To VB or not to VB?

[zacks]

A co-worker where I work is proposing all future code devopment be done
in Visual C#. Here is his assessment of VB:

VB.NET is hack as far as the CLR(Common Language Runtime) goes. It was
retrofited into the .Net framework for those people who simply don't,
and do not care to, understand object oriented programming. Quite a
few of it's (features) were forced into the language through very ugly
means to make it easier for the VB guys to bring in their code. Things
like "static" veriables and functions are called "shared" in VB.NET,
because the keyword static was already used in VB6. VB.NET is loaded
with these kinds of little idiocies.

Any comment?

[Ken Halter]

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use _Sparingly_Hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP12.phx.gbl. ..

Another great feature would be one that replaces a predefined set of VB6
classes with dotNet classes that do exactly the same thing. For example, I

The more I think about this one, the more I like the idea. Since we're
focusing on code re-use (Right?!!!), I think it would be an excellent
feature. Sounds extremely simple too.

First Pass...
Scan project for known classes
If any are found, simply swap them with the matching dotNet class
and
mark that part of the project "done" to the wizard. No need for the
Wizard to rescan this part of the project.
Second Pass...
Run the wizard in "normal" mode, checking for classes replaced by the
first pass, so they can be skipped.

Done. Far fewer reported errors and warnings, true code reusability,
everyone wins. End of story <g>

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Ken Halter]

"Ken Halter" <Ke********@Hot mail.com> wrote in message
news:Oh******** *******@tk2msft ngp13.phx.gbl.. .

feature. Sounds extremely simple too.

Just as I thought <sigh>... Posting suggestions for dotNet from an "Actual
VB6 developer" is like talking into a vacuum. HUGE waste of time because the
direction dotNet's taking has already been set in stone so, as a VB6
developer, our "suggestion s" are nothing more than something for the dotNet
product team to print out and use as toilet tissue.

The sudden drive to get VB6 devs to use B# is purely a marketting ploy to
get people to buy dotNet. What they do with it once they've shelled out the
money, is their problem. Code re-use.... HA! Wizard..... HA!

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Ken,

Just as I thought <sigh>... Posting suggestions for dotNet from an "Actual
VB6 developer" is like talking into a vacuum. HUGE waste of time because
the direction dotNet's taking has already been set in stone so, as a VB6
developer, our "suggestion s" are nothing more than something for the
dotNet product team to print out and use as toilet tissue.

I disagree this completely with you. In my opinion is there now to much in
VB.Net what would not be there if there was not that big VB6 advocacy, which
seems for me extremely stronger than the Linux one.

At least I am not very lucky with some of the so called improvements in
version 2005 which becomes because of this advocacy, which have helped to
improve VBNet with the at least not always logical behaviour of VB6, without
that they knew anything from VB.Net.

Every developer knows in advance what it the result of these kind of
improvements. However the VB6 avocacy is strong.

Just my opinion.

Cor

[Ken Halter]

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************ @planet.nl> wrote in message
news:OG******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...

Ken,

Just as I thought <sigh>... Posting suggestions for dotNet from an
"Actual VB6 developer" is like talking into a vacuum. HUGE waste of time
because the direction dotNet's taking has already been set in stone so,
as a VB6 developer, our "suggestion s" are nothing more than something for
the dotNet product team to print out and use as toilet tissue.

I disagree this completely with you. In my opinion is there now to much in
VB.Net what would not be there if there was not that big VB6 advocacy,
which seems for me extremely stronger than the Linux one.

At least I am not very lucky with some of the so called improvements in
version 2005 which becomes because of this advocacy, which have helped to
improve VBNet with the at least not always logical behaviour of VB6,
without that they knew anything from VB.Net.

Every developer knows in advance what it the result of these kind of
improvements. However the VB6 avocacy is strong.

Just my opinion.

Cor

Well... I can't count the number of times I've seen an MS employee say "post
your ideas" and, when we do, they're completely ignored. The problem with
most of the "improvemen ts" as far as VB6 migration goes, since VB6 has
always been "just a toy" to MS and no one there used it for any reasonable
amount of time, they're implementing features they "assume" VB6 developers
want (can't seem to provide a decent immediate window or single procedure
view though).

So, what you're saying is, B# is getting worse as a result of these
"improvemen ts" eh? That doesn't surprise me at all. VB6 compatibility isn't
just some band-aid you can simply paste on top of a framework to please VB6
developers. Personally, I have 10s of thousands of lines of code that are
instantly broken by dotNet. Since most of my projects include several
classes that perform the exact same thing, no matter what project they're
in, I thought it would be a good idea to feed those through the "wizard" and
never have to deal with them again. If that "wizard" found one of those
"pre-converted" classes, it could simply swap one file for another, instead
of parsing the class and reporting tons of errors every single freaking time
it comes across one of these exact same classes in a project.

Since B# is a completely new language, it should never have been called "VB"
in the first place. If only they'd have been honest, we wouldn't be having
these issues today, at all. VB6 support in B# could've been completely
dropped.

NET Software Legend Juval Lowy agrees with that too, saying the only thing
VB6 has in common with VB.Net is the letters "V" and "B" in their names. You
can hear that in the following podcast....

