|
web
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
VB 6 developers and .NetHi
I was just wondering how widespread or otherwise is the conversion from VB 6 to .Net. Has VB 2005 made this conversion easier. If the conversion is not that widespread what is the reason. Newish Well i just call myself a VB developer of it is the 4,5,6 legacy version or
the 2002 , 2003 ,2005 version doesn`t mather to me it is just a mather of studying while the new versions are in beta stage . i believe that a programmer should try to hold up his market value , you do this by studying new technology`s regards Michel Posseth [MCP] Show quoteHide quote "Newish" <ahussa***@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Hi > > I was just wondering how widespread or otherwise is the conversion from > VB 6 to .Net. > > Has VB 2005 made this conversion easier. > > If the conversion is not that widespread what is the reason. > > Newish > "Newish" <ahussa***@gmail.com> schrieb: Migration resources:> I was just wondering how widespread or otherwise is the conversion from > VB 6 to .Net. <URL:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vbrun/> -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/> I ignored VB 2002 & 2003 as I felt the IDE was a major step backwards from
the one in VB 6. VB 2005, however, is worth learning. I wouldn't migrate existing code unless it is a library routine or needs major enhancement, especially since the VB 6 and VB 2005 IDEs will nicely coexist on the same machine. Also, when migrating code, don't use the converter in VB 2005. It's easier to simply import the vb 6 code via copy & paste. You actually get fewer conversion errors than from the upgrade wizard. That said, I have discovered that the enhanced features in VB 2005 are slowly making it harder and harder for me to go back and maintain VB 6 programs. Mike Ober. Show quoteHide quote "Newish" <ahussa***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Hi > > I was just wondering how widespread or otherwise is the conversion from > VB 6 to .Net. > > Has VB 2005 made this conversion easier. > > If the conversion is not that widespread what is the reason. > > Newish > > Personally, I use both VB6 and VB.Net. For large, complex projects that
are going to take a while to devolop I use .Net. I really love the new class structures and the other new language features (well most of them :-) ) However, for quick and simple programs that I need to get out quickly VB6 is my goto language. .NET has just lost most of the RADcharm that most people associate with Visual Basic. Basically it's more about what type of programs you develope than anything. Also, if you believe in the Object Orientated practices then .Net is almost a must have upgrade. > That said, I have discovered that the enhanced features in VB 2005 are I know exactly what you mean! I sat around with VS2005 installed for> slowly making it harder and harder for me to go back and maintain VB 6 > programs. months before giving it a shot - I loved my VB6 and refused to give it up. After switching though, the new features just keep growing on me. If it wasn't for a couple of the .Net quirks I might *eyes tearing up* give up VB6 completely. But until then I'll keep on using both languages. Thanks, Seth Rowe Michael D. Ober wrote: Show quoteHide quote > I ignored VB 2002 & 2003 as I felt the IDE was a major step backwards from > the one in VB 6. VB 2005, however, is worth learning. I wouldn't migrate > existing code unless it is a library routine or needs major enhancement, > especially since the VB 6 and VB 2005 IDEs will nicely coexist on the same > machine. Also, when migrating code, don't use the converter in VB 2005. > It's easier to simply import the vb 6 code via copy & paste. You actually > get fewer conversion errors than from the upgrade wizard. > > That said, I have discovered that the enhanced features in VB 2005 are > slowly making it harder and harder for me to go back and maintain VB 6 > programs. > > Mike Ober. > > > "Newish" <ahussa***@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > Hi > > > > I was just wondering how widespread or otherwise is the conversion from > > VB 6 to .Net. > > > > Has VB 2005 made this conversion easier. > > > > If the conversion is not that widespread what is the reason. > > > > Newish > > > > rowe_newsgroups wrote:
> Personally, I use both VB6 and VB.Net. For large, complex projects that What makes you think that? I'm just curious, since VB.NET does not> are going to take a while to devolop I use .Net. I really love the new > class structures and the other new language features (well most of them > :-) ) However, for quick and simple programs that I need to get out > quickly VB6 is my goto language. .NET has just lost most of the RAD > charm that most people associate with Visual Basic. force you to be any more OO then did VB6. Show quoteHide quote > Basically it's more What quirks? Just curious.> about what type of programs you develope than anything. Also, if you > believe in the Object Orientated practices then .Net is almost a must > have upgrade. > > > That said, I have discovered that the enhanced features in VB 2005 are > > slowly making it harder and harder for me to go back and maintain VB 6 > > programs. > > I know exactly what you mean! I sat around with VS2005 installed for > months before giving it a shot - I loved my VB6 and refused to give it > up. After switching though, the new features just keep growing on me. > If it wasn't for a couple of the .Net quirks I might *eyes tearing up* > give up VB6 completely. But until then I'll keep on using both > languages. -- Tom Shelton "Tom Shelton" <t**@mtogden.com> wrote in message No it doesn't. However, by leveraging the OO features of the framework andnews:1160277029.175581.81100@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > rowe_newsgroups wrote: > > Personally, I use both VB6 and VB.Net. For large, complex projects that > > are going to take a while to devolop I use .Net. I really love the new > > class structures and the other new language features (well most of them > > :-) ) However, for quick and simple programs that I need to get out > > quickly VB6 is my goto language. .NET has just lost most of the RAD > > charm that most people associate with Visual Basic. > > What makes you think that? I'm just curious, since VB.NET does not > force you to be any more OO then did VB6. VB 2005, you can really reduce the amount of code you need to write. Also, one of the biggest issues with VB 6 is that it isn't truely type safe. With the VB 2005 Option Strict On, you can actually have the compiler track down hard to find bugs relating to type casting; bugs that can only be caught in VB 6 at run time. Mike Ober. Michael D. Ober wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Tom Shelton" <t**@mtogden.com> wrote in message Mike,> news:1160277029.175581.81100@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > rowe_newsgroups wrote: > > > Personally, I use both VB6 and VB.Net. For large, complex projects that > > > are going to take a while to devolop I use .Net. I really love the new > > > class structures and the other new language features (well most of them > > > :-) ) However, for quick and simple programs that I need to get out > > > quickly VB6 is my goto language. .NET has just lost most of the RAD > > > charm that most people associate with Visual Basic. > > > > What makes you think that? I'm just curious, since VB.NET does not > > force you to be any more OO then did VB6. > > No it doesn't. However, by leveraging the OO features of the framework and > VB 2005, you can really reduce the amount of code you need to write. > Also, > one of the biggest issues with VB 6 is that it isn't truely type safe. With > the VB 2005 Option Strict On, you can actually have the compiler track down > hard to find bugs relating to type casting; bugs that can only be caught in > VB 6 at run time. > > Mike Ober. I agree. I am just curious as to why the rowe thinks that VB.NET has lost is RAD charm. Personally, I think it is just as good if not better then VB6. -- Tom Shelton > Personally, I think it is just as good if not better then VB6. I think I might be slightly misunderstood. I think that VB.Net isbetter than VB6 in 95 percent of applications. For the other 5% of the projects I run into I find that I can get programs that accomplish the same goals built faster with vb6. I could just be me, but it seems that VB.Net is so robust I have trouble gettings small, "quick and dirty" programs out there in a pinch. Does that help clarify or am I making things worse? Thanks, Seth Rowe Tom Shelton wrote: Show quoteHide quote > Michael D. Ober wrote: > > "Tom Shelton" <t**@mtogden.com> wrote in message > > news:1160277029.175581.81100@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > rowe_newsgroups wrote: > > > > Personally, I use both VB6 and VB.Net. For large, complex projects that > > > > are going to take a while to devolop I use .Net. I really love the new > > > > class structures and the other new language features (well most of them > > > > :-) ) However, for quick and simple programs that I need to get out > > > > quickly VB6 is my goto language. .NET has just lost most of the RAD > > > > charm that most people associate with Visual Basic. > > > > > > What makes you think that? I'm just curious, since VB.NET does not > > > force you to be any more OO then did VB6. > > > > No it doesn't. However, by leveraging the OO features of the framework and > > VB 2005, you can really reduce the amount of code you need to write. > > Also, > > one of the biggest issues with VB 6 is that it isn't truely type safe. With > > the VB 2005 Option Strict On, you can actually have the compiler track down > > hard to find bugs relating to type casting; bugs that can only be caught in > > VB 6 at run time. > > > > Mike Ober. > > Mike, > > I agree. I am just curious as to why the rowe thinks that VB.NET has > lost is RAD charm. Personally, I think it is just as good if not > better then VB6. > > -- > Tom Shelton > What makes you think that? I'm just curious, since VB.NET does not I might have wrote that wrong - I meant VB.Net makes implementing OOP> force you to be any more OO then did VB6. easier, like the support of inheritance and interfaces. (I know we had these to some extent in earlier versions, but they are much easier to use now). > What quirks? Just curious. Again, probably the wrong word here. I was referring to the things thatare a bit more difficult to do in .Net. An example would be deploying an application to a network drive, and with your experience I'm sure you know what I'm talking about! Anyways, going through the process of creating a deployement package and having our Network Admin set up a login script to give the users the permissions can be a pain for small applications. The only other things I really miss about vb6 is watchpoints (conditional breakpoints don't always cut it), and the ease of use of the vb6 control arrays. All in all, these aren't reasons that should prevent anyone from upgrading to .Net, just a few things that keep me clinging on to vb6. Hope that clears things up. Thanks, Seth Rowe Tom Shelton wrote: Show quoteHide quote > rowe_newsgroups wrote: > > Personally, I use both VB6 and VB.Net. For large, complex projects that > > are going to take a while to devolop I use .Net. I really love the new > > class structures and the other new language features (well most of them > > :-) ) However, for quick and simple programs that I need to get out > > quickly VB6 is my goto language. .NET has just lost most of the RAD > > charm that most people associate with Visual Basic. > > What makes you think that? I'm just curious, since VB.NET does not > force you to be any more OO then did VB6. > > > Basically it's more > > about what type of programs you develope than anything. Also, if you > > believe in the Object Orientated practices then .Net is almost a must > > have upgrade. > > > > > That said, I have discovered that the enhanced features in VB 2005 are > > > slowly making it harder and harder for me to go back and maintain VB 6 > > > programs. > > > > I know exactly what you mean! I sat around with VS2005 installed for > > months before giving it a shot - I loved my VB6 and refused to give it > > up. After switching though, the new features just keep growing on me. > > If it wasn't for a couple of the .Net quirks I might *eyes tearing up* > > give up VB6 completely. But until then I'll keep on using both > > languages. > > What quirks? Just curious. > > -- > Tom Shelton rowe_newsgroups wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > > What makes you think that? I'm just curious, since VB.NET does not Seth,> > force you to be any more OO then did VB6. > > I might have wrote that wrong - I meant VB.Net makes implementing OOP > easier, like the support of inheritance and interfaces. (I know we had > these to some extent in earlier versions, but they are much easier to > use now). > > > What quirks? Just curious. > > Again, probably the wrong word here. I was referring to the things that > are a bit more difficult to do in .Net. An example would be deploying > an application to a network drive, and with your experience I'm sure > you know what I'm talking about! Anyways, going through the process of > creating a deployement package and having our Network Admin set up a > login script to give the users the permissions can be a pain for small > applications. The only other things I really miss about vb6 is > watchpoints (conditional breakpoints don't always cut it), and the ease > of use of the vb6 control arrays. All in all, these aren't reasons that > should prevent anyone from upgrading to .Net, just a few things that > keep me clinging on to vb6. > > Hope that clears things up. > > Thanks, > > Seth Rowe Thanks - I think I understand more about what you are getting at. And in some regards I agree with you. Thanks for clearing that up. -- Tom Shelton Rowe,
To deploy a simple application you only have to deploy the Exe in VB.Net. I think that is easier than in VB6. Cor Show quoteHide quote "rowe_newsgroups" <rowe_em***@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:1160283943.229802.96930@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> What makes you think that? I'm just curious, since VB.NET does not >> force you to be any more OO then did VB6. > > I might have wrote that wrong - I meant VB.Net makes implementing OOP > easier, like the support of inheritance and interfaces. (I know we had > these to some extent in earlier versions, but they are much easier to > use now). > >> What quirks? Just curious. > > Again, probably the wrong word here. I was referring to the things that > are a bit more difficult to do in .Net. An example would be deploying > an application to a network drive, and with your experience I'm sure > you know what I'm talking about! Anyways, going through the process of > creating a deployement package and having our Network Admin set up a > login script to give the users the permissions can be a pain for small > applications. The only other things I really miss about vb6 is > watchpoints (conditional breakpoints don't always cut it), and the ease > of use of the vb6 control arrays. All in all, these aren't reasons that > should prevent anyone from upgrading to .Net, just a few things that > keep me clinging on to vb6. > > Hope that clears things up. > > Thanks, > > Seth Rowe > > > Tom Shelton wrote: >> rowe_newsgroups wrote: >> > Personally, I use both VB6 and VB.Net. For large, complex projects that >> > are going to take a while to devolop I use .Net. I really love the new >> > class structures and the other new language features (well most of them >> > :-) ) However, for quick and simple programs that I need to get out >> > quickly VB6 is my goto language. .NET has just lost most of the RAD >> > charm that most people associate with Visual Basic. >> >> What makes you think that? I'm just curious, since VB.NET does not >> force you to be any more OO then did VB6. >> >> > Basically it's more >> > about what type of programs you develope than anything. Also, if you >> > believe in the Object Orientated practices then .Net is almost a must >> > have upgrade. >> > >> > > That said, I have discovered that the enhanced features in VB 2005 >> > > are >> > > slowly making it harder and harder for me to go back and maintain VB >> > > 6 >> > > programs. >> > >> > I know exactly what you mean! I sat around with VS2005 installed for >> > months before giving it a shot - I loved my VB6 and refused to give it >> > up. After switching though, the new features just keep growing on me. >> > If it wasn't for a couple of the .Net quirks I might *eyes tearing up* >> > give up VB6 completely. But until then I'll keep on using both >> > languages. >> >> What quirks? Just curious. >> >> -- >> Tom Shelton > Michael,
