- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)

Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991.  It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.

If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET.  I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.

300,000 programmers X   26,000 = $7,800,000,000

All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge.  Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Grand Master

Well maybe you are just nut such a "master  programmer"

I picked up VB.Net easy while i was still programming in VB6  , but hey
maybe this was because in VB6 a class was not a mystery to me . 

Seeing your recent posts i believe you match this profile

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html

please seek help ! 

regards

Michel Posseth 




Show quoteHide quote

Great link !!

Should be standard reference for Trolls in this and other newsgroups.

Galen

Show quoteHide quote

Michel

You should be gassed and turned into lampshades or soap.

Yeah, sure you did - LOL.  Like.....  HELLO WORLD !

The Grand Master




Michel wrote:
Show quoteHide quote

Aaron, Master Programmer:  You guys sound like a little a couple of
kids having a temper-tantrum because you no longer having the newest
toy.  Just relax.  Change is good, embrace it.  If it weren't for
change, we wouldn't have the internet or computers or electricity or
anything.  We would still be hunting for food with our bare hands or
picking it off bushes.

Are you on crack?  What appliaction are you writing that could honestly
be quicker in VB6?

The truth is that VB6 has no power.  It never did.  If you wanted a
powerful language, there was always C or C++.

Most developers were eager to learn Dot Net and many of them learnt it
in their spare time.  We have seen a massive increase in the
productivity rates of the developers since moving to dot net.  We have
also halved our help desk calls (for WinForms apps) as the maintenance
developers find it much easier to fix dot net applications than VB6
ones and dot net has proper error handling.

Unfortunately VB.NET retained many legacy commands from VB6 to assist
developers in crossing over.  That damn "GOTO" command being my pet
hate.  Due to this, I prefer developers to use C# as these commands are
not available for them to write sloppy code.

Dot net provides COM interoperability for all our legacy libraries so
we are still using our old code.  When additions are required to old
libraries, we often find it quicker to re-develop in dot net than to
add it to the VB6 library.  We designed our systems with lots of small
libraries so it was easy to replace, although it has added to the
nightmare of maintaining VB6 over the years.

The real power of dot net comes in the object model provided.  The use
of multi-threading, reflection and xml kill anything VB6 has.

The last key benifit of dot net is the IDE and what an awesome IDE it
is.  It beats any other IDE I have ever used.  Why would I want to use
notepad to develop an applciation?

Do some more research and come back with a valid argument that does not
involve a temper-tantrum and is actually backed with some intelligence
and not just your 2 cents.

Well   ...... with this answer you have proven my point


Show quoteHide quote

Hard to tell exactly how much money we've saved, but I'll take a stab
at it.

6 programmers @ $70,000/year = $420,000 (programmers with dead skills)
now productively working on (among other things) rewriting some old
Oracle Forms apps.  If we were to get a consultant in, we probably
would have spend $100 - $150 / hour, a team of 6 working on this app
should be able to complete it in 18 months, call it 3000 hours * 6 =
180,000 hours * $125 per hour comes to $22,500,000 saved.  Add the
$420,000 back in for the now productive programmers on a yearly basis
amortorized over 5 years comes to $2,100,000, for a total savings of
$24,600,000.  Not bad.  Of course that doesn't count the savings in
Oracle licensing fees and upgrades nor does it count the cost of
purchasing .Net for us, but suffice it to say that the Oracle licensing
savings more than offsets the cost of the .Net licensing.  I can't wait
to go to management with these numbers!  Thanks Master Baiter!

Umm...you just stated that you saved money to "rewrite" something that
already existed.

I hope you're not a lawyer, because your logic is extremely flawed.  Last
time I checked, doing something twice is atleast twice as expensive.

Now, if you said that you needed a re-write to remain "competitive" (ie pull
the wool over your users eyes and convince them they ~need~ your re-write -
you know, pretty buttons, aero glass and all that stuff) then you've got a
leg to stand on.  Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, at least it'll be
accurate.



Show quoteHide quote

I didn't give all the details....

The apps have to be rewritten...  we are losing support for Oracle
Forms and there are over 400 forms used company wide that we rely on.
Putting a .Net front end to the Oracle backend data is the most
efficient way to do that.  It goes way beyond "pretty buttons", we are
losing support for the Oracle Forms.  While the end user will benefit
some (we are going to add off line support since some of the users are
mobile), for the most part they don't care about the tool used.  From
an IT perspective, we truly are saving a lot of money making this move.

Show quote Hide quote But the main problem is still the loss of support for widely used
technologies without providing a viable upgrade path.

