All the king's horses and all the king's men.......

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

You call this evidence? A logical argument is a conclusion preceded or
otherwise reinforced with factual (or accepted by all parties as factual)
premises. "Just look around" followed by a series of rhetorical questions,
is not a logical argument, nor does it contain any evidence.

You are not bringing any opposing arguments too. I'd try to avoid to bring
the whole discussion down to a personal level.

First, you use personal perception as statistical evidence

Do you have any statistical data? If not, on what foundation would you base
your statements on except personal perception?

which it is not, particularly when the perception is clouded by
a decidedly prejudiced point of view.

Be careful not to mix up reasons and implication!

Whining never solved anything. It is a waste of resources. Programmers are
problem-solvers. You are not.

I don't see anybody whining except those who are whining about people
discussing this topic.

What you call "innovation" is not. "Innovation" is defined as "the act of
creating something new."

True. Reimplementing an application to reach something new is not
innovation. Innovation is builting something more powerful based on past
innovations (the status quo).

Very few VB applications (particularly by your definition of the term
"application," which is so broad as to include macros) had any innovation
to them at all. They were useful, yes, and enabled the automation of
repetitive tasks, for the most part (when defined as you have defined
them). But that is not innovation.

I don't think that's the type of applications Jim is talking about. I know
many people from Germany which wrote highly specialized and innovatice
software for physical data analysis, etc. using VB. These applications
would have grown if VB6 was continued instead of having stagnated at the
status quo for some time only because of a marketing-driven need for a
rewrite.

I suppose the Chinese, Russians, and Indians do not fall into the category
of "the rest of us?" And are you trying to imply that people in China,
Russia, and India have less trouble with the new .Net paradigm and new
technology than people in your country?

They often do not own the software. They are developing software for people
which have to outsorce conversion of software from VB6 to VB.NET, for
example, because otherwise they could not compete with their competitors
that do not need to update their software because they based it on another
foundation.

Just my 2 Euro cents...

 

[Kevin Spencer]

You call this evidence? A logical argument is a conclusion preceded or

You are not bringing any opposing arguments too. I'd try to avoid to
bring the whole discussion down to a personal level.

Dude, arguments about what? I made the statement that he was simply making
assertions without evidence. That was evidenced by the fact that he was
making assertions without evidence. That is, he did not provide any evidence
or statistics to support his statements. He simply made them. I did not
argue against his assertions; I only argued that making assertions without
evidence does not constitute a logical argument. To believe something
asserted without evidence is a matter of faith, not science. I find it
disturbing that I would have to explain that to someone in the programming
profession.

Do you have any statistical data? If not, on what foundation would you
base your statements on except personal perception?

Um... See my answer to your first argument. Statistical data about what? It
takes no statistical data to question assertions. Why is this patently
obvious to me and completely obscure to you? I can only hope that it is
because English is not your primary language.

I don't see anybody whining except those who are whining about people
discussing this topic.

The fact that you did not understand my meaning does not constitute whining
on my behalf. I will spell it out for you: Things are what they are.
Complaining about them is as useful as shaking your fist at the moon. It is
a distraction from one's real goals, which are those which constitute living
successfully. It is only useful to deal with them, that is, to plan and act
in such a manner as to be successful in life regardless of those things over
which you have no control.

Now, I am not sure that you were referring to me when you said "those who
are whining about people discussing this topic," but I am not complaining
about something I can do nothing about. I am not complaining at all. I am
sharing what I know, my experience, and my knowledge, with anyone who may
benefit from it. This is part of what I consider my duty in life, which is
to share with and aid others when I can, and how I can. People may come here
and howl at the moon for all I care. Why should I complain about that?
Rather than cursing the darkness, I am trying to light a few candles.

I don't think that's the type of applications Jim is talking about. I
know many people from Germany which wrote highly specialized and
innovatice software for physical data analysis, etc. using VB. These
applications would have grown if VB6 was continued instead of having
stagnated at the status quo for some time only because of a
marketing-driven need for a rewrite.

