|
web
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
All the king's horses and all the king's men.......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........ Clever way to promote your book! Reverse psychology...
Show quoteHide quote "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message news:xnd%f.3077$2_.377@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > 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........ > > "Jeff Dillon" <jeffdil***@hotmail.com> wrote in message fwiw, I found no mention of the authors name in that ebook... it's been news:OGreaSnXGHA.1228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Clever way to promote your book! Reverse psychology... > 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.. Um..joke?
Show quoteHide quote "Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eXoH12nXGHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > "Jeff Dillon" <jeffdil***@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:OGreaSnXGHA.1228@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.. > The world of programming is the fastest-changing human realm today. You can
choose to keep up, you can find some other occupation, or you can be a hobbyist. That's about it, without all the stroking. -- Show quoteHide quoteHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP Professional Numbskull Show me your certification without works, and I'll show my certification *by* my works. "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message news:xnd%f.3077$2_.377@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > 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........ > > 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. 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 Show quoteHide quote "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message news:uTgK%23WnXGHA.4768@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > The world of programming is the fastest-changing human realm today. You > can 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" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message > news:xnd%f.3077$2_.377@bignews8.bellsouth.net... >> 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........ >> >> > > Dude!
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! -- Show quoteHide quoteSurf'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" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message news:NUg%f.41$Jk3.19@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >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. 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" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message > news:uTgK%23WnXGHA.4768@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> The world of programming is the fastest-changing human realm today. You >> can 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" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message >> news:xnd%f.3077$2_.377@bignews8.bellsouth.net... >>> It seems that Microsoft is valiantly trying to undo the harm it has done >>> to itself by destroying VB6 in favor of the more bloated, less-RAD, >>> less-user friendly, less-productive VB.Net. >>> >>> In fact, it is now giving away it's ebook "" in an effort to draw more >>> abandoned VB programmers into the gapping maw that is .Net. You can get >>> your own copy at http://tinyurl.com/lbryw . (That's >>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbrun/staythepath/additionalresources/introto2005/ >>> for the paranoid among you.) >>> >>> IMHO, this little rhyme best describes Microsoft's Visual Basic >>> kingdom..... >>> >>> Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. >>> Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. >>> All the king's horses and all the king's men >>> Couldn't put Humpty together again. >>> >>> Fire when ready........ >>> >>> >> >> > > "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message Can't forget the 1000's going to Delphi.... funny thing that Delphi. The news:e2$UWTpXGHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > 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 code from the non dotNet version almost always works in the dotNet version (and most likely, with obvious exceptions, in Kylix). What a concept. -- Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com Please keep all discussions in the groups.. Hi Jim,
Whew ! That's a long one for a post ! Ever thought of writing your own blog ? Personally, I just love .NET ! Regards, Cerebrus. Sure, I've thought about a blog.......but whatever would I write
about.......lol JH Show quoteHide quote "Cerebrus" <zorg***@sify.com> wrote in message news:1144895941.014835.151950@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hi Jim, > > Whew ! That's a long one for a post ! Ever thought of writing your own > blog ? > > Personally, I just love .NET ! > > Regards, > > Cerebrus. > "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> schrieb: Sure, they could admit. However, there are so many other ways to choose for >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. 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 They have gotten closer by spending the VB IDE more Office-like toolbar > 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. 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 There's much truth in your words!> 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). > Like the fact that the VB community has all but vanished. It is a shell I disagree that .NET is more complex than Win32 and COM were. VB6 provided > 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). 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/> Why continue to beat this dead horse? Microsoft is not going to do anything
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: "All the king's horses and all the king's men........ " , how about contributing something useful? james I'm not trying to get Microsoft to change (that dog just won't hunt).....I'm
trying to get Linux to..... Show quoteHide quote "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:OsxofGxXGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Why continue to beat this dead horse? Microsoft is not going to do > anything 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: "All the king's horses and > all the king's men........ " , how about contributing something useful? > james > > And that's why you are posting to Microsoft groups?
