Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back
From: Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP] (www.lulu.com/owc)
Date: 03/13/05
- Next message: Cor Ligthert: "Re: Compare"
- Previous message: Bob Grommes: "Re: Errors on Stress Test"
- In reply to: CMM: "Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back"
- Next in thread: CMM: "Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back"
- Reply: CMM: "Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:10:52 -0500
>(COM is a nightmare to use from C++)
What does this mean? Where exactly is the nightmare in its usage and how is
it different for another language that uses COM?
> In my experience techhead, computer science,
> geeks often have a shortsighted, non-inspired, way of tackling solutions.
That's your experience. It certainly doesn't represent mine.
-- Regards, Alvin Bruney [Shameless Author Plug] The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET available at www.lulu.com/owc _________________________ "CMM" <CMM@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:7AF9FADB-7D1A-4EC2-BE20-D8E7B32B3837@microsoft.com... >I don't think your post is entirely correct... though I agree with your > points towards the end. I think VB has always been extremely important to > Microsoft. VB and its related technologies (COM, VBA, etc.) pretty much > single handedly sparked a revolution in the way businesses tackled their > internal information systems solutions. No other language in the last 20 > years has had such a big impact. Delphi didn't. Powerbuilder didn't. And, > no, > Java didn't either. There was an article (last year I think?) in MSDN > magazine that described how important VB was to Bill Gates and just how MS > was keenly aware that the Ruby engine (the VB forms windowing engine) > revolutionized Windows development (from business solutions to the flurry > of > thousands of freeware programs and utilities)... so much so that they HAD > to > develop MFC in order to modernize C++ and allow it to compete. In > addition, > without VB, COM would never have revolutionzed the use of server-side > "business objects" (COM is a nightmare to use from C++) before J2EE made > its > too-late appearance. > > I also disagree that persons that consider themselves true "programmers" > are > somehow better *programmers.* In my experience techhead, computer science, > geeks often have a shortsighted, non-inspired, way of tackling solutions. > In > short, they might be good programmers... but they're not very good at > creating good applications or handling problems that involve creativity. > Not > all of them... but many of them. > > I've met plenty of VB programmers that were more familiar with low-level > Win32 API's than many C++ programmers. In fact... to be a good VB Classic > programmer you HAD to be... the core language and controls themselves are > actually quite limited. On the flip side I've seen plenty of BAD C++ > spaghetti code... so it's not like that problem is tied to VB alone or VB > programmers. Programming might be a science... but developing usable > applications is an art. > > Just my 2c. > > P.S. Having said all that.... Personally, I couldn't care less if MS drops > support for VB6. ;-) > > > "Jim Hubbard" wrote: > >> I can only give answers from the veiwpoint of the classic VB programmers >> that I am personally familiar with. I do not speak for everyone on the >> petition. My comments only relate the things I have personally >> experienced >> and are by no means the end-all-be-all of those wishing to continue >> classic >> VB. >> >> That being said.....let's get started, shall we? >> >> "Stephany Young" <noone@localhost> wrote in message >> news:uh5SS%23qJFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> > Soapbox time!!!!!!!! >> > >> > I cannot understand how, on and after 1 April 2005, I am not going to >> > be >> > able to do things with VB6(SP6) that I can do on and prior to 31 March >> > 2005. Just because 'Mainstream' support is withdrawn from that date >> > does >> > not mean I won't be able to use it. >> >> True. It only means that classic VB will not have the errors that are in >> it's runtime addressed (or new security issues addressed) or the runtime >> optimized for speed. The classic VB developers that I know want to >> extend >> classic VB, as well as fix it's current problems. To them (and myself) >> extending classic VB does not mean or necessitate a completely new >> language >> like VB.Net. >> >> > >> > Objective 1 of the petition talks about 'Preservation of assets'. If >> > you >> > have an asset then it is in place today. If it works today then it is >> > not >> > magically going to stop working on 1 April. It is therefore spurious to >> > argue that a 'Future versions of VB6/VBA' (sic) (which, at this stage, >> > there won't be) will destroy your asset(s). That's like saying that no >> > matter what models of automobile may be developed in the future, the >> > manufacturer will always have to provide support for the particular >> > model >> > that I drive today. In other words - 'I want to see innovation but I >> > also >> > want everything the way it has always been'. >> >> Actually, they are saying "I want to see innovation, but I don't want to >> entirely re-learn programming, expose my code needlessly to others, >> expand >> the runtime from less than 2MB to over 23MB, rewrite tons of code just to >> be >> able to use it in the new programming IDE and I'd like to keep >> programming >> simple. My needs are simple. I'd like to keep my code that way." >> >> One of the things that is hardly ever touched on is that