"VB (9) Rocks" slide show

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doug H
  • Start date Start date
Doug H said:
Ran across this (requires Firefox): http://www.pugscode.org/osdc/vb.xul
Click to expand...
requires< Firefox? That's too bad. They sure know how to limit an audience,
eh?
Click to expand...
Done by the developer of a new perl6 runtime called pugs.

Information about Visual Basic 9 is here, if you haven't already read
about it:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/future/default.aspx
Click to expand...

Actually, that would be B#9... Visual Basic "the language" died with VS6.
Besides... I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to call it anything
other than what it is.... which is B#.
 
OK. I know I shouldn't, but...I'll bite. What's the deal with calling the
next version of VB "B#"? Is this the disenfranchised VB6 developer version
of Microsoft haters' use of "M$"? It may be self evident to you that Visual
Basic died with VS6, but those of us who are more than happy with the
direction that the language has taken, a little explanation might be needed.

- Mitchell S. Honnert
 
I'm absoluely not one of those "fashionable MS bashers" and yes, I do love
VB2005 as a language. I use it every day and am still daily amazed by all
the new possibilities.

Having said that, I do agree with Ken that it is not VB and for one simple
reason: The absolute lack of a migration path from VB6 to VB7. The port of
our main app from VB6 to the "current VB version" (still in progress) is
costing us well over a $100,000. And I'm sure we're not the only ones. This
clearly proves that no matter how great VB7/8 is, it is not an upgrade from
VB6 but a totally new language instead. A new language deserves a new name,
don't you think?

Martin

Mitchell S. Honnert said:
OK. I know I shouldn't, but...I'll bite. What's the deal with calling
the next version of VB "B#"? Is this the disenfranchised VB6 developer
version of Microsoft haters' use of "M$"? It may be self evident to you
that Visual Basic died with VS6, but those of us who are more than happy
with the direction that the language has taken, a little explanation might
be needed.

- Mitchell S. Honnert
Click to expand...
 
Mitchell S. Honnert said:
OK. I know I shouldn't, but...I'll bite. What's the deal with calling
the next version of VB "B#"? Is this the disenfranchised VB6 developer
version of Microsoft haters' use of "M$"? It may be self evident to you
that Visual Basic died with VS6, but those of us who are more than happy
with the direction that the language has taken, a little explanation might
be needed.

- Mitchell S. Honnert
Click to expand...

I guess I left off the part where I should've said "and I never said B# is a
bad thing".

NET Software Legend Juval Lowy agrees with that too, saying the only thing
VB6 has in common with VB.Net is the letters "V" and "B" in their names. You
can hear that in the following podcast.... Note that he also uses B# as the
name of this entirely new language. It's not meant to be a put down. It's a
new name for a new language. Simple as that. And it should've started with
the very first release.

VB6 Glass Ceiling
http://blogs.duncanmackenzie.net/duncanma/archive/2005/10/28/3148.aspx
....and, about the "disenfranchised VB6 developer version" comment...
hmmm.... nope. I'm not disenfranchised... no one took away my right to vote.
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=disenfranchised)... and, lemme
see now.... I still have a job so that can't be the problem.... hmmm... I
may have to get back with you on that.

MS Hater? I don't think so.

Yup... You knew you shouldn't but.......
 
Martin said:
I'm absoluely not one of those "fashionable MS bashers" and yes, I do love
VB2005 as a language. I use it every day and am still daily amazed by all
the new possibilities.

Having said that, I do agree with Ken that it is not VB and for one simple
reason: The absolute lack of a migration path from VB6 to VB7. The port of
our main app from VB6 to the "current VB version" (still in progress) is
costing us well over a $100,000. And I'm sure we're not the only ones.
This clearly proves that no matter how great VB7/8 is, it is not an
upgrade from VB6 but a totally new language instead. A new language
deserves a new name, don't you think?

Martin
Click to expand...

Holy smokes... 100k eh? I can easily imagine it costing the company where I
work at least that much... thinking about it, probably 4 times that much.
Thinking about it more, that's just the tip of the iceburg. Luckily, we
won't be doing anything drastic "all at once". I already have a plan that's
going to save me countless hours (at first anyway) in documentation time
(every minute I spend in documentation subtracts 2 to 3 minutes from my life
<g>)
 
Having said that, I do agree with Ken that it is not VB and for one simple
reason: The absolute lack of a migration path from VB6 to VB7. [snip]
This clearly proves that no matter how great VB7/8 is, it is not an
upgrade from VB6 but a totally new language instead. A new language
deserves a new name, don't you think?
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that the migration path from VB6 to VB.NET is difficult or
even more difficult than it should be, but I don't see how this has any
bearing on the *name* of the language. The cost of your migration is an
external factor, not an intrinsic property of the language itself. If you
look at the key words and the syntax of VB6 and VB.NET, they're very close.
This is why I don't have a problem with calling the .NET versions "Visual
Basic". The frameworks in which they live are very different of course, but
the basic elements of both versions are basically the same. Having said
this, I also didn't have any problem with MS differentiating the .NET
version of VB; I just wish that they wouldn't have picked something as
stupendously silly as ".NET" to do it.

