Re: Visual Basic.net

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:35:50 -0500, Tom Shelton
<tshelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> 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.
>>
>Go back and re-read the thread. You will find that that claim was
>indeed made.


Yes, my mistake, I was overlooking that there was a posting by "anonymous". But
there wasn't any claim like that by any of the regulars of this newsgroup. For
all *I* know, anonymous *could* have been /you/, you know?

When I looked to see what messages you post on this group, I found a number of
cases in java advocacy groups where you have been a .NET apologist and have been
shown to post misleading blanket assertions that have proven largely incorrect
and/or misleading.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/a9d09a02415e43e5/62040c6a5073eb94?lnk=st&q=tshelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&rnum=10&hl=en#62040c6a5073eb94


I've got to say this though, at least you don't seem to be masquerading under
different names each time, so perhaps you aren't "anonymous" after all. I think.

Note: there aren't any older messages from you I could find prior to this year
either. Do you just hang out trolling on the .NET issues?


>>>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.

When you've had to do client-server based applications, what was the basis for
communication between the client and the server? Is it SOAP over TCP/IP? Other?

Anyone evaluating your judgement and assertion as to whether VB6 is harder to
use than VB.NET needs to also know how much VB6 experience you have and the
specifics of your experience with it. Otherwise, your assertions based on false
authority are without critical context. I haven't been able to find many posts
from you in this group, so how are we to know for sure you have any VB6
experience worth the comparison? We know you haven't used VB6 for at least 3
years, how did you use it before that and for how long? How well do you know the
product?

Since VB6 "doesn't register " [for you] "anymore" (Tom Shelton, Jul 21, 10:14
pm), why on earth do you torment yourself by hanging around this newsgroup?

>> 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?"
>>
>
>I don't know. I never really used ADO. I'm not a data dweeb normally.

You're avoiding the fundamental question. Is your sweeping dismissal of
objections to the new API hierarchy really something I shouldn't challenge? The
fact of the matter is that it may not be the best model to use for most people.

The Ysabel Kid was once reportedly able to throw a knife that was weighted
strangely, over a tremendous distance and still hit his target. He said that
proved not that the knife was /thrown/ in the murder he was investigating, but
rather that he proved that it was not thrown. In the end, it was found that it
had been fired from a rifle of some strange sort. My point is that simply
because something /can/ be created using a given tool doesn't prove that it is
"easy" to use or "best" to use.

>>>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

You are disingenuous or a liar or both or something else completely, Tom. If the
jump was not that great, then the migration wizard would successfully translate
VB6 without human intervention.

<quote source="Tom Shelton" Mar 14, 5:22 pm>
I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying... I realize that
VB.NET and VB.CLASSIC are syntactically incompatable on a number of
points.
</quote>

Objects and variants aren't a big deal to me, personally, but I do want to
demonstrate your attitude here for the rest of the group:

<quote>
If you were stupid enough to actually use
Variant very often in VB.CLASSIC, then fortunately, most of your code
will still work if you turn option strict off (the very stupid default)
and replace variant with object.
</quote>

Again, my point isn't that variants and objects are a big deal or different - a
wizard (or search/replace) could do this, I'm just displaying your contempt of
other VB programmers as context in which to frame the debate.

(Note: portions of text preceded by a > are not Tom's words, but quotes intended
to give Tom's comments some context.)

<quote source="Tom Shelton" Mar 15, 12:17 am>
>>> > VB programmers are demanding that Microsoft continue to develop VB
>>>> > alongside the newer VB.NET
>>>> > http://news.com.com/Developers+slam+Microsofts+Visual+Basic+plan/2100-1007_3-5615331.html

> Cut the double speak out Tom. You even agree with the original in saying
> VB.CLASSIC "changed so dramatically".
> Just stick to the facts next time.

I agree it changed dramatically. What I don't agree with was the
implication that it had anything to do with .NET. Yes, there were
changes made because of the underlying platform change - but the vast
majority of the changes had nothing at all to do with that.
</quote>

So, you agree the VB environment has changed dramatically, yet "There are
differences, but for the most part, the jump is not that great."

In my judgement, you appear to be contradicting yourself - or you've changed
your mind subsequent to 2005-Mar-15. (Pardon me please if I seem a wee bit
skeptical.)

>> 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.
>>
>
>You certainly haven't been paying attention to what has been claimed.

You certainly haven't addressed my fundamental objection. However, I will gladly
re-phrase my above statement since your objection has a partial basis -

I, for one, have philosophical differences that make me avoid .NET - none of the
/regulars/ 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.

However, if we switch, why not use Java? The syntax of VB.NET is deceptively
similar yet different enough that we would probably write fewer bugs if we made
a *clean break* rather than slip up by using false synonyms. We would have to
learn a new API anyway...?

No, I don't think we need to switch. VB6 is a sound product with features that
..NET is only now *beginning* to catch up with - like debug and continue, for
example. The .NET stuff from what I've seen thus far is not worth working with -
though naturally I reserve the right to change my mind. It has larger memory
requirements, is a slower environment in which to work and many of the features
don't have all the bugs worked out of it yet. I figure I'll wait until at least
version 3, IF I should *ever* move to .NET at all.