Show quoteHide quote "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message news:qIw%f.594$oW1.562@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > I'm not trying to get Microsoft to change (that dog just won't > hunt).....I'm trying to get Linux to..... > > "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:OsxofGxXGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Why continue to beat this dead horse? Microsoft is not going to do >> anything 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: "All the king's horses and >> all the king's men........ " , how about contributing something useful? >> james >> >> > > No. The original post was actually an attempt to help the people that want
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. Show quoteHide quote "Lebesgue" <lebes***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:O$2AhjyXGHA.4248@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > And that's why you are posting to Microsoft groups? > > "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message > news:qIw%f.594$oW1.562@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >> I'm not trying to get Microsoft to change (that dog just won't >> hunt).....I'm trying to get Linux to..... >> >> "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:OsxofGxXGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> Why continue to beat this dead horse? Microsoft is not going to do >>> anything 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: "All the king's horses and >>> all the king's men........ " , how about contributing something useful? >>> james >>> >>> >> >> > > Hmm... As trolls go, I'd rate this one sub-par. Jim is obviously doing
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. Now, I'd love it if I could get my VB2005 programs (or earlier) to run in
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 Show quoteHide quote "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message news:qIw%f.594$oW1.562@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > I'm not trying to get Microsoft to change (that dog just won't > hunt).....I'm trying to get Linux to..... > > "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:OsxofGxXGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Why continue to beat this dead horse? Microsoft is not going to do >> anything 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: "All the king's horses and >> all the king's men........ " , how about contributing something useful? >> james >> >> > > REALbasic can do that. With the Professional version, you can write a
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 Show quoteHide quote "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:eM6DEL0XGHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Now, I'd love it if I could get my VB2005 programs (or earlier) to run in > 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" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message > news:qIw%f.594$oW1.562@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >> I'm not trying to get Microsoft to change (that dog just won't >> hunt).....I'm trying to get Linux to..... >> >> "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:OsxofGxXGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> Why continue to beat this dead horse? Microsoft is not going to do >>> anything 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: "All the king's horses and >>> all the king's men........ " , how about contributing something useful? >>> james >>> >>> >> >> > > 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. 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 Show quoteHide quote "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message news:pAA%f.358$iB2.230@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > REALbasic can do that. With the Professional version, you can write a > 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" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:eM6DEL0XGHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Now, I'd love it if I could get my VB2005 programs (or earlier) to run in >> 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" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message >> news:qIw%f.594$oW1.562@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >>> I'm not trying to get Microsoft to change (that dog just won't >>> hunt).....I'm trying to get Linux to..... >>> >>> "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:OsxofGxXGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>> Why continue to beat this dead horse? Microsoft is not going to do >>>> anything 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: "All the king's horses and >>>> all the king's men........ " , how about contributing something useful? >>>> james >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message Me too.news:%23ZmyK31XGHA.3328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > 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. > While you are correct that it will build apps for Windows, MAC ( original I don't think so. You shoudl wrap your OS specific stuff inside statements > 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 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".......> ( 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 Subscribe to KBAlertz.com (it's free and you won't get on a spam list for > 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. 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 & I never pushed REALbasic for a free anything. I honestly did it (and do it > 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!! 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 I know. I'm on the beta list. I see all of the reported bugs and > they have more than their share of problems > and complaints. 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 Everybody'd got to eat.>,,,,,,,,,,,,at least not in my > part of the country!!! ( gotta go where the money is) 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 Show quoteHide quote > james > > > "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message > news:pAA%f.358$iB2.230@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >> REALbasic can do that. With the Professional version, you can write a >> 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" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:eM6DEL0XGHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> Now, I'd love it if I could get my VB2005 programs (or earlier) to run >>> in 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" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message >>> news:qIw%f.594$oW1.562@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >>>> I'm not trying to get Microsoft to change (that dog just won't >>>> hunt).....I'm trying to get Linux to..... >>>> >>>> "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>> news:OsxofGxXGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>>> Why continue to beat this dead horse? Microsoft is not going to do >>>>> anything 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: "All the king's horses and >>>>> all the king's men........ " , how about contributing something >>>>> useful? >>>>> james >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Comments inline:
(only a few this time.....I promise!! ) "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message <Big Snip>news:enK%f.578$Jk3.560@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > This change will not be an overnight one. Even if every classic VB And it would take even longer to get their companies to accept changing > programmer had a free copy of Linux running with REALbasic 2006, it would > take up to 2 years to see the apps becoming mainstream. their entire system from Windows to Linux just to use those RB apps. As opposed to using the newer version of Visual Basic and Windows. And as for being an easy conversion from VB6 to RB2006, you must be missing reading some of the newsgroup posts I have read. It's not all Click and Go and it's done. Some of the things I've read make is sound as hard as any conversion from VB6 to VB.NET is. ( of course it could be that the differences between RB and VB6 are enough that the programmers doing the conversion are not comfortable enough (and familiar enough) yet with RB. Which sounds to me like, if you are willing to take on another language to upgrade or move an app written in VB6, why not go with one that is similar in syntax to VB6...........like VB.NET? RB is similar too, but, not anymore so than VB.NET. I have read just as many complaints in the RB forums and newgroup about frustrated VB6 developers working on conversions as I have read in the Microsoft Forums. > Well, the paradigm better start shifting pretty soon. Because, I don't see > This is a paradigm shift.....not a fad. or hear anything about a big adoption rate for developers of RB apps or conversions of VB6 apps to RB. The recruiters I know, just don't receive that big of a demand. I've asked before and was told rarely do they get a request for a RB developer. In fact, one recruiter asked me"What's Real Basic?" He had never heard of it. And his company finds developers for companies all over Texas. Including Austin! > Thanks and the same to you!!> Good luck to you! james Show quoteHide quote > > JH > >> james >> >> >> "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message >> news:pAA%f.358$iB2.230@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >>> REALbasic can do that. With the Professional version, you can write a >>> 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" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:eM6DEL0XGHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>> Now, I'd love it if I could get my VB2005 programs (or earlier) to run >>>> in 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" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message >>>> news:qIw%f.594$oW1.562@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >>>>> I'm not trying to get Microsoft to change (that dog just won't >>>>> hunt).....I'm trying to get Linux to..... >>>>> >>>>> "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:OsxofGxXGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>>>> Why continue to beat this dead horse? Microsoft is not going to do >>>>>> anything different from their current >>>>>> plans regarding VB. And no amount of crying and moaning is going to >>>>>> change that. ( it certainly hasn't >>>>>> made any noticable difference yet) Instead of continuing to make >>>>>> posts like: "All the king's horses and >>>>>> all the king's men........ " , how about contributing something >>>>>> useful? >>>>>> james >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Show quote
Hide quote
"james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message Companies will not change to Linux until the application base of news:uB0flf9XGHA.1200@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Comments inline: > (only a few this time.....I promise!! ) > > "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message > news:enK%f.578$Jk3.560@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. 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 It certainly is not painless. Any language changes are a pain in the butt. > 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. 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. Show quoteHide quote >( of course it could be that the differences between RB and VB6 I have seen those too. It is not perfect. What is?> 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. 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. Show quoteHide quote > REALbasic on Linux is like VB was on Microsoft. It dodn;t explode onto the > >> >> 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! 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 Show quoteHide quote >> >> Good luck to you! > > Thanks and the same to you!! > james > > > > >> >> JH >> >>> james >>> >>> >>> "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message >>> news:pAA%f.358$iB2.230@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >>>> REALbasic can do that. With the Professional version, you can write a >>>> 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" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>> news:eM6DEL0XGHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>>> Now, I'd love it if I could get my VB2005 programs (or earlier) to run >>>>> in 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" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message >>>>> news:qIw%f.594$oW1.562@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >>>>>> I'm not trying to get Microsoft to change (that dog just won't >>>>>> hunt).....I'm trying to get Linux to..... >>>>>> >>>>>> "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:OsxofGxXGHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>>>>> Why continue to beat this dead horse? Microsoft is not going to do >>>>>>> anything 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: "All the king's horses and >>>>>>> all the king's men........ " , how about contributing something >>>>>>> useful? >>>>>>> james >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message fwiw, if interested, there's an on (and on and on) going thread in the VB news:NUg%f.41$Jk3.19@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >I understand that all things must evolve. They must grow....become better >and stronger or they die. And, usually they do. 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 - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com Please keep all discussions in the groups.. Jim,