BK,

I'm well aware of the realities you have to deal with, and, as a developer,
you truly have no other choice but to re-write.  But the absurdity of it all
should not be lost.  If every developer in the world paused for a moment to
consider that their sole function is (for the most part) redundancy then
they would all be screaming for the simplest RAD tool available that allowed
them the most cost effective code re-use.  From what I can tell, VB.net
works toward that goal but still falls short.

Pick something you do in your daily life, like tying your shoe laces.  You
get up in the morning, put your shoes on and tie your laces.  You do this
for several months until another part of the shoe fails (perhaps a hole
wears in the sole).  You make a trip to the store and buy another pair of
shoes, who's laces are a little different but yet still performs the same
task.  Now realize that you've done this your whole life, and will continue
to do so until laces are no longer required.

As a programmer, you design shoe laces.  Your designs will differ, your
tools will improve, but at the end of the day you're still just making shoe
laces.  You need to make desisions on the best way to "improve" your shoe
lace.  Changing the design is easy, but you still need to manufacture your
shoe laces.  Do you replace all of your manufacturing tooling every time a
new lace is designed, or do you try to re-use the tooling you already have?
Could be either choice, but what you do is evaluate your ROI and make a
decision based on the costs and potential benefits.

The general complaints about MS aren't that their tools haven't improved and
aren't "better", it's that, specifically with Classic VB, MS ~forced~
everyone to throw out ~all~ of their existing production tooling (by not
giving them a viable upgrade path), whether they needed to or not.  If all
you do is make a shoe lace, (and let's face it, most companies make the
equivalent of a shoe lace) you have every reason to be angry with Microsoft
because they are forcibly taking away your your investment in tooling when
it doesn't make financial sense to do so.  They forced you (and everyone
else) to "upgrade", not because it makes sense to you, but because it is in
the best financial interest of Microsoft.

People will say that's progress.  Yup, sure enough it is.  But one thing is
for sure.  The statement that you should not "trust" Microsoft with your
code assets is valid.  People should be angry about it.  The fact that this
is still being discussed, what, 7 years after VB.net came out should be
proof of that.

Continue to accept the fact that you have to re-write.  But please
understand that it doesn't HAVE to be that way.  MS and the other big
software companies force it upon you to keep their own revenue streams
flowing.




Show quoteHide quote

Not everything I do is rewrite, I have a nice balance bewteen new and
rewrite.  I appreciate some of you comments, and I would never say that
ANY tool I've used was perfect, but the more I work with.Net the more I
am impressed with the platform

In my opinion, .Net offers me the simplest RAD tool available.  It's
just my opinion and we certainly have no shortage of opinions here.

I don't agree.  Not having a viable upgrade path doesn't force you to
throw out your tools.  You are free to continue using Classic VB.  Your
install CD's continue to work don't they?  Can't you reinstall your
tools on new machines as needed?  Old technology dies, new technology
emerges.  To be honest, I wished I had kept a copy of QuickBasic 4.5,
it was a great tool.  But I didn't and life goes on.

Once again, I disagree.  They didn't force anyone to upgrade.  You are
and will always be free to continue using Classic VB, that is your
choice.  My choice is .Net, which is why I'm in a .Net NG, I get help
with .Net here, I give back to those who need help, etc.  I don't spend
my time in Java, PHP, etc NG's

But who is wanting to discuss the viability of VB.Net?  From what I
see, the "discussion" is coming from people who don't like the product
and are living in the past.  I don't tie myself so heavily to a
technology that I can't shift as necessary.  Since I'm not so deeply
tied to the technology, I can unemotionally make rational decisions on
what technology I choose.  I don't trust or distrust Microsoft, they
are a corporation not a person.  They have goals which are guided by
the same desire all companies have, to make money.

I'd say that any system that stays in production for over 10 years is
doing pretty well.  My last .Net project was to replace a FoxPro
application that was in production for 14 years (a DOS application).
My current project is replacing some Oracle front ends (the database is
still the same) that are 8-12 years old.  I'd say that's a pretty good
ROI to get that much use out of technology.  Moreover, by employing
n-tier designs, I'm betting we'll get even more use out of these
replacements.

BK - A professional developer for 20 years strong

There's nothing wrong with .Net as a platform.  What I said was VB.net falls
short regarding cost effective code re-use (my opinion).

AFA the "new" code you write, how much is truly new?  Business logic may be
specific for your company and a new UI may be required, but you're still
just doing accounting, or searching databases, or keeping track of this or
that.  Once you've written these "new" apps, how often do you suppose you
should have to re-write them?  Once in 5, 10, 20 years?  Obviously if the
business model changes the app will need to be updated, but from a business
viewpoint why would you ever require a complete re-write?

Show quoteHide quoteVB.net is an adequate RAD tool.

