By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,984 Members | 1,016 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,984 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back

Share this Question
Share on Google+
182 Replies


P: n/a
"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> schrieb:
Whether Microsoft backs down or not, I think it would be good for us and
Microsoft to get as good a count of the classic VB users that are
disappointed in .Net.

Well, I guess we still disagree. I think the effort is fruitless.
Microsoft isn't going to go out of its way to find out there is a demand
to do something it doesn't want to do nor thinks would be a bad idea.
Microsoft is (much to their credit) already realizing that they screwed
up the whole RAD feel of VB in VB.Net

Jim, I'll fully admit that this may be a matter of perspective, but I
personally couldn't disagree with you more that Microsoft "screwed up"
anything. I think the exact opposite, in fact. I have some pet peeves
with VB.NET, sure, but on the whole I think they did an incredible job at
improving Visual Basic, including RAD.


Microsoft didn't improve Visual Basic, it created a /new/ programming
language (language stability is broken). That's what the whole discussions
about VB6/VB.NET are about.

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

Nov 21 '05 #101

P: n/a

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
news:Ox**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Whether Microsoft backs down or not, I think it would be good for us and
Microsoft to get as good a count of the classic VB users that are
disappointed in .Net. Well, I guess we still disagree. I think the effort is fruitless.
Microsoft isn't going to go out of its way to find out there is a demand
to do something it doesn't want to do nor thinks would be a bad idea.


Then don't pass it along. I think we can manage.
Microsoft is (much to their credit) already realizing that they screwed
up the whole RAD feel of VB in VB.Net

Jim, I'll fully admit that this may be a matter of perspective, but I
personally couldn't disagree with you more that Microsoft "screwed up"
anything. I think the exact opposite, in fact. I have some pet peeves
with VB.NET, sure, but on the whole I think they did an incredible job at
improving Visual Basic, including RAD.


It seems that Microsoft noticed the problem, along with us classic VB users.
"...Somasegar gave details of some of the company's efforts to keep existing
customers of older versions of VB6 in the Microsoft fold. With Visual Studio
2005, which is code-named Whidbey, developers will be able to use prewritten
components, called controls, that worked with VB6, he said.

"To be fair, we did lose a little bit of the VB experience when made
transition from VB6 to VB.Net," Somasegar said. "Whidbey Visual Basic is
going to provide the best RAD (rapid application development) experience
that they have ever seen."

and are trying to bring some of that back with VB.Net 2005.

I'd like to get your impressions of VB.NET 05, specifically what features
of VB6 that VB.NET 05 is "bringing back". I tried Beta 1 of VB.NET 05 on
my machine for a bit and while I too was quite impressed with the
improvements, I didn't recognize them as being features of VB6 that didn't
make it into VB.NET. Can you give an example of such a feature? (I'm not
denying they are they; I just didn't notice any.)
It's the RAD experience that was missing. VB was originally meant to be a
RAD tool....not a challenger to C/C++. In keeping it a RAD tool Microsoft
could cover the professional developers with C/C++ and everyone else with
Visual Baisc. By trying to make VB as powerful as C#, they are screwing up
their lineup.

But, back to your question........In VB.Net 2005, you can turn off seeing or
stepping through code that you did not write. Speaking as a clsssic VB
programmer.... Who really wants to see that code anyway? I never had to
step through forms or control code before. For less experienced
programmers, it is simply confusing. For more experienced cVB programmers,
extra code is simply an aggravation - one more thing I have to contend with
that I don't need.

EDIT AND CONTINUE! For the love of God.....why did this ever leave?

A simplified IDE. Why? Because the goals of most Visual Basic programmers
are simply to solve business or personal problems in the most efficient
manner possible. Their goals do NOT usually include becoming a programming
guru (although that frequently happens as a side effect of writing so many
applications with a RAD tool).

Just these 3 things get us closer to the RAD feel we enjoyed with classic
VB. I think that I speak for most classic VB programmers when I say that I
don;t give a rat's * if the language uses a runtime or framework. I want to
solve my business problems and make my life easier ASAP. That requires a
RAD-centered design.....not pushing me to become a .Net framework expert.

I haven't played with it as much as I need to.....but I like what I see so
far. I will let you know more as I continue to test (when I have the time
to).

Jim Hubbard


- Mitchell S. Honnert
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Ef********************@giganews.com...

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I don't know anyone who still programs in VB6 and even if I did, I
certainly wouldn't want to do anything that would encourage them to sign
the VB.COM petition. I personally think that the petition is a bad idea.
And even if I thought it was a good thing, I don't see Microsoft
following the recommendation.

- Mitchell S. Honnert


Whether Microsoft backs down or not, I think it would be good for us and
Microsoft to get as good a count of the classic VB users that are
disappointed in .Net. Then we'd know if we are just a vocal few or if
Microsoft really pissed off millions of VB users.

Maybe Microsoft would at least put more effort into a methodology that
would allow VB6 programs to be upgraded to VB.Net.

Microsoft is (much to their credit) already realizing that they screwed
up the whole RAD feel of VB in VB.Net and are trying to bring some of
that back with VB.Net 2005.

I've got the beta of VB.Net 2005, and I like it MUCH more than VB.Net
2003.

As much as it may seem like I am anti-Microsoft, I most certainly am not.
Microsoft has done more right than it has wrong. It charges too much for
its software and listens to its own developers over its customer base -
but those things can be fixed.

I am very vocal about screw ups - but, isn't that what we're supposed to
do - squeal when we need grease?

I know that (as a business owner myself) I love my customers that point
out where we can be better or where we have changed something that they
loved the way it was...they keep me in line with our customers' needs and
wishes. But, I don't make them scream about it - I actually have a menu
item for a customer to submit a help ticket or to simply submit a "Wish
List" of things they want added to the application.

I am not anti-.Net. I just want the RAD development environment that we
enjoyed with classic VB back and I want to be able to port my old VB
programs more easily so that I can take advantage of the new features
available in the .Net framework. Is that too much to ask?

I am impressed with the improvements in Vb.Net 2005. I can't wait to try
out the full version.

Jim Hubbard


Nov 21 '05 #102

P: n/a

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:uj**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Jim,

"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> schrieb:
I don't know anyone who still programs in VB6 and even if I did, I
certainly wouldn't want to do anything that would encourage them to sign
the VB.COM petition. I personally think that the petition is a bad idea.
And even if I thought it was a good thing, I don't see Microsoft
following the recommendation.
[...]


Whether Microsoft backs down or not, I think it would be good for us and
Microsoft to get as good a count of the classic VB users that are
disappointed in .Net. Then we'd know if we are just a vocal few or if
Microsoft really pissed off millions of VB users.


I agree that there are lots of customers who fell really pissed off by
what Microsoft did with VB6, but I doubt that most of them are
disappointed by .NET. .NET has its right to exist, but so does Classic
VB.


I agree. I should've been more clear in my response. The dissappointments
in .Net that I see are 3-fold.

1) .Net is not backwards compatible with my VB6 programs and offers no real
migration tool. At best, the migration tool supplied simply tells you why
(anything but a VERY simple application ) will not run in VB.Net. In larger
applications, a complete re-write takes less time than upgrading.

2) The RAD feel/ability to develop applications is gone. Edit and continue
was great - and should be back in VB.Net 2005. Make it simple! Our jobs
are already hard enough. We want a tool that helps us make making a living
easier - not a tool that demands we become a .Net framework expert to create
a simple IM application.

3) The .Net framework distribution. Do we really have to lug this beast
everywhere we distribute applications? Thinstall can wrap all needed .Net
framework components into a single exe with no external dependencies - sure
it lareger, but it will never be missing a component or get broken because a
component or portion of .Net was upgraded. You'd have to make fundamental
changes to the OS to screw Thinstall apps up. (Not that that couldn't
happen, but it is more unlikely than a change to the .Net framework.)
I know that (as a business owner myself) I love my customers that point
out where we can be better or where we have changed something that they
loved the way it was...they keep me in line with our customers' needs and
wishes. But, I don't make them scream about it - I actually have a menu
item for a customer to submit a help ticket or to simply submit a "Wish
List" of things they want added to the application.


The FAQ to the petition lists the reason why the MVPs who initiated the
petition did this step into the public instead of talking to Microsoft
about this issue again.


It should also be the core of the letter I suggested.
I am not anti-.Net. I just want the RAD development environment that we
enjoyed with classic VB back and I want to be able to port my old VB
programs more easily so that I can take advantage of the new features
available in the .Net framework. Is that too much to ask?


No, that's not too much. I think it's a customer's right to give the
manufacturer feedback about products and product lifecycles.
I am impressed with the improvements in Vb.Net 2005. I can't wait to try
out the full version.


Full ACK. But this doesn't solve the VB6 issue.


True.

Neither does it answer the question of why Microsoft have spent more time
and energy keeping C/C++ backwards compatibility than it has done with
Visual Basic 6.

Microsoft themselves acknowledged Visual Basic as the world's most popular
programming language. They even realized that the majority of the
programmers in the world (Visual Basic programmers) were "task-oriented
developers" whereas C++ developers are "power-oriented".

Taken from
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/pr...s/default.aspx .....

---------
For its part, Microsoft offers four programming languages and associated
development environments, each designed to appeal to a particular school of
programmer:

a.. Visual Basic .NET, the latest version of the world's most popular
development tool and language. Visual Basic .NET delivers unsurpassed
productivity and unique language features for task-oriented developers
building solutions with the .NET Framework.
b.. Visual C++ .NET, the tool of maximum power and control. With the C++
language, power-oriented developers can bridge platform technologies and
build both native Windows-based and .NET-connected solutions with maximum
performance characteristics and enhanced functionality.
c.. Visual C# .NET, the modern and innovative programming language and
tool. Introduced in 2001, C# offers a familiar syntax, that is attractive to
C++ and Java developers, along with unique language constructs that offer
code-focused developers a more elegant experience when developing
applications for the .NET Framework.
-------
......it continues.....

-------
Visual Basic .NET
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic

Visual Basic 1.0 revolutionized Windows development by lowering the barrier
to entry and making a broad audience of developers more productive than
ever. Building on this rich history, Visual Basic .NET offers task-oriented
programmers a human readable syntax, an intuitive user interface, and tools
and upgrade wizards that speed the development of Microsoft .NET-connected
applications. Visual Basic .NET takes advantage of the ease of development
espoused by its exceedingly popular predecessors, while adding new
capabilities that enable all manner of programmers, from the beginner to the
experienced corporate developer, to build applications for Windows, the Web,
and mobile devices.

Task-Oriented Development
Deadlines are nothing new to the software industry. For a large group of
programmers, deadlines are a daily fact of life. These programmers are often
charged with building opportunistic applications that address a specific
business need and require a modicum of planning and a fast track to
deployment. Sometimes such solutions will be tested rigorously, while other
times the application will be built and immediately deployed, freeing the
programmer for the next assignment. These task-oriented developers are
focused on delivering solutions quickly. Task-oriented development tools,
therefore, must place such a premium on productivity that it is acceptable
to abstract programmers from the nuances of the underlying platform and
empower them to conceive of an application, build it from scratch, and
quickly disseminate it across a business group.