Well, I have to qualify my remarks here, as I had to go back through the
thread to see who said what. I was in error to attribute the inclusion of
macros as applications to Jim Hubbard. In fact, it was you who said that:

"I do not have any numbers on that because many applications which have been
written in VB6 have been used inside companies and were not availabe in the
local software store. I even consider VBA macros and projects as
applications, which have never been sold in the public marked but are used
extensively to get work done."

Jim did not seem to descend below the level of "components." In any case, I
certainly did *not* assert that *no* VB6 applications were innovative. That
would be absurd. I simply used the phrase "very few." This is based upon the
well-known fact that many, as Jim put it, "part-time developers" were
attracted to VB, simply because it did not require a great deal of technical
knowledge to use, as long as your requirements were not too complex. The
likelihood that a shade-tree developer will create an innovative application
is far lower than the likelihood that an educated and experienced developer
will. And the likelihood that an educated and experienced developer would
have used VB by choice is similarly small (although not unheard-of), simply
because VB was, at the very least, Late-Bound, and therefore less efficient
than, for example, C++.

They often do not own the software. They are developing software for
people which have to outsorce conversion of software from VB6 to VB.NET,
for example, because otherwise they could not compete with their
competitors that do not need to update their software because they based
it on another foundation.

Heck Herfried, I don't own the software I write either! Very few of us in
the profession do. I work for a company, just like those Chinese, Russions,
and Indians do. What I meant by "compete" was to compete for work, for a
share of the job market.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull

Hard work is a medication for which
there is no placebo.

 

[Ken Halter]

I'll give you the name of a major application that is written with
.NET.............Norton Internet Security 2006.

Man... that is >>not<< a good example of a dotNet app ;-) I wouldn't install
that mess if you paid me 10 times its cost. McAfee either. fwiw, I used to
swear by Norton AV and would gladly keep using it if only..... if only I had
simply extended the license for my 2001 version instead of falling for the
"new and improved" version.

 

[james]

Inline:

Had to uninstall that one twice this week and install AVG in its place.

I never said that NIS was a good app. just a well known one written
with .NET. Oh, and I dumped it too.........for Avast on one system and
AVG on another..........



And. let's not forget that it could not be staopped as a RAD development
tool by

anyone but Microsoft.

I don't know about you, but, (as has been stated countless times) my copy of
VB6 still works
and is still a RAD Development tool. I rarely use it anymore, but, it still
functions.
The new kid on the block.........VB 2005 and previous versions, 2002 & 2003,
are just as
much a RAD tools as VB6 was. Once you learn to use it. I think that part of
the problem, besides
the obvious problems in conversion and the costs involved in doing
so,,,,,,,,,which I agree are pretty bad,
is that there are people that just refuse to learn something new. Or they
have such pre-conceived notions
that they cannot learn it that they don't. It's like anything else you
learn, if you convince yourself that it's either
too hard or impossible to do, then it will be.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. IMHO (and the opinions of thousands
of other professional VB programmers) it is not VB at all.

No problem on agreeing to disagree! For me though, had it not been VB , or
so
close to it, I might not have caught on as quickly as I have ( by no means
do I
know everything about it though) and become so enamored with it. To me,
VB.NET
and now VB2005, is still Visual Basic, but with so many more functions and
features
and access to things that , as I said before, either I couldn't do, or
required an ugly hack.
And I keep finding new stuff all the time.
Besides all of this, time marches on and things change. Companies like
Microsoft either have
to change with the times and even try to predict those changes to prepare
for them, or they
will die out from the competition. And the same goes for developers. You
and I both know
that those developer in China and India that you mentioned in another post,
are probably laughing
at these posts and talking about how old-fashioned and outdated a lot of the
programmers in the
US are. I think if too many of us here refuse to learn new things and move
forward, that more development
jobs will move to other countries.

james

 

[james]

Comments inline:
(only a few this time.....I promise!! )

This change will not be an overnight one. Even if every classic VB
programmer had a free copy of Linux running with REALbasic 2006, it would
take up to 2 years to see the apps becoming mainstream.

