All the king's horses and all the king's men.......
Jim Hubbard
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.
Fire when ready........
Jeff Dillon
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
news:xnd%f.3077$2_....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Kevin Spencer
choose to keep up, you can find some other occupation, or you can be a
hobbyist. That's about it, without all the stroking.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull
Show me your certification without works,
and I'll show my certification
*by* my works.
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
news:xnd%f.3077$2_....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Ken Halter
news:OGreaSnX...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Clever way to promote your book! Reverse psychology...
>
fwiw, I found no mention of the authors name in that ebook... it's been
available for quite a while now, along with another...
Free Book - Upgrading Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 to Microsoft Visual Basic
.NET
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbrun/staythepath/AdditionalResources/UpgradingVB6/default.aspx
I've picked and poked at those. Nothing serious. I just wish the "entire
book" download didn't break up into several separate files that represent
chapters.
--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..
Jeff Dillon
"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eXoH12nX...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Jim Hubbard
and stronger or they die. And, usually they do.
Unfortunately, this (discarding VB6 for VB.Net) is one instance where a
company just made a mistake. And, this is the problem with a company like
Microsoft. They CANNOT admit their mistakes. They CANNOT fix them by
simply saying..."OK, we missed the mark on that - but we realize it and are
stepping back to where we went wrong and trying again with the help of the
developer community."
Microsoft simply does not admit mistakes. All companies make them (mine
included). Only the best long term companies (and governments for that
matter) admit them publicly, apologize (own their mistakes) and take steps
to rectify the situation. Microsoft is NOT one of those companies. (They
COULD be....but, they're not.)
Instead, they bull forward - taking YEARS to try and recover what they
simply tossed in the trash - a simple development language that (although
imperfect like all other programming languages) allowed for massive
application innovation by the masses in a simple, RAD environment. And,
five years later, it's still not back. They've gotten closer.......but
they've also lost the faith of the VB community in the process - ergo the
free VB.Net books and free Express versions of .Net.
They know they've screwed up. The free Express version offer was
Microsoft's attempt at getting back in the good graces of the part-time
developer community - the people that made Microsoft what it is today. So
far, not many are biting. They STILL want VB back. Sure, it could be
enhanced.....but .Net just isn't cutting it for the legions of part time
programmers that made Windows the most popular platform in the world.
I don't know why Linux hasn't caught on.......God knows I've screamed it
loud enough. Visual Basic (pre-VB.Net) was THE reason for he success of the
Windows platform. Why?
VB allowed part-time programmers (non-professional programmers) as well as
professional programmers to innovate on the Windows platform in a way that
no other programming environment or language ever has (or - God forbid -
ever will).
This brought the collective software innovation and brain power of MILLIONS
of people (of all intellectual abilities, countries, businesses and
backgrounds) to bear on problems and ways to solve them with software on the
Windows platforms.
In fact, VB developers (pre-.Net) were the largest programming group in the
world. They wrote more lines of code than any other language in the world
(perhaps more than all of them combined). They allowed small businesses to
adopt the Windows due in large part to the fact that the small business
could (with VB - not .Net) write its own software if pre-made solutions did
not exist without paying excessive professional programming salaries.
People from a myriad of backgrounds and experiences were able to write
applications that solved their own problems and filled their own desires for
software solutions to everyday problems. Many times these applications
caught on and a new small business was born - ever attached to Windows. It
is a CEO's dream-come-true - people willingly tying themselves to your
company flagship product.
The pre-.Net VB language was RAD to the Nth degree, with a plethora of 3rd
party company's writing and supporting components for VB to make it even
more RAD. This increased the ROI of VB in the enterprise and allowed an
unbelievably fast response time in the development of new applications to
meet ever-changing business demands.
And (in most cases), the resulting executables were easily downloadable via
the net even with the 1MB runtime - not the monstrosity we have now with the
23+MB .Net framework. Doesn't Microsoft know that approx 50% of all
Americans (the people that spend money on software) are still stuck with
dial-up lines - and will be for several years to come?
This massive mistake by Microsoft has tremendous and far-reaching
consequences for Microsoft and the PC industry as a whole.
Like the fact that the VB community has all but vanished. It is a shell of
its former self. Microsoft has taken so long to even start replacing the
RAD environment that the part-time programmers simply lost interest. And,
the complexities of the .Net language and platforms (compared with that of
Visual Basic 6) means less RAD and more time spent learning programming that
takes away from the PTPs main job (which, in most cases, was NOT that of
programming).
Fewer people are taking up programming in college and fewer applications are
being developed by the masses for the masses. Just look around.....where
are all of the new apps? When VB6 development and support stopped, so did
the innovation and application development of MILLIONS of VB devotees (part
time and professional) as well as the 3rd party component market. If the VB
developers aren't there, there's not much profit in providing RAD components
for them, is there?
Less RAD means fewer developers, which means fewer components being
developed for the language, which means fewer new programmers, which means
fewer new component development, which means........you get the picture.
This massive ejection of brain power from the Microsoft machine will be its
ultimate downfall - IF another OS developer can see where Microsoft has
dropped 6 MILLION balls and start picking them up.
Along with the reduced innovation and application development comes a
reduced perceived value in Windows as a platform. If the pool of apps dries
up (except for the very expensive large company-owned apps) small businesses
and consumers have less reason to buy into Windows as a platform (especially
since most Linux apps are free). Add to that the increased difficulty of
developing and securely distributing their own applications and the value
falls even farther.
If I am right, why aren't people leaving the Windows OS in droves? Why is
the Microsoft OS still the most popular one in the world by far? Five
reasons......
