By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
425,526 Members | 2,189 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 425,526 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Estimates on money lost because of VB.NET

P: n/a
- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)

Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991. It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.

If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET. I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.

300,000 programmers X 26,000 = $7,800,000,000

All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge. Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Grand Master

Dec 13 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
45 Replies


P: n/a
BK
Hard to tell exactly how much money we've saved, but I'll take a stab
at it.

6 programmers @ $70,000/year = $420,000 (programmers with dead skills)
now productively working on (among other things) rewriting some old
Oracle Forms apps. If we were to get a consultant in, we probably
would have spend $100 - $150 / hour, a team of 6 working on this app
should be able to complete it in 18 months, call it 3000 hours * 6 =
180,000 hours * $125 per hour comes to $22,500,000 saved. Add the
$420,000 back in for the now productive programmers on a yearly basis
amortorized over 5 years comes to $2,100,000, for a total savings of
$24,600,000. Not bad. Of course that doesn't count the savings in
Oracle licensing fees and upgrades nor does it count the cost of
purchasing .Net for us, but suffice it to say that the Oracle licensing
savings more than offsets the cost of the .Net licensing. I can't wait
to go to management with these numbers! Thanks Master Baiter!

Dec 13 '06 #2

P: n/a
Umm...you just stated that you saved money to "rewrite" something that
already existed.

I hope you're not a lawyer, because your logic is extremely flawed. Last
time I checked, doing something twice is atleast twice as expensive.

Now, if you said that you needed a re-write to remain "competitive" (ie pull
the wool over your users eyes and convince them they ~need~ your re-write -
you know, pretty buttons, aero glass and all that stuff) then you've got a
leg to stand on. Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, at least it'll be
accurate.

"BK" <bk******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@j72g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Hard to tell exactly how much money we've saved, but I'll take a stab
at it.

6 programmers @ $70,000/year = $420,000 (programmers with dead skills)
now productively working on (among other things) rewriting some old
Oracle Forms apps. If we were to get a consultant in, we probably
would have spend $100 - $150 / hour, a team of 6 working on this app
should be able to complete it in 18 months, call it 3000 hours * 6 =
180,000 hours * $125 per hour comes to $22,500,000 saved. Add the
$420,000 back in for the now productive programmers on a yearly basis
amortorized over 5 years comes to $2,100,000, for a total savings of
$24,600,000. Not bad. Of course that doesn't count the savings in
Oracle licensing fees and upgrades nor does it count the cost of
purchasing .Net for us, but suffice it to say that the Oracle licensing
savings more than offsets the cost of the .Net licensing. I can't wait
to go to management with these numbers! Thanks Master Baiter!

Dec 13 '06 #3

P: n/a
BK
I hope you're not a lawyer, because your logic is extremely flawed. Last
time I checked, doing something twice is atleast twice as expensive.
I didn't give all the details....
Now, if you said that you needed a re-write to remain "competitive" (ie pull
the wool over your users eyes and convince them they ~need~ your re-write -
you know, pretty buttons, aero glass and all that stuff) then you've got a
leg to stand on. Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, at least it'll be
accurate.
The apps have to be rewritten... we are losing support for Oracle
Forms and there are over 400 forms used company wide that we rely on.
Putting a .Net front end to the Oracle backend data is the most
efficient way to do that. It goes way beyond "pretty buttons", we are
losing support for the Oracle Forms. While the end user will benefit
some (we are going to add off line support since some of the users are
mobile), for the most part they don't care about the tool used. From
an IT perspective, we truly are saving a lot of money making this move.

Dec 13 '06 #4

P: n/a
"BK" <bk******@hotmail.comschrieb:
>I hope you're not a lawyer, because your logic is extremely flawed. Last
time I checked, doing something twice is atleast twice as expensive.

I didn't give all the details....
>Now, if you said that you needed a re-write to remain "competitive" (ie
pull
the wool over your users eyes and convince them they ~need~ your
re-write -
you know, pretty buttons, aero glass and all that stuff) then you've got
a
leg to stand on. Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, at least it'll be
accurate.

The apps have to be rewritten... we are losing support for Oracle
Forms and there are over 400 forms used company wide that we rely on.
Putting a .Net front end to the Oracle backend data is the most
efficient way to do that.
But the main problem is still the loss of support for widely used
technologies without providing a viable upgrade path.

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

Dec 13 '06 #5

P: n/a

.... 8 MONTHS ...WOW !!! ... picked it up in about 2 months and put out a
production application 3 months later (has over 100 database tables) ....
This is from a 'non-vb' person ... dabbled in VBA / Access and used VB for a
few things ... mainly a Powerbuilder developer (10+yrs).

If you understand the principles and theory behind software/ database
development - it should not matter which tool you use... as longs as the
tool does not tie your hands - AFAI am concerned, this is exactly what VB
Classic did by not supporting OO design principles (inheritance,
polymorphism, and encapsilation). Reason I never really gave it a shot!
With VB.Nets OO approach, you can build a solid framework without having to
implement ... cut/paste/find n replace programming practices to support OO
principles.

Again, if you gave me (or if I took) 8 months to learn a langauge, I would
probably be taking up a new profession! ... I would like to work for your
employeer or any employer that is patient enough to wait around for me to
learn my trade!!! I may p'o some people here, but oh well, it may take a
'psuedo' programmer 8 months to learn VB.net ... because they are learning a
new approach / methedology to programming - basic software development
practices (OO) ... VB.Net is not for soft hearted 'button-click' programmer!
However, any classic VB programmer worth their weight should be able to pick
it up without a great deal of effort.

Again this is my opinion and is based on my limited experience using VB
classic / 6 / whatever you want to call it ! If you want, flame me...but
again, this is my opinion and it is based on my work experiences as a
programmer for the past 10 years...I have been using VB.Net 2005 for the
past 10 months now ... and I have put myself in a corner now - TOO MUCH
WORK!

So, again, I would like to say, if it takes an experienced programmer 8
months to learn a single language ... you are training to WRONG PERSON!

Jeff.
"Master Programmer" <ma***************@outgun.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@j44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)

Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991. It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.

If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET. I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.

300,000 programmers X 26,000 = $7,800,000,000

All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge. Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Grand Master


Dec 13 '06 #6

P: n/a
BK
I totally agree, this language rocks. I had my first application
written and in production in 2 months with no training. Any developer
should be able to work on existing code in 1-2 weeks and fully
productive in 1-2 months.

Dec 13 '06 #7

P: n/a
BK,

I'm well aware of the realities you have to deal with, and, as a developer,
you truly have no other choice but to re-write. But the absurdity of it all
should not be lost. If every developer in the world paused for a moment to
consider that their sole function is (for the most part) redundancy then
they would all be screaming for the simplest RAD tool available that allowed
them the most cost effective code re-use. From what I can tell, VB.net
works toward that goal but still falls short.

Pick something you do in your daily life, like tying your shoe laces. You
get up in the morning, put your shoes on and tie your laces. You do this
for several months until another part of the shoe fails (perhaps a hole
wears in the sole). You make a trip to the store and buy another pair of
shoes, who's laces are a little different but yet still performs the same
task. Now realize that you've done this your whole life, and will continue
to do so until laces are no longer required.

As a programmer, you design shoe laces. Your designs will differ, your
tools will improve, but at the end of the day you're still just making shoe
laces. You need to make desisions on the best way to "improve" your shoe
lace. Changing the design is easy, but you still need to manufacture your
shoe laces. Do you replace all of your manufacturing tooling every time a
new lace is designed, or do you try to re-use the tooling you already have?
Could be either choice, but what you do is evaluate your ROI and make a
decision based on the costs and potential benefits.