And it would take even longer to get their companies to accept changing
their
entire system from Windows to Linux just to use those RB apps. As opposed to
using the newer version of Visual Basic and Windows.
And as for being an easy conversion from VB6 to RB2006, you must be missing
reading some of the newsgroup posts I have read. It's not all Click and Go
and it's
done. Some of the things I've read make is sound as hard as any conversion
from
VB6 to VB.NET is. ( of course it could be that the differences between RB
and VB6
are enough that the programmers doing the conversion are not comfortable
enough
(and familiar enough) yet with RB. Which sounds to me like, if you are
willing to take
on another language to upgrade or move an app written in VB6, why not go
with one
that is similar in syntax to VB6...........like VB.NET? RB is similar too,
but, not anymore
so than VB.NET. I have read just as many complaints in the RB forums and
newgroup
about frustrated VB6 developers working on conversions as I have read in the
Microsoft
Forums.

This is a paradigm shift.....not a fad.

Well, the paradigm better start shifting pretty soon. Because, I don't see
or hear anything
about a big adoption rate for developers of RB apps or conversions of VB6
apps to RB.
The recruiters I know, just don't receive that big of a demand. I've asked
before and was
told rarely do they get a request for a RB developer. In fact, one recruiter
asked me"What's Real Basic?"
He had never heard of it. And his company finds developers for companies all
over Texas. Including Austin!

Good luck to you!

Thanks and the same to you!!
james

 

[james]

Man... that is >>not<< a good example of a dotNet app ;-) I wouldn't
install that mess if you paid me 10 times its cost. McAfee either. fwiw, I
used to swear by Norton AV and would gladly keep using it if only..... if
only I had simply extended the license for my 2001 version instead of
falling for the "new and improved" version.

TRUE!! It is not a "good" example. But, it is a well known ( however
much
hated) application written with .NET. But, the problems NIS has are not
related to
..NET, but, more to the way the application is written. I think it is poorly
designed and
is so intrusive that it does more harm than good sometimes. I too used to
swear by NAV
but, then when Symantec took Norton over, that changed everything. I know
of other
apps I have installed that had the requirement for the DotNET Framework but,
that was
the only one that popped into my mind at the time!
Oh, and as I mentioned in another post, I dropped NIS2006 for Avast and AVG,
both much
better and free. ( of course I love free) And much easier to remove if
needed.

james

 

[Jim Hubbard]

These questions are not rhetorical. I am asking you if you see these
phantom PTP, widely distributed applications. I am asking you for thier
locations. I can't find them. Can you? Can you enlighten me by revealing
the VB.Net pot of gold at the end of the applications rainbow that contains
all of these wonderful PTP distributed apps?

I am certain (and this is an assertion on my part - so stop reading now if
that bothers you) that everyone reading this thread would LOVE more PTP
VB.Net apps to try out and learn from. So, enlighten us, where are they?

Dude, arguments about what? I made the statement that he was simply making
assertions without evidence. That was evidenced by the fact that he was
making assertions without evidence. That is, he did not provide any
evidence or statistics to support his statements. He simply made them. I
did not argue against his assertions; I only argued that making assertions
without evidence does not constitute a logical argument. To believe
something asserted without evidence is a matter of faith, not science. I
find it disturbing that I would have to explain that to someone in the
programming profession.

And I find it disturbing that (standing alongside me in this networked
community) you cannot look around and point out the vast numbers of PTP
applicatoins that I evidentally am unable to find.

If you'd like to stick to the rules of evidence according to a legal
definition in a United States court of law.....we can do that too. Let's
try and convict VB.Net of being used as much as classic VB was by PTP.