I don't use Visual Studio to write a letter. Maybe you think what is he writing now again. As there are more things in your toolbox you sometimes need more time to find the right tool. Probably they have therefore made that possibility to make your own import and export of settings, so you can put less tools in your toolbox. Personally I have everything at hand. Just my thought reading your message. Cor Show quoteHide quote "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> schreef in bericht news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >I ignored VB 2002 & 2003 as I felt the IDE was a major step backwards from > the one in VB 6. VB 2005, however, is worth learning. I wouldn't migrate > existing code unless it is a library routine or needs major enhancement, > especially since the VB 6 and VB 2005 IDEs will nicely coexist on the same > machine. Also, when migrating code, don't use the converter in VB 2005. > It's easier to simply import the vb 6 code via copy & paste. You actually > get fewer conversion errors than from the upgrade wizard. > > That said, I have discovered that the enhanced features in VB 2005 are > slowly making it harder and harder for me to go back and maintain VB 6 > programs. > > Mike Ober. > > > "Newish" <ahussa***@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >> Hi >> >> I was just wondering how widespread or otherwise is the conversion from >> VB 6 to .Net. >> >> Has VB 2005 made this conversion easier. >> >> If the conversion is not that widespread what is the reason. >> >> Newish >> >> > > > Cor,
I just "love" OE. It just popped up your month old response to a month old comment of mine. My biggest issue with the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter is that it converts anything it doesn't recognize to a local object. This includes _ALL_ the business interface classes that I have manually rewritten from VB 6 to VB 2005. How do I turn this "feature" off? Thanks, Mike. Show quoteHide quote "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message news:O4No%23Qp6GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Michael, > > I don't use Visual Studio to write a letter. Maybe you think what is he > writing now again. > > As there are more things in your toolbox you sometimes need more time to > find the right tool. > > Probably they have therefore made that possibility to make your own import > and export of settings, so you can put less tools in your toolbox. > > Personally I have everything at hand. > > Just my thought reading your message. > > Cor > > "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> schreef in bericht > news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>I ignored VB 2002 & 2003 as I felt the IDE was a major step backwards from >> the one in VB 6. VB 2005, however, is worth learning. I wouldn't >> migrate >> existing code unless it is a library routine or needs major enhancement, >> especially since the VB 6 and VB 2005 IDEs will nicely coexist on the >> same >> machine. Also, when migrating code, don't use the converter in VB 2005. >> It's easier to simply import the vb 6 code via copy & paste. You >> actually >> get fewer conversion errors than from the upgrade wizard. >> >> That said, I have discovered that the enhanced features in VB 2005 are >> slowly making it harder and harder for me to go back and maintain VB 6 >> programs. >> >> Mike Ober. >> >> >> "Newish" <ahussa***@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >>> Hi >>> >>> I was just wondering how widespread or otherwise is the conversion from >>> VB 6 to .Net. >>> >>> Has VB 2005 made this conversion easier. >>> >>> If the conversion is not that widespread what is the reason. >>> >>> Newish >>> >>> >> >> >> > > Michael,
I am sorry, I don't know how you can tailor this function to your need in the IDE , I assume that it is very hard to do. Sorry Cor Show quoteHide quote "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> schreef in bericht news:edOL7VbAHHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Cor, > > I just "love" OE. It just popped up your month old response to a month > old comment of mine. My biggest issue with the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter > is that it converts anything it doesn't recognize to a local object. This > includes _ALL_ the business interface classes that I have manually > rewritten from VB 6 to VB 2005. How do I turn this "feature" off? > > Thanks, > Mike. > > "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message > news:O4No%23Qp6GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Michael, >> >> I don't use Visual Studio to write a letter. Maybe you think what is he >> writing now again. >> >> As there are more things in your toolbox you sometimes need more time to >> find the right tool. >> >> Probably they have therefore made that possibility to make your own >> import and export of settings, so you can put less tools in your toolbox. >> >> Personally I have everything at hand. >> >> Just my thought reading your message. >> >> Cor >> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> schreef in bericht >> news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>I ignored VB 2002 & 2003 as I felt the IDE was a major step backwards >>>from >>> the one in VB 6. VB 2005, however, is worth learning. I wouldn't >>> migrate >>> existing code unless it is a library routine or needs major enhancement, >>> especially since the VB 6 and VB 2005 IDEs will nicely coexist on the >>> same >>> machine. Also, when migrating code, don't use the converter in VB 2005. >>> It's easier to simply import the vb 6 code via copy & paste. You >>> actually >>> get fewer conversion errors than from the upgrade wizard. >>> >>> That said, I have discovered that the enhanced features in VB 2005 are >>> slowly making it harder and harder for me to go back and maintain VB 6 >>> programs. >>> >>> Mike Ober. >>> >>> >>> "Newish" <ahussa***@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I was just wondering how widespread or otherwise is the conversion from >>>> VB 6 to .Net. >>>> >>>> Has VB 2005 made this conversion easier. >>>> >>>> If the conversion is not that widespread what is the reason. >>>> >>>> Newish >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Cor,
I can't believe I found something about VS 2005 you don't know. ;) You are an outstanding source of support in these forums. Thanks for all your help to both myself and others. Mike Ober. Show quoteHide quote "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message news:%23QRCQbiAHHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Michael, > > I am sorry, I don't know how you can tailor this function to your need in > the IDE , I assume that it is very hard to do. > > Sorry > > Cor > > "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> schreef in bericht > news:edOL7VbAHHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Cor, >> >> I just "love" OE. It just popped up your month old response to a month >> old comment of mine. My biggest issue with the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter >> is that it converts anything it doesn't recognize to a local object. >> This includes _ALL_ the business interface classes that I have manually >> rewritten from VB 6 to VB 2005. How do I turn this "feature" off? >> >> Thanks, >> Mike. >> >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message >> news:O4No%23Qp6GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Michael, >>> >>> I don't use Visual Studio to write a letter. Maybe you think what is he >>> writing now again. >>> >>> As there are more things in your toolbox you sometimes need more time to >>> find the right tool. >>> >>> Probably they have therefore made that possibility to make your own >>> import and export of settings, so you can put less tools in your >>> toolbox. >>> >>> Personally I have everything at hand. >>> >>> Just my thought reading your message. >>> >>> Cor >>> >>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> schreef in bericht >>> news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>>I ignored VB 2002 & 2003 as I felt the IDE was a major step backwards >>>>from >>>> the one in VB 6. VB 2005, however, is worth learning. I wouldn't >>>> migrate >>>> existing code unless it is a library routine or needs major >>>> enhancement, >>>> especially since the VB 6 and VB 2005 IDEs will nicely coexist on the >>>> same >>>> machine. Also, when migrating code, don't use the converter in VB >>>> 2005. >>>> It's easier to simply import the vb 6 code via copy & paste. You >>>> actually >>>> get fewer conversion errors than from the upgrade wizard. >>>> >>>> That said, I have discovered that the enhanced features in VB 2005 are >>>> slowly making it harder and harder for me to go back and maintain VB 6 >>>> programs. >>>> >>>> Mike Ober. >>>> >>>> >>>> "Newish" <ahussa***@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> I was just wondering how widespread or otherwise is the conversion >>>>> from >>>>> VB 6 to .Net. >>>>> >>>>> Has VB 2005 made this conversion easier. >>>>> >>>>> If the conversion is not that widespread what is the reason. >>>>> >>>>> Newish >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
The Grand Master Michael D. Ober wrote: Show quoteHide quote > Cor, > > I can't believe I found something about VS 2005 you don't know. ;) You are > an outstanding source of support in these forums. > > Thanks for all your help to both myself and others. > Mike Ober. > > "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message > news:%23QRCQbiAHHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > Michael, > > > > I am sorry, I don't know how you can tailor this function to your need in > > the IDE , I assume that it is very hard to do. > > > > Sorry > > > > Cor > > > > "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> schreef in bericht > > news:edOL7VbAHHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > >> Cor, > >> > >> I just "love" OE. It just popped up your month old response to a month > >> old comment of mine. My biggest issue with the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter > >> is that it converts anything it doesn't recognize to a local object. > >> This includes _ALL_ the business interface classes that I have manually > >> rewritten from VB 6 to VB 2005. How do I turn this "feature" off? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Mike. > >> > >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message > >> news:O4No%23Qp6GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > >>> Michael, > >>> > >>> I don't use Visual Studio to write a letter. Maybe you think what is he > >>> writing now again. > >>> > >>> As there are more things in your toolbox you sometimes need more time to > >>> find the right tool. > >>> > >>> Probably they have therefore made that possibility to make your own > >>> import and export of settings, so you can put less tools in your > >>> toolbox. > >>> > >>> Personally I have everything at hand. > >>> > >>> Just my thought reading your message. > >>> > >>> Cor > >>> > >>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> schreef in bericht > >>> news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >>>>I ignored VB 2002 & 2003 as I felt the IDE was a major step backwards > >>>>from > >>>> the one in VB 6. VB 2005, however, is worth learning. I wouldn't > >>>> migrate > >>>> existing code unless it is a library routine or needs major > >>>> enhancement, > >>>> especially since the VB 6 and VB 2005 IDEs will nicely coexist on the > >>>> same > >>>> machine. Also, when migrating code, don't use the converter in VB > >>>> 2005. > >>>> It's easier to simply import the vb 6 code via copy & paste. You > >>>> actually > >>>> get fewer conversion errors than from the upgrade wizard. > >>>> > >>>> That said, I have discovered that the enhanced features in VB 2005 are > >>>> slowly making it harder and harder for me to go back and maintain VB 6 > >>>> programs. > >>>> > >>>> Mike Ober. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "Newish" <ahussa***@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > >>>>> Hi > >>>>> > >>>>> I was just wondering how widespread or otherwise is the conversion > >>>>> from > >>>>> VB 6 to .Net. > >>>>> > >>>>> Has VB 2005 made this conversion easier. > >>>>> > >>>>> If the conversion is not that widespread what is the reason. > >>>>> > >>>>> Newish > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows everywhere except
for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still alive and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands of lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, I have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use and will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB 2005 converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume of code. Mike. Show quoteHide quote "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. > > The Grand Master > > You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds.
Robin S. ---------------------------- Show quoteHide quote "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows everywhere > except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still alive and > kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands of lines of VB > 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, I have close to 250,000 > lines of VB 6 code that is still in use and will someday need to be > converted. The current VB 6 to VB 2005 converters simply aren't up to the > task for this volume of code. > > Mike. > > "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message > news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >> >> The Grand Master >> >> > > I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in the water.
That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and then by a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My comments about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be converted at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. Mike. Show quoteHide quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... > You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds. > > Robin S. > ---------------------------- > "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows everywhere >> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still alive and >> kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands of lines of VB >> 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, I have close to >> 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use and will someday need to >> be converted. The current VB 6 to VB 2005 converters simply aren't up to >> the task for this volume of code. >> >> Mike. >> >> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >>> >>> The Grand Master >>> >>> >> >> > > I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be
dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and they could have told people they had to do that, but it would have really hurt them. They need the developers to support them, because the availability of developers in a certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of that technology. Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and Pascal out there, too. :-O Have fun. Robin S. --------------------------- Show quoteHide quote "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in the water. > > That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and then by a > serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My comments about > this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class language, there is > a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be converted at some point, and the > VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. > > Mike. > > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... >> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds. >> >> Robin S. >> ---------------------------- >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows everywhere >>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still alive and >>> kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands of lines of >>> VB 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, I have close to >>> 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use and will someday need to >>> be converted. The current VB 6 to VB 2005 converters simply aren't up >>> to the task for this volume of code. >>> >>> Mike. >>> >>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >>>> >>>> The Grand Master >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Robin,
There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of policy from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with all legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom true because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM will advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of PC software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros just for an enviromnent that fullfills that. The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is going to new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they did not even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of typewritter). "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and Pascal out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. Cor Show quoteHide quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be > dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows > Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have > developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving > forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself > included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and > they could have told people they had to do that, but it > would have really hurt them. They need the developers to > support them, because the availability of developers in a > certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of > that technology. > > Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and Pascal > out there, too. :-O > > Have fun. > Robin S. > --------------------------- > > "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in the water. >> >> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and then by a >> serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My comments about >> this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class language, there >> is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be converted at some point, and >> the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. >> >> Mike. >> >> >> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... >>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds. >>> >>> Robin S. >>> ---------------------------- >>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows everywhere >>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still alive and >>>> kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands of lines of >>>> VB 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, I have close to >>>> 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use and will someday need >>>> to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB 2005 converters simply aren't >>>> up to the task for this volume of code. >>>> >>>> Mike. >>>> >>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >>>>> >>>>> The Grand Master >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I
don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. They frequently have a section about career blogs and a banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really be that many COBOL jobs? Robin S. -=-------------- Show quoteHide quote "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Robin, > > There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of policy from > IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with all legancy > softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom true because of the > cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM will advice you to go to a > visual environment using Java or C++). > > But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of PC > software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros just for > an enviromnent that fullfills that. > > The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is going to new > systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent workstations as > the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they did not even exist the > most advanced was the teletype a kind of typewritter). > > "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran and MVS > and PL/I and Pascal > out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. > > Cor > > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht > news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be >> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows >> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have >> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving >> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself >> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and >> they could have told people they had to do that, but it >> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to >> support them, because the availability of developers in a >> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of >> that technology. >> >> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and Pascal >> out there, too. :-O >> >> Have fun. >> Robin S. >> --------------------------- >> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in the >>>water. >>> >>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and then by a >>> serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My comments about >>> this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class language, there >>> is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be converted at some point, and >>> the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. >>> >>> Mike. >>> >>> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... >>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds. >>>> >>>> Robin S. >>>> ---------------------------- >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows everywhere >>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still alive and >>>>> kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands of lines of >>>>> VB 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, I have close to >>>>> 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use and will someday need >>>>> to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB 2005 converters simply aren't >>>>> up to the task for this volume of code. >>>>> >>>>> Mike. >>>>> >>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Grand Master >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the programmers
who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring now (if not already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL programmers for their mainframes. Mike Ober. Show quoteHide quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I > don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. > Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better > than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much > more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) > > What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. > They frequently have a section about career blogs and a > banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, > but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really > be that many COBOL jobs? > > Robin S. > -=-------------- > "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message > news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Robin, >> >> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of policy >> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with all >> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom true because >> of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM will advice you to >> go to a visual environment using Java or C++). >> >> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of PC >> software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros just for >> an enviromnent that fullfills that. >> >> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is going to >> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent workstations >> as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they did not even exist >> the most advanced was the teletype a kind of typewritter). >> >> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran and MVS >> and PL/I and Pascal >> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. >> >> Cor >> >> >> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht >> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be >>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows >>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have >>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving >>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself >>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and >>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it >>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to >>> support them, because the availability of developers in a >>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of >>> that technology. >>> >>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and Pascal >>> out there, too. :-O >>> >>> Have fun. >>> Robin S. >>> --------------------------- >>> >>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in the >>>>water. >>>> >>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and then by >>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My comments >>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class language, >>>> there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be converted at some >>>> point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. >>>> >>>> Mike. >>>> >>>> >>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... >>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds. >>>>> >>>>> Robin S. >>>>> ---------------------------- >>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows everywhere >>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still alive and >>>>>> kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands of lines >>>>>> of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, I have close >>>>>> to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use and will someday >>>>>> need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB 2005 converters simply >>>>>> aren't up to the task for this volume of code. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Grand Master >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I contracted at a large company that
still had a lot of COBOL mainframe stuff, and had 2 guys contracting and supported it that had originally written it over 20 years ago. Yikes. Robin S. -------------------------------- Show quoteHide quote "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the programmers > who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring now (if not > already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL programmers for > their mainframes. > > Mike Ober. > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I >> don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. >> Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better >> than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much >> more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) >> >> What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. >> They frequently have a section about career blogs and a >> banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, >> but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really >> be that many COBOL jobs? >> >> Robin S. >> -=-------------- >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message >> news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Robin, >>> >>> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of policy >>> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with all >>> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom true >>> because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM will >>> advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). >>> >>> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of PC >>> software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros just for >>> an enviromnent that fullfills that. >>> >>> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is going to >>> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent >>> workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they did not >>> even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of typewritter). >>> >>> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran and MVS >>> and PL/I and Pascal >>> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. >>> >>> Cor >>> >>> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht >>> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >>>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be >>>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows >>>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have >>>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving >>>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself >>>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and >>>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it >>>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to >>>> support them, because the availability of developers in a >>>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of >>>> that technology. >>>> >>>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and Pascal >>>> out there, too. :-O >>>> >>>> Have fun. >>>> Robin S. >>>> --------------------------- >>>> >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >>>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in the >>>>>water. >>>>> >>>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and then by >>>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My comments >>>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class >>>>> language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be converted >>>>> at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. >>>>> >>>>> Mike. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >>>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... >>>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds. >>>>>> >>>>>> Robin S. >>>>>> ---------------------------- >>>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >>>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows everywhere >>>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still alive >>>>>>> and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands of >>>>>>> lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, I >>>>>>> have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use and >>>>>>> will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB 2005 >>>>>>> converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume of code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Grand Master >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > DEAD DEAD DEAD