0) Fear. Most businesses use Windows apps like MS Office to communicate
and they are afraid that using anything else will make them less competitive
if it cannot read/write the MS Office files. This is fading, but only #4
will make it disappear.
1) Comfort. People don't like change. Remember the fuss the VB
programmers made over the .Net change? Need I say more?
2) The apps that were created with VB still work. Most small businesses
(and quite a few large ones) will ride these apps until they MUST change
them. There are MANY businesses that haven't even adopted XP yet. They
don't get paid to run the latest software. They get paid to keep costs down
as much as possible. A lot of small businesses will abandon their VB apps
only when they no longer work. And, this will only happen when Microsoft
intentionally leaves out support for the VB6 runtimes in its OS. IMHO, this
will happen sooner than you think.
3) This death is a rapid one, but will not happen overnight. As long as
the VB6 apps still work.....people will continue the death march to the sea.
4) Linux leaders are blind. This is the real reason for Microsoft's
continued success and Linux's failure on the desktop. The leaders of
today's Linux distros are blind to the impact that a simple, useful
programming language can have on the adoption of Linux as a desktop and
business platform. They can't see VB for what it was to Microsoft (or
simply refuse to believe that Microsoft has ANYTHING to teach them - which
is foolish). And, they are stuck in a rut of Microsoft-chasing by wasting
time and resources developing MONO.
Their illusive dream of interoperability is so easily broken by Microsoft's
"fire and run" strategy that it would be comical if it weren't so damned
sad.
Linux must give developers a way to profit from their hard work and code.
Open source is a dead end in business models. And, if businesses can't
profit from it, they won't develop for it. So, MONO is a dead end.
That leads us to another Linux Achilles heel - the multiple and varied
distros that have no common core. If businesses can't be sure their apps
will run on the OS, they won't code for it. Linux MUST have a common core
that remains from distro to distro.
I have to admit, I've never really understood the Open Source model. Your
company makes money only when someone calls you for help with the
software....so, wouldn't that make poorly written, complex apps (with a
really good marketing campaign) more profitable than well written ones in
which customers rarely need to call customer support?
Geoff Pearlman (President of REALbasic) has a good candidate for Linux's VB.
It's called REALbasic. The syntax is even VB-like and it can help you port
your VB6 apps (unlike VB.Net - which mostly requires you rewrite your VB6
apps). It can create executables for MAC, Windows and Linux from a single
set of source code and the executables don't require a 23+MB runtime
(mostly they are a single EXE file - but you can write external modules if
you like).
Of all of the stated reasons, Microsoft leaders should get on their knees
every night and pray that #4 is he last one to fall. It is primarily #4
that prevents a Linux OS from smashing Windows down to its bare frame.
Jim Hubbard
"Kevin Spencer" <ke...@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:uTgK%23WnXG...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Kevin Spencer
Your logic is impeccadillo.
First, you assert that Microsoft has made a mistake (of course, it couldn't
be you who is mistaken, it must be Microsoft). Second, you ask rhetorically
why, if Microsoft has made this mistake, they aren't losing business? Third,
you create a series of contrived reasons which would account for this
"anomaly" somehow. These arguments are purely conjecture, with no data to
back them up whatsoever, *except* for your assertion that Microsoft has made
a mistake. Therefore, the idea that Microsoft has made a mistake is the
basis for the arguments that support the idea that Microsoft has made a
mistake. A perfect circle.
Where have all the VB developers gone? Why, most of them are now using
VB.Net or C#. Some have perhaps gone over to "the other side of the fence"
(Java) where the grass always seems greener from whatever side you happen to
be on. The rest have (wisely) decided to pursue some other less stressful
occupation than programming, which is, even for those of us who love it, a
pretty darned difficult profession to stay abreast of.
You may as well ask where the dinosaurs have gone. Those who didn't evolve
into birds and smaller reptiles are in the Natural History Museums of the
world. But take heart: There will always be room in those museums for one
more exhibit. As for me, I do a bit of bleeding on the bleeding edge, but
what a view!
--
Surf's up,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull
Show me your certification without works,
and I'll show my certification
*by* my works.
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
news:NUg%f.41$Jk3...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Cerebrus
Whew ! That's a long one for a post ! Ever thought of writing your own
blog ?
Personally, I just love .NET !
Regards,
Cerebrus.
Cor Ligthert [MVP]
As you asked last time to keep my thoughts to myself about your previous
post.
Maybe you can avoid that and not spent everybodys time by not sending this
kind of messages, they are a little bit a 2002 discussion.
Thanks in advance.
Cor
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> schreef in bericht
news:xnd%f.3077$2_....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Jim Hubbard
brought it about) were relevant here.
I am certainly glad that we all have you as the self-appointed newsgroup
police to keep all of this stuff straight.
Keep up the good (and much needed) work! (perhaps it'll keep you from
giving some poor soul the wrong programming solution to their problems)
JH
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfi...@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:exm3enrX...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Cor Ligthert [MVP]
Let me ask it you in another way. What is the sense for sending your
messages if you don't want comment on them. Is it showing your wisdom to the
world
I just gave you the same reply as you do to others in these cases if the
reply does not fit you.
If you call this policework, than you are the one who learned us that.
Cor
Jim Hubbard
about.......lol
JH
"Cerebrus" <zor...@sify.com> wrote in message
news:1144895941.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jim Hubbard
Its not that I don't want comments, it's that I don't want your comments.
You chastise people for behavior that YOU deem inappropriate in an OPEN,
PUBLIC forum. You reply with comments that add nothing to the discussion
(like one of your recent posts that basically told the poster to check
Goggle). And your comments are frequently off-topic.
IMHO, you are nothing more than a troll that tries to impose his will upon
others.