You assert that my assertions about VB.Net not being an application that
part-time-progammers use as much as they used VB is incorrect. You say that
my assertions lack evidence. So, where is your evidence that would convict
VB.Net of being a widely used RAD tool of part-time-programmers to
distribute applications to the masses as easily and prolificly as classic
VB? If my assertions are wrong, there must be TONS of PTP distributed
VB.Net applications all over the place (like there were classic VB
applications).

I say the lack of evidence of these phantom VB.Net PTP applications IS my
proof. Just as the lack of any physical exidence in a crime is used as a
defense.

If I am wrong, there must be thousands (hundreds at least) of applications
written by part-time-programmers for the masses (just like was done with
calssic VB). I look around the empty room and say that the lack of evidence
is my proof. Would you please point out the thousands (or hundreds....or
even tens) of VB.Net PTP written and widely distributed apps that I am
missing?

Since there are so many (evidentally that is your position), it should be
easy to show just how wrong I am. All you have to do is post links to them
(or "light a candle" as you say).

Um... See my answer to your first argument. Statistical data about what?
It takes no statistical data to question assertions.

Exactly. That's why you do it. You can argue a point with no facts to back
your viewpoint. This is neccessary because there are no facts to back YOUR
viewpoint.

It is interesting to note that your same argument can be used to say that
there IS a Lochness monster. After all, there is no real proof that there
is not. Nobody can see all points in the loch simultaneously. Maybe Nessie
just moves around a lot......and is somewhat stealthy.......like those PTP
VB.Net apps that you evidentally also believe in.

Why is this patently obvious to me and completely obscure to you? I can
only hope that it is because English is not your primary language.

No, it is because logic is not primarily yours.

The fact that you did not understand my meaning does not constitute
whining on my behalf. I will spell it out for you: Things are what they
are. Complaining about them is as useful as shaking your fist at the moon.
It is a distraction from one's real goals, which are those which
constitute living successfully. It is only useful to deal with them, that
is, to plan and act in such a manner as to be successful in life
regardless of those things over which you have no control.

Repressed women in Arab countries should just shut up and take it?

People being wiped out by genocide in African nations should just stop
whining?

Slaves should remain slaves?

Black people should have just shut the hell up and picked more cotton?

After all, (according to you) "Things are what they are. Complaining about
them is as useful as shaking your fist at the moon.", right?

Now, I am not sure that you were referring to me when you said "those who
are whining about people discussing this topic," but I am not complaining
about something I can do nothing about. I am not complaining at all. I am
sharing what I know, my experience, and my knowledge, with anyone who may
benefit from it.

But, when I share "what I know, my experience, and my knowledge, with anyone
who may
benefit from it" it is (in your words) "making assertions without
evidence".

I only think it is fair that you provide the same proofs for your assertions
that you require of mine.

This is part of what I consider my duty in life, which is to share with and
aid others when I can, and how I can. People may come here and howl at the
moon for all I care. Why should I complain about that?

Yet, you are complaining about that. Why?

Rather than cursing the darkness, I am trying to light a few candles.

No. You are simply complaining. You have brought no objective proof of
your arguments. You have not lit a single candle to show the thousands of
PTP VB.Net apps being created and distributed every day - just like it was
with classic VB. You are simply compaining about my "assertions" (as you
call them).

Well, I have to qualify my remarks here, as I had to go back through the
thread to see who said what. I was in error to attribute the inclusion of
macros as applications to Jim Hubbard. In fact, it was you who said that:

"I do not have any numbers on that because many applications which have
been
written in VB6 have been used inside companies and were not availabe in
the
local software store. I even consider VBA macros and projects as
applications, which have never been sold in the public marked but are used
extensively to get work done."

Jim did not seem to descend below the level of "components." In any case,
I certainly did *not* assert that *no* VB6 applications were innovative.
That would be absurd. I simply used the phrase "very few." This is based
upon the well-known fact that many, as Jim put it, "part-time developers"
were attracted to VB, simply because it did not require a great deal of
technical knowledge to use, as long as your requirements were not too
complex. The likelihood that a shade-tree developer will create an
innovative application is far lower than the likelihood that an educated
and experienced developer will. And the likelihood that an educated and
experienced developer would have used VB by choice is similarly small
(although not unheard-of), simply because VB was, at the very least,
Late-Bound, and therefore less efficient than, for example, C++.