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 Show quoteHide quote "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> schreef in bericht news:xnd%f.3077$2_.377@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > 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........ > > I'm sorry, Cor. I thought discussions about .Net (and the problems that
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 Show quoteHide quote "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message news:exm3enrXGHA.3448@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Jim, > > 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" <reply@groups.please> schreef in bericht > news:xnd%f.3077$2_.377@bignews8.bellsouth.net... >> 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,
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 Cor,
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 Show quoteHide quote "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message news:uXbkOEsXGHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Jim, > > 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,
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!! Show quoteHide quote "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message news:KPo%f.514$oW1.47@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > Cor, > > 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]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message > news:uXbkOEsXGHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Jim, >> >> 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 >> > > You are ignorant concerning my qualifications to speak on this subject.
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 Show quoteHide quote "Lebesgue" <lebes***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ubl5I7tXGHA.3604@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Jim, > > 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" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message > news:KPo%f.514$oW1.47@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >> Cor, >> >> 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]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message >> news:uXbkOEsXGHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> Jim, >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> > > You seem to be at least three times older than I, so please let me apologize
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. Show quoteHide quote "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message news:RDp%f.515$oW1.342@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > You are ignorant concerning my qualifications to speak on this subject. > > 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" <lebes***@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:ubl5I7tXGHA.3604@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Jim, >> >> 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" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message >> news:KPo%f.514$oW1.47@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >>> Cor, >>> >>> 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]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message >>> news:uXbkOEsXGHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>> Jim, >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > "Lebesgue" <lebes***@gmail.com> schrieb: I do not have any numbers on that because many applications which have been > You are saying that .NET initiative of Microsoft is causing fewer apps to > be written for Windows? 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 There are lots of hobbyists, but there are lots of small and specialized > written in pre-.NET VB.) should absolutely not care about any reason you > can think of why they should not code in VB6. 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 I usually measure the value of an application by measuring how well it > "average" that they are not able to comply with the need of the market, > they are not worth being developers. performs its job, especially those of indoor applications. > Average developers are writing average code. And lots of average code is You are missing the point. Programming is not done to serve any abstract > 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. goals such as writing object-oriented code, etc. Its main purpose is to create tools which support the human to get his work done. -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/> "Lebesgue" <lebes***@gmail.com> schrieb: It's pretty obvious who is trolling here.> 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. -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/> > It seems that Microsoft is valiantly trying to undo the harm it has done to So many disagreements in one sentence. For brevity, I'll use parentheses.> itself by destroying VB6 in favor of the more bloated, less-RAD, less-user > friendly, less-productive VB.Net. "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. >> IMHO, you are nothing more than a troll that tries to impose his will upon Well... I certainly learnt something today !>> others. 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. "AMercer" <AMer***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message You say that there is no harnm done, but you do not address the issues of news:2A2B2FE7-6E58-48A1-A1A6-236E6065A40F@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 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 I say it is less RAD because the part-time programmer must now become as > 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." 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. Show quoteHide quote > Unfortunately, with the major shift in application design and development > 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. 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. I re-read your original, my response, and your response to that. I've only
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. I agree. The size of the programming group does not guarantee that no new
