles to at least 2 MB
pcode
> or 4 MB native (without images), and that is used by at least a hundred
> clients.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who create controls for VB.
> Why? Most of their code is in C, and will not be lost in the transition,
> and the new language will create a new need for new controls, thus
> benefiting their businesses.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who just write books or
magazine
> articles on VB. Again the new language will be a boost to their income,
and
> at any rate they will not loose their old code, as most of it was already
> published, and they need new code to publish new articles anyway.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers the academics. Their business will
> receive a great push from the new language, and they loose nothing in the
> transition.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Gary
>
>
>

[Jon-Slem]

"Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es> wrote:
>Here I see a lot of opinions for and against VB.Net. My question is: Do
>REAL VB programmers really want it?
>
>What do I consider a REAL VB programmer?
>
>Someone who has written a REAL program, that compiles to at least 2 MB pcode
>or 4 MB native (without images), and that is used by at least a hundred
>clients.
>
>I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who create controls for VB.
>Why? Most of their code is in C, and will not be lost in the transition,
>and the new language will create a new need for new controls, thus
>benefiting their businesses.
>
>I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who just write books or magazine
>articles on VB. Again the new language will be a boost to their income,
and
>at any rate they will not loose their old code, as most of it was already
>published, and they need new code to publish new articles anyway.
>
>I do not consider REAL VB programmers the academics. Their business will
>receive a great push from the new language, and they loose nothing in the
>transition.
>
>Opinions?
>
>Gary
>
>
>
I consider myself a real VB Programmer, but the largest I've gotten to is
1.45 MB and it's because it was not broken to N-Tier levels. So a real VB
Programmer is someone who uses all of the technologies to make a VB program
powerfull.

[c2i - Richard Clark]

Are you sure that REAL VB PROGRAMMERS produce a 4Mo exe ?

--
Richard Clark - rc@c2i.fr
______________________________________________
NOUVEAU : Liste de diffusion sur MS.NET
Inscription en envoyant un mail à :
----------------------------------------------
dotnetfrance-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
----------------------------------------------
http://www.c2i.fr - Le portail francophone
Visual Basic,VB.NET,ASP, ASP.NET
+ de 517 aides disponibles (15/02)
______________________________________________


"Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es> wrote in message
news:3ab5df57@news.devx.com...
> Here I see a lot of opinions for and against VB.Net. My question is: Do
> REAL VB programmers really want it?
>
> What do I consider a REAL VB programmer?
>
> Someone who has written a REAL program, that compiles to at least 2 MB
pcode
> or 4 MB native (without images), and that is used by at least a hundred
> clients.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who create controls for VB.
> Why? Most of their code is in C, and will not be lost in the transition,
> and the new language will create a new need for new controls, thus
> benefiting their businesses.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who just write books or
magazine
> articles on VB. Again the new language will be a boost to their income,
and
> at any rate they will not loose their old code, as most of it was already
> published, and they need new code to publish new articles anyway.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers the academics. Their business will
> receive a great push from the new language, and they loose nothing in the
> transition.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Gary
>
>
>

[Sergey]

Do you consider someone who have written 200k dlls real VB programmer?
What matters is not the size but the end result.
I guess you look at REAL VB programmer definition from your point of view.
My (and i'm sure other people) point of view is different.
As for VB.NET, to me C# and VB.NET look the same, the only difference is the
syntax, VB is more verbose. Maybe as I go deeper into VS.NET I would find
discrepancies that will incline me towards a certain language. I will
cerainly not learn VB.NET just because it's "supposely" new VB version --
it's more like a new langauge with old syntax.

--
Sergey Kats
http://codebump.net

"Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es> wrote in message
news:3ab5df57@news.devx.com...
> Here I see a lot of opinions for and against VB.Net. My question is: Do
> REAL VB programmers really want it?
>
> What do I consider a REAL VB programmer?
>
> Someone who has written a REAL program, that compiles to at least 2 MB
pcode
> or 4 MB native (without images), and that is used by at least a hundred
> clients.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who create controls for VB.
> Why? Most of their code is in C, and will not be lost in the transition,
> and the new language will create a new need for new controls, thus
> benefiting their businesses.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who just write books or
magazine
> articles on VB. Again the new language will be a boost to their income,
and
> at any rate they will not loose their old code, as most of it was already
> published, and they need new code to publish new articles anyway.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers the academics. Their business will
> receive a great push from the new language, and they loose nothing in the
> transition.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Gary
>
>
>

[Sergio Pereira]

I'm really excited about Vb.NET being able to ease deployment and bring back
our good'ol Win32 user interfaces. I hate those HTML/DHTML poor, less useful
but pretty user interfaces. I constantly find myself disallowed to produce a
rich user interface just because the system administrator doesn't want to
deal with keeping track of DLL versions.... I hope the copy/paste deployment
schema of .NET rescue the rich user interfaces back to it's deserved status.
I also need to mention the powerful, faster and consistent middleware that
we'll be able to build using free-threading and implementation inheritance.

