to Ken Halter and the other dedicated VB MVPs

[smith]

The intense off-topic VB6/VB.Net thread "Where is the Key in Treeview.Net"
(started Dec 2 2004 and cross-posted to every VB group under the sun) really
got me to thinking.

And that thinking got me to typing this:

http://www.smithvoice.com/C1swf.htm

All the best in 2005 and here's hoping that this year's Visual Basic release
will be more to the VB core's liking.

Robert Smith
Kirkland, WA
www.smithvoice.com

[Ken Halter]

"smith" <rc********@smi thvoiceTAKEOUT. com> wrote in message
news:Jp******** ********@newsre ad3.news.pas.ea rthlink.net...

The intense off-topic VB6/VB.Net thread "Where is the Key in Treeview.Net"
(started Dec 2 2004 and cross-posted to every VB group under the sun)
really got me to thinking.

And that thinking got me to typing this:

http://www.smithvoice.com/C1swf.htm

"With .Net VB got what most everyone said that they wanted"

All I have to say is.... I can't recall anyone saying that they wanted to
re-write every stinking app they have just so they can say "it's running in
..Net". Can't recall anyone saying that control arrays were inconvenient so
get rid of them. Can't recall anyone saying that Tree/ListViews are too
convenient so lets muck them up by removing the Key.

Like I've said 10 dozen times now, the company I work for has code that's
been running great for *years*. To re-write that would be suicide. We'd have
to pay our test engineers plus the 3rd party test engineers plus months and
months of documentation changes plus redistribute everything to our
customers (and explain why everything takes longer now) and convince them
that.... no, there are no changes, we just re-wrote "the world" so we could
say we're using .Net...

Then, no doubt, a couple of years from now, when .Next comes out, start over
from scratch again. That's just plain silly.

"1) RAD. High level object interfaces with the ability to get finer and
deeper control if you want it"

There is nothing more "RAD" than VB5/6. Control Array support alone almost
makes that statement true by itself.

"What of C#? To me, it's little more than a marketing trick"

Actually, B#'s the marketting trick. MS doesn't use B# for anything
internally. All 3rd party vendors that claim "written entirely in .Net" have
a "using C#" tag somewhere on the same page... zero 3rd party vendors admit
to even touching B#.

No one at MS wants to admit to using VB(insert version here) for anything at
all... nothing has changed since B#'s release.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[alpine]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:14:43 -0800, "Ken Halter"
<Ken_Halter@Use _Sparingly_Hotm ail.com> wrote:

"smith" <rc********@smi thvoiceTAKEOUT. com> wrote in message
news:Jp******* *********@newsr ead3.news.pas.e arthlink.net...

The intense off-topic VB6/VB.Net thread "Where is the Key in Treeview.Net"
(started Dec 2 2004 and cross-posted to every VB group under the sun)
really got me to thinking.

And that thinking got me to typing this:

http://www.smithvoice.com/C1swf.htm

"With .Net VB got what most everyone said that they wanted"

All I have to say is.... I can't recall anyone saying that they wanted to
re-write every stinking app they have just so they can say "it's running in
.Net". Can't recall anyone saying that control arrays were inconvenient so
get rid of them. Can't recall anyone saying that Tree/ListViews are too
convenient so lets muck them up by removing the Key.

Like I've said 10 dozen times now, the company I work for has code that's
been running great for *years*. To re-write that would be suicide. We'd have
to pay our test engineers plus the 3rd party test engineers plus months and
months of documentation changes plus redistribute everything to our
customers (and explain why everything takes longer now) and convince them
that.... no, there are no changes, we just re-wrote "the world" so we could
say we're using .Net...

Then, no doubt, a couple of years from now, when .Next comes out, start over
from scratch again. That's just plain silly.

"1) RAD. High level object interfaces with the ability to get finer and
deeper control if you want it"

There is nothing more "RAD" than VB5/6. Control Array support alone almost
makes that statement true by itself.

"What of C#? To me, it's little more than a marketing trick"

Actually, B#'s the marketting trick. MS doesn't use B# for anything
internally. All 3rd party vendors that claim "written entirely in .Net" have
a "using C#" tag somewhere on the same page... zero 3rd party vendors admit
to even touching B#.

No one at MS wants to admit to using VB(insert version here) for anything at
all... nothing has changed since B#'s release.

Yeah, it is clear that Robert doesn't get it.

*It* is about trust and the fact that we can no longer trust MS to
consider the value of existing source code assets when creating the
next release of any language that they have not invested any of their
own source code assets in. It really is that simple.

I don't see the "VB core" _ever_ "getting with the program" given this
lack of trust in MS.

HTH,
Bryan
_______________ _______________ _______________ _______________
New Vision Software "When the going gets weird,"
Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro."
al************* *****@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas
_______________ _______________ _______________ _______________
New Vision Software "When the going gets weird,"
Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro."
al************* *****@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Ken,

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use _Sparingly_Hotm ail.com> schrieb:

Actually, B#'s the marketting trick. MS doesn't use B# for anything
internally.

Wrong.

<URL:http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2004/08/01/204540.aspx>:

| our internal systems have typically been written in VB6, and
| now are being written in VB.NET.

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

[alpine]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:31:04 +0100, "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]"
<hi************ ***@gmx.at> wrote:

Ken,

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use _Sparingly_Hotm ail.com> schrieb:

Actually, B#'s the marketting trick. MS doesn't use B# for anything
internally.

Wrong.

<URL:http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2004/08/01/204540.aspx>:

| our internal systems have typically been written in VB6, and
| now are being written in VB.NET.