The general complaints about MS aren't that their tools haven't improved and
aren't "better", it's that, specifically with Classic VB, MS ~forced~
everyone to throw out ~all~ of their existing production tooling (by not
giving them a viable upgrade path), whether they needed to or not. If all
you do is make a shoe lace, (and let's face it, most companies make the
equivalent of a shoe lace) you have every reason to be angry with Microsoft
because they are forcibly taking away your your investment in tooling when
it doesn't make financial sense to do so. They forced you (and everyone
else) to "upgrade", not because it makes sense to you, but because it is in
the best financial interest of Microsoft.

People will say that's progress. Yup, sure enough it is. But one thing is
for sure. The statement that you should not "trust" Microsoft with your
code assets is valid. People should be angry about it. The fact that this
is still being discussed, what, 7 years after VB.net came out should be
proof of that.

Continue to accept the fact that you have to re-write. But please
understand that it doesn't HAVE to be that way. MS and the other big
software companies force it upon you to keep their own revenue streams
flowing.


"BK" <bk******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@l12g2000cwl.googlegro ups.com...
>I hope you're not a lawyer, because your logic is extremely flawed. Last
time I checked, doing something twice is atleast twice as expensive.

I didn't give all the details....
>Now, if you said that you needed a re-write to remain "competitive" (ie
pull
the wool over your users eyes and convince them they ~need~ your
re-write -
you know, pretty buttons, aero glass and all that stuff) then you've got
a
leg to stand on. Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, at least it'll be
accurate.

The apps have to be rewritten... we are losing support for Oracle
Forms and there are over 400 forms used company wide that we rely on.
Putting a .Net front end to the Oracle backend data is the most
efficient way to do that. It goes way beyond "pretty buttons", we are
losing support for the Oracle Forms. While the end user will benefit
some (we are going to add off line support since some of the users are
mobile), for the most part they don't care about the tool used. From
an IT perspective, we truly are saving a lot of money making this move.

Dec 13 '06 #8

P: n/a
BK
Not everything I do is rewrite, I have a nice balance bewteen new and
rewrite. I appreciate some of you comments, and I would never say that
ANY tool I've used was perfect, but the more I work with.Net the more I
am impressed with the platform
I'm well aware of the realities you have to deal with, and, as a developer,
you truly have no other choice but to re-write. But the absurdity of it all
should not be lost. If every developer in the world paused for a moment to
consider that their sole function is (for the most part) redundancy then
they would all be screaming for the simplest RAD tool available that allowed
them the most cost effective code re-use. From what I can tell, VB.net
works toward that goal but still falls short.
In my opinion, .Net offers me the simplest RAD tool available. It's
just my opinion and we certainly have no shortage of opinions here.
The general complaints about MS aren't that their tools haven't improved and
aren't "better", it's that, specifically with Classic VB, MS ~forced~
everyone to throw out ~all~ of their existing production tooling (by not
giving them a viable upgrade path), whether they needed to or not.
I don't agree. Not having a viable upgrade path doesn't force you to
throw out your tools. You are free to continue using Classic VB. Your
install CD's continue to work don't they? Can't you reinstall your
tools on new machines as needed? Old technology dies, new technology
emerges. To be honest, I wished I had kept a copy of QuickBasic 4.5,
it was a great tool. But I didn't and life goes on.
If all you do is make a shoe lace, (and let's face it, most companies make the
equivalent of a shoe lace) you have every reason to be angry with Microsoft
because they are forcibly taking away your your investment in tooling when
it doesn't make financial sense to do so. They forced you (and everyone
else) to "upgrade", not because it makes sense to you, but because it is in
the best financial interest of Microsoft.
Once again, I disagree. They didn't force anyone to upgrade. You are
and will always be free to continue using Classic VB, that is your
choice. My choice is .Net, which is why I'm in a .Net NG, I get help
with .Net here, I give back to those who need help, etc. I don't spend
my time in Java, PHP, etc NG's
People will say that's progress. Yup, sure enough it is. But one thing is
for sure. The statement that you should not "trust" Microsoft with your
code assets is valid. People should be angry about it. The fact that this
is still being discussed, what, 7 years after VB.net came out should be
proof of that.
But who is wanting to discuss the viability of VB.Net? From what I
see, the "discussion" is coming from people who don't like the product
and are living in the past. I don't tie myself so heavily to a
technology that I can't shift as necessary. Since I'm not so deeply
tied to the technology, I can unemotionally make rational decisions on
what technology I choose. I don't trust or distrust Microsoft, they
are a corporation not a person. They have goals which are guided by
the same desire all companies have, to make money.
Continue to accept the fact that you have to re-write. But please
understand that it doesn't HAVE to be that way. MS and the other big
software companies force it upon you to keep their own revenue streams
flowing.
I'd say that any system that stays in production for over 10 years is
doing pretty well. My last .Net project was to replace a FoxPro
application that was in production for 14 years (a DOS application).
My current project is replacing some Oracle front ends (the database is
still the same) that are 8-12 years old. I'd say that's a pretty good
ROI to get that much use out of technology. Moreover, by employing
n-tier designs, I'm betting we'll get even more use out of these
replacements.

BK - A professional developer for 20 years strong

Dec 13 '06 #9

P: n/a
Great link !!

Should be standard reference for Trolls in this and other newsgroups.

Galen

"Michel Posseth [MCP]" <Mi**************@discussions.microsoft.comwrote in
message news:E8**********************************@microsof t.com...
>
Well maybe you are just nut such a "master programmer"

I picked up VB.Net easy while i was still programming in VB6 , but hey
maybe this was because in VB6 a class was not a mystery to me .

Seeing your recent posts i believe you match this profile

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html

please seek help !

regards

Michel Posseth


"Master Programmer" wrote:
>- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)

Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991. It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.

If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET. I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.

300,000 programmers X 26,000 = $7,800,000,000

All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge. Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Grand Master


Dec 13 '06 #10

P: n/a

"BK" <bk******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@j72g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
Not everything I do is rewrite, I have a nice balance bewteen new and
rewrite. I appreciate some of you comments, and I would never say that
ANY tool I've used was perfect, but the more I work with.Net the more I
am impressed with the platform
There's nothing wrong with .Net as a platform. What I said was VB.net falls
short regarding cost effective code re-use (my opinion).

AFA the "new" code you write, how much is truly new? Business logic may be
specific for your company and a new UI may be required, but you're still
just doing accounting, or searching databases, or keeping track of this or
that. Once you've written these "new" apps, how often do you suppose you
should have to re-write them? Once in 5, 10, 20 years? Obviously if the
business model changes the app will need to be updated, but from a business
viewpoint why would you ever require a complete re-write?
>I'm well aware of the realities you have to deal with, and, as a
developer,
you truly have no other choice but to re-write. But the absurdity of it
all
should not be lost. If every developer in the world paused for a moment
to
consider that their sole function is (for the most part) redundancy then
they would all be screaming for the simplest RAD tool available that
allowed
them the most cost effective code re-use. From what I can tell, VB.net
works toward that goal but still falls short.

In my opinion, .Net offers me the simplest RAD tool available. It's
just my opinion and we certainly have no shortage of opinions here.
VB.net is an adequate RAD tool.
>The general complaints about MS aren't that their tools haven't improved
and
aren't "better", it's that, specifically with Classic VB, MS ~forced~
everyone to throw out ~all~ of their existing production tooling (by not
giving them a viable upgrade path), whether they needed to or not.