I cannot speak for everyone, but I sure wish you'd either add something
RELEVANT to the discussions that you reply to or simply keep quiet. We
don't need you to police the newsgroups, telling everyone what is and is not
to be done in posting to the newsgroups.
If you want to reply.....
.....please stick to the topic of the original poster
.....please don't assign yourself the newsgroup moderator (we're mostly
adults here and can handle open discussions)
......and when you feel the need to reply please ask yourself if your
response answers a posters' question with real pertinent answers (not
"Google it"), asks an on-topic question of your own or effectively counters
a posters' points while staying on-topic. If not, kindly refrain from
posting.
JH
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfi...@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:uXbkOEsX...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Lebesgue
the troll here is you. I guess you are just one of that poor VB6
developers who are too conservative to adopt .NET. Saying VB6 is superior to
VB.NET without any real argument (oh yes, your argument is that MS has done
an infinite mistake) is nothing more than trolling.
QBASIC is by far the best RAD tool. VB3 sux, VB4 sux, VB5 sux, VB6 sux,
VB.NET sux, VB8 sux, and VB9 will suck!!
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
news:KPo%f.514$oW1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Jim Hubbard
I have taught programming for Apple & Windows computers in many different
languages. I have developed in VB professionally since VB 3.
I implemented VB.Net solutions used by companies like Qwest Communications
while .Net was still in the first beta of 1.0 and have implemented the
technology at 2 additional national companies since then - being the senior
architect in charge of implementing .Net in the enterprise and the senior
application architect at both locales.
I am well versed in the application of .Net technologies and their
advantages (yes there are a few) and disadvantages (there are many) when
being compared to VB6.
It is my professional opinion (realized after being immersed in both
technologies) that .Net was implemented for Microsoft to patch core problems
of the OS (mainly that of buffer overflows which still plague Microsoft's
products and OS) , to force their programmers to use good coding practices
and to further their goal of software as a service.
.Net was not written with the average business applications developer in
mind.
This move of Microsoft's was a mistake. Plain and simple. A mistake we
will all pay for....
Fewer apps are being written for the Windows platform (in comparison to the
same adoption and time frame of VB6's release and adoption). This causes a
reduction in the perceived value of adopting the platform and makes other
alternatives (like MAC and Linux) seem like more viable alternatives.
It's simple. Apps make the value of the OS. And, anything that can be done
to increase the quality of an OS's apps, the number of apps written for and
OS or the ability to write custom apps on an OS increases the true and
perceived values of the OS.
Any OS company CEO/CIO that doesn't see this and adjust the company's
resources accordingly should be fired and sued for the wages s/he has been
paid.
You must be related to Cor.
JH
"Lebesgue" <lebe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ubl5I7tX...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Lebesgue
for being rude in my last post.
You are saying that .NET initiative of Microsoft is causing fewer apps to be
written for Windows?
VB6 programmers are not allowed to write their code in VB6 anymore?
Hobbyists (they are who have written most of the billions of lines ever
written in pre-.NET VB.) should absolutely not care about any reason you can
think of why they should not code in VB6.
And "average business application developers"? If they are that much
"average" that they are not able to comply with the need of the market, they
are not worth being developers. Average developers are writing average code.
And lots of average code is not what any platform needs, so if the fact that
fewer code is written for windows was by any chance caused by adoption of
.NET, it would be good - less bad (average code by average developers is
bad) code, more competent developers in result.
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
news:RDp%f.515$oW1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
AMercer
> itself by destroying VB6 in favor of the more bloated, less-RAD, less-user
> friendly, less-productive VB.Net.
So many disagreements in one sentence. For brevity, I'll use parentheses.
"It seems that Microsoft is valiantly trying to undo the harm it has done
(not undoing, no harm done) to itself by destroying (no) VB6 in favor of the
more bloated, less-RAD (no, the opposite for me, and I think for others too,
caveat with spin up issue below), less-user friendly (no), less-productive
(big no) VB.Net."
You may have a point about bloated. I am inclined to disagree, but it is
debatable. I'd rather drop it since a big off-topic digression may follow.
Having had experience with earlier versions of VB, I found spinning up to
VB6 to be very easy, whereas .NET took some real effort. I'm guessing it
was/is the same for you. Now, I'm well spun up with .NET, and IMO, .NET is
much superior to VB6.
So, my only knock against .NET is that it is relatively hard to learn. For
me, that is a minor knock, for some, it is a very serious knock. Your RAD
complaint applies when not spun up, but it does not apply thereafter. To me,
RAD means rapid app development, and it does not include spin up time. If
for you, RAD includes spin up time, then I withdraw my RAD disagreement.
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
>I understand that all things must evolve. They must grow....become better
>and stronger or they die. And, usually they do.
>
> Unfortunately, this (discarding VB6 for VB.Net) is one instance where a
> company just made a mistake. And, this is the problem with a company like
> Microsoft. They CANNOT admit their mistakes.
Sure, they could admit. However, there are so many other ways to choose for
Microsoft which wouldn't mean they admit that they made a huge mistake.
Microsoft could easily continue supporting VB6/VBA and/or create an exact
.NET-based copy of it. But I fear Microsoft doesn't even feel that they
have made a mistake. Although VB6 was a first class product once, Microsoft
makes the big money with other products.
> Instead, they bull forward - taking YEARS to try and recover what they
> simply tossed in the trash - a simple development language that (although
> imperfect like all other programming languages) allowed for massive
> application innovation by the masses in a simple, RAD environment. And,
> five years later, it's still not back. They've gotten closer.......but
> they've also lost the faith of the VB community in the process - ergo the
> free VB.Net books and free Express versions of .Net.