The Master RobinS wrote: Show quoteHide quote > Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I contracted at a large company that > still had a lot of COBOL mainframe stuff, and had 2 guys contracting > and supported it that had originally written it over 20 years ago. > Yikes. > > Robin S. > -------------------------------- > "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the programmers > > who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring now (if not > > already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL programmers for > > their mainframes. > > > > Mike Ober. > > > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > > news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I > >> don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. > >> Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better > >> than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much > >> more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) > >> > >> What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. > >> They frequently have a section about career blogs and a > >> banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, > >> but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really > >> be that many COBOL jobs? > >> > >> Robin S. > >> -=-------------- > >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message > >> news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >>> Robin, > >>> > >>> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of policy > >>> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with all > >>> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom true > >>> because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM will > >>> advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). > >>> > >>> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of PC > >>> software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros just for > >>> an enviromnent that fullfills that. > >>> > >>> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is going to > >>> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent > >>> workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they did not > >>> even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of typewritter). > >>> > >>> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran and MVS > >>> and PL/I and Pascal > >>> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. > >>> > >>> Cor > >>> > >>> > >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht > >>> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be > >>>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows > >>>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have > >>>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving > >>>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself > >>>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and > >>>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it > >>>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to > >>>> support them, because the availability of developers in a > >>>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of > >>>> that technology. > >>>> > >>>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and Pascal > >>>> out there, too. :-O > >>>> > >>>> Have fun. > >>>> Robin S. > >>>> --------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > >>>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >>>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in the > >>>>>water. > >>>>> > >>>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and then by > >>>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My comments > >>>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class > >>>>> language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be converted > >>>>> at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mike. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > >>>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Robin S. > >>>>>> ---------------------------- > >>>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > >>>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >>>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows everywhere > >>>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still alive > >>>>>>> and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands of > >>>>>>> lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, I > >>>>>>> have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use and > >>>>>>> will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB 2005 > >>>>>>> converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume of code. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Mike. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The Grand Master > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > Are you off your meds again?
Show quoteHide quote "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > DEAD DEAD DEAD > > The Master > > RobinS wrote: >> Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I contracted at a large company that >> still had a lot of COBOL mainframe stuff, and had 2 guys contracting >> and supported it that had originally written it over 20 years ago. >> Yikes. >> >> Robin S. >> -------------------------------- >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the >> > programmers >> > who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring now (if >> > not >> > already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL programmers for >> > their mainframes. >> > >> > Mike Ober. >> > >> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> > news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I >> >> don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. >> >> Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better >> >> than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much >> >> more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) >> >> >> >> What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. >> >> They frequently have a section about career blogs and a >> >> banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, >> >> but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really >> >> be that many COBOL jobs? >> >> >> >> Robin S. >> >> -=-------------- >> >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message >> >> news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >>> Robin, >> >>> >> >>> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of policy >> >>> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with all >> >>> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom true >> >>> because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM will >> >>> advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). >> >>> >> >>> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of PC >> >>> software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros just >> >>> for >> >>> an enviromnent that fullfills that. >> >>> >> >>> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is going >> >>> to >> >>> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent >> >>> workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they did >> >>> not >> >>> even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of typewritter). >> >>> >> >>> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran and >> >>> MVS >> >>> and PL/I and Pascal >> >>> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. >> >>> >> >>> Cor >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht >> >>> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >>>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be >> >>>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows >> >>>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have >> >>>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving >> >>>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself >> >>>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and >> >>>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it >> >>>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to >> >>>> support them, because the availability of developers in a >> >>>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of >> >>>> that technology. >> >>>> >> >>>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and Pascal >> >>>> out there, too. :-O >> >>>> >> >>>> Have fun. >> >>>> Robin S. >> >>>> --------------------------- >> >>>> >> >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> >>>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >>>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in the >> >>>>>water. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and then >> >>>>> by >> >>>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My comments >> >>>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class >> >>>>> language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be >> >>>>> converted >> >>>>> at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Mike. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> >>>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... >> >>>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Robin S. >> >>>>>> ---------------------------- >> >>>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> >>>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >>>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows >> >>>>>>> everywhere >> >>>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still alive >> >>>>>>> and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands of >> >>>>>>> lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, I >> >>>>>>> have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use and >> >>>>>>> will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB 2005 >> >>>>>>> converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume of code. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Mike. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in >> >>>>>>> message >> >>>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> The Grand Master >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > Sounds facinating.... fixing old programs written in an obsolete
language. What a challenging and rewarding career. The Grand Master RobinS wrote: Show quoteHide quote > Are you off your meds again? > > "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message > news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > DEAD DEAD DEAD > > > > The Master > > > > RobinS wrote: > >> Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I contracted at a large company that > >> still had a lot of COBOL mainframe stuff, and had 2 guys contracting > >> and supported it that had originally written it over 20 years ago. > >> Yikes. > >> > >> Robin S. > >> -------------------------------- > >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > >> news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > >> > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the > >> > programmers > >> > who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring now (if > >> > not > >> > already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL programmers for > >> > their mainframes. > >> > > >> > Mike Ober. > >> > > >> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > >> > news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >> I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I > >> >> don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. > >> >> Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better > >> >> than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much > >> >> more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) > >> >> > >> >> What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. > >> >> They frequently have a section about career blogs and a > >> >> banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, > >> >> but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really > >> >> be that many COBOL jobs? > >> >> > >> >> Robin S. > >> >> -=-------------- > >> >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message > >> >> news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >> >>> Robin, > >> >>> > >> >>> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of policy > >> >>> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with all > >> >>> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom true > >> >>> because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM will > >> >>> advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). > >> >>> > >> >>> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of PC > >> >>> software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros just > >> >>> for > >> >>> an enviromnent that fullfills that. > >> >>> > >> >>> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is going > >> >>> to > >> >>> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent > >> >>> workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they did > >> >>> not > >> >>> even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of typewritter). > >> >>> > >> >>> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran and > >> >>> MVS > >> >>> and PL/I and Pascal > >> >>> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. > >> >>> > >> >>> Cor > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht > >> >>> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >>>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be > >> >>>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows > >> >>>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have > >> >>>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving > >> >>>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself > >> >>>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and > >> >>>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it > >> >>>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to > >> >>>> support them, because the availability of developers in a > >> >>>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of > >> >>>> that technology. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and Pascal > >> >>>> out there, too. :-O > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Have fun. > >> >>>> Robin S. > >> >>>> --------------------------- > >> >>>> > >> >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > >> >>>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> >>>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in the > >> >>>>>water. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and then > >> >>>>> by > >> >>>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My comments > >> >>>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class > >> >>>>> language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be > >> >>>>> converted > >> >>>>> at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Mike. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > >> >>>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >>>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Robin S. > >> >>>>>> ---------------------------- > >> >>>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > >> >>>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >> >>>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows > >> >>>>>>> everywhere > >> >>>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still alive > >> >>>>>>> and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands of > >> >>>>>>> lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, I > >> >>>>>>> have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use and > >> >>>>>>> will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB 2005 > >> >>>>>>> converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume of code. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Mike. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in > >> >>>>>>> message > >> >>>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > >> >>>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> The Grand Master > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > I wouldn't know. That's not what I do.