I don't agree. Not having a viable upgrade path doesn't force you to
throw out your tools. You are free to continue using Classic VB. Your
install CD's continue to work don't they? Can't you reinstall your
tools on new machines as needed? Old technology dies, new technology
emerges. To be honest, I wished I had kept a copy of QuickBasic 4.5,
it was a great tool. But I didn't and life goes on.
What you say is completely true, 100%. Kind of misses the point, but true
none the less.
>If all you do is make a shoe lace, (and let's face it, most companies
make the
equivalent of a shoe lace) you have every reason to be angry with
Microsoft
because they are forcibly taking away your your investment in tooling
when
it doesn't make financial sense to do so. They forced you (and everyone
else) to "upgrade", not because it makes sense to you, but because it is
in
the best financial interest of Microsoft.

Once again, I disagree. They didn't force anyone to upgrade. You are
and will always be free to continue using Classic VB, that is your
choice. My choice is .Net, which is why I'm in a .Net NG, I get help
with .Net here, I give back to those who need help, etc. I don't spend
my time in Java, PHP, etc NG's
You're right, they didn't force anyone to upgrade - they simply took away
that option. The only option they gave was to change development platforms
and re-write all of your existing working code.

>People will say that's progress. Yup, sure enough it is. But one thing
is
for sure. The statement that you should not "trust" Microsoft with your
code assets is valid. People should be angry about it. The fact that
this
is still being discussed, what, 7 years after VB.net came out should be
proof of that.

But who is wanting to discuss the viability of VB.Net? From what I
see, the "discussion" is coming from people who don't like the product
and are living in the past. I don't tie myself so heavily to a
technology that I can't shift as necessary. Since I'm not so deeply
tied to the technology, I can unemotionally make rational decisions on
what technology I choose. I don't trust or distrust Microsoft, they
are a corporation not a person. They have goals which are guided by
the same desire all companies have, to make money.
Well, the intent was not to discuss the viability of VB.NET. The discussion
was about the costs involved in "upgrading" to .Net, whether a company
"saved" money or "lost" money. I shifted the discussion a bit
(unintentionally) because the real issue of upgrade cost is assets. If you
or your company don't believe that existing code are assets then you're
quite justified in your calculations. If, on the other hand, you think your
existing code has value then you should be including that as well.
Excluding the emotional responses regarding "upgrading", the bottom line is
that if you were a Classic VB user MS showed that they didn't care at all
about your code assets. As you say, MS is simply trying to make money, but
keep in mind that it's at the expense of their developers.

>Continue to accept the fact that you have to re-write. But please
understand that it doesn't HAVE to be that way. MS and the other big
software companies force it upon you to keep their own revenue streams
flowing.

I'd say that any system that stays in production for over 10 years is
doing pretty well. My last .Net project was to replace a FoxPro
application that was in production for 14 years (a DOS application).
My current project is replacing some Oracle front ends (the database is
still the same) that are 8-12 years old. I'd say that's a pretty good
ROI to get that much use out of technology. Moreover, by employing
n-tier designs, I'm betting we'll get even more use out of these
replacements.

BK - A professional developer for 20 years strong
BK, because you've been at this for so long you should understand, more than
most, the point I'm trying to make. In your statement above you continue to
use the word "replace". This implies that you are simply re-writing code
that has worked, and would continue to work, if not for the obsolecense of a
computer platform and/or language. My point is simple: the work that most
developers do is to "put a new face" on something that was already
functional. Developers re-invent the wheel every couple of years, simply
due to a change in technology. All you do is make shoe laces. All most
developers will do is make shoe laces. I'd love to see a software company
realize this and put forth a tool that didn't treat a developer's work as if
it were disposable. But, as you've stated, this is the reality we live in
and we have to move on. I'd simply ask that you carefully consider the
reasons for justifying complete re-writes. The justification is typically
"because we have to", not because "we need to" or "we want to" -- it's
driven by the computer/software vendors.
Dec 13 '06 #11

P: n/a
If MasterProgrammer was working at his job at Target stocking shelves, then
he wouldn't be wasting bandwith and giving the rest of us hard working
programmers irritants. I think if his manager knew what he was doing, they
would put him on the cleaning crew with no possible chance of ever getting
to a computer. Oh yea, by the way, when you get home MasterProgrammer you
need to follow these few simple insutructions:

Fill Bathtub
Power UP your PC
Get in
Have someone throw computer in the TUB.

Have a nice day
"Master Programmer" <ma***************@outgun.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@j44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)

Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991. It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.

If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET. I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.

300,000 programmers X 26,000 = $7,800,000,000

All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge. Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Grand Master

Dec 14 '06 #12

P: n/a
Why did you even choose VB6 if you were worried about some corporate
types having 'control' of your language of choice?

You sir, are an idiot, and I for one would never hire you as a
programmer as you do not seem to be able to think logically.
Master Programmer wrote:
- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)

Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991. It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.

If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET. I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.

300,000 programmers X 26,000 = $7,800,000,000

All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge. Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Grand Master
Dec 14 '06 #13

P: n/a
putting an oracle backend data and .NET frontend is .NOT the most
efficent way to do jack shit

Use SQL Server and Access Data Projects and you'd be DONE already

VB.net is _TWICE_ as slow for development as a real flavor of VB

-Aaron

BK wrote:
I hope you're not a lawyer, because your logic is extremely flawed. Last
time I checked, doing something twice is atleast twice as expensive.

I didn't give all the details....
Now, if you said that you needed a re-write to remain "competitive" (ie pull
the wool over your users eyes and convince them they ~need~ your re-write -
you know, pretty buttons, aero glass and all that stuff) then you've got a
leg to stand on. Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, at least it'll be
accurate.

The apps have to be rewritten... we are losing support for Oracle
Forms and there are over 400 forms used company wide that we rely on.
Putting a .Net front end to the Oracle backend data is the most
efficient way to do that. It goes way beyond "pretty buttons", we are
losing support for the Oracle Forms. While the end user will benefit
some (we are going to add off line support since some of the users are
mobile), for the most part they don't care about the tool used. From
an IT perspective, we truly are saving a lot of money making this move.
Dec 14 '06 #14

P: n/a
FULLY AGREE HERFRIED

give this man a metal.. can we?

-Aaron
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
"BK" <bk******@hotmail.comschrieb:
I hope you're not a lawyer, because your logic is extremely flawed. Last
time I checked, doing something twice is atleast twice as expensive.
I didn't give all the details....
Now, if you said that you needed a re-write to remain "competitive" (ie
pull
the wool over your users eyes and convince them they ~need~ your
re-write -
you know, pretty buttons, aero glass and all that stuff) then you've got
a
leg to stand on. Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, at least it'll be
accurate.
The apps have to be rewritten... we are losing support for Oracle
Forms and there are over 400 forms used company wide that we rely on.
Putting a .Net front end to the Oracle backend data is the most
efficient way to do that.

But the main problem is still the loss of support for widely used
technologies without providing a viable upgrade path.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Dec 14 '06 #15

P: n/a
VB.net is .NOT a valid RAD tool

they killed the fucking language; spawned VB.net as 'the ugly redheaded
stepchild of C#'

VB.net is not competitive with classic VB in performance, ease of
adminstration or development.

how can you compete with right clicking on a VBS script file and
opening it with NOTEPAD?

ROFL

VB.net sucks dick; a friend at microsoft told me that they're going to
discontinue VB.net

-Aaron


msnews wrote:
"BK" <bk******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@j72g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
Not everything I do is rewrite, I have a nice balance bewteen new and
rewrite. I appreciate some of you comments, and I would never say that
ANY tool I've used was perfect, but the more I work with.Net the more I
am impressed with the platform

There's nothing wrong with .Net as a platform. What I said was VB.net falls
short regarding cost effective code re-use (my opinion).

