Microsoft not content with "dissing" just the Classic VB Developer Army....

[Sean Hederman]

[Snip]

You are comparing different versions (which, BTW, are not always backwards
compatible) NOT the patches to which I refer.

Have you called Microsoft for a patch? Have you installed one? Have you
used the affected portions of the .Net framework and distributed this code
to non-patched systems?

Nope, never needed to... Yet.

If you are writing a "work-around" it will naturally depend on the bug.

Not neccesarily. If you find a bug in the .NET TcpListener class for
example, you can just write the Socket accepting code yourself. If the bug
is now fixed or unfixed it will have no impact on you whatsoever.

Heck, you could write your own IDE. But this still does not address the
Patch Hell problem.

Actually it does. Unless the bug is in the .NET CLR/JIT it'll be in one of
the libraries, and my point was that you could then just circumvent the bug.
[Snip]

The point I am making, is that the potential for "X Hell" has not
dissapated with the advent of .Net. .

I agree wholeheartedly. The potential for a Patch Hell. or even a Framework
Hell where you try to figure out which of many frameworks is installed,
indeed still exists. However it does appear that .NET goes some way towards
ameliorating DLL Hell, and so far hasn't had a Framework Hell. Your Patch
Hell may indeed be a problem, but I haven't encountered it yet. So as far as
I'm concerned .NET is a step in the right direction.

Net brings many good things to the table. Protection from "X Hell" is not
one of them.

Nothings a complete protection from difficult problems. .NET does cut down
on the amount of Hell though.

 

[Philip Hristov]

Herfried,

You are right if we look with the eyes of a bussinessman. But I am a
software developer and I am keen on new technologies and etc. I love to
learn and use new technologies. So I will be the first who will accept
WinFX and start building applications using it...I am not a
bussinessman who drives BMW to care how money I will lost. See, I am
right for myself! You are right for yourself. I just did not like that
you said I am writing nonsenses.

And one more thing...Win32 code will be run in legacy mode. It is true,
I saw one diagram where the Win32 will be considered as legacy.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]"

I don't advocate VB6 because I think it's better than .NET.

Some guys like me know that you are not, however I think that you give for a
lot others the idea that you do.

I am afraid that it puts you in a wrong light. I understand your opinion.
However in my opinion have you made that clear enough to everybody active in
the dotNet newsgroups.

Just my thought,

Cor

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Cor,

Some guys like me know that you are not, however I think that you give for
a lot others the idea that you do.

I am afraid that it puts you in a wrong light. I understand your opinion.
However in my opinion have you made that clear enough to everybody active
in the dotNet newsgroups.

I don't see how advocating VB6 puts someone in a wrong light. It's a myth
that all people advocating for VB6 do that for ideological reasons.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Herfried,

I don't see how advocating VB6 puts someone in a wrong light. It's a myth
that all people advocating for VB6 do that for ideological reasons.

For me are you showing yourself in the dotNet newsgroups as the big defender
of the VBCom idea.

Although this is a very much crossposted thread, do I not see any not in the
dotNet newsgroups known MVP in this thread? While in my opinion Tom and
Paul do definitly not (at least not most of it) share your opinion in this.

However, it was a free advice do with it what you want, it does not bother
me.



Cor

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ In article <[email protected]>,
¤ ...
¤ >We won't know how secure FireFox is until it becomes a much bigger target. I'm
¤ >sure we all thought IE was secure at one point, probably when it was overtaking
¤ >Netscape. But the fact the FireFox does not support some features targeted as
¤ >security risks you could say it's inherently more secure in that sense.
¤ ...
¤
¤ Umm, no. I can't think of anyone I know knowledgable about security
¤ that thought that IE was secure when it started. Even quick and dirty
¤ analyses showed a lot of holes.
¤
¤ It just took a few years for the attackers to find them.

Well *we* (in the general sense) are not all security experts. ;-)

In any event, apparently it wasn't a barrier to widespread adoption. That assumes that either people
didn't really know or didn't really care (or some of both).

As I said, we really won't know for a while whether FireFox has similar security holes. That is,
until it's usage is comparable to IE.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Craig A. Finseth]

¤ Umm, no. I can't think of anyone I know knowledgable about security
¤ that thought that IE was secure when it started. Even quick and dirty
¤ analyses showed a lot of holes.
¤
¤ It just took a few years for the attackers to find them.

Well *we* (in the general sense) are not all security experts. ;-)

Not a problem. But at least listen when the people who _are_ experts
are saying something.