ROTFLOL! Can you say. "Lip service"? ;-)

They'll toss out that piddly amount of code in a heartbeat. Come back
and talk to us when they have Word or Excel written in VB#.

Bryan
_______________ _______________ _______________ _______________
New Vision Software "When the going gets weird,"
Bryan Stafford "the weird turn pro."
al************* *****@mvps.org Hunter S. Thompson -
Microsoft MVP-Visual Basic Fear and Loathing in LasVegas

[Ken Halter]

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi************ ***@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:eE******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P12.phx.gbl...

Wrong.

<URL:http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2004/08/01/204540.aspx>:

| our internal systems have typically been written in VB6, and
| now are being written in VB.NET.

MS using VB6? That's FUNNY! I doubt it very seriously. VBA6 maybe... but
VB6? LOL. I'm wondering which "internal systems" he's referring to.

Well... where's the proof? Oh... it's in a blog so it must be true eh? ;-)
Here's another blog (bunch of Doogie Howser want-to-be's if you ask me)

Microsoft drops C#
http://weblogs.asp.net/hpreishuber/a...05/173067.aspx

"we're 120% committed to the language and the product not just today but for
a long, long, long time to come, as we have been in the last decade now"

LOL

"I know that when we moved from VB6 to VB.NET, we broke compatibility and
that is a sore point with some of our developer customers"

Well.. he got that part right anyway.

"migration wizards"

LOL... you mean the one that adds "ToDo: Rewrite your app from scratch" at
the top of each project? That's the same "wizard" that used to host the
Fractured Fairy Tales cartoons each saturday.

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use _Sparingly_Hotm ail.com> schrieb:

Wrong.

<URL:http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2004/08/01/204540.aspx>:

| our internal systems have typically been written in VB6, and
| now are being written in VB.NET.

MS using VB6? That's FUNNY! I doubt it very seriously. VBA6 maybe... but
VB6? LOL. I'm wondering which "internal systems" he's referring to.

Well... where's the proof? Oh... it's in a blog so it must be true eh? ;-)
Here's another blog (bunch of Doogie Howser want-to-be's if you ask me)

Microsoft drops C#
http://weblogs.asp.net/hpreishuber/a...05/173067.aspx

Well, one of them is written by a Microsoftie, the other one by an MVP ;-).
Great joke blog entry, BTW...

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

[smith]

I don't work at Microsoft, but living in Kirkland (the town between Redmond
and Lake Washington) within biking distance of the MS main gate, I have a
number of friends and aquaintences who do. You can't throw a dead cat
around here without hitting a 'Softie.

My neighbor is an IT Dev Lead on the main campus, his group uses VB.Net. An
old VB6 friend of mine who worked with me for years at drugstore.com is now
at Microsoft and he is doing all VB.Net there. Real apps that are very
important to the company.

I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to meet a few MSDN folks and the ones
I met came from a VB background and use VB.Net in their jobs today. That
floored me because of all the FUD about VB not being used internally by
Microsoft. I said a couple of times "geeze, just a simple public mention of
the amount of VB going on here would go a long way" I don't know if they'll
mention it or not, maybe they don't see the need or maybe they worry over
its perception among other customers, but fact is Microsoft does indeed use
VB for real development.

Office? No. VB itself? No. But VB6 wasn't used for either of these so
how is that a slight on VB.Net? I mean, if Office not being written in VB
is a reason to not use VB, then VB6 was just as pointless as 7 we should all
have just gone to VC a long time ago. :)

All the best

Robert Smith
Kirkland, WA
www.smithvoice.com

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use _Sparingly_Hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:Os******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi************ ***@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:eE******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P12.phx.gbl... MS using VB6? That's FUNNY! I doubt it very seriously. VBA6 maybe... but
VB6? LOL. I'm wondering which "internal systems" he's referring to.

Well... where's the proof? Oh... it's in a blog so it must be true eh? ;-)
Here's another blog (bunch of Doogie Howser want-to-be's if you ask me)
snipped
-- Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Cor Ligthert]

Smith,

We are not allowed too answer in this thread, however a very nice message
from you.
Compliments,

Cor

[Paul Clement]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:22:45 -0700, alpine <al************ ******@mvps.org > wrote:
¤ >Then, no doubt, a couple of years from now, when .Next comes out, start over
¤ >from scratch again. That's just plain silly.
¤ >
¤ >"1) RAD. High level object interfaces with the ability to get finer and
¤ >deeper control if you want it"
¤ >
¤ >There is nothing more "RAD" than VB5/6. Control Array support alone almost
¤ >makes that statement true by itself.
¤ >
¤ >"What of C#? To me, it's little more than a marketing trick"
¤ >
¤ >Actually, B#'s the marketting trick. MS doesn't use B# for anything
¤ >internally. All 3rd party vendors that claim "written entirely in .Net" have
¤ >a "using C#" tag somewhere on the same page... zero 3rd party vendors admit
¤ >to even touching B#.
¤ >
¤ >No one at MS wants to admit to using VB(insert version here) for anything at
¤ >all... nothing has changed since B#'s release.
¤
¤
¤ Yeah, it is clear that Robert doesn't get it.
¤
¤ *It* is about trust and the fact that we can no longer trust MS to
¤ consider the value of existing source code assets when creating the
¤ next release of any language that they have not invested any of their
¤ own source code assets in. It really is that simple.
¤

You mean like the investment they had/have in ASP with VBScript/JScript?
Paul ~~~ pc******@amerit ech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)