Robin S. --------------------------------------- Show quoteHide quote "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Sounds facinating.... fixing old programs written in an obsolete > language. What a challenging and rewarding career. > > The Grand Master > > > RobinS wrote: >> Are you off your meds again? >> >> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >> news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> > DEAD DEAD DEAD >> > >> > The Master >> > >> > RobinS wrote: >> >> Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I contracted at a large company that >> >> still had a lot of COBOL mainframe stuff, and had 2 guys contracting >> >> and supported it that had originally written it over 20 years ago. >> >> Yikes. >> >> >> >> Robin S. >> >> -------------------------------- >> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> >> news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the >> >> > programmers >> >> > who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring now (if >> >> > not >> >> > already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL programmers >> >> > for >> >> > their mainframes. >> >> > >> >> > Mike Ober. >> >> > >> >> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> >> > news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >> I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I >> >> >> don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. >> >> >> Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better >> >> >> than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much >> >> >> more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) >> >> >> >> >> >> What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. >> >> >> They frequently have a section about career blogs and a >> >> >> banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, >> >> >> but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really >> >> >> be that many COBOL jobs? >> >> >> >> >> >> Robin S. >> >> >> -=-------------- >> >> >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message >> >> >> news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >> >>> Robin, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of >> >> >>> policy >> >> >>> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with all >> >> >>> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom true >> >> >>> because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM >> >> >>> will >> >> >>> advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of PC >> >> >>> software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros >> >> >>> just >> >> >>> for >> >> >>> an enviromnent that fullfills that. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is >> >> >>> going >> >> >>> to >> >> >>> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent >> >> >>> workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they >> >> >>> did >> >> >>> not >> >> >>> even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of >> >> >>> typewritter). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran >> >> >>> and >> >> >>> MVS >> >> >>> and PL/I and Pascal >> >> >>> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Cor >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht >> >> >>> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >>>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be >> >> >>>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows >> >> >>>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have >> >> >>>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving >> >> >>>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself >> >> >>>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and >> >> >>>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it >> >> >>>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to >> >> >>>> support them, because the availability of developers in a >> >> >>>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of >> >> >>>> that technology. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and Pascal >> >> >>>> out there, too. :-O >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Have fun. >> >> >>>> Robin S. >> >> >>>> --------------------------- >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> >> >>>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> >>>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in >> >> >>>>>the >> >> >>>>>water. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and >> >> >>>>> then >> >> >>>>> by >> >> >>>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My >> >> >>>>> comments >> >> >>>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class >> >> >>>>> language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be >> >> >>>>> converted >> >> >>>>> at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Mike. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> >> >>>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >>>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his >> >> >>>>>> meds. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Robin S. >> >> >>>>>> ---------------------------- >> >> >>>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in >> >> >>>>>> message >> >> >>>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >> >>>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows >> >> >>>>>>> everywhere >> >> >>>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still >> >> >>>>>>> alive >> >> >>>>>>> and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands >> >> >>>>>>> of >> >> >>>>>>> lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, >> >> >>>>>>> I >> >> >>>>>>> have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use >> >> >>>>>>> and >> >> >>>>>>> will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB >> >> >>>>>>> 2005 >> >> >>>>>>> converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume of >> >> >>>>>>> code. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Mike. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in >> >> >>>>>>> message >> >> >>>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> The Grand Master >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > It pays well - the demand is high and the number of people able to do it is
shrinking yearly. Mike Ober. Show quoteHide quote "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com... >I wouldn't know. That's not what I do. > > Robin S. > --------------------------------------- > "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message > news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> Sounds facinating.... fixing old programs written in an obsolete >> language. What a challenging and rewarding career. >> >> The Grand Master >> >> >> RobinS wrote: >>> Are you off your meds again? >>> >>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >>> news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >>> > DEAD DEAD DEAD >>> > >>> > The Master >>> > >>> > RobinS wrote: >>> >> Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I contracted at a large company that >>> >> still had a lot of COBOL mainframe stuff, and had 2 guys contracting >>> >> and supported it that had originally written it over 20 years ago. >>> >> Yikes. >>> >> >>> >> Robin S. >>> >> -------------------------------- >>> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >>> >> news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> >> > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the >>> >> > programmers >>> >> > who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring now >>> >> > (if >>> >> > not >>> >> > already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL programmers >>> >> > for >>> >> > their mainframes. >>> >> > >>> >> > Mike Ober. >>> >> > >>> >> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >>> >> > news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> >> >> I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I >>> >> >> don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. >>> >> >> Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better >>> >> >> than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much >>> >> >> more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. >>> >> >> They frequently have a section about career blogs and a >>> >> >> banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, >>> >> >> but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really >>> >> >> be that many COBOL jobs? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Robin S. >>> >> >> -=-------------- >>> >> >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message >>> >> >> news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> >> >>> Robin, >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of >>> >> >>> policy >>> >> >>> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with >>> >> >>> all >>> >> >>> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom true >>> >> >>> because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM >>> >> >>> will >>> >> >>> advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of PC >>> >> >>> software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros >>> >> >>> just >>> >> >>> for >>> >> >>> an enviromnent that fullfills that. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is >>> >> >>> going >>> >> >>> to >>> >> >>> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent >>> >> >>> workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they >>> >> >>> did >>> >> >>> not >>> >> >>> even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of >>> >> >>> typewritter). >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran >>> >> >>> and >>> >> >>> MVS >>> >> >>> and PL/I and Pascal >>> >> >>> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Cor >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht >>> >> >>> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> >> >>>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be >>> >> >>>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows >>> >> >>>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have >>> >> >>>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving >>> >> >>>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself >>> >> >>>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and >>> >> >>>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it >>> >> >>>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to >>> >> >>>> support them, because the availability of developers in a >>> >> >>>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of >>> >> >>>> that technology. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and >>> >> >>>> Pascal >>> >> >>>> out there, too. :-O >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Have fun. >>> >> >>>> Robin S. >>> >> >>>> --------------------------- >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in >>> >> >>>> message >>> >> >>>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> >> >>>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in >>> >> >>>>>the >>> >> >>>>>water. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and >>> >> >>>>> then >>> >> >>>>> by >>> >> >>>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My >>> >> >>>>> comments >>> >> >>>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class >>> >> >>>>> language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be >>> >> >>>>> converted >>> >> >>>>> at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Mike. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >>> >> >>>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... >>> >> >>>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his >>> >> >>>>>> meds. >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Robin S. >>> >> >>>>>> ---------------------------- >>> >> >>>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in >>> >> >>>>>> message >>> >> >>>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> >> >>>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows >>> >> >>>>>>> everywhere >>> >> >>>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still >>> >> >>>>>>> alive >>> >> >>>>>>> and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have >>> >> >>>>>>> thousands of >>> >> >>>>>>> lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. >>> >> >>>>>>> Personally, I >>> >> >>>>>>> have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use >>> >> >>>>>>> and >>> >> >>>>>>> will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB >>> >> >>>>>>> 2005 >>> >> >>>>>>> converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume of >>> >> >>>>>>> code. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Mike. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in >>> >> >>>>>>> message >>> >> >>>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >>> >> >>>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> The Grand Master >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >> > > I have to work another 20 years before I can retire,