Programmer Constituency
Visual Basic .NET is ideal for the following types of programmers who are
looking to use the .NET Framework to construct the next generation of
applications and services:

a.. Programmers looking for a fast and productive development tool for the
..NET Framework. Visual Basic .NET offers an easy-to-understand syntax and an
intuitive development environment to help programmers construct applications
quickly. Further, with a large and established community of programmers,
Visual Basic .NET programmers have a wealth of resources at their disposal
to help them get up to speed with Microsoft .NET.
b.. Programmers with existing Visual Basic skills or code assets. Visual
Basic .NET builds on the keywords, syntax, and nuances of the Visual Basic
language. Its case-insensitivity will be immediately familiar to traditional
Visual Basic developers, as will the human-readable syntax. Programmers with
a significant code investment in earlier versions of Visual Basic can move
their code forward using the built-in upgrade technology. Additionally, most
existing ActiveX® controls can continue to be used with Visual Basic .NET.
c.. Developers looking for familiar design-time and code editor paradigms.
Many of the principles of designing applications and writing code are
carried forward from the Visual Basic .NET predecessors, including
drag-and-drop design of applications, IntelliSense® for assistance in
writing code, and automatic code formatting for easier readability.
d.. Programmers looking to build applications with a more intuitive and
accessible language. Visual Basic .NET is designed to be accessible to a
full range of developers, from beginners to experts. Beginners will find
many unique features of the Visual Basic language as useful as the key
productivity enhancements of the Visual Basic environment.
Unique Language Features
Visual Basic .NET contains several unique language features that lend it an
aspect of productivity not found in the other Microsoft-supplied .NET
languages, including:

a.. Default variable initialization. Visual Basic .NET does not require
variables and members to be initialized prior to use, so beginning
programmers may not be frustrated by seemingly arcane use requirements as
found in other .NET languages.
b.. Implicit typing and late binding. Visual Basic .NET code need not
specify the type of a variable before it is used, helping programmers write
useful code with a minimum of training.
c.. Enumeration behavior. Visual Basic .NET offers more intuitive behavior
when using enumerated types.
d.. Default public access. By default, members of a Visual Basic .NET
class are declared to be public, which offers programmers a more intuitive
syntax.
e.. Use of shared members. Shared members may be accessed in Visual Basic
..NET through both the class name and an instance variable of the type to
which they belong, helping programmers write intuitive code. For example:
Dim x as new MyClassx.SharedMethod() ' works just as well as...

MyClass.SharedMethod()a.. Optional parameters. Visual Basic .NET supports
optional parameters, affording class designers more flexibility in designing
their libraries and giving programmers the ability to write useful code
without having to learn all the nuances of object-oriented programming.
b.. Filtered catch blocks. Visual Basic .NET offers flexible structured
exception handling errors. Filtered catch blocks enable developers to filter
errors based on the class of the exception, any conditional expression, or
an explicit error number.
c.. Parameterized properties. Properties in Visual Basic .NET may contain
parameters, making them more flexible than their C# counterparts.
d.. Declarative event handlers. Visual Basic .NET event handlers may
declare the events to which they are subscribed using the Handles keyword.
e.. Interface member redeclaration. Visual Basic .NET enables programmers
to rename a member of an interface when it is implemented in a class.
Unique Environment Features
Visual Basic .NET also includes a number of key environment enhancements
that enable programmers to more productively design and write compelling
applications and services. These enhancements are above and beyond the
Visual Studio® .NET features shared among all .NET languages:

a.. Background compilation. Background compilation works behind the
scenes, silently compiling your code while you are working. Visual Basic
..NET developers should be able to know immediately if they have errors in
their code.
b.. Pretty listing. The Visual Basic .NET code editor can (optionally)
automatically format your code as you type, saving you time. Pretty listing
can automatically align your code to the correct tab position, recase
keywords and variables, add a missing then to an if statement, and more.
Performance
A final area of great importance is performance. The Visual Basic .NET
compiler generates Intermediate Language (IL) code that is equal in
performance to the code generated by the C# compiler.

-------

So, what happened? It sounded like they knew what was needed, but VB.Net
(up to 2003) is a miserable failure at delivering on the requirements
Microsoft mentioned above. The only thing they needed to think about each
day, before they started work on VB.Net is "My users are task-oriented
developers." Maybe they should have a morning yoga session in which this is
their mantra.

Whatever it takes.....so far, thorough VS.Net 2003, VB.Net has definitely
NOT lived up to the "task oriented" language that was classic VB. I hope
that VB.Net will get us closer to that RAD environment that made classic VB
the #1 used development language in the world.

But, I think that Microsoft has severely screwed their chance of having such
a large following in the future. It's a matter of trust, and Microsoft has
trampled on that trust with no regard for the consequences to it's customer
base. At the same time, they went out of their way to incorporate VB-like
features and backwards compatibility into the C++, C and C# .Net
implementations.

Why not do the same for VB? There has still been no legitimate answer to
that question from Microsoft because there is no legitimate answer.

Plainly put. They spit in our faces.

I think Microsoft began listening to powerVB programmers and not so much to
the everyday (millions of them) VB programmers. Perhaps more feedback from
everyday programmers and less from (no offense intended) professional
developers, who make up the minority of classic Visual Basic programmers.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #103

P: n/a
> Microsoft didn't improve Visual Basic, it created a /new/ programming
language (language stability is broken). That's what the whole
discussions about VB6/VB.NET are about. Well, I suppose we could get into a detailed discussion about what the word
"improve" really means, but I think it can be reasonably applied to VB.NET.
"Visual Basic", as distinguished from its implementations in BASIC,
QuickBasic, VB6, or even VB.NET itself, can be defined in terms of a basic
set of keywords or syntax style. Separating out "Visual Basic" at this
level, VB.NET certainly can be seen as an improvement over VB6. I don't see
the term "improvement" being at all dependent on principles like language
stability or even easily portable code. Today's cars are vastly superior to
the Model T and other cars of that general era. There were evolutionary and
revolutionary changes along the way. But they're all cars.

- Mitchell S. Honnert

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:uc****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> schrieb:
Whether Microsoft backs down or not, I think it would be good for us and
Microsoft to get as good a count of the classic VB users that are
disappointed in .Net.

Well, I guess we still disagree. I think the effort is fruitless.
Microsoft isn't going to go out of its way to find out there is a demand
to do something it doesn't want to do nor thinks would be a bad idea.
Microsoft is (much to their credit) already realizing that they screwed
up the whole RAD feel of VB in VB.Net

Jim, I'll fully admit that this may be a matter of perspective, but I
personally couldn't disagree with you more that Microsoft "screwed up"
anything. I think the exact opposite, in fact. I have some pet peeves
with VB.NET, sure, but on the whole I think they did an incredible job at
improving Visual Basic, including RAD.


Microsoft didn't improve Visual Basic, it created a /new/ programming
language (language stability is broken). That's what the whole
discussions about VB6/VB.NET are about.

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

Nov 21 '05 #104

P: n/a
> With VS 2002 or 2003, I can see the points of suppporting VB6. But with VS
2005, come on, you need to do better than that. Software releases almost
every year and I don't see any reason for holding back the obsolete
technology. Would you want to run WinNT 3.1 or WinNT 4.0 or even Windows 95,
98 in your network? You need to get another career if you don't want to
change.

More Soapbox Time>>
The reality for many users of Classic VB6 is that they have a career & it's
not coding. They have a tool that works, and now someone is no longer going
to stock it or provide replacement parts for it. This means that before long
something will break & they will not have a way to fix it. Therefore, while
they are not technically being told that their stuff will not work, they are
definitely being told that for it to continue to work they must change.

When my car manufacturer tells me that there will no longer be anyone that
will make spark plugs for my car, while they have not technically sabotaged
my car, they have definitely put me in a position where they are forcing me
to make a change - I will eventually need a new spark plug.

The reality is that outside of the "tech corridors" the rest of businesses
(especially the small businesses that are classic VB users) don't change
things unless there is a cost benefit. That $1000 each year for a new VS
license is a PAIN. The $100 to upgrade to Win XP (usually more like $500
since the hardware requirements are so different) is something a lot of small
business owners don't want. Their systems work. Changing has to have a value.
For what they do with the systems, there is very little value in changing.
They can do office functions & the business functions they need without all
the newest whistles & bells. Why go there. They have something that works.

I have worked with clients that have 1000’s of DOS 3.1 systems still
deployed. Their system has been working for 10-15 years. Their comment is
their system works now, why would they go to something that needs to be
patched dozens of times each month.

There are millions of Win 98 implementations still out there. Just like
there are millions of VB4, 5, and 6 widgets. Making a technology obsolete is
done so the company that made it (MS in this case) can force you towards the
new stuff & keep the pool of what they maintain manageable. The issue is that
MS has decided to make things obsolete that are still in active use by large
segments of the US & global economy. They are doing that because it costs
them to maintain the old, and because if they allow you to stay with the old
then you are not motivated to buy their new stuff.

The underlying message in these posts is that VB.Net does not provide a
compelling/valuable reason to change. If the target audience was coders, then
the reasons cited would be compelling, but then they could have chosen one of
a half dozen other languages.

VB started out as an “add-on” (also in the box) that got the every day
workers hooked on the fact that with marginal additional work, they could get
a lot more power out of the Win 3.x/9x/… computer they had. It had a VERY low
entry threshold – most non-IT professionals could actually make something
work with it. Reading this thread, it is clearly populated by coders – not
the heartland that made VB classic a hit.

VB.net may be a great tool, but it is not a great tool for the people that
are weekend/after hours hobbyists. The issue is that with the discontinuance
of MS support for Classic VB, they are abandoning the audience that made it a
hit.

The graveyard is full of companies that loose sight of their core
constituents and refuse to support backward compatibility time will tell if
MS is drifting into those ranks…

Nov 21 '05 #105

P: n/a

"Non-Pro Coder" <Non-Pro Co***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8**********************************@microsof t.com...
With VS 2002 or 2003, I can see the points of suppporting VB6. But with
VS
2005, come on, you need to do better than that. Software releases almost
every year and I don't see any reason for holding back the obsolete
technology. Would you want to run WinNT 3.1 or WinNT 4.0 or even Windows
95,
98 in your network? You need to get another career if you don't want to
change.
More Soapbox Time>>
The reality for many users of Classic VB6 is that they have a career &
it's
not coding. They have a tool that works, and now someone is no longer
going
to stock it or provide replacement parts for it. This means that before
long
something will break & they will not have a way to fix it. Therefore,
while
they are not technically being told that their stuff will not work, they
are
definitely being told that for it to continue to work they must change.

When my car manufacturer tells me that there will no longer be anyone that
will make spark plugs for my car, while they have not technically
sabotaged
my car, they have definitely put me in a position where they are forcing
me
to make a change - I will eventually need a new spark plug.

The reality is that outside of the "tech corridors" the rest of businesses
(especially the small businesses that are classic VB users) don't change
things unless there is a cost benefit. That $1000 each year for a new VS
license is a PAIN. The $100 to upgrade to Win XP (usually more like $500
since the hardware requirements are so different) is something a lot of
small
business owners don't want. Their systems work. Changing has to have a
value.
For what they do with the systems, there is very little value in changing.
They can do office functions & the business functions they need without
all
the newest whistles & bells. Why go there. They have something that works.

I have worked with clients that have 1000's of DOS 3.1 systems still
deployed. Their system has been working for 10-15 years. Their comment is
their system works now, why would they go to something that needs to be
patched dozens of times each month.

There are millions of Win 98 implementations still out there. Just like
there are millions of VB4, 5, and 6 widgets. Making a technology obsolete
is
done so the company that made it (MS in this case) can force you towards
the
new stuff & keep the pool of what they maintain manageable. The issue is
that
MS has decided to make things obsolete that are still in active use by
large
segments of the US & global economy. They are doing that because it costs
them to maintain the old, and because if they allow you to stay with the
old
then you are not motivated to buy their new stuff.

The underlying message in these posts is that VB.Net does not provide a
compelling/valuable reason to change. If the target audience was coders,
then
the reasons cited would be compelling, but then they could have chosen one
of
a half dozen other languages.

VB started out as an "add-on" (also in the box) that got the every day
workers hooked on the fact that with marginal additional work, they could
get
a lot more power out of the Win 3.x/9x/. computer they had. It had a VERY
low
entry threshold - most non-IT professionals could actually make something
work with it. Reading this thread, it is clearly populated by coders - not
the heartland that made VB classic a hit.

VB.net may be a great tool, but it is not a great tool for the people that
are weekend/after hours hobbyists. The issue is that with the
discontinuance
of MS support for Classic VB, they are abandoning the audience that made
it a
hit.

