"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
news:u3oug9sOFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> [I apologize for the length of this post. It started out as being a
> summary
> of some of my other posts about the petition, but grew into something
> larger. Also, this post is not meant to be flamebait.  I have an honest
>
> disagreement of opinion in regards to the petition and I felt this was an
>
> appropriate forum to have a reasoned discussion about the issue.
>
> - Mitchell S. Honnert]
>
> In my opinion, people should not sign the the "VB.COM" petition at
>
> http://classicvb.org/petition/, at least not in its current form.  The
> objectives
>
> listed in the petition are either already being met by the current version
> of
>
> VB6 or, when they are valid, could be much more easily resolved with a
>
> far less dramatic solution than the one proposed.
>
> First, let's go through the objectives listed in the petition...
>
>   "1. Preservation of assets
>      Future versions of VB6/VBA should:
>      Use existing VB6/VBA projects without extensive conversion;
>      Support the core VB6/VBA Visual Basic language and syntax;
>      Compile existing projects and produce identical results."
>
> The *current* version of VB6 meets these criteria, so what's the
> justification for a "future version"?
>
>   "2. Continued support for the Visual Basic language
>   Microsoft should demonstrate a commitment to the core Visual Basic
>   language.   This core should be enhanced and extended, and changes
>   should follow a documented deprecation process."
>
>>Microsoft should demonstrate a commitment to the core Visual Basic
>>language. This core should be enhanced and extended
> I view the creation of Visual Basic .NET as the best evidence there could
> be that MS is committed to the "core Visual Basic language."  Microsoft
> could have let the Visual Basic language flounder in the form of VB6, but
> it
> instead chose to take the language to the next level.  Now *that's*
> commitment.  Surely the petition authors aren't so arrogant as to view
> VB6 as the sole representative of the "core Visual Basic language".
>
>>and changes should follow a documented deprecation process.
> The deprecation process is that there will be no new enhancement or
> extending of VB6.  All "extending" and "enhancing" will be to
> VB.NET.  Simple.
>
>   "3. Ease of migration of unmanaged VB/VBA code to VB.NET
>   The decisions of if, how, and when to migrate code to .NET should lie
>   with the customer. Some may choose to remain with unmanaged VB,
>   especially for legacy code bases. Some will use only VB.NET, others
>   a mix. A future version of VB6/VBA should treat all these options as
>   valid, while making it easy to move among them."
>
>>The decisions of if, how, and when to migrate code to .NET should lie with
>>the customer.
> It already *is* the decision of the customer.  One can argue that
> Microsoft's suggested upgrade path (a combination of COM interop and
> code conversion) is not sufficient given the number of existing VB6
> systems,
> but to suggest that there is no choice at all is an outright falsehood.
> If
> what the petitioners mean is that they want *more* choice, better
> solutions from Microsoft, or more support, why don't they just
> say this instead of implying there is *no* choice?  This kind of hyperbole
> is as needless as it is ineffective.  It may be a *difficult* choice for a
> company to stay with its existing VB6/Win98 solution or to convert and
> upgrade to a VB.NET/WinXP solution, but it *is* a choice.
>
>>Some may choose to remain with unmanaged VB,
>>especially for legacy code bases. Some will use only VB.NET, others
>>a mix. A future version of VB6/VBA should treat all these options as
>>valid, while making it easy to move among them.
> This sounds like a pretty good description of what we have now.  I would
> consider the economic decision that companies currently make to stick with
> VB6 or move to VB.NET as "valid".  If the petitioners believe that COM
> interop doesn't work as well as it should or that the code upgrade
> wizard does not work as well as it should or that an upgrade which breaks
> language stability deserves a longer support period, why don't they just
> say
> so instead of leaping ahead to the conclusion that a "future version" of
> VB6 is warranted?
>
> This text appeared before the objectives...
>>We ask that Microsoft further develop VB6 and VBA, in order to meet these
>>objectives (in order of perceived importance):
>
> I took this to mean that the petitioners believed some enhancements to VB6
> were required to solve the problems that would be detailed in the
> Objectives.  But what I instead found was a list of objectives that was
> short on problems and heavy on solution.  Instead of using the Objectives
> section to describe the problems that would be overcome by the proposed
> solution mentioned later in the petition, the objectives are instead a
> description of what the petitioners want in the solution.
>
> Perhaps, to the petition authors, the problems that justify a future
> version
> of VB6 are so self-evident that they aren't worth mentioning explicitly in
> the petition itself, but it's not so obvious to me.  Instead of the
> Objectives section being a foreshadowed specifications list for the
> proposed solution, why didn't they actually say what they find deficient
> with the current situation?  As far as I could tell, none of the
> objectives
> detailed any current problem, so how could they justify any kind of
> solution?
>
> Now, let's move onto the suggested solution to the aforementioned
> "problems", the creation of "VB.COM".
>
>   "SUGGESTED APPROACH
>   We believe the best way to meet these objectives is for Microsoft to
>   include an updated version of VB6 inside the Visual Studio IDE. For
>   brevity we'll call this update "VB.COM".
>
>   VB.COM should use the same keywords, syntax and types as VB6, remain
>   COM-based, and compile to native code. Visual Studio would then support
>   both unmanaged VB.COM and managed VB.NET, as it now supports both
>   [unmanaged] C++ and [managed] C#.
>
>   With both VBs in the same IDE, it should be possible to extend the
>   development environment to provide a high degree of interoperation
>   between them. That will allow the developer to use both in the same
>   solution, with the interop handled seamlessly by the framework."
>
> From this description, it appears as if the main point of VB.COM would be
> to
> give VB6 developers the benefits of the VS.NET IDE, yet not change the
> underlying VB6 language.  There is no mention made of functional
> deficiencies, so the assumption is that the petitioners want VB6
> developers
> to have the ease-of-use benefits of using the VS.NET IDE, such as
> eliminating the need to ALT-TAB between the VB6 IDE and the VS.NET IDE,
> better Intelisense, and auto code indenting.
>
> Is this petition really about IDE enhancements?  Is the touchy-feely goal
> of
> "reaching out" to the VB6 developer by gently introducing them to the
> VS.NET
> IDE seen as justifying the huge effort it would take to create VB.COM?  If
> not...if there are actual functional deficiencies in Microsoft's migration
> path (COM interop and code conversion), why don't the petitioners just say
> this instead of suggesting a solution that, by all indications in the
> petition, is focused on the comparatively small IDE issues?  I'm sorry,
> but
> MS doesn't owe VB6 developers the IDE enhancement that come with
>
> VS.NET even if they did do it for C++ and no matter how many people are
>
> currently using VB6.
>
> In my personal opinion (and that's all this post is, after all), I think
> that the issues that are alluded to in the petition (but never directly
> stated) could be addressed much more appropriately by improving on
> Microsoft's current "upgrade path".  So, instead of undertaking the
> monumental task of integrating VB6 into the VS.NET IDE, Microsoft
> could improve on COM interop and, probably more importantly, provide
> a better code upgrade wizard.  And to give the large number of VB6
> users some extra breathing room required from the revolutionary change
> from VB6 to VB.NET, Microsoft could extend its mainstream support
> period, including the release of bug fixes.  But because the perceived
> problems are commingled in the petition with the proposed solution of
> VB.COM, the reader is guided away from these otherwise obvious
> alternative -- and in my opinion far more reasonable -- solutions.
>
> I fully acknowledge that I may be focusing too much on the language of the
> petition, rather than the underlying issues.  But one of the things that
> bothers me so much about the petition is how it treats the need for VB.COM
> as a foregone conclusion.  From previous threads on this newsgroup and
> from
> the petition's FAQ, I got a sense of the issues the prompted the petition,
> but this information wasn't obvious from reading the petition itself.  It
> would seem to me that the authors of the petition would have served their
> purpose much better by being more explicit on *why* they believed that
> Microsoft should create VB.COM rather than focusing so much on describing
> *what* they want VB.COM to be.
>
> Opponents of the petition have been accused of ignoring the huge number
> of companies who still have active VB6 applications.  For me, I would
> say that I'm not ignoring them, just that I believe there is a solution
> that
> is much more in proportion to the problems. In other words, it's not that
> I disagree that there is a problem.  (I personally think that Microsoft
> should have supplied a much better automatic code conversion tool.)  It's
> just that I believe the creation of VB.COM would be overkill.
>
> Maybe all the petitioners really want with VB.COM is a better IDE, but
> from
> the language used in the petition and in related posts, it sure sound like
> a
> whole lot more.  All the talk of "extending" and "enhancing" gives me the
> impression that the authors and signers don't just want VB6 to simply
> reside
> in the .NET IDE, but that they want major new functionality added to VB6.
> This is at the heart of my personal disagreement with the petition.  I
> personally don't feel that it is Microsoft's responsibility to supply the
> features of the current generation of an application to the users of the
> previous generation.  If the problem is that the migration from one
> generation to another is too difficult, then the solution should be to
> make
> that migration easier, not to make that previous generation application
> *into* the next generation application.
>
> So, why is there such a discrepancy between the problems and the solution?
> Are the petitioners using the standard bargaining technique of asking for
> way more than you know you'll get, in the hopes that you'll get what you
> really wanted in the first place?  I don't think so.  Here's my theory.  I
> have noticed that the most vocal proponents of VB.COM just so happen to
> hold the opinion that Microsoft made a huge mistake by making VB.NET in
> the first place. They either believe the advances in VB.NET were not worth
> the cost in the break of language stability or that the advances could
> have
> come without breaking language stability.  In other words, they wanted MS
>
> to create Visual Basic 7 instead of VB.NET.
>
> Is this juxtaposition of attitudes a coincidence?  Or could it be that the
> reason that the petition's proposed solution is such overkill is because
> the
> *unstated* problem is the existence of VB.NET itself and not the migration
> path to VB.NET? I'm sure I'll get feedback to the contrary, but this is
> the
> only logical explanation that I can see as to why the petition's proposal
> goes so far beyond what would be necessary to resolve the implied
> migration
> and support issues.
>
> - Mitchell S. Honnert
>
>
>
>