so although there's demand now, I wouldn't bank on it still being around in 20 years. That's not saying it won't, just that *I* won't bank on it. I'm always trying to move forward. Robin S. ---------------------- Show quoteHide quote "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message news:u8ipbnZDHHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > It pays well - the demand is high and the number of people able to do it > is shrinking yearly. > > Mike Ober. > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com... >>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do. >> >> Robin S. >> --------------------------------------- >> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >> news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >>> Sounds facinating.... fixing old programs written in an obsolete >>> language. What a challenging and rewarding career. >>> >>> The Grand Master >>> >>> >>> RobinS wrote: >>>> Are you off your meds again? >>>> >>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >>>> > DEAD DEAD DEAD >>>> > >>>> > The Master >>>> > >>>> > RobinS wrote: >>>> >> Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I contracted at a large company that >>>> >> still had a lot of COBOL mainframe stuff, and had 2 guys contracting >>>> >> and supported it that had originally written it over 20 years ago. >>>> >> Yikes. >>>> >> >>>> >> Robin S. >>>> >> -------------------------------- >>>> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >>>> >> news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> >> > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the >>>> >> > programmers >>>> >> > who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring now >>>> >> > (if >>>> >> > not >>>> >> > already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL programmers >>>> >> > for >>>> >> > their mainframes. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Mike Ober. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >>>> >> > news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... >>>> >> >> I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I >>>> >> >> don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. >>>> >> >> Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better >>>> >> >> than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much >>>> >> >> more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. >>>> >> >> They frequently have a section about career blogs and a >>>> >> >> banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, >>>> >> >> but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really >>>> >> >> be that many COBOL jobs? >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Robin S. >>>> >> >> -=-------------- >>>> >> >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message >>>> >> >> news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> >> >>> Robin, >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of >>>> >> >>> policy >>>> >> >>> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with >>>> >> >>> all >>>> >> >>> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom >>>> >> >>> true >>>> >> >>> because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM >>>> >> >>> will >>>> >> >>> advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of >>>> >> >>> PC >>>> >> >>> software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros >>>> >> >>> just >>>> >> >>> for >>>> >> >>> an enviromnent that fullfills that. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is >>>> >> >>> going >>>> >> >>> to >>>> >> >>> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent >>>> >> >>> workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they >>>> >> >>> did >>>> >> >>> not >>>> >> >>> even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of >>>> >> >>> typewritter). >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran >>>> >> >>> and >>>> >> >>> MVS >>>> >> >>> and PL/I and Pascal >>>> >> >>> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> Cor >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht >>>> >> >>> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >>>> >> >>>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be >>>> >> >>>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows >>>> >> >>>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have >>>> >> >>>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving >>>> >> >>>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself >>>> >> >>>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and >>>> >> >>>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it >>>> >> >>>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to >>>> >> >>>> support them, because the availability of developers in a >>>> >> >>>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of >>>> >> >>>> that technology. >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and >>>> >> >>>> Pascal >>>> >> >>>> out there, too. :-O >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> Have fun. >>>> >> >>>> Robin S. >>>> >> >>>> --------------------------- >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in >>>> >> >>>> message >>>> >> >>>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>> >> >>>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in >>>> >> >>>>>the >>>> >> >>>>>water. >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and >>>> >> >>>>> then >>>> >> >>>>> by >>>> >> >>>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My >>>> >> >>>>> comments >>>> >> >>>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class >>>> >> >>>>> language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be >>>> >> >>>>> converted >>>> >> >>>>> at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> Mike. >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >>>> >> >>>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... >>>> >> >>>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his >>>> >> >>>>>> meds. >>>> >> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> Robin S. >>>> >> >>>>>> ---------------------------- >>>> >> >>>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in >>>> >> >>>>>> message >>>> >> >>>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> >> >>>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows >>>> >> >>>>>>> everywhere >>>> >> >>>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still >>>> >> >>>>>>> alive >>>> >> >>>>>>> and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have >>>> >> >>>>>>> thousands of >>>> >> >>>>>>> lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. >>>> >> >>>>>>> Personally, I >>>> >> >>>>>>> have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in >>>> >> >>>>>>> use and >>>> >> >>>>>>> will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB >>>> >> >>>>>>> 2005 >>>> >> >>>>>>> converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume of >>>> >> >>>>>>> code. >>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Mike. >>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in >>>> >> >>>>>>> message >>>> >> >>>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >>>> >> >>>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> The Grand Master >>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> > >>> >> >> > > I agree with Aaron
MS can screw themselves. The Grand Master RobinS wrote: Show quoteHide quote > I have to work another 20 years before I can retire, > so although there's demand now, I wouldn't bank on it > still being around in 20 years. That's not saying it > won't, just that *I* won't bank on it. I'm always > trying to move forward. > > Robin S. > ---------------------- > "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > news:u8ipbnZDHHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > It pays well - the demand is high and the number of people able to do it > > is shrinking yearly. > > > > Mike Ober. > > > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > > news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do. > >> > >> Robin S. > >> --------------------------------------- > >> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message > >> news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > >>> Sounds facinating.... fixing old programs written in an obsolete > >>> language. What a challenging and rewarding career. > >>> > >>> The Grand Master > >>> > >>> > >>> RobinS wrote: > >>>> Are you off your meds again? > >>>> > >>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >>>> > DEAD DEAD DEAD > >>>> > > >>>> > The Master > >>>> > > >>>> > RobinS wrote: > >>>> >> Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I contracted at a large company that > >>>> >> still had a lot of COBOL mainframe stuff, and had 2 guys contracting > >>>> >> and supported it that had originally written it over 20 years ago. > >>>> >> Yikes. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Robin S. > >>>> >> -------------------------------- > >>>> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > >>>> >> news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > >>>> >> > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the > >>>> >> > programmers > >>>> >> > who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring now > >>>> >> > (if > >>>> >> > not > >>>> >> > already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL programmers > >>>> >> > for > >>>> >> > their mainframes. > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > Mike Ober. > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > >>>> >> > news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>> >> >> I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I > >>>> >> >> don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. > >>>> >> >> Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better > >>>> >> >> than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much > >>>> >> >> more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. > >>>> >> >> They frequently have a section about career blogs and a > >>>> >> >> banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, > >>>> >> >> but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really > >>>> >> >> be that many COBOL jobs? > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> Robin S. > >>>> >> >> -=-------------- > >>>> >> >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message > >>>> >> >> news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >>>> >> >>> Robin, > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of > >>>> >> >>> policy > >>>> >> >>> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with > >>>> >> >>> all > >>>> >> >>> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom > >>>> >> >>> true > >>>> >> >>> because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM > >>>> >> >>> will > >>>> >> >>> advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of > >>>> >> >>> PC > >>>> >> >>> software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros > >>>> >> >>> just > >>>> >> >>> for > >>>> >> >>> an enviromnent that fullfills that. > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is > >>>> >> >>> going > >>>> >> >>> to > >>>> >> >>> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent > >>>> >> >>> workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they > >>>> >> >>> did > >>>> >> >>> not > >>>> >> >>> even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of > >>>> >> >>> typewritter). > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran > >>>> >> >>> and > >>>> >> >>> MVS > >>>> >> >>> and PL/I and Pascal > >>>> >> >>> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> Cor > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht > >>>> >> >>> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>> >> >>>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be > >>>> >> >>>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows > >>>> >> >>>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have > >>>> >> >>>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving > >>>> >> >>>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself > >>>> >> >>>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and > >>>> >> >>>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it > >>>> >> >>>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to > >>>> >> >>>> support them, because the availability of developers in a > >>>> >> >>>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of > >>>> >> >>>> that technology. > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and > >>>> >> >>>> Pascal > >>>> >> >>>> out there, too. :-O > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> Have fun. > >>>> >> >>>> Robin S. > >>>> >> >>>> --------------------------- > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in > >>>> >> >>>> message > >>>> >> >>>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >>>> >> >>>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in > >>>> >> >>>>>the > >>>> >> >>>>>water. > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and > >>>> >> >>>>> then > >>>> >> >>>>> by > >>>> >> >>>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My > >>>> >> >>>>> comments > >>>> >> >>>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class > >>>> >> >>>>> language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be > >>>> >> >>>>> converted > >>>> >> >>>>> at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> Mike. > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > >>>> >> >>>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>> >> >>>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his > >>>> >> >>>>>> meds. > >>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>> Robin S. > >>>> >> >>>>>> ---------------------------- > >>>> >> >>>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in > >>>> >> >>>>>> message > >>>> >> >>>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >>>> >> >>>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows > >>>> >> >>>>>>> everywhere > >>>> >> >>>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still > >>>> >> >>>>>>> alive > >>>> >> >>>>>>> and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have > >>>> >> >>>>>>> thousands of > >>>> >> >>>>>>> lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. > >>>> >> >>>>>>> Personally, I > >>>> >> >>>>>>> have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in > >>>> >> >>>>>>> use and > >>>> >> >>>>>>> will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB > >>>> >> >>>>>>> 2005 > >>>> >> >>>>>>> converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume of > >>>> >> >>>>>>> code. > >>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>>> Mike. > >>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in > >>>> >> >>>>>>> message > >>>> >> >>>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > >>>> >> >>>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. > >>>> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>>>> The Grand Master > >>>> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > > > Not forward Robin, we are constantly moving sidewards or backwards.
