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********@smithvoiceTAKEOUT.com> wrote in message
news:Jp****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.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_Hotmail.com> wrote:

"smith" <rc********@smithvoiceTAKEOUT.com> wrote in message
news:Jp****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.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_Hotmail.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_Hotmail.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*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.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_Hotmail.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_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Os**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:eE*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.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******@ameritech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

[alpine]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:55:20 -0600, Paul Clement
<Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:

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?

Script is generally considered to be "throw away" code. Stop trying
to compare apples to oranges, Paul.

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

[smith]

I understand and respect that. MVPs are supposed to be candid and honest
but I'd figure that they are also are expected to consider the influence
that their status gives them over the long-term success of their products.

Don't you guys have an MVP Summit coming up? I just read this about it:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1752693,00.asp

Maybe Ken and Bryan can make a point to ask the "Is VB used internally"
question when they are there. (And a Q&A session about how far MVPs should
speak publically against their franchises would probably get
standing-room-only attendence.)

They don't have to post the answer, but since it appears to be such an
important issue to many users and some MVPs appear to bring it up quite
often in response to customers looking for information from Experts on the
product, it would be a shame for a dedicated Professional to go to the
Summit and walk away without getting an official, even if non-discloseable,
statement.

All the best.

Robert Smith
Kirkland, WA
www.smithvoice.com

"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:OR**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

Smith,

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

Cor

[Ken Halter]

"smith" <rc********@smithvoiceTAKEOUT.com> wrote in message
news:Rf****************@newsread1.news.pas.earthli nk.net...

I understand and respect that. MVPs are supposed to be candid and honest
but I'd figure that they are also are expected to consider the influence
that their status gives them over the long-term success of their products.

Don't you guys have an MVP Summit coming up? I just read this about it:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1752693,00.asp
I've been an MVP now for 4 years. Never have and never will attend a summit.
There's nothing there for VB Classic developers. No use travelling 1000+
miles to sit at a table and fall asleep <g>
Maybe Ken and Bryan can make a point to ask the "Is VB used internally"
question when they are there. (And a Q&A session about how far MVPs
should speak publically against their franchises would probably get
standing-room-only attendence.)
Forget "Ken and Bryan", there are plenty of MVPs that are B# fans that can
ask that question.... and, "how far MVPs should speak publically against
their franchises"? "franchises"? What are you talking about?! Microsoft
doesn't pay MVPs. We can say anything that's on our mind to anyone that's in
front of us at any given time (as long as it's non NDA). MS surely doesn't
have control over our opinions just because they gave us an award for
helping out in the previous year(s).
They don't have to post the answer, but since it appears to be such an
important issue to many users and some MVPs appear to bring it up quite
often in response to customers looking for information from Experts on the

The only reason it's an issue is because no one can show any proof at all
that anything "real" is written in B#. Every single (check it out for
yourself) vendor that sells .Net apps or components, say that it's 100%

C#<<.... NOT ONE vendor that I've seen claims that their code is B# based.
If it's so darn cool, why isn't anyone creating commercial apps/components
with it?

Plus.... "customers looking for information from Experts"? I have nothing to
do with "customers". I'm not an evangelist. I don't go door to door begging
people to try .Net.

When I provide help in the VB Classic groups, I'm helping VB Classicusers<<... I couldn't care less whether or not they're "customers"... when

they start paying me, they'll be "customers"

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

[Paul Clement]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:35:26 -0700, alpine <al******************@mvps.org> wrote:

¤ On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:55:20 -0600, Paul Clement
¤ <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:
¤
¤ >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?
¤
¤
¤ Script is generally considered to be "throw away" code. Stop trying
¤ to compare apples to oranges, Paul.
¤

Yeah, considered by those who don't develop web applications. ;-)

Code is code Bryan. Web applications are no more or less important than desktop applications.

