VB 6 developers and .Net

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

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]

"Newish" <ahussain3@gmail.comschreef in bericht
news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...

Quote:

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" <ahussain3@gmail.comschrieb:

Quote:

I was just wondering how widespread or otherwise is the conversion from
VB 6 to .Net.

Migration resources:

<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.

"Newish" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...

Quote:

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 RAD
charm 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.

Quote:

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.

Thanks,

Seth Rowe

Michael D. Ober wrote:

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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
>

Quote:

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

"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.comwrote in message
news:1160277029.175581.81100@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

Quote:

>
rowe_newsgroups wrote:

Quote:

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.

Michael D. Ober wrote:

Quote:

"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.comwrote in message
news:1160277029.175581.81100@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

Quote:

rowe_newsgroups wrote:

Quote:

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

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...

Quote:

>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
>>
>>

>
>
>

What makes you think that? I'm just curious, since VB.NET does not

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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:

Quote:

rowe_newsgroups wrote:

Quote:

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.
>

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

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 is
better 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:

Quote:

Michael D. Ober wrote:

Quote:

"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.comwrote in message
news:1160277029.175581.81100@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

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.

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

rowe_newsgroups wrote:

Quote:

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).
>

Quote:

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

Seth,

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

"rowe_newsgroups" <rowe_email@yahoo.comschreef in bericht
news:1160283943.229802.96930@h48g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...

Quote:

>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).
>

Quote:

>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:

Quote:

>rowe_newsgroups wrote:

Quote:

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.
>>

Quote:

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

>

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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
news:O4No%23Qp6GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
>news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

>>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
>>>
>>>

>>
>>
>>

>
>

I personally have had a REALLY REALLY hard time learning .NET

i've read probably 100 books.
I can write small console apps.

but i can't configure a datagrid in .NET to save my life!!

I think that VB6 is tremendously simpler than VB.net and I hope that MS
continues to work towards making VB.net easier to use

-Aaron

Michael D. Ober wrote:

Quote:

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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
news:O4No%23Qp6GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.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
>>
>>
>
>
>

Maybe you didn't read the right books. ;-) I feel your pain;
I'm in the process of making the switch from VB6 to VB.Net.

"Pro .Net 2.0 Windows Forms and Custom Controls in VB2005"
by Matthew MacDonald has about 60 pages of stuff about that
pesky DataGridView control. And Brian Noyes's book "Data
Binding with Windows Forms 2.0" has over 70 pages of stuff,
and tells you how to bind data to it and update it as well.
I'm about to read that chapter, so if you send me an e-mail
and ask me, I'll tell you how I liked it. irish underscore
songbird at comcast dot net. Maybe if you checked the local
bookstore, you could find these and take a look at them,
and maybe it would help.

Have you tried Francesco Balena's Visual Basic 2005: The Language?
He does a great job explaining the language (no forms or data),
and why you would want to use something. It's fairly advanced, but
thorough.

Also, Tim Patrick has a new book coming out next week
called "Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005" that looks really
promising -- you learn VB *and* create an entire application
simultaneously, unlike those books that you work through and
end up with a hundred different little apps that each do one
specific thing.

Good luck.
Robin S.

<aaron.kempf@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1162836728.045389.99380@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

Quote:

>I personally have had a REALLY REALLY hard time learning .NET
>
i've read probably 100 books.
I can write small console apps.
>
but i can't configure a datagrid in .NET to save my life!!
>
I think that VB6 is tremendously simpler than VB.net and I hope that MS
continues to work towards making VB.net easier to use
>
-Aaron
>
>
>
Michael D. Ober wrote:

Quote:

>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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
>news:O4No%23Qp6GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
>news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegr oups.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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>

Maybe you didn't read the right books. ;-) Actually,
I feel your pain; I'm in the process of making the
switch from VB6 to VB.Net.