The graveyard is full of companies that loose sight of their core
constituents and refuse to support backward compatibility time will tell
if
MS is drifting into those ranks.

Nov 21 '05 #106

P: n/a

"Non-Pro Coder" <Non-Pro Co***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8**********************************@microsof t.com...
With VS 2002 or 2003, I can see the points of suppporting VB6. But with
VS
2005, come on, you need to do better than that. Software releases almost
every year and I don't see any reason for holding back the obsolete
technology. Would you want to run WinNT 3.1 or WinNT 4.0 or even Windows
95,
98 in your network? You need to get another career if you don't want to
change.
More Soapbox Time>>
The reality for many users of Classic VB6 is that they have a career &
it's
not coding. They have a tool that works, and now someone is no longer
going
to stock it or provide replacement parts for it. This means that before
long
something will break & they will not have a way to fix it. Therefore,
while
they are not technically being told that their stuff will not work, they
are
definitely being told that for it to continue to work they must change.

When my car manufacturer tells me that there will no longer be anyone that
will make spark plugs for my car, while they have not technically
sabotaged
my car, they have definitely put me in a position where they are forcing
me
to make a change - I will eventually need a new spark plug.


Again, I too go back to the analogy of old cars here. How long is a company
'supposed' to support your love of an old thing?

I loved VB6. I started out as a hobbyist coder and ended up making it my
profession. I coded morning noon and night using VB starting with VB1. But
you have to face facts that classic VB had it's limitations and it's short
sides.

Not one single person is forcing you to change platforms and languages. If
you still have a base of people using Windows 2000 and your old VB6 apps for
the next several years then by all means you obviously have no need to
change a winning combination. BUT, you cannot tell me that there is no
benefit to VB.NET on the newer platforms.
The reality is that outside of the "tech corridors" the rest of businesses
(especially the small businesses that are classic VB users) don't change
things unless there is a cost benefit. That $1000 each year for a new VS
license is a PAIN. The $100 to upgrade to Win XP (usually more like $500
since the hardware requirements are so different) is something a lot of
small
business owners don't want. Their systems work. Changing has to have a
value.
For what they do with the systems, there is very little value in changing.
They can do office functions & the business functions they need without
all
the newest whistles & bells. Why go there. They have something that works.

I have worked with clients that have 1000's of DOS 3.1 systems still
deployed. Their system has been working for 10-15 years. Their comment is
their system works now, why would they go to something that needs to be
patched dozens of times each month.

Ok, but again lets face facts here. DOS is dead. I don't care what arguments
you have, face it. 8 & 16 bit land went out with Nintendo. I don't care if
the apps are still chugging along, sooner or latter there is going to come a
time when these apps are going to outlive their usefulness and then there
will have to be a change. Again, no one is forcing anyone to stop using
these apps, so fine, keep using them. Do you honestly think that MS should
be forced to continue to develop the old versions of DOS or basic just be
cause they still have some places using it?
There are millions of Win 98 implementations still out there. Just like
there are millions of VB4, 5, and 6 widgets. Making a technology obsolete
is
done so the company that made it (MS in this case) can force you towards
the
new stuff & keep the pool of what they maintain manageable. The issue is
that
MS has decided to make things obsolete that are still in active use by
large
segments of the US & global economy. They are doing that because it costs
them to maintain the old, and because if they allow you to stay with the
old
then you are not motivated to buy their new stuff.

So keep using them... But don't force them to continue to develop and
enhance an old language in parallel. That is nothing but a drain on
resources that could be best used elsewhere.
The underlying message in these posts is that VB.Net does not provide a
compelling/valuable reason to change. If the target audience was coders,
then
the reasons cited would be compelling, but then they could have chosen one
of
a half dozen other languages.

Reasons?

Stability
Remoting (beats DCOM to hell)
Web Services
Better OOP
An IDE that works with more than just VB
Common type system
GC (yeah I also miss deterministic Finalization too)
....the list goes on and on...
VB started out as an "add-on" (also in the box) that got the every day
workers hooked on the fact that with marginal additional work, they could
get
a lot more power out of the Win 3.x/9x/. computer they had. It had a VERY
low
entry threshold - most non-IT professionals could actually make something
work with it. Reading this thread, it is clearly populated by coders - not
the heartland that made VB classic a hit.

No, they are telling them that there is something better, the next
generation of development platforms is here and if you staty in the past
then you are going to left behind servicing your customers who are
eventually going to start asking for more than your legacy code can offer.
VB.net may be a great tool, but it is not a great tool for the people that
are weekend/after hours hobbyists. The issue is that with the
discontinuance
of MS support for Classic VB, they are abandoning the audience that made
it a
hit.

And my old Chevy Chevette was a great first car. Good on gas, hauled ass
when I needed it, hatch back to carry things, etc... but then I learned that
I wanted something with more HP, better handling and a sleeker look. Did I
HAVE to give up my first car? Nope. And I still know people to this day that
drive old crapper cars from the 70's and 80's because they are simple to fix
and tune up... But when they start to have a hard time finding parts, or
find out that the old cars are not keeping up with emissions standards they
are going to have a rude awakening aren't they....
The graveyard is full of companies that loose sight of their core
constituents and refuse to support backward compatibility time will tell
if
MS is drifting into those ranks.


Time will also tell for those that refused to change with the times.
Nov 21 '05 #107

P: n/a
In which case they won't notice that MS is no longer supporting VB 6.

Mike Ober.

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:eD*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Cor,

"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> schrieb:
Already, nearly 4000 people have signed the petition.
So accoording too your message have 0.007% of the users signed it

Than is that not really much in my opinion.

When it is that important that they want to pay for it, it would have been probably much more.


Many VB6 developers are not aware of the petition. They do their work 10
hours the day, go home, eat something, watch a football match on TV, and
then go to bed. In other words, they are not active in communities and

thus have not yet heard about the petition. In addition to that, there are very few VB6-oriented magazines available in the meantime, so VB6 developers are "disconnected" from each other.

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


Nov 21 '05 #108

P: n/a
> In which case they won't notice that MS is no longer supporting VB 6.

LOL,

Good point by the way

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #109

P: n/a
Mitchel,
There were evolutionary and revolutionary changes along the way. But
they're all cars.


A car is forever a car, however therefore is a Gogomobil not direct a
Ferrari.

With what I don't tell that VBNet is not a VB type language like VBS, VBA
and VB6 are too.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #110

P: n/a
Jim,

I haven't played with it as much as I need to.....but I like what I see so
far. I will let you know more as I continue to test (when I have the time
to).

Jim Hubbard


And when you have done that you will take probably all back what you have
written including the distribution of Net.

:-)

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #111

P: n/a
Herfried,

I see no reaction on my answers to you in the other thread. In that thread
are you to my suprise telling that there is no need for any update or extra
support.

Both reactions from me on that have no reaction. May I assume that by giving
no reaction you agree about that.

Cor
Nov 21 '05 #112

P: n/a
"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> schrieb:
In which case they won't notice that MS is no longer supporting VB 6.


They will notice when they update to SP6, experience its bugs, and want to
obtain a fix.

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

Nov 21 '05 #113

P: n/a
"Ray Cassick (Home)" <rc************@enterprocity.com> schrieb:
With VS 2002 or 2003, I can see the points of suppporting VB6. But with
VS
2005, come on, you need to do better than that. Software releases almost
every year and I don't see any reason for holding back the obsolete
technology. Would you want to run WinNT 3.1 or WinNT 4.0 or even Windows
95,
98 in your network? You need to get another career if you don't want to
change.

More Soapbox Time>>
The reality for many users of Classic VB6 is that they have a career &
it's
not coding. They have a tool that works, and now someone is no longer
going
to stock it or provide replacement parts for it. This means that before
long
something will break & they will not have a way to fix it. Therefore,
while
they are not technically being told that their stuff will not work, they
are
definitely being told that for it to continue to work they must change.

When my car manufacturer tells me that there will no longer be anyone
that
will make spark plugs for my car, while they have not technically
sabotaged
my car, they have definitely put me in a position where they are forcing
me
to make a change - I will eventually need a new spark plug.


Again, I too go back to the analogy of old cars here. How long is a
company 'supposed' to support your love of an old thing?


Cars cannot be used to produce data which is worthless if they don't work
any more. The analogy is not appropriate. By stopping support for a
software product which was used to create data without providing a viable
upgrade path, customers' investments are disposed. That's a huge
difference, and by dealing with the inappropriate car analogy you completely
miss the point.

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

Nov 21 '05 #114

P: n/a
Cor,

"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> schrieb:
I see no reaction on my answers to you in the other thread. In that thread
are you to my suprise telling that there is no need for any update or
extra support.

Both reactions from me on that have no reaction. May I assume that by
giving no reaction you agree about that.


Mhm... It seems that I missed some of the responses to my posts. Can you
post a Google link?

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

Nov 21 '05 #115

P: n/a
> I have worked with clients that have 1000's of DOS 3.1 systems still
deployed. Their system has been working for 10-15 years. Their comment is
their system works now, why would they go to something that needs to be
patched dozens of times each month.


Isn't this counter to the argument?. Surely DOS 3.1 isn't supported anymore
by Microsoft, neither are the langauge tools used to write the programs
running under DOS. The systems have continued to run without support. So
therefore will (say) Windows 2000 running VB6 applications for a good many
years to come.

Rob.
Nov 21 '05 #116

P: n/a
> This is surely the most efficient method of getting the word out, and
should give us (within a month) a real idea of how many classic VB
developers want a better migration tool and extended support for classic
VB.


I'm going to be sacrastic but guys, it's time to move on :-) Come on in, the
water's fine.

We've got a pretty big VB6 application that cost a lot to develop. It's six
years old and reached maturity about two years ago. When it's replaced, we
will effectively be starting again - not only has the market changed in
requirements (we have to be a lot more web friendly) but we've also changed.
We've learnt new ways of doing things - having to start again is probably a
good thing.

Rob.
Nov 21 '05 #117

P: n/a
> VB.NET, sure, but on the whole I think they did an incredible job at
improving Visual Basic, including RAD.


Here here, the VB.NET environment is a big step forwards but most of the
benefits come from the .NET framework which is IMHO a pretty well thought
out set of objects and libraries.

The bits of the language borrowed from C++ like inheretence, overloading and
extended encapsulation (like protected, friend etc) undoubtly make the
language more, err, grown-up.

I recently had to make a slight code change to our major VB6 project and
re-loaded VB6 for the first time in about six months. Boy did it feel clunky
:-)

Rob.
Nov 21 '05 #118

P: n/a
> Microsoft didn't improve Visual Basic, it created a /new/ programming
language (language stability is broken). That's what the whole
discussions about VB6/VB.NET are about.


Err, AFAIK, Basic has never had an agreed standard, not in the same way the
C++ does. Microsoft made it up so I think they are perfectly allowed to
improve it.

I remember a time when there were hundreds of variants of BASIC.

Rob.
Nov 21 '05 #119

P: n/a
> 2) The RAD feel/ability to develop applications is gone. Edit and
continue was great - and should be back in VB.Net 2005. Make it simple!
Our jobs
True, I was a bit surprised when this disappeared.
everywhere we distribute applications? Thinstall can wrap all needed .Net


Ohh please dont' start that again :-)

Rob.
Nov 21 '05 #120

P: n/a

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:eS*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
"Ray Cassick (Home)" <rc************@enterprocity.com> schrieb:
With VS 2002 or 2003, I can see the points of suppporting VB6. But with
VS
2005, come on, you need to do better than that. Software releases
almost
every year and I don't see any reason for holding back the obsolete
technology. Would you want to run WinNT 3.1 or WinNT 4.0 or even
Windows 95,
98 in your network? You need to get another career if you don't want to
change.

