Hi Larry,

>>> The Boys and Girls in Redmond demonstrated back in nineteen-ought-
>>> ninety-something that lack of a groundswell will prevent a second
>>> release or continuing support -- heard anything about VB-DOS lately?
>>> Did anyone ever hear about VB-DOS 2.0?

>> If that analogy is to make sense, you'd have to liken VB-DOS to
>> "VB7", not VB.NET.

> Gregor, your statement doesn't make sense to me. How could The Boys and Girls
> in Redmond release _another_ version of "VB7", since there has not and presumably
> will not be any release of VB7.

Well, my point was a hypothetical one. *If* they released a VB7, I'm sure it would fade away
eventually (though not right away), and there wouldn't be another version ("VB8"), because the
underlying COM layer (equating COM to DOS) will eventually give way to .NET. A "VB7" would, IMO, be
destined for a very short ride, just like VB-DOS was.

> The point I make is that if the acceptance of VB.NET, or anything else, doesn't
> meet Microsoft's expectations, the have shown that they can drop it like
> a hot rock.

In this general sense, your analogy holds. If everybody moved to C#, I'm sure they'd drop VB.NET as
well, eventually.

> VB7 can't possibly NOT meet Microsoft's expectations if they
> don't produce and release a VB7, so is not at issue.

As for "VB7", that's of course hypothetical (although, with a few more rollbacks, Beta 2 might just
qualify for this).

Anyway, the point was about the number of users of VB.NET. I agree the number will be considerably
lower than for classic VB. I just don't think that a 100 per cent compatible version would help very
much in the medium and long term future.

Now, compatibility with large code bases, and developers' being familiar with the tool, could be
advantages that help VB survive. As I see it, MS should aim for a better balance between portability
and better language design.