Orcas? Smells fishy to me.....

[squishy]

So what new suprises are in store for us with Orcas?

I am downloading the VPC now to try it out myself. But, I will go out on a
very sturdy limb here and say that MS will try and get developers to code to
Vista with Orcas and not worry so much if it is backwards compatable with XP
or even VS 2005.

Microsoft has made it clear that backwards compatability is no longer a
priority. The question is, just how long will developers (and the
businesses that pay them) continue to re-write code just to line Microsoft's
pockets?

Seems to me they are intent on destroying what they built with VB (through
version 6 anyway).

Well, I've got a hot grill and Orcas downloading. I'll try it out and let
you know what Microsoft breaks next.

[pvdg42]

"squishy" <sq*****@home.netwrote in message
news:Jc*************@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

So what new suprises are in store for us with Orcas?

I am downloading the VPC now to try it out myself. But, I will go out on
a very sturdy limb here and say that MS will try and get developers to
code to Vista with Orcas and not worry so much if it is backwards
compatable with XP or even VS 2005.

Microsoft has made it clear that backwards compatability is no longer a
priority. The question is, just how long will developers (and the
businesses that pay them) continue to re-write code just to line
Microsoft's pockets?

Seems to me they are intent on destroying what they built with VB (through
version 6 anyway).

Well, I've got a hot grill and Orcas downloading. I'll try it out and let
you know what Microsoft breaks next.

Having spent considerable time with Beta 1, porting projects in C++, C# and
VB (web and Windows), plus creating a few new ones, I'd say you're wrong on
all counts. Orcas certainly supports new Vista features, but it doesn't
force you to use them.

[Smitty]

"squishy" <sq*****@home.netwrote in message
news:Jc*************@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

So what new suprises are in store for us with Orcas?

Don't know, but so far I like what's happening. I'm an old qb45 etc fan, &
yes I've listened to the
vb 6.0 folks, but dot.net is cool. Yes, needs work, but NOT having to lug
around a vbrunxxx is
great. Backward compatability IMHO contributes to bloatware.and system
complexity.

[Chris Dunaway]

On May 11, 11:16 pm, "squishy" <[e-mail]:

So what new suprises are in store for us with Orcas?

I am downloading the VPC now to try it out myself. But, I will go out on a
very sturdy limb here and say that MS will try and get developers to code to
Vista with Orcas and not worry so much if it is backwards compatable with XP
or even VS 2005.

Well, since the new features do not constitute a new version of the
framework but merely additions to the 2.0 framework, there won't be
any compatibility problems. You can still write 2.0 code that is
compatible with VS2005 and Windows XP

>
Microsoft has made it clear that backwards compatability is no longer a
priority. The question is, just how long will developers (and the
businesses that pay them) continue to re-write code just to line Microsoft's
pockets?

Seems to me they are intent on destroying what they built with VB (through
version 6 anyway).

Seems to me that you've already made your judgment about Orcas even
before you have installed it.

I have not spent very much time with Orcas (who has the time?), but
IMO, linq, linq to SQL, linq to Xml, linq to entities and linq to
objects are great features.

Chris

[pvdg42]

"Chris Dunaway" <du******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...

On May 11, 11:16 pm, "squishy" <[e-mail]:

>So what new suprises are in store for us with Orcas?

I am downloading the VPC now to try it out myself. But, I will go out on
a
very sturdy limb here and say that MS will try and get developers to code
to
Vista with Orcas and not worry so much if it is backwards compatable with
XP
or even VS 2005.

Well, since the new features do not constitute a new version of the
framework but merely additions to the 2.0 framework, there won't be
any compatibility problems. You can still write 2.0 code that is
compatible with VS2005 and Windows XP

>>
Microsoft has made it clear that backwards compatability is no longer a
priority. The question is, just how long will developers (and the
businesses that pay them) continue to re-write code just to line
Microsoft's
pockets?

Seems to me they are intent on destroying what they built with VB
(through
version 6 anyway).

Seems to me that you've already made your judgment about Orcas even
before you have installed it.

I have not spent very much time with Orcas (who has the time?), but
IMO, linq, linq to SQL, linq to Xml, linq to entities and linq to
objects are great features.

Chris

Not to nitpick, but Orcas does use a new version of the .NET Framework,
v3.5.
Your points about compatibility, however, are well taken IME. Orcas lets you
target v2.0.3.0 if you wish.

I also agree the op has prejudged the next VS. Actually, I think it's a
troll.

[Chris Dunaway]

On May 14, 9:34 pm, "pvdg42" <[e-mail]:

"Chris Dunaway" <[e-mail] in message

news:11**********************@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...

On May 11, 11:16 pm, "squishy" <[e-mail]:

So what new suprises are in store for us with Orcas?

I am downloading the VPC now to try it out myself. But, I will go out on
a
very sturdy limb here and say that MS will try and get developers to code
to
Vista with Orcas and not worry so much if it is backwards compatable with
XP
or even VS 2005.

Well, since the new features do not constitute a new version of the
framework but merely additions to the 2.0 framework, there won't be
any compatibility problems. You can still write 2.0 code that is
compatible with VS2005 and Windows XP

Microsoft has made it clear that backwards compatability is no longer a
priority. The question is, just how long will developers (and the
businesses that pay them) continue to re-write code just to line
Microsoft's
pockets?