They have gotten closer by spending the VB IDE more Office-like toolbar
icons and visual styles? I feel sorry, but I cannot see VB.NET becoming as
simple and easy to use as VB6/VBA was. The typical office guy doesn't need
object-orientation, it's simply oversized. Those people do neither need
VSTO nor server-side Office.
Maybe the whole mistake is caused by Microsoft's misconception that
/everything/ will be connected. ".NET" could be interpreted as standing for
"network" and technologies like Web services etc. clearly go into the
direction of a world where things are connected everywhere. However, in the
real world, only a few parts are connected, only in a part of the scenarios
client/server technology is used. A secretary automating Word to make her
everyday's work easier doesn't even need to know what a server is.
To make a conclusion: Microsoft now tries to fake VB6 on the basis of
VB.NET, which will never succeed. There is still a huge gap between VB6 on
the one hand and VB.NET and C# on the other hand. Note that I do not think
that this gap exists between VB6/COM and .NET as a whole. COM was an
implementation detail of VB6 and .NET could be the basis for a 100 %
code-compatible programming language.
> I don't know why Linux hasn't caught on.......God knows I've screamed it
> loud enough. Visual Basic (pre-VB.Net) was THE reason for he success of
> the Windows platform. Why?
>
> VB allowed part-time programmers (non-professional programmers) as well as
> professional programmers to innovate on the Windows platform in a way that
> no other programming environment or language ever has (or - God forbid -
> ever will).
There's much truth in your words!
> Like the fact that the VB community has all but vanished. It is a shell
> of its former self. Microsoft has taken so long to even start replacing
> the RAD environment that the part-time programmers simply lost interest.
> And, the complexities of the .Net language and platforms (compared with
> that of Visual Basic 6) means less RAD and more time spent learning
> programming that takes away from the PTPs main job (which, in most cases,
> was NOT that of programming).
I disagree that .NET is more complex than Win32 and COM were. VB6 provided
a pretty good but unfortunately incomplete wrapper around some of the Win32
and COM stuff. "Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll" shows us that it's pretty simple
to provide almost code-compatible libraries which are internally based on
the .NET Framework. Microsoft often mentioned that .NET was important to
support interoperability between different programming languages, but
miserably failed to upgrade VB6 to make use of it.
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
Cerebrus
>> others.
Well... I certainly learnt something today !
The meaning of "Troll" :
1. A supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously
portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives
in caves, in the hills, or under bridges.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.
2. An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic)
communication which is intentionally incorrect,
but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of
sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an
emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key.
****A really subtle troll makes some people lose their
minds.**** (Edit: Careful folks !)
Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2005 Denis
Howe
Regards,
Cerebrus.
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
> the troll here is you. I guess you are just one of that poor VB6
> developers who are too conservative to adopt .NET. Saying VB6 is superior
> to VB.NET without any real argument (oh yes, your argument is that MS has
> done an infinite mistake) is nothing more than trolling.
It's pretty obvious who is trolling here.
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
> You are saying that .NET initiative of Microsoft is causing fewer apps to
> be written for Windows?
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.
> VB6 programmers are not allowed to write their code in VB6 anymore?
Sure, they are, but support has already been stopped partly and will
completely end in a few years. Developing professional software is not only
about using a tool. Giving the customer guarantees is crucial. Would you
buy an expensive software product if you do not know if it still works after
the next OS update? Would you like to pay far higher prices because the
software product needs to be rewritten every n years because of a technical
change in the OS or the supported technologies?
> Hobbyists (they are who have written most of the billions of lines ever
> written in pre-.NET VB.) should absolutely not care about any reason you
> can think of why they should not code in VB6.
There are lots of hobbyists, but there are lots of small and specialized
software companies too which sell only a few products. Those companies
often cannot afford an update which doesn't add any value to their product
except reaching the status quo again by rewriting code that is already
working perfectly. The need to rewrite code only because of support plans
and technologies being abandoned for marketing reasons decreases innovation
and productivity.
> And "average business application developers"? If they are that much
> "average" that they are not able to comply with the need of the market,
> they are not worth being developers.
I usually measure the value of an application by measuring how well it
performs its job, especially those of indoor applications.
> Average developers are writing average code. And lots of average code is
> not what any platform needs, so if the fact that fewer code is written for
> windows was by any chance caused by adoption of .NET, it would be good -
> less bad (average code by average developers is bad) code, more competent
> developers in result.
You are missing the point. Programming is not done to serve any abstract
goals such as writing object-oriented code, etc. Its main purpose is to
create tools which support the human to get his work done.
james
different from their current
plans regarding VB. And no amount of crying and moaning is going to change
that. ( it certainly hasn't
made any noticable difference yet) Instead of continuing to make posts like:
james
Ken Halter
>I understand that all things must evolve. They must grow....become better
>and stronger or they die. And, usually they do.
fwiw, if interested, there's an on (and on and on) going thread in the VB
Classic 'general.discussion' group dicussing some of the issues. 703 posts
and counting. iirc, one of the longest threads I've seen <g>
VB6, VB2005, or Something Else?
http://groups.google.com.my/group/microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion/browse_frm/thread/854e7ed1da3b460d
Ken Halter
>
> Where have all the VB developers gone? Why, most of them are now using
> VB.Net or C#. Some have perhaps gone over to "the other side of the fence"
> (Java) where the grass always seems greener from whatever side you happen
> to
Can't forget the 1000's going to Delphi.... funny thing that Delphi. The
code from the non dotNet version almost always works in the dotNet version
(and most likely, with obvious exceptions, in Kylix). What a concept.
Jim Hubbard
trying to get Linux to.....
