Re: Death of VB as we knew it. - explained.

[benjaminkv]

Alan,

I admit that I was not clear enough in my post, and apologize for that. This
is what I meant:

VS.NET puts an end to two important things - the old VB language and the
native compiler.

(1.) The VB language we learned and embraced was the language that was
there up to VB6. We have got ourselves ready for VB.NET, but to us it is not
the old VB anymore.

As somebody has pointed out VB is the only language whose projects do not
run as such in VS.NET.

Although porting existing projects is a big pain, I am in favor of making
the language more sane by making it behave more like C++ or C#. This will
pay-off in the long-run and will also make VB easier for the C++ programmer
to follow.

(2.) We ultimately had native code compilation with VB5 which was continued
through VB6. This is no longer supported in VS.NET. There is no way by which
we can get this feature otherwise in this world. Except for C# which is a
new language, we have third party native code compilers for all other VS.NET
languages even though these are not a part of VS.NET.
Native compilers for other platforms are available for some of these
languages as well.

I have no estimate of how important native code compilation to windows is
important for VB developers. I just said that it is a dead feature. I cannot
say it is unimportant since I have seen several posts saying that some
developers was considering Delphi as an alternative because it compiled to
native code.

-------------------------------------------------------

Just in case you missed, I hereby quote a couple of posts that point out the
same things:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

VB.Net adds power at the *price* of platform *dependence*. It is 100%
managed
..NET unlike every other language except the .NET poster child C#. C++,
Eiffel,
Cobol, etc. will all continue to be produced for other platforms. VB will
not.
Let's not fool ourselves.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
What he meant was that VC++ can still run existing code, VFP can only write
existing code, and to whatever extent that VI=ASP (sort of, I guess) ASP+
supports ASP code.

C# does not run its old code since it is a new language.

And VB does not run its old code since _____________ (fill in blank with the
several thousand messages on this topic).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I want to thank you for showing the kindness to get involved and address our
concerns.

Hoping to see you back at least occasionally,

Benjamin.


Alan Carter [MSFT] <alanc@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:39f718ec@news.devx.com...
| I'm confused in what you are saying here. VB and C# both run on the .NET
| framework. VB6 only ran on top of COM.
|
| Alan Carter
| VB Language PM
| Microsoft

[Keith Franklin, MCSD]

You do have native code compilation. Its just when is the native code
compilation done. Is it done by the developer or is it done by the runtime
environment.

In .NET(All .NET languages) it is done by the runtime on either a function
by function basis or if chosen the complete assembly. In the function by
function basis once a function is ran once all the code is executed from
compiled native code for the platform it is executing on.

This was all done to have native code compilation cross platform (OS and
Hardware).

[Alan Carter [MSFT]]

Regarding #1 -- I'm glad that you welcome the changes in spite of the extra
steps that the language changes will require in porting code and the extra
brain cells that will be required to learn the changes.

Regarding #2 - I want to reiterate Keith's point. The generation of IL and
in fact the entire .NET framework positions us better for running on other
operating systems. If you've read the news you can see information regarding
the possibility of porting the .NET framework to other systems. The .NET
framework was designed to make this possible. We are actually in a better
position to run VB code on other systems than we have been in the past.