Old wise Chinese proverb that I just made up: "If it aint broke..."

I think there were some good points made, in the Java advocacy group...

<quote>
>>> That web site:

>>> http://vb.mvps.org/vfred/Trust.asp

>>> The incompatibility list:

>>> http://vb.mvps.org/vfred/breaks.asp

>>> To quote from it:

>>> ``The points are intended solely to demonstrate the enormity of
>>> incompatibility between Classic VB and VFred. That's it. In a
>>> nutshell, there is no backward- or forward-compatibility,
>>> between the two languages.''

>>> - http://vb.mvps.org/vfred/breaks.asp
</quote>

Good site by Karl E. Patterson, well known for his articles and his code. He's
still using VB6 - as demonstrated by the dates on his most recent samples.

>>>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.
>>
>
>I've yet to come accross a 3rd party control that didn't work in .NET.
>COM controls and components work just fine. I use them every day.

Maybe so, using the COM interop. I haven't bothered to try myself yet - but I've
heard that complaint somewhere before...why is that? Maybe I'm getting old and
my memory faded? And you with your magnificent, great, wide breadth of
experience have yet to come across a 3rd party control that doesn't work in
..NET? Fine. I could well be mistaken on that, then.

>>>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.
>>
>IMHO, VB.NET has always been better.

Your "honest" opinion is your own. There are others who have looked at the
product indepth and have a different opinion.


>>>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?
>>
>
>No. I don't care what you do. But, the op asked for oppinions, and I
>gave mine. Especially since most of the posts were complete
>fabrication.

You've yet to address my concrete objections, Tom.

And please, do tell us what the "many improvements to System.Windows.Forms" are,
enquiring minds want to know.

>> 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?
>>
>
>It's dead from an MS support standpoint. You can continue to use it
>until it won't run anymore.

Thank you for your permission. In my everyday definition, VB.CLASSIC will be
dead when jobs aren't available for VB6 and VBA - when hobbyists stop using it.
Perhaps they'll switch to RealBasic...or stay with VB6, but a
language/environment that is being used *today* with ongoing projects is
definitely NOT dead.

But since it is "dead from an MS support standpoint", and you use that as your
definition, it would appear in some ways to make you a Microsoft apologist,
whether consciously or not.

>> .NET has gone through a number of incompatible changes from version to version.
>
>Bullocks. There have been very few breaking changes so far. .NET 2.0
>is the first runtime to really break compatability - and that only in
>the sense that you can't run 2.0 compiled code on an earlier runtime.
>You can still run 1.0/1.1 compiled code on the 2.0 runtime though.
>
>> 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.
>>
>If you feel so wounded, why don't you move to another platform - like
>Linux. I use Linux everday, in fact I'm posting from my Linux box right
>now. And you know what - C# works on Linux. Actually, VB.NET does as well
>to some degree - but it's mbas (mono basic compiler) is still beta.

Good for you, using Linux! However, the "Mono" .NET runtime still isn't
complete, and the issue of potential patents still languishes unaddressed - so
that's a Red Herring in my judgement.

>> 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.
>>
>Who the hell cares what MS thinks about OSS? I use OSS everday. And I
>don't intend to stop. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against MS,
>but I don't cow-tow to them either.

You don't? Oh.

Well, I hope you enjoyed my interesting side note anyway.

So, how about addressing some of the fundamental objections to your arguements
that "VB6 is dead" and .NET is the only viable one true way, please? On second
thoughts, why should I waste my time on someone who apparently is a liar and
from all appearances is merely a shill? Astroturf all you want, but please, do
it somewhere else.
_______________________
Michael B. Johnson

..NET - It's about trust. Fool me once...
.

Relevant Pages

  • Moving from VB6 to dot net
    ... Would anyone be able to offer any unbiased thoughts or advice on reasons to ... The stuff we use VB6 for is pretty simple compared to what ... to the central database etc. ... simple software for a smallish company, who made the switch, if so how easy ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: VB6 vs VB .Net
    ... Maybe change, but not "upgrade". ... VB6 has a limited future potential, ... dotnet sycophant magazines and forums have finally started publishing articles ... it doesn't any more, switch to anything else, *anything at all* other than VB.Net ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Visual Basic.net
    ... seen fit to /finally/ add that functionality back in so that it's closer to VB6 ... >layout management, improved controls with theme support, etc. ... Theme support - that's a reason to switch to .NET? ... Joneses, I mean, the Microsoft VS development team. ...
    (comp.lang.basic.visual.misc)
  • Re: Moving from VB6 to dot net
    ... what other advantages does VB dot net have. ... How difficult is it to switch to an object orientated language, ... and then VB6, but the stuff I write tends to be more function ... > to the central database etc. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: Is developing in VB6 still viable?
    ... A O.S. is only dead when NO ... Didn't get into windows until 95 came out ... ... Do apps written in vb6 work ok with WinXP or Vista? ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)