"james" <jjames70...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OsxofGxX...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Lebesgue
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
news:qIw%f.594$oW1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Jim Hubbard
"AMercer" <AMe...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A2B2FE7-6E58-48A1...@microsoft.com...
>> 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.
>
> So many disagreements in one sentence. For brevity, I'll use parentheses.
>
> "It seems that Microsoft is valiantly trying to undo the harm it has done
> (not undoing, no harm done) to itself by destroying (no) VB6
You say that there is no harnm done, but you do not address the issues of
fewer software applications being developed. that means fewer choices for
application consumers which, in turn, leads to less innovation, less
productivity and less value in the Windows platform as a whole for end users
and businesses (especially small businesses and consumers where economic
times are hard).
> in favor of the
> more bloated, less-RAD (no, the opposite for me, and I think for others
> too,
> caveat with spin up issue below), less-user friendly (no), less-productive
> (big no) VB.Net."
I say it is less RAD because the part-time programmer must now become as
knowledgable as a professional programmer to accomplish the same quality
programs that were possible with VB6. This does include time to learn the
language.
VB6 was much easier for a PTP to pick up and write an acceptable application
to meet his/her goals.
>
> You may have a point about bloated. I am inclined to disagree, but it is
> debatable. I'd rather drop it since a big off-topic digression may
> follow.
>
> Having had experience with earlier versions of VB, I found spinning up to
> VB6 to be very easy, whereas .NET took some real effort. I'm guessing it
> was/is the same for you. Now, I'm well spun up with .NET, and IMO, .NET
> is
> much superior to VB6.
>
> So, my only knock against .NET is that it is relatively hard to learn.
> For
> me, that is a minor knock, for some, it is a very serious knock. Your RAD
> complaint applies when not spun up, but it does not apply thereafter. To
> me,
> RAD means rapid app development, and it does not include spin up time. If
> for you, RAD includes spin up time, then I withdraw my RAD disagreement.
Unfortunately, with the major shift in application design and development
from VB6 to VB.Net the learning curve is a major reason that many PTP CANNOT
spend the needed time away from their primary jobs to adequately learn
VB.Net to the point that they can be as efficient with it as they were with
VB6.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Jim Hubbard
to make the jump to VB.Net make that jump. That's why I posted the link to
the free ebook.
If this had been just to take a jab at MS or VB.Net, rest assured I would
not have included a helpful link.
"Lebesgue" <lebe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:O$2AhjyXG...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Randolpho
his best to provoke a reaction, but his posts are so long that most of
us just get glassy-eyed after the first few words. Grade: C; good
provocation, but far too verbose.
AMercer
dabbled in the rest. I come up with just one takeaway. .NET is tougher to
learn, so the community is smaller, particularly the PTPs, and hence (1) less
innovation generally, and (2) .NET is RAD-wise weak when measured by dev time
plus spin up time.
That's about all I see of value, and I pretty much agree with it. But these
points are not very strong. First, a smaller community with a better
platform (.NET is better IMO) can yield as much innovation as a weaker
platform with a larger community. I'm not saying it will or it won't, but it
is far from obvious that community size is the compelling driver for
innovation - maybe platform capability is. Second, as I implied before, spin
up is a one time learning cost, once learned, .NET is very suitable for RAD.
I agree and concede that .NET requires considerable time and effort to learn,
and that is a negative.
Jim Hubbard
software innovations will occur. However, a smaller brain pool does
significantly lessen the possibility of such occurrence.
Just take a look at the software released to the public since .Net was made
available. It has been 5 years and the offerings in .Net (of any flavor)
are pathetic. IMHO, this indicates a dangerous trend away from innovation
on the Windows platform.
The window of opportunity (no pun intended) for Linux to take advantage of
this has been open for some time. I can only hope one of them waddles
through it.
The competition to Microsoft's platform would be good for consumers and even
good for Microsoft. They'd have to change their model to more responsive to
the masses and come out of their plastic bubble in Redmond where (it seems)
everyone tells everyone else how great things are and nobody hears the
screams outside the bubble.
The Emperor has no development platform - so to speak.
I truly believe that we'd all be better off with a free RAD Linux solution
(be that REALbasic or another) to rival Microsoft.
We CAN set our families, our friends, our businesses, our countries and
ourselves free. The questions remains......will we?
JH
"AMercer" <AMe...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:76D2DB07-379D-401A...@microsoft.com...
Kevin Spencer
> fewer software applications being developed.
You have provided no evidence of this assertion. Why should anyone address a
non-existent issue?
> I say it is less RAD because the part-time programmer must now become as
> knowledgable as a professional programmer to accomplish the same quality
> programs that were possible with VB6. This does include time to learn the
> language.
The same quality programs that were possible with VB6 were toys by
comparison to what is possible and being done today. The demands are for
applications that take full advantage of the technology available today. And
the security issues are much more stringent. What was cool 5 years ago is
obsolete today.
> Unfortunately, with the major shift in application design and development
> from VB6 to VB.Net the learning curve is a major reason that many PTP
> CANNOT spend the needed time away from their primary jobs to adequately
> learn VB.Net to the point that they can be as efficient with it as they
> were with VB6.
Good. That means more work for the rest of us.
--
Live it, or live with it,
james
Linux. I know about Mono and Monodevelop. But, it is still far away from
working to the point you can write a single application and output files
that will run in both OS's.
( unless, I've slept too much lately and that one got by me!!)
james
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
news:qIw%f.594$oW1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Jim Hubbard
program once and run it on Mac OSX, Windows or Linux. And, there's no
virtual machine needed (like with Mono, .Net and Java). Apps compile into a
single EXE - which considerably simplifies installation and doesn't suffer
from dependency woes (like DLLs or even .Net patches that wreck
compatibility........they did tell you about those, right?).
