Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:18:28 -0500, "Mitchell S. Honnert"
<news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote:

>> People that use VB in their jobs. (Ranges from 3,000,000 to 6,000,000
>> depending on where you get your numbers.)
>>From this wording, someone would be included in this number if they did the
>majority of their day-to-day work in VB.NET and, when a bug cropped up or
>some minor change was necessary, did some work in the VB6 IDE. Your point
>about hard data is well taken. It could be applied to this stat as well. A
>much better hard number would not be people who just "use" VB6, but do the
>majority of their work in VB6.
>
>>> There were a hell of a lot of COBOL programmers leading up to Y2K; it
>>> didn't mean they *liked* COBOL, just that the money was good.
>> And?
>The Y2K COBOL programmers are an example of the danger is measuring a
>languages "popularity" by how many people are using it. So, just because
>there are 3,000,000 to 6,000,000 people who spend more than zero hours a
>year working with VB6, it doesn't necessarily follow that those people are
>in lockstep agreement that MS should have created VB7 instead of VB.NET.
>Yes, it is conjecture, but it is based on my experience. One can make a
>very good argument that, from a company's standpoint, it makes sense to keep
>using VB6 or even that a VB.COM would increase a VB6 programmers
>productivity, but in my experience people don't like using VB6 any more.
>The programmers themselves want to move to VB.NET, even if their bosses
>don't want them to. This type of programmer isn't exactly the best "poster
>child" for your argument.
>
>> Do you have hard facts as to the rise or sale of Delphi? I admit that I
>> am ignorant concerning the popularity of Delphi.
>Sorry, Jim. I know you won't like this, but all of my evidence is
>anecdotal. I can only tell you what I've experienced.
>
Delphi is a good example though of how a designed language can develop
without the catostrophic break that occured with VB6 to vb.net.
Delphi 7 is internally numbered as version 15 and though I haven't
tried it I bet a program written for version 1 would run on it with
little or no modification. But then Pascal, like C, C++ have ISO
standards, so compilers have to be written to cope with at least the
base standard. In addition Kompass and then Borland had a policy of
writing the next compiler using the existing version, this ensured
code compatibilty. Unfortunately, Basic has never been constrained by
any standards, so it grew, yet still had to support ideas that were
good at the time, but later seemed stupid. You could write GOSUB
xxxxx in VB6, but how many VB6 programs actually used that feature.

It was this and many other arcane constructs that led to MS wanting to
have a clean break, I like many others agree that a far better job
could have been made of the upgrade tool, but I for one have had very
few problems running my code through it.

I agree with Mitchell, I feel that a petition focused on providing a
better migration tool would be more likely to succeed, even three
years after the release of .Net
>> This is simply a company that knows that they can do anything they damn
>> well please and are not shy about cramming what THEY want down the throats
>> of their customers.
>Again, I apologize for not having the time to research any hard data for
>you, but I can relate my experience. I made this same point with Herfried,
>but everyone I knew viewed the coming of VS.NET as a long overdue answer to
>the prayer of a major overhaul to the Visual Basic language. So, in effect,
>we had the exact opposite viewpoint as you, namely that MS was finally
>giving us something we'd been asking for for a long time instead of
>something that was being forced on us without any kind of prompt. And when
>it comes down to it, I guess this difference in viewpoint is at the heard of
>all of the other details we've been "discussing".
>
> - Mitchell S. Honnert
>
>
>"Jim Hubbard" <reply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:X7KdnZTo_YHE29ffRVn-2A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23PttVKLNFHA.3076@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Jim Hubbard" <reply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:LKadnXgrQJkONtTfRVn-tg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <news@honnert~R~E~M~O~V~E~.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ONy%23d5INFHA.1096@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> This could have been done with VB.Net. Microsoft saw fit to allow C
>>>>>> and C++ code to be able to be compiled within the Visual Studio IDE,
>>>>>> but not Visual Basic. Why not?
>>>>> Maybe it was because C++ wasn't screwed up like VB6 was.
>>>>
>>>> IYHO? Religous zeal is best relegated to religion.
>>> "Religious zeal"? I mention in the post that I don't know C++, so why
>>> would I be a C++ zealot? Notice the word "maybe" there. I really did
>>> mean maybe.
>>>
>>>>>Maybe MS didn't want the taint of VB6 at all associated with their
>>>>>next-generation application development tool.
>>>>
>>>> What "taint"? The opinions of programming language zealots? I, and
>>>> 4,000,000+ others, respectfully disagree.
>>> I'm not doubting the veracity of your data, but I do have an honest
>>> question here: what is the "4,000,000+"? Is it people who use VB6? Use
>>> VB6 exclusively?
>>
>> People that use VB in their jobs. (Ranges from 3,000,000 to 6,000,000
>> depending on where you get your numbers.) I don't know of any programmers
>> that use any language exclusively.