"the likelihood that an educated and experienced developer would have used
VB by choice is similarly small..."

Wow....

So the 6,000,000+ classic Visual Basic programmers were (for the most part,
according to you) not educated or professional or in charge of their own
programming choices?

I think (and you may mark this up as one of my assertions) that most classic
VB programmers were educated, professional AND had a say in the language
that they programmed in (until Microsoft decided to toss it away at least).
And, I will assert, that they can see thru your thinly disguised attempts at
justification of your choices by attacking thier intelligence, experience
and control of their domains.

Are you saying that all of the professional VB MVPs were not "educated and
experienced" or do you simply imply that they were forced to use classic
Visual Basic against thier wills?

Which is it? Are they stupid or weak-willed?

And while you figure that one out, can you "light a candle" for me and
direct me to this loch full of PTP VB.Net applications?

I am just dying to try them out!

JH

 

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Kevin,

Um... See my answer to your first argument. Statistical data about what?
It takes no statistical data to question assertions. Why is this patently
obvious to me and completely obscure to you? I can only hope that it is
because English is not your primary language.

A pity to see you loose a discussion in what your arguments where for the
rest very well in my opinion.

A better answer as this was so obvious.

Cor

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Comments inline:
(only a few this time.....I promise!! )



And it would take even longer to get their companies to accept changing
their
entire system from Windows to Linux just to use those RB apps.

Companies will not change to Linux until the application base of
professionally supported apps is greater and they realize that Linux has
it's own VB - one they can use to write the same type applications as they
did with Visual Basic - but with fewer issues like DLL versioning etc. (BTW,
DLL-Hell is a myth created to sell .Net. It isn;t for this thread, but if
you'd like to know why ask me in another thread.)

As opposed to
using the newer version of Visual Basic and Windows.
And as for being an easy conversion from VB6 to RB2006, you must be
missing
reading some of the newsgroup posts I have read. It's not all Click and Go
and it's
done. Some of the things I've read make is sound as hard as any conversion
from
VB6 to VB.NET is.

It certainly is not painless. Any language changes are a pain in the butt.
But with VB.Net, al most ALL applications are better off with an entire
re-write.

And, that's not necc a bad thing. I have seen classic VB apps taht worked,
but (because of the rush, rush, rush, of the programming seagull managers of
the programmers) the app was built inefficiently and would benefit from a
complete rewrite in ANY langauge.

( of course it could be that the differences between RB and VB6
are enough that the programmers doing the conversion are not comfortable
enough
(and familiar enough) yet with RB. Which sounds to me like, if you are
willing to take
on another language to upgrade or move an app written in VB6, why not go
with one
that is similar in syntax to VB6...........like VB.NET? RB is similar
too, but, not anymore
so than VB.NET. I have read just as many complaints in the RB forums and
newgroup
about frustrated VB6 developers working on conversions as I have read in
the Microsoft
Forums.

I have seen those too. It is not perfect. What is?

But, it does have benefits that .Net cannot give you. Like.....true
cross-platform compatibility of your applications. The ability to choose
form at least 4 desktop platforms. A single executable that simplifies
installations and reduces help desk queries due to missing/corrupt files or
DLL/framework version incompatibilities.

Well, the paradigm better start shifting pretty soon. Because, I don't see
or hear anything
about a big adoption rate for developers of RB apps or conversions of VB6
apps to RB.
The recruiters I know, just don't receive that big of a demand. I've
asked before and was
told rarely do they get a request for a RB developer. In fact, one
recruiter asked me"What's Real Basic?"
He had never heard of it. And his company finds developers for companies
all over Texas. Including Austin!