Sergio

"Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es> wrote in message
news:3ab5df57@news.devx.com...
> Here I see a lot of opinions for and against VB.Net. My question is: Do
> REAL VB programmers really want it?
>
> What do I consider a REAL VB programmer?
>
> Someone who has written a REAL program, that compiles to at least 2 MB
pcode
> or 4 MB native (without images), and that is used by at least a hundred
> clients.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who create controls for VB.
> Why? Most of their code is in C, and will not be lost in the transition,
> and the new language will create a new need for new controls, thus
> benefiting their businesses.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who just write books or
magazine
> articles on VB. Again the new language will be a boost to their income,
and
> at any rate they will not loose their old code, as most of it was already
> published, and they need new code to publish new articles anyway.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers the academics. Their business will
> receive a great push from the new language, and they loose nothing in the
> transition.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Gary
>
>
>

[Patrick Troughton]

4 MB seems ridiculously high. Without wishing to offend anyone, I can't help
but wonder if those that churn out 4 megabyte executables are the same people
who think the best strategy for code reuse is copy and paste. It seems to
me that the better programmers are ones who can accomplish a lot using tight,
compact code. But to answer the OP's question - Yes, I like VB.NET very much.
In fact, the more I use VB.NET, the more VB6 looks like a primitive hack.
I have a sneaking suspicion that in a couple years time, we're going to look
back at VB6 and wonder how the **** we got anything done.

/Pat

William Cleveland <WCleveland@Mediaone.Net> wrote:
>Gary Nelson wrote:
>>
>> Here I see a lot of opinions for and against VB.Net. My question is:
Do
>> REAL VB programmers really want it?
>>
>> What do I consider a REAL VB programmer?
>>
>> Someone who has written a REAL program, that compiles to at least 2 MB
pcode
>> or 4 MB native (without images), and that is used by at least a hundred
>> clients.
>>
>I've never heard of a VB exectuable that big. I've worked 75% of my
>time for the last two years on one program, and the native .Exe
>is ~650K.
>
>Bill

[Patrick Troughton]

Maybe GoSub compiles really large? <g>

/Pat

"c2i - Richard Clark" <rc@c2i.fr> wrote:
>Are you sure that REAL VB PROGRAMMERS produce a 4Mo exe ?
>
>--
>Richard Clark - rc@c2i.fr

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Sergio Pereira" <nope@hide-that-email.com> wrote in message <news:3ab6348b$1@news.devx.com>...

> I'm really excited about Vb.NET being able to ease deployment and bring back
> our good'ol Win32 user interfaces. I hate those HTML/DHTML poor, less useful
> but pretty user interfaces. I constantly find myself disallowed to produce a
> rich user interface just because the system administrator doesn't want to
> deal with keeping track of DLL versions.... I hope the copy/paste deployment

Even with the known techniques for developing self-diagnosing or even
self-healing apps and the myriad tools for detecting potential DLL ****
problems? <sigh/> So many heads, so few baskets...

> schema of .NET rescue the rich user interfaces back to it's deserved status.
> I also need to mention the powerful, faster and consistent middleware that
> we'll be able to build using free-threading and implementation inheritance.

How will free-threading improve the cruft churned out by chimps who can't
even wrap their heads around apartment model threading? VB's reputation
is going to take it in the shorts once again due to the carnage.

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Got Thetans? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

[Phil Weber]

> My question is: Do REAL VB programmers really want it?

Gary: I don't agree with your definition of a "REAL VB programmer," but I
will say that developers who must maintain monolithic VB6 applications are
probably not very pleased with VB.NET. A large number of other "REAL VB
programmers," however, can see how much they stand to gain by learning and
using the .NET Framework and the new IDE.
---
Phil Weber

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

"Gary Nelson" <gn@contanet.es> wrote in message <news:3ab5df57@news.devx.com>...

> Here I see a lot of opinions for and against VB.Net. My question is: Do
> REAL VB programmers really want it?
>
> What do I consider a REAL VB programmer?
>
> Someone who has written a REAL program, that compiles to at least 2 MB pcode
> or 4 MB native (without images), and that is used by at least a hundred
> clients.

So because my "real" apps tend to be data-driven, down to the number,
placement, and captions of the labels, and thus even native code EXEs
are pretty small, I'm not a real programmer, but chimp-coders are?

Izzat 100 simultaneous active clients, or are all but ten users showing
the app on the screen but are really just discussing who's boinking whom?

> I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who create controls for VB.
> Why? Most of their code is in C, and will not be lost in the transition,
> and the new language will create a new need for new controls, thus
> benefiting their businesses.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers those who just write books or magazine
> articles on VB. Again the new language will be a boost to their income, and
> at any rate they will not loose their old code, as most of it was already
> published, and they need new code to publish new articles anyway.
>
> I do not consider REAL VB programmers the academics. Their business will
> receive a great push from the new language, and they loose nothing in the
> transition.
>
> Opinions?

How about consultants? I remember a few in vb.vb7 being almost ecstatic
because of the "migration" issues. I could make a mint from the FUD if I
weren't so allergic to neckties. Those pesky scruples might also get in
the way, huh?

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfoster@ricochet.net> Got Thetans? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!