Re: Visual Basic.net
- From: Michael B. Johnson <mjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:16:58 -0500
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:57:00 -0500, Tom Shelton
<tshelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>As someone who has ACTUALLY converted a number of projects to VB.NET and
>C#, I can tell you that VB.NET is a MAJOR improvement over VB.CLASSIC in
>terms of productivity, power, and flexability. For, example I converted a
>project a few months ago and when I was done I had removed ALL api calls
>and the lines of code were about 1/2 the VB.CLASSIC version. People who
>say it takes more code to do things in .NET are those who don't know the
>.NET framework.
So, because you have ACTUALLY converted projects, that makes you the definitive
and final authority on the issue, right? No.
Anyway, no one in this group has made an issue of "count of lines of code". You
are simply throwing up a straw man to make your position appear strong.
>VB.NET has web functionality, but it is NOT all about web or web
>connected applications. All my applications have been either standalone
>desktop apps or client server based applications. Let me tell you, it
>is much easier to write a multithreaded server app in VB.NET then in
>VB.CLASSIC. I know, I've had to do both.
Easier by who's definition? There are many people who find Python much easier to
use, you know. Frank is an experienced programmer. His point that the multitude
of classes and hierarchies is complex should be noted and heard, not dismissed
out-of-hand. Wasn't ADO advertised as "better" way back when because it
supposedly "flattened the hierarchy?"
>VB.NET is more object oriented then VB.CLASSIC - but it allows the same
>coding style that you used in VB.CLASSIC. There are differences, but
>for the most part, the jump is not that great. Those that say it is are
>exagerating. Like, I said I've converted several apps now, and there
I, for one, have philosophical differences that make me avoid .NET - no one in
this newsgroup said that the "jump is too great", and that us pitiful VB6
programmers haven't got a clue and can't possibly ever learn a new programming
language.
>have been very few gotcha's. Of course, that can depend on the
>application and how it was written in VB.CLASSIC. If your code was
>poorly structured in VB.CLASSIC it will not translate well to .NET
No, not only that. If you use 3rd party controls, then your project won't
translate well into .NET. I forget the other things that won't tranlate well,
but there aren't as few as you imply.
>Further, Visual Basic 2005 addresses many of the most requested missing
>features - for example, edit and continue. As well as adding many RAD
True. I liked that bit when I saw it. BUT, the choice of software development
environment generally isn't predicated upon any single feature. Glad they've
seen fit to /finally/ add that functionality back in so that it's closer to VB6
quality.
>features that blow VB.CLASSIC out of the water, for example the My
>namespace, many improvements to System.Windows.Forms - such as better
>layout management, improved controls with theme support, etc.
Theme support - that's a reason to switch to .NET? What exalted Folly!
Improved controls - maybe. But most things I can't use in existing projects -
nothing is backwards compatible, so in order to gain those improvements I would
have to re-write. I'm not so sure that the solutions I have right now aren't
better with the customizations I've made than switching to the so called "latest
and greatest" "New and Improved!" controls.
You've sparked my curiousity though, with the phrase the "many improvements to
System.Widows.Forms"? What are they?
>VB.CLASSIC is a dead language, and all I have to say to that is thank
>goodness. I officially went to .NET is 2002 (though, I had been playing
>with it since the PDC bits in 2000), and I have no regrets at all.
So, because you went to .NET in 2002, and there are those of us happily
productive with VB6 in 2005, we all MUST switch immediately in order to make you
happy?
VB.CLASSIC is dead? WHY? Because Microsoft isn't there to hold our hands and
whisper sweet nothings into our ears? Millions of VBA users suddenly care about
the fact that .NET 2005 has been released? Thousands of lines of existing VB6
code suddenly cease to matter? New projects in VB6 code no longer have any
chance at seeing the light of day?
..NET has gone through a number of incompatible changes from version to version.
You go ahead and enjoy mantaining your code in order to keep up with the
Joneses, I mean, the Microsoft VS development team. You keep your .NET and enjoy
what you have, and we'll keep VB6. You'll be changing in 3-5 years again, anyway
and we can have this debate again at that time: no doubt you'll be explaining to
us why we don't need to worry about DRM, why licensing terms really don't matter
to developers and why renting our own data is best practice.
As an interesting side note, our company had a Microsoft consultant in the other
day and he was recommending that I download a crack from the Internet in order
to decompile encrypted stored procedures (for troubleshooting/learning reasons)
- and yet was vehemently against Open Source code. Can you say "Double
standard"? Here was someone willing to break the law in order to get his work
done and yet at the same time try to prevent me from using/supporting Open
Source.
As Bob Butler puts it - "fool me once..."
_______________________
Michael B. Johnson
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Visual Basic.net
- From: Tom Shelton
- Re: Visual Basic.net
- References:
- Re: Visual Basic.net
- From: Tom Shelton
- Re: Visual Basic.net
- Prev by Date: Re: Background Keystroke Commands...
- Next by Date: Re: Background Keystroke Commands...
- Previous by thread: Re: Visual Basic.net
- Next by thread: Re: Visual Basic.net
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