More Soapbox Time>>
The reality for many users of Classic VB6 is that they have a career &
it's
not coding. They have a tool that works, and now someone is no longer
going
to stock it or provide replacement parts for it. This means that before
long
something will break & they will not have a way to fix it. Therefore,
while
they are not technically being told that their stuff will not work, they
are
definitely being told that for it to continue to work they must change.

When my car manufacturer tells me that there will no longer be anyone
that
will make spark plugs for my car, while they have not technically
sabotaged
my car, they have definitely put me in a position where they are forcing
me
to make a change - I will eventually need a new spark plug.


Again, I too go back to the analogy of old cars here. How long is a
company 'supposed' to support your love of an old thing?


Cars cannot be used to produce data which is worthless if they don't work
any more. The analogy is not appropriate. By stopping support for a
software product which was used to create data without providing a viable
upgrade path, customers' investments are disposed. That's a huge
difference, and by dealing with the inappropriate car analogy you
completely miss the point.


Ok then, lets use the analogy of the machines that create the cars then.

Just because some people still want to use old cars that were made back in
the 70's and 80s' should the car manufactures be required to maintain the
line (tooled in the old way) that created them and their parts while at the
same time maintaining the newer lines for the newer cars?

VB6 = classic VW bug
VB.NET = the newer style

Both made by the same company...
One old, one newer with more (better) features...
The new one could not be built using the older technology that created the
older one...
There was a group of people that were highly pissed when the new one came
out because it 'was different'. They also complained that it was not
'classic' and that the flood of new ones was lowering the value of all the
classic ones left today.
Nov 21 '05 #121

P: n/a
For Sale: One dead horse. Has been beaten for 3 weeks. Otherwise it's in
fine condition.

Price: $99.00 or best offer.
"Rob Nicholson" <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> wrote in message
news:ez**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
I have worked with clients that have 1000's of DOS 3.1 systems still
deployed. Their system has been working for 10-15 years. Their comment is
their system works now, why would they go to something that needs to be
patched dozens of times each month.


Isn't this counter to the argument?. Surely DOS 3.1 isn't supported
anymore by Microsoft, neither are the langauge tools used to write the
programs running under DOS. The systems have continued to run without
support. So therefore will (say) Windows 2000 running VB6 applications for
a good many years to come.

Rob.

Nov 21 '05 #122

P: n/a
"Rob Nicholson" <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> schrieb:
Microsoft didn't improve Visual Basic, it created a /new/ programming
language (language stability is broken). That's what the whole
discussions about VB6/VB.NET are about.


Err, AFAIK, Basic has never had an agreed standard, not in the same way
the C++ does. Microsoft made it up so I think they are perfectly allowed
to improve it.


That's true, Visual Basic has never been standardized. However, is this an
excuse for Microsoft to dispose customers' assets?

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

Nov 21 '05 #123

P: n/a
Rob,

"Rob Nicholson" <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> schrieb:
VB.NET, sure, but on the whole I think they did an incredible job at
improving Visual Basic, including RAD.
Here here, the VB.NET environment is a big step forwards but most of the
benefits come from the .NET framework which is IMHO a pretty well thought
out set of objects and libraries.


That's your personal opinion, but there are people who would disagree.
The bits of the language borrowed from C++ like inheretence, overloading
and extended encapsulation (like protected, friend etc) undoubtly make the
language more, err, grown-up.


The features were not borrowed from C++. PIE are theoretical concepts which
were implemented in C++, for example, but in many other programming
languages too. BTW: 'Friend' was available in VB6 too.

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

Nov 21 '05 #124

P: n/a
Rob,

"Rob Nicholson" <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> schrieb:
This is surely the most efficient method of getting the word out, and
should give us (within a month) a real idea of how many classic VB
developers want a better migration tool and extended support for classic
VB.
I'm going to be sacrastic but guys, it's time to move on :-) Come on in,
the water's fine.


In other words: "Come on, loose your assets. Get over it!" Sorry, but
that's not a viable proposal.
We've got a pretty big VB6 application that cost a lot to develop. It's
six years old and reached maturity about two years ago. When it's
replaced, we will effectively be starting again - not only has the market
changed in requirements (we have to be a lot more web friendly) but we've
also changed. We've learnt new ways of doing things - having to start
again is probably a good thing.


New technologies are typically designed to make people more productive for
/future/ development. If a new technology requires a rewrite, the
advantages of the new technology are lost. Remember that .NET will
experience the same fate as COM in some years.

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

Nov 21 '05 #125

P: n/a
"Ray Cassick (Home)" <rc************@enterprocity.com> schrieb:
> With VS 2002 or 2003, I can see the points of suppporting VB6. But
> with VS
> 2005, come on, you need to do better than that. Software releases
> almost
> every year and I don't see any reason for holding back the obsolete
> technology. Would you want to run WinNT 3.1 or WinNT 4.0 or even
> Windows 95,
> 98 in your network? You need to get another career if you don't want
> to
> change.
>
More Soapbox Time>>
The reality for many users of Classic VB6 is that they have a career &
it's
not coding. They have a tool that works, and now someone is no longer
going
to stock it or provide replacement parts for it. This means that before
long
something will break & they will not have a way to fix it. Therefore,
while
they are not technically being told that their stuff will not work,
they are
definitely being told that for it to continue to work they must change.

When my car manufacturer tells me that there will no longer be anyone
that
will make spark plugs for my car, while they have not technically
sabotaged
my car, they have definitely put me in a position where they are
forcing me
to make a change - I will eventually need a new spark plug.
Again, I too go back to the analogy of old cars here. How long is a
company 'supposed' to support your love of an old thing?


Cars cannot be used to produce data which is worthless if they don't work
any more. The analogy is not appropriate. By stopping support for a
software product which was used to create data without providing a viable
upgrade path, customers' investments are disposed. That's a huge
difference, and by dealing with the inappropriate car analogy you
completely miss the point.


Ok then, lets use the analogy of the machines that create the cars then.

Just because some people still want to use old cars that were made back in
the 70's and 80s' should the car manufactures be required to maintain the
line (tooled in the old way) that created them and their parts while at
the same time maintaining the newer lines for the newer cars?

VB6 = classic VW bug
VB.NET = the newer style

Both made by the same company...
One old, one newer with more (better) features...
The new one could not be built using the older technology that created the
older one...
There was a group of people that were highly pissed when the new one came
out because it 'was different'. They also complained that it was not
'classic' and that the flood of new ones was lowering the value of all the
classic ones left today.


Even with the change in car industry you describe stopping production of
cars of a certain type doesn't dispose customers' assets.

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

Nov 21 '05 #126

P: n/a
"Rob Nicholson" <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> schrieb:
I have worked with clients that have 1000's of DOS 3.1 systems still
deployed. Their system has been working for 10-15 years. Their comment is
their system works now, why would they go to something that needs to be
patched dozens of times each month.


Isn't this counter to the argument?. Surely DOS 3.1 isn't supported
anymore by Microsoft, neither are the langauge tools used to write the
programs running under DOS. The systems have continued to run without
support. So therefore will (say) Windows 2000 running VB6 applications for
a good many years to come.


But why does Microsoft still support non-.NET technologies like Visual
FoxPro? COM won't stop to work in near future, so there should not be such
a big problem to further support VB6, which includes enabling VB6
applications to make use of new systems of the operating system.

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

Nov 21 '05 #127

P: n/a
Yes it certainly does...

People want an industry to continue to support and maintain a specific
narrow product line that is owned by millions of people around the world.
Sooner or latter, people that insist on using that aged technology are going
to be forced to switch to something new even if they don't want to.. either
that or take public transportation.

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:ec**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
"Ray Cassick (Home)" <rc************@enterprocity.com> schrieb:
>> With VS 2002 or 2003, I can see the points of suppporting VB6. But
>> with VS
>> 2005, come on, you need to do better than that. Software releases
>> almost
>> every year and I don't see any reason for holding back the obsolete
>> technology. Would you want to run WinNT 3.1 or WinNT 4.0 or even
>> Windows 95,
>> 98 in your network? You need to get another career if you don't want
>> to
>> change.
>>
> More Soapbox Time>>
> The reality for many users of Classic VB6 is that they have a career &
> it's
> not coding. They have a tool that works, and now someone is no longer
> going
> to stock it or provide replacement parts for it. This means that
> before long
> something will break & they will not have a way to fix it. Therefore,
> while
> they are not technically being told that their stuff will not work,
> they are
> definitely being told that for it to continue to work they must
> change.
>
> When my car manufacturer tells me that there will no longer be anyone
> that
> will make spark plugs for my car, while they have not technically
> sabotaged
> my car, they have definitely put me in a position where they are
> forcing me
> to make a change - I will eventually need a new spark plug.
>

Again, I too go back to the analogy of old cars here. How long is a
company 'supposed' to support your love of an old thing?

Cars cannot be used to produce data which is worthless if they don't
work any more. The analogy is not appropriate. By stopping support for
a software product which was used to create data without providing a
viable upgrade path, customers' investments are disposed. That's a huge
difference, and by dealing with the inappropriate car analogy you
completely miss the point.


Ok then, lets use the analogy of the machines that create the cars then.

Just because some people still want to use old cars that were made back
in the 70's and 80s' should the car manufactures be required to maintain
the line (tooled in the old way) that created them and their parts while
at the same time maintaining the newer lines for the newer cars?

VB6 = classic VW bug
VB.NET = the newer style

Both made by the same company...
One old, one newer with more (better) features...
The new one could not be built using the older technology that created
the older one...
There was a group of people that were highly pissed when the new one came
out because it 'was different'. They also complained that it was not
'classic' and that the flood of new ones was lowering the value of all
the classic ones left today.


Even with the change in car industry you describe stopping production of
cars of a certain type doesn't dispose customers' assets.

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

Nov 21 '05 #128

P: n/a
"Ray Cassick (Home)" <rc************@enterprocity.com> schrieb:
Yes it certainly does...

People want an industry to continue to support and maintain a specific
narrow product line that is owned by millions of people around the world.
Sooner or latter, people that insist on using that aged technology are
going to be forced to switch to something new even if they don't want to..
either that or take public transportation.


That's, at least in Europe, not the case. You'll get spare parts for cars
older than 50 years, because there are irreparable cars which can deal as
repository of spare parts. So IMO the case of cars cannot be compared to
the VB6 -> VB.NET transition and discontinuation of VB6.

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

Nov 21 '05 #129

P: n/a

"Rob Nicholson" <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> wrote in message
news:u5**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
2) The RAD feel/ability to develop applications is gone. Edit and
continue was great - and should be back in VB.Net 2005. Make it simple!
Our jobs


True, I was a bit surprised when this disappeared.
everywhere we distribute applications? Thinstall can wrap all needed
.Net


Ohh please dont' start that again :-)


Just making a point that it can be done.
Nov 21 '05 #130

P: n/a
On 2005-03-26, Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote:
"Rob Nicholson" <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> schrieb:
Err, AFAIK, Basic has never had an agreed standard, not in the same way
the C++ does. Microsoft made it up so I think they are perfectly allowed
to improve it.
That's true, Visual Basic has never been standardized. However, is this an
excuse for Microsoft to dispose customers' assets?


I've never said much on this subject, mainly because I just don't care
very much about it. It's also a pretty common situation, a company
stops development of a development tool and its customers clamor for an
easy upgrade path. The more common solutions don't seem to be on the
table, but then VB has a pretty unique place in computing history, as
does Windows and certainly Microsoft.

There's one thing I keep wondering about, though. Didn't you see this
coming? I mean, that doesn't invalidate the petition at all, as far as
I'm concerned it's perfectly reasonable for customers to make their
desires publicly known, but in every single requirements meeting I had
back in the 90s the probable limited lifespan of VB was a given.

Sometimes we'd use VB anyway, sometimes we'd do the UI in VB but the
business logic in a more easily ported language, but in every meeting I
was in, in every language comparison I read (ones that weren't from the
MS marketing department at least), the probability that VB code would be
stuck without a migration path at some point in this decade was
mentioned. It wasn't a certainty that this would happen, but everyone I
knew considered it probable for a number of reasons.