"Phill. W" <P.A.Ward@o-p-e-n-.-a-c-.-u-k> wrote in message
news:d3345b$o4b$1@yarrow.open.ac.uk...
> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
> news:u3oug9sOFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> . . .
>>    "1. Preservation of assets
> . . .
>> The *current* version of VB6 meets these criteria, so what's the
>> justification for a "future version"?
>
> As you say; the /current/ version "works" - Today.
> A /future/ version would *guarantee* that it would /continue/
> to work "Tomorrow".
>
> Since VB "proper" is no longer "supported", it will no longer be
> considered in /any/ future deliberations regarding the development
> of /anything/ within the Redmond Reality Distortion Zone.
>
> In short, there will no longer be any /reason/ for Our Friends in
> Redmond /not/ to break it.  And therein lies /my/ concern.
>
> . . .
>> In other words, they wanted MS to create Visual Basic 7
>> instead of VB.NET.
>
> And, as far as /I /understand things, they /did/ write VB7, then
> handed it lock, stock and barrel to the ".Net Team", who promptly
> tossed it into the bin and created VB.Net anyway.
> They /could/ have re-written the VB7 compiler to produce
> IL code and fed that into the .Net linker had they /wanted/ to,
> thereby allowing the vast amounts of "legacy" VB6 assets to
> continue to work, without recoding, atop the .Net Framework
> (albeit less efficiently, perhaps).  But they chose not to, instead
> handing us a new language, based on new paradigms and with no
> serious "upgrade" mechanism short of complete rewrites.
>
> Regards,
>    Phill  W.
>
>

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:u8JuTLEPFHA.2432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> schrieb:
>>> As you say; the /current/ version "works" - Today.
>>> A /future/ version would *guarantee* that it would /continue/
>>> to work "Tomorrow".
>>
>> But there is no reasonable expectation that a software development
>> company will guarantee that its software will always work "tomorrow".
>>
>> I think a natural part of  programming language's (and any
>> application, for that matter) is the principle of diminishing support.
>
> There is nothing wrong with diminishing support if a viable upgrade path
> is available.  Current usage numbers show that migration does on much
> slower than expected, and thus Microsoft should rethink their product
> strategies. I don't remember people complaining that Microsoft reduced
> support for VB5. This was mainly due to the fact that Microsoft provided a
> viable upgrade path with VB5's successor VB6.  As long as there is no
> viable upgrade path and no almost code-compatible successor of VB6,
> companies and people using VB6 will be dissatisfied.
>
> This doesn't necessarily apply to every VB6 company or developer, and
> maybe it doesn't apply to you.  However, it applies to at least 5,000
> people who signed the petition.
>
> I am just curious what causes you to act against the petition.  It seems
> that you are doing that only because the concerns don't affect you, which
> is IMO a very egoistic point of view.  Are you afraid to loose something
> if customers get what they want to get?
>
> --
> M S   Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P  <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
> V B   <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:%2316WNcGPFHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Mitchell,
>
> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> schrieb:
>>> There is nothing wrong with diminishing support if a viable upgrade path
>>> is available.
>>
>> This is where we agree.  But as I pointed out in the original post, where
>> I disagree is what steps Microsoft has to take to provide a "viable"
>> upgrade path.  In my opinion, it is far less than what is being proposed
>> by the petition.
>
> I won't doubt that there is more than one way to solve the problems
> implied by the end of VB6.  However, I think that the proposed solution is
> one of the cheapest possible solutions which will please the VB6
> community.

> Sure, there are people who don't understand why Microsoft made the
> decision to build VB.NET and dispose VB6 because the disposal of VB
> affects their investments.  For me, as a VB.NET user, the concern is about
> disposing VB6, not about the existance or further developing VB.NET.

>>> It seems that you are doing that only because the concerns don't affect
>>> you, which is IMO a very egoistic point of view.
>>
>> While I will admit that I'm fortunate enough to no longer to have to work
>> with VB6, this issue still affects me.  I would say that I'm "doing this"
>> because of the disproportion (as I view it) of the petition's implied
>> problems and its proposed solution.  Primarily, I would want to
>> discourage people from signing the petition and secondarily, I would like
>> to get a better idea of why the people who have signed it think it's a
>> good idea.
>
> It's interesting that on the one hand you don't seem to be sure /why/
> people signed the petition, but on the other hand want to discourage
> people from signing it, even if they have valid reasons to sign (which you
> obviously don't see because they don't affect you).

>> What I'm afraid of losing, Herfried, is a better VS.NET at the expense of
>> a new VB.COM.  It's not that I don't want VB6 developers to have the same
>> cool IDE
>> features that VB.NET developers have.
>
> Personally, I don't expect a VB.COM to provide all the new features of
> VS.NET.  I cannot speak for all people who signed the petition, but I
> assume that lots of them don't expect that too.  The tight integration of
> the Classic VB language via VB.COM into VS.NET only provides the
> infrastructure for a seamless transition.
>
>> I am not some kind of sadist that revels in the anguish that a VB6
>> developer must feel every day knowing that there is a far superior tool
>> out there s/he could use if only their employer had enough money to
>> convert their system over to VB.NET.
>
> Compared to VS.NET 2002 and 2003 I treat VB.NET as less-RAD than VB6, and
> I liked the VB6 IDE more.  VS 2005 may change that, but I don't miss much
> when using VB6 today. However, that's my personal opinion and I respect
> that other people's opinions differ from mine.