AFA the "new" code you write, how much is truly new? Business logic may be
specific for your company and a new UI may be required, but you're still
just doing accounting, or searching databases, or keeping track of this or
that. Once you've written these "new" apps, how often do you suppose you
should have to re-write them? Once in 5, 10, 20 years? Obviously if the
business model changes the app will need to be updated, but from a business
viewpoint why would you ever require a complete re-write?
I'm well aware of the realities you have to deal with, and, as a
developer,
you truly have no other choice but to re-write. But the absurdity of it
all
should not be lost. If every developer in the world paused for a moment
to
consider that their sole function is (for the most part) redundancy then
they would all be screaming for the simplest RAD tool available that
allowed
them the most cost effective code re-use. From what I can tell, VB.net
works toward that goal but still falls short.
In my opinion, .Net offers me the simplest RAD tool available. It's
just my opinion and we certainly have no shortage of opinions here.

VB.net is an adequate RAD tool.
The general complaints about MS aren't that their tools haven't improved
and
aren't "better", it's that, specifically with Classic VB, MS ~forced~
everyone to throw out ~all~ of their existing production tooling (by not
giving them a viable upgrade path), whether they needed to or not.
I don't agree. Not having a viable upgrade path doesn't force you to
throw out your tools. You are free to continue using Classic VB. Your
install CD's continue to work don't they? Can't you reinstall your
tools on new machines as needed? Old technology dies, new technology
emerges. To be honest, I wished I had kept a copy of QuickBasic 4.5,
it was a great tool. But I didn't and life goes on.

What you say is completely true, 100%. Kind of misses the point, but true
none the less.
If all you do is make a shoe lace, (and let's face it, most companies
make the
equivalent of a shoe lace) you have every reason to be angry with
Microsoft
because they are forcibly taking away your your investment in tooling
when
it doesn't make financial sense to do so. They forced you (and everyone
else) to "upgrade", not because it makes sense to you, but because it is
in
the best financial interest of Microsoft.
Once again, I disagree. They didn't force anyone to upgrade. You are
and will always be free to continue using Classic VB, that is your
choice. My choice is .Net, which is why I'm in a .Net NG, I get help
with .Net here, I give back to those who need help, etc. I don't spend
my time in Java, PHP, etc NG's

You're right, they didn't force anyone to upgrade - they simply took away
that option. The only option they gave was to change development platforms
and re-write all of your existing working code.

People will say that's progress. Yup, sure enough it is. But one thing
is
for sure. The statement that you should not "trust" Microsoft with your
code assets is valid. People should be angry about it. The fact that
this
is still being discussed, what, 7 years after VB.net came out should be
proof of that.
But who is wanting to discuss the viability of VB.Net? From what I
see, the "discussion" is coming from people who don't like the product
and are living in the past. I don't tie myself so heavily to a
technology that I can't shift as necessary. Since I'm not so deeply
tied to the technology, I can unemotionally make rational decisions on
what technology I choose. I don't trust or distrust Microsoft, they
are a corporation not a person. They have goals which are guided by
the same desire all companies have, to make money.

Well, the intent was not to discuss the viability of VB.NET. The discussion
was about the costs involved in "upgrading" to .Net, whether a company
"saved" money or "lost" money. I shifted the discussion a bit
(unintentionally) because the real issue of upgrade cost is assets. If you
or your company don't believe that existing code are assets then you're
quite justified in your calculations. If, on the other hand, you think your
existing code has value then you should be including that as well.
Excluding the emotional responses regarding "upgrading", the bottom line is
that if you were a Classic VB user MS showed that they didn't care at all
about your code assets. As you say, MS is simply trying to make money, but
keep in mind that it's at the expense of their developers.

Continue to accept the fact that you have to re-write. But please
understand that it doesn't HAVE to be that way. MS and the other big
software companies force it upon you to keep their own revenue streams
flowing.
I'd say that any system that stays in production for over 10 years is
doing pretty well. My last .Net project was to replace a FoxPro
application that was in production for 14 years (a DOS application).
My current project is replacing some Oracle front ends (the database is
still the same) that are 8-12 years old. I'd say that's a pretty good
ROI to get that much use out of technology. Moreover, by employing
n-tier designs, I'm betting we'll get even more use out of these
replacements.

BK - A professional developer for 20 years strong

BK, because you've been at this for so long you should understand, more than
most, the point I'm trying to make. In your statement above you continue to
use the word "replace". This implies that you are simply re-writing code
that has worked, and would continue to work, if not for the obsolecense of a
computer platform and/or language. My point is simple: the work that most
developers do is to "put a new face" on something that was already
functional. Developers re-invent the wheel every couple of years, simply
due to a change in technology. All you do is make shoe laces. All most
developers will do is make shoe laces. I'd love to see a software company
realize this and put forth a tool that didn't treat a developer's work as if
it were disposable. But, as you've stated, this is the reality we live in
and we have to move on. I'd simply ask that you carefully consider the
reasons for justifying complete re-writes. The justification is typically
"because we have to", not because "we need to" or "we want to" -- it's
driven by the computer/software vendors.
Dec 14 '06 #16

P: n/a
just because we choose THE BEST FUCKING LANGUAGE AT THE TIME; that
doesn't mean that we DESERVE TO GET FUCKED BY MICROSOFT

I'll be damned; i'll just sell everyone on PHP or something; fuck MS in
the nose
they killed the worlds most popular language without a VIABLE
ALTERNATIVE OR UPGRADE PLAN.

AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?

-Aaron
Blake wrote:
Why did you even choose VB6 if you were worried about some corporate
types having 'control' of your language of choice?

You sir, are an idiot, and I for one would never hire you as a
programmer as you do not seem to be able to think logically.
Master Programmer wrote:
- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)

Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991. It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.

If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET. I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.

300,000 programmers X 26,000 = $7,800,000,000

All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge. Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Grand Master
Dec 14 '06 #17

P: n/a
2 months?

I can write google.com in 2 months you fucking retard

VB.net is not a productive language.

MS _COMPLETELY_ lost the war when they didn't start a bidding war with
Adobe over Marcomedia

-Aaron


BK wrote:
I totally agree, this language rocks. I had my first application
written and in production in 2 months with no training. Any developer
should be able to work on existing code in 1-2 weeks and fully
productive in 1-2 months.
Dec 14 '06 #18

P: n/a
and please tell.. what kindof console app did you write in 2 months?

because I can do the same damn thing with VBS and it WORKS ALREADY ON
ANY DESKTOP IN THE WORLD

The .NOT framework isn't even on 1/3rd of the desktops in the world

-Aaron

BK wrote:
I totally agree, this language rocks. I had my first application
written and in production in 2 months with no training. Any developer
should be able to work on existing code in 1-2 weeks and fully
productive in 1-2 months.
Dec 14 '06 #19

P: n/a
Any particular metal? How about some copper? I've always
thought that had a nice tone to it. Or maybe some tin or
aluminum or talc or steel or iron or brass. And in what
form? Just a clump? Or should be it shaped. What do you
think? Sphere? Cube? There's such a multitude of choices
to make when giving someone a metal.

Robin S.
----------------------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@79g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
FULLY AGREE HERFRIED

give this man a metal.. can we?

-Aaron
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
>"BK" <bk******@hotmail.comschrieb:
>I hope you're not a lawyer, because your logic is extremely
flawed. Last
time I checked, doing something twice is atleast twice as
expensive.

I didn't give all the details....