VB6 Glass Ceiling
http://blogs.duncanmackenzie.net/dun...0/28/3148.aspx

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Cor,

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************ @planet.nl> schrieb:

Just as I thought <sigh>... Posting suggestions for dotNet from an
"Actual VB6 developer" is like talking into a vacuum. HUGE waste of time
because the direction dotNet's taking has already been set in stone so,
as a VB6 developer, our "suggestion s" are nothing more than something for
the dotNet product team to print out and use as toilet tissue.

I disagree this completely with you. In my opinion is there now to much in
VB.Net what would not be there if there was not that big VB6 advocacy,
which seems for me extremely stronger than the Linux one.

At least I am not very lucky with some of the so called improvements in
version 2005 which becomes because of this advocacy, which have helped to
improve VBNet with the at least not always logical behaviour of VB6,
without that they knew anything from VB.Net.

Unfortunately that's not what people were asking for. There are only very
few (mainly in the VB.NET team) who think that faking VB6 in VB.NET by
introducing some phantom features is a good idea. Personally I think that
VB6 must have a future -- managed or not -- and VB.NET should not be
crippled by introducing features known from VB6 such as referring to default
instances using a form's class name. The latter won't solve the migration
problem. It's a bait for former VB6 developers and managers who are made
think that VB 2005 is the new VB6. Even dropping the ".NET" from the
programming language's name perfectly fits into this schema.

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

[Jonathan West]

Hi John,

I'd be grateful if you could respond to my last reply to Matt Getz in this
thread, and carry on with the questions he felt unable to answer.

--
Regards
Jonathan West

[Ken Halter]

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

Unfortunately that's not what people were asking for. There are only very
few (mainly in the VB.NET team) who think that faking VB6 in VB.NET by
introducing some phantom features is a good idea. Personally I think that
VB6 must have a future -- managed or not -- and VB.NET should not be
crippled by introducing features known from VB6 such as referring to
default instances using a form's class name. The latter won't solve the
migration problem. It's a bait for former VB6 developers and managers who
are made think that VB 2005 is the new VB6. Even dropping the ".NET" from
the programming language's name perfectly fits into this schema.
I agree 100%. B# could've just taken off in it's own direction if it were
called anything other than "VB". It would've been better for everyone
involved. MS could still sell dotNet with its "super duper version of
'basic'" and VB6 users could be running VB6 with bug fixes in place.
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Ken,

You have often written in this newsgroup VB.Net is not VB6.

Although I don't agree that completely with you, have I always agreed in the
context as you wrote this and given no comments.

Let I try an analogy.

English is a complex of languages that inherits most from North Sea
languages. Therefore it is a Germanic language. However it has implemented a
lot from other languages but mostly French. Other members of those North
Sea languages are Danish, Dutch and Fries, however you probably cannot speak
one of those languages.

In my idea is VB.Net is an apart member from the family of VB languages.

However just my idea.

Cor

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Herfried,

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************ @planet.nl> schrieb:

Just as I thought <sigh>... Posting suggestions for dotNet from an
"Actual VB6 developer" is like talking into a vacuum. HUGE waste of time
because the direction dotNet's taking has already been set in stone so,
as a VB6 developer, our "suggestion s" are nothing more than something
for the dotNet product team to print out and use as toilet tissue.

I disagree this completely with you. In my opinion is there now to much
in VB.Net what would not be there if there was not that big VB6 advocacy,
which seems for me extremely stronger than the Linux one.

At least I am not very lucky with some of the so called improvements in
version 2005 which becomes because of this advocacy, which have helped to
improve VBNet with the at least not always logical behaviour of VB6,
without that they knew anything from VB.Net.

Unfortunately that's not what people were asking for. There are only very
few (mainly in the VB.NET team) who think that faking VB6 in VB.NET by
introducing some phantom features is a good idea. Personally I think that
VB6 must have a future -- managed or not -- and VB.NET should not be
crippled by introducing features known from VB6 such as referring to
default instances using a form's class name. The latter won't solve the
migration problem. It's a bait for former VB6 developers and managers who
are made think that VB 2005 is the new VB6. Even dropping the ".NET" from
the programming language's name perfectly fits into this schema.

We agree for 100% in this.

Cor

[Ken Halter]

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************ @planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..

Ken,

You have often written in this newsgroup VB.Net is not VB6.

Although I don't agree that completely with you, have I always agreed in
the context as you wrote this and given no comments.

Let I try an analogy.

English is a complex of languages that inherits most from North Sea
languages. Therefore it is a Germanic language. However it has implemented
a lot from other languages but mostly French. Other members of those
North Sea languages are Danish, Dutch and Fries, however you probably
cannot speak one of those languages.

In my idea is VB.Net is an apart member from the family of VB languages.

However just my idea.

Cor

You're 100% right about the fact that I can't speak any of those languages.
Thing is, no one's trying to sell Dutch as an upgrade to the English
language ;-) Since Dutch (and the rest) are completely different (including
their names), I'd expect completely different rules to apply. Wouldn't want
English to suddenly become "no longer supported"

--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB (visiting from VB6 world) - http://www.vbsight.com
Please keep all discussions in the groups..