In any event, apparently it wasn't a barrier to widespread
adoption. That assumes that either people didn't really know or
didn't really care (or some of both).

Agreed. At the initial launch, people were more interested in fancy
features than security. This is changing, and peoples' choices are
changing as a result.

Of course, marketing also comes into play -).

As I said, we really won't know for a while whether FireFox has
similar security holes. That is, until it's usage is comparable to
IE.

No, we know right now that it doesn't. (See my previous comment about
listening.)

I'm overgeneralizing a little here, but...

The problems with IE are due to the feature set and business
requirements. In a word, they're features.

Firefox has a different feature set that is not built around requiring
security holes in order to run.

Both products have bugs. These bugs will range from minor to severe
and will be found and fixed. (As an aside, you can't just compare
bug/patch counts: you need to look closely at the exposure resulting
from each bug/not installing the patch, and take into account what it
exposes and the difficulty of exercising it.) However with Firefox,
you're putting tape over pinprick holes in a sheet of plywood. With
IE, you're putting tape over holes in a window screen. There is a
difference.

Consider the comparison between a normal car[*] and a convertible.
Sure, convertibles are fun to drive (at least in nice weather), but
I'd think a lot longer before keeping anything important in one.
After all, no matter how good I make the locks, someone can get in by
ripping the top open. With a normal car, you have to at least break a
window: a considerably more difficult and attention-getting entry method.

[*] Around here, convertibles are not normal. Maybe if I lived in LA...

Craig

 

[Craig A. Finseth]

¤ Umm, no. I can't think of anyone I know knowledgable about security
¤ that thought that IE was secure when it started. Even quick and dirty
¤ analyses showed a lot of holes.
¤
¤ It just took a few years for the attackers to find them.

Well *we* (in the general sense) are not all security experts. ;-)

Not a problem. But at least listen when the people who _are_ experts
are saying something.

In any event, apparently it wasn't a barrier to widespread
adoption. That assumes that either people didn't really know or
didn't really care (or some of both).

Agreed. At the initial launch, people were more interested in fancy
features than security. This is changing, and peoples' choices are
changing as a result.

Of course, marketing also comes into play -).

As I said, we really won't know for a while whether FireFox has
similar security holes. That is, until it's usage is comparable to
IE.

No, we know right now that it doesn't. (See my previous comment about
listening.)

I'm overgeneralizing a little here, but...

The problems with IE are due to the feature set and business
requirements. In a word, they're features.

Firefox has a different feature set that is not built around requiring
security holes in order to run.

Both products have bugs. These bugs will range from minor to severe
and will be found and fixed. (As an aside, you can't just compare
bug/patch counts: you need to look closely at the exposure resulting
from each bug/not installing the patch, and take into account what it
exposes and the difficulty of exercising it.) However with Firefox,
you're putting tape over pinprick holes in a sheet of plywood. With
IE, you're putting tape over holes in a window screen. There is a
difference.

Consider the comparison between a normal car[*] and a convertible.
Sure, convertibles are fun to drive (at least in nice weather), but
I'd think a lot longer before keeping anything important in one.
After all, no matter how good I make the locks, someone can get in by
ripping the top open. With a normal car, you have to at least break a
window: a considerably more difficult and attention-getting entry method.

[*] Around here, convertibles are not normal. Maybe if I lived in LA...

Craig

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Craigh,

Consider the comparison between a normal car[*] and a convertible.
Sure, convertibles are fun to drive (at least in nice weather), but
I'd think a lot longer before keeping anything important in one.
After all, no matter how good I make the locks, someone can get in by
ripping the top open. With a normal car, you have to at least break a
window: a considerably more difficult and attention-getting entry method.

Should you not mention that it is for somebody who want to create a virus
or whatever more interesting to do that for IE.

Why

In the first place because you can hit a much wider public.

In the second place you can hit Microsoft.

When Microsoft started it were the so called professionals who told that
Microsoft was only a window dresser (Literally) while the large public was
fond of their products.

Now partially the last is changed. Most professionals are now are very fond
with Microsoft products and the large public stays with that.

However a part of those seems to see Microsoft as an enormous danger that
has to be frighten.

I cannot deny that I am as well sometimes afraid about the power Microsoft
has. However, I can as well not tell that I have ever seen that they have
used it in a wrong way.

To say it in other words, it is more the weakness from the competitors from
Microsoft that makes Microsoft big. You can Microsoft not blame for that and
use all kinds of viruses to fight them, that is the same as terrorism in my
opinion.