Now I could be reading this wrong, but the tone of the conversation
around this issue today makes it sound like my situation then was much
different than everybody elses. I often say it's impossible to make
statements about what "everybody knows" when it comes to development.

Like I said, this wouldn't invalidate the goals of the petition one way
or another, and I personally don't care much about those goals one way
or another. I'm just curious if this is the case. Back when you
decided to create all this code in VB6, was the lifetime of the product
a point of discussion at all?

Nov 21 '05 #131

P: n/a
"David" <df*****@woofix.local.dom> schrieb:
Err, AFAIK, Basic has never had an agreed standard, not in the same way
the C++ does. Microsoft made it up so I think they are perfectly allowed
to improve it.
That's true, Visual Basic has never been standardized. However, is this
an
excuse for Microsoft to dispose customers' assets?

[...]
There's one thing I keep wondering about, though. Didn't you see this
coming? I mean, that doesn't invalidate the petition at all, as far as
I'm concerned it's perfectly reasonable for customers to make their
desires publicly known, but in every single requirements meeting I had
back in the 90s the probable limited lifespan of VB was a given.


Back in the late 90s, it was clear that there will be an improved version of
Visual Basic available in the time after VB6. Many VB customers set their
hope into this VB7. Microsoft (at least partially) implemented a VB7 which
contained implementation inheritance and many other features. This version
and its set of features has been presented at the BASTA conference in Munich
in 1999. However, this version has never been released. Instead, Microsoft
created a new programming language and marketed it as VB7. This
discontinuation of a product was not forseeable.
Sometimes we'd use VB anyway, sometimes we'd do the UI in VB but the
business logic in a more easily ported language, but in every meeting I
was in, in every language comparison I read (ones that weren't from the
MS marketing department at least), the probability that VB code would be
stuck without a migration path at some point in this decade was
mentioned. It wasn't a certainty that this would happen, but everyone I
knew considered it probable for a number of reasons.
I have to disagree. Microsoft could have made a code-compatible VB7 based
on .NET. However, surprisingly Microsoft decided to create a new
programming language which broke compatibility even in cases where a break
was not necessary from a technical point of view and didn't bring benefits
(make the language more consistent, etc.). Additionally most Classic VB
code was not written directly for VB6. Instead a lot of code has been
written in previous versions and it was simply upgraded to the new version
of Visual Basic.

Some companies started writing the code they use in Microsoft Basic days or
earlier. So, at the time when the decision for using Microsoft Basic
(QuickBasic, PDS, GW-BASIC, Visual Basic) was made it was unforseeable that
Microsoft would discontinue the product and stop the evolutionary process
the language followed from early Microsoft Basic days to VB6.
Back when you decided to create all this code in VB6, was
the lifetime of the product a point of discussion at all?


Back in 1998, when VB6 was released, Visual Basic was the result of 22 years
of language evolution. Would you imagine that an evolution that lasted for
a quarter of a decade would suddently stopped and replaced by revolutionary
change?

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

Nov 21 '05 #132

P: n/a
On 2005-03-26, Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote:
"David" <df*****@woofix.local.dom> schrieb:
There's one thing I keep wondering about, though. Didn't you see this
coming? I mean, that doesn't invalidate the petition at all, as far as
I'm concerned it's perfectly reasonable for customers to make their
desires publicly known, but in every single requirements meeting I had
back in the 90s the probable limited lifespan of VB was a given.


Back in the late 90s, it was clear that there will be an improved version of
Visual Basic available in the time after VB6. Many VB customers set their
hope into this VB7. Microsoft (at least partially) implemented a VB7 which
contained implementation inheritance and many other features. This version
and its set of features has been presented at the BASTA conference in Munich
in 1999. However, this version has never been released. Instead, Microsoft
created a new programming language and marketed it as VB7. This
discontinuation of a product was not forseeable.
Sometimes we'd use VB anyway, sometimes we'd do the UI in VB but the
business logic in a more easily ported language, but in every meeting I
was in, in every language comparison I read (ones that weren't from the
MS marketing department at least), the probability that VB code would be
stuck without a migration path at some point in this decade was
mentioned. It wasn't a certainty that this would happen, but everyone I
knew considered it probable for a number of reasons.


I have to disagree. Microsoft could have made a code-compatible VB7 based
on .NET. However, surprisingly Microsoft decided to create a new
programming language which broke compatibility even in cases where a break
was not necessary from a technical point of view and didn't bring benefits
(make the language more consistent, etc.). Additionally most Classic VB
code was not written directly for VB6. Instead a lot of code has been
written in previous versions and it was simply upgraded to the new version
of Visual Basic.

Some companies started writing the code they use in Microsoft Basic days or
earlier. So, at the time when the decision for using Microsoft Basic
(QuickBasic, PDS, GW-BASIC, Visual Basic) was made it was unforseeable that
Microsoft would discontinue the product and stop the evolutionary process
the language followed from early Microsoft Basic days to VB6.


Okay. Like I said, it's impossible to generalize about what "everybody
knows". It's a big industry, and obviously what was considered a
probability in my corner of the industry was considered extremely
unlikely in your corner. I'm sure the opposite is true on other topics,
where things I considered to be almost certain to happen never came
about at all. I was just curious if that's what was going on, and
you've answered that question.

And I don't disagree you have a beef with MS, who certainly implied that
VB had a longer lifetime than they gave it.
Back when you decided to create all this code in VB6, was
the lifetime of the product a point of discussion at all?


Back in 1998, when VB6 was released, Visual Basic was the result of 22 years
of language evolution. Would you imagine that an evolution that lasted for
a quarter of a decade would suddently stopped and replaced by revolutionary
change?


Yeah, that's in the FAQ as well, but I don't see it at all. I never saw
VB as some kind of continuation of MSBasic, and I've seen an extremely
small amount of code ported from one to the other. Most VB development
I've seen started in VB (or VBA). Of course, neither one of us has firm
numbers here on the amount of code ported into VB from MSBasic, just
anecdotal evidence, so there's no way we're ever going to resolve that
question here.
Nov 21 '05 #133

P: n/a

"David" <df*****@woofix.local.dom> wrote in message
news:slrnd4b23p.9am.df*****@woofix.local.dom...
Back in 1998, when VB6 was released, Visual Basic was the result of 22
years
of language evolution. Would you imagine that an evolution that lasted
for
a quarter of a decade would suddently stopped and replaced by
revolutionary
change?


Yeah, that's in the FAQ as well, but I don't see it at all. I never saw
VB as some kind of continuation of MSBasic, and I've seen an extremely
small amount of code ported from one to the other. Most VB development
I've seen started in VB (or VBA). Of course, neither one of us has firm
numbers here on the amount of code ported into VB from MSBasic, just
anecdotal evidence, so there's no way we're ever going to resolve that
question here.


That item in the FAQ was to counter the myth that VB and COM are
interdependent and almost synonymous, and to counter the myth that changing
platforms inevitably results in major changes to languages. Versions of
Microsoft Basic have gone from CP/M through MS-DOS, 16-bit Windows to 32-bit
Windows with the language mostly being extended and not changed. It could
have been the same for the move to .NET, but Microsoft didn't do that.

And if Microsoft get into the habit of believing that platform changes mean
big language changes, yours will be among the code which has to be rewritten
next time round.

Dan Barclay (a former VB MVP) has a large amount of commercial code in VB6,
some of which originated in proijects he did in DOS days. I don't doubt
there are many others.

But even if the majority of code has been written in VB4 or later, that
still doesn't change the fact that substantial projects cannot easily be
moved on.
--
Regards
Jonathan West - Word MVP
www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
Please reply to the newsgroup
Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org

Nov 21 '05 #134

P: n/a


"Jonathan West" <jw***@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:ud**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...


But even if the majority of code has been written in VB4 or later, that
still doesn't change the fact that substantial projects cannot easily be
moved on.


You cannot make that generalization about every 'substantial project'
really. Perhaps that has been your experience with your projects and maybe
even a few other with theirs, but I can't believe that is EVERYONES
experience that has a larger project and decided to make the jump to VB.NET.

Are you are looking to just run the VB6 code through an upgrade wizard and
get 100% useable VB.NET code out the other side without any additional work?
If you are then I am afraid that you are never going to be satisfied.

VB.NET IS NOT VB6.

I would not want my large VB6 project simply migrated over to VB.NET that
way. That amounts to nothing more than a new exe file that has been run
through the new compiler but makes use of barely any of the benefits of the
new platform. Why do it? In fact MS points this out in all their web casts.
While it gets you a new exe it is NOT the same. You can even take older C++
code and simply compile it with the /clr switch and get the same effect.
WHY?

..NET is a NEW platform with advantages that the older VB6 runtime does not
have. To take full effect of the new features you need to rethink some of
hat you did in the past.

If you have customers that are asking you to update your legacy VB6 apps to
add new features then do your self a favor and rewrite the VB6 code into
VB.NET. If your customers are happy with your legacy stuff and the legacy
stuff is still supported by the OS then go for it. At the point the OS stops
supporting your legacy stuff, or the newer OS platforms start causing
problems with your legacy stuff then it is time that you make a decision.
Are you going to keep up or simply refuse to state support for the new
platforms and suffer the consequences that come with that decision.


Nov 21 '05 #135

P: n/a
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:24:46 +0100, "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]"
<hi***************@gmx.at> wrote:
"Rob Nicholson" <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> schrieb:
Microsoft didn't improve Visual Basic, it created a /new/ programming
language (language stability is broken). That's what the whole
discussions about VB6/VB.NET are about.


Err, AFAIK, Basic has never had an agreed standard, not in the same way
the C++ does. Microsoft made it up so I think they are perfectly allowed
to improve it.


That's true, Visual Basic has never been standardized. However, is this an
excuse for Microsoft to dispose customers' assets?

I don't think Microsoft are disposing of their customers assets any
more than the fuel supply companies in the UK disposed of their
customer assets, when they were no longer able to supply leaded
petrol. Many "assets" had to be converted to run using the new
standard, though they provided an upgrade path, this did not cover all
of the assets in the field.

Or the broadcasters will have to continue providing analogue signals
to their customers assets after the switch off date in 2008.

Suppliers only have an economic or contractual duty to their
customers, so HP still supply the HP 1000 E series to the US military
as they have a contractual duty, though they obsoleted it 15 years
ago. If you want to guarantee supply, right it into your supply
contracts!

Doug Taylor.
Nov 21 '05 #136

P: n/a
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:33:19 +0100, "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]"
<hi***************@gmx.at> wrote:
Rob,

"Rob Nicholson" <ro***********@nospam-unforgettable.com> schrieb:
This is surely the most efficient method of getting the word out, and
should give us (within a month) a real idea of how many classic VB
developers want a better migration tool and extended support for classic
VB.
I'm going to be sacrastic but guys, it's time to move on :-) Come on in,
the water's fine.


In other words: "Come on, loose your assets. Get over it!" Sorry, but
that's not a viable proposal.


Sorry, but you have to consider that, if your petition fails, which I
strongly suspect it will, you have three choices.

1) Migrate to a .net based language
2) Move to a different platform and language
3) Go out of business
We've got a pretty big VB6 application that cost a lot to develop. It's
six years old and reached maturity about two years ago. When it's
replaced, we will effectively be starting again - not only has the market
changed in requirements (we have to be a lot more web friendly) but we've
also changed. We've learnt new ways of doing things - having to start
again is probably a good thing.


New technologies are typically designed to make people more productive for
/future/ development. If a new technology requires a rewrite, the
advantages of the new technology are lost. Remember that .NET will
experience the same fate as COM in some years.


This is somewhat less likely, COM was never adopted outside of the
Microsoft world, whereas the framework is supported by Borland and
other companies are beggining to move and provide other .Net
languages.