Now, if you said that you needed a re-write to remain
"competitive" (ie
pull
the wool over your users eyes and convince them they ~need~ your
re-write -
you know, pretty buttons, aero glass and all that stuff) then
you've got
a
leg to stand on. Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, at least
it'll be
accurate.

The apps have to be rewritten... we are losing support for Oracle
Forms and there are over 400 forms used company wide that we rely
on.
Putting a .Net front end to the Oracle backend data is the most
efficient way to do that.

But the main problem is still the loss of support for widely used
technologies without providing a viable upgrade path.

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

Dec 14 '06 #20

P: n/a
maybe it should be in the shape of an ass dildo for you commie pinko
dweeb

-Aaron
RobinS wrote:
Any particular metal? How about some copper? I've always
thought that had a nice tone to it. Or maybe some tin or
aluminum or talc or steel or iron or brass. And in what
form? Just a clump? Or should be it shaped. What do you
think? Sphere? Cube? There's such a multitude of choices
to make when giving someone a metal.

Robin S.
----------------------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@79g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
FULLY AGREE HERFRIED

give this man a metal.. can we?

-Aaron
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
"BK" <bk******@hotmail.comschrieb:
I hope you're not a lawyer, because your logic is extremely
flawed. Last
time I checked, doing something twice is atleast twice as
expensive.

I didn't give all the details....

Now, if you said that you needed a re-write to remain
"competitive" (ie
pull
the wool over your users eyes and convince them they ~need~ your
re-write -
you know, pretty buttons, aero glass and all that stuff) then
you've got
a
leg to stand on. Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, at least
it'll be
accurate.

The apps have to be rewritten... we are losing support for Oracle
Forms and there are over 400 forms used company wide that we rely
on.
Putting a .Net front end to the Oracle backend data is the most
efficient way to do that.

But the main problem is still the loss of support for widely used
technologies without providing a viable upgrade path.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
Dec 14 '06 #21

P: n/a
Aaron,

If you are so much interested in PHP, i hope you should be happy to
know that there is a Google group(
http://groups.google.com/group/Professional-PHP?lnk=srg ) for
Professional PHP Developers(not sure if you could suit in that group
and moreover you cannot spam in that group like you do in this group).
suprisingly I do not see any of your posts in that group though you
support so much for PHP. It looks like you like VB .Net so much that
you do not want to leave this group inspite of harsh criticism from the
group members.
aa*********@gmail.com wrote:
just because we choose THE BEST FUCKING LANGUAGE AT THE TIME; that
doesn't mean that we DESERVE TO GET FUCKED BY MICROSOFT

I'll be damned; i'll just sell everyone on PHP or something; fuck MS in
the nose
they killed the worlds most popular language without a VIABLE
ALTERNATIVE OR UPGRADE PLAN.

AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?

-Aaron
Blake wrote:
Why did you even choose VB6 if you were worried about some corporate
types having 'control' of your language of choice?

You sir, are an idiot, and I for one would never hire you as a
programmer as you do not seem to be able to think logically.
Master Programmer wrote:
- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)
>
Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991. It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.
>
If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET. I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.
>
300,000 programmers X 26,000 = $7,800,000,000
>
All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge. Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!
>
The Grand Master
Dec 14 '06 #22

P: n/a
Well, that's a possibility, it's certainly a shape.
However, the metal is not for me, so that's a
superfluous comment! Thanks for thinking of me though!

Robin S.
------------------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@l12g2000cwl.googlegr oups.com...
maybe it should be in the shape of an ass dildo for you commie pinko
dweeb

-Aaron
RobinS wrote:
>Any particular metal? How about some copper? I've always
thought that had a nice tone to it. Or maybe some tin or
aluminum or talc or steel or iron or brass. And in what
form? Just a clump? Or should be it shaped. What do you
think? Sphere? Cube? There's such a multitude of choices
to make when giving someone a metal.

Robin S.
----------------------------------------
<aa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@79g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
FULLY AGREE HERFRIED

give this man a metal.. can we?

-Aaron
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
"BK" <bk******@hotmail.comschrieb:
I hope you're not a lawyer, because your logic is extremely
flawed. Last
time I checked, doing something twice is atleast twice as
expensive.

I didn't give all the details....

Now, if you said that you needed a re-write to remain
"competitive" (ie
pull
the wool over your users eyes and convince them they ~need~
your
re-write -
you know, pretty buttons, aero glass and all that stuff) then
you've got
a
leg to stand on. Doesn't make sense to me, but hey, at least
it'll be
accurate.

The apps have to be rewritten... we are losing support for
Oracle
Forms and there are over 400 forms used company wide that we
rely
on.
Putting a .Net front end to the Oracle backend data is the most
efficient way to do that.

But the main problem is still the loss of support for widely used
technologies without providing a viable upgrade path.

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

Dec 14 '06 #23

P: n/a
It must have been "Hello World #1". ROFL

What the fucking idiot hasnt learned yet is that he will have to
rewrite it next year "Hello World #2" - when MS tell him that the
development software they made before is now considered "no good". Or
when they announce that the latest greatest thing will eliminate
".NET-Hell"

The Grand Master
*** VbCrLF: "Visual Basic Classic Revival Liberation Front" ***
*** VB 6.0 Jihad - Fighing for what belongs to us. ***
*** http://classicvb.org/Petition ***

aa*********@gmail.com wrote:
and please tell.. what kindof console app did you write in 2 months?

because I can do the same damn thing with VBS and it WORKS ALREADY ON
ANY DESKTOP IN THE WORLD

The .NOT framework isn't even on 1/3rd of the desktops in the world

-Aaron

BK wrote:
I totally agree, this language rocks. I had my first application
written and in production in 2 months with no training. Any developer
should be able to work on existing code in 1-2 weeks and fully
productive in 1-2 months.
Dec 14 '06 #24

P: n/a
Henry

Eat shit and die. If I was looking for a job what makes you think I
would want to work for a lamer like you. You are not capable of
thinking for yourself - and only believe the garbage the MS force feed
you.

The Grand Master
*** VbCrLF: "Visual Basic Classic Revival Liberation Front" ***
*** VB 6.0 Jihad - Fighing for what belongs to us. ***
*** http://classicvb.org/Petition ***

Blake wrote:
Why did you even choose VB6 if you were worried about some corporate
types having 'control' of your language of choice?

You sir, are an idiot, and I for one would never hire you as a
programmer as you do not seem to be able to think logically.
Master Programmer wrote:
- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)

Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991. It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.

If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET. I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.

300,000 programmers X 26,000 = $7,800,000,000

All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge. Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Grand Master
Dec 14 '06 #25

P: n/a
Michel

You should be gassed and turned into lampshades or soap.
I picked up VB.Net easy while i was still programming in VB6 , but hey
maybe this was because in VB6 a class was not a mystery to me .
Yeah, sure you did - LOL. Like..... HELLO WORLD !

The Grand Master


Michel wrote:
Well maybe you are just nut such a "master programmer"

I picked up VB.Net easy while i was still programming in VB6 , but hey
maybe this was because in VB6 a class was not a mystery to me .

Seeing your recent posts i believe you match this profile

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html

please seek help !

regards

Michel Posseth


"Master Programmer" wrote:
- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)

Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991. It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.

If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET. I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.

300,000 programmers X 26,000 = $7,800,000,000

All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge. Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Grand Master
Dec 14 '06 #26

P: n/a
Aaron, Master Programmer: You guys sound like a little a couple of
kids having a temper-tantrum because you no longer having the newest
toy. Just relax. Change is good, embrace it. If it weren't for
change, we wouldn't have the internet or computers or electricity or
anything. We would still be hunting for food with our bare hands or
picking it off bushes.
>>VB.net is _TWICE_ as slow for development as a real flavor of VB
Are you on crack? What appliaction are you writing that could honestly
be quicker in VB6?