> --
> M S   Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P  <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
> V B   <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> schrieb:
>>>> There is nothing wrong with diminishing support if a viable upgrade
>>>> path is available.
>>>
>>> This is where we agree.  But as I pointed out in the original post,
>>> where I disagree is what steps Microsoft has to take to provide a
>>> "viable" upgrade path.  In my opinion, it is far less than what is being
>>> proposed by the petition.
>>
>> I won't doubt that there is more than one way to solve the problems
>> implied by the end of VB6.  However, I think that the proposed solution
>> is one of the cheapest possible solutions which will please the VB6
>> community.
>
> But there are people out there who believe it *is* the only way.  Jim
> Hubbard, for example.

>>>> I am just curious what causes you to act against the petition.
>>>
>>> I think I've made it quite clear in my post why I'm against the
>>> petition. To repeat, I believe the petitioners have legitimate concerns,
>>> but that because they didn't agree with Microsoft's decision to make
>>> VB.NET (instead of just a "VB7"), their solution goes way beyond what
>>> would be required to address those concerns.
>>
>> I am sure that most of them (including me) are not against VB.NET at all,
>> but instead they are against disposal of a product and customers' assets
>> without any reason.
>
> It's not that I believe (or stated) that most people who signed the
> petition are "against VB.NET"; it's that I theorize that the authors of
> the petition disagreed with Microsoft's decision to create VB.NET (instead
> of VB7) to such an extent that it might explain why they are asking for so
> much more than would be necessary to address the implied problems.

>>>> It seems that you are doing that only because the concerns don't affect
>>>> you, which is IMO a very egoistic point of view.
>>>
>>> While I will admit that I'm fortunate enough to no longer to have to
>>> work with VB6, this issue still affects me.  I would say that I'm "doing
>>> this" because of the disproportion (as I view it) of the petition's
>>> implied problems and its proposed solution.  Primarily, I would want to
>>> discourage people from signing the petition and secondarily, I would
>>> like to get a better idea of why the people who have signed it think
>>> it's a good idea.
>>
>> It's interesting that on the one hand you don't seem to be sure /why/
>> people signed the petition, but on the other hand want to discourage
>> people from signing it, even if they have valid reasons to sign (which
>> you obviously don't see because they don't affect you).
>
> What, I'm not allowed to have an opinion and to simultaneously solicit the
> opposing side's viewpoint?

>>>> Are you afraid to loose something if customers get what they want to
>>>> get?
>>>
>>> If that means a minority of customers getting what they want at the
>>> expense of the majority of customers, then yes.
>>
>> I agree with that, but I strongly doubt that this applies to this issue.
>>
>> How many VFP users are there compared to VB6 users?  It's a very low
>> number. Is this a valid reason to dispose VFP?  Are you afraid to loose a
>> better VS.NET at the expense of a new version of VFP or a new version of
>> <any Microsoft language/product you don't use or which is used by a small
>> number of customers>?
>
> The key distinction between Visual Fox Pro and VB.COM is that there is
> already a VFP team in place and producing code.  Microsoft doesn't have to
> hire any new programmers or shanghai programmers from other teams to
> create a new version of VFP.  All the have to do is let the existing team
> alone.

>>> down to the practical matter of resource allocation.  Yes, Microsoft is
>>> one of the biggest companies in the world, but they still have a finite
>>> amount of resources.  Short of hiring new people to work on VB.COM
>>> (which I don't think they will do), the only thing they can do is to
>>> steal resources away from other projects, most probably VB.NET.
>>
>> I already told that in one of my previous posts, but I'll repeat it
>> again: I understand that nobody wants his favorite product to be delayed
>> only because of a product he doesn't use, but this applies to the users
>> of all products.  As a Classic VB/VB.NET developer I may want to see C#
>> and J# to be discontinued and all the money put into further development
>> of Classic VB/VB.NET.  Nevertheless, I see that this standpoint is
>> untenable.
>
> I agree that the "standpoint is untenable", but this is, in effect,
> exactly what the petition is asking Microsoft to do.  The petition doesn't
> specify what project it believes has less priority than VB.COM, but
> because it would have to get the resources from *somewhere*, the
> implication of VB.COM is that some other project would have to be scrapped
> or drastically reduced.

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:O4NwkLIPFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Mitchell,
>
> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> schrieb:
>>>>> There is nothing wrong with diminishing support if a viable upgrade
>>>>> path is available.
>>>>
>>>> This is where we agree.  But as I pointed out in the original post,
>>>> where I disagree is what steps Microsoft has to take to provide a
>>>> "viable" upgrade path.  In my opinion, it is far less than what is
>>>> being proposed by the petition.
>>>
>>> I won't doubt that there is more than one way to solve the problems
>>> implied by the end of VB6.  However, I think that the proposed solution
>>> is one of the cheapest possible solutions which will please the VB6
>>> community.
>>
>> But there are people out there who believe it *is* the only way.  Jim
>> Hubbard, for example.
>
> Jim Hubbard isn't sufficient for extrapolating to the whole number of
> people who signed.  I know some dozens of people who signed the petition,
> and only /very few/ of them believe the suggested way is the only way.
Understood.

> BTW:  It's a suggestion, not a request (see petition FAQ).

> Microsoft's commitment to its VB6 customers has been at best half-hearted
> (oh, that's a hyperbole!) since the disposal of VB6.  All together,
> Microsoft's commitment to those who actually wanted to switch to VB.NET
> was half-hearted.  The upgrade wizard is flawed and is not eben able to
> convert usercontrols in an acceptable manner.  Tons of whitepapers don't
> really help because they won't take the work away from people "upgrading
> to" (more appropriately: "rewriting in the new programming language")
> VB.NET.
>
> If the code upgrade wizard could be improved to a stage where it is
> capable of converting > 95 percent of the VB6 code out there, everything
> would be great.  Nobody would even think of staying with VB6.  However,
> this is a pipedream, languages are too different for that to become true,
> and thus another solution is required.  VB.COM is one of them, and it's
> one of the cheaper solutions.  It's a proposal, if Microsoft says that
> it's better to

>>>>> I am just curious what causes you to act against the petition.
>>>>
>>>> I think I've made it quite clear in my post why I'm against the
>>>> petition. To repeat, I believe the petitioners have legitimate
>>>> concerns, but that because they didn't agree with Microsoft's decision
>>>> to make VB.NET (instead of just a "VB7"), their solution goes way
>>>> beyond what would be required to address those concerns.
>>>
>>> I am sure that most of them (including me) are not against VB.NET at
>>> all, but instead they are against disposal of a product and customers'
>>> assets without any reason.
>>
>> It's not that I believe (or stated) that most people who signed the
>> petition are "against VB.NET"; it's that I theorize that the authors of
>> the petition disagreed with Microsoft's decision to create VB.NET
>> (instead of VB7) to such an extent that it might explain why they are
>> asking for so much more than would be necessary to address the implied
>> problems.
>
> Would you expect these people (including me) to add something like "Ease
> of migration of unmanaged VB/VBA code to VB.NET" to the petition's text?

>>>>> It seems that you are doing that only because the concerns don't
>>>>> affect you, which is IMO a very egoistic point of view.
>>>>
>>>> While I will admit that I'm fortunate enough to no longer to have to
>>>> work with VB6, this issue still affects me.  I would say that I'm
>>>> "doing this" because of the disproportion (as I view it) of the
>>>> petition's implied problems and its proposed solution.  Primarily, I
>>>> would want to discourage people from signing the petition and
>>>> secondarily, I would like to get a better idea of why the people who
>>>> have signed it think it's a good idea.
>>>
>>> It's interesting that on the one hand you don't seem to be sure /why/
>>> people signed the petition, but on the other hand want to discourage
>>> people from signing it, even if they have valid reasons to sign (which
>>> you obviously don't see because they don't affect you).
>>
>> What, I'm not allowed to have an opinion and to simultaneously solicit
>> the opposing side's viewpoint?
>
> You are allowed to have an opinion, but I believe that acting against
> other people's wishes and concerns as an outsider is reprehensible.