>>
>>>In any case, you apparently presume that all of the those programmers
>>>4,000,000 actually *like* programming in VB6. I put it to you that a
>>>significant portion of those programmers, if not the majority, would give
>>>their eye teeth to be able to never see VB6 code again in their life.
>>
>> Here you go again with suppositions instead of facts. I will only discuss
>> facts about this thread as all other arguments are futile.
>>
>>> There were a hell of a lot of COBOL programmers leading up to Y2K; it
>>> didn't mean they *liked* COBOL, just that the money was good.
>>
>> And?
>>
>>>
>>>>>I've stated before that VB6 was a great tool for the time, but by
>>>>>today's standards it's crap. I don't know C++, but my assumption was
>>>>>that it was OK the way it was, whereas VB was long overdue for a major
>>>>>overhaul.
>>>>
>>>> According to whom?
>>> Me. I've used special care in this thread not to speak for anyone else
>>> but me. All opinions in my posts are mine.
>>
>> Good enough.
>>
>>>
>>>> Sure there were some issues, but never was there a call by the classic
>>>> Visual Basic community for a completely new language. This
>>>> hallucination is uniquely Microsoft's.
>>> In another post, I mention how the runaway popularity of Delphi signaled
>>> to MS the inherent demand for a better RAD tool than VB6.
>>
>> Do you have hard facts as to the rise or sale of Delphi? I admit that I
>> am ignorant concerning the popularity of Delphi.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I don't think so. If I understand things correctly, VB.COM would be
>>>>>> an IDE that integrated both VB6 and VB.Net features while fixing known
>>>>>> VB6 issues. in other words, something that should have been a part of
>>>>>> VB.Net.
>>>>> I think your statement above is evidence of the mixed signals in the
>>>>> petition. The petition is calling for a major upgrade to VB6 and yet
>>>>> you say that "we'd" be happy with just a better upgrade tool.
>>>>
>>>> I said we'd all be happy to move on. Moving on is (if made possible by
>>>> an upgrade too that actually worked for larger projects) preferable to
>>>> rewriting our existing codebase.
>>>>
>>>>> (I don't think you are using the royal "we", so I'm assuming you are
>>>>> speaking on behalf of the petitioners.)
>>>>
>>>> Not all of them. As you will notice, I am only a supporter of the
>>>> petition.....not an author.
>>> OK. Point taken. I do still happen to believe that a solution of a
>>> better upgrade tool is far more in line with the problems stated in the
>>> petition.
>>
>> Since we have neither solution, either would be an improvement.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The conclusion I draw from this is that petitioners don't really want to
>>>>>address the problems stated in the petition itself, but the unstated
>>>>>"problem" that they think VB.NET should never have been developed in the
>>>>>first place.
>>>>
>>>> I don't draw that conclusion at all. I haven't seen anyhting in the
>>>> petition that says that Microsoft should not have produced a new
>>>> programming language. It deals mainly with backwards compatibility and
>>>> continued use of the HUGE VB6 codebase in use.
>>> The fact that there is no mention of this in the petition is exactly my
>>> point. In this thread, I've noticed that the strongest supporters of the
>>> petition are the very same people that believe that MS should have
>>> developed VB7 instead of VB.NET. So, the reason (IMHO) that the
>>> petitioners want VB.COM is not to address the problems listed in the
>>> petition, but to get what they wanted all along, VB7.
>>>
>>>>>> I don't agree.
>>>>> Which part of what I said don't you agree with? That a better upgrade
>>>>> tool wouldn't solve the problems stated in the petition? That VB.COM
>>>>> would be a major undertaking?
>>>>
>>>> To your statement....."that the proposed solution is overkill." It is
>>>> no less than the C/C++ programmers recieved.
>>>
>>>>>> What they are asking for in VB.COM is exactly what the C/C++
>>>>>> programmers got in Visual Studio .Net.
>>>>> I've heard this argument used several times and I have the same
>>>>> response every time. Just because VS.NET's support of C/C++ is in
>>>>> principle the same as a theoretical support for VB6 in VS.NET it
>>>>> doesn't mean that it makes economic sense to invest in this
>>>>> development. To use an analogy I've used before, if I already have a
>>>>> mortgage, the principle of getting a loan to buy a house is the same,
>>>>> but that doesn't mean I can buy *another* house. So, just because
>>>>> Microsoft felt it was a good investment to incorporate C/C++ into
>>>>> VS.NET doesn't mean that (especially so far after the fact) it would be
>>>>> a good investment (from their perspective) to do it for VB6.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the financial situation, costs or revenues gained from
>>>> Visual Basic or C++. Niether do you. This is pure speculation on your
>>>> part. I could just as easily argue that Visual Basic 6 was more
>>>> financially feasable because of the enormous 3rd party component market
>>>> that supports it. But, without hard data, that would be just as
>>>> speculative as your argument.