What you say is completely true, 100%.  Kind of misses the point, but true
none the less.

Show quoteHide quoteYou're right, they didn't force anyone to upgrade - they simply took away
that option.  The only option they gave was to change development platforms
and re-write all of your existing working code.


Show quoteHide quoteWell, the intent was not to discuss the viability of VB.NET.  The discussion
was about the costs involved in "upgrading" to .Net, whether a company
"saved" money or "lost" money.  I shifted the discussion a bit
(unintentionally) because the real issue of upgrade cost is assets.  If you
or your company don't believe that existing code are assets then you're
quite justified in your calculations.  If, on the other hand, you think your
existing code has value then you should be including that as well.
Excluding the emotional responses regarding "upgrading", the bottom line is
that if you were a Classic VB user MS showed that they didn't care at all
about your code assets.  As you say, MS is simply trying to make money, but
keep in mind that it's at the expense of their developers.


Show quoteHide quoteBK, because you've been at this for so long you should understand, more than
most, the point I'm trying to make.  In your statement above you continue to
use the word "replace".  This implies that you are simply re-writing code
that has worked, and would continue to work, if not for the obsolecense of a
computer platform and/or language.  My point is simple: the work that most
developers do is to "put a new face" on something that was already
functional.  Developers re-invent the wheel every couple of years, simply
due to a change in technology.  All you do is make shoe laces.  All most
developers will do is make shoe laces.  I'd love to see a software company
realize this and put forth a tool that didn't treat a developer's work as if
it were disposable.  But, as you've stated, this is the reality we live in
and we have to move on.  I'd simply ask that you carefully consider the
reasons for justifying complete re-writes.  The justification is typically
"because we have to", not because "we need to" or "we want to" -- it's
driven by the computer/software vendors.

.... 8 MONTHS ...WOW !!!  ... picked it up in about 2 months and put out a
production application 3 months later (has over 100 database tables) ....
This is from a 'non-vb' person ... dabbled in VBA / Access and used VB for a
few things ...  mainly a Powerbuilder developer (10+yrs).

If you understand the principles and theory behind software/ database
development - it should not matter which tool you use... as longs as the
tool does not tie your hands - AFAI am concerned, this is exactly what VB
Classic did by not supporting OO design principles (inheritance,
polymorphism, and encapsilation).  Reason I never really gave it a shot!
With VB.Nets OO approach, you can build a solid framework without having to
implement ... cut/paste/find n replace programming practices to support OO
principles.

Again, if you gave me (or if I took) 8 months to learn a langauge,  I would
probably be taking up a new profession!  ... I would like to work for your
employeer or any employer that is patient enough to wait around for me to
learn my trade!!!  I may p'o some people here, but oh well, it may take a
'psuedo' programmer 8 months to learn VB.net ... because they are learning a
new approach / methedology to programming - basic software development
practices (OO) ... VB.Net is not for soft hearted 'button-click' programmer!
However, any classic VB programmer worth their weight should be able to pick
it up without a great deal of effort.

Again this is my opinion and is based on my limited experience using VB
classic / 6 / whatever you want to call it !  If you want, flame me...but
again, this is my opinion and it is based on my work experiences as a
programmer for the past 10 years...I have been using VB.Net 2005 for the
past 10 months now ... and I have put myself in a corner now - TOO MUCH
WORK!

So, again, I would like to say, if it takes an experienced programmer 8
months to learn a single language ... you are training to WRONG PERSON!

Jeff.


Show quoteHide quote

I totally agree, this language rocks.  I had my first application
written and in production in 2 months with no training.  Any developer
should be able to work on existing code in 1-2 weeks and fully
productive in 1-2 months.

If MasterProgrammer was working at his job at Target stocking shelves, then
he wouldn't be wasting bandwith and giving the rest of us hard working
programmers irritants.  I think if his manager knew what he was doing, they
would put him on the cleaning crew with no possible chance of ever getting
to a computer.  Oh yea, by the way, when you get home MasterProgrammer you
need to follow these few simple insutructions:

Fill Bathtub
Power UP your PC
Get in
Have someone throw computer in the TUB.

Have a nice day


Show quoteHide quote

Why did you even choose VB6 if you were worried about some corporate
types having 'control' of your language of choice?

You sir, are an idiot, and I for one would never hire you as a
programmer as you do not seem to be able to think logically.


Master Programmer wrote:
Show quoteHide quote

Connection string in app.config for class library
Text Box Spell Check
Re: Great Reasons Not To Learn VB.NET - PART 1
time difference
Strings and Resource Files
Looping Through All Tables in a SQL Server Database
Help!! Domain privs to run standalone .Net EXE from domain account?
error handle
Integer and Long
Can't maximize