"Pro .Net 2.0 Windows Forms and Custom Controls in VB2005"
by Matthew MacDonald has about 60 pages of stuff about that
pesky DataGridView control. And Brian Noyes's book "Data
Binding with Windows Forms 2.0" has over 70 pages of stuff,
and tells you how to bind data to it and update it as well.
I'm about to read that chapter, so if you send me an e-mail
and ask me, I'll tell you how I liked it. irish underscore
songbird at comcast dot net. Maybe if you checked the local
bookstore, you could find these and take a look at them,
and maybe it would help.

Have you tried Francesco Balena's "Visual Basic 2005: The
Language"? He does a great job explaining the language
(no forms or data), and why you would want to use something.
It's fairly advanced, but thorough.

Also, Tim Patrick has a new book coming out next week
called "Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005" that looks really
promising -- you learn VB *and* create an entire application
simultaneously, unlike those books that you work through and
end up with a hundred different little apps that each do one
specific thing.

Good luck.
Robin S.

<aaron.kempf@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1162836728.045389.99380@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

Quote:

>I personally have had a REALLY REALLY hard time learning .NET
>
i've read probably 100 books.
I can write small console apps.
>
but i can't configure a datagrid in .NET to save my life!!
>
I think that VB6 is tremendously simpler than VB.net and I hope that MS
continues to work towards making VB.net easier to use
>
-Aaron
>
>
>
Michael D. Ober wrote:

Quote:

>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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
>news:O4No%23Qp6GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
>news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegr oups.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

"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
news:edOL7VbAHHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
news:O4No%23Qp6GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Quote:

>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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
>news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net...

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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
>>news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googleg roups.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.

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
news:%23QRCQbiAHHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
news:edOL7VbAHHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

>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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
>news:O4No%23Qp6GHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Quote:

>>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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
>>news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.eart hlink.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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
>>>news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.google groups.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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

yeah well when those dipshits in redmond include a feature like:

"HOW CAN I TELL WHAT VERSION OF THE FRAMEWORK IS ON MACHINE X"

and have it CONSISTENT between 2000, 2003, XP and Vista?

I dont want to have to remember 'oh 2003 shipped with 1.1; XP shipped
with 1.0 and Vista ships with 2.0'

they just need to make it more practical

Michael D. Ober wrote:

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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
news:%23QRCQbiAHHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
news:edOL7VbAHHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
>news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
>>news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googleg roups.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

and if they provided something as simple as <INSERT><AUTOFORMthen
maybe this would be usable

-Aaron

RobinS wrote:

Quote:

Maybe you didn't read the right books. ;-) I feel your pain;
I'm in the process of making the switch from VB6 to VB.Net.
>
"Pro .Net 2.0 Windows Forms and Custom Controls in VB2005"
by Matthew MacDonald has about 60 pages of stuff about that
pesky DataGridView control. And Brian Noyes's book "Data
Binding with Windows Forms 2.0" has over 70 pages of stuff,
and tells you how to bind data to it and update it as well.
I'm about to read that chapter, so if you send me an e-mail
and ask me, I'll tell you how I liked it. irish underscore
songbird at comcast dot net. Maybe if you checked the local
bookstore, you could find these and take a look at them,
and maybe it would help.
>
Have you tried Francesco Balena's Visual Basic 2005: The Language?
He does a great job explaining the language (no forms or data),
and why you would want to use something. It's fairly advanced, but
thorough.
>
Also, Tim Patrick has a new book coming out next week
called "Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005" that looks really
promising -- you learn VB *and* create an entire application
simultaneously, unlike those books that you work through and
end up with a hundred different little apps that each do one
specific thing.
>
Good luck.
Robin S.
>
>
<aaron.kempf@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1162836728.045389.99380@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

Quote:

I personally have had a REALLY REALLY hard time learning .NET

i've read probably 100 books.
I can write small console apps.

but i can't configure a datagrid in .NET to save my life!!