REALbasic on Linux is like VB was on Microsoft. It dodn;t explode onto the
scene overnight. It's more like a snowball rolling down a mountain that
gains speed and momentum as it goes.

If REALbasic perfect. Nope. But what is?

REALbasic is simply another choice for PTP developers that (IMHO) will make
thier lives simpler and give them more reach than .Net.

Thanks so much for your comments!

JH

 

[Chris Fulstow]

Hi Jim!

I liked your metaphor about the gapping maw, although I had to look up
maw in the dictionary because I wasn't sure what it meant. I found
that it means, "the mouth, stomach, jaws, or gullet of a voracious
animal, especially a carnivore". It made me imagine .NET as a giant
tiger! Grrrrrr.

I had less luck with your rhyme though, I think that Humpty Dumpty was
an allegorical device for Microsoft, which then fell (i.e. released
VB.NET - boooo!) and then all the king's men their horses (i.e. MS
engineers and the computers) couldn't put it back together (i.e. make
it as good as VB6). Was I right? Or was I being a bit "dim" (he he,
just my little VB joke - I hope you like it!)

Cheers,

Chris

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Nice one......

Yep, you got it right. VB scaled the RAD wall quite nicely. But, due to
God-only-knows-what at Microsoft, that sucker was actually pushed off the
wall.

PUSHED I SAY!!!!

Will that be grits or toast with your scrambled VB?

JH

 

[Kevin Spencer]

A pity to see you loose a discussion in what your arguments where for the

rest very well in my opinion.

It was answered in my first paragraph. I made no assertions. I questioned
assertions.

Assertions offered without evidence are so much hot air. Mr. Hubbard
believes what he wants to believe, and there is nothing I can do about that.
Truth is only attainable when one is willing to subvert one's other desires
to the desire for truth. Whatever one desires more than truth will be what
one obtains.

I lost nothing. I would have had to want something to lose something. I said
what I said. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise.

--
;-),

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull

Hard work is a medication for which
there is no placebo.

 

[John A. Bailo]

It's fine time that MS shook off the VB.6 psuedo programmers from its
hide. Now, no more unfinished, unsuable, unworking apps will be
floating around corporate america.

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Right....ROFLMAO......

Thanks for that one!

JH

It's fine time that MS shook off the VB.6 psuedo programmers from its
hide. Now, no more unfinished, unsuable, unworking apps will be floating
around corporate america.

 

[SP]

It seems that Microsoft is valiantly trying to undo the harm it has done
to itself by destroying VB6 in favor of the more bloated, less-RAD,
less-user friendly, less-productive VB.Net.

In fact, it is now giving away it's ebook "" in an effort to draw more
abandoned VB programmers into the gapping maw that is .Net. You can get
your own copy at http://tinyurl.com/lbryw . (That's
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbrun/staythepath/additionalresources/introto2005/
for the paranoid among you.)

IMHO, this little rhyme best describes Microsoft's Visual Basic
kingdom.....

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

I have only been a developer for 5 years so have never used VB6. What
advantages did it offer over VB.Net? Should I use this rather than VB.Net
for RAD applications?

PSSP

 

[Ralph]

I have only been a developer for 5 years so have never used VB6. What
advantages did it offer over VB.Net? Should I use this rather than VB.Net
for RAD applications?

PSSP

No. Classic VB is no more.

Whatever advantages there may have been or still exist for using VB over
VB.Net, or any disadvantages the current version of VB.Net may have - has no
meaning in context with MS's current technologies or direction for the
future.

Ignore Classic VB, unless you have a legacy interest. (Which you obviously
don't.)

Also ignore trolls.

Live long and prosper.

-ralph

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I have only been a developer for 5 years so have never used VB6. What
advantages did it offer over VB.Net? Should I use this rather than VB.Net
for RAD applications?

No.

Perhaps they will let a Basic developer work on the software so it won't be
so stupid to use and keep the C++ geeks away from it. And even get someone
with a brain to fix the help / MSDN system to make it useful. But who knows?