I guess the only code that matters to you is that which suits your argument. ;-)
Paul ~~~ pc******@ameritech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

[alpine]

>Maybe Ken and Bryan can make a point to ask the "Is VB used internally"

question
Do you seriously think this question hasn't been asked already? You
appear to have a lot to learn, young one. ;-)
I think you also need a better understanding about what an MVP is and
isn't. The fact that MS has given someone the MVP award doesn't make
them beholden to MS in any way, shape or form. I appreciate being
awarded as an MVP and the benefits that go along with the award but
that doesn't influence my views of MS or the advice I offer in the MS
product related communities I frequent. If the best advice I can give
is for someone to not use a particular MS product then that is the
advice I will give.

Being awarded as an MVP doesn't make one an MS sycophant, following
the MS marketing line like a love sick puppy. Some MVPs may choose to
become that way, but it isn't something that is "required" and IMO,
those who do, lose a significant amount of credibility when they do
so.

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
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:03:13 GMT, "smith"
<rc********@smithvoiceTAKEOUT.com> wrote:
I understand and respect that. MVPs are supposed to be candid and honest
but I'd figure that they are also are expected to consider the influence
that their status gives them over the long-term success of their products.

Don't you guys have an MVP Summit coming up? I just read this about it:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1752693,00.asp

Maybe Ken and Bryan can make a point to ask the "Is VB used internally"
question when they are there. (And a Q&A session about how far MVPs should
speak publically against their franchises would probably get
standing-room-only attendence.)

They don't have to post the answer, but since it appears to be such an
important issue to many users and some MVPs appear to bring it up quite
often in response to customers looking for information from Experts on the
product, it would be a shame for a dedicated Professional to go to the
Summit and walk away without getting an official, even if non-discloseable,
statement.

All the best.

Robert Smith
Kirkland, WA
www.smithvoice.com

"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:OR**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

Smith,

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

Cor

[alpine]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:51:22 -0600, Paul Clement
<Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:35:26 -0700, alpine <al******************@mvps.org> wrote:

¤ On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:55:20 -0600, Paul Clement
¤ <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:
¤
¤ >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?
¤
¤
¤ Script is generally considered to be "throw away" code. Stop trying
¤ to compare apples to oranges, Paul.
¤

Yeah, considered by those who don't develop web applications. ;-)

Code is code Bryan. Web applications are no more or less important than desktop applications.

I guess the only code that matters to you is that which suits your argument. ;-)

No, Paul, script code has been considered "disposable" for as long as
I can remember. You are grasping at straws in an attempt to give your
argument basis but, I guess that is what those, like you, who have
deluded themselves, do. ;-)

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

[smith]

Thank you both. I was wondering about the program (because of that article
I URLed ijn the previous) and you've filled in some blanks.

The groups are great because of the passion and as a customer considering
how to break down the Tools budget this year, I appreciate your sharing your
information, insights and experiences.

All the best and thanks again. That was most all I was looking for.

Robert Smith
Kirkland, WA
www.smithvoice.com

[Douglas Marquardt]

Hi Bryan:

I asked BillG that specific question about a year and a half ago.
He indicated he didn't know for sure if/how much it was being used
internally, but that there was no reason why they couldn't/wouldn't.

Whether or not anything happened internally after that I don't know.

Doug.

Maybe Ken and Bryan can make a point to ask the "Is VB used internally"
question

Do you seriously think this question hasn't been asked already? You
appear to have a lot to learn, young one. ;-)

[alpine]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:21:31 -0700, "Douglas Marquardt"
<no*****@dummy.com> wrote:

Hi Bryan:

I asked BillG that specific question about a year and a half ago.
He indicated he didn't know for sure if/how much it was being used
internally, but that there was no reason why they couldn't/wouldn't.

Whether or not anything happened internally after that I don't know.

Doug.