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 Show quoteHide quote "AMercer" <AMer***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:76D2DB07-379D-401A-9CC2-E5060CBED67D@microsoft.com... >I re-read your original, my response, and your response to that. I've only > 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. > > You say that there is no harnm done, but you do not address the issues of You have provided no evidence of this assertion. Why should anyone address a > fewer software applications being developed. non-existent issue? > I say it is less RAD because the part-time programmer must now become as The same quality programs that were possible with VB6 were toys by > knowledgable as a professional programmer to accomplish the same quality > programs that were possible with VB6. This does include time to learn the > language. 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 Good. That means more work for the rest of us.> 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. -- Live it, or live with it, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP Professional Numbskull Show me your certification without works, and I'll show my certification *by* my works. "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message Just look around..... Where the hell are they? Where are the PTP developed news:u9mAYG0XGHA.1348@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> 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? 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. > In some cases this is true. That's exactly wht software innovation should >> 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. 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. > No.....that means more work for China, Russia and India. Corporations have >> 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. gone from 11% outsourcing to more than 21% outsourcing and it's only going to get worse with this .Net monstrosity. JH I'll give you the name of a major application that is written with
..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 Show quoteHide quote "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message news:PHA%f.408$iB2.165@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message > news:u9mAYG0XGHA.1348@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> 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" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message Had to uninstall that one twice this week and install AVG in its place.news:unJDS91XGHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > I'll give you the name of a major application that is written with > .NET.............Norton Internet Security 2006. > First thing it does if you install it on a machine that hasn't had the 1.1 You are right. .Net is stuck in the enterprise. Inside buildings of > 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. 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 True. It could not do SOAP natively. It could not do remoting (but, who > do or if it could at all, it required some very ugly hacks. 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 Show quoteHide quote > james > > "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message > news:PHA%f.408$iB2.165@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >> >> "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message >> news:u9mAYG0XGHA.1348@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>> 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 >> > > Inline:
"Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message I never said that NIS was a good app. just a well known one writtennews:dZJ%f.577$Jk3.422@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:unJDS91XGHA.2208@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. with .NET. Oh, and I dumped it too.........for Avast on one system and AVG on another.......... :-) > And. let's not forget that it could not be staopped as a RAD development >> 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. > 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 No problem on agreeing to disagree! For me though, had it not been VB , or >>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. 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 Show quoteHide quote > > JH > >> james >> >> "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message >> news:PHA%f.408$iB2.165@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >>> >>> "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message >>> news:u9mAYG0XGHA.1348@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>>> 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" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message Man... that is >>not<< a good example of a dotNet app ;-) I wouldn't install news:unJDS91XGHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > I'll give you the name of a major application that is written with > .NET.............Norton Internet Security 2006. 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. -- Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com Please keep all discussions in the groups.. "Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message TRUE!! :-) It is not a "good" example. But, it is a well known ( however news:ONwDvL9XGHA.752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "james" <jjames700REMOV***@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:unJDS91XGHA.2208@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. > 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 Show quoteHide quote > -- > Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com > Please keep all discussions in the groups.. > >> You have provided no evidence of this assertion. Why should anyone You call this evidence? A logical argument is a conclusion preceded or >> 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? 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 First, you use personal perception as statistical evidence, which it is not, > 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. 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 Whining never solved anything. It is a waste of resources. Programmers are > not carry the VB runtime indefinitely or even allow flaws in it to be > fixed. problem-solvers. You are not. > In some cases this is true. That's exactly wht software innovation should What you call "innovation" is not. "Innovation" is defined as "the act of > be preserved, not tossed away as MS did with VB. VB.Net wasn't an > evolution of VB, it was a replacement of VB. 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. I suppose the Chinese, Russians, and Indians do not fall into the category > > 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. 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. "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> schrieb: You are not bringing any opposing arguments too. I'd try to avoid to bring >>> 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. the whole discussion down to a personal level. >> I have seen a few large companies put out .Net apps.....but the majority Do you have any statistical data? If not, on what foundation would you base >> 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 your statements on except personal perception? > which it is not, particularly when the perception is clouded by Be careful not to mix up reasons and implication!