I think that VB6 is tremendously simpler than VB.net and I hope that MS
continues to work towards making VB.net easier to use

-Aaron

Michael D. Ober wrote:

Quote:

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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.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:

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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
news:%23QRCQbiAHHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
news:edOL7VbAHHA.4496@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
>news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
>>news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.googleg roups.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.

"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com...

Quote:

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.
----------------------------
"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com...

Quote:

>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.

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com. ..

Quote:

You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds.
>
Robin S.
----------------------------
"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Quote:

>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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

>>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.
---------------------------

"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

Quote:

>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.nonewrote in message
news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com. ..

Quote:

>You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds.
>>
>Robin S.
>----------------------------
>"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
>news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Quote:

>>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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googleg roups.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

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.noneschreef in bericht
news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...

Quote:

>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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

Quote:

>>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.nonewrote in message
>news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com ...

Quote:

>>You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds.
>>>
>>Robin S.
>>----------------------------
>>"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.google groups.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.
-=--------------
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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.noneschreef in bericht
news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...

Quote:

>>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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
>news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

Quote:

>>>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.nonewrote in message
>>news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.co m...
>>>You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds.
>>>>
>>>Robin S.
>>>----------------------------
>>>"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googl egroups.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.

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...

Quote:

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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Quote:

>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.noneschreef in bericht
>news:ULCdnbKHRbHC0cDYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...

Quote:

>>>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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote in message
>>>news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.c om...
>>>>You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds.
>>>>>
>>>>Robin S.
>>>>----------------------------
>>>>"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.goog legroups.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.
--------------------------------
"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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.nonewrote in message
news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...

Quote:

>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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
>news:OY6Fi6gCHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Quote:

>>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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.goo glegroups.com...
>>>>>>>Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Grand Master
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

DEAD DEAD DEAD

The Master

RobinS wrote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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.nonewrote in message
news:RZWdnd-2Eqf9c8DYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...

Quote:

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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote in message
>>>news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.c om...
>>>>You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds.
>>>>>
>>>>Robin S.
>>>>----------------------------
>>>>"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.goog legroups.com...
>>>>>>Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The Grand Master
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Are you off your meds again?

"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

DEAD DEAD DEAD
>
The Master
>
RobinS wrote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
>news:uhA3g06CHHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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.nonewrote 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in
>>>>>>message
>>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.goo glegroups.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:

Quote:

Are you off your meds again?
>
"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

DEAD DEAD DEAD

The Master

RobinS wrote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote in message
>>>news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.c om...
>>>>You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds.
>>>>>
>>>>Robin S.
>>>>----------------------------
>>>>"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.goog legroups.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.
---------------------------------------
"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

Sounds facinating.... fixing old programs written in an obsolete
language. What a challenging and rewarding career.
>
The Grand Master
>
>
RobinS wrote:

Quote:

>Are you off your meds again?
>>
>"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...

Quote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in
>>>>>>message
>>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.goo glegroups.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.

"RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.nonewrote in message
news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com...

Quote:

>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do.
>
Robin S.
---------------------------------------
"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

>Sounds facinating.... fixing old programs written in an obsolete
>language. What a challenging and rewarding career.
>>
>The Grand Master
>>
>>
>RobinS wrote:

Quote:

>>Are you off your meds again?
>>>
>>"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.google groups.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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in
>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.go oglegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The Grand Master
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

>>

>
>

Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time

Microsoft killed the most popular programming language of all time--
just because they were scared of a little wimpy company named Sun with
a THREE BILLION DOLLAR market cap.

It's like when the time came for the great battle of the programming
languages; microsoft just threw in the towel and ran away.

Inventing C#-- those fuckers can lick me

-Aaron

Master Programmer wrote:

Quote:

Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>
The Grand Master
>
>
Michael D. Ober wrote:

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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote in message
news:%23QRCQbiAHHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
>>news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.eart hlink.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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
>>>news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.google groups.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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

I call bullshit

if Microsoft considered VB.net a FIRST CLASS LANGUAGE then they would
start by this:

a) offering true lifetime support for all syntaxes of Visual Basic
b) offer a IDE that is competitive with Microsoft Access.. as it is;
Access is 10 times easier development than VB
c) offer ALL SAMPLES in VB.net in addition to any other programming
languages that they choose to support.