>>>>> Are you afraid to loose something if customers get what they want to
>>>>> get?
>>>>
>>>> If that means a minority of customers getting what they want at the
>>>> expense of the majority of customers, then yes.
>>>
>>> I agree with that, but I strongly doubt that this applies to this issue.
>>>
>>> How many VFP users are there compared to VB6 users?  It's a very low
>>> number. Is this a valid reason to dispose VFP?  Are you afraid to loose
>>> a better VS.NET at the expense of a new version of VFP or a new version
>>> of <any Microsoft language/product you don't use or which is used by a
>>> small number of customers>?
>>
>> The key distinction between Visual Fox Pro and VB.COM is that there is
>> already a VFP team in place and producing code.  Microsoft doesn't have
>> to hire any new programmers or shanghai programmers from other teams to
>> create a new version of VFP.  All the have to do is let the existing team
>> alone.
>
> Keeping the VFP team costs money too.  Marketing of VFP costs money.  This
> money could be used for improving VB.NET, for example (note that this is
> /not/ my opinion!).
>
>> But to create a new VB.COM team, they'd have to do either hire or
>> reallocate resources.  If they hired new programmers, they'd have the
>> additinional costs of training them.
>
> They reallocated the IE team too, and this was not a problem.  Nobody
> complained about these additional costs.

>>> Wouldn't you be afraid that you are loosing a better VB6 at the expense
>>> of a new programming language called VB.NET?  I don't have the same
>>> opinion as people who think this way, mainly because my assets in VB6
>>> are not that huge, but I can understand those people's concerns and lack
>>> of comprehension about VB.NET.
>>
>> I'm sure that from the standpoint of the company that made horse-drawn
>> carriages, any kind of support for "new-fangled" automobiles would be
>> seen as misplaced.  But fortunately, we can look outside the perspectives
>> of the individual and look at what is reasonable from an external
>> standpoint.
>
> You are mixing up the manufacturer with the customer.  In the case of
> VB6 -> VB.NET, customers are requesting a product, but the manufacturer
> tries hard to dictate customers to use another product.  There is no
> better expert for a product than the customer who uses it and for whom it
> has been created.

>>>> I am not some kind of sadist that revels in the anguish that a VB6
>>>> developer must feel every day knowing that there is a far superior tool
>>>> out there s/he could use if only their employer had enough money to
>>>> convert their system over to VB.NET.
>>>
>>> Compared to VS.NET 2002 and 2003 I treat VB.NET as less-RAD than VB6,
>>> and I liked the VB6 IDE more.  VS 2005 may change that, but I don't miss
>>> much when using VB6 today. However, that's my personal opinion and I
>>> respect that other people's opinions differ from mine.
>>
>> OK.  So how would imbedding VB6 into VS.NET improve on VB6's RADness?  If
>> anything, I would think that it would reduce it.
>
> It would make the transition from VB6 to VB.NET a rapid and tightly
> integrated process.  I would not expect RAD improvements for VB6.
>
>>>> down to the practical matter of resource allocation.  Yes, Microsoft is
>>>> one of the biggest companies in the world, but they still have a finite
>>>> amount of resources.  Short of hiring new people to work on VB.COM
>>>> (which I don't think they will do), the only thing they can do is to
>>>> steal resources away from other projects, most probably VB.NET.
>>>
>>> I already told that in one of my previous posts, but I'll repeat it
>>> again: I understand that nobody wants his favorite product to be delayed
>>> only because of a product he doesn't use, but this applies to the users
>>> of all products.  As a Classic VB/VB.NET developer I may want to see C#
>>> and J# to be discontinued and all the money put into further development
>>> of Classic VB/VB.NET.  Nevertheless, I see that this standpoint is
>>> untenable.
>>
>> I agree that the "standpoint is untenable", but this is, in effect,
>> exactly what the petition is asking Microsoft to do.  The petition
>> doesn't specify what project it believes has less priority than VB.COM,
>> but because it would have to get the resources from *somewhere*, the
>> implication of VB.COM is that some other project would have to be
>> scrapped or drastically reduced.
>
> If the petitioners would request Microsoft to stop certain products in
> order to get the resources for the development of VB.COM, maybe you were
> the first one who would complain about the petitioners /requesting/
> things.  VB.COM is a suggestion, nothing more.  It's a proposal which
> should reflate the dialog between Microsoft and its customers.  The
> petition doesn't request features, and it doesn't attempt to dictate
> anything.

>> At least if someone came up and petitioned Microsoft to ditch VFP so
>> they'd have more resources apply to VS.NET, it'd be an honest request.
>> Instead, what the petition does is make a request that would necessitate
>> some project get ditched or seriously reduced, but leave it to MS to be
>> the bad guy and decide who gets the axe.
>
> I doubt that Microsoft would need to "axe" anybody.  VB6 customers already
> got the axe, although they paid for VB6 to guarantee for VB6's future.
>
>>>> If the problems that prompted the petition deal with migration and
>>>> mainstream support, why does the proposed solution go to the extreme
>>>> (and therefore resource-costly) measure of a new IDE?
>>>
>>> In politics everybody requests more than he can finally get ;-).
>>
>> LOL.  You're not comparing the petitioners to politicians, are you?  I
>> thought you were defending them and here you go insulting them to the
>> highest degree.  Doh!
>
> I am one of the petitioners, for the case you didn't yet realize that.
> Show me only a single sample where people didn't ask for more than they
> finally got...

>
> --
> M S   Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P  <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
> V B   <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

>> Microsoft's commitment to its VB6 customers has been at best half-hearted
>> (oh, that's a hyperbole!) since the disposal of VB6.  All together,
>> Microsoft's commitment to those who actually wanted to switch to VB.NET
>> was half-hearted.  The upgrade wizard is flawed and is not eben able to
>> convert usercontrols in an acceptable manner.  Tons of whitepapers don't
>> really help because they won't take the work away from people "upgrading
>> to" (more appropriately: "rewriting in the new programming language")
>> VB.NET.
>>
>> If the code upgrade wizard could be improved to a stage where it is
>> capable of converting > 95 percent of the VB6 code out there, everything
>> would be great.  Nobody would even think of staying with VB6.  However,
>> this is a pipedream, languages are too different for that to become true,
>> and thus another solution is required.  VB.COM is one of them, and it's
>> one of the cheaper solutions.  It's a proposal, if Microsoft says that
>> it's better to
>
> OK, so 95% automatic code conversion is a pipedream.

>>>>>> Are you afraid to loose something if customers get what they want to
>>>>>> get?
>>>>>
>>>>> If that means a minority of customers getting what they want at the
>>>>> expense of the majority of customers, then yes.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with that, but I strongly doubt that this applies to this
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> How many VFP users are there compared to VB6 users?  It's a very low
>>>> number. Is this a valid reason to dispose VFP?  Are you afraid to loose
>>>> a better VS.NET at the expense of a new version of VFP or a new version
>>>> of <any Microsoft language/product you don't use or which is used by a
>>>> small number of customers>?
>>>
>>> The key distinction between Visual Fox Pro and VB.COM is that there is
>>> already a VFP team in place and producing code.  Microsoft doesn't have
>>> to hire any new programmers or shanghai programmers from other teams to
>>> create a new version of VFP.  All the have to do is let the existing
>>> team alone.
>>
>> Keeping the VFP team costs money too.  Marketing of VFP costs money.
>> This money could be used for improving VB.NET, for example (note that
>> this is /not/ my opinion!).
>>
>>> But to create a new VB.COM team, they'd have to do either hire or
>>> reallocate resources.  If they hired new programmers, they'd have the
>>> additinional costs of training them.
>>
>> They reallocated the IE team too, and this was not a problem.  Nobody
>> complained about these additional costs.
>
> I don't think anyone complained because MS was responding to public demand
> to supply a product that would take them into the future, whereas the
> petition represents a small percentage of the programming community who
> are perceived as wanting to go back to the past.