The truth is that VB6 has no power. It never did. If you wanted a
powerful language, there was always C or C++.

Most developers were eager to learn Dot Net and many of them learnt it
in their spare time. We have seen a massive increase in the
productivity rates of the developers since moving to dot net. We have
also halved our help desk calls (for WinForms apps) as the maintenance
developers find it much easier to fix dot net applications than VB6
ones and dot net has proper error handling.

Unfortunately VB.NET retained many legacy commands from VB6 to assist
developers in crossing over. That damn "GOTO" command being my pet
hate. Due to this, I prefer developers to use C# as these commands are
not available for them to write sloppy code.

Dot net provides COM interoperability for all our legacy libraries so
we are still using our old code. When additions are required to old
libraries, we often find it quicker to re-develop in dot net than to
add it to the VB6 library. We designed our systems with lots of small
libraries so it was easy to replace, although it has added to the
nightmare of maintaining VB6 over the years.

The real power of dot net comes in the object model provided. The use
of multi-threading, reflection and xml kill anything VB6 has.

The last key benifit of dot net is the IDE and what an awesome IDE it
is. It beats any other IDE I have ever used. Why would I want to use
notepad to develop an applciation?

Do some more research and come back with a valid argument that does not
involve a temper-tantrum and is actually backed with some intelligence
and not just your 2 cents.

Dec 14 '06 #27

P: n/a

*** VbCrLF: "Visual Basic Classic Revival Liberation Front" ***
I personally prefer vbNewLine over vbCrLF... but does one have any
advantage over the other?

Dec 14 '06 #28

P: n/a
listen bitch

I am just speaking up for the language that those mother fuckers killed
without a viable alternative.

since this is THE vb newsgroup; i'll be damned if I leave this group.

I've been bitching for years in the access group but those idiots in
Access dept lost their head and went back to DAO -- I mean SERIOUSLY
HERE GUYS

I just think that VB programmers throughout the world should stage a
SIT-IN across the 520 bridge in order to raise attention to our plight

-Aaron

Sugan wrote:
Aaron,

If you are so much interested in PHP, i hope you should be happy to
know that there is a Google group(
http://groups.google.com/group/Professional-PHP?lnk=srg ) for
Professional PHP Developers(not sure if you could suit in that group
and moreover you cannot spam in that group like you do in this group).
suprisingly I do not see any of your posts in that group though you
support so much for PHP. It looks like you like VB .Net so much that
you do not want to leave this group inspite of harsh criticism from the
group members.
aa*********@gmail.com wrote:
just because we choose THE BEST FUCKING LANGUAGE AT THE TIME; that
doesn't mean that we DESERVE TO GET FUCKED BY MICROSOFT

I'll be damned; i'll just sell everyone on PHP or something; fuck MS in
the nose
they killed the worlds most popular language without a VIABLE
ALTERNATIVE OR UPGRADE PLAN.

AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN?

-Aaron
Blake wrote:
Why did you even choose VB6 if you were worried about some corporate
types having 'control' of your language of choice?
>
You sir, are an idiot, and I for one would never hire you as a
programmer as you do not seem to be able to think logically.
>
>
Master Programmer wrote:
- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)

Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991. It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.

If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET. I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.

300,000 programmers X 26,000 = $7,800,000,000

All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge. Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Grand Master
Dec 14 '06 #29

P: n/a
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there is a sit-in on 520 twice a day, Monday
through Friday. The people sit in their cars instead of on the road, but
it has the same effect. Have you ever driven the bridge during rush hour?
Sheesh!

I don't know why I'm posting this again since I know it will fall on deaf
ears. It seems that you haven't yet learned that complaining accomplishes
nothing in this world. You have convinced no one on any of these newsgroups
to follow your path and return to VB6.

I already gave you the answer to your problem, but you ignored me. The plan
was for you to develop a business plan that would purchase the rights of
VB6 from Microsoft. Then you would be able to support and enhance the language
in a way that was faithful to its current use. If Microsoft wouldn't sell
the rights outright (and since they continue to use the name "Visual Basic"
for new releases, I'm sure they wouldn't), you could instead negotiate a
long-term license for the VB6 code base and name. Trust me on this: if you
ponied up a suitable business plan that provided reasonable licensing income
to Microsoft, they would be happy to work with you. They already license
other technology; they even license the VBA engine for developer use. They
would certainly be open to licensing the VB6 code base.

Considering your previous posts, I know that you will never take this advice.
You have a lot of vibratto, and if you are as good of a programmer as you
claim to be, you could pull off this plan, or at least team up with a business
leader who could carry out the plan with you. My guess is that some smart
reader on this very forum will take me up on this plan and contact Microsoft
about branching off the VB6 system. It could be you, but as it stands now,
I doubt it.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
I've been bitching for years in the access group but those idiots in
Access dept lost their head and went back to DAO -- I mean SERIOUSLY
HERE GUYS

I just think that VB programmers throughout the world should stage a
SIT-IN across the 520 bridge in order to raise attention to our plight

-Aaron

Dec 14 '06 #30

P: n/a
listen bitch

my complaining has already solved more bugs than your complacency

you want some demo cases/ test plans?

-Aaron

Tim Patrick wrote:
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there is a sit-in on 520 twice a day, Monday
through Friday. The people sit in their cars instead of on the road, but
it has the same effect. Have you ever driven the bridge during rush hour?
Sheesh!

I don't know why I'm posting this again since I know it will fall on deaf
ears. It seems that you haven't yet learned that complaining accomplishes
nothing in this world. You have convinced no one on any of these newsgroups
to follow your path and return to VB6.

I already gave you the answer to your problem, but you ignored me. The plan
was for you to develop a business plan that would purchase the rights of
VB6 from Microsoft. Then you would be able to support and enhance the language
in a way that was faithful to its current use. If Microsoft wouldn't sell
the rights outright (and since they continue to use the name "Visual Basic"
for new releases, I'm sure they wouldn't), you could instead negotiate a
long-term license for the VB6 code base and name. Trust me on this: if you
ponied up a suitable business plan that provided reasonable licensing income
to Microsoft, they would be happy to work with you. They already license
other technology; they even license the VBA engine for developer use. They
would certainly be open to licensing the VB6 code base.

Considering your previous posts, I know that you will never take this advice.
You have a lot of vibratto, and if you are as good of a programmer as you
claim to be, you could pull off this plan, or at least team up with a business
leader who could carry out the plan with you. My guess is that some smart
reader on this very forum will take me up on this plan and contact Microsoft
about branching off the VB6 system. It could be you, but as it stands now,
I doubt it.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
I've been bitching for years in the access group but those idiots in
Access dept lost their head and went back to DAO -- I mean SERIOUSLY
HERE GUYS

I just think that VB programmers throughout the world should stage a
SIT-IN across the 520 bridge in order to raise attention to our plight

-Aaron
Dec 14 '06 #31

P: n/a
they don't license VBA anyomre; they're all stuck on VSA now.. because
'its the next great thing'

if they were serious about licensing VBA then OpenOffice would have
been able to license it.
BUT NOT, MS WOUDLNT ALLOW IT

and I've seen enough failed VBA licenses to not want to touch this.

maybe you in your infinite wisdom should do this yourself?

I just think that it's horseshit we've proven time and time again that
VB.net is .NOT a viable alternative

-Aaron
Tim Patrick wrote:
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there is a sit-in on 520 twice a day, Monday
through Friday. The people sit in their cars instead of on the road, but
it has the same effect. Have you ever driven the bridge during rush hour?
Sheesh!