Sorry kids we all put our hat in the wrong boat; and I'll be damned--
i'm sure not going to work in VB.net; i'll just use PHP.. they can
screw themselves

-Aaron

Michael D. Ober wrote:

Quote:

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.nonewrote in message
news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com. ..

Quote:

You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds.

Robin S.
----------------------------
"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
news:OiLq0ZZCHHA.4256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com...
>Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>>
>The Grand Master
>>
>>
>
>

jumping all the way to C#?

I dont know what you fucking talk about; there is no langauges known as
C#

there is VB and there is PHP.

Microsoft lost the war they can fuck themselves

-Aaron

RobinS wrote:

Quote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
news:%23OGPUxaCHHA.468@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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.nonewrote in message
news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com. ..

Quote:

You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his meds.
>
Robin S.
----------------------------
"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.googlegr oups.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.
----------------------
"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
news:u8ipbnZDHHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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.nonewrote in message
news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com...

Quote:

>>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do.
>>
>Robin S.
>---------------------------------------
>"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googleg roups.com...

Quote:

>>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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>>news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googl egroups.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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote in message
>>>>>>news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcas t.com...
>>>>>>>You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his
>>>>>>>meds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Robin S.
>>>>>>>----------------------------
>>>>>>>"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in
>>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.g ooglegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The Grand Master
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

It's good to see that you're not bitter.

Change is inevitable. One day PHP will be
replaced by something else, and you'll be
ranting about that.

Robin S.
------------------------------------
<aaron.kempf@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1164135440.092459.113830@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time
>
Microsoft killed the most popular programming language of all time--
just because they were scared of a little wimpy company named Sun with
a THREE BILLION DOLLAR market cap.
>
It's like when the time came for the great battle of the programming
languages; microsoft just threw in the towel and ran away.
>
Inventing C#-- those fuckers can lick me
>
-Aaron
>
>
Master Programmer wrote:

Quote:

>Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>>
>The Grand Master
>>
>>
>Michael D. Ober wrote:

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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
>>news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.eart hlink.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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
>>>news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.google groups.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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

>

I agree.

I wrote Basic / Visual Basic for 20 years but I'm sure as hell not
going to stick my hat in the .NET world.

MS needs to start treating VB developers like real-people.. I'm sick of
being treated like an afterthought.

I call for Microsoft to do us all a favor and just make VB -- all
versions-- just completely open source and let us fend for ourselves.

-Aaron

RobinS wrote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
news:u8ipbnZDHHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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.nonewrote in message
news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com...

Quote:

>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do.
>
Robin S.
---------------------------------------
"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.google groups.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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in
>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.go oglegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The Grand Master
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Oh, no, you misunderstood. Michael was referring to
the COBOL jobs supporting legacy applications.

I *am* putting my hat in the .Net ring. I think
Microsoft is very supportive of its developers,
because we help drive the business. If businesses
can't find any .Net programmers, they will turn to
something else that has available manpower. Hence
the big marketing to the developers every time a
new version comes out.

VB6 didn't go anywhere, it's still out there, and they
made sure it would work with Windows Vista, so they
do get that they can't eradicate it. And I don't think
that's their goal. They'd just like people to move
forward to .Net so they don't have to keep maintaining
backward compatibility for the rest of their lives.
Considering that .Net came out 4 or 5 years ago, and
they're still ensuring compatibility of VB6, I think
they're doing okay. Also, .Net offers a lot of features
and capabilities that we all wish were available in VB6.

You're expending a lot of negative energy over something
you can't change. Doesn't that make you tired?

That's just my 2cents' worth.