The Linux version is free - in case you want to get your feet wet for free.
And, I'd suggest getting SUSE to run it on (easy install & great hardware
support). With the new edition of SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop)
edition (due out this summer), you will get all the eye candy of Vista (and
then some) without waiting for another year for Vista (that's if it doesn't
get kicked to 2008).
You can get the free Linux standard version of REALbasic at
http://www.realsoftware.com/download/ (pick your OS - Novell or RedHat).
You can even run REALbasic's IDE and develop apps in Windows and on Mac OSX.
So, download it and jump right in - the water's fine.
Novell and REALbasic are now partnering to include the free standard edition
of REALbasic for Linux on SUSE distros - as is Linspire and REALbasic (it's
in the CNR).
The cool thing with REALbasic on Linux is that the OS is free (or damned
cheap) but, you can sell the REALbasic apps. They don't have to be open
source! And, you don't have to reveal your code base. (although you
certainly can if you want to support open source.)
BTW, REALbasic helps you convert your company's old VB6 code into REALbasic
a hell of a lot better than .Net does. It has VB-like syntax and is fully
object oriented (if you're into that sort of thing ;) ).
REALbasic is what Linux has needed! It puts the Linux desktop where
Microsoft + VB (the real VB - not .Net) was when Microsoft's desktop
dominance grew to it's peak. VB was Microsoft's catalyst - one that they
chose to abandon. REALbasic will do the same thing for Linux.
The more distros that carry REALbasic, the more free we will all be.
Only you can set yourself free. (with regards to Smokey)
JH
"james" <jjames70...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eM6DEL0X...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Jim Hubbard
"Kevin Spencer" <ke...@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
>> You say that there is no harnm done, but you do not address the issues of
>> fewer software applications being developed.
>
> You have provided no evidence of this assertion. Why should anyone address
> a non-existent issue?
Just look around..... Where the hell are they? Where are the PTP developed
applications that prolificated with VB6? Where are they?
I have seen a few large companies put out .Net apps.....but the majority of
the application development and innovators are small businesses or single
developers. They simply aren't putting out apps any more - now that it's
VB.Net or the highway.
They certainly don't want to develop apps when Microsoft has said it would
not carry the VB runtime indefinitely or even allow flaws in it to be fixed.
>
>> I say it is less RAD because the part-time programmer must now become as
>> knowledgable as a professional programmer to accomplish the same quality
>> programs that were possible with VB6. This does include time to learn
>> the language.
>
> The same quality programs that were possible with VB6 were toys by
> comparison to what is possible and being done today. The demands are for
> applications that take full advantage of the technology available today.
> And the security issues are much more stringent. What was cool 5 years ago
> is obsolete today.
In some cases this is true. That's exactly wht software innovation should
be preserved, not tossed away as MS did with VB. VB.Net wasn't an evolution
of VB, it was a replacement of VB.
VB is dead.
>
>> Unfortunately, with the major shift in application design and development
>> from VB6 to VB.Net the learning curve is a major reason that many PTP
>> CANNOT spend the needed time away from their primary jobs to adequately
>> learn VB.Net to the point that they can be as efficient with it as they
>> were with VB6.
>
> Good. That means more work for the rest of us.
No.....that means more work for China, Russia and India. Corporations have
gone from 11% outsourcing to more than 21% outsourcing and it's only going
to get worse with this .Net monstrosity.
JH
james
year's worth of updates last year.
I annoyed some in this group and others just to win a copy and try it for a
while. I did add the disclaimer
that it was an Off Topic post, but, it still earned me some
complaints............but, I still managed to get several
people to try the free download and in the proccess I won a copy for myself
and a free year of updates.
While you are correct that it will build apps for Windows, MAC ( original
not the Intel version) and "some"
versions of Linux, that is only to a point. Anything that gets the least OS
specific will create problems. That is why
( until now) they have 3 versions. One for each OS. So you can fine tune
the app for a particular OS.
As for .NET patches wrecking compatibility,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,HUH?? That hasn't
happened to me yet. I have been
working on a app in VB.NET 2003 ( and will eventually port it to 2005) and
have not had any problems with
a patch for .NET ( there are some???) causing problems.
As much as I like Linux, I still prefer to work with Windows and VB2003 &
2005 work great in that respect.
Come to think of it, you were also on here touting RB as the be all to cross
platform programming in order to
get yourself a free copy. In fact, if I remember correctly, ( and I may
not) you were going to dump .NET and
even Windows at some point because of all the problems you were having. So,
what happened? You're still here!!
If you read some of RB's forums and the single usenet group, you'll see they
have more than their share of problems
and complaints. Anyway, I think I'll stick with what is in most demand, and
it ain't Linux ,,,,,,,,,,,,at least not in my
part of the country!!! ( gotta go where the money is)
james
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
news:pAA%f.358$iB2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
james
.NET.............Norton Internet Security 2006.
First thing it does if you install it on a machine that hasn't had the 1.1
Framework installed, is to install the framework.
As for PTP apps developed in VB.NET,,,,,,,,,,,,you need to find a local
DotNet User's Group. I know of two , one in
Dallas and the other in Ft.Worth ( where I'm a member) and there are a lot
of people that attend the meetings and are
in the middle of developing apps in .NET for their businesses. Went to the
Launch Event in Dallas back in December and
the Dallas Convention Center was packed with developers. So, if no one were
developing with .NET there would have
been little to no attendance. The simple fact is, that .NET is being used
everyday and used to build enterprise class applications. There are things
that VB.NET ( now VB2005) can do that VB6 just could not do or if it could
at all, it required some very ugly hacks. I liked VB6 for what it was. But,
I love VB.NET/2005. It is VB on steriods.
james
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
news:PHA%f.408$iB2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Jim Hubbard
> I'll give you the name of a major application that is written with
> .NET.............Norton Internet Security 2006.