A better way would be in my opinion to make a better product. And a good
product needs no debate. It will be used.

Just my thought

Cor

 

[Tom Shelton]

Craigh,

Consider the comparison between a normal car[*] and a convertible.
Sure, convertibles are fun to drive (at least in nice weather), but
I'd think a lot longer before keeping anything important in one.
After all, no matter how good I make the locks, someone can get in by
ripping the top open. With a normal car, you have to at least break a
window: a considerably more difficult and attention-getting entry method.

Should you not mention that it is for somebody who want to create a virus
or whatever more interesting to do that for IE.

Why

In the first place because you can hit a much wider public.

A better way would be in my opinion to make a better product. And a good
product needs no debate. It will be used.

And that is why Firefox is taking market share from IE. It is a better
product. At least for now. I will re-evaluate when I can get my hands
on IE7.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Tom,

And that is why Firefox is taking market share from IE. It is a better
product. At least for now. I will re-evaluate when I can get my hands
on IE7.

Did I disagree that, confirm my reply will the future show that, even when
it means that Microsoft changes their product.

One of the things you can in my opinion not say from Microsoft. That is that
they have a misplaced feeling of superiority as in the way we see it often
in this business. When the customer wants something else they change it.



Cor

 

[Scott Wyatt]

A very simple question... if anyone knows the answer:

How can Office on the Mac look and act similar to Office for Windows? I
assume MS uses Metrowerks C++ or a similar tool -- meaning they don't
even use their own compiler to port a near-clone of their Windows
applications. (I know Mac users want to recall that Word and Excel were
Mac apps, but the code base is clearly from Windows, now.)

There is no way you could write "Office" or a clone of a little Office
application in REALbasic -- it's a toy in comparison to other compilers.
You can crank a decent editor, spreadsheet, or database tool in Delphi,
VB, or C#, but don't imagine creating something similar in RB.

RB doesn't handle tab panels properly, grids stink, and database
controls have problems -- like the inability to connect to "properly" to
MySQL 4.1/5.0 or to even return the record count properly.

You can do a lot with RB, sure, but nothing like you can with another
tool. You can do magic with RB, but you can also do magic with the
current releases of FoxPro or dBase. Some genius out there can make a
killer Windows app in Visual COBOL, for all I know.

RB is an infant or pre-teen not yet mature enough for some applications.
The lack of a serious RTF/HTML edit control, the database model (I like
n-tier systems) stinks, and it is NOT a pure OOP system -- the controls
do not map to a single "TObject" and you cannot place controls within
controls (checkbox within grid/listbox?) without resorting to tricks.

If someone spends a year or more with RB, they recognize it is an "OK"
solution, but you end up wishing for a complete widget set at the very
least. If you want to write code for each platform using compiler
switches, so the proper controls to the platform are used, then enjoy
the extra work.

RB is not "cross platform" as in "click-n-go" unless you care nothing
about UI standards on each platform. If you want to use controls like
their lousy grid, which places an "editfield" control where you type to
handle user input, or their "combobox" which is another strange hybrid
control, then that's fine. (Yes, all complex controls in other tools are
variations of tricks -- but they sure seem better-implemented!)

I use RB, like RB, but also can't imagine using RB on Windows or Linux
since there are much much much much better tools on those platforms. I'm
waiting for Tiger to play with gcc 4.0 on my Mac, which is probably my
final destination -- after fighting to make RB applications work with
any speed and proper appearance (page panels on a tab or vice-versa will
crash) on the Mac.

RB is cool for simple things and little prototypes. You can make a
"commercial" program, but only to a certain level before you still need
to know C/C++ or the blood-n-guts of the API for DECLARE statements. And
the moment you use an Active-X or .bundle control... back to "DLL HELL"
on the specific platform. (A .bundle on the Mac is no better than a
DLL... as I've said before.)

Just use RB and be content, but don't try to pitch it as a serious
option to VB without telling people a lot of re-work will be needed in
most cases. The VB-to-RB converter is proof that you can't just port a
VB application and have it work.

I'll probably keep using RB for years, but not for anything serious
after this last major project. It was painful and I don't like pain. In
the end, we had to pay another developer to create a plug-in on the Mac,
in C++, to get some basic functionality -- because we used RB up to the
point of realizing what it couldn't do and were stuck. Even knowing C++
doesn't mean you can easily create an RB plug-in; I have better things
to do.