>Maybe Ken and Bryan can make a point to ask the "Is VB used internally"
>question

Do you seriously think this question hasn't been asked already? You
appear to have a lot to learn, young one. ;-)

Here we are a year and a half later and the fact that they have yet to
release or even hint at the future release of anything of any
significance written if VB# speaks *volumes*.

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

[smith]

Again:

"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 and we should
all
have just gone to VC a long time ago. :)
"

If you consider the systems that help keep that pretty major company running
being of significance then that's the answer.

btw: My nephew worked on parts of Office and wrote some of his test scripts
in Perl ... does that makes it more of a real language than VB?

That's it, I really gotta go. Ken, Bryan, Cor, Paul, Herfried, Douglas:
thanks as always for your time and your information.

Robert Smith
Kirkland, WA
www.smithvoice.com
"alpine" <al******************@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:kq********************************@4ax.com...

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

Ken,

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.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

[Paul Clement]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:17:48 -0700, alpine <al******************@mvps.org> wrote:

¤ >¤ >
¤ >¤ >You mean like the investment they had/have in ASP with VBScript/JScript?
¤ >¤
¤ >¤
¤ >¤ Script is generally considered to be "throw away" code. Stop trying
¤ >¤ to compare apples to oranges, Paul.
¤ >¤
¤ >
¤ >Yeah, considered by those who don't develop web applications. ;-)
¤ >
¤ >Code is code Bryan. Web applications are no more or less important than desktop applications.
¤ >
¤ >I guess the only code that matters to you is that which suits your argument. ;-)
¤
¤
¤ No, Paul, script code has been considered "disposable" for as long as
¤ I can remember. You are grasping at straws in an attempt to give your
¤ argument basis but, I guess that is what those, like you, who have
¤ deluded themselves, do. ;-)

Whatever you say Bryan. I'm sure some day you'll move to a *real* programming language too. ;-)

After all, why would anyone invest their code assets into a "toy language" such as Classic Visual
Basic? ;-)

Thanks for sharing the myths. ;-)
Paul ~~~ pc******@ameritech.net
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

[Tony Proctor]

That's an interesting link Herfried... Interesting because the answer is
there, implicitly, in phrases like: "...when we moved from VB6 to VB.NET, we
broke compatibility and that is a sore point with some of our developer
customers". The feeling with MS appears to be that (a) they are supporting a
mere community of developers, and (b) they have to help them learn a new
language & tools. In other words, they're in "cloud cuckoo land".

As Ken highlighted very well at the start of this thread, the main issue is
of legacy code -- code that forms commercial products, that has been tested,
documented, etc. Such code doesn't just need to be ported, or even
re-written; much of it needs to be re-designed, and then re-implemented,
re-tested, re-documented. Even assuming a software company has this amount
resource to throw around, and the time to divert from mainstream product
evolution, they have to convince their customer base that they're getting
something better, something that will do more for them. In reality, many
customers won't want to make that jump to a new "V1.0 product", just as they
haven't jumped immediately to the .Net platform. Their businesses may be
critically dependent on working software. They don't want to be guinea pigs
for something new. Hence, your support organisation then ends up being
contractually obligated to support both of your different code bases.

For what it's worth, most of the people who feel strongly on this issue
could write their stuff in any language, if they had to. It's not really
just a matter of getting their old "Edit and Continue" back. The tools MS
have provided for porting VB6 to VB.Net are just not practical. If they
listened, and built a few more bridges, I think they might eventually win
people over. The current combination of head-in-the-sand and bully-boy
tactics just make the situation more tense though.

Tony Proctor

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:eE*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

Ken,

"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.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/>

[MM]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:26:33 GMT, "smith"
<rc********@smithvoiceTAKEOUT.com> wrote:

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

I read that article of yours (http://www.smithvoice.com/C1swf.htm) and
I am reassured that old, real VB-ers simply refuse to crawl away and
die! There is one problem with VB.Net. It isn't Visual Basic! Sure,
call it C# with BASIC-like syntax if you wish, but it bears as much
comparison to VB6 and earlier versions that my late gran ever did to
Julia Roberts (well, they were both women, I suppose).