Had to uninstall that one twice this week and install AVG in its place.
> First thing it does if you install it on a machine that hasn't had the 1.1
> Framework installed, is to install the framework.
> As for PTP apps developed in VB.NET,,,,,,,,,,,,you need to find a local
> DotNet User's Group. I know of two , one in
> Dallas and the other in Ft.Worth ( where I'm a member) and there are a lot
> of people that attend the meetings and are
> in the middle of developing apps in .NET for their businesses. Went to
> the Launch Event in Dallas back in December and
> the Dallas Convention Center was packed with developers. So, if no one
> were developing with .NET there would have
> been little to no attendance. The simple fact is, that .NET is being used
> everyday and used to build enterprise class applications.
You are right. .Net is stuck in the enterprise. Inside buildings of
companies where their apps have no competition. It is mostly used for
internal applications. My point about PTPs not making and distributing .Net
apps to the public (even after 5 years) is still valid.
> There are things that VB.NET ( now VB2005) can do that VB6 just could not
> do or if it could at all, it required some very ugly hacks.
True. It could not do SOAP natively. It could not do remoting (but, who
really does anyway). It could barely fill a floppy with it's runtime. And.
let's not forget that it could not be staopped as a RAD development tool by
anyone but Microsoft.
>I liked VB6 for what it was. But, I love VB.NET/2005. It is VB on steriods.
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.
JH
Jim Hubbard
> I'm ahead of you on that one!! I have RealBasic2005 & 2006 PRO. Won a
> year's worth of updates last year.
> I annoyed some in this group and others just to win a copy and try it for
> a while. I did add the disclaimer
> that it was an Off Topic post, but, it still earned me some
> complaints............but, I still managed to get several
> people to try the free download and in the proccess I won a copy for
> myself and a free year of updates.
Me too.
> While you are correct that it will build apps for Windows, MAC ( original
> not the Intel version) and "some"
> versions of Linux, that is only to a point. Anything that gets the least
> OS specific will create problems.
I don't think so. You shoudl wrap your OS specific stuff inside statements
that check for which OS your app is running in. But, if you WANT to tweak
it for a specific OS to the exclusion of all others, you certainly can.
As far as that goes, you can distribute REALbasic apps made of a single
blank form if you want to.....but I wouldn't.
> That is why
> ( until now) they have 3 versions. One for each OS. So you can fine tune
> the app for a particular OS.
"Until now".......
> As for .NET patches wrecking compatibility,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,HUH?? That
> hasn't happened to me yet. I have been
> working on a app in VB.NET 2003 ( and will eventually port it to 2005) and
> have not had any problems with
> a patch for .NET ( there are some???) causing problems.
Subscribe to KBAlertz.com (it's free and you won't get on a spam list for
using it). You can also look up the KB articles for any flavor of the .Net
framework there is.
Funny thing about most of the KB artcles....you almost always have to call
Microsoft for the patches. I still wonder why this is the case.
Let's say that we find a flaw in a .Net framework and there is a known
work-around and a patch that you can call Microsoft and get. If I call
Microsoft and get the patch (but you use the work-around), installing my
patched framework and app just may break your work-around (and many others).
IMHO, they should patch all of the frameworks or none of them. Keep the
playing field level.
> As much as I like Linux, I still prefer to work with Windows and VB2003 &
> 2005 work great in that respect.
> Come to think of it, you were also on here touting RB as the be all to
> cross platform programming in order to
> get yourself a free copy. In fact, if I remember correctly, ( and I may
> not) you were going to dump .NET and
> even Windows at some point because of all the problems you were having.
> So, what happened? You're still here!!
I never pushed REALbasic for a free anything. I honestly did it (and do it
now) because I believe that it could be good for the programming industry,
small businesses and PTPers. And, it is a way to free yourself (and your
company) from the Microsoft monopoly.
I did get a copy of REALbasic Pro for my efforts, but I'm still pushing it
as a PTPer's best choice right now because I believe in it. I don't work
for REALbasic. And, I don't get any freebies for my speaking my mind.
I'm still here because I am not a language or OS zealot. If a client asks
me to write a .Net solution, I will still do so. After all, the client is
the boss. If s/he wants .Net, s/he should have .Net.
If, however, they ask my opinion, I will take a long hard look at their
resources (both interms of hardware, monetary resources and for future
development and maintenance of the project), the goals of the project, the
most pragmatic OS for the client and make a suggestion based on those
factors.
And, until more sustainable (as in business model) apps are written for
Linux, Windows/.Net will be requested more by clients around the world.
REALbasic is changing that. Will it suddenly knock MS off the throne this
weekend? Probably not. But (as long as REALbasic's team keeps up the good
work), it won't be long.
What businesses need to realize is that there is a VB for Linux. It is
REALbasic. Don't see an app you need to adopt Linux for your business? You
can write it in REALbasic.
Got old VB6 code that you don't want to throw away because of the cost and
trouble you went to to code it in the first place? REALbasic is better at
converting VB6 apps than .Net is.
Want to be more in control of your enterpise? Linux is not subject to the
whims of a single company like Windows is....and it's much cheaper.
> If you read some of RB's forums and the single usenet group, you'll see
> they have more than their share of problems
> and complaints.
I know. I'm on the beta list. I see all of the reported bugs and
work-arounds.