The lesson was: if I need (take your pick) C++/C#/Objective-C anyway,
why not start there?

- Scott

 

[Gerald Aichholzer]

The lesson was: if I need (take your pick) C++/C#/Objective-C anyway,
why not start there?

If I'd have to write a cross-platform GUI application targeting Windows,
*nix and Mac OS X I'd give Mono and one of its OS independent widget
tools (e.g. wxWidgets) a try. Another option would be a Java based
application. I'm not sure which one is the better solution.

Gerald

PS: f'up to comp.lang.basic.realbasic

 

[Guest]

I am a Classic VB programmer. I've been one since 1991, when VB 1.0 for DOS
came out.

I love VB 6.0, but I find that the jobs want VB.Net experience now.

I tried RealBASIC, but it is different from VB 6.0, in that my code needs a
major rewrite in order to work with RB. For example the Edit boxes verses the
Text boxes work differently, and I need to convert the Edit boxes to an
Interget, and the CInt function is not supported in RB. Instead they use a
format() function which it has to be rewiritten for.

If I have to rewrite code, I think that I will learn VB.Net and have a
better chance of being employed. So far I have been unemployed since 2002,
and my VB 6.0 skills are not longer wanted. I went back to college in 2003,
and I had bought Visual Studio Pro 2002, but so far have not done anything
with it yet. I was going to buy VS.Net 2003, but now 2005 is due out.

If I would do Mac or Linux programming, Real BASIC looks interesting. Then
again C++ has more support for those platforms than Real BASIC. If I have to
rewrite, it might be worth more to learn to rewrite to C++, which has more
support for Linux and Mac platforms. Yeah, Mono looks good for Mac and Linux
platforms too.

VB 6.0 has joined Windows for Workgroups, OS/2, MS Mail, Windows 95, and
other abandoned software projects. I tried others like XBASIC, but they were
not quite the same as VB 6.0, and I doubt we can convince Microsoft to bring
out Classic VB.

Our only hope is to move on, learn something new, adapt to change, and ride
the wave instead of wiping out.

 

[Gabriel Lozano-Morán]

I also came from VB6 and I recommend getting into C#

Gabriel Lozano-Morán
Software Engineer
Sogeti

 

[herr lucifer]

I came from VB6 and recommend getting into VB.NET (C# is quiet the same,
main differences are in syntax...so save time by learning the famework first
, then you can choose any language that you fancy)

Things have changed a lot in VB.NET, but i have to admit that VB 6 has a
little to offer when comparing its performance and capabilities with its dot
net counter part. And for sure, it goona give you more job opportunities in
near future ( Probably when Longhorn ships).

 

[Jim Hubbard]

I came from VB6 and recommend getting into VB.NET (C# is quiet the same,
main differences are in syntax...so save time by learning the famework
first , then you can choose any language that you fancy)

Things have changed a lot in VB.NET, but i have to admit that VB 6 has a
little to offer when comparing its performance and capabilities with its
dot net counter part. And for sure, it goona give you more job
opportunities in near future ( Probably when Longhorn ships).

I wouldn't be so sure about that.......most businesses haven't even bothered
adopting service pack 2 yet -
http://news.com.com/Businesses+slow+to+move+to+SP2/2100-1012_3-5650923.html.

Businesses don't readily adopt the newest Microsoft desktop. and, most home
users cannot justify the cost of the upgrade with the very few features
offered. Features, btw, that they can have with the proper 3rd party
software at much less cost and less trouble than a system update which may
break untold applications that they find very useful.

Software shops are the first adopters. It's our business to adopt first.
Then, to boost bottom lines, the software shops try and sell businesses on
how great the new software is and how much it will save the company and how
much more competitive the company will be......all of which may be true to a
certain extent. But, the cost of adaptation almost ALWAYS exceeds
expectations and that almost ALWAYS drops the ROI expected from the move.

Businesses have caught on to a lot of this and now believe about half of
what a developer promises (if that much). It's unfortunate that our
business is so full of unscrupulous software companies and developers
(mostly internal to their companies) that businesses are shying away from
new development.

At ********, I got to watch a CIO blow $14.5 MILLION on a new IT
infrastructure. With 3 weeks to go to the go-live date, it was suddenly
discovered that nobody had developed a new gui for this fabulous n-tier
system. It was crammed into an existing project's UI (despite the protests
of the outsourced developers on that team - who quit right after integrating
the 2 systems) and was a miserable failure.