>>>> Wouldn't you be afraid that you are loosing a better VB6 at the expense
>>>> of a new programming language called VB.NET?  I don't have the same
>>>> opinion as people who think this way, mainly because my assets in VB6
>>>> are not that huge, but I can understand those people's concerns and
>>>> lack of comprehension about VB.NET.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that from the standpoint of the company that made horse-drawn
>>> carriages, any kind of support for "new-fangled" automobiles would be
>>> seen as misplaced.  But fortunately, we can look outside the
>>> perspectives of the individual and look at what is reasonable from an
>>> external standpoint.
>>
>> You are mixing up the manufacturer with the customer.  In the case of
>> VB6 -> VB.NET, customers are requesting a product, but the manufacturer
>> tries hard to dictate customers to use another product.  There is no
>> better expert for a product than the customer who uses it and for whom it
>> has been created.
>
> Again, I had a very different experience than you.  VB.NET was viewed by
> my co-workers and clients and the answer to their longstanding prayers for
> a major overhaul to VB6, not as something that was being forced on them by
> MS.

>>>>> down to the practical matter of resource allocation.  Yes, Microsoft
>>>>> is one of the biggest companies in the world, but they still have a
>>>>> finite amount of resources.  Short of hiring new people to work on
>>>>> VB.COM (which I don't think they will do), the only thing they can do
>>>>> is to steal resources away from other projects, most probably VB.NET.
>>>>
>>>> I already told that in one of my previous posts, but I'll repeat it
>>>> again: I understand that nobody wants his favorite product to be
>>>> delayed only because of a product he doesn't use, but this applies to
>>>> the users of all products.  As a Classic VB/VB.NET developer I may want
>>>> to see C# and J# to be discontinued and all the money put into further
>>>> development of Classic VB/VB.NET.  Nevertheless, I see that this
>>>> standpoint is untenable.
>>>
>>> I agree that the "standpoint is untenable", but this is, in effect,
>>> exactly what the petition is asking Microsoft to do.  The petition
>>> doesn't specify what project it believes has less priority than VB.COM,
>>> but because it would have to get the resources from *somewhere*, the
>>> implication of VB.COM is that some other project would have to be
>>> scrapped or drastically reduced.
>>
>> If the petitioners would request Microsoft to stop certain products in
>> order to get the resources for the development of VB.COM, maybe you were
>> the first one who would complain about the petitioners /requesting/
>> things.  VB.COM is a suggestion, nothing more.  It's a proposal which
>> should reflate the dialog between Microsoft and its customers.  The
>> petition doesn't request features, and it doesn't attempt to dictate
>> anything.
>
> Doesn't request features?  Maybe you should re-read the petition.  Every
> one of the "objectives" is a feature request.

>>> If Microsoft would extend mainstream support for VB6, that would be a
>>> great thing.  However, I don't think this is a good idea, because it
>>> costs Microsoft money without bringing money back to Microsoft.  A new
>>> version of VB6, VB.COM for example, would bring money back which can be
>>> used for further development (SPs, new versions, ...) of VB.COM.  People
>>> /would/ pay for VB.COM, but they won't pay for fixes for the flawed SP6,
>>> which has never been fixed in the mainstream support period.
>>
>> You make a good point about the potential for VB.COM being a
>> self-sustaining revenue stream.  But instead of Microsoft creating and
>> selling VB.COM being seen as the company answering the requests of the
>> VB6 community, I personally believe that it would be seen as a blatant
>> money-grab.
>
> Again, that's your interpretation which stands against common practice.
> The petition doesn't /request an SP7/, it /suggests to create a new
> version/. Typically, new versions are never available for free, but
> service packs are. In addition to that, service packs don't include new
> features while new versions do.
>
>>> Microsoft's commitment to its VB6 customers has been at best
>>> half-hearted (oh, that's a hyperbole!) since the disposal of VB6.  All
>>> together, Microsoft's commitment to those who actually wanted to switch
>>> to VB.NET was half-hearted.  The upgrade wizard is flawed and is not
>>> eben able to convert usercontrols in an acceptable manner.  Tons of
>>> whitepapers don't really help because they won't take the work away from
>>> people "upgrading to" (more appropriately: "rewriting in the new
>>> programming language") VB.NET.
>>>
>>> If the code upgrade wizard could be improved to a stage where it is
>>> capable of converting > 95 percent of the VB6 code out there, everything
>>> would be great.  Nobody would even think of staying with VB6.  However,
>>> this is a pipedream, languages are too different for that to become
>>> true, and thus another solution is required.  VB.COM is one of them, and
>>> it's one of the cheaper solutions.  It's a proposal, if Microsoft says
>>> that it's better to
>>
>> OK, so 95% automatic code conversion is a pipedream.
>
> Microsoft somewhere states it converts /up to/ 95 percent of the code,
> which actually is true, but is not a great thing.  An average number would
> be more interesting.
>
>> For the sake of argument, let's take that as the exact percentage.  Now,
>> what does the code conversion wizard do?  50%?  60%?  Whatever it is,
>> it's far less than 95%. So, isn't there a lot of room for improvement
>> between 60% and 95%.
>
> It doesn't really matter.  There are language features which cannot be
> replaced in VB.NET.  I remember the upgrade wizard adding dummy items to
> arrays in order to archieve 1-based arrays.  That's a hack, nothing more.
> Those hacks will make code practically unmaintainable and will /reduce the
> quality of the code/.

>>>> It's not that I believe (or stated) that most people who signed the
>>>> petition are "against VB.NET"; it's that I theorize that the authors of
>>>> the petition disagreed with Microsoft's decision to create VB.NET
>>>> (instead of VB7) to such an extent that it might explain why they are
>>>> asking for so much more than would be necessary to address the implied
>>>> problems.
>>>
>>> Would you expect these people (including me) to add something like "Ease
>>> of migration of unmanaged VB/VBA code to VB.NET" to the petition's text?
>>
>> Why, yes I would.  If the resolution to that problem is one of the goals
>> of the petitioners, I would expect it to be clearly stated in the text of
>> the petition.
>
> It actually /is/ clearly stated in the petition.

>>>>>>> Are you afraid to loose something if customers get what they want to
>>>>>>> get?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that means a minority of customers getting what they want at the
>>>>>> expense of the majority of customers, then yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with that, but I strongly doubt that this applies to this
>>>>> issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many VFP users are there compared to VB6 users?  It's a very low
>>>>> number. Is this a valid reason to dispose VFP?  Are you afraid to
>>>>> loose a better VS.NET at the expense of a new version of VFP or a new
>>>>> version of <any Microsoft language/product you don't use or which is
>>>>> used by a small number of customers>?
>>>>
>>>> The key distinction between Visual Fox Pro and VB.COM is that there is
>>>> already a VFP team in place and producing code.  Microsoft doesn't have
>>>> to hire any new programmers or shanghai programmers from other teams to
>>>> create a new version of VFP.  All the have to do is let the existing
>>>> team alone.
>>>
>>> Keeping the VFP team costs money too.  Marketing of VFP costs money.
>>> This money could be used for improving VB.NET, for example (note that
>>> this is /not/ my opinion!).
>>>
>>>> But to create a new VB.COM team, they'd have to do either hire or
>>>> reallocate resources.  If they hired new programmers, they'd have the
>>>> additinional costs of training them.
>>>
>>> They reallocated the IE team too, and this was not a problem.  Nobody
>>> complained about these additional costs.
>>
>> I don't think anyone complained because MS was responding to public
>> demand to supply a product that would take them into the future, whereas
>> the petition represents a small percentage of the programming community
>> who are perceived as wanting to go back to the past.
>
> LOL -- more than 5,000 signatures and counting.  Compared to other
> development-related petitions that's a very high number.