Alan Carter
VB Language PM
Microsoft

"benjaminkv" <benjaminkv@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39f7bf9f@news.devx.com...
> Alan,
>
> I admit that I was not clear enough in my post, and apologize for that.
This
> is what I meant:
>
> VS.NET puts an end to two important things - the old VB language and the
> native compiler.
>
> (1.) The VB language we learned and embraced was the language that was
> there up to VB6. We have got ourselves ready for VB.NET, but to us it is
not
> the old VB anymore.
>
> As somebody has pointed out VB is the only language whose projects do not
> run as such in VS.NET.
>
> Although porting existing projects is a big pain, I am in favor of making
> the language more sane by making it behave more like C++ or C#. This will
> pay-off in the long-run and will also make VB easier for the C++
programmer
> to follow.
>
> (2.) We ultimately had native code compilation with VB5 which was
continued
> through VB6. This is no longer supported in VS.NET. There is no way by
which
> we can get this feature otherwise in this world. Except for C# which is a
> new language, we have third party native code compilers for all other
VS.NET
> languages even though these are not a part of VS.NET.
> Native compilers for other platforms are available for some of these
> languages as well.
>
> I have no estimate of how important native code compilation to windows is
> important for VB developers. I just said that it is a dead feature. I
cannot
> say it is unimportant since I have seen several posts saying that some
> developers was considering Delphi as an alternative because it compiled to
> native code.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just in case you missed, I hereby quote a couple of posts that point out
the
> same things:
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> VB.Net adds power at the *price* of platform *dependence*. It is 100%
> managed
> .NET unlike every other language except the .NET poster child C#. C++,
> Eiffel,
> Cobol, etc. will all continue to be produced for other platforms. VB will
> not.
> Let's not fool ourselves.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> What he meant was that VC++ can still run existing code, VFP can only
write
> existing code, and to whatever extent that VI=ASP (sort of, I guess) ASP+
> supports ASP code.
>
> C# does not run its old code since it is a new language.
>
> And VB does not run its old code since _____________ (fill in blank with
the
> several thousand messages on this topic).
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> I want to thank you for showing the kindness to get involved and address
our
> concerns.
>
> Hoping to see you back at least occasionally,
>
> Benjamin.
>
>
> Alan Carter [MSFT] <alanc@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:39f718ec@news.devx.com...
> | I'm confused in what you are saying here. VB and C# both run on the
..NET
> | framework. VB6 only ran on top of COM.
> |
> | Alan Carter
> | VB Language PM
> | Microsoft
>
>
>

[Dan Barclay]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:42:27 -0700, "Alan Carter [MSFT]"
<alanc@microsoft.com> wrote:

>Regarding #1 -- I'm glad that you welcome the changes in spite of the extra
>steps that the language changes will require in porting code and the extra
>brain cells that will be required to learn the changes.

I agree that the changes will make VB easier for the C/C++ programmer.
The thing is, I mistakenly thought this was VB... for the MS Basic
programmer. My mistake?

I also thought it was supposed to be a "real" developer language as we
were promised before. Again my mistake?

>Regarding #2 - I want to reiterate Keith's point. The generation of IL and
>in fact the entire .NET framework positions us better for running on other
>operating systems. If you've read the news you can see information regarding
>the possibility of porting the .NET framework to other systems. The .NET
>framework was designed to make this possible. We are actually in a better
>position to run VB code on other systems than we have been in the past.

Just to reiterate my own view, I agree with this in whole. The
problems with VB.NET have nothing to do with .NET itself. This is a
new environment worth exploring. But VB is broken.

Dan
Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)

[benjaminkv]

Dan Barclay <dbarclay@ih2000.net> wrote in message
news:39fce531.19182893@news.devx.com...
| On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:42:27 -0700, "Alan Carter [MSFT]"
| <alanc@microsoft.com> wrote:
|
| >Regarding #1 -- I'm glad that you welcome the changes in spite of the
extra
| >steps that the language changes will require in porting code and the
extra
| >brain cells that will be required to learn the changes.
|
| I agree that the changes will make VB easier for the C/C++ programmer.
| The thing is, I mistakenly thought this was VB... for the MS Basic
| programmer. My mistake?

VB was for the MS Basic| programmer untill version 6. VB.NET is more for the
C++ programmer than the Basic programmer. Reasons include

(1.). In the envoronment, that I am working in, there is little that we do
in VB alone. Programmers including myself use both VB and VC++. I do not
know how this is in other companies and in other parts of the world, but I
believe the trend is more or less the same. This is only going to increase
with VS.NET where one can have a single solution with multiple projects each
one in the language of your choice. MSFT has very well realized this fact.