the vast >> majority >> of classic VB "programmers" we are talking about (MVPs not withstanding) >> are >> not "real programmers" (in the purely technical sense). >> >> They are not MIS majors. They do not "write code" for a living. They >> write >> code to make making a living easier. The vast majority do not care to >> hack >> the kernel, directly manipulate memory or even have a purely object >> oriented >> language. They just want to be able to quickly churn out a little >> application that makes their job (or their hobby) easier. >> >> They are not interested in competing with J2EE (if they even know what it >> is) or with C++ programmers. And, the very few that do want to do direct >> memory manipulation, to hook the kernel, to code in an >> all-object-oriented >> environment or develop enterprise-wide applications are more than capable >> of >> learning C/C++/C# to do so. >> >> Rarely have I ever heard a classic VB developer with these aspirations >> refuse to move to C++ to accomplish these goals. Quite the >> contrary.....they run there. >> >> > >> > In objective 2 it states 'This core should be enhanced and extended, >> > and >> > changes should follow a documented deprecation process.' Am I the only >> > one >> > who wonders how one can enhance and extend something and peprecate it >> > at >> > the same time. To me 'enhance and extend' and 'deprecate' are complete >> > opposites. >> >> Well......you depreciate older features while adding replacement features >> that may offer more speed, flexibility or functionality. Like going >> depreciating "navigate" in the IE object model and adding "navigate2". >> >> VB.Net is not an extension of classic VB. VB.Net is C# (a JAVA copy) >> with >> superficial classic VB (syntax) thrown in to make it look like they >> actually >> did something with VB besides just scrap it. >> >> > >> > In objective 3 it states 'The decisions of if, how and when to migrate >> > code to .NET should lie with the customer. Some may choose to remain >> > with >> > unmanaged VB, especially for legacy code bases. Some will use only >> > VB.NET, >> > others a mix.' Please excuse my mistake in thinking that this is >> > exactly >> > the case today and is not going to change on 1 April. Also, don't >> > forget >> > about the developers who are using a mix of VB6, VB.NET and C#.NET to >> > provide solutions. >> >> Since unmanaged C++ is handled by Visual Studio .Net, why not classic VB? >> Since C++ is still being updated (patched), why not classic VB? >> >> I'll tell you why......it was not a concern of the programmers at >> Microsoft, >> the majority of which are C++ programmers. VB was never seen as a >> serious >> programming tool by them (not that it should be considered on the same >> level >> as C++ in terms of capability). Understandable. But, it should have >> been >> taken seriously as a wildly successful Microsoft product that met the >> needs >> of millions of part-time-programmers worldwide and supported a real and >> potential revenue stream that any company not Microsoft's size would kill >> to >> have. >> >> > >> > In my personal experience I only encountered 2 'issues' in VB6 which >> > needed to be addressed by Microsoft and both were addressed in later >> > service packs. In the meantime a rather unattractive workaround was >> > used >> > to acheive the desired result. While there was much gnashing of teeth >> > at >> > the time, the pain soon passed. It does beg the question 'What new >> > things >> > are people attempting to do with VB6 that are throwing up so many >> > widespread issues that mainstream support is still required?' >> >> Mainly, extending capablities of the runtime to enable easy access >> (remember >> EASY is the thing the accountant/programmer values the most) to web >> services >> and new Windows API functionality as well as handling any security issues >> that may arise with the runtime. >> >> >I am quickly coming to the view that some are trying to use VB6 to do >> >something that it is just not designed to do and then criticising >> >Microsoft >> >when it doesn't do it. >> >> Some do. But, they are such a small (although vocal) minority that they >> really are only a bother if you listen to the minority instead of the >> majority of classic VB developers. >> >> >If that is the case then I'm afraid I cannot support that sort of >> >behaviour. >> >> I agree....to a point. If you want to do something today that classic VB >> can't do, write a DLL or ActiveX control to accomplish it (usually in >> C++) >> or move on to C++ for it's power. >> >> >I also wonder if some have been using mainstream support as an >> >alternative >> >to 'Read The Flaming Manual' or other methods of self-help support - It >> >certainly appears that many use these newgroups in that manner. >> >> Also true. But, this can be said of any developers - be they classic VB, >> C, >> C++, JAVA or whatever. People are lazy by default. They take the easy >> way >> out. Fortunately, most of use did the same thing and are happy to share >> our >> knowledge because we too asked "easy" questions once upon a time. >> >> > >> > In some of the articles regarding this petition it talks about projects >> > not being migrated to VB.Net because it is complex. So what. An >> > automobile >> > is complex compared to a bicycle but that doesn't stop teenagers >> > migrating >> > from the bike to the car. Complex does not mean difficult!!! >> > Unfortunately >> > there are those who equate the two words and, in doing so, do nothing >> > more >> > than make things difficult for themseleves. >> >> But, that's where everyone is missing the