>> Fair or not, that's the impression I think most people have when they see
>> the headlines like "Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back"
>
> That's media...  We don't have much influence on this.
True enough.

>>>>> Imagine you were one of the VB6 developers who have huge assets in VB6
>>>>> code and you see the deconstruction of Classic VB.
>>>>
>>>> Your use of the word "deconstruction" is specious, at best.  There is a
>>>> vast difference between letting something "die on the vine" and
>>>> actively destroying it.
>>>
>>> A real VB7 already existed, which has never been released.  Classic VB
>>> has been actively destroyed, otherwise it would continue to exist.
>> Even after the multiple times you've brought up the aborted VB7, I still
>> don't see how it has any bearing whatsoever on the topic at had.  You
>> said that MS is "deconstructing" VB6.  I said that MS may not be
>> supporting it as much as you want, but it's not deconstructing it.
>
> Support gives a guarantee that no deconstruction occurs.  Currently one
> DLL file changed the behavior of existing applications.  There is no
> guarantee that, for example, a future version of Office will not introduce
> new versions of DLLs which break existing VB6 applications.  If VB6 was
> still supported, Microsoft would have to take care about such situations.

>>>>> Wouldn't you be afraid that you are loosing a better VB6 at the
>>>>> expense of a new programming language called VB.NET?  I don't have the
>>>>> same opinion as people who think this way, mainly because my assets in
>>>>> VB6 are not that huge, but I can understand those people's concerns
>>>>> and lack of comprehension about VB.NET.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that from the standpoint of the company that made horse-drawn
>>>> carriages, any kind of support for "new-fangled" automobiles would be
>>>> seen as misplaced.  But fortunately, we can look outside the
>>>> perspectives of the individual and look at what is reasonable from an
>>>> external standpoint.
>>>
>>> You are mixing up the manufacturer with the customer.  In the case of
>>> VB6 -> VB.NET, customers are requesting a product, but the manufacturer
>>> tries hard to dictate customers to use another product.  There is no
>>> better expert for a product than the customer who uses it and for whom
>>> it has been created.
>>
>> Again, I had a very different experience than you.  VB.NET was viewed by
>> my co-workers and clients and the answer to their longstanding prayers
>> for a major overhaul to VB6, not as something that was being forced on
>> them by MS.
>
> I don't doubt that you had a different experience, but surveys and my
> personal experience show me that there are still lots of developers who
> continue using VB6.  Nobody of us is able to change that, but it's
> possible to make Microsoft aware of that in order to take action.

>>>>>> down to the practical matter of resource allocation.  Yes, Microsoft
>>>>>> is one of the biggest companies in the world, but they still have a
>>>>>> finite amount of resources.  Short of hiring new people to work on
>>>>>> VB.COM (which I don't think they will do), the only thing they can do
>>>>>> is to steal resources away from other projects, most probably VB.NET.
>>>>>
>>>>> I already told that in one of my previous posts, but I'll repeat it
>>>>> again: I understand that nobody wants his favorite product to be
>>>>> delayed only because of a product he doesn't use, but this applies to
>>>>> the users of all products.  As a Classic VB/VB.NET developer I may
>>>>> want to see C# and J# to be discontinued and all the money put into
>>>>> further development of Classic VB/VB.NET.  Nevertheless, I see that
>>>>> this standpoint is untenable.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the "standpoint is untenable", but this is, in effect,
>>>> exactly what the petition is asking Microsoft to do.  The petition
>>>> doesn't specify what project it believes has less priority than VB.COM,
>>>> but because it would have to get the resources from *somewhere*, the
>>>> implication of VB.COM is that some other project would have to be
>>>> scrapped or drastically reduced.
>>>
>>> If the petitioners would request Microsoft to stop certain products in
>>> order to get the resources for the development of VB.COM, maybe you were
>>> the first one who would complain about the petitioners /requesting/
>>> things.  VB.COM is a suggestion, nothing more.  It's a proposal which
>>> should reflate the dialog between Microsoft and its customers.  The
>>> petition doesn't request features, and it doesn't attempt to dictate
>>> anything.
>>
>> Doesn't request features?  Maybe you should re-read the petition.  Every
>> one of the "objectives" is a feature request.
>
> It doesn't request features like DataTips and other stuff which is unique
> to VS.NET, that's what I wanted to say.
OK.

