to Ken Halter and the other dedicated VB MVPs

[Paul Clement]

¤ >¤ >
¤ >¤ >You mean like the investment they had/have in ASP with VBScript/JScript?
¤ >¤
¤ >¤
¤ >¤ Script is generally considered to be "throw away" code. Stop trying
¤ >¤ to compare apples to oranges, Paul.
¤ >¤
¤ >
¤ >Yeah, considered by those who don't develop web applications. ;-)
¤ >
¤ >Code is code Bryan. Web applications are no more or less important than desktop applications.
¤ >
¤ >I guess the only code that matters to you is that which suits your argument. ;-)
¤
¤
¤ No, Paul, script code has been considered "disposable" for as long as
¤ I can remember. You are grasping at straws in an attempt to give your
¤ argument basis but, I guess that is what those, like you, who have
¤ deluded themselves, do. ;-)

Whatever you say Bryan. I'm sure some day you'll move to a *real* programming language too. ;-)

After all, why would anyone invest their code assets into a "toy language" such as Classic Visual
Basic? ;-)

Thanks for sharing the myths. ;-)


Paul ~~~ (e-mail address removed)
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Tony Proctor]

That's an interesting link Herfried... Interesting because the answer is
there, implicitly, in phrases like: "...when we moved from VB6 to VB.NET, we
broke compatibility and that is a sore point with some of our developer
customers". The feeling with MS appears to be that (a) they are supporting a
mere community of developers, and (b) they have to help them learn a new
language & tools. In other words, they're in "cloud cuckoo land".

As Ken highlighted very well at the start of this thread, the main issue is
of legacy code -- code that forms commercial products, that has been tested,
documented, etc. Such code doesn't just need to be ported, or even
re-written; much of it needs to be re-designed, and then re-implemented,
re-tested, re-documented. Even assuming a software company has this amount
resource to throw around, and the time to divert from mainstream product
evolution, they have to convince their customer base that they're getting
something better, something that will do more for them. In reality, many
customers won't want to make that jump to a new "V1.0 product", just as they
haven't jumped immediately to the .Net platform. Their businesses may be
critically dependent on working software. They don't want to be guinea pigs
for something new. Hence, your support organisation then ends up being
contractually obligated to support both of your different code bases.

For what it's worth, most of the people who feel strongly on this issue
could write their stuff in any language, if they had to. It's not really
just a matter of getting their old "Edit and Continue" back. The tools MS
have provided for porting VB6 to VB.Net are just not practical. If they
listened, and built a few more bridges, I think they might eventually win
people over. The current combination of head-in-the-sand and bully-boy
tactics just make the situation more tense though.

Tony Proctor

 

[MM]

The intense off-topic VB6/VB.Net thread "Where is the Key in Treeview.Net"
(started Dec 2 2004 and cross-posted to every VB group under the sun) really
got me to thinking.

And that thinking got me to typing this:

http://www.smithvoice.com/C1swf.htm

All the best in 2005 and here's hoping that this year's Visual Basic release
will be more to the VB core's liking.

Robert Smith
Kirkland, WA
www.smithvoice.com

I read that article of yours (http://www.smithvoice.com/C1swf.htm) and
I am reassured that old, real VB-ers simply refuse to crawl away and
die! There is one problem with VB.Net. It isn't Visual Basic! Sure,
call it C# with BASIC-like syntax if you wish, but it bears as much
comparison to VB6 and earlier versions that my late gran ever did to
Julia Roberts (well, they were both women, I suppose).

Good to hear that there are new products like Flash and Actionscript.
Over here in "old" Europe we use Flash to clean the floors, but if it
works on Windows, too, then maybe I'll take a look. I did just click
on the link "if current releases are any indicator" and was shunted on
to a Microsoft web site, where, after interminable churning of my
modem for a few minutes, it just said "Flash 7 Not Detected" or some
such, at which point I thought, Bill Gates is still in charge, then.
Then I left. (I usually treat Microsoft with contempt. Sorry, it's the
way I'm made.)

As for giving VB what VB-ers allegedly said they needed, what they got
was worse than a hole in the head. Where *were* all the folks crying
out for OOP in a quick-n-dirty RAD program generator? Only a very
small proportion from the three million-odd VB programmers, going on
what I was reading at the time. Countless MVPs themselves criticised
VB.Net and said that Microsoft was completely on the wrong track. And
then Microsoft delivered a product that hardly anyone had a good word
to say about, and it seems, even after three or more years, still
don't.

I still fire up my trusty VB6 occasionally, like going out into the
yard and kicking the tyres on an old Fordson tractor. VB6 still works
fine. One day, someone with more foresight than Bill Gates, Stevie
"Developers" Ballmer, and several others put together will produce a
new state-of-the-art simple RAD to rival real Visual Basic, i.e. the
one prior to VB.Net, and the world will beat a path to that
innovator's door. Meanwhile, OOP fanatics will just have to see how
far they can get on Microsoft's managed platforms with 100 meg
downloads.

MM

 

[Bob O`Bob]

*It* is about trust and the fact that we can no longer trust MS to
consider the value of existing source code assets when creating the
next release of any language that they have not invested any of their
own source code assets in. It really is that simple.

I don't see the "VB core" _ever_ "getting with the program" given this
lack of trust in MS.

Well, I still can remember imagining it, but just barely.

It starts with "we might cross that bridge, but only after you actually BUILD one"




Bob

 

[Bob O`Bob]

Being awarded as an MVP doesn't make one an MS sycophant, following
the MS marketing line like a love sick puppy. Some MVPs may choose to
become that way, but it isn't something that is "required" and IMO,
those who do, lose a significant amount of credibility when they do
so.

though, sadly, there certainly have been a few who came IN that way.



Bob

 

[Bob O`Bob]

Hi Bryan:

I asked BillG that specific question about a year and a half ago.
He indicated he didn't know for sure if/how much it was being used
internally, but that there was no reason why they couldn't/wouldn't.

I aaked him when VB5 was new.
I'm just about positive Scoble asked him the same, even before VB4 shipped.

Whether or not anything happened internally after that I don't know.

I'm sure the same as before. {insert rude hand-waving gesture here}



Bob
--

 

[Bob O`Bob]

Here we are a year and a half later and the fact that they have yet to
release or even hint at the future release of anything of any
significance written if VB# speaks *volumes*.

here we are THREE years after the VB MVP Summit, and ...



Bob

 

[Bob O`Bob]

here we are THREE years after the VB MVP Summit, and ...

oops ... classic January check-writing error. Make that almost FOUR.

 

[smith]

If I may, from some years of work experience in journalism:

The person most likely to have and give the answer to an important question
is usually not the person who has been assigned the task of answering
questions.

As an old boss once told me: "Think All The President's Men ... and remember
Radar O'Reilly." ;-)

-smith
www.smithvoice.com