In addition there are compatible frameworks for Linux in development,
so you can develop common code for the two OS's, I also bet that
Microsoft as bigger vendor of Apple Apps is considering a framework
for the Apple OS's to reduce their development effort.

The best parallel is the USCD framework, which lasted at least 20
years.

Doug Taylor.

Nov 21 '05 #137

P: n/a
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:23:23 +0200, "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]"
<hi***************@gmx.at> wrote:
Doug,

"Doug Taylor" <Do************@tayNOSPAMmade.demon.co.uk> schrieb:
> This is surely the most efficient method of getting the word out, and
> should give us (within a month) a real idea of how many classic VB
> developers want a better migration tool and extended support for
> classic
> VB.

I'm going to be sacrastic but guys, it's time to move on :-) Come on in,
the water's fine.

In other words: "Come on, loose your assets. Get over it!" Sorry, but
that's not a viable proposal.
Sorry, but you have to consider that, if your petition fails, which I
strongly suspect it will, you have three choices.

1) Migrate to a .net based language
2) Move to a different platform and language
3) Go out of business


All of the three options are not viable -- that's why the petition exists.
We've got a pretty big VB6 application that cost a lot to develop. It's
six years old and reached maturity about two years ago. When it's
replaced, we will effectively be starting again - not only has the
market
changed in requirements (we have to be a lot more web friendly) but
we've
also changed. We've learnt new ways of doing things - having to start
again is probably a good thing.

New technologies are typically designed to make people more productive for
/future/ development. If a new technology requires a rewrite, the
advantages of the new technology are lost. Remember that .NET will
experience the same fate as COM in some years.


This is somewhat less likely, COM was never adopted outside of the
Microsoft world, whereas the framework is supported by Borland and
other companies are beggining to move and provide other .Net
languages.


Delphi was tied to Win32/COM too. Other manufacturers wrote compilers which
could create and consume COM components. I don't see such a big difference
between COM and .NET from this point of view.

Delphi Win16/32/64 but not tied to COM at all, you could use COM, but
most developers used the Borland Framework, which surprise surprise is
very similar to the .Net framework. Well not really a surprise at it
had the same author.

Also you could port programs to Kylix with about the same difficulty
as porting VB6 to .Net, i.e. it depends on the coding techniques used
in the first place.
In addition there are compatible frameworks for Linux in development,
so you can develop common code for the two OS's, I also bet that
Microsoft as bigger vendor of Apple Apps is considering a framework
for the Apple OS's to reduce their development effort.


Is that really what /Microsoft/ wants?


Nov 21 '05 #138

P: n/a
"Doug Taylor" <Do************@tayNOSPAMmade.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h0********************************@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:54:56 -0600, "Carl Rapson" <cr@myhouse.com>
wrote:
Sorry to jump in off-topic, but I couldn't help it after you mentioned the
HP 1000 E-series. I did a lot of my early programming work on that
platform,
and to be honest, I still miss it sometimes. Of course, it helped that we
had at the time a tremendously supportive and helpful HP representative
who
worked closely with us to make sure we had everything we needed. HP was
quite a company back then.

Thanks again for bringing back some good memories. Maybe I need to join
the
military just so I can work on that platform again. :)


May not be a long career, if you want to stay close to the hardware,
there is one in each wing of a cruise missile, so you may only last
one flight. Ah the joys of real time programming.

Carl Rapson


Thanks for the information. One in each wing of a cruise missile? That's
interesting. I think I'll do more research on that.

Carl Rapson
Nov 21 '05 #139

P: n/a

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Microsoft discontinued VB6 without providing an upgrade path. You do your argument a disservice by using these types of easily
disprovable statements. MS may not have provided an upgrade path that was
satisfactory as you define it, but they did provide an upgrade path.


Like Enron provided an investment vehicle for seniors.
It doesn't matter which name Microsoft choose, what matters is that there
is a serious break in compatibility and language stability.

Of course it matters. It is for the very reason that MS chose to break
compatibility and language stability that they chose a different name.
Even if someone somehow missed the fact that VB.NET was not going to be
just VB7 during the MS media blitz before the VS.NET release, the name
would indicate to any rational person that there were major changes afoot.


Dude! Per Microsoft......"Visual Basic .NET, the latest version of the
world's most popular development tool and language. Visual Basic .NET
delivers unsurpassed productivity and unique language features for
task-oriented developers building solutions with the .NET Framework."
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/pr...s/default.aspx) In
all previous versions, backwards compatability was kept as much as possible
and upgrading your applications meant a day or 2 of coding at most.

With "the latest version of the world's most popular development tool and
language" there was no reason that any "rational person" would conclude that
this "latest version of the world's most popular development tool and
language" would not continue the tradition of Visual Basic's historical
releases.

In fact, Micrsoft leads you to believe that VB.Net would do so by reaching
back into history as far as Visual Basic 1.0 to declare "Visual Basic 1.0
revolutionized Windows development by lowering the barrier to entry and
making a broad audience of developers more productive than ever. Building on
this rich history, Visual Basic .NET offers task-oriented programmers a
human readable syntax, an intuitive user interface, and tools and upgrade
wizards that speed the development of Microsoft .NET-connected applications.
Visual Basic .NET takes advantage of the ease of development espoused by its
exceedingly popular predecessors, while adding new capabilities that enable
all manner of programmers, from the beginner to the experienced corporate
developer, to build applications for Windows, the Web, and mobile devices."

I'm reading that as "this is another version of Visual Basic". If you
don't, change your medication.
If Microsoft would see VB.NET as a new programming language which is not
a "VB7", they would not have discontinued Classic VB.

This statement makes no sense to me. MS *does* see VB.NET as a new
language and they *did* discontinue VB6. Isn't that your gripe, that
VB.NET is in effect a different language because it broke language
stability? How could MS not see this? Do you think they created VB.NET
and didn't realize they were breaking language stability?


See Microsoft's statements quoted above........
Maybe Java FUD magazines would have "warned" people, but for sure no
serious VB magazine. All I can say is that you and I must have had a very different experience
before the release of VB.NET. I read books, magazines, online articles,
anything I could get my hands on about VB.NET and every one of them gave
the warning VB.NET was going to be a major departure from VB6.


So, you didn't read the Microsoft stuff?
We were told again and again how most existing VB6 systems should probably
be left in VB6 and that new systems be developed in VB.NET.
Really? Any Microsoft links for that?
In fact, I remember becoming frustrated with the repetition of this general
statement. I was looking for new information and all I found was different
sources regurgitating this warning and other similar duplicated
information. I don't know what your experience was, but I not only knew
Microsoft was dumping VB6, I was beaten over the head with it.


Links would help here.

Even better, it would help us all if Microsoft cared to send email directly
to it's customer base concerning their products (like Visual Basic) instead
of leaving us to find obscurre web pages or press releases. Why don't they
do that? We did register the software. They have our email addresses. If
we use it for programming, wouldn't we want to be included in it's
evolution......or at least be notified of it?

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #140

P: n/a

"Doug Taylor" <Do************@tayNOSPAMmade.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d5********************************@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:12:30 +0100, "Jonathan West" <jw***@mvps.org>
wrote:
Hi Doug,
"Doug Taylor" <Do************@tayNOSPAMmade.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8n********************************@4ax.com. ..

I don't think Microsoft are disposing of their customers assets any
more than the fuel supply companies in the UK disposed of their
customer assets, when they were no longer able to supply leaded
petrol. Many "assets" had to be converted to run using the new
standard, though they provided an upgrade path, this did not cover all
of the assets in the field.

Or the broadcasters will have to continue providing analogue signals
to their customers assets after the switch off date in 2008.


Its a matter of scale & proportion. Microsoft made the change from VB6 to
VB.NET when it was their most popular programming environment, and without
making it practicable to convert a large proportion of the projects
written
using VB6

Had VB6 been little used, or only a small proportion of projects taken a
significant effort to migrate, then your comparisons whould have been
valid.


So not many people use cars with leaded fuel, well in the UK it was
around 60% of vehicles were originally supplied to run on leaded fuel,
and around 95% of viewers to terrestial television use analogue, so I
feel it is a very good analogy.


A more proper analogy would be making the roads thinner (i.e. OS) so that
your old car would not fit on the new streamlined (thinner) streets, and
adding a cargo bay that only accepts packages wrapped in a new space-aged
polymer.

Neither of these things are a real problem.......unless you do deliveries
for a living.

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #141

P: n/a
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:54:48 +0200, "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]"
<hi***************@gmx.at> wrote:
Mitchell,

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> schrieb:
People don't want to work on dead-end projects. Why would anyone want to
work on a project to revive a dead (from the standpoint of MS, anyway)
product when they could work on a product that is still in its earlier
stages?


It's marketing that declares Classic VB a dead programming tool, and VFP, on
the other hand, a tool which will continue to be alive for forseeable
future; there is absolutely no technical reason to dispose the Visual Basic
/programming language/. At the time when Microsoft's marketing will stop
trying to sell customers VB.NET as VB7, Classic VB will be rehabilitated and
I am sure that Microsoft will have an enthusiastic and motivated team for a
new version of Classic VB.


At the time Microsoft's marketing try and stop selling visual studio
2002 vb.net, they will have moved on to marketing 2005, they will not
allow a product that will confuse their message to marketed along
side.

Have you considered what the developers consigned to this dead end
project will think of it in terms of enhacing their career
aspirations. Yes there maybe a number of developers in their late
50's who will be happy to fill in to retirement, (speaking as a
programmer whose first program ran on a valve based computer) but I
doubt many on the up slope of their careers will be happy.

I would have thought your best bet for a classic VB or vb.com would be
to try and persuade Microsoft to put VB6 code into the public domain
and try a Linux style diffused development project to produce it, then
it may well achieve what you want.

Doug Taylor
Nov 21 '05 #142

P: n/a

"Doug Taylor" <Do************@tayNOSPAMmade.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nl********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:54:48 +0200, "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]"
<hi***************@gmx.at> wrote:
Mitchell,

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> schrieb:
People don't want to work on dead-end projects. Why would anyone want
to
work on a project to revive a dead (from the standpoint of MS, anyway)
product when they could work on a product that is still in its earlier
stages?


It's marketing that declares Classic VB a dead programming tool, and VFP,
on
the other hand, a tool which will continue to be alive for forseeable
future; there is absolutely no technical reason to dispose the Visual
Basic
/programming language/. At the time when Microsoft's marketing will stop
trying to sell customers VB.NET as VB7, Classic VB will be rehabilitated
and
I am sure that Microsoft will have an enthusiastic and motivated team for
a
new version of Classic VB.


At the time Microsoft's marketing try and stop selling visual studio
2002 vb.net, they will have moved on to marketing 2005, they will not
allow a product that will confuse their message to marketed along
side.

Have you considered what the developers consigned to this dead end
project will think of it in terms of enhacing their career
aspirations. Yes there maybe a number of developers in their late
50's who will be happy to fill in to retirement, (speaking as a
programmer whose first program ran on a valve based computer) but I
doubt many on the up slope of their careers will be happy.

I would have thought your best bet for a classic VB or vb.com would be
to try and persuade Microsoft to put VB6 code into the public domain
and try a Linux style diffused development project to produce it, then
it may well achieve what you want.


If Microsoft would simply provide a more viable upgrade tool, I think we'd
all be happy to move on.