How can constantly re-learning to do the same things over and over again - but in different ways, be progress? Visual Basic.NET is just a giant leap backwards. There is nothing that could not be done more quickly using VB 6.0. Its not progressive at all - just Microsoft's stupidity and desire to change the way everything works every five minutes - but without any advantages. Aaaron is right, the best thing would be for MS too release the **Real** VB as open source. They will never do that as we all know - if the real VB ("VB 6.0") was released as open source then almost every VB user would abandon VB.NET (pretend/imposter version) . The Grand Master MPVX RobinS wrote: Show quoteHide quote > I have to work another 20 years before I can retire, > so although there's demand now, I wouldn't bank on it > still being around in 20 years. That's not saying it > won't, just that *I* won't bank on it. I'm always > trying to move forward. > > Robin S. > ---------------------- > "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > news:u8ipbnZDHHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > It pays well - the demand is high and the number of people able to do it > > is shrinking yearly. > > > > Mike Ober. > > > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > > news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do. > >> > >> Robin S. > >> --------------------------------------- > >> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message > >> news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > >>> Sounds facinating.... fixing old programs written in an obsolete > >>> language. What a challenging and rewarding career. > >>> > >>> The Grand Master > >>> > >>> > >>> RobinS wrote: > >>>> Are you off your meds again? > >>>> > >>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >>>> > DEAD DEAD DEAD > >>>> > > >>>> > The Master > >>>> > > >>>> > RobinS wrote: > >>>> >> Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I contracted at a large company that > >>>> >> still had a lot of COBOL mainframe stuff, and had 2 guys contracting > >>>> >> and supported it that had originally written it over 20 years ago. > >>>> >> Yikes. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Robin S. > >>>> >> -------------------------------- > >>>> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > >>>> >> news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > >>>> >> > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the > >>>> >> > programmers > >>>> >> > who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring now > >>>> >> > (if > >>>> >> > not > >>>> >> > already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL programmers > >>>> >> > for > >>>> >> > their mainframes. > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > Mike Ober. > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > >>>> >> > news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>> >> >> I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I > >>>> >> >> don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. > >>>> >> >> Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better > >>>> >> >> than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much > >>>> >> >> more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. > >>>> >> >> They frequently have a section about career blogs and a > >>>> >> >> banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, > >>>> >> >> but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really > >>>> >> >> be that many COBOL jobs? > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> Robin S. > >>>> >> >> -=-------------- > >>>> >> >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message > >>>> >> >> news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >>>> >> >>> Robin, > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of > >>>> >> >>> policy > >>>> >> >>> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with > >>>> >> >>> all > >>>> >> >>> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom > >>>> >> >>> true > >>>> >> >>> because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM > >>>> >> >>> will > >>>> >> >>> advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of > >>>> >> >>> PC > >>>> >> >>> software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros > >>>> >> >>> just > >>>> >> >>> for > >>>> >> >>> an enviromnent that fullfills that. > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is > >>>> >> >>> going > >>>> >> >>> to > >>>> >> >>> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent > >>>> >> >>> workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they > >>>> >> >>> did > >>>> >> >>> not > >>>> >> >>> even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of > >>>> >> >>> typewritter). > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran > >>>> >> >>> and > >>>> >> >>> MVS > >>>> >> >>> and PL/I and Pascal > >>>> >> >>> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> Cor > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht > >>>> >> >>> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>> >> >>>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be > >>>> >> >>>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows > >>>> >> >>>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have > >>>> >> >>>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving > >>>> >> >>>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself > >>>> >> >>>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and > >>>> >> >>>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it > >>>> >> >>>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to > >>>> >> >>>> support them, because the availability of developers in a > >>>> >> >>>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of > >>>> >> >>>> that technology. > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and > >>>> >> >>>> Pascal > >>>> >> >>>> out there, too. :-O > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> Have fun. > >>>> >> >>>> Robin S. > >>>> >> >>>> --------------------------- > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in > >>>> >> >>>> message > >>>> >> >>>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >>>> >> >>>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in > >>>> >> >>>>>the > >>>> >> >>>>>water. > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and > >>>> >> >>>>> then > >>>> >> >>>>> by > >>>> >> >>>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My > >>>> >> >>>>> comments > >>>> >> >>>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class > >>>> >> >>>>> language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be > >>>> >> >>>>> converted > >>>> >> >>>>> at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> Mike. > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > >>>> >> >>>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... > >>>> >> >>>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his > >>>> >> >>>>>> meds. > >>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>> Robin S. > >>>> >> >>>>>> ---------------------------- > >>>> >> >>>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in > >>>> >> >>>>>> message > >>>> >> >>>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >>>> >> >>>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows > >>>> >> >>>>>>> everywhere > >>>> >> >>>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still > >>>> >> >>>>>>> alive > >>>> >> >>>>>>> and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have > >>>> >> >>>>>>> thousands of > >>>> >> >>>>>>> lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. > >>>> >> >>>>>>> Personally, I > >>>> >> >>>>>>> have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in > >>>> >> >>>>>>> use and > >>>> >> >>>>>>> will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB > >>>> >> >>>>>>> 2005 > >>>> >> >>>>>>> converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume of > >>>> >> >>>>>>> code. > >>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>>> Mike. > >>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in > >>>> >> >>>>>>> message > >>>> >> >>>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > >>>> >> >>>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. > >>>> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>>>> The Grand Master > >>>> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > > > In that case, why don't you switch to RealBasic. It is a VB 6 clone, and I
have heard, a pretty good one. In the meantime, quit TROLLING. Mike Ober. Show quoteHide quote "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message news:1164178198.526392.276690@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Not forward Robin, we are constantly moving sidewards or backwards. > How can constantly re-learning to do the same things over and over > again - but in different ways, be progress? > > Visual Basic.NET is just a giant leap backwards. There is nothing that > could not be done more quickly using VB 6.0. Its not progressive at > all - just Microsoft's stupidity and desire to change the way > everything works every five minutes - but without any advantages. > > Aaaron is right, the best thing would be for MS too release the > **Real** VB as open source. They will never do that as we all know - if > the real VB ("VB 6.0") was released as open source then almost every VB > user would abandon VB.NET (pretend/imposter version) . > > The Grand Master > MPVX > > > RobinS wrote: >> I have to work another 20 years before I can retire, >> so although there's demand now, I wouldn't bank on it >> still being around in 20 years. That's not saying it >> won't, just that *I* won't bank on it. I'm always >> trying to move forward. >> >> Robin S. >> ---------------------- >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> news:u8ipbnZDHHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> > It pays well - the demand is high and the number of people able to do >> > it >> > is shrinking yearly. >> > >> > Mike Ober. >> > >> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> > news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do. >> >> >> >> Robin S. >> >> --------------------------------------- >> >> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> >>> Sounds facinating.... fixing old programs written in an obsolete >> >>> language. What a challenging and rewarding career. >> >>> >> >>> The Grand Master >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> RobinS wrote: >> >>>> Are you off your meds again? >> >>>> >> >>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >> >>>> news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >>>> > DEAD DEAD DEAD >> >>>> > >> >>>> > The Master >> >>>> > >> >>>> > RobinS wrote: >> >>>> >> Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I contracted at a large company that >> >>>> >> still had a lot of COBOL mainframe stuff, and had 2 guys >> >>>> >> contracting >> >>>> >> and supported it that had originally written it over 20 years >> >>>> >> ago. >> >>>> >> Yikes. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Robin S. >> >>>> >> -------------------------------- >> >>>> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> >>>> >> news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >>>> >> > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the >> >>>> >> > programmers >> >>>> >> > who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring >> >>>> >> > now >> >>>> >> > (if >> >>>> >> > not >> >>>> >> > already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL >> >>>> >> > programmers >> >>>> >> > for >> >>>> >> > their mainframes. >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > Mike Ober. >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> >>>> >> > news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >>>> >> >> I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I >> >>>> >> >> don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. >> >>>> >> >> Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better >> >>>> >> >> than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much >> >>>> >> >> more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. >> >>>> >> >> They frequently have a section about career blogs and a >> >>>> >> >> banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL >> >>>> >> >> jobs, >> >>>> >> >> but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there >> >>>> >> >> really >> >>>> >> >> be that many COBOL jobs? >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Robin S. >> >>>> >> >> -=-------------- >> >>>> >> >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in >> >>>> >> >> message >> >>>> >> >> news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >>>> >> >>> Robin, >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind >> >>>> >> >>> of >> >>>> >> >>> policy >> >>>> >> >>> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work >> >>>> >> >>> with >> >>>> >> >>> all >> >>>> >> >>> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom >> >>>> >> >>> true >> >>>> >> >>> because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience >> >>>> >> >>> IBM >> >>>> >> >>> will >> >>>> >> >>> advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost >> >>>> >> >>> of >> >>>> >> >>> PC >> >>>> >> >>> software, just think in many multiples of million >> >>>> >> >>> dollars/Euros >> >>>> >> >>> just >> >>>> >> >>> for >> >>>> >> >>> an enviromnent that fullfills that. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is >> >>>> >> >>> going >> >>>> >> >>> to >> >>>> >> >>> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent >> >>>> >> >>> workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact >> >>>> >> >>> they >> >>>> >> >>> did >> >>>> >> >>> not >> >>>> >> >>> even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of >> >>>> >> >>> typewritter). >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and >> >>>> >> >>> Fortran >> >>>> >> >>> and >> >>>> >> >>> MVS >> >>>> >> >>> and PL/I and Pascal >> >>>> >> >>> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> Cor >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht >> >>>> >> >>> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >>>> >> >>>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be >> >>>> >> >>>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under >> >>>> >> >>>> Windows >> >>>> >> >>>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have >> >>>> >> >>>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving >> >>>> >> >>>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself >> >>>> >> >>>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and >> >>>> >> >>>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it >> >>>> >> >>>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to >> >>>> >> >>>> support them, because the availability of developers in a >> >>>> >> >>>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of >> >>>> >> >>>> that technology. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and >> >>>> >> >>>> Pascal >> >>>> >> >>>> out there, too. :-O >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Have fun. >> >>>> >> >>>> Robin S. >> >>>> >> >>>> --------------------------- >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in >> >>>> >> >>>> message >> >>>> >> >>>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >>>> >> >>>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him >> >>>> >> >>>>>in >> >>>> >> >>>>>the >> >>>> >> >>>>>water. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now >> >>>> >> >>>>> and >> >>>> >> >>>>> then >> >>>> >> >>>>> by >> >>>> >> >>>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My >> >>>> >> >>>>> comments >> >>>> >> >>>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st >> >>>> >> >>>>> class >> >>>> >> >>>>> language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be >> >>>> >> >>>>> converted >> >>>> >> >>>>> at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> Mike. >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> >>>> >> >>>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... >> >>>> >> >>>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his >> >>>> >> >>>>>> meds. >> >>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> Robin S. >> >>>> >> >>>>>> ---------------------------- >> >>>> >> >>>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in >> >>>> >> >>>>>> message >> >>>> >> >>>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> everywhere >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> still >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> alive >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> thousands of >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Personally, I >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> use and >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> VB >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> 2005 >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> of >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> code. >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Mike. >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> in >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> message >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> The Grand Master >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > Damn right it's rewarding... you seen some of the salaries they offer for