Good to hear that there are new products like Flash and Actionscript.
Over here in "old" Europe we use Flash to clean the floors, but if it
works on Windows, too, then maybe I'll take a look. I did just click
on the link "if current releases are any indicator" and was shunted on
to a Microsoft web site, where, after interminable churning of my
modem for a few minutes, it just said "Flash 7 Not Detected" or some
such, at which point I thought, Bill Gates is still in charge, then.
Then I left. (I usually treat Microsoft with contempt. Sorry, it's the
way I'm made.)

As for giving VB what VB-ers allegedly said they needed, what they got
was worse than a hole in the head. Where *were* all the folks crying
out for OOP in a quick-n-dirty RAD program generator? Only a very
small proportion from the three million-odd VB programmers, going on
what I was reading at the time. Countless MVPs themselves criticised
VB.Net and said that Microsoft was completely on the wrong track. And
then Microsoft delivered a product that hardly anyone had a good word
to say about, and it seems, even after three or more years, still
don't.

I still fire up my trusty VB6 occasionally, like going out into the
yard and kicking the tyres on an old Fordson tractor. VB6 still works
fine. One day, someone with more foresight than Bill Gates, Stevie
"Developers" Ballmer, and several others put together will produce a
new state-of-the-art simple RAD to rival real Visual Basic, i.e. the
one prior to VB.Net, and the world will beat a path to that
innovator's door. Meanwhile, OOP fanatics will just have to see how
far they can get on Microsoft's managed platforms with 100 meg
downloads.

MM

[Bob O`Bob]

alpine wrote:

*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.

Well, I still can remember imagining it, but just barely.

It starts with "we might cross that bridge, but only after you actually BUILD one"


Bob

[Bob O`Bob]

alpine wrote:

Being awarded as an MVP doesn't make one an MS sycophant, following
the MS marketing line like a love sick puppy. Some MVPs may choose to
become that way, but it isn't something that is "required" and IMO,
those who do, lose a significant amount of credibility when they do
so.

though, sadly, there certainly have been a few who came IN that way.

Bob

[Bob O`Bob]

Douglas Marquardt wrote:

Hi Bryan:

I asked BillG that specific question about a year and a half ago.
He indicated he didn't know for sure if/how much it was being used
internally, but that there was no reason why they couldn't/wouldn't.
I aaked him when VB5 was new.
I'm just about positive Scoble asked him the same, even before VB4 shipped.


Whether or not anything happened internally after that I don't know.

I'm sure the same as before. {insert rude hand-waving gesture here}

Bob
--

[Bob O`Bob]

alpine wrote:

Here we are a year and a half later and the fact that they have yet to
release or even hint at the future release of anything of any
significance written if VB# speaks *volumes*.

here we are THREE years after the VB MVP Summit, and ...

Bob

[Bob O`Bob]

Bob O`Bob wrote:

alpine wrote:

Here we are a year and a half later and the fact that they have yet to
release or even hint at the future release of anything of any
significance written if VB# speaks *volumes*.

here we are THREE years after the VB MVP Summit, and ...

oops ... classic January check-writing error. Make that almost FOUR.

[smith]

If I may, from some years of work experience in journalism:

The person most likely to have and give the answer to an important question
is usually not the person who has been assigned the task of answering
questions.

As an old boss once told me: "Think All The President's Men ... and remember
Radar O'Reilly." ;-)

-smith
www.smithvoice.com

"alpine" <al******************@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:ir********************************@4ax.com...

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:21:31 -0700, "Douglas Marquardt"
<no*****@dummy.com> wrote:

Hi Bryan:

I asked BillG that specific question about a year and a half ago.
He indicated he didn't know for sure if/how much it was being used
internally, but that there was no reason why they couldn't/wouldn't.