One click upgrades (or at least something close to it......)......that's all
we need. Then we could focus on enhancing our code to take advantage of
..Net's new features and NOT on rewriting our entire codebase.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #143

P: n/a
> Like Enron provided an investment vehicle for seniors.
Touché! :-) I guess the point you are trying to make is that the
Microsoft's suggested "upgrade path" is so unsatisfactory as to not be
considered an upgrade path at all. *My* point is that there are enough
people who agree that it *is* satisfactory, that one cannot support
categorical statements like the one Herfried made.
Dude! LOL.
Per Microsoft......"Visual Basic .NET, the latest version of the world's
most popular development tool and language. You apparently read a whole lot into that word "version". I take it that
you believed it indicated in absolute terms that VB.NET would have
compatibility and language stability with VB6. I didn't. Especially with
all that was being written about VB.NET at the time.
So, you didn't read the Microsoft stuff? Yes, I read Microsoft's stuff, but I didn't rely on it *exclusively*. I
don't know what you did, so I can't say if this applies, but anyone who
relied purely on the MS marketing weasels in their business decisions
regarding VB.NET was seriously lacking in the due diligence department. The
companies I worked for didn't just read MS press releases and wait for MS to
send them e-mails. They went out and did research to find out what the
industry thought of this new thing called "VB.NET".

I can understand that there are people that are angered that VB.NET breaks
language stability, but I don't see how anyone would have been *surprised*
by this. When did you discover this? I'm getting the impression that you
loaded up the release version of VB.NET for the first time and only then
discovered that language stability had been broken.

- Mitchell S. Honnert


"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Ju********************@giganews.com...
"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>Microsoft discontinued VB6 without providing an upgrade path.

You do your argument a disservice by using these types of easily
disprovable statements. MS may not have provided an upgrade path that
was satisfactory as you define it, but they did provide an upgrade path.


Like Enron provided an investment vehicle for seniors.
It doesn't matter which name Microsoft choose, what matters is that
there is a serious break in compatibility and language stability.

Of course it matters. It is for the very reason that MS chose to break
compatibility and language stability that they chose a different name.
Even if someone somehow missed the fact that VB.NET was not going to be
just VB7 during the MS media blitz before the VS.NET release, the name
would indicate to any rational person that there were major changes
afoot.


Dude! Per Microsoft......"Visual Basic .NET, the latest version of the
world's most popular development tool and language. Visual Basic .NET
delivers unsurpassed productivity and unique language features for
task-oriented developers building solutions with the .NET Framework."
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/pr...s/default.aspx)
In all previous versions, backwards compatability was kept as much as
possible and upgrading your applications meant a day or 2 of coding at
most.

With "the latest version of the world's most popular development tool and
language" there was no reason that any "rational person" would conclude
that this "latest version of the world's most popular development tool and
language" would not continue the tradition of Visual Basic's historical
releases.

In fact, Micrsoft leads you to believe that VB.Net would do so by reaching
back into history as far as Visual Basic 1.0 to declare "Visual Basic 1.0
revolutionized Windows development by lowering the barrier to entry and
making a broad audience of developers more productive than ever. Building
on this rich history, Visual Basic .NET offers task-oriented programmers a
human readable syntax, an intuitive user interface, and tools and upgrade
wizards that speed the development of Microsoft .NET-connected
applications. Visual Basic .NET takes advantage of the ease of development
espoused by its exceedingly popular predecessors, while adding new
capabilities that enable all manner of programmers, from the beginner to
the experienced corporate developer, to build applications for Windows,
the Web, and mobile devices."

I'm reading that as "this is another version of Visual Basic". If you
don't, change your medication.
If Microsoft would see VB.NET as a new programming language which is not
a "VB7", they would not have discontinued Classic VB.

This statement makes no sense to me. MS *does* see VB.NET as a new
language and they *did* discontinue VB6. Isn't that your gripe, that
VB.NET is in effect a different language because it broke language
stability? How could MS not see this? Do you think they created VB.NET
and didn't realize they were breaking language stability?


See Microsoft's statements quoted above........
Maybe Java FUD magazines would have "warned" people, but for sure no
serious VB magazine.

All I can say is that you and I must have had a very different experience
before the release of VB.NET. I read books, magazines, online articles,
anything I could get my hands on about VB.NET and every one of them gave
the warning VB.NET was going to be a major departure from VB6.


So, you didn't read the Microsoft stuff?
We were told again and again how most existing VB6 systems should probably
be left in VB6 and that new systems be developed in VB.NET.


Really? Any Microsoft links for that?
In fact, I remember becoming frustrated with the repetition of this
general statement. I was looking for new information and all I found was
different sources regurgitating this warning and other similar duplicated
information. I don't know what your experience was, but I not only knew
Microsoft was dumping VB6, I was beaten over the head with it.


Links would help here.

Even better, it would help us all if Microsoft cared to send email
directly to it's customer base concerning their products (like Visual
Basic) instead of leaving us to find obscurre web pages or press releases.
Why don't they do that? We did register the software. They have our
email addresses. If we use it for programming, wouldn't we want to be
included in it's evolution......or at least be notified of it?

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #144

P: n/a
> If Microsoft would simply provide a more viable upgrade tool, I think we'd
all be happy to move on. What? If the petitioners would be happy with a more "viable upgrade tool",
why are they asking for VB.COM, something that would be monumentally more
expensive to develop? Are they using the bartering technique of asking for
way more than you know you'll get so after the haggling is done, you'll get
what you really wanted in the first place?

One of the major flaws that I see with the petition is that there is a
significant disconnect between what the stated problems are and the proposed
solution. I don't think the petition would have been controversial (or
newsworthy, for that matter) if all it was asking for was a new or better
tool to help with upgrading VB6 code to VB.NET. I would certainly agree
that the current user-base of VB6 would warrant a better conversion tool.
But that's not what the petition is asking for. Instead of an mere upgrade
tool, the petition is asking for VB.COM, a major enhancement to the existing
Visual Studio environment. It's not that I don't agree that there is a
problem, it's just that the proposed solution is overkill.
One click upgrades (or at least something close to it......)......
that's all we need. Being that "one-click upgrades" from VB6 to VB.NET are all but impossible,
I'm guessing you aren't going to get what you are asking for. I don't think
even the third party tools that do this kind of conversion promise one-click
upgrades or even "something close".

- Mitchell S. Honnert

"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:sJ********************@giganews.com...
"Doug Taylor" <Do************@tayNOSPAMmade.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nl********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:54:48 +0200, "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]"
<hi***************@gmx.at> wrote:
Mitchell,

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> schrieb:
People don't want to work on dead-end projects. Why would anyone want
to
work on a project to revive a dead (from the standpoint of MS, anyway)
product when they could work on a product that is still in its earlier
stages?

It's marketing that declares Classic VB a dead programming tool, and VFP,
on
the other hand, a tool which will continue to be alive for forseeable
future; there is absolutely no technical reason to dispose the Visual
Basic
/programming language/. At the time when Microsoft's marketing will stop
trying to sell customers VB.NET as VB7, Classic VB will be rehabilitated
and
I am sure that Microsoft will have an enthusiastic and motivated team for
a
new version of Classic VB.


At the time Microsoft's marketing try and stop selling visual studio
2002 vb.net, they will have moved on to marketing 2005, they will not
allow a product that will confuse their message to marketed along
side.

Have you considered what the developers consigned to this dead end
project will think of it in terms of enhacing their career
aspirations. Yes there maybe a number of developers in their late
50's who will be happy to fill in to retirement, (speaking as a
programmer whose first program ran on a valve based computer) but I
doubt many on the up slope of their careers will be happy.

I would have thought your best bet for a classic VB or vb.com would be
to try and persuade Microsoft to put VB6 code into the public domain
and try a Linux style diffused development project to produce it, then
it may well achieve what you want.


If Microsoft would simply provide a more viable upgrade tool, I think we'd
all be happy to move on.

One click upgrades (or at least something close to it......)......that's
all we need. Then we could focus on enhancing our code to take advantage
of .Net's new features and NOT on rewriting our entire codebase.

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #145

P: n/a

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
If Microsoft would simply provide a more viable upgrade tool, I think
we'd all be happy to move on. What? If the petitioners would be happy with a more "viable upgrade
tool", why are they asking for VB.COM, something that would be
monumentally more expensive to develop?


I think they are asking for VB.COM as an intermediary tool....a stepping
stone that would bridge the compatability issues of VB6 and VB.Net - a tool
that would allow us to keep the VB6 code alive and well, while beginning to
integrate the new features of VB.Net.....you know, exactly what the C/C++
programmers got in the new Visual Studio .Net.

This could have been done with VB.Net. Microsoft saw fit to allow C and C++
code to be able to be compiled within the Visual Studio IDE, but not Visual
Basic. Why not?

Could it be that Visual Basic could not be added because of technical
incompatabilities? Hardly. Adding the ability to write Visual Basic 6 code
from within the IDE has nothing to do with the framework......just as older
C++ code (that CAN be used in the new Visual Studio IDE) needs no changes to
be able to be edited and compiled in the new IDE.

This was a choice. A choice to abandon the largest group of programmers in
the world.
Are they using the bartering technique of asking for way more than you know
you'll get so after the haggling is done, you'll get what you really wanted
in the first place?
I don't think so. If I understand things correctly, VB.COM would be an IDE
that integrated both VB6 and VB.Net features while fixing known VB6 issues.
in other words, something that should have been a part of VB.Net. I don't
think there would be any objection to making VB.Net actually import AND RUN
Visual Basic 6 code in the current Visual Studio IDE.

One of the major flaws that I see with the petition is that there is a
significant disconnect between what the stated problems are and the
proposed solution. I don't think the petition would have been
controversial (or newsworthy, for that matter) if all it was asking for
was a new or better tool to help with upgrading VB6 code to VB.NET. I
would certainly agree that the current user-base of VB6 would warrant a
better conversion tool. But that's not what the petition is asking for.
Instead of an mere upgrade tool, the petition is asking for VB.COM, a
major enhancement to the existing Visual Studio environment. It's not
that I don't agree that there is a problem, it's just that the proposed
solution is overkill.


I don't agree. What they are asking for in VB.COM is exactly what the C/C++
programmers got in Visual Studio .Net.
One click upgrades (or at least something close to it......)......
that's all we need.

Being that "one-click upgrades" from VB6 to VB.NET are all but impossible,
I'm guessing you aren't going to get what you are asking for. I don't
think even the third party tools that do this kind of conversion promise
one-click upgrades or even "something close".


Based on the Microsoft Visual Basic track record, upgrading from one version
of VB to the next has never been "one-click", but has been significantly
simpler than the current, unacceptable upgrade path provided for VB.Net.

I don't really expect a "one-click" upgrade, but that should be the goal.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #146

P: n/a

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Like Enron provided an investment vehicle for seniors. Touché! :-) I guess the point you are trying to make is that the
Microsoft's suggested "upgrade path" is so unsatisfactory as to not be
considered an upgrade path at all. *My* point is that there are enough
people who agree that it *is* satisfactory, that one cannot support
categorical statements like the one Herfried made.


We could go back and forth on this all day. What we need are hard numbers.
Dude! LOL.
Per Microsoft......"Visual Basic .NET, the latest version of the world's
most popular development tool and language.

You apparently read a whole lot into that word "version". I take it that
you believed it indicated in absolute terms that VB.NET would have
compatibility and language stability with VB6.


I did.....at least to the extent that VB6 was backwards compatible with VB5
code and to the extent that the VB5 code would upgrade to VB6.
I didn't. Especially with all that was being written about VB.NET at the
time.
I was too busy listening to Microsoft. Thought they knew their product and
customers. My bad.
So, you didn't read the Microsoft stuff? Yes, I read Microsoft's stuff, but I didn't rely on it *exclusively*. I
don't know what you did, so I can't say if this applies, but anyone who
relied purely on the MS marketing weasels in their business decisions
regarding VB.NET was seriously lacking in the due diligence department.
The companies I worked for didn't just read MS press releases and wait for
MS to send them e-mails. They went out and did research to find out what
the industry thought of this new thing called "VB.NET".


I jumped on the very first .Net beta. And, I did look around...plenty.
But, I have to admit that I tend to rely on the details of a new project as
released by the project's team. In this case, that was the Microsoft .Net
team.