I don't know why I'm posting this again since I know it will fall on deaf
ears. It seems that you haven't yet learned that complaining accomplishes
nothing in this world. You have convinced no one on any of these newsgroups
to follow your path and return to VB6.

I already gave you the answer to your problem, but you ignored me. The plan
was for you to develop a business plan that would purchase the rights of
VB6 from Microsoft. Then you would be able to support and enhance the language
in a way that was faithful to its current use. If Microsoft wouldn't sell
the rights outright (and since they continue to use the name "Visual Basic"
for new releases, I'm sure they wouldn't), you could instead negotiate a
long-term license for the VB6 code base and name. Trust me on this: if you
ponied up a suitable business plan that provided reasonable licensing income
to Microsoft, they would be happy to work with you. They already license
other technology; they even license the VBA engine for developer use. They
would certainly be open to licensing the VB6 code base.

Considering your previous posts, I know that you will never take this advice.
You have a lot of vibratto, and if you are as good of a programmer as you
claim to be, you could pull off this plan, or at least team up with a business
leader who could carry out the plan with you. My guess is that some smart
reader on this very forum will take me up on this plan and contact Microsoft
about branching off the VB6 system. It could be you, but as it stands now,
I doubt it.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
I've been bitching for years in the access group but those idiots in
Access dept lost their head and went back to DAO -- I mean SERIOUSLY
HERE GUYS

I just think that VB programmers throughout the world should stage a
SIT-IN across the 520 bridge in order to raise attention to our plight

-Aaron
Dec 14 '06 #32

P: n/a
there should be a real sit in.

people handcuffing themselves to the bridge

mother fucking pigs already attacked me -- with tear gas and rubber
bullets in '98 -- and i'll be damned if they're going to scare me
away.. im not scared of stupid pigs

-Aaron


Tim Patrick wrote:
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there is a sit-in on 520 twice a day, Monday
through Friday. The people sit in their cars instead of on the road, but
it has the same effect. Have you ever driven the bridge during rush hour?
Sheesh!

I don't know why I'm posting this again since I know it will fall on deaf
ears. It seems that you haven't yet learned that complaining accomplishes
nothing in this world. You have convinced no one on any of these newsgroups
to follow your path and return to VB6.

I already gave you the answer to your problem, but you ignored me. The plan
was for you to develop a business plan that would purchase the rights of
VB6 from Microsoft. Then you would be able to support and enhance the language
in a way that was faithful to its current use. If Microsoft wouldn't sell
the rights outright (and since they continue to use the name "Visual Basic"
for new releases, I'm sure they wouldn't), you could instead negotiate a
long-term license for the VB6 code base and name. Trust me on this: if you
ponied up a suitable business plan that provided reasonable licensing income
to Microsoft, they would be happy to work with you. They already license
other technology; they even license the VBA engine for developer use. They
would certainly be open to licensing the VB6 code base.

Considering your previous posts, I know that you will never take this advice.
You have a lot of vibratto, and if you are as good of a programmer as you
claim to be, you could pull off this plan, or at least team up with a business
leader who could carry out the plan with you. My guess is that some smart
reader on this very forum will take me up on this plan and contact Microsoft
about branching off the VB6 system. It could be you, but as it stands now,
I doubt it.

-----
Tim Patrick - www.timaki.com
Start-to-Finish Visual Basic 2005
I've been bitching for years in the access group but those idiots in
Access dept lost their head and went back to DAO -- I mean SERIOUSLY
HERE GUYS

I just think that VB programmers throughout the world should stage a
SIT-IN across the 520 bridge in order to raise attention to our plight

-Aaron
Dec 14 '06 #33

P: n/a

<lo*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@80g2000cwy.googlegro ups.com...
>
>*** VbCrLF: "Visual Basic Classic Revival Liberation Front" ***

I personally prefer vbNewLine over vbCrLF... but does one have any
advantage over the other?
I like ControlChars.CrLf -- It seems more .Net-ty, and works in
both VB *and* C#.

Robin S.
Dec 14 '06 #34

P: n/a
i'd rather make things HARDER to rewrite in C#

-Aaron
RobinS wrote:
<lo*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@80g2000cwy.googlegro ups.com...

*** VbCrLF: "Visual Basic Classic Revival Liberation Front" ***
I personally prefer vbNewLine over vbCrLF... but does one have any
advantage over the other?

I like ControlChars.CrLf -- It seems more .Net-ty, and works in
both VB *and* C#.

Robin S.
Dec 14 '06 #35

P: n/a
I've used classes in VB6.. I've also seen _A_LOT_ of dipshits take a
bas/module and paste it into a class and they think that they've
mastered OOP.

Classes in VB6 had all of the functionality that we NEEDED.

75% of vb6 developers DIDNT USE CLASSES WTF WHY SHOULD MS JAM THEM DOWN
OUR THROATS?

-aaron


Michel wrote:
Well maybe you are just nut such a "master programmer"

I picked up VB.Net easy while i was still programming in VB6 , but hey
maybe this was because in VB6 a class was not a mystery to me .

Seeing your recent posts i believe you match this profile

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html

please seek help !

regards

Michel Posseth


"Master Programmer" wrote:
- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)

Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991. It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.

If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET. I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.

300,000 programmers X 26,000 = $7,800,000,000

All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge. Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!

The Grand Master
Dec 14 '06 #36

P: n/a
I would like to nominate VB.net for an award for 'worst programming
language ever'

anyone know where I can do this?

Thanks

-Aaron

Dec 15 '06 #37

P: n/a
Tell your Mum.

She's probably the only person who cares.

Maybe she can print a certificate for you or something?

loser.
aa*********@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to nominate VB.net for an award for 'worst programming
language ever'

anyone know where I can do this?

Thanks

-Aaron
Dec 15 '06 #38

P: n/a
good stuff man

my mom's been dead for 10 years already; I dont think that you can make
her roll over anymore than she already has LoL

she rolled over in her grave when MS killed VB for sure; I mean-- it
was the worlds most popular langauge.

There is no viable upgrade path or alternative except BITCHING UP A
STORM

WHERE IS VS SP1?
WHERE IS VS SP1?
WHERE IS VS SP1?
WHERE IS VS SP1?
WHERE IS VS SP1?
WHERE IS VS SP1?
-Aaron


Blake wrote:
Tell your Mum.

She's probably the only person who cares.

Maybe she can print a certificate for you or something?

loser.
aa*********@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to nominate VB.net for an award for 'worst programming
language ever'

anyone know where I can do this?

Thanks

-Aaron
Dec 15 '06 #39

P: n/a
Well ...... with this answer you have proven my point
"Master Programmer" wrote:
Michel

You should be gassed and turned into lampshades or soap.
I picked up VB.Net easy while i was still programming in VB6 , but hey
maybe this was because in VB6 a class was not a mystery to me .

Yeah, sure you did - LOL. Like..... HELLO WORLD !

The Grand Master


Michel wrote:
Well maybe you are just nut such a "master programmer"

I picked up VB.Net easy while i was still programming in VB6 , but hey
maybe this was because in VB6 a class was not a mystery to me .