whole appeal of classic VB, the >> power of classic VB and the continuing need of such a product as classic >> VB. >> >> Classic VB gave accountants, lawyers, students, teachers, fishermen, >> electricians and just about any layperson the ability to quickly put >> together the solution to a presssing problem. The problem may be >> temporary >> or, it may be just a prototype of a larger production application that is >> needed - and, using classic VB, they could design and implement a >> stop-gap >> measure until an enterprise solution was coded. >> >> Complexity kills rapid application development. The more complex, the >> less >> rapid. Bosses loved the rapid way in which most employees could take VB >> and >> put together solutions to company probelms in days or hours instead of >> weeks >> or months for a similar C++ application. >> >> The typical classic VB developer doesn't give a rat's behind if you fancy >> him/her a programmer. S/he gets the job done, keeps the boss happy and >> makes the company money. And, for them, that's what counts. >> >> >There are also those who seem incapable of doing anything unless the >> >entire >> >wherewithall is handed to them on a plate. >> >> I think this is an unfair assessment of the typical classic VB >> programmer. >> For 99% of them, they never intended to make a living learning >> programming. >> They already have a job. Classic VB made it easy to enhance and simplify >> their jobs. The language was easy and RAD. >> >> For the vast majority of programmers that have only known classic VB or >> have >> never programmed - VB.Net is neither RAD nor simple. I know you'll look >> down upon this statement, as you seem to be a very intelligent person, >> easily capable of learning and excelling in any programming language that >> you should choose. But, you are not the typical classic VB programmer. >> Put >> aside your talents for a moment and look at the majority of people that >> used >> and loved classic VB. Try and think of it in terms of why they loved it >> and >> how VB.Net has changed that for them. >> >> Remember, for most of them, they don't get paid to write code.....they >> get >> paid to produce results. Classic VB was a RAD tool that frequently made >> that easier. For most of them, VB.Net dosen't. >> >> >Along with these are those who wring their hands and make themselves >> >sick >> >with worry in case they don't get a particular line of code right the >> >first >> >time. To all those for whom the cap fits all I can say is, get of your >> >backsides, learn something for yourselves, be prepared to try something. >> >You'll be surprised just how much one can get done when one is not >> >spending >> >ones efforts in waiting for someone else to do it for one or worrying if >> >one has got it right first time. >> >> And, what about those who have to work for a living doing something other >> than programming? Classic VB was easy to learn. It was a quick way to >> increase productivity. VB.Net is just not that easy. >> >> And, while it is certainly easy to look down your nose at them and shame >> them for not learning VB.Net, remember that being a "programmer" (in the >> sense that you are) was never their goal. Making their jobs easier with >> minimal time and effort diverted from their main task (be it sales or >> production of widgets or raising live bait) was their goal, and classic >> VB >> fit that bill. Vb.Net does not. >> >> > >> > To finish, I believe that Microsoft announced the timetable from ending >> > mainstream support for VB6 some 2 years ago, so I'm also wondering why >> > it >> > has taken so long for a petition such as this to appear, or is it >> > nothing >> > more than a knee-jerk reaction to the recent reminder. >> >> I think that classic VB developers (at least the ones I know) reserved >> judgement for a while to get to know the new product better. They have >> played with it, "kicked the tires" and they are not impressed. VB.Net >> takes >> much more time to master, is more difficult to distribute (I'm talking >> size >> restrictions - like for downloads), is less secure (ildasm) and is more >> complex - which means more time to code and less RAD productivity. >> >> While, as a professional programmer, I can see your frustration with the >> petition, as a long time classic VB programmer, I can also see their >> frustration with the demise of VB and no comparable RAD tool to replace >> it. >> >> While I know that I have spoken largely of the "part-time-programmer" >> here, >> I am quite aware of the real programmers who have taken classic VB and >> developed some rather astounding enterprise-level applications. (I have >> done this at several companies myself.) >> >> I do not wish to imply that they are not "real programmers", nor do I >> dismiss their hard, and often amazing, work. Rather, I stand in awe of a >> language such as classic VB that can bring together lay-programmers and >> professional programmers to achieve 90% of the needs of any company. >> >> I only wish to point out that here that the majority of the classic VB >> programmers are not professionals, and the same things that make classic >> VB >> appealing to lay-programmers also make it a favorite of those of use that >> do >> program for a living. >> >> Jim Hubbard >> >> >>
- Next message: Cor Ligthert: "Re: Compare"
- Previous message: Bob Grommes: "Re: Errors on Stress Test"
- In reply to: CMM: "Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back"
- Next in thread: CMM: "Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back"
- Reply: CMM: "Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