jobs like that?!?! Makes me wish I knew Cobol.... ___________________________________ The Grim Reaper Show quoteHide quote "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Sounds facinating.... fixing old programs written in an obsolete > language. What a challenging and rewarding career. > > The Grand Master > > > RobinS wrote: >> Are you off your meds again? >> >> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message >> news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> > DEAD DEAD DEAD >> > >> > The Master >> > >> > RobinS wrote: >> >> Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I contracted at a large company that >> >> still had a lot of COBOL mainframe stuff, and had 2 guys contracting >> >> and supported it that had originally written it over 20 years ago. >> >> Yikes. >> >> >> >> Robin S. >> >> -------------------------------- >> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> >> news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the >> >> > programmers >> >> > who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring now (if >> >> > not >> >> > already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL programmers >> >> > for >> >> > their mainframes. >> >> > >> >> > Mike Ober. >> >> > >> >> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> >> > news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >> I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I >> >> >> don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. >> >> >> Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better >> >> >> than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much >> >> >> more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) >> >> >> >> >> >> What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. >> >> >> They frequently have a section about career blogs and a >> >> >> banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, >> >> >> but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really >> >> >> be that many COBOL jobs? >> >> >> >> >> >> Robin S. >> >> >> -=-------------- >> >> >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message >> >> >> news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >> >>> Robin, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of >> >> >>> policy >> >> >>> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with all >> >> >>> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom true >> >> >>> because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM >> >> >>> will >> >> >>> advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of PC >> >> >>> software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros >> >> >>> just >> >> >>> for >> >> >>> an enviromnent that fullfills that. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is >> >> >>> going >> >> >>> to >> >> >>> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent >> >> >>> workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they >> >> >>> did >> >> >>> not >> >> >>> even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of >> >> >>> typewritter). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran >> >> >>> and >> >> >>> MVS >> >> >>> and PL/I and Pascal >> >> >>> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Cor >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht >> >> >>> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >>>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be >> >> >>>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows >> >> >>>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have >> >> >>>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving >> >> >>>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself >> >> >>>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and >> >> >>>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it >> >> >>>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to >> >> >>>> support them, because the availability of developers in a >> >> >>>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of >> >> >>>> that technology. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and Pascal >> >> >>>> out there, too. :-O >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Have fun. >> >> >>>> Robin S. >> >> >>>> --------------------------- >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message >> >> >>>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> >>>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in >> >> >>>>>the >> >> >>>>>water. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and >> >> >>>>> then >> >> >>>>> by >> >> >>>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My >> >> >>>>> comments >> >> >>>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class >> >> >>>>> language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be >> >> >>>>> converted >> >> >>>>> at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Mike. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> >> >>>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >>>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his >> >> >>>>>> meds. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Robin S. >> >> >>>>>> ---------------------------- >> >> >>>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in >> >> >>>>>> message >> >> >>>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >> >>>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows >> >> >>>>>>> everywhere >> >> >>>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still >> >> >>>>>>> alive >> >> >>>>>>> and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands >> >> >>>>>>> of >> >> >>>>>>> lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, >> >> >>>>>>> I >> >> >>>>>>> have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use >> >> >>>>>>> and >> >> >>>>>>> will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB >> >> >>>>>>> 2005 >> >> >>>>>>> converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume of >> >> >>>>>>> code. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Mike. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in >> >> >>>>>>> message >> >> >>>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> The Grand Master >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > it's not a question of resisting change
it's a question of running around like a bunch of chickens with our heads cut off Microsoft has been treating the industry as if they are a 900 pound gorilla; and I am tired of it. Why do we need to rewrite things every 2 years? FINALLY HAVING THE COURAGE TO DEMAND BETTER TREATEMENT BY THE DICTATORSHIP THAT IS CALLED MICROSOFT If Microsoft were in India; the government would DO SOMETHING about how they're putting out crappy ass software; charging too much; and anti-competitive practices. I guess the American government doesn't have the balls that the Indian Government does. -Tom The Grim Reaper wrote: Show quoteHide quote > Damn right it's rewarding... you seen some of the salaries they offer for > jobs like that?!?! > Makes me wish I knew Cobol.... > ___________________________________ > The Grim Reaper > > "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message > news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > Sounds facinating.... fixing old programs written in an obsolete > > language. What a challenging and rewarding career. > > > > The Grand Master > > > > > > RobinS wrote: > >> Are you off your meds again? > >> > >> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in message > >> news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> > DEAD DEAD DEAD > >> > > >> > The Master > >> > > >> > RobinS wrote: > >> >> Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I contracted at a large company that > >> >> still had a lot of COBOL mainframe stuff, and had 2 guys contracting > >> >> and supported it that had originally written it over 20 years ago. > >> >> Yikes. > >> >> > >> >> Robin S. > >> >> -------------------------------- > >> >> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > >> >> news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > >> >> > Mainframes are almost entirely COBOL. The problem is that the > >> >> > programmers > >> >> > who wrote the COBOL apps in the first place are all retiring now (if > >> >> > not > >> >> > already retired) and companies need replacement COBOL programmers > >> >> > for > >> >> > their mainframes. > >> >> > > >> >> > Mike Ober. > >> >> > > >> >> > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > >> >> > news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >> >> I'll buy that. I'm grateful -- *really* grateful -- that I > >> >> >> don't have to program in COBOL any more. **REALLY** grateful. > >> >> >> Of course, I did COBOL on the DEC VAX, which is better > >> >> >> than doing it on a mainframe. Still. Did I mention how much > >> >> >> more I like VB than COBOL? ;-) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What I don't get is that I get these newsletters from ZDNet. > >> >> >> They frequently have a section about career blogs and a > >> >> >> banner ad from DICE.Com that mentions Java jobs and COBOL jobs, > >> >> >> but says nothing about .Net. I think that's odd. Can there really > >> >> >> be that many COBOL jobs? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Robin S. > >> >> >> -=-------------- > >> >> >> "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >> >> >>> Robin, > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> There is still very old Cobol on mainframes. That is a kind of > >> >> >>> policy > >> >> >>> from IBM to let it be possible on there computers to work with all > >> >> >>> legancy softwere there was. (Although in fact this in seldom true > >> >> >>> because of the cost, it can be achieved). In my expirience IBM > >> >> >>> will > >> >> >>> advice you to go to a visual environment using Java or C++). > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> But do in the case of that Cobol than not think in the cost of PC > >> >> >>> software, just think in many multiples of million dollars/Euros > >> >> >>> just > >> >> >>> for > >> >> >>> an enviromnent that fullfills that. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> The Cobol(s) that exist on PC's has often problems when it is > >> >> >>> going > >> >> >>> to > >> >> >>> new systems. Cobol is created when there were no intelligent > >> >> >>> workstations as the PC, but only terminal screens. (In fact they > >> >> >>> did > >> >> >>> not > >> >> >>> even exist the most advanced was the teletype a kind of > >> >> >>> typewritter). > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> "To make your anology complete, there is still COBOL and Fortran > >> >> >>> and > >> >> >>> MVS > >> >> >>> and PL/I and Pascal > >> >> >>> out there, too", and so is VB only in an even better way. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Cor > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> schreef in bericht > >> >> >>> news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >> >>>>I completely agree with you. I don't think Microsoft would be > >> >> >>>> dedicating resources to making VisualStudio6 work under Windows > >> >> >>>> Vista if they were going to desert VB6. Nor would they have > >> >> >>>> developed VB.Net if they weren't going to support it moving > >> >> >>>> forward. It's such a huge jump for VB6 programmers (myself > >> >> >>>> included), it's not far from jumping all the way to C#, and > >> >> >>>> they could have told people they had to do that, but it > >> >> >>>> would have really hurt them. They need the developers to > >> >> >>>> support them, because the availability of developers in a > >> >> >>>> certain technology *does* have an impact on the success of > >> >> >>>> that technology. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Heck, there's still COBOL and Fortran and MVS and PL/I and Pascal > >> >> >>>> out there, too. :-O > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Have fun. > >> >> >>>> Robin S. > >> >> >>>> --------------------------- > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in message > >> >> >>>> news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> >> >>>>>I knew it was baiting at the time - I just chose to yank him in > >> >> >>>>>the > >> >> >>>>>water. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> That said, the argument that VB is dead comes up every now and > >> >> >>>>> then > >> >> >>>>> by > >> >> >>>>> a serious poster, which is why it deserved a response. My > >> >> >>>>> comments > >> >> >>>>> about this are still true - MS considers VB to be a 1st class > >> >> >>>>> language, there is a lot of VB 6 code that will need to be > >> >> >>>>> converted > >> >> >>>>> at some point, and the VB 6 to VB 2005 converter sucks. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> Mike. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > >> >> >>>>> news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >> >>>>>> You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his > >> >> >>>>>> meds. > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> Robin S. > >> >> >>>>>> ---------------------------- > >> >> >>>>>> "Michael D. Ober" <ober***@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote in > >> >> >>>>>> message > >> >> >>>>>> news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >> >> >>>>>>> Then why does MS use VB 2005 in its technology road shows > >> >> >>>>>>> everywhere > >> >> >>>>>>> except for the specific C# demos? As for VB 6, it's still > >> >> >>>>>>> alive > >> >> >>>>>>> and kicking and there are a whole lot of us who have thousands > >> >> >>>>>>> of > >> >> >>>>>>> lines of VB 6 code that may need to be converted. Personally, > >> >> >>>>>>> I > >> >> >>>>>>> have close to 250,000 lines of VB 6 code that is still in use > >> >> >>>>>>> and > >> >> >>>>>>> will someday need to be converted. The current VB 6 to VB > >> >> >>>>>>> 2005 > >> >> >>>>>>> converters simply aren't up to the task for this volume of > >> >> >>>>>>> code. > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> Mike. > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> "Master Programmer" <master_program***@outgun.com> wrote in > >> >> >>>>>>> message > >> >> >>>>>>> news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > >> >> >>>>>>>> Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time. > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> The Grand Master > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > 
Other interesting topics
Read legacy vb5 files with variant declare in vb.net
Running an Access macro from a VB.NETprogram ADOX add bool field need help on optional arg Overlapping controls How to determen the object ? WEB combobox won't fire event Redrawing on GDI+ clicking on a DataGridView's DataSource property throws exception in designer Set Focus to textbox on tab control |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