I can understand that there are people that are angered that VB.NET breaks
language stability, but I don't see how anyone would have been *surprised*
by this. When did you discover this? I'm getting the impression that you
loaded up the release version of VB.NET for the first time and only then
discovered that language stability had been broken.


No. I have been playing with VB.Net since the first beta. However, I am
still being hired by companies that have tons of VB6 code that will no
longer be supported on the new OS platforms.

Given the VAST amount of code written in (what Microsoft agrees) is the most
prolific programming language in the world, breaking backwards compatability
with classic Visual Basic (with no real upgrade path) is tantamount to
breaking C++ code for Microsoft. The only reason it didn't happen to C++ is
because the team developing Visual Studio .Net were C++ programmers and
would never stand for breaking all of their own code.

Regardless of the fact that there are more classic Visual Basic programmers
in the world than ANY other language, the C++ developers in charge of Visual
Studio .Net decided to continue the myth/religious code mantra that classic
Visual Basic was not a "real programming language". Nevermind that it is
the core developing language of your company's largest group of developers.

These "professional" developers did not take classic Visual Basic seriously,
or Microsoft's classic Visual Basic customers. Combine that with the
internal deadlines that they must have been under, just maybe they chose to
trash classic Visual Basic to save their own hides.

This doesn't take a psychic to figure out..... Microsoft's Visual Studio
team took care of their own interests above the interests of their largest
developer customer base. Visual Studio .Net is all about Microsoft. Not
you. Not me. Just them.

In choosing between taking care of the customer and covering their ass and
promoting their own agenda, Microsoft cut the customers loose.

I say, while you're loose......RUN!

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #147

P: n/a
> This could have been done with VB.Net. Microsoft saw fit to allow C and
C++ code to be able to be compiled within the Visual Studio IDE, but not
Visual Basic. Why not? Maybe it was because C++ wasn't screwed up like VB6 was. Maybe MS didn't
want the taint of VB6 at all associated with their next-generation
application development tool. I've stated before that VB6 was a great tool
for the time, but by today's standards it's crap. I don't know C++, but my
assumption was that it was OK the way it was, whereas VB was long overdue
for a major overhaul.
I don't think so. If I understand things correctly, VB.COM would be an
IDE that integrated both VB6 and VB.Net features while fixing known VB6
issues. in other words, something that should have been a part of VB.Net. I think your statement above is evidence of the mixed signals in the
petition. The petition is calling for a major upgrade to VB6 and yet you
say that "we'd" be happy with just a better upgrade tool. (I don't think
you are using the royal "we", so I'm assuming you are speaking on behalf of
the petitioners.) The conclusion I draw from this is that petitioners don't
really want to address the problems stated in the petition itself, but the
unstated "problem" that they think VB.NET should never have been developed
in the first place.
I don't agree. Which part of what I said don't you agree with? That a better upgrade tool
wouldn't solve the problems stated in the petition? That VB.COM would be a
major undertaking?
What they are asking for in VB.COM is exactly what the C/C++ programmers
got in Visual Studio .Net. I've heard this argument used several times and I have the same response
every time. Just because VS.NET's support of C/C++ is in principle the same
as a theoretical support for VB6 in VS.NET it doesn't mean that it makes
economic sense to invest in this development. To use an analogy I've used
before, if I already have a mortgage, the principle of getting a loan to buy
a house is the same, but that doesn't mean I can buy *another* house. So,
just because Microsoft felt it was a good investment to incorporate C/C++
into VS.NET doesn't mean that (especially so far after the fact) it would be
a good investment (from their perspective) to do it for VB6.

I happen to think one of the biggest reasons that C/C++ was supported in
VS.NET and not VB6 is related to Doug's original point about VB.COM being a
"dead-end project". In practical terms, VB6 wasn't incorporated into the
original version of VS.NET (nor will it be with VB.COM) for the simple
reason that MS programmers themselves use C/C++ more than VB. Too many
programmers would have viewed being assigned to the "VB6.NET" as a one-way
ticket to professional oblivion. "Oh, so you worked on the VB6.NET project,
eh? That's nice. Next!"

- Mitchell S. Honnert

"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Ns********************@giganews.com...
"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
If Microsoft would simply provide a more viable upgrade tool, I think
we'd all be happy to move on.

What? If the petitioners would be happy with a more "viable upgrade
tool", why are they asking for VB.COM, something that would be
monumentally more expensive to develop?


I think they are asking for VB.COM as an intermediary tool....a stepping
stone that would bridge the compatability issues of VB6 and VB.Net - a
tool that would allow us to keep the VB6 code alive and well, while
beginning to integrate the new features of VB.Net.....you know, exactly
what the C/C++ programmers got in the new Visual Studio .Net.

This could have been done with VB.Net. Microsoft saw fit to allow C and
C++ code to be able to be compiled within the Visual Studio IDE, but not
Visual Basic. Why not?

Could it be that Visual Basic could not be added because of technical
incompatabilities? Hardly. Adding the ability to write Visual Basic 6
code from within the IDE has nothing to do with the framework......just as
older C++ code (that CAN be used in the new Visual Studio IDE) needs no
changes to be able to be edited and compiled in the new IDE.

This was a choice. A choice to abandon the largest group of programmers
in the world.
Are they using the bartering technique of asking for way more than you
know you'll get so after the haggling is done, you'll get what you really
wanted in the first place?


I don't think so. If I understand things correctly, VB.COM would be an
IDE that integrated both VB6 and VB.Net features while fixing known VB6
issues. in other words, something that should have been a part of VB.Net.
I don't think there would be any objection to making VB.Net actually
import AND RUN Visual Basic 6 code in the current Visual Studio IDE.

One of the major flaws that I see with the petition is that there is a
significant disconnect between what the stated problems are and the
proposed solution. I don't think the petition would have been
controversial (or newsworthy, for that matter) if all it was asking for
was a new or better tool to help with upgrading VB6 code to VB.NET. I
would certainly agree that the current user-base of VB6 would warrant a
better conversion tool. But that's not what the petition is asking for.
Instead of an mere upgrade tool, the petition is asking for VB.COM, a
major enhancement to the existing Visual Studio environment. It's not
that I don't agree that there is a problem, it's just that the proposed
solution is overkill.


I don't agree. What they are asking for in VB.COM is exactly what the
C/C++ programmers got in Visual Studio .Net.
One click upgrades (or at least something close to it......)......
that's all we need.

Being that "one-click upgrades" from VB6 to VB.NET are all but
impossible, I'm guessing you aren't going to get what you are asking for.
I don't think even the third party tools that do this kind of conversion
promise one-click upgrades or even "something close".


Based on the Microsoft Visual Basic track record, upgrading from one
version of VB to the next has never been "one-click", but has been
significantly simpler than the current, unacceptable upgrade path provided
for VB.Net.

I don't really expect a "one-click" upgrade, but that should be the goal.

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #148

P: n/a

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
news:ON****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
This could have been done with VB.Net. Microsoft saw fit to allow C and
C++ code to be able to be compiled within the Visual Studio IDE, but not
Visual Basic. Why not? Maybe it was because C++ wasn't screwed up like VB6 was.


IYHO? Religous zeal is best relegated to religion.
Maybe MS didn't want the taint of VB6 at all associated with their
next-generation application development tool.
What "taint"? The opinions of programming language zealots? I, and
4,000,000+ others, respectfully disagree.
I've stated before that VB6 was a great tool for the time, but by today's
standards it's crap. I don't know C++, but my assumption was that it was
OK the way it was, whereas VB was long overdue for a major overhaul.
According to whom? Sure there were some issues, but never was there a call
by the classic Visual Basic community for a completely new language. This
hallucination is uniquely Microsoft's.
I don't think so. If I understand things correctly, VB.COM would be an
IDE that integrated both VB6 and VB.Net features while fixing known VB6
issues. in other words, something that should have been a part of VB.Net. I think your statement above is evidence of the mixed signals in the
petition. The petition is calling for a major upgrade to VB6 and yet you
say that "we'd" be happy with just a better upgrade tool.


I said we'd all be happy to move on. Moving on is (if made possible by an
upgrade too that actually worked for larger projects) preferable to
rewriting our existing codebase.
(I don't think you are using the royal "we", so I'm assuming you are
speaking on behalf of the petitioners.)
Not all of them. As you will notice, I am only a supporter of the
petition.....not an author.
The conclusion I draw from this is that petitioners don't really want to
address the problems stated in the petition itself, but the unstated
"problem" that they think VB.NET should never have been developed in the
first place.
I don't draw that conclusion at all. I haven't seen anyhting in the
petition that says that Microsoft should not have produced a new programming
language. It deals mainly with backwards compatibility and continued use of
the HUGE VB6 codebase in use.
I don't agree. Which part of what I said don't you agree with? That a better upgrade
tool wouldn't solve the problems stated in the petition? That VB.COM
would be a major undertaking?


To your statement....."that the proposed solution is overkill." It is no
less than the C/C++ programmers recieved.
What they are asking for in VB.COM is exactly what the C/C++ programmers
got in Visual Studio .Net. I've heard this argument used several times and I have the same response
every time. Just because VS.NET's support of C/C++ is in principle the
same as a theoretical support for VB6 in VS.NET it doesn't mean that it
makes economic sense to invest in this development. To use an analogy
I've used before, if I already have a mortgage, the principle of getting a
loan to buy a house is the same, but that doesn't mean I can buy *another*
house. So, just because Microsoft felt it was a good investment to
incorporate C/C++ into VS.NET doesn't mean that (especially so far after
the fact) it would be a good investment (from their perspective) to do it
for VB6.


I don't know the financial situation, costs or revenues gained from Visual
Basic or C++. Niether do you. This is pure speculation on your part. I
could just as easily argue that Visual Basic 6 was more financially feasable
because of the enormous 3rd party component market that supports it. But,
without hard data, that would be just as speculative as your argument.

(In all fairness, a great deal of this thread has been reduced to pure
speculation - including my speculation on the reasons for Microsoft's
abandonment of the largest programming group on history. Perhaps we should
stick to what can be tested and proven?)

I happen to think one of the biggest reasons that C/C++ was supported in
VS.NET and not VB6 is related to Doug's original point about VB.COM being
a "dead-end project". In practical terms, VB6 wasn't incorporated into
the original version of VS.NET (nor will it be with VB.COM) for the simple
reason that MS programmers themselves use C/C++ more than VB.
Finally we agree on something.
Too many programmers would have viewed being assigned to the "VB6.NET" as
a one-way ticket to professional oblivion. "Oh, so you worked on the
VB6.NET project, eh? That's nice. Next!"


If the development was continued (as requested in the petition, and has been
Microsoft's track record with Visual Basic since it's inception) it wouldn't
be a one-way ticket. In fact, those programmers would have a greater number
of companies desiring their services - just as they did with the most
popular programming language in the world - VB 6.

The old, tired argument that you are insinuating that these professional
developers at Microsoft buy into (that classic Visual Basic is a "toy
language") is only put forth by those ignorant of the business needs of the
businesses that have adopted Visual Basic 6 as their premier RAD tool.

Have you worked with many companies that have rapidly changing needs? What
size/type of companies have you done VB programming at?

Jim Hubbard

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #149

P: n/a
Mitchell,

"Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> schrieb:
I can understand that there are people that are angered that VB.NET breaks
language stability, but I don't see how anyone would have been *surprised*
by this.


Maybe you missed presentations of the "real" VB7:

<URL:http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=u2y0FrkMFHA.1476%40TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gb l>

Imagine Microsoft working on Word n+1, showing demos with lists of features,
and then overnight presenting a completely different, and incompatible
version of Word, which cannot even be used to open Word documents which were
created using Word n (well, there might be an upgrade wizard which will
import old documents in ASCII format into Word n + 1).

Even that won't cause such big problems and confusion as the VB7 -> VB.NET
switch did, because documents can be converted more easily from one word
processor to another. That's an unacceptable betrayal of trust.

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

Nov 21 '05 #150

182 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.