>>> Agreed. We're both speculating. But in speculating, we uncover each
>>> other's attitudes and presumptions about the issues. And I rather enjoy
>>> the conversation. Else I wouldn't be keeping a thread going that is
>>> already 15 levels deep. :-)
>>
>> I rarely start threads.....but when I do.......
>>
>>>
>>>> (In all fairness, a great deal of this thread has been reduced to pure
>>>> speculation - including my speculation on the reasons for Microsoft's
>>>> abandonment of the largest programming group on history. Perhaps we
>>>> should stick to what can be tested and proven?)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I happen to think one of the biggest reasons that C/C++ was supported
>>>>> in VS.NET and not VB6 is related to Doug's original point about VB.COM
>>>>> being a "dead-end project". In practical terms, VB6 wasn't
>>>>> incorporated into the original version of VS.NET (nor will it be with
>>>>> VB.COM) for the simple reason that MS programmers themselves use C/C++
>>>>> more than VB.
>>>>
>>>> Finally we agree on something.
>>>>
>>>>> Too many programmers would have viewed being assigned to the "VB6.NET"
>>>>> as a one-way ticket to professional oblivion. "Oh, so you worked on
>>>>> the VB6.NET project, eh? That's nice. Next!"
>>>>
>>>> If the development was continued (as requested in the petition, and has
>>>> been Microsoft's track record with Visual Basic since it's inception) it
>>>> wouldn't be a one-way ticket. In fact, those programmers would have a
>>>> greater number of companies desiring their services - just as they did
>>>> with the most popular programming language in the world - VB 6.
>>>>
>>>> The old, tired argument that you are insinuating that these professional
>>>> developers at Microsoft buy into (that classic Visual Basic is a "toy
>>>> language") is only put forth by those ignorant of the business needs of
>>>> the businesses that have adopted Visual Basic 6 as their premier RAD
>>>> tool.
>>> I think you are confusing *my* attitude with the attitude that I
>>> speculate is prominant in MS.
>>
>> No. I understand that you are projecting your suppositions on the
>> Microsoft team. And, I agree with you. That very well may have been an
>> issue for them, but it shouldn't have been.
>>
>>>I consider myself to be a big supporter of Visual Basic as a whole,
>>>railing against the stereotype that VB isn't for "real programmers".
>>>Besides, I believe that MS employees would consider being assigned to
>>>VB.COM a dead-end job not because it's *Visual Basic*, but because it's a
>>>dead *version* (from MS's standpoint) of Visual Basic. So, while MS
>>>employees may have a false and unjustified stereotype of the person who
>>>programs in Visual Basic, the reason (IMHO) that they wouldn't want to
>>>work on the project is they'd rather work for a project that was enhancing
>>>a product for the future rather than extending the life-time of an aged
>>>product.
>>
>> You're right. It is s dead version. But it is only so because Microsoft
>> decided to abandon it. There are no technical issues that would preclude
>> Microsoft's implementation of a serious upgrade tool, the inclusion of
>> classic Visual Basic in the current Visual Studio .Net IDE or that would
>> preclude the enhancement of the language.
>>
>> This is simply a company that knows that they can do anything they damn
>> well please and are not shy about cramming what THEY want down the throats
>> of their customers.
>>
>> Jim Hubbard
>>
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back
    ... >without the catostrophic break that occured with VB6 to vb.net. ... Delphi was designed from the ground up to be an OO language. ... >>using VB6 or even that a VB.COM would increase a VB6 programmers ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: Microsoft MVPs Say They Want Old VB Back
    ... >>without the catostrophic break that occured with VB6 to vb.net. ... Delphi was designed from the ground up to be an OO language. ... >>>using VB6 or even that a VB.COM would increase a VB6 programmers ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: Delphi? Futureproof re vb!
    ... I haven't looked at it recently, but I thought I heard they were moving toward a .NET implementation of Delphi, although I'm guessing they are remaining backward compatible with their old syntax. ... The book so far has about a fifth of the space taken up saying in effect what a retrograde step vb net is, thought up by programmers thinking as programmers and not users, with the "help" even worse, and that VB express is an attempt to "go back". ... About a twentieth of the book gives new syntax, and the whole of the rest describes programming concepts which are easy to understand and are in fact exactly as vb6. ... Apparently dot net express is an attempt by Microsoft to get back to the vb6 concept which they should never have left! ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Beta Readers Wanted - Visual Basic 2005
    ... programmers should necessarily move to C# 2.0 rather than to Visual Basic ... 2005 (let alone Java and certainly not Delphi). ... That is a long political discussion; but the truth is that for many VB6 ... > teaching C# or Java or Delphi to VB6 developers would be a much more ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Please do NOT sign the VB.COM petition
    ... > one of the cheapest possible solutions which will please the VB6 ... >>> I am just curious what causes you to act against the petition. ... > Imagine you were one of the VB6 developers who have huge assets in VB6 ... >> amount of resources. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
Loading