> a decidedly prejudiced point of view. >> They certainly don't want to develop apps when Microsoft has said it I don't see anybody whining except those who are whining about people >> 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. discussing this topic. >> In some cases this is true. That's exactly wht software innovation True. Reimplementing an application to reach something new is not >> 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." 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 I don't think that's the type of applications Jim is talking about. I know > "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. 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. They often do not own the software. They are developing software for people >> >> 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? 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... -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/> >> You call this evidence? A logical argument is a conclusion preceded or Dude, arguments about what? I made the statement that he was simply making >> 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. 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 Um... See my answer to your first argument. Statistical data about what? It > > Do you have any statistical data? If not, on what foundation would you > base your statements on except personal perception? 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 The fact that you did not understand my meaning does not constitute whining >> are problem-solvers. You are not. > > I don't see anybody whining except those who are whining about people > discussing this topic. 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 Well, I have to qualify my remarks here, as I had to go back through the >> "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. 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 Heck Herfried, I don't own the software I write either! Very few of us in >> 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. 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. "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message These questions are not rhetorical. I am asking you if you see these news:%23Vuhhn8XGHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> 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. 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? >> And I find it disturbing that (standing alongside me in this networked >> 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. 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). > Exactly. That's why you do it. You can argue a point with no facts to back >>> 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. 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 No, it is because logic is not primarily yours.>only hope that it is because English is not your primary language. Show quoteHide quote > Repressed women in Arab countries should just shut up and take it?>>> 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. 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? > But, when I share "what I know, my experience, and my knowledge, with anyone > 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. 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 Yet, you are complaining about that. Why?>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. 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). Show quoteHide quote >>> Very few VB applications (particularly by your definition of the term "the likelihood that an educated and experienced developer would have used >>> "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++. 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 Kevin,
> A pity to see you loose a discussion in what your arguments where for the > 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. rest very well in my opinion. A better answer as this was so obvious. Cor > A pity to see you loose a discussion in what your arguments where for the It was answered in my first paragraph. I made no assertions. I questioned > rest very well in my opinion. 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. -- Show quoteHide quote;-), Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP Professional Numbskull Hard work is a medication for which there is no placebo. "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message news:O1oFvb%23XGHA.2376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Kevin, > >> >> 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 > > Hi Jim!
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 Nice one......
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 Show quoteHide quote "Chris Fulstow" <chrisfuls***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1145038061.993116.130340@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > Hi Jim! > > 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 > 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: Show quoteHide quote > 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........ > > Right....ROFLMAO......
Thanks for that one! JH Show quoteHide quote "John A. Bailo" <jaba***@texeme.com> wrote in message news:xLGdnRlp2aECk93ZRVn-jQ@speakeasy.net... > > 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........ >>
Show quote
Hide quote
"Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message I have only been a developer for 5 years so have never used VB6. What news:xnd%f.3077$2_.377@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > 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. advantages did it offer over VB.Net? Should I use this rather than VB.Net for RAD applications? PSSP "SP" <ecneserpeg***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbrun/staythepath/additionalresources/introto2005/
news:uXoBUNKYGHA.3840@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > "Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message > news:xnd%f.3077$2_.377@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > > 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 > > Show quote Hide quote > > for the paranoid among you.) No. Classic VB is no more.> > > > 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 > 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 "SP" <ecneserpeg***@hotmail.com> wrote in message No.news:uXoBUNKYGHA.3840@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > 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? 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? 
Other interesting topics
How do I determine if a control has a specific property
i need timer interval more than 1 Minute. Class Inheritance Connection to Access Db with a password? AutoScroll listbox as I type string value to new form instance? getting application version... Send email throught VB.NET 2005 Purpose of Keyword "Overloads"? listview usage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