(2.). In the past, VB was a popular entry level language. Now the position
is going to be taken up by C#. C# will be the first priority for new
developments on .NET as well, unless companies are limited by developers who
know that language. Developers will mostly be reading VB for integrating or
porting legacy code.Therefore unlike the past where we had people moving
from VB to C++ the trend is going to be from C# to VB and hence the change.

(3.) There are a good number hard-core programmers in Java and who will move
to C# and will want to interface with VB in .NET.


| I also thought it was supposed to be a "real" developer language as we
| were promised before. Again my mistake?
|
| >Regarding #2 - I want to reiterate Keith's point. The generation of IL
and
| >in fact the entire .NET framework positions us better for running on
other
| >operating systems. If you've read the news you can see information
regarding
| >the possibility of porting the .NET framework to other systems. The .NET
| >framework was designed to make this possible. We are actually in a
better
| >position to run VB code on other systems than we have been in the past.
|
| Just to reiterate my own view, I agree with this in whole. The
| problems with VB.NET have nothing to do with .NET itself. This is a
| new environment worth exploring. But VB is broken.

"VB is broken" - that is just what I also said. I have not so far
encountered any area where I will have difficulty because of the lack of
direct compilation to native code.

Benjamin.

[benjaminkv]

Alan,

Alan Carter [MSFT] <alanc@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:39f9adc2$1@news.devx.com...
>We are actually in a better position to run VB code on other systems than
we have been in the past.

I do not disagree. However..

Delphi apps could be distributed without any run-time. There are some people
who found the dlls that accompanied every VB app to be a great nag, and
chose Delphi. I had worked for one such company.

With the bloat now increasing, we might miss some more guys from our side.

I agree that the number of people who let such things keep them away from
..NET would be marginal. As far as I am concerned, the gains far outweigh any
losses and pains I will be having, and will not want to miss the bandwagon.

Best regards, and thanks for the kindness,

Benjamin.

[Frank Oquendo]

Platform independence is great if that's what you're after. I think it's
safe to say that it is not a promary objective for VB programmers. In
addition, platform neutrality also means you cannot leverage the power of a
platform. If you do, you're no longer platform independent which pretty much
shoots the whole .NET idea in the foot.

Speaking for only for myself: If I wanted platform independence, I would
have switched languages long ago. I chose to stay with VB. I do not
appreciate the added difficulties that will be offered by the next
incarnation of VB. At this very moment, I have a language that allows me to
leverage the Windows platform in a nearly transparent and painless fashion.
From that standpoint alone, VB7 appears to be a big step in the wrong
direction.

--
Tools you can use: get your free copy of ProPack
http://www.acadx.com


"Alan Carter [MSFT]" <alanc@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:39f9adc2$1@news.devx.com...
> Regarding #1 -- I'm glad that you welcome the changes in spite of the
extra
> steps that the language changes will require in porting code and the extra
> brain cells that will be required to learn the changes.
>
> Regarding #2 - I want to reiterate Keith's point. The generation of IL
and
> in fact the entire .NET framework positions us better for running on other
> operating systems. If you've read the news you can see information
regarding
> the possibility of porting the .NET framework to other systems. The .NET
> framework was designed to make this possible. We are actually in a better
> position to run VB code on other systems than we have been in the past.
>
> Alan Carter
> VB Language PM
> Microsoft

[Dan Barclay]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:12:23 +0530, "benjaminkv"
<benjaminkv@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>
>VB was for the MS Basic| programmer untill version 6. VB.NET is more for the
>C++ programmer than the Basic programmer. Reasons include

That seems clear, but I'm confused about:

>(1.). In the envoronment, that I am working in, there is little that we do
>in VB alone. Programmers including myself use both VB and VC++. I do not
>know how this is in other companies and in other parts of the world, but I
>believe the trend is more or less the same. This is only going to increase
>with VS.NET where one can have a single solution with multiple projects each
>one in the language of your choice. MSFT has very well realized this fact.

So, what is C# for?