As I had raised questions about the viability of the project (despite
starting at the company only 4 months prior to the launch date and being the
lead on another project) I found myself in the president's office trying to
help him figure out where the $14.5 million had gone. He wasn't happy.

They fired the CIO the day I was in the president's office, went back to the
old text-based system they had been using for 16 years, and decided to
switch the entire company from Microsoft development and servers to Sun
servers and Java under their next CIO. Another CIO.....another fiasco.
Still more millions blown because the president of the company could not
recognize and differentiate platform problems from development problems.

Did he move up one of his long time employees (who really understood the
business model and capabilities of the developers inside the company) to CIO
to help the company......nope. It's always some pied piper from outside
that has some miracle development strategy, platform or whatever that gets
the job of blowing the next multi-million dollar project. The fast talking,
snake oil salesmen are good at talking themselves into the position.....but
just can't seem to deliver. (That's why they demand such high
salaries.....they know they'll be fired in 1.5 to 2 years and need a cushion
to land on.)

Upgrading to the latest technology is not always the answer. Sometimes it
delivers great things - like .Net delivered easy-to-deploy and easy-to-use
web services. But, businesses have been bitten many times by overzealous
CIOs and bleeding edge developers that they are gun-shy when it comes to new
technology.

I hope that changes......but I don't feel that it will change soon.

Jim Hubbard

 

[Guest]

I wouldn't be so sure about that.......most businesses haven't even bothered
adopting service pack 2 yet -
http://news.com.com/Businesses+slow+to+move+to+SP2/2100-1012_3-5650923.html.

Businesses don't readily adopt the newest Microsoft desktop. and, most home
users cannot justify the cost of the upgrade with the very few features
offered. Features, btw, that they can have with the proper 3rd party
software at much less cost and less trouble than a system update which may
break untold applications that they find very useful.

Software shops are the first adopters. It's our business to adopt first.
Then, to boost bottom lines, the software shops try and sell businesses on
how great the new software is and how much it will save the company and how
much more competitive the company will be......all of which may be true to a
certain extent. But, the cost of adaptation almost ALWAYS exceeds
expectations and that almost ALWAYS drops the ROI expected from the move.

Businesses have caught on to a lot of this and now believe about half of
what a developer promises (if that much). It's unfortunate that our
business is so full of unscrupulous software companies and developers
(mostly internal to their companies) that businesses are shying away from
new development.

At ********, I got to watch a CIO blow $14.5 MILLION on a new IT
infrastructure. With 3 weeks to go to the go-live date, it was suddenly
discovered that nobody had developed a new gui for this fabulous n-tier
system. It was crammed into an existing project's UI (despite the protests
of the outsourced developers on that team - who quit right after integrating
the 2 systems) and was a miserable failure.

As I had raised questions about the viability of the project (despite
starting at the company only 4 months prior to the launch date and being the
lead on another project) I found myself in the president's office trying to
help him figure out where the $14.5 million had gone. He wasn't happy.

They fired the CIO the day I was in the president's office, went back to the
old text-based system they had been using for 16 years, and decided to
switch the entire company from Microsoft development and servers to Sun
servers and Java under their next CIO. Another CIO.....another fiasco.
Still more millions blown because the president of the company could not
recognize and differentiate platform problems from development problems.

Did he move up one of his long time employees (who really understood the
business model and capabilities of the developers inside the company) to CIO
to help the company......nope. It's always some pied piper from outside
that has some miracle development strategy, platform or whatever that gets
the job of blowing the next multi-million dollar project. The fast talking,
snake oil salesmen are good at talking themselves into the position.....but
just can't seem to deliver. (That's why they demand such high
salaries.....they know they'll be fired in 1.5 to 2 years and need a cushion
to land on.)

Upgrading to the latest technology is not always the answer. Sometimes it
delivers great things - like .Net delivered easy-to-deploy and easy-to-use
web services. But, businesses have been bitten many times by overzealous
CIOs and bleeding edge developers that they are gun-shy when it comes to new
technology.

I hope that changes......but I don't feel that it will change soon.

Jim Hubbard

Developers and Architects alike:

We must come to admit... In most cases we are our own worst enemies when it
comes to failed development. We really are just feeding the beast
(Microsoft) at our customers expense.

Each year new technologies emerge. Promising to improve our work-flow.
However, we must become more responsible with our decisions on which
technologies to adopt.

