VB.Net is now as old as classic VB was when it was replaced

[Tom Dacon]

VB 1.0 came out in 1991, and VB.Net was introduced in 2000, when .Net came
out from under non-disclosure at Microsoft's PDC conference in Los Angeles
in August of that year. So classic VB was nine years old when its
replacement was introduced.

VB.Net is now nine years old itself.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

Tom Dacon
Dacon Software Consulting

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

VB 1.0 came out in 1991, and VB.Net was introduced in 2000, when .Net came
out from under non-disclosure at Microsoft's PDC conference in Los Angeles
in August of that year. So classic VB was nine years old when its
replacement was introduced.

VB.Net is now nine years old itself.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

Well, VB6 was Microsoft's "power horse" back then and it has been replaced
by an incompatible product. So, does Microsoft replace "VB" or the "power
horse" product every nine years?

SCNR

 

[Tom Shelton]

VB 1.0 came out in 1991, and VB.Net was introduced in 2000, when .Net came
out from under non-disclosure at Microsoft's PDC conference in Los Angeles
in August of that year. So classic VB was nine years old when its
replacement was introduced.

VB.Net is now nine years old itself.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

Tom Dacon
Dacon Software Consulting

Think what? That despite predictions to the contrary, .NET has not yet
been "replaced"?

 

[Family Tree Mike]

VB 1.0 came out in 1991, and VB.Net was introduced in 2000, when .Net came
out from under non-disclosure at Microsoft's PDC conference in Los Angeles
in August of that year. So classic VB was nine years old when its
replacement was introduced.

VB.Net is now nine years old itself.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

Tom Dacon
Dacon Software Consulting

Personally, I think a better comparison related to Visual Basic 1.0 versus
6.0 would be comparing VB.Net 7.0 (2002) versus VB.Net 12.0 (?).

 

[Patrice]

VB 1.0 came out in 1991, and VB.Net was introduced in 2000, when .Net came
out from under non-disclosure at Microsoft's PDC conference in Los Angeles
in August of that year. So classic VB was nine years old when its
replacement was introduced.

VB.Net is now nine years old itself.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

Tom Dacon
Dacon Software Consulting

No, it doesn't make me think anything special. Actually the next
change will be more likely the other way round. I.E. this is the lower
Win32 level that could be dismissed in the next few years rather than
how the OS capabilities are provided to the developer...

 

[Sanders Kaufman]

VB 1.0 came out in 1991, and VB.Net was introduced in 2000, when .Net came
out from under non-disclosure at Microsoft's PDC conference in Los Angeles
in August of that year. So classic VB was nine years old when its
replacement was introduced.

VB.Net is now nine years old itself.
Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

I'm still a VB5 guy.

 

[Tom Dacon]

I'm still a VB5 guy.

Just out of curiousity, why didn't you bump up to VB6?

Tom

 

[Tom Dacon]

"Tom Dacon" <[email protected]> schrieb:

Well, VB6 was Microsoft's "power horse" back then and it has been replaced
by an incompatible product. So, does Microsoft replace "VB" or the "power
horse" product every nine years?

I just thought it was an interesting milestone, from a historical viewpoint.
I don't see any reason why .Net with VB and C# and all the other new
languages like F# shouldn't continue into the foreseeable future. I
programmed with VB from VB1 up to 6 and even at the VB6 level it frustrated
me with some of its limitations. I'm quite happy with VB under .Net and, as
an old C and C++ programmer I'm also quite happy with C#. Haven't written a
line of C++ since I switched over. In fact, just to learn something new I'm
probably going to mess around with some of the other framework-based
languages. I think there's a version of Ruby that runs on .Net, and if it
can be loaded into the IDE I think I'll probably learn it just for fun. And
if not that one, then F#.

So let .Net grow and evolve, and I think we'll have a good time with it for
a long time to come. And preserve me from having to program on *nix !!!

Tom

 

[Alex Clark]

Or in other terms, "MS Singularity". ;-)

No, it doesn't make me think anything special. Actually the next
change will be more likely the other way round. I.E. this is the lower
Win32 level that could be dismissed in the next few years rather than
how the OS capabilities are provided to the developer...

--
Patrice


Actually, it's time to invert the native Win32/64 API and dotnet
Framework. MS did this before with DOS and Win32. Windows 1.0 to ME were
all a multi-tasking (at first, just GUI) shell riding on top of MS-DOS.
NT 3.1 to Server 2008 inverted that with the NTOS kernel that supports
multiple APIs, including Win32, Win64, and DOS on top in protected
subsystems. It's time to give the framework all the additional features
needed for system level services and make it the kernel and put DOS, Win32
and Win64 on top of it as protected subsystems. Commodity hardware has
gotten powerful enough to support this change. One major benefit of this
is that a lot of programmer errors that result in security holes will go
away because the OS simply won't allow them.

This has been done before - Digital Equipment Corporation's VMS (no HP
OpenVMS) and it works. VMS was the only OS at DefCon 9 that wasn't
hackable.

Mike.