>(2.). In the past, VB was a popular entry level language. Now the position
>is going to be taken up by C#. C# will be the first priority for new
>developments on .NET as well, unless companies are limited by developers who
>know that language. Developers will mostly be reading VB for integrating or
>porting legacy code.Therefore unlike the past where we had people moving
>from VB to C++ the trend is going to be from C# to VB and hence the change.

VB (and MS Basics before it) have been both an entry level *and* a
strong developer language. If your focus needs to be on the
*application* rather than memory management and other nitty details it
happen(ed) to be a good fit.

Again, what is C# for. The "plan" is that you should be able to do
any job in either language, no?

>(3.) There are a good number hard-core programmers in Java and who will move
>to C# and will want to interface with VB in .NET.

Again, why mess with VB if you've got C#?

Dan
Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
(#6)

[Keith Franklin, MCSD]

I think that people have the wrong idea about C#..

In my eyes because of C# you will see the death of Visual C++ as a
development langage for applications. It will only be used for low level OS
and other similiar development such as device drivers, etc. Your already
seeing it at Microsoft and Visual Studio.NET. Much of VS.NET and the Class
Frameworks are being written by Micosoft C++ developers with C# rather then
C++. (Why they havent used VB.NET more has been said before, C# is much
farther along, C# is meant for C++ developers and the people working on the
..NET Framework and VS.NET are C++ developers)

In my view VB.NET will still have the very same user base (the base). It
will still get the entry level (If the .NET Framework is a success and if it
is not then C# will not get the entry level). All the corporate developers
out there are not going to switch to C#. Management will only spend the time
and effort to have them learn the .NET Framework (They propably will just
expect the developers to do unpaid overtime). None of our clients are saying
hey lets move to C# when we move to .NET....Why should they? The only things
that C# buys them is some functionalty that will most likly rarely be used.

In many ways this will finally stick a sock in the developers and managers
who choose to do database applications in Visual C++ because they need the
speed (How absurd is that..Ever seen a C++ program get data by using a
Select * from Table..It is so much faster then a VB program using a Stored
Procedure to get data from a database...I digress)...

[T. Bradley Dean]

I agree. Perhaps I am just afraid of all the changes, but I have no need for
any of this. I write software that is only used internally. Every machine is
an NT box. Why make all my code able to run on non-NT machines when it never
will?!?

--
Bradley Dean


Frank Oquendo <franko@nospam.stonemedia.com> wrote in message
news:39fd9e88$1@news.devx.com...
> Platform independence is great if that's what you're after. I think it's
> safe to say that it is not a promary objective for VB programmers. In
> addition, platform neutrality also means you cannot leverage the power of
a
> platform. If you do, you're no longer platform independent which pretty
much
> shoots the whole .NET idea in the foot.
>
> Speaking for only for myself: If I wanted platform independence, I would
> have switched languages long ago. I chose to stay with VB. I do not
> appreciate the added difficulties that will be offered by the next
> incarnation of VB. At this very moment, I have a language that allows me
to
> leverage the Windows platform in a nearly transparent and painless
fashion.
> From that standpoint alone, VB7 appears to be a big step in the wrong
> direction.
>
> --
> Tools you can use: get your free copy of ProPack
> http://www.acadx.com
>
>
> "Alan Carter [MSFT]" <alanc@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:39f9adc2$1@news.devx.com...
> > Regarding #1 -- I'm glad that you welcome the changes in spite of the
> extra
> > steps that the language changes will require in porting code and the
extra
> > brain cells that will be required to learn the changes.
> >
> > Regarding #2 - I want to reiterate Keith's point. The generation of IL
> and
> > in fact the entire .NET framework positions us better for running on
other
> > operating systems. If you've read the news you can see information
> regarding
> > the possibility of porting the .NET framework to other systems. The
..NET
> > framework was designed to make this possible. We are actually in a
better
> > position to run VB code on other systems than we have been in the past.
> >
> > Alan Carter
> > VB Language PM
> > Microsoft
>
>