REALbasic's still not perfect. But, the company is built on keeping
programmers happy. And, there is no conflict of onterest because they don't
own the OS.
>Anyway, I think I'll stick with what is in most demand, and it ain't Linux
>,,,,,,,,,,,,at least not in my
> part of the country!!! ( gotta go where the money is)
Everybody'd got to eat.
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.
This is a paradigm shift.....not a fad.
Good luck to you!
JH
Kevin Spencer
>> address a non-existent issue?
>
> Just look around..... Where the hell are they? Where are the PTP
> developed applications that prolificated with VB6? Where are they?
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. No wonder you
can't keep up. Your ability to use logic is non-existent. You might be
better suited to a career in politics, where rhetoric is king, and logic has
little value.
> I have seen a few large companies put out .Net apps.....but the majority
> of the application development and innovators are small businesses or
> single developers. They simply aren't putting out apps any more - now
> that it's VB.Net or the highway.
First, you use personal perception as statistical evidence, which it is not,
particularly when the perception is clouded by a decidedly prejudiced point
of view. Second, you continue with assertions backed by no evidence, and
assumptions which you regard as fact, expecting everyone else to accept
these assertions and their factual accuracy at face value. Again, there is
no logic employed in this argument. I see much emotion, but no
self-discipline.
> They certainly don't want to develop apps when Microsoft has said it would
> not carry the VB runtime indefinitely or even allow flaws in it to be
> fixed.
Whining never solved anything. It is a waste of resources. Programmers are
problem-solvers. You are not.
> In some cases this is true. That's exactly wht software innovation should
> be preserved, not tossed away as MS did with VB. VB.Net wasn't an
> evolution of VB, it was a replacement of VB.
What you call "innovation" is not. "Innovation" is defined as "the act of
creating something new." 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. It is the employment
of existing tools in the manner for which those tools were created.
I find it particularly odd that you seem to want to preserve "software
innovation," yet lament that it is evolving so rapidly at the same time.
>> Good. That means more work for the rest of us.
>
> No.....that means more work for China, Russia and India. Corporations
> have gone from 11% outsourcing to more than 21% outsourcing and it's only
> going to get worse with this .Net monstrosity.
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? This would have to mean that the
average I.Q. in those countries was higher than the average I.Q. in your
country. Is that what you're asserting?
Perhaps competition is a good thing. Disallowing outsourcing, and other
forms of protectionism, remove the incentive to compete, to strive for
improvement and excellence. Personally, I welcome competition. I bought a
Japanese car last year, because it was the best car for the money. My hope
is that Detroit got my message. I do my country no favors by allowing
corporations to use political manipulation to prosper, rather than honest
hard work and competition. If I were to allow that, my country would become
weak and impoverished. And I will gladly compete for jobs in software
development. It makes me a better developer.
This is the way of things. More recently, it would seem there was similar
lamentation by railroad tycoons over the invention and subsequent popularity
of the automobile.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull
If the truth hurts, wear it.
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
>>> You have provided no evidence of this assertion. Why should anyone
>>> address a non-existent issue?
>>
>> Just look around..... Where the hell are they? Where are the PTP
>> developed applications that prolificated with VB6? Where are they?
>
> 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.
>> I have seen a few large companies put out .Net apps.....but the majority
>> of the application development and innovators are small businesses or
>> single developers. They simply aren't putting out apps any more - now
>> that it's VB.Net or the highway.
>
> 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!
>> They certainly don't want to develop apps when Microsoft has said it
>> would not carry the VB runtime indefinitely or even allow flaws in it to
>> be fixed.
>
> 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.
>> In some cases this is true. That's exactly wht software innovation
>> should be preserved, not tossed away as MS did with VB. VB.Net wasn't an
>> evolution of VB, it was a replacement of VB.
>
> 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.
>>> Good. That means more work for the rest of us.
>>
>> No.....that means more work for China, Russia and India. Corporations
>> have gone from 11% outsourcing to more than 21% outsourcing and it's only
>> going to get worse with this .Net monstrosity.
>
> 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
>> 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.
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.
>> 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?
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.
>> 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.
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.
>> 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.
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++.
>> 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.
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
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
>
> "james" <jjames70...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:unJDS91X...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> I'll give you the name of a major application that is written with
>> .NET.............Norton Internet Security 2006.
>
> 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.......... :-)
>
>> There are things that VB.NET ( now VB2005) can do that VB6 just could not
>> do or if it could at all, it required some very ugly hacks.
>
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.
>>I liked VB6 for what it was. But, I love VB.NET/2005. It is VB on
>>steriods.
>
> 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
(only a few this time.....I promise!! )
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
news:enK%f.578$Jk3...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
<Big Snip>
> 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
"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ONwDvL9...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "james" <jjames70...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:unJDS91X...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> 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.
>
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
"Kevin Spencer" <ke...@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
>>> 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.
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?
>>
>> 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.
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).
>
>>> 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?
>
> 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.
>
>>> 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.
>
> 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).
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]
>
> 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!! )
>
> "Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
> news:enK%f.578$Jk3...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> <Big Snip>
>
>> 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.
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.
>
>
>>
>> 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!
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
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
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
"Chris Fulstow" <chrisf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145038061.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Kevin Spencer
> 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.
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfi...@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:O1oFvb%23XGH...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
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 wrote:
> 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.
>
> Fire when ready........
>
>
Jim Hubbard
Right....ROFLMAO......
Thanks for that one!
JH
"John A. Bailo" <jab...@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:xLGdnRlp2aE...@speakeasy.net...
SP
"Jim Hubbard" <re...@groups.please> wrote in message
> 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
"SP" <ecnese...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uXoBUNKY...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
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?