Seeing your recent posts i believe you match this profile

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html

please seek help !

regards

Michel Posseth


"Master Programmer" wrote:
- Constant language / system changes
- Dropping of the VB language
- Security configuation minefields
- Loss of old code base
- Time consuming to learn (then it changes every 5 minutes)
- Slow compiling
- Loss of productivity
- Relearning (loss of developer time)
>
Lets estimate how much VB.NET has lost companies since its launch in
1991. It is estimated that there were about 3 milion VB 6.0
programmers pre-2001, because VB was the most popular programming
language in the world.
>
If we made a guess that 1/10th of them swapped over to VB.NET. I recon
that it will have cost each programmer 8 months in lost time, due to
the reasons above. If we said the average wage for a programmer is say
40k US (I will be pesimistic) - then thats 26k lost for each one.
>
300,000 programmers X 26,000 = $7,800,000,000
>
All that money flushed down the drain because a few idiots in a white
room at Redmond decided to delete everyones knowledge. Thats
frightening !!!!!!!!!!!!
>
The Grand Master
>
>

Dec 15 '06 #40

P: n/a
mg
my mom's been dead for 10 years already; I dont think that you can make
her roll over anymore than she already has LoL
That's OK, tell her anyway. You might get more of a reaction to your
infantile ranting/trolling from her dead carcass than you would from
>actual< programmers here, where the rest of us seem to have real jobs and lives.
-lol!

Dec 15 '06 #41

P: n/a
@Master Programmer

Perhaps you need something a little less stressful to play with. Have
you considered Lego?

Dec 15 '06 #42

P: n/a
"The Frog" <an**************@eu.effem.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@l12g2000cwl.googlegr oups.com...
@Master Programmer

Perhaps you need something a little less stressful to play with. Have
you considered Lego?
You mean Duplo, surely??
Dec 15 '06 #43

P: n/a
Dear da**********@mweb.co.za :

eat a dick and go play with C++ then

C++ never had a decent interface for forms-- like VB always has had.

instead of DUMBING DOWN VB THEY SHOULD HAVE MADE C++ COMPETITIVE A
DECADE AGO

THERE ARE MORE VB PEOPLE THAN C++ PEOPLE SO DONT YOU RUN AROUND TELLING
US THAT _WE_ NEED A REAL LANGAUGE

Unnecessary change isn't good.
Unnecessary change is UNNECESSARY

you've seen a massive increase in productivity from using .NET?

IT CRASHES TWICE A DAY; IT TAKES 30 SECONDS TO LAUNCH HELP.
IT WONT WORK ON MY FUCKING LAPTOP BECAUSE IT HAS A TRANSMETA PROCESSOR.

You sit there and try to sell us on features that we don't need; and we
didn't ask for:
The real power of dot net comes in the object model provided. The use
of multi-threading, reflection and xml kill anything VB6 has.
You're trying to sell PERFORMANCE when PERFORMANCE ISNT WHAT WE NEED.

XML is a crutch you fucking retard; learn how to use a database and
STFU punk ass penis licking wuss
-aaron
da**********@mweb.co.za wrote:
Aaron, Master Programmer: You guys sound like a little a couple of
kids having a temper-tantrum because you no longer having the newest
toy. Just relax. Change is good, embrace it. If it weren't for
change, we wouldn't have the internet or computers or electricity or
anything. We would still be hunting for food with our bare hands or
picking it off bushes.
>VB.net is _TWICE_ as slow for development as a real flavor of VB
Are you on crack? What appliaction are you writing that could honestly
be quicker in VB6?

The truth is that VB6 has no power. It never did. If you wanted a
powerful language, there was always C or C++.

Most developers were eager to learn Dot Net and many of them learnt it
in their spare time. We have seen a massive increase in the
productivity rates of the developers since moving to dot net. We have
also halved our help desk calls (for WinForms apps) as the maintenance
developers find it much easier to fix dot net applications than VB6
ones and dot net has proper error handling.

Unfortunately VB.NET retained many legacy commands from VB6 to assist
developers in crossing over. That damn "GOTO" command being my pet
hate. Due to this, I prefer developers to use C# as these commands are
not available for them to write sloppy code.

Dot net provides COM interoperability for all our legacy libraries so
we are still using our old code. When additions are required to old
libraries, we often find it quicker to re-develop in dot net than to
add it to the VB6 library. We designed our systems with lots of small
libraries so it was easy to replace, although it has added to the
nightmare of maintaining VB6 over the years.

The real power of dot net comes in the object model provided. The use
of multi-threading, reflection and xml kill anything VB6 has.

The last key benifit of dot net is the IDE and what an awesome IDE it
is. It beats any other IDE I have ever used. Why would I want to use
notepad to develop an applciation?

Do some more research and come back with a valid argument that does not
involve a temper-tantrum and is actually backed with some intelligence
and not just your 2 cents.
Dec 15 '06 #44

P: n/a
Maybe just good old Play Dough!

Cheers

:)
The Grim Reaper wrote:
"The Frog" <an**************@eu.effem.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@l12g2000cwl.googlegr oups.com...
@Master Programmer

Perhaps you need something a little less stressful to play with. Have
you considered Lego?
You mean Duplo, surely??
Dec 18 '06 #45

P: n/a
Hi Aaron,

aa*********@gmail.com wrote:
Dear da**********@mweb.co.za :

eat a dick and go play with C++ then
Why do you always resort to swearing and name calling? Is it because
you cannot come up with a decent argument so you must try to detract
from anything of value?
>
C++ never had a decent interface for forms-- like VB always has had.

instead of DUMBING DOWN VB THEY SHOULD HAVE MADE C++ COMPETITIVE A
DECADE AGO
They didn't dumb it down, they made it far more powerfull. But you
wouldn't know about that because you obviously haven't actually used
VB.NET properly or have any clue of what true power coding is.
>
THERE ARE MORE VB PEOPLE THAN C++ PEOPLE SO DONT YOU RUN AROUND TELLING
US THAT _WE_ NEED A REAL LANGAUGE
Are you sure about that? I read around a bit:
http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/20..._trends_1.html
http://www.dedasys.com/articles/lang...opularity.html

The only problem is they do not differentiate between VB and VB.NET.
It is interesting that they show an increase in VB usage over the past
year, although I believe that is for VB.NET. It also doesn't show how
many people have already moved from VB to VB.NET. I will try find out
better statistics on this.

C++ is not my favourate language by any means. But it is a good
language same as all the dot net languages and Java. They are all good
solid languages.
>
Unnecessary change isn't good.
Unnecessary change is UNNECESSARY

you've seen a massive increase in productivity from using .NET?

IT CRASHES TWICE A DAY; IT TAKES 30 SECONDS TO LAUNCH HELP.
IT WONT WORK ON MY FUCKING LAPTOP BECAUSE IT HAS A TRANSMETA PROCESSOR.
Then maybe you shuold look at upgrading your laptop. It takes less
than 1 second to open the help on my PC and it has crashed maybe once
ever.
>
You sit there and try to sell us on features that we don't need; and we
didn't ask for:
The real power of dot net comes in the object model provided. The use
of multi-threading, reflection and xml kill anything VB6 has.

You're trying to sell PERFORMANCE when PERFORMANCE ISNT WHAT WE NEED.
Then what do you need? If you don't want it to change and you don't
need anything else then why don't you just keep using VB6. You keep
whining that there is no upgrade path, but you don't want anything to
change. If VB6 is so perfect then why would they need to bring out an
upgrade path?

You don't want the ease of deployment from managed libraries that don't
have to be registerred and the move away from DLL hell?
XML is a crutch you fucking retard; learn how to use a database and
Hmm lets see. All the new databases (Oracle, MSSQL, etc) now support
XML queries. This is where you can store and retrive data using XML.
Why have all the DBMSs caught onto XML if it is so terrible? Please do
some research before you write something again.
STFU punk ass penis licking wuss
Yes little boy. Have your tantrum. Mommy will bring you your milk and
cookies soon ;)

Regards
Dave

Dec 22 '06 #46

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.