Robin S.
----------------------------

<aaron.kempf@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1164137803.174953.299670@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

>I agree.
>
I wrote Basic / Visual Basic for 20 years but I'm sure as hell not
going to stick my hat in the .NET world.
>
MS needs to start treating VB developers like real-people.. I'm sick of
being treated like an afterthought.
>
I call for Microsoft to do us all a favor and just make VB -- all
versions-- just completely open source and let us fend for ourselves.
>
-Aaron
>
>
RobinS wrote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
>news:u8ipbnZDHHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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.nonewrote in message
news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do.
>>
>Robin S.
>---------------------------------------
>"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googleg roups.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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>>news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googl egroups.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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote in message
>>>>>>news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcas t.com...
>>>>>>>You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his
>>>>>>>meds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Robin S.
>>>>>>>----------------------------
>>>>>>>"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote
>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.g ooglegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The Grand Master
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

>

supportive of it's developers?

then why won't they patch bugs?
why won't they disclose bugs?
why won't they lay down a roadmap?

why don't they support SQL 2005 on Access 2003?

why didn't they include 'edit and continue'
why do they not provide samples in vb.net for half of the shit that
they do?

Microsoft can sit on a fork and hobble around like a cripple for all I
care.
I for one; am a pissed off developer that has been submitting bugs to
Microsoft for years and years and years and never gotten a response
other than 'its not a bug its a FEATURE'

i'm stuck with a hobbled IDE where my life gets HOSED when other sql
developers abbreviate 'create procedure' as 'create proc'

and I've been fucking bitching about it for FIVE YEARS and those nigger
loving, BMW driving fratboys can fuck themselves.

They don't give a shit about developers.

VB.net is great for some things.. but it's still 10 times SLOWER
DEVELOPMENT than MS Access or Dreamweaver.

They are off by an order of magnitude

for the past 5-8 years; I have been able to do all of this with VB6:

DTS scripts
Batch Files (VBS)
Excel Macros, Outlook Macros, Word Macros
Access Macros
ASP Serverside with VBS
DHTML Clientside with VBS

So Robin; little miss smarty pants-- you please tell me what I am
supposed to do now with .NET?

DTS scripts (HAS BEEN REMOVED - aka EAT SHIT VB DEVELOPERS)
Batch Files (VBS) (HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH THE C# CRAP- aka EAT SHIT VB
DEVELOPERS)
Excel Macros, Outlook Macros, Word Macros (HAS BEEN REMOVED - aka EAT
SHIT VB DEVELOPERS)
Access Macros (HAS BEEN REMOVED - aka EAT SHIT VB DEVELOPERS)
ASP Serverside with VBS (HAS BEEN REMOVED - aka EAT SHIT VB DEVELOPERS)
DHTML Clientside with VBS (HAS BEEN REMOVED - aka EAT SHIT VB
DEVELOPERS)

Seriously.

how can you compete with this:

DTS scripts
Batch Files (VBS)
Excel Macros, Outlook Macros, Word Macros
Access Macros
ASP Serverside with VBS
DHTML Clientside with VBS

those nigger-loving BITCHES took away VB from half of the environments;
they let me do 1/3rd of it with either Java/JavaScript/J++/J# but the
other 1/3rd I need to learn C#.

So what you're telling me is that those bitches made me go from ONE
LANGUAGE to THREE LANGUAGES without any benefit.

And you sit there and wonder why i'm pissed off?
Throw XML away; lay off the BizTalk and Xbox 1,2,3 teams AND START
FUCKING TAKING VB SERIOUSLY AGAIN

-Aaron

RobinS wrote:

Quote:

Oh, no, you misunderstood. Michael was referring to
the COBOL jobs supporting legacy applications.
>
I *am* putting my hat in the .Net ring. I think
Microsoft is very supportive of its developers,
because we help drive the business. If businesses
can't find any .Net programmers, they will turn to
something else that has available manpower. Hence
the big marketing to the developers every time a
new version comes out.
>
VB6 didn't go anywhere, it's still out there, and they
made sure it would work with Windows Vista, so they
do get that they can't eradicate it. And I don't think
that's their goal. They'd just like people to move
forward to .Net so they don't have to keep maintaining
backward compatibility for the rest of their lives.
Considering that .Net came out 4 or 5 years ago, and
they're still ensuring compatibility of VB6, I think
they're doing okay. Also, .Net offers a lot of features
and capabilities that we all wish were available in VB6.
>
You're expending a lot of negative energy over something
you can't change. Doesn't that make you tired?
>
That's just my 2cents' worth.
>
Robin S.
----------------------------
>
<aaron.kempf@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1164137803.174953.299670@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

I agree.

I wrote Basic / Visual Basic for 20 years but I'm sure as hell not
going to stick my hat in the .NET world.

MS needs to start treating VB developers like real-people.. I'm sick of
being treated like an afterthought.

I call for Microsoft to do us all a favor and just make VB -- all
versions-- just completely open source and let us fend for ourselves.

-Aaron

RobinS wrote:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote in message
news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do.
>
Robin S.
---------------------------------------
"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.google groups.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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.go oglegroups.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:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
news:u8ipbnZDHHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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.nonewrote in message
news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com...

Quote:

>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do.
>
Robin S.
---------------------------------------
"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.google groups.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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in
>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.go oglegroups.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:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
news:u8ipbnZDHHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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.nonewrote in message
news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com...

Quote:

>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do.
>
Robin S.
---------------------------------------
"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.google groups.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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in
>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.go oglegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The Grand Master
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Actualy PHP is open source. So no-one can all of a sudden change it or
discontinue it. I see the use of MS tools decreasing dramaticaly now.
MS has been too cocky for too long, they really blew it this time by
being so arrogant.

The Grand Master

RobinS wrote:

Quote:

It's good to see that you're not bitter.
>
Change is inevitable. One day PHP will be
replaced by something else, and you'll be
ranting about that.
>
Robin S.
------------------------------------
<aaron.kempf@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1164135440.092459.113830@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time

Microsoft killed the most popular programming language of all time--
just because they were scared of a little wimpy company named Sun with
a THREE BILLION DOLLAR market cap.

It's like when the time came for the great battle of the programming
languages; microsoft just threw in the towel and ran away.

Inventing C#-- those fuckers can lick me

-Aaron

Master Programmer wrote:

Quote:

Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>
The Grand Master
>
>
Michael D. Ober wrote:
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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
>>news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.eart hlink.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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
>>>news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.google groups.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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

By ruining Visual Basic MS have just kaka'ed in their own pants. I
won't be buying any shares in that company. I recon that have a shakey
future.

1) The only real products they have are Office & Windows. Linux is
getting better (Free). Open office is growing (Free).

2) No other MS products are taken seriously (Sharepoint, Exchange etc),
and the reliability of most are questionable.

3) They used to push windows programmers by selling them productive
tools like VB. Now they no longer have VB but an inferior product -
alienating most VB users.

4) They have run out of things to say and make. They have to resort to
ranting about "non products" such as the .net framework.

The Grand Master

Master Programmer wrote:

Quote:

Actualy PHP is open source. So no-one can all of a sudden change it or
discontinue it. I see the use of MS tools decreasing dramaticaly now.
MS has been too cocky for too long, they really blew it this time by
being so arrogant.
>
The Grand Master
>
RobinS wrote:

Quote:

It's good to see that you're not bitter.

Change is inevitable. One day PHP will be
replaced by something else, and you'll be
ranting about that.

Robin S.
------------------------------------
<aaron.kempf@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1164135440.092459.113830@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time
>
Microsoft killed the most popular programming language of all time--
just because they were scared of a little wimpy company named Sun with
a THREE BILLION DOLLAR market cap.
>
It's like when the time came for the great battle of the programming
languages; microsoft just threw in the towel and ran away.
>
Inventing C#-- those fuckers can lick me
>
-Aaron
>
>
Master Programmer wrote:
>Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>>
>The Grand Master
>>
>>
>Michael D. Ober wrote:
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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
>>news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.eart hlink.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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
>>>news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.google groups.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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

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.