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
news:%23mYsXcDQFHA.3628@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:uOfur84PFHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> schrieb:
>>>> BTW:  It's a suggestion, not a request (see petition FAQ).
>>>
>>> We can argue the fine points of word meanings, but any "suggestion" in
>>> the context of a petition is something more than a suggestion.  When you
>>> sign your name to something, I think it's reasonable to assume that it
>>> rises to the level of a request.
>>
>> It doesn't, because it's marked as suggestion.  I don't understand what's
>> so hard in understanding the difference.
> The difference is this: I can walk up and punch you in the face and call
> it a "tap", but no matter what I choose to call it, it's still a punch.
> Specifically, the objective of any petition, by definition is not a
> "suggestion".  Here's the Merriem-Webster's definition of "petition"...
>
> 1 : an earnest request : ENTREATY
> 2 a : a formal written request made to an official person or organized
> body (as a court) b : a document embodying such a formal written request
> 3 : something asked or requested
>
> Notice the repetition of the word "request" in the definition?  You can
> attempt to couch the request in any euphamistic terms you please, but a
> petition is by definition a request, not a suggestion.
>
>>> What's the difference anyway?  Regardless of what you call it, I don't
>>> think there's any doubt that the petitioners want Microsoft to create
>>> VB.COM.  "A rose by any other name..."
>>
>> That's your interpretation.
> Huh?  The very name of the petition is "A PETITION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
> UNMANAGED VISUAL BASIC AND VISUAL BASIC FOR APPLICATIONS".  There's not
> much interpretation required there.  It's an objective truth that the
> petitioners want VB.COM.
>
>> I can only speak for myself, but I am open for /any/ solution that leads
>> to a reduction of the issue.
> But you *are* speaking for the petitioners.  As you pointed out in your
> previous post, you are one.  In any case, the topic at hand is the
> petition's request that Microsoft create VB.COM, not what solutions you
> are personally open to.  I'll say it again, the crux of my opposition to
> the petition is not the problems that are alluded to in the petition, but
> the proposed solution.
>
>>>> If Microsoft would extend mainstream support for VB6, that would be a
>>>> great thing.  However, I don't think this is a good idea, because it
>>>> costs Microsoft money without bringing money back to Microsoft.  A new
>>>> version of VB6, VB.COM for example, would bring money back which can be
>>>> used for further development (SPs, new versions, ...) of VB.COM.
>>>> People /would/ pay for VB.COM, but they won't pay for fixes for the
>>>> flawed SP6, which has never been fixed in the mainstream support
>>>> period.
>>>
>>> You make a good point about the potential for VB.COM being a
>>> self-sustaining revenue stream.  But instead of Microsoft creating and
>>> selling VB.COM being seen as the company answering the requests of the
>>> VB6 community, I personally believe that it would be seen as a blatant
>>> money-grab.
>>
>> Again, that's your interpretation which stands against common practice.
>> The petition doesn't /request an SP7/, it /suggests to create a new
>> version/. Typically, new versions are never available for free, but
>> service packs are. In addition to that, service packs don't include new
>> features while new versions do.
>>
>>>> Microsoft's commitment to its VB6 customers has been at best
>>>> half-hearted (oh, that's a hyperbole!) since the disposal of VB6.  All
>>>> together, Microsoft's commitment to those who actually wanted to switch
>>>> to VB.NET was half-hearted.  The upgrade wizard is flawed and is not
>>>> eben able to convert usercontrols in an acceptable manner.  Tons of
>>>> whitepapers don't really help because they won't take the work away
>>>> from people "upgrading to" (more appropriately: "rewriting in the new
>>>> programming language") VB.NET.
>>>>
>>>> If the code upgrade wizard could be improved to a stage where it is
>>>> capable of converting > 95 percent of the VB6 code out there,
>>>> everything would be great.  Nobody would even think of staying with
>>>> VB6.  However, this is a pipedream, languages are too different for
>>>> that to become true, and thus another solution is required.  VB.COM is
>>>> one of them, and it's one of the cheaper solutions.  It's a proposal,
>>>> if Microsoft says that it's better to
>>>
>>> OK, so 95% automatic code conversion is a pipedream.
>>
>> Microsoft somewhere states it converts /up to/ 95 percent of the code,
>> which actually is true, but is not a great thing.  An average number
>> would be more interesting.
>>
>>> For the sake of argument, let's take that as the exact percentage.  Now,
>>> what does the code conversion wizard do?  50%?  60%?  Whatever it is,
>>> it's far less than 95%. So, isn't there a lot of room for improvement
>>> between 60% and 95%.
>>
>> It doesn't really matter.  There are language features which cannot be
>> replaced in VB.NET.  I remember the upgrade wizard adding dummy items to
>> arrays in order to archieve 1-based arrays.  That's a hack, nothing more.
>> Those hacks will make code practically unmaintainable and will /reduce
>> the quality of the code/.
> So, you point to a flaw in the current upgrade wizard as proof that it
> would be pointless to improve the upgrade wizard?  This doesn't make any
> sense. The very point of what I'm saying is that there is room for
> improvement in the code upgrade wizard and that this avenue would be a far
> more cost effective and, more importantly, attainable solution than
> VB.COM.
>
>
>>> My point is that while you can't ever automate 100% of the conversion
>>> between VB6 and VB.NET, there is plenty of improvement that could be
>>> done with the current version of the migration wizard.
>>
>> It depends on how much it technically can be improved in the best case.
>> If the maximum average convertable percentage is smaller than a certain
>> number, conversion won't be an option at all and the conversion wizard is
>> thus rather useless.
> OK.  Are you saying that you believe this is the case, that the upgrade
> wizard can't be improved to the point where it's not "rather useless".  If
> so, it's a bit ironic to read all of the people whinging about all of the
> ToDo's the upgrade wizard leaves in the code when those things are
> unavoidable.
>
>>> You suggest that incorporating VB6 into the VS.NET IDE would be a
>>> cheaper solution than improving the code migration wizard, but I just
>>> don't see this.  When I think of the work involved in creating VB.COM, I
>>> envision a nightmare of reconciling compatibility issues.
>>
>> I doubt that implementation of a VB.COM would such a big problem.
>> Integration of other unmanaged programming languages into VS.NET was
>> possible too.  However, I don't suspect that the migration process will
>> be finished in shorter time if a VB.COM exists, but I expect it to become
>> economically feasible.
> You can put the expressions in adjacent sentences, but there's a huge
> chasm between the principles of "not a big problem" and "possible".  Of
> course, it's *possible* to create VB.COM.  It's just a matter of how much
> money you want to burn to develop it.
>
>
>>> Improving the code conversion wizard would deal with some of these
>>> issues, but at least they'd be a one-time process per project.
>>
>> Using the conversion wizard will reduce the code's quality, mainly
>> because the differences between VB.NET and VB6 are too big.  Sure, the
>> conversion wizard could be extended to emit some more ugly workarounds
>> and hacks, but I don't think that this is what people are requesting.
>> The optimal solution would be to keep existing VB6 code in Classic VB for
>> long future, without a need for a rewrite.  This approach has been
>> successfully chosen vor C(++) and VFP.
> I'll keep saying this until I get a logical rebuttal: if you want to keep
> using VB6, then do so.  No one is stopping you.  But if you want to
> convert your VB6 code to VB.NET, then an improved upgrade wizard would be
> helpful.
>
>
>>>>> It's not that I believe (or stated) that most people who signed the
>>>>> petition are "against VB.NET"; it's that I theorize that the authors
>>>>> of the petition disagreed with Microsoft's decision to create VB.NET
>>>>> (instead of VB7) to such an extent that it might explain why they are
>>>>> asking for so much more than would be necessary to address the implied
>>>>> problems.
>>>>
>>>> Would you expect these people (including me) to add something like
>>>> "Ease of migration of unmanaged VB/VBA code to VB.NET" to the
>>>> petition's text?
>>>
>>> Why, yes I would.  If the resolution to that problem is one of the goals
>>> of the petitioners, I would expect it to be clearly stated in the text
>>> of the petition.
>>
>> It actually /is/ clearly stated in the petition.
> That is the *header* of one of the objectives, but it is contradicted by
> the actual *text* of the objective.  The objective doesn't say "We want
> migration from VB6/VBA to VB.NET to be easier"; it says that if you give
> us VB.COM, it will be easy to "move among" VB6/VBA and VB.NET, whatever
> that means.
>
>>>> Re-read the petition.  You are not the only one who picks out some
>>>> parts of the petition and complains about them without seeing the
>>>> petition as a whole, including all its points.
>>>
>>> If you are going to accuse me of taking statements out of context, could
>>> you be more specific in the details of the accusation?  I've read the
>>> petition a few times now, but I don't see how this has anything to do
>>> with any of my statements, especially the one above.
>>
>> You theorized that the authors of the petition are "against VB.NET"
>> because you missed that one of the petition's main points is about easing
>> the migration to VB.NET for those who want to migrate.
> I did propose a theory on why I believed the petitioners went so far
> beyond what would be reasonably required to resolve the implied issues,
> but I'm still don't see what you believe I took out of context.