Seems to me they are intent on destroying what they built with VB
(through
version 6 anyway).

Seems to me that you've already made your judgment about Orcas even
before you have installed it.

I have not spent very much time with Orcas (who has the time?), but
IMO, linq, linq to SQL, linq to Xml, linq to entities and linq to
objects are great features.

Chris

Not to nitpick, but Orcas does use a new version of the .NET Framework,
v3.5.

You are correct, I was thinking of the 3.0 release.

[squishy]

"Smitty" <ia*********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:87**********************************@microsof t.com...

>
"squishy" <sq*****@home.netwrote in message
news:Jc*************@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

>So what new suprises are in store for us with Orcas?

Don't know, but so far I like what's happening. I'm an old qb45 etc fan,
& yes I've listened to the
vb 6.0 folks, but dot.net is cool. Yes, needs work, but NOT having to
lug around a vbrunxxx is great.

Are you high? Having to ship/install a 25MB framework is better than a <
2MB file?

>Backward compatability IMHO contributes to bloatware.and system
complexity.

I agree. So how do you feel about having .Net 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 & 3.0 on every
machine to be able to run all of the .Net apps? That's over 1 GB of .Net
frameworks, and Microsoft's just gettnig started.

If the MS jackasses had half a brain they'd copy the functionality of
Thinstall or Xenocode and let us build self-sufficient, single file,
executable apps that have all dependencies wrapped into a single exe file.

That way when a developer calls MS and gets a .Net patch that nobody else
uses, we won't be right back in the fictional "DLL Hell" story again. (You
did know that those patches break code just like the old "DLL Hell" did,
right?)

BTW, "DLL Hell" was a lie. It never existed. The problem was that
Microsoft intentionally told developers to install their apps to produce
this behavior. The solution was simple. Place all of your app's DLLs in
the same dir as the exe, and BAM! - no more "DLL Hell" and no need for
registry entires or even "registering" your dependent files.

Wow! Explaining that to developers would have been a hell of a lot easier
than inventing a whole new language! But, it wouldn't have lined their
pockets nearly as well, would it?

squishy

[squishy]

"pvdg42" <pv****@newsgroups.nospamwrote in message
news:uc**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>
"Chris Dunaway" <du******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...

>On May 11, 11:16 pm, "squishy" <[e-mail]:

>>So what new suprises are in store for us with Orcas?

I am downloading the VPC now to try it out myself. But, I will go out
on a
very sturdy limb here and say that MS will try and get developers to
code to
Vista with Orcas and not worry so much if it is backwards compatable
with XP
or even VS 2005.

Well, since the new features do not constitute a new version of the
framework but merely additions to the 2.0 framework, there won't be
any compatibility problems. You can still write 2.0 code that is
compatible with VS2005 and Windows XP

>>>
Microsoft has made it clear that backwards compatability is no longer a
priority. The question is, just how long will developers (and the
businesses that pay them) continue to re-write code just to line
Microsoft's
pockets?

Seems to me they are intent on destroying what they built with VB
(through
version 6 anyway).

Seems to me that you've already made your judgment about Orcas even
before you have installed it.

I have not spent very much time with Orcas (who has the time?), but
IMO, linq, linq to SQL, linq to Xml, linq to entities and linq to
objects are great features.

Chris

Not to nitpick, but Orcas does use a new version of the .NET Framework,
v3.5.
Your points about compatibility, however, are well taken IME. Orcas lets
you target v2.0.3.0 if you wish.

I also agree the op has prejudged the next VS. Actually, I think it's a
troll.

I simply pay attention to what Microsoft has done in the past.

Do you really think they've changed?

squishy

[Bryan]

On May 18, 1:23 am, "squishy" <[e-mail]:

>
BTW, "DLL Hell" was a lie. It never existed. The problem was that
Microsoft intentionally told developers to install their apps to produce
this behavior. The solution was simple. Place all of your app's DLLs in
the same dir as the exe, and BAM! - no more "DLL Hell" and no need for
registry entires or even "registering" your dependent files.

Sometimes it seems that we have a very real "Framework Hell" with .net
deployment.

[Jim Hubbard]

"Bryan" <br*******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@x18g2000prd.googlegro ups.com...

On May 18, 1:23 am, "squishy" <[e-mail]:

>>
BTW, "DLL Hell" was a lie. It never existed. The problem was that
Microsoft intentionally told developers to install their apps to produce
this behavior. The solution was simple. Place all of your app's DLLs in
the same dir as the exe, and BAM! - no more "DLL Hell" and no need for
registry entires or even "registering" your dependent files.

Sometimes it seems that we have a very real "Framework Hell" with .net
deployment.

We do. Especially when a developer finds a bug (like at www.kbalertz.com)
and calls Microsoft for a "hotfix".

If that developer includes the "hotfix" with their application, any program
that simply coded around the problem may be screwed.

..Net Hell is "DLL hell" all over again. But, this time, instead of
affecting a single DLL, it affects the whole framework.

Nice going, Microsoft.

I really would like to see programming languages like REALbasic mature a bit
more. It'd make a great Visual Studio replacement.