- Mitchell S. Honnert
 
Ken Halter said:
I guess I left off the part where I should've said "and I never said B# is
a bad thing".
Click to expand...

Not a 'bad thing' but.... the syntax below is an improvement? "For Each
Dim"? Gimme a break. Talk about an easy way to overlook a variable
declaration. Sheesh.

From
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/fu...nvs05/html/vb9overview.asp#vb9overview_topic3)

For Each Dim Country In SmallCountries
Console.WriteLine(Country.Name)
Next

....and "Implicitly Typed Local Variables" is new? Can't be. I've been using
them in VB3/4/5/6 for years.
 
VB6 has in common with VB.Net is the letters "V" and "B" in their names.
This is easily-disproven hyperbole. It may have gotten a laugh out of the
podcast listeners, but there are dozens if not hundreds of similarities
between the two "languages".
It's a new name for a new language. Simple as that. And it should've
started with the very first release.
Click to expand...
Well, it *did* have a new name; they tacked on the silly ".NET" suffix to
VB. I know that your argument is that it shouldn't have included the words
"Visual Basic" at all, but my argument is that there are so many
similarities that the naming is justified. (I'm glad that MS is dropping
the whole .NET suffix from VB. It's served its purpose.)
...and, about the "disenfranchised VB6 developer version" comment...
hmmm.... nope. I'm not disenfranchised... no one took away my right to
vote.
Click to expand...
OK, you know a discussion is devolving when the participants are quibbling
over word definitions, but you may want to check another source for
"disenfranchised". Try www.m-w.com. You'll find the meaning I had in mind.

- Mitchell S. Honnert
 
¤ I'm absoluely not one of those "fashionable MS bashers" and yes, I do love
¤ VB2005 as a language. I use it every day and am still daily amazed by all
¤ the new possibilities.
¤
¤ Having said that, I do agree with Ken that it is not VB and for one simple
¤ reason: The absolute lack of a migration path from VB6 to VB7. The port of
¤ our main app from VB6 to the "current VB version" (still in progress) is
¤ costing us well over a $100,000. And I'm sure we're not the only ones. This
¤ clearly proves that no matter how great VB7/8 is, it is not an upgrade from
¤ VB6 but a totally new language instead. A new language deserves a new name,
¤ don't you think?
¤
¤ Martin

How can it be a new language when it still uses a high percentage of the BASIC language?

Did they rename COBOL when OO features were added?


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
 
See, the thing is, Microsoft _owns_ Visual Basic.
They can make a new version that isn't backward compatible if they
want.
It's vendor lock-in (or lock-out, however you want to look at it).
You don't have to worry about that so much with java or C# or C++ or
javascript,
because they are standardized. There are multiple
compilers for those languages (even with C# there is mono's mcs/bmcs).
They should develop a standard for VB 9, but it has so many features,
I'm not sure how easy that would be.

But for Microsoft to port VB6 to .NET without making any backwards-
incompatible changes, that would be stupid (I don't believe anyone else
has
done it, either). Firstly because people can still use VB6 as is, and
also .NET is focused more on security and OOP. Visual Basic .NET is a
great
adaptation of VB to .NET, but again standardization would be nice.
 
How can it be a new language when it still uses a high percentage of the
BASIC language?

Did they rename COBOL when OO features were added?
Click to expand...

Adding OO to COBOL is surely like putting lipstick on a cow. Does the cow
get a new name?
 
Paul,

I agree with Homer,

Cobol is basicly an non even driven language.

Therefore any change to keep it alive is in my opinion the same as keeping a
(coal) steam train alive.

Just my opinion.

Cor
 
Ken,

This is for me the same as that the Americans are speaking English, while
there are so many words different and the language is in many cases
different used.

The (Boeren) people in South Africa are not speaking Dutch they speak
Afrikaans.
Although it is in language specifications called a "Dutch Language".

You think it would be better if the language from the Americans was
Americish?

In my opinion is this in the same order as in VB6 and VBNet. VBNet behaves
however more than C, but luckily for sure not completely. The same as the
Americans have taken a lot form other languages than English or changed
English words, but for sure not the most part.

Just my idea.

Cor
 
I have never seen this spruced up cobol, so I can't tell, but... There was a
time that basic wasn't event driven either, so anything is possible I guess
 
Ken said:
...and "Implicitly Typed Local Variables" is new? Can't be. I've been using
them in VB3/4/5/6 for years.
Click to expand...

Variants aren't implicitly typed, they are untyped.
(visiting from VB6 world)
Click to expand...

One has to wonder why, given how much you don't like it here.
 
Back
Top