>
>
>>>> I personally use both, Classic VB and VB.NET.  I like both languages
>>>> and I believe that both languages should have a future.  I believe that
>>>> every programming language which is heavily used by customers has its
>>>> right to exist.  For me, you seem to disagree with that (please correct
>>>> me if I am wrong),
>>>
>>> No one is saying that VB6 doesn't have a right to exist.  This kind of
>>> language is flat out hyperbole.  This is one of the most frustrating
>>> things about this whole issue: supporters of the petition act as if
>>> Microsoft is getting ready to flip a switch that will make all VB6
>>> applications disappear in a puff of smoke.
>>
>> They already did that by releasing a flawed SP6 and at least one DLL that
>> changes applications' behavior (see petition's FAQ).
> Problem: Microsoft releases a flawed version a VB6 service pack.
> Reasonable solution: petition Microsoft to release another service pack to
> fix the problems in the previous service pack.
> Unreasonable solution that people who never wanted there to be a VB.NET in
> the first place can use as a pretext to get VB7 (what they wanted all
> along): petition Microsoft for VB.COM
>
>
>>>>>>>> Are you afraid to loose something if customers get what they want
>>>>>>>> to get?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that means a minority of customers getting what they want at the
>>>>>>> expense of the majority of customers, then yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with that, but I strongly doubt that this applies to this
>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many VFP users are there compared to VB6 users?  It's a very low
>>>>>> number. Is this a valid reason to dispose VFP?  Are you afraid to
>>>>>> loose a better VS.NET at the expense of a new version of VFP or a new
>>>>>> version of <any Microsoft language/product you don't use or which is
>>>>>> used by a small number of customers>?
>>>>>
>>>>> The key distinction between Visual Fox Pro and VB.COM is that there is
>>>>> already a VFP team in place and producing code.  Microsoft doesn't
>>>>> have to hire any new programmers or shanghai programmers from other
>>>>> teams to create a new version of VFP.  All the have to do is let the
>>>>> existing team alone.
>>>>
>>>> Keeping the VFP team costs money too.  Marketing of VFP costs money.
>>>> This money could be used for improving VB.NET, for example (note that
>>>> this is /not/ my opinion!).
>>>>
>>>>> But to create a new VB.COM team, they'd have to do either hire or
>>>>> reallocate resources.  If they hired new programmers, they'd have the
>>>>> additinional costs of training them.
>>>>
>>>> They reallocated the IE team too, and this was not a problem.  Nobody
>>>> complained about these additional costs.
>>>
>>> I don't think anyone complained because MS was responding to public
>>> demand to supply a product that would take them into the future, whereas
>>> the petition represents a small percentage of the programming community
>>> who are perceived as wanting to go back to the past.
>>
>> LOL -- more than 5,000 signatures and counting.  Compared to other
>> development-related petitions that's a very high number.
> You could have ten times that many signatures and it would still be a
> small percentage of the programming community.
>
>> There are still millions of VB6 users, I posted links to surveys
>> previously.
> And I previously pointed out the flaw of equating the number of people who
> program in VB6 to the number of people want to extend the lifetime of VB6.
>
>>> Fair or not, that's the impression I think most people have when they
>>> see the headlines like "Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back"
>>
>> That's media...  We don't have much influence on this.
> True enough.
>
>>>>>> Imagine you were one of the VB6 developers who have huge assets in
>>>>>> VB6 code and you see the deconstruction of Classic VB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your use of the word "deconstruction" is specious, at best.  There is
>>>>> a vast difference between letting something "die on the vine" and
>>>>> actively destroying it.
>>>>
>>>> A real VB7 already existed, which has never been released.  Classic VB
>>>> has been actively destroyed, otherwise it would continue to exist.
>>> Even after the multiple times you've brought up the aborted VB7, I still
>>> don't see how it has any bearing whatsoever on the topic at had.  You
>>> said that MS is "deconstructing" VB6.  I said that MS may not be
>>> supporting it as much as you want, but it's not deconstructing it.
>>
>> Support gives a guarantee that no deconstruction occurs.  Currently one
>> DLL file changed the behavior of existing applications.  There is no
>> guarantee that, for example, a future version of Office will not
>> introduce new versions of DLLs which break existing VB6 applications.  If
>> VB6 was still supported, Microsoft would have to take care about such
>> situations.
> I see your point about how lack of mainstream support increases the risk
> of breaking specific VB6 functions, but 1) I think this is a far cry from
> "deconstruction" 2) I actually agree with you that MS should extend
> mainstream support for VB6 (which, BTW, is not a stated objective of the
> petition) 3) I still don't see what relevance the aborted VB7 has on this
> topic.
>
>>>>>> Wouldn't you be afraid that you are loosing a better VB6 at the
>>>>>> expense of a new programming language called VB.NET?  I don't have
>>>>>> the same opinion as people who think this way, mainly because my
>>>>>> assets in VB6 are not that huge, but I can understand those people's
>>>>>> concerns and lack of comprehension about VB.NET.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that from the standpoint of the company that made horse-drawn
>>>>> carriages, any kind of support for "new-fangled" automobiles would be
>>>>> seen as misplaced.  But fortunately, we can look outside the
>>>>> perspectives of the individual and look at what is reasonable from an
>>>>> external standpoint.
>>>>
>>>> You are mixing up the manufacturer with the customer.  In the case of
>>>> VB6 -> VB.NET, customers are requesting a product, but the manufacturer
>>>> tries hard to dictate customers to use another product.  There is no
>>>> better expert for a product than the customer who uses it and for whom
>>>> it has been created.
>>>
>>> Again, I had a very different experience than you.  VB.NET was viewed by
>>> my co-workers and clients and the answer to their longstanding prayers
>>> for a major overhaul to VB6, not as something that was being forced on
>>> them by MS.
>>
>> I don't doubt that you had a different experience, but surveys and my
>> personal experience show me that there are still lots of developers who
>> continue using VB6.  Nobody of us is able to change that, but it's
>> possible to make Microsoft aware of that in order to take action.
> You stated that MS was dictating that their customers use another product
> (VB.NET).  I countered that with my view that many customers *wanted*
> VB.NET, not that it was forced on them.  Merely because there are "lots"
> of people still developing in VB6, doesn't support the fact that those
> people *want* to program in VB6 or that they believed that VB.NET was
> being forced on them.
>
>>>>>>> down to the practical matter of resource allocation.  Yes, Microsoft
>>>>>>> is one of the biggest companies in the world, but they still have a
>>>>>>> finite amount of resources.  Short of hiring new people to work on
>>>>>>> VB.COM (which I don't think they will do), the only thing they can
>>>>>>> do is to steal resources away from other projects, most probably
>>>>>>> VB.NET.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I already told that in one of my previous posts, but I'll repeat it
>>>>>> again: I understand that nobody wants his favorite product to be
>>>>>> delayed only because of a product he doesn't use, but this applies to
>>>>>> the users of all products.  As a Classic VB/VB.NET developer I may
>>>>>> want to see C# and J# to be discontinued and all the money put into
>>>>>> further development of Classic VB/VB.NET.  Nevertheless, I see that
>>>>>> this standpoint is untenable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the "standpoint is untenable", but this is, in effect,
>>>>> exactly what the petition is asking Microsoft to do.  The petition
>>>>> doesn't specify what project it believes has less priority than
>>>>> VB.COM, but because it would have to get the resources from
>>>>> *somewhere*, the implication of VB.COM is that some other project
>>>>> would have to be scrapped or drastically reduced.
>>>>
>>>> If the petitioners would request Microsoft to stop certain products in
>>>> order to get the resources for the development of VB.COM, maybe you
>>>> were the first one who would complain about the petitioners
>>>> /requesting/ things.  VB.COM is a suggestion, nothing more.  It's a
>>>> proposal which should reflate the dialog between Microsoft and its
>>>> customers.  The petition doesn't request features, and it doesn't
>>>> attempt to dictate anything.
>>>
>>> Doesn't request features?  Maybe you should re-read the petition.  Every
>>> one of the "objectives" is a feature request.
>>
>> It doesn't request features like DataTips and other stuff which is unique
>> to VS.NET, that's what I wanted to say.
> OK.
>
> - Mitchell S. Honnert
>

"Dick Grier" <dick_grierNOSPAM@msn.com> wrote in message
news:uNsPsq4OFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> I don't agree with all aspects of the petition (perhaps not even most of
> them).  However, I signed it because of the things with which I DO agree.
>
> I like and use .NET.  I will expand my use of .NET as my clients demand,
> and where they understand the benefits.  However... As of today, 75% of my
> work involves VB6.
>
> Dick
>
> --
> Richard Grier  (Microsoft Visual Basic MVP)
>
> See www.hardandsoftware.net for contact information.
>
> Author of Visual Basic Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications, 4th
> Edition ISBN 1-890422-28-2  (391 pages) published July 2004.  See
> www.mabry.com/vbpgser4 to order.
>
>