We should be educating ourselves on some more basic priniples of development
rather than expect that newer technologies will do more for us. We are
influenced too much by the "cool factor". We must become advocates of our
users and not our technologists. Many times I push back when management is
proposing we move toward newer technologies. I even take flak from colleages
on this. I believe it is simply not fiscally responsible to adopt the newest
gadetry.

We all love new technologies. However, we should be real about what they
will deliver. The capability of such new technologies is limited by our own
understanding. Let's get educated and then decide. Too many people are in
this business to make a quick buck. They seldom have the displine it
requires to excel and they are driving the value out of the industry.

Example on missinformation: Too many times I hear the argument about
whether C# is better than VB.NET. If we were educating ourselves we would
understand the real reason for C#. It's simple. Provide an avenue for the
C/C++ developer to adopt to the .NET framework. The idea behind the .NET
framework is igenious actually. It delivers on a major issue the industry
has had for a long long time. It's the same reason VB even exists. How to
develop systems with as little effort as possible. VB introduced the visual
aided design. However, syntax is still a fact the development process. .NET
abstracts the syntax. Hence, the development of C#. The decision on which
to adopt is mute. You should be using what you know because it wouldn't be
prudent to spend time and money to learn new syntax when it will be compiled
to the same binaries.

Microsoft has missed on a serious issue though - developers are in it for
the enjoyment. We like to learn. And we will do so out everyone's expense.
How many times have I seen developers on projects who have made tall claims
of their abilities and yet they couldn't develop a simple algorithm to sort a
linked list. (The finest mathematicians don't need calculators - I new one
who could use an abacus faster). However, many of us skip the intro and go
right to the meat of the subject. Guess what, the intro states that C# is
only there to provide syntactical comfort to the C/C++ developer.

Bottom line, stop laying blame for your own short-comings. Educate,
scrutinize and decide for yourself. AND advocate the user (not the
technology)!

Sincerely,

Adam Cox

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Developers and Architects alike:

We must come to admit... In most cases we are our own worst enemies when
it
comes to failed development. We really are just feeding the beast
(Microsoft) at our customers expense.

Each year new technologies emerge. Promising to improve our work-flow.
However, we must become more responsible with our decisions on which
technologies to adopt.

We should be educating ourselves on some more basic priniples of
development
rather than expect that newer technologies will do more for us. We are
influenced too much by the "cool factor". We must become advocates of our
users and not our technologists. Many times I push back when management
is
proposing we move toward newer technologies. I even take flak from
colleages
on this. I believe it is simply not fiscally responsible to adopt the
newest
gadetry.

We all love new technologies. However, we should be real about what they
will deliver. The capability of such new technologies is limited by our
own
understanding. Let's get educated and then decide. Too many people are
in
this business to make a quick buck. They seldom have the displine it
requires to excel and they are driving the value out of the industry.

Example on missinformation: Too many times I hear the argument about
whether C# is better than VB.NET. If we were educating ourselves we would
understand the real reason for C#. It's simple. Provide an avenue for
the
C/C++ developer to adopt to the .NET framework. The idea behind the .NET
framework is igenious actually. It delivers on a major issue the industry
has had for a long long time. It's the same reason VB even exists. How
to
develop systems with as little effort as possible. VB introduced the
visual
aided design. However, syntax is still a fact the development process.
.NET
abstracts the syntax. Hence, the development of C#. The decision on
which
to adopt is mute. You should be using what you know because it wouldn't
be
prudent to spend time and money to learn new syntax when it will be
compiled
to the same binaries.

Microsoft has missed on a serious issue though - developers are in it for
the enjoyment. We like to learn. And we will do so out everyone's
expense.
How many times have I seen developers on projects who have made tall
claims
of their abilities and yet they couldn't develop a simple algorithm to
sort a
linked list. (The finest mathematicians don't need calculators - I new
one
who could use an abacus faster). However, many of us skip the intro and
go
right to the meat of the subject. Guess what, the intro states that C# is
only there to provide syntactical comfort to the C/C++ developer.

Bottom line, stop laying blame for your own short-comings. Educate,
scrutinize and decide for yourself. AND advocate the user (not the
technology)!

Sincerely,

Adam Cox

I have rarely read a more lucid, applicable post. Well said.

Jim Hubbard

 

[Guest]

It's interesting that Java development comes up. I started looking at Java
about 8 years ago now as a escape from DLL MS's old DLL Hell. I've been
increasingly impressed by the versatiity it gives across backend tiers. If
it had a good interface to Office in the API, I don't think I'd ever spend
another dime on MS programming tools.