"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1164178198.526392.276690@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

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:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote in message
>news:u8ipbnZDHHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Quote:

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.nonewrote in message
news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do.
>>
>Robin S.
>---------------------------------------
>"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googleg roups.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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>>news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.googl egroups.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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote in message
>>>>>>news:hr6dnSZxOqDTOMHYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcas t.com...
>>>>>>>You shouldn't let the guy bait you. He's obviously off his
>>>>>>>meds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Robin S.
>>>>>>>----------------------------
>>>>>>>"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote
>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.g ooglegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The Grand Master
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

>

we're not trolling asshole

RealBasic doesn't help us... the fact of the matter is that VB was the
WORLDS MOST POPULAR LANGUAGE -- I mean.. do you guys even work in
offices?

do you understand that the whole wide world runs on Excel Macros,
Access Macros, Outlook Macros??

DTS Scripts?
VBS Files?

Does the new "windows powershell" even suport vbs? vb.net?

no; it's C# all the way..

MS killed VB and made a clone called C# because they dont give a shit
about the VB constituency

Fuck C-SHARP and any other language named C.

WE WANT VB6 / VB.COM / VBS _BACK_ MOTHERFUCKERS

-Aaron

Michael D. Ober wrote:

Quote:

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.
>
"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1164178198.526392.276690@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

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:

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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote in message
news:MsmdnV-yQNGoKf_YnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>I wouldn't know. That's not what I do.
>
Robin S.
---------------------------------------
"Master Programmer" <master_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
news:1164088582.561626.160640@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.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_programmer@outgun.comwrote in message
>>news:1164001943.932189.275060@h48g2000cwc.google groups.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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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.noneschreef 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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.nonewrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamwrote 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_programmer@outgun.comwrote
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>news:1163662214.947086.160210@e3g2000cwe.go oglegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The Grand Master
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

unnecessary change is not inevitable.
it is unnecessary.

how can you compete with this:

DTS scripts
Batch Files (VBS)
Excel Macros, Outlook Macros, Word Macros
Access Macros
ASP Serverside with VBS
DHTML Clientside with VBS

those nigger-loving BITCHES took away VB from half of the environments;

they let me do 1/3rd of it with either Java/JavaScript/J++/J# but the
other 1/3rd I need to learn C#.

So what you're telling me is that those bitches made me go from ONE
LANGUAGE to THREE LANGUAGES without any benefit.

And you sit there and wonder why i'm pissed off?
Throw XML away; lay off the BizTalk and Xbox 1,2,3 teams AND START
FUCKING TAKING VB SERIOUSLY AGAIN

RobinS wrote:

Quote:

It's good to see that you're not bitter.
>
Change is inevitable. One day PHP will be
replaced by something else, and you'll be
ranting about that.
>
Robin S.
------------------------------------
<aaron.kempf@gmail.comwrote in message
news:1164135440.092459.113830@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time

Microsoft killed the most popular programming language of all time--
just because they were scared of a little wimpy company named Sun with
a THREE BILLION DOLLAR market cap.

It's like when the time came for the great battle of the programming
languages; microsoft just threw in the towel and ran away.

Inventing C#-- those fuckers can lick me

-Aaron

Master Programmer wrote:

Quote:

Visual Basic is dead, don't waste your time.
>
The Grand Master
>
>
Michael D. Ober wrote:
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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef 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]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nlwrote 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" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospamschreef in bericht
>>news:vsQVg.8396$o71.1439@newsread3.news.pas.eart hlink.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" <ahussain3@gmail.comwrote in message
>>>news:1160204336.307320.302150@m7g2000cwm.google groups.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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

re: VB 6 developers and .Net

Similar Visual Basic .NET bytes

/